[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 3 (Monday, January 14, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E21-E22]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               OPPOSING THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 14, 2013

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme 
disappointment and frustration with the agreement Congress reached to 
prevent automatic tax hikes and the automatic spending cuts known as 
sequestration. After tenuous negotiations which skirted the entire 
legislative process, the agreement, officially known as H.R. 8, the 
American Taxpayer Relief Act, is neither balanced, nor comprehensive. 
Instead, it adds nearly $3.97 trillion to the national debt while 
leaving some of the most pressing tax and spending issues facing our 
country unresolved. For these reasons, I opposed H.R. 8. I will 
continue to work hard in the hopes that my colleagues can be persuaded 
to avoid a repeat performance less than two months from now.
  H.R. 8 fails to address our unfavorable fiscal situation, and merely 
delays important decisions that should have already been made. Thus, I 
have grave concerns that its enactment will result in other fevered 
negotiations by the few that will produce new ``compromises'' that are 
harmful to middle class families. With both the debt ceiling and 
sequestration still looming, I share Sen. Harkin's concern that the 
passage of H.R. 8 may put pressure on achieving deficit reductions 
through spending programs that Americans have earned. As Sen. Harkin 
stated, ``Every dollar that wealthy taxpayers do not pay under this 
deal, we will eventually ask Americans of modest means to forgo in 
Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits.''
  I am also absolutely appalled that the legislative process has been 
completely ignored throughout this process. We have known for 24 months 
that Bush-era tax cuts would expire at the end of 2012. We have known 
for 17 months that the indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts 
known as sequestration would take effect at the beginning of this year. 
Yet for all intents and purposes, serious negotiations did not start 
until after the 2012 election, leaving just under two months to craft a 
solution to a massive and complex set of problems. To make matters 
worse, essentially five elected officials--first President Obama and 
House Speaker Boehner, and later Vice President Biden, Senate Majority 
Leader Reid, and Senate Minority Leader McConnell--negotiated the so-
called compromise, even though it affects every American across this 
nation. Our constituents deserve to have their interests represented by 
their Congressional Representatives and Senators--the officials who 
they have specifically chosen to represent their individual interests. 
This is a dreadful way to legislate, and I sincerely hope that the 
process is not repeated.
  I am extremely frustrated that H.R. 8 is yet another unbalanced and 
ineffective attempt to bring our fiscal house in order. I have long 
maintained that the solutions to our nation's fiscal problems must be 
comprehensive and fair. It is the only way we can truly provide a sound 
economy and future for the next generation. H.R. 8 accomplishes neither 
of these goals. While the law will raise an estimated $620 billion over 
ten years compared to what the tax code would have generated if we had 
simply extended all of the Bush-era tax cuts, it will ultimately add 
$3.97 trillion to our debt over the next ten years, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. Achieving $620 billion in new revenue 
while adding nearly $4 trillion to our debt is not effective or 
proportional.
  I also object to this law because it does nothing to reduce spending. 
When our budget was balanced and we had surpluses for four years under 
President Clinton from Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 to FY 2001, spending 
represented around 18.5 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP), 
the overall size of the economy, and tax revenues represented around 20 
percent. In 2012 however, spending represented an estimated 22.9 
percent of

[[Page E22]]

GDP and tax revenues represented 15.7 percent. Clearly, these two 
extremes cannot continue if we are to balance the budget and provide 
for a sound economy for future generations. While we do not currently 
have Congressional Budget Office estimates on how this law will effect 
spending and revenue as a percent of GDP for FY 2013, we do know that 
it will increase spending by over $332 billion, pushing us even farther 
in the opposite direction of where we need to go. Additionally, while I 
do recognize the law will increase tax revenue by $620 billion over ten 
years--not an insubstantial amount--the effort was done with little 
apparent regard to the limited impact this decision will have on the 
trillion dollar deficits we face. I urge my colleagues to have the 
intestinal fortitude to make tough decisions regarding federal spending 
and taxes, and to take our cue from the 1990s in order to truly put 
this country on the right path.
  Beyond spending and tax issues, I am further frustrated that the 
agreement is incomplete, kicking the can down the road on a number of 
issues. For example, it only extends Farm Bill provisions for an 
additional nine months. Additionally, while I am pleased that the law 
prevents a 27 percent cut in the Medicare reimbursement rate for 
doctors, the provision expires in one year. I have been working to find 
a permanent solution to the current formula used to determine doctor 
reimbursements under the Medicare program for over a decade. I am 
abjectly disappointed that Congress has again missed an opportunity to 
permanently address this important issue.
  Another failure is the law's inability to permanently address the 
indiscriminate automatic spending cuts known as sequestration by making 
discrete value judgments on the cuts that need to be made. The law only 
delays sequestration for an additional two months, and partially pays 
for this delay by requiring Congress to find an additional $12 billion 
in unspecified discretionary cuts. Specifically, the law lowers the 
discretionary cap Congress previously agreed to by $4 billion in FY 
2013 and by $8 billion in FY 2014. We are now three months into FY 2013 
and this is the third change we have made to our spending allocations. 
As an appropriator, I am dismayed.
  In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the Congress for 
agreeing to a woefully inadequate measure that fails to meaningfully 
address our structural deficit. As in the past, I am committed to 
working to ensure a balanced, thoughtful approach, and I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in being actively engaged to ensure such 
legislation is all-encompassing. It is paramount that we come together 
as a country to make the substantive and difficult decisions that are 
necessary to provide for a strong nation, a robust economy, and a 
bright future for the next generation.

                          ____________________