BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Rhode Island for bringing the amendment. He and I were elected in the same class together just 3 years ago, and I think we have been able to work together to make a difference in the short time that we have been here.
I share his commitment to making sure that we have jobs estimates coming out of legislation, which is why I am so proud that as drafted--as drafted--this bill, introduced by my friend from Georgia, Dr. Price, requires ``employment and labor supply analysis'' in subsection B.
Now, that is incredibly important, Mr. Chairman, because what we do in Washington absolutely has consequences, and what those consequences are is a fair subject of debate here in the Chamber. But today there is no mechanism for determining, again, employment and labor supply numbers on a dynamic basis over time recognizing what those actions are.
Now, my concern about the amendment from my friend is that, rather than scoring those jobs dynamically--again, understanding that for every action there is a reaction--it scores in a static methodology assuming that the government creates jobs, that there is anything at all that the government does that actually creates a job.
Now, we can redistribute the wealth, but short of putting someone on the Federal payroll, this amendment perpetuates the myth that the government is in the job-creation business. The government is absolutely in the job-destroying business, and we both work together on that facet, and we can make some decisions that help the private sector to succeed. It is those decisions, Mr. Chairman, that the bill, as drafted, will make sure are measured, recorded, and reported here on the House floor for the first time.
Again, I very much appreciate the intent of the gentleman to make sure that this Congress is focused like a laser on job creation, but scoring it as if the government is creating jobs instead of recognizing it is only our actions that the private sector is being impacted on that creates those jobs, I believe, would take what is a very good underlying bill and move it in the wrong direction.
With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT