[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4920-H4926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SEQUESTRATION TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2012

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5872) to require the President to provide a report 
detailing the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 on 
January 2, 2013, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5872

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sequestration Transparency 
     Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. SEQUESTER PREVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress 
     a detailed report on the sequestration required to be ordered 
     by paragraphs (7)(A) and (8) of section 251A of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901a) for fiscal year 2013 on January 2, 2013.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report required by subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) for discretionary appropriations--
       (A) an estimate for each category of the sequestration 
     percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required 
     reduction; and
       (B)(i) for accounts that are funded pursuant to an enacted 
     regular appropriation bill for fiscal year 2013, an 
     identification of each account to be sequestered and 
     estimates of the level of sequestrable budgetary resources 
     and resulting reductions at the program, project, and 
     activity level based upon the enacted level of 
     appropriations; and
       (ii) for accounts that have not been funded pursuant to an 
     enacted regular appropriation bill for fiscal year 2013, an 
     identification of each account to be sequestered and 
     estimates pursuant to a continuing resolution at a rate of 
     operations as provided in the applicable appropriation Act 
     for fiscal year 2012 of the level of sequestrable budgetary 
     resources and resulting reductions at the program, project, 
     and activity level;
       (2) for direct spending--
       (A) an estimate for the defense and nondefense functions 
     based on current law of the sequestration percentages and 
     amount necessary to achieve the required reduction; and
       (B) an identification of the reductions required for each 
     nonexempt direct spending account at the program, project, 
     and activity level;
       (3) an identification of all exempt discretionary accounts 
     and of all exempt direct spending accounts; and
       (4) any other data and explanations that enhance public 
     understanding of the sequester and actions to be taken under 
     it.
       (c) Agency Assistance.--(1) Upon the request of the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget (in assisting 
     the President in the preparation of the report under 
     subsection (a)), the head of each agency, after consultation 
     with the chairs and ranking members of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, shall promptly provide to the Director information at 
     the program, project, and activity level necessary for the 
     Director to prepare the report under subsection (a).
       (2) As used in this subsection, the term ``agency'' means 
     any executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, 
     United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1240


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5872, 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, here's basically why we are here today with the 
Sequester Transparency Act. As a background, under the current law, 
because the supercommittee was unable to agree on a deficit-reduction 
package, the Office of Management and Budget will implement a $110 
billion across-the-board cut--which we have referred to as a sequester 
or a sequestration--on January 2, 2013. This comes half on defense, 
half on domestic discretionary--in other words, a $55 billion cut, 
which is a 10 percent cut to defense immediately, and then an 8 percent 
cut to domestic discretionary--but we do not know the actual reductions 
that will result from this sequester.

[[Page H4921]]

  As we debate this bill today, we will probably not be able to avoid 
the contentious issues on the sequester, but let's not lose sight of 
the fact that the bill before us simply directs the Office of 
Management and Budget to tell us how they will implement the sequester. 
So we're just asking for more transparency and more details. Within 30 
days, they should give us the plan on how they will do this.
  This bill is essentially about transparency. It's not re-litigating 
the budget fight; it's about making sure that we have as much 
information as we can to make the right decisions. It's about carrying 
out a constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed 
and that we fully understand the Budget Control Act sequester, how it's 
going to be implemented.
  It has strong bipartisan support. The House Budget Committee voted 
30-0 to report this bill here to the floor, and the Senate has passed 
similar legislation on a bipartisan basis.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. As the chairman of the 
Budget Committee said, it passed unanimously out of the Budget 
Committee.
  I believe that more information is better than less. I also believe, 
and from the comments I've heard from colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, we also agree that we have enough information to know right now 
today that an across-the-board, meat-ax approach to reducing the 
deficit--a sequester--is a reckless way to deal with our budget.
  We've heard a lot about the impact of the cuts on defense. Secretary 
Panetta has talked about those. We've heard a lot less about the impact 
of the cuts on other important investments, such as those in biomedical 
research. A coalition recently reported that the cuts to the National 
Institutes of Health alone would cut 33,000 jobs. That means fewer 
people investigating cures and treatments to diseases that plague every 
American family. That's just one small example on the nondefense side.
  But, Madam Speaker, I believe, given what we know, we should be 
focused today and every day on avoiding the sequester. In the Budget 
Committee proceedings, the Democrats offered an alternative approach. 
I've got it right here in my hand. It called for a balanced approach to 
replacing the sequester, the kind of balanced approach that every 
bipartisan commission that has looked at our deficit challenge has 
recommended. It included a combination of cuts, such as direct payments 
in excessive farm subsidies. It also included cuts to things like big 
oil companies, eliminating taxpayer subsidies. That plan would totally 
replace the sequester for 1 year; and it wouldn't have to have the 
deficit, the impact that we've heard about.
  So great to get more information, may have a unanimous vote here 
today in the House; but let's take a balanced approach to reducing our 
deficits, and let's take a balanced approach to replacing the 
sequester.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 
5 minutes to the author of this bill, the chairman of the House 
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we know our Nation faces very serious threats 
overseas, but we also have a very serious domestic threat as well, and 
that is our national debt, a debt that has increased more in the last 3 
years on a nominal basis than in the previous 200. Thus, the Budget 
Control Act. The Budget Control Act, because, as the chairman of the 
House Budget Committee pointed out, the supercommittee--on which I 
served, as did the ranking member--did not prove so super, we are 
staring into the face of a sequester.
  So I would like to not only compliment the chairman of the House 
Budget Committee for his leadership in bringing an alternative to this 
very, I believe, destructive sequester that still maintains the deficit 
reduction levels of the Budget Control Act, but I also want to 
compliment the Democrat ranking member for also offering an alternative 
plan. It is one I disagree with, one that, by my reckoning, includes 73 
percent tax increases. But he should be applauded, and House Democrats 
should be applauded at least for recognizing the draconian defense cuts 
that could do real damage to our national security. As Secretary 
Panetta has said, the sequester ``will do real damage to our security, 
our troops and their families, and our military's ability to protect 
our Nation.''
  But although I compliment the ranking member, I find it more 
challenging to compliment the Democrat Senate Majority Leader. Senator 
Reid has said: I'm not going to back off sequestration. That's what he 
has said. Thus, we are looking at a 10 percent real cut in our national 
defense.
  Madam Speaker, I also picked up Monday's edition of The Washington 
Post--not exactly known as a bastion of conservative thought--and I 
read the headline: ``Democrats Threaten to Go Over Fiscal Cliff if GOP 
Fails to Raise Taxes.''
  So on the one hand, again, this is a very simple piece of legislation 
that I have coauthored with the chairman of the House Budget Committee. 
It simply says: Mr. President, since under sequestration you get to 
call a lot of the shots--according to the Congressional Budget Office 
``the administration's OMB has sole authority to determine whether a 
sequestration is required, and if so the proportional allocations of 
any necessary cuts''--all this is saying: Mr. President, show us your 
hand, show us your plan. Let the American people know what the true 
impact is going to be on our national defense, on our economy, on a 
number of vital services, because you have the discretion. That's all 
this bill does. But I fear, to some extent, it may mask another agenda 
on what the debate is really about.
  Madam Speaker, I need not tell you we continue to face the weakest, 
slowest recovery in the post-war era, and there are some who seem to 
have an ideological passion for raising taxes on the American people. 
An earlier speaker got up in an earlier debate and said that the 
largest small business group in America, the National Federation of 
Independent Business, has just released a new study saying that the 
President's tax plan will cost 710,000 jobs--jobs of working families--
and those same working families will see their wages fall by 1.8 
percent.
  So why would we want to raise taxes on anybody in this economy? Well, 
someone pointed out, well, we need to reduce the deficit--and we do. 
But, Madam Speaker, if you do the math and give the President the top 
increasing tax rates in the top two tax brackets, not only does it 
destroy jobs; it's about 2 to 3 percent of his 10-year spending budget. 
So it harms jobs, and it doesn't solve the problem. I fear it is 
diversion from the failed policies that we have seen from this 
administration that has created the worst unemployment crisis since the 
Great Depression.
  But I would hope that we would at least have a growing consensus that 
we shouldn't decimate national defense, and there should at least be 
transparency. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Sequestration 
Transparency Act.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
his comments about the supercommittee. I think we all wished it had 
succeeded. It did not, but it was a privilege to serve with my 
colleague from Texas.
  Let me just make a quick correction on the math. I think everybody 
knows, under the Budget Control Act, which was enacted last September, 
we cut $1 trillion from the budget, 100 percent cuts.
  The alternative that the Democrats have proposed to the sequester 
takes a balanced approach of additional cuts, but also revenue. In 
fact, the 1-year proposal that we put forward puts additional cuts in 
direct payments, excessive subsidies under the farm bill.
  Yes, we also eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. 
Former President Bush testified that, when oil's over $50 a barrel, you 
don't need taxpayers shelling out dollars to encourage big oil 
companies to invest. So we think we should eliminate those subsidies to 
help remove the sequester, including the sequester on defense.
  Let's make no mistake. The reason we're here is that our Republican 
colleagues deliberately chose, as part of

[[Page H4922]]

the sequester, to put defense spending on the chopping block along with 
other spending. That was the choice above an offer to deal with revenue 
as part of a sequester. And when the choice boiled down to cutting tax 
subsidies for oil companies and other special tax breaks or cutting 
defense, Republicans chose to put in the sequester cutting defense.
  Now, I know we have a hearing today in the Armed Services Committee. 
I see the distinguished chairman on the floor today. I have to commend 
him because he has said before that if he were faced with that choice 
he would take that mixed, more balanced approach. And that ultimately 
is what we're going to have to do. That's the approach that's been 
taken by every bipartisan commission that's looked at this challenge.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Schwartz), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I appreciate the opportunity to speak for just a couple 
of minutes on the legislation before us.
  I do support a transparent process that would better ensure that 
there's public information on the impact of sequestration which, of 
course, is the automatic spending cuts that are scheduled for next 
year.
  Sequestration, which would trigger those automatic cuts, was put in 
place to force Congress to work to find a bipartisan, balanced approach 
to deficit reduction. Today's legislation does not move us any closer 
to achieving that goal.
  Time and again, the Republicans in Congress have rejected a balanced 
approach that would include spending cuts and revenue and economic 
growth. They reject a balanced approach that would protect our Nation's 
short-term economic recovery and create the right environment for long-
term growth.
  They reject a balanced approach, as you heard before, that has been 
recommended by every bipartisan commission, that would move our country 
forward by making tough yet responsible choices on the deficit and 
would reflect America's priorities and build America's economic 
strength.
  The American people deserve to know the impact of across-the-board 
cuts resulting from the failure of the Republican majority to find that 
common ground and avoid sequester. But they also deserve real 
solutions, something the Republican majority has yet to deliver.
  Their so-called solution, their budget, the House Republican budget, 
takes a partisan, one-sided approach to deficit reduction. It relies 
solely on spending cuts and directs the $100 billion cuts next year 
from sequestration to come only from one part of the budget: non-
defense discretionary. All of the $100 billion cuts next year would 
come from our domestic priorities: health care, education, scientific 
research, transportation, law enforcement, to name a few.
  Their budget fails to require other even larger parts of the Federal 
budget to reduce costs and be more effective. Their budget fails to 
protect our fragile economic recovery. It fails on economic growth. 
They should work together with Democrats to make a real deficit 
reduction-economic growth package for the United States of America.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds 
simply to say that when we hear the words ``balanced approach,'' what 
that means to taxpayers in this country is, You give us your checkbook 
and we'll balance it the way we think it ought to be balanced here in 
government. Government first, taxpayers second. That's what the so-
called ``balanced approach'' means. It means keep feeding higher 
spending with higher taxes.
  The problem is, Madam Speaker, the arithmetic just doesn't add up. 
You literally cannot tax your way out of this mess. Spending is the 
cause. We need to address our spending. The sooner we do it, the sooner 
we can get back on to a path to prosperity.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
yield that 5 minutes as he chooses.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California will control the time and is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him and Chairman Ryan for bringing this bill to the floor. It is 
greatly needed.
  Barring a new agreement between Congress and the White House on 
deficit reduction, over $1 trillion in automatic cuts, known as 
sequestration, will take effect. Although the House has passed a 
measure that would achieve this necessary deficit reduction to avoid 
sequestration for a year and give us time to work on it outside of 
election-year pressure, the Senate has yet to consider any legislation.
  Now, I hear a lot of good ideas from the other side and they talk 
about increased revenue. All I'm saying is put it down on paper.
  We have a process by which we work. It's outlined in the Constitution 
of the United States. One body passes legislation, the other body 
passes legislation, a conference committee is formed, and the 
differences are resolved. It goes back to the bodies for final passing 
and then goes to the President for his signature.
  We have taken action in the House. We're waiting for the other body 
to take some action.
  The President weighed in on this. He submitted a budget. His budget 
sought $1.2 trillion in alternate deficit reduction. He followed the 
process. That budget was defeated in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. 
Now, we need another bill that we can work on.
  This impasse and lack of a clear way forward has created a chaotic 
and uncertain budget environment for industry and defense planners. 
Compounding the issue is a lack of guidance from the administration on 
how to implement sequestration.
  We just held a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where we had 
industry leaders come in to tell us the problems they're having on 
getting guidance.
  You know, I come from a small business background, nothing like 
building planes or ships or boats or the other things that our 
warfighters need to carry out their mission.
  And I might remind people that we are at war. We do have warfighters 
going outside the wire, as we speak, every day, putting their lives on 
the line, and they're watching this. They're watching what we're doing. 
They're wondering if they're going to have the things that they need to 
carry out this mission and to return home safely.
  My business, as I said, was a small family business. We were in the 
western wear business. We sold boots and hats in a retail way. And we 
would go, my brothers and I, family business, would go to the market in 
January. We would buy for our needs for the next 6 months. We would buy 
shirts, hats, jeans, boots. And then our suppliers would go to their 
suppliers and buy the things they need to make those things, and then 
they would ship them to us in an orderly manner, and then we would be 
able to have the product on the shelves when our customers came in in 
February, March, April, May.
  These industry leaders are asking for a little guidance. All they 
know is the law, as we have it now, kicks in January 2, says that there 
will be no thought, no planning, just we take out the budget and cut 
every line item by a margin, 8, 12, 20 percent, whatever it is, 
realizing we're already a quarter of the way into the year.
  One of the leaders gave us this quote in this conference. This is 
Sean O'Keefe, president and CEO of EADS North America and chairman of 
the National Defense Industrial Association. And I quote:

       Most immediately, the administration must communicate today 
     its sequestration implementation to the public, our Armed 
     Forces, and to industry.
       The current uncertainty has effectively put sequestration 
     and its consequences in motion. In the absence of any 
     guidance, industry is already holding back investments, 
     questioning the fairness of ongoing competitions, doubting 
     the viability of existing contracts, and starting to trim 
     capacity.
       In the absence of definitive guidance from the DOD, the 
     OMB, and the Defense Contract Management Agency, we feel 
     compelled to act in the spirit of this law and, in all 
     likelihood, will issue WARN notices to those employees 
     engaged in ongoing Federal contract activities.

                              {time}  1300

  We are going to put thousands of people in jeopardy of their jobs 
between

[[Page H4923]]

now and when sequestration should kick in. This is already in motion.
  Madam Speaker, I ask that we come together on this issue, that we 
solve this issue. I ask the President to put forth some leadership. As 
Commander in Chief, he has the obligation to help us solve this 
problem. I ask our colleagues to please support this legislation and to 
bring transparency.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee said, and I didn't find much 
that I disagreed with. We agree that we should replace the sequester, 
and we agree that it's a mistake to create the kind of uncertainty 
that's out there. Obviously, it has an impact, not just in the defense 
sector, but also in all of the other areas in which our Federal 
Government has activities.
  I would just say--and I want to make sure the chairman is on the 
floor now and has a chance to respond--that he demonstrated some 
leadership on this issue last fall because he was asked this question. 
He was asked if he had to put together a plan that included some 
revenue. He said, Yes, I understand that we've got to make cuts, but 
I'd rather include some revenue than deep cuts to defense. In fact, 
what he said was:

       We're going to have to stop repeating ideological talking 
     points and address our budget problems comprehensively 
     through smarter spending and increased revenue.

  When asked to choose between deeper cuts in defense and cutting some 
tax breaks, he said we should cut some tax breaks.
  That was last fall. That's exactly the kind of balanced approach that 
the Democrats put forward in the Budget Committee. The chairman of the 
committee asked for a specific plan. We had a vote on it in the Budget 
Committee. We wish that our colleagues would have supported it. It 
would have prevented the sequester from taking place for another year, 
and it would have eliminated all of the uncertainty the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee just talked about.
  The reason that we haven't been able to move forward is that our 
Republican colleagues continue to insist on supporting these tax breaks 
for special interests and tax breaks for folks at the very top and that 
they refuse to eliminate those tax breaks for the purpose of reducing 
the deficit or for the purpose of eliminating the sequester on defense 
and non-defense. That's why we are in the situation we are in right 
now. The keys to the lock are in the hands of our Republican 
colleagues.
  We had the same proposal ready to bring to a vote before the whole 
House of Representatives as part of the reconciliation process. The 
Rules Committee didn't even allow our proposal to be made in order so 
that Members of this body could vote on it up or down. So, yes, let's 
get on with the main issue. Let's focus on replacing the sequester. 
Let's do it in a balanced way.
  I have to say, since the gentleman from Texas earlier referenced the 
comments of Senator Reid's, the majority leader, I've looked at the 
Senator's comments. The Senator's point was the same one I'm making 
here, which is that, if we are going to remove the sequester, we need 
to take a balanced approach. We need to include cuts. Again, it's 
important to remember we did $1 trillion in cuts--100 percent cuts--as 
part of the Budget Control Act, but we also need to include some 
revenue by eliminating some of these special interest tax breaks and by 
asking folks at the very top of the income ladder to pay a little bit 
more for our national defense and for reducing our deficit. That is the 
underlying issue here.
  I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the 
gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Congressman Van Hollen, for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Sequestration Transparency Act.
  We have all heard concerns back home about partisan gridlock in our 
Nation's Capitol. Our constituents continue to ask us: Is there any way 
to overcome this gridlock to solve the problems facing our country? 
They ask if it is getting better, if Congress can actually do 
something. Can we get things done?
  With the end of the year approaching and with our country's inching 
ever closer to the so-called ``fiscal cliff,'' the questions from our 
constituents take on a new urgency. They want to know what is going to 
happen if the budget sequestration is allowed to go into effect, and 
they want to know if Congress can function well enough to avoid the 
doomsday scenarios that many economists are predicting if sequestration 
does occur. Up until now, we have not been able to offer them much in 
the way of positive news, and we've had to tell our constituents that 
we're not quite sure what sequestration will mean for our communities.
  Now, this bill doesn't solve the problems our constituents will face 
if sequestration actually goes into effect--the lost jobs or the damage 
to our still struggling economy--but it does give us valuable 
information about what might happen. It will allow us, the body that 
brought us here in the first place with the passage of the Budget 
Control Act, to at least better understand the consequences of our 
actions. Importantly, it signals a bipartisan action on the part of 
Congress to ask: How bad will this be?
  If there is a silver lining to be found, it is that we have come 
together on what could have been a contentious piece of legislation, 
and I thank the Budget Committee chairman and ranking member for their 
leadership.
  Now, the fact that we have to pass a bill to get information on 
legislation that we have already passed does not speak highly of the 
process. The sequester was supposed to motivate us to work together and 
pass a budget that lowers costs while maintaining critical services. 
It's unfortunate that we have to pass yet another bill to move us 
closer to accomplishing what should have been done months ago.
  But for the sake of better representing our constituents, let's focus 
on the positive: Let's support a bill that gives us the information we 
as legislators need in order to make an educated decision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. BONAMICI. I hope today's bipartisan action is an indicator of a 
renewed commitment to tackling the sequester, and I hope it sends a 
message to our constituents that we can work together to get something 
done. That's why I supported this bill in the Budget Committee, and 
that's why I am asking my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on 
the Sequestration Transparency Act.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the House Budget and Armed Services Committees, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, there is broad bipartisan 
agreement in this House that the looming defense sequestration cuts are 
bad policy for the U.S. military and our national defense.
  Our Defense Secretary has testified to me and to other members of the 
Armed Services Committee that such cuts would hollow out the military, 
and our constituents are rightly concerned about our ability to provide 
necessary equipment to troops in the field, troops who are often our 
sons, daughters, brothers, or sisters.
  The original goal of this legislation that gave us the sequester was 
to find deficit reduction in the Federal budget in a careful, 
deliberative manner. Despite their best efforts, the small group that 
was charged with finding these cuts failed in the end. That's why we 
have passed legislation in the full House to replace the defense cuts 
with deficit reduction elsewhere, but the Senate has, once again, 
failed to act. As for the administration, it has failed to specify how 
these cuts will be distributed and what kind of impact they will 
inevitably have on our Nation's security.
  Military spending decisions should not be made in a vacuum. We 
shouldn't merely try to manage down to some predetermined, arbitrary 
spending level. Ultimately, strategy should guide these sorts of 
decisions. Missions we are asking our men and women in uniform to 
perform to keep our country safe should be our measuring stick, and we 
should ensure that full funding exists to carry out each of these 
missions.
  The bottom line is this: It is the responsibility of this 
administration to

[[Page H4924]]

inform Congress and the American public of its plans to implement the 
sequester and to provide clarification on its scope and severity.
  With that, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this blessedly 
bipartisan legislation, the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who serves on 
the Budget Committee and who also, I believe, serves on the 
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for including me on his committee.
  H.R. 5872 is a bipartisan bill. As has been mentioned several times, 
it did pass out of the Budget Committee unanimously, and that's a very 
good thing. I think, honestly, we have a very strong bipartisan 
agreement that sequester is a very bad policy, something that really 
shouldn't be allowed to happen.

                              {time}  1310

  Obviously, I also sit on the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee. So I 
focused on that area. If we don't arrive at agreement before the end of 
the year, we'll have $110 billion worth of cuts across the entire 
budget, but about a 10 percent cut on top of a half a billion dollars 
we've already taken out of defense that will begin that will have 
tremendous consequences in my State, potentially 16,000 jobs, $620 
million or $630 million to the State economy. We all hope this doesn't 
occur, but we all know that the administration does have a 
responsibility to plan for it and to inform us of those plans. So far 
it has failed to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, it's worth noting for the record that we have dealt with 
sequestration in this House. We passed a measure to avoid it. It's the 
Senate that has failed to act. We may not have acted in a manner in 
which our friends on the other side would like, but the responsibility 
now is with the United States Senate to at least pass something and put 
us in a position to go to conference.
  It would be irresponsible to allow sequester to occur, and it would 
be responsible for the Senate to actually act. I hope today, by giving 
the Senate additional information, by encouraging the administration to 
plan for something we hope doesn't happen, that we will actually bring 
ourselves a little bit closer to a solution, and we'll come to a 
bipartisan compromise by the end of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I believe they have the right to 
close, so let me inquire of the gentleman from Maryland whether or not 
they have another speaker.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was one other gentleman who said he was on his 
way. He's not here yet. If he is not here by the time you finish, we 
will close.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. With that understanding, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. LANKFORD. At home, people have just a simple request of Congress: 
do our job. Just do it. They're tired of worrying about what dumb thing 
the Federal Government will do to them and their business and their 
family that will cause them even more pain. They just want us to 
identify the problem, fix it, and quit messing with the private 
business world.
  When a private business sees a threat on the horizon, they prepare 
for it. If it's good, they ramp up hiring, they add more inventory, 
they increase training, they increase sales staff. They get ready for 
something good. They take the entrepreneurial risk. If they see a 
threat on the horizon that looks bad, they pull back staff, they slow 
down internal purchases, they freeze inventory and hiring.
  I have two quick observations. One is this: right now the national 
threat on the economic horizon is the Federal Government's lack of 
imperative to resolve this manufactured crisis. We need to fix it now. 
The second is this: we've got to look up and see there is a financial 
crisis coming and prepare for it. If we wait until the last minute to 
act, it creates incredible uncertainty in our economy and businesses 
and families can't prepare for it. When we wait until the last minute 
to do something, we have already created economic uncertainty there.
  Here's what this bill does: it requires that we actually plan for an 
economic crisis that we know is coming January 2, 2013. It pushes us to 
do what's essential right now. Federal spending has dramatically 
increased. As we approach $16 trillion in national debt in our fourth 
straight year of trillion-dollar deficit spending, we should not guess 
or try to make up a financial plan at the last minute. Some have 
proposed that we debt our way into prosperity or that we take even more 
money from one family and give it to another to make life fair.
  This bill simply asks the President to let us know the plan, let us 
know the consequences of sequestration. We know it's bad policy, but 
the administration has not given us the details of how they will 
implement the sequestration. Months ago, the House Budget Committee and 
then the full House worked with six committees to create a specific 
plan of how we were going to deal with this. We just want to know what 
OMB's plan is and how things are going to be done.
  Get us the information now.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we 
have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). The gentleman from Maryland 
has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me start on the points of agreement.
  We agree with this piece of legislation. As we said, it passed the 
Budget Committee unanimously. What it does is ask for some more 
detailed information on the impact of the across-the-board sequester 
scheduled to take place in January. The Senate also agrees with that. 
Let's make no mistake, there was an amendment on the Senate side, a 
bipartisan amendment by Senator Patty Murray of Washington State and 
Senator McCain, asking for additional information.
  There was also agreement that we don't need more information to 
understand that the across-the-board sequester cuts would have a very 
negative impact on the economy and on defense and on important 
nondefense investments that are important to the American people.
  The issue really is what are we going to do about it. We have 
proposed an alternative in this House. We proposed an alternative in 
the Budget Committee, and it didn't pass. We asked for this whole House 
to have a chance to vote on an alternative that had a balanced approach 
that included cuts, but also additional revenues from closing tax 
breaks and loopholes, and we were denied that opportunity for a vote 
over here.
  Let's be very clear about what Senator Reid has said and what the 
President has said on a number of these issues, both the tax issue, as 
well as the sequestration issue that we're debating today. The 
President of the United States has been very clear that he would like 
today for the Congress to pass legislation to extend tax relief to 98 
percent of the American people, all the middle class tax cuts. He wants 
us to get it done today. In fact, what some people don't realize is 
that those tax cuts would also benefit folks at the very top. In fact, 
it provides tax relief to 100 percent of Americans compared to current 
law. Let's get that done. If we agree on it, let's act now.
  The same is true with the sequester. The keys to this lock are in the 
hands of our Republican colleagues. We've agreed that part of the 
solution is cuts. We did a trillion dollars in cuts last year, 100 
percent cuts. We've also said we can do additional cuts, but we should 
also deal with the revenue side of the equation if we're serious about 
the deficit.
  The chairman talked about our use of the word ``balance.'' It's the 
same use that the Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-Domenici bipartisan 
commissions have made. What they have said is any serious approach to 
reducing the debt, in this case replacing the sequester, requires cuts, 
yes, but also revenues.
  The reality is, in this House of Representatives, 98 percent of our 
Republican colleagues have signed a pledge to this fellow by the name 
of Grover

[[Page H4925]]

Norquist. What that pledge says is you can't eliminate one penny of tax 
breaks, you can't eliminate one dollar of taxpayer subsidies for the 
oil companies, or ask folks who are making more than a million dollars 
a year to pay one more dollar for the purpose of deficit reduction. 
They won't do it. Nor does that pledge allow them to take a dollar tax 
subsidy away for the purpose of defense spending.
  We hear a lot of talk about the importance of defense spending. We 
agree. Secretary Panetta has talked about it. We think we should pay 
for it. Rather than just talk about defense spending, why don't we also 
pay for it? We have put two wars on our national credit card: Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Many of us proposed that we help pay for those as we go so 
we wouldn't be leaving the bill to future generations, to the children 
of the troops that are fighting those wars. We should pay for them. 
But, no, those two wars went on the credit card.
  Now we're talking about defense. The Armed Services Committee has a 
hearing today on the impact of defense. As we've said, we agree that we 
don't want to see that. But when faced with the simple choice of 
cutting more tax breaks for oil companies or asking folks at the very 
top to pay a little bit more for defense and to reduce the deficit, no, 
they won't touch that.
  Let's understand the underlying issue here, both on the tax issues at 
the end of the year, which we can solve today if our Republican 
colleagues will stop holding 98 percent of the American taxpayers 
hostage until they get a continuation of the tax breaks for the folks 
at the very top, and we can deal with the sequester today if our 
colleagues are willing to take the balanced approach recommended by 
every bipartisan commission. That's what's at issue.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close with this. We've heard a lot of talk about 
how asking the folks at the very top to pay a little more would hurt 
the economy. The reality is we've tried the trickle-down theory. It's 
in place right now. We tried it for 8 years under the previous 
administration. The last time we had a balanced budget was at the end 
of the Clinton administration in 2001. Then-President Bush came in with 
back-to-back tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very 
wealthy. What happened at the end of the 8 years? We lost private 
sector jobs. So much for the theory that tax breaks for the folks at 
the very top trickle down and lift everybody up.

                              {time}  1320

  They lifted the yachts, but the boats ran aground, and that's the 
reality. That's what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues.
  When it comes right down to it, we've been willing to make some tough 
cuts, and we're willing to make more. But because of this pledge or 
other reasons, our Republican colleagues refused to deal with the 
deficit in a balanced way. They refused to ask folks at the very top to 
chip in a little bit more to reduce our deficits and to help pay for 
defense. Let's take action today to prevent the cuts, not just to 
defense, but to non-defense.
  It's interesting. I hear our Republican colleagues talk about the 
jobs created by defense, that's true. You know, building aircraft 
carriers creates jobs. Somehow building aircraft carriers creates jobs 
that building roads and bridges doesn't. The President has a jobs bill 
that's been sitting in this House of Representatives since September, a 
major boost in infrastructure.
  We have 14 percent unemployment in the construction industry. We have 
roads, bridges, and transit systems in need of repair. The American 
Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation a D, grade D.
  It's a win/win. Let's spend more there, boost jobs and the economy, 
do a job that needs to be done. But no, you know, cutting defense 
spending and work on tanks, that will hurt jobs, but it's okay not to 
fund the President's infrastructure proposal to put people back to work 
building bridges and roads.
  Let's have a rational conversation here, Mr. Speaker, about what 
works and what doesn't work, and how we can take this balanced approach 
to reducing our deficit and eliminating replacing the sequester so we 
can avoid the cuts to both defense and non-defense.
  I look forward to getting the information called for by this piece of 
legislation. OMB is actually already crunching the numbers. There are 
lots of details, I hear, but our time here would be best spent putting 
in place a plan to replace the sequester rather than simply asking for 
more information.
  More information is good. Solving the problem is better.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, if all this borrowing, taxing, and spending was the 
secret to economic success and prosperity, we would be on the verge of 
entering a golden age, along with Greece.
  The so-called balanced alternative plan by the other side is balanced 
in that it does have deficit reduction of $30 billion, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, but only because after the $55 billion 
spending increase scored by CBO, it has an $85 billion tax increase. If 
we keep going down this road, Mr. Speaker we're going to get the same 
results.
  What did we start with in this Congress? We passed a budget that cuts 
spending, that reformed government, that reformed the taxes and gets 
back to economic growth to puts us on a path to prosperity to pay off 
the debt.
  The Senate hasn't passed a budget for 3 years. Then we engaged in 
negotiations on the debt limit to try to get a down payment on deficit 
reduction and the Budget Control Act resulted.
  Therefore, the supercommittee failed, and the sequester is about to 
kick in. So again we took action in the House, and we passed the 
reconciliation package that replaces the sequester, which resulted in a 
net $242.8 billion in additional deficit reduction. We put specifics on 
the table, passed them through the House again. The crickets are 
chirping in the other body in the Senate. No leadership from the 
President, no leadership from the Senate, no leadership.
  What this is is simple. Since there is an absence of leadership on 
these critical fiscal issues from the President of the United States, 
from the Senate of the United States, at the very least show us how 
this is going to work. If you're not willing to replace the sequester, 
tell us how it's going to be implemented.
  That is simply a matter of transparency. We're not judging the 
debates or the merits or the each other's ideas and how to replace it; 
we're simply saying to OMB tell us how it's going to go down, because 
this seems to be your only plan.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to follow the 
bipartisan example that has been set in the Budget Committee and let's 
have a nice bipartisan vote on behalf of transparency from the 
legislative branch.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5872, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414, 
nays 2, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 471]

                               YEAS--414

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza

[[Page H4926]]


     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--2

     Engel
     Hinchey
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Boren
     Filner
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Hahn
     Hirono
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Lewis (GA)
     Polis
     Reyes
     Ruppersberger
     Sewell
     Stivers

                              {time}  1354

  Ms. McCOLLUM changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 471, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 471, I was delayed and unable 
to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________