[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H364-H368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP AND NO DEFICIT ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 48 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 444.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1447


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 444) to require that, if the President's fiscal year 2014 budget 
does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the 
President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, 
which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Bishop of Utah in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I commend Congressman Price for introducing this bill, and I join my 
colleagues in supporting its passage, but I wish it hadn't come to 
this.
  President Obama has a legal and a moral obligation to offer solutions 
to our fiscal challenges. So far, that hasn't happened. In using the 
numbers from his last budget proposal, the Federal budget would not 
have achieved balance ever, and, just yesterday, he missed the 
statutory deadline to submit his budget for the fourth time in 5 years. 
Since this administration started, we've added nearly $6 trillion to 
our national debt. That's the largest increase in history.
  Look, we can't keep this up, Mr. Chairman. We have to budget 
responsibly so that we can keep our commitments and expand opportunity. 
All we

[[Page H365]]

are simply saying here is that we need to put our plans on the table.
  House Republicans have shown our solutions. The Senate hasn't passed 
a budget in 4 years. The President hasn't even submitted a budget yet 
even though it's past the deadline, and when he has submitted a budget, 
it has proposed that it never, ever, ever balances the budget. Isn't 
that what budgeting is--showing how you'll get your budget under 
control so that your expenditures and your revenues eventually, one 
day, meet? That, unfortunately, hasn't been happening. As a result, we 
have a debt crisis on our horizon.
  In this bill, we don't say what policies the President must propose; 
we realize that he'll have his own. All we're saying is that he needs 
to bring ideas to the table. Show us how you'll balance the budget and 
when you'll balance the budget. It says to simply bring a plan, and 
show us how you'll balance the budget so that we can have the kind of 
honest debate we need to have.
  The way things ought to be, the way the Framers intended things to 
be, was that the House passes its solution and that the Senate passes 
theirs, and in the budget process, the President offers his. When 
people put their solutions on the table, that's how you find common 
ground, that's how you get things done. But if it's a one-way 
conversation in which all you have is one side of the aisle putting 
solutions on the table and the other side of the aisle simply offering 
criticisms and no solutions to ever balance the budget, that gets you 
no progress. Unfortunately, that's precisely where we are today. That's 
why we're calling for this legislation.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the remainder of my 
time and the ability to control such time to the distinguished vice 
chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. 
Price.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized as the designee 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. At this point, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just have to say to my colleagues that, in looking at this bill, it 
represents exactly what the American people hate most about this body 
and this Congress. It's a political gimmick that does absolutely 
nothing to help create jobs. It does nothing to help boost economic 
growth. If you read the bill, it is another finger-pointing exercise: 
blaming the President for the late submission of the 2014 budget and 
demanding not that the President submit a budget--the President is 
going to submit a budget--but that he submit it in a form dictated by 
House Republicans rather than dictated by current law.
  Now, our Republican colleagues know very well why the President's 
2014 budget is late. It's late because we had a big debate in this 
country over how to avoid the fiscal cliff, and it wasn't until January 
2 that this House and the Senate were able to resolve that issue. If 
we'd gone over the fiscal cliff, it would have created huge economic 
problems. It would have created a huge contraction. It would have 
created a huge loss of jobs.
  Now, even though a majority of Republican Senators voted for the 
agreement to prevent us from going over that fiscal cliff, our House 
Republican colleagues argued against it and against it, and at the end 
of the day, they were prepared to let the economy go over that cliff in 
order to protect tax breaks for very wealthy people. A great majority 
of our Republican colleagues here in the House voted against that 
fiscal agreement, but we got it done despite that fact. As a result, 
the economy has continued to move. Now we need to work to make it move 
faster, but this bill does absolutely nothing to help do that. That's 
why the budget is a little late, because most Americans know that, 
unless you know both what your expenditures are going to be and your 
revenues, you can't submit a budget, and we didn't know until January 2 
what the revenue number would be going forward.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
and the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee have also been delayed in 
presenting their backgrounds, which have just come out today but were 
delayed from when they had planned to do it, and it was because of that 
very reason.

  What's really a shame is that here we are on the floor of the House, 
debating this gimmick, when we should be doing things to help the 
economy and help grow jobs. On March 1, less than 1 month from today, 
we're going to see these automatic across-the-board, meat-ax cuts take 
place to both defense and non-defense. Now, those across-the-board cuts 
are going to do great damage to jobs and the economy.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Here are the words of the 
Republican House leader, Mr. Cantor, just a few months ago: ``Under the 
sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level up to 9 
percent, setting back any progress the economy has made.'' According to 
a study which he referred to, ``The jobs of more than 200,000 
Virginians in my home State are on the line.''
  And that's just jobs in Virginia. He was just talking about jobs lost 
from the defense cuts. If we don't act to replace the sequester, you're 
going to see jobs lost around the country. In fact, we're already 
seeing what would happen from even the threat of the sequester, 
because, in the last quarter, we saw the economy slowing. Many analysts 
have said it's because of the fear of these across-the-board cuts--and 
not just many analysts. The Republican chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee, Mr. McKeon, said this in referring to the last 
quarter economic report: ``This is just the first indicator of the 
extraordinary economic damage defense cuts will do.''
  Mr. McKeon is right. So why are we spending our time today on a bill 
that doesn't address that at all?
  We have not in this Congress, the 113th Congress, had any debate on 
any measure to replace the sequester--our Republican colleagues haven't 
brought that to the floor--but it gets worse. Even though our 
Republican colleagues haven't brought their proposal to the floor of 
this House to replace the sequester in this Congress, we presented an 
alternative to the Rules Committee to replace the sequester and to do 
it in a balanced way, and we were denied an opportunity to have an up-
or-down vote here in this Chamber today on that proposal to replace the 
sequester for the remainder of this fiscal year so that we would avoid 
those across-the-board, meat-ax cuts and avoid the job losses that both 
Mr. Cantor and Mr. McKeon talked about.
  We had a proposal to avoid all that--not even a vote today--and we 
proposed to do it in a balanced way, Mr. Chairman: to make some cuts to 
some of the big agriculture subsidies' direct payments, also with some 
revenue by closing taxpayer breaks for the big oil companies. Our 
Republican colleagues continue to stick to the position that they won't 
close one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the 
deficit, not one. They conceded in the last election that very wealthy 
individuals benefit from those tax breaks disproportionately, but they 
don't want to eliminate one of them for the purpose of reducing the 
deficit in a balanced way, combined with additional spending cuts, 
which is what our substitute amendment would do. It's important for the 
people to know that we didn't have a chance to vote on it.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it's a sad reflection on this body that we are here 
debating a meaningless political action and ignoring the real work of 
the American people in this country to deal with the sequester in a 
balanced way and to prevent the job losses which Republican Members of 
this Congress have themselves said are on the horizon if we don't take 
that action.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Maryland makes some interesting 
points. The problem with many of them is that they simply aren't true.
  For example, the Congressional Budget Office gave their report on the 
economic situation today, and they have met their deadline, so contrary 
to what the gentleman from Maryland said.
  The gentleman also knows that the amendment that he offered, that he 
just cited that wasn't to be made in order, was not germane. The rules 
of the House precluded that.

[[Page H366]]

  And then he spent the majority of his time, Mr. Chairman, talking 
about the sequester, which is an important issue, there's no doubt 
about it, but it's not this issue. In fact, House Republicans passed a 
reconciliation bill last year that outlined the spending priorities 
that we would have, the spending reduction priorities that we would 
place in place of the sequester, and that sat over in the Senate. So 
the ball is in the Senate's court, the ball is in the President's 
court.
  Today we're talking about H.R. 444, which is a bill that simply says 
to the President, Mr. President, when you submit your budget, just let 
us know when it balances--10 years, 20 years, 40 years, 75 years. When 
does is it balance? Just be honest and transparent with the American 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are the minority party here in 
Washington. Yes, we have the majority in the House, but we don't have 
the majority in the Senate. We certainly don't control the White House. 
One of the roles of the minority is to provide accountability to the 
other side and to provide a contrast.
  Well, as Mr. Ryan said in his opening remarks, it's tough to have a 
contrast when you have specific legislation and you're comparing it to 
a speech. It doesn't work. The American people can't tell who's telling 
the truth and whose policies they would prefer. That's why we believe 
it's imperative--in fact, it's the only fair thing to do--to have the 
President, when he submits his budget, to say, in fact, this is when it 
balances.
  And it's instructive to know, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, that 
the past four budgets that the President has proposed have never come 
to balance, never. That's important information, Mr. Chairman. It's 
time for the President to admit that.
  So the record of the President isn't great, as you well know, on 
this: $6 trillion of new debt on his watch, 4 straight years of 
trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits, more borrowing, more spending, 
more debt, more dreams crushed.
  House Republicans have done our job. We put forward two budgets over 
the past 2 years when we've been in the majority in which we have said 
this is exactly how we would reform, save, strengthen, and secure the 
programs that are so necessary for this country, but also how we would 
get this country on a path to balance, not for balance's sake, but 
because families do it, businesses do it, and economies that don't 
demonstrate balance cannot be vibrant, cannot create jobs, cannot allow 
individuals to realize their dreams. So, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 444 is a 
commonsense piece of legislation.
  The gentleman from Maryland talked a lot about what the American 
people want. The polling industry, just earlier last month, said 72 
percent of the Americans say that reducing the budget deficit is a, 
quote, top priority for the President and the Congress this year. It 
should be. Seventy-two percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we're on the side of the American people. It's time for 
the President to show us a budget that balances or to state simply when 
his budget balances.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There's no doubt that it's a priority of the American people, 72 
percent of the American people, to reduce the deficit. We need to 
reduce the deficit.
  In fact, in the last election, both candidates talked about their 
plans for how to reduce that deficit in a smart and measured way. The 
American people spoke, and they said they preferred the balanced 
approach that the President has laid out that includes a combination of 
cuts. And, by the way, we did more than $1.5 trillion of cuts through 
the combination of the Budget Control Act and the supplementals in the 
last 2 or 3 years. We've already done that. We need to keep making more 
cuts. And, in fact, our substitute proposal includes additional cuts.
  But in the last election, the American people also said that we 
should close some of these tax breaks for special interests and very 
wealthy people. And yet our Republican colleagues have taken the 
position, the ironclad position, that you can't close or eliminate one 
of those tax breaks that their Presidential candidate and Vice 
Presidential candidate talked about if you want to use that for the 
purpose of reducing the deficit. You can't do it.
  So, yes, we need to reduce the deficit. The President has a plan to 
do it. He just doesn't do it the way our Republican colleagues would do 
it, which is by whacking Social Security and Medicaid, and by 
shortchanging important investments in our education and in our kids' 
future.
  So, yes, reduce the deficit, but let's do it in a sensible way. And 
the President has the prerogative of getting to put forward his budget 
the way he would like to present it to Congress, and then Congress can 
do its work however it wants.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and colleague from 
Maryland, and someone who has been very focused on reducing our 
deficits in a responsible way, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Price of Georgia said what the American people want. What the 
American people don't want is games. This is a game. This is a sham. 
This is a shame.
  What the American people want is honest legislation to address the 
challenges that confront us. In 23 or 24 days, we are going do face a 
sequester. That sequester, as has been pointed out, Mr. Cantor and I 
agree on, it will have devastating, adverse, negative consequences for 
our economy, for the American people, and for the confidence of 
America.
  But we are not spending time to avoid the sequester. Mr. Price of 
Georgia, in fact, says this is not about the sequester. He's right.
  Mr. Ryan said the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers had no idea 
and no intention the President of the United States would be involved 
in the budgeting process, period, none. Read the Constitution, my 
friends. I've heard a lot about that. The Founding Fathers thought it 
would be the legislative body, and the legislative body alone, that 
would have responsibility. It wasn't, frankly, until the last century 
that the President played a significant role in the budget, because the 
Founding Fathers, if you read the Constitution, thought, under Article 
I, we were responsible.
  And now, my friends, we have a game. My friend from Georgia, the 
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, said that we want a contrast. You 
have a contrast. You didn't want a contrast. You didn't make it in 
order, because you don't want the contrast.
  What you want is your political messaging bill that at the end of the 
day will do zip, nada, zero to address the problems confronting 
America. It's a game. Sadly, it's a game because the American people 
deserve and need better from us--more responsibility, more reality, 
more honesty in the actions we take on this floor. This is a political 
messaging bill. It's not even a very big bill.
  By the way, the bill to which the gentleman from Georgia referred is 
not before this Congress. It was the last Congress. That Congress, I 
tell the gentleman, is over. But we have a responsibility in the 113th 
Congress to act responsibly, not just to point to what was or was not 
done in the 112th Congress.
  This is a political messaging bill, Mr. Chairman, pure and simple. It 
does nothing to solve the most immediate problem we are now facing that 
is the looming sequester and all the uncertainty it is causing.
  What we ought to be working on this week is a bipartisan solution to 
the sequester that averts the negative cuts, the adverse consequences 
that will take place, as I said, 23 to 24 days from now. Instead, Mr. 
Chairman, we hear not only silence from many on the Republican side, 
but irresponsible acquiescence.
  Yesterday Republicans brought consideration of an amendment by the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, that would 
replace the sequester with spending cuts and additional revenue, a 
balanced package. Now, my Republican friends probably would have voted 
against that, but they didn't even allow the contrast of which the 
gentleman from Georgia speaks. Why? Because they want a unilateral 
message for their hardline constituents. That is why, Mr.

[[Page H367]]

Chairman. And it's a shame, because the American people and our economy 
are suffering because of these actions.

                              {time}  1510

  This is very disappointing, as Mr. Van Hollen's amendment is exactly 
the approach we ought to consider on this floor.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. And the President of the United States, for contrast, I 
tell my friend from Georgia, supports this exact alternative.
  Will he support others in a compromise? He will. But this is the 
alternative that he supports, so it's the contrast that the gentleman 
seeks.
  I suggest perhaps we ask unanimous consent that they change their 
mind. To do so would be devastating, if we don't fix the sequester, to 
our economy and our ability to create opportunities for America.
  It's time that our friends in the majority in this House stop 
pretending that the sequester is not dangerous or that it can be a 
viable tool to achieve the fiscal discipline we need. It's not that 
tool and, in fact, it's very dangerous.
  As we move closer toward the March 1 deadline, I want to tell my 
friend from Georgia, whom I respect, that I would hope that we could 
engage in a positive discussion and consideration on this floor of an 
alternative like Mr. Van Hollen's, not because you will support it, but 
because it is a viable, effective alternative, and then you provide an 
effective alternative. There is no alternative in the bill you provide 
on this floor today.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to that debate as 
well, but that's not the debate that we're having today. The debate 
that we're having today is a serious debate about whether or not we're 
going to get our fiscal house in order and whether or not the 
President's going to engage in a positive way. The President has put 
forward budgets that have not shown balance at all, ever.
  This is a serious debate. This is not a game. This is a serious 
debate about a serious issue. The same words were used by the gentleman 
on the bill that we had on the floor 2 weeks ago, the No Budget, No Pay 
Act. That was such a game that the Senate passed it and the President 
signed it.
  No, Mr. Chairman, this is serious business, and the American people 
know it, and they know that it's time for the President and the 
Democratic-controlled Senate to step up and do their job.
  I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia, for yielding and for bringing forward the 
Require a PLAN Act.
  You know, when our colleagues on the other side talk about games and 
all of these things that are frustrating and angering the American 
people, what angers them the most is when they don't see Washington 
doing their job.
  The law says the President, the House, and the Senate have to produce 
a budget. Now, the House has met its legal obligation the last 2 years; 
the Senate, they've failed to produce a budget in 4 years; and the 
President has missed his legal deadline 4 of the last 5 years.
  One of my colleagues said that somehow it's the Republicans' fault 
this year that the President didn't produce the budget on time. Okay. 
If that's the case, then that means 3 of the other 4 years is he going 
to blame, like, maybe the dog ate his homework, or maybe blame it on 
President Bush? At some point, this President's got to take 
responsibility and live by the same laws that American families live 
by.
  You know, American families, at the end of each year, they sit around 
the house kitchen table and they do a budget. They actually figure out 
what their priorities are going to be. And they look to Washington and 
they see a President and a Senate that literally ignore the law and say 
they're not going to produce a budget. They're not going to produce a 
budget that balances. They're not going to produce a budget that sets 
priorities. They're just going to keep borrowing money from China and 
sending the bill to our kids and our grandkids. And then the President 
wants to come and demand that Congress give him another credit card.
  We absolutely have to pay off the debts of the past. But when the 
President says not only pay those debts off, but give him another 
credit card so he can keep spending money, but he doesn't even lay out 
a plan of how he's going to spend the money--and, oh, by the way, 
whatever he produces never ever balances.
  Is it too much just to ask the President when is your budget going to 
finally get to balance? If it's not next year, if it's not 10 years 
from now, if it's not 20 years from now, at least put that transparency 
out there in public.
  He said he was going to be the most transparent President ever, and 
yet, when it comes time to actually deliver, to produce and to show 
something to the American people, he always wants to blame somebody 
else.
  We've got to stop living crisis to crisis, and one of the ways you 
stop this crisis of the moment is to finally produce a plan, lay 
something out. Let's debate it. We can have disagreements over it, but 
you have to start with a plan, and that's what this bill does. I urge 
my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 21 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Maryland has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee), a new member 
of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. Mr. Chairman, we've heard the criticism, this is a 
game. Well, any family that has found themselves in a financial crisis 
knows this is not a game. I'm one of those families.
  Eighteen years ago, I lost my job in a corporate merger. After 48 
hours of depression, my wife and I woke up, made a pot of coffee, drew 
a line down the middle of the page, and on one side we wrote down, this 
is what we have coming in, on the other side we wrote down, this is how 
we're going to spend it.
  In an economy when far too many of our friends and family members are 
out of work, there's no question in my mind that while we're debating 
this, there are families that are going through that exact exercise. 
Those families that are making those tough decisions in their family 
budgets have every reason to expect their policymakers to do the same.
  We shed tears around the kitchen table that morning. Those families 
are shedding tears around the kitchen table right now. They know that's 
not a game. They expect Washington to come up with a budget, and that's 
what this bill does.
  This bill says, Mr. President, give us a budget. Show us when it 
balances. Tell us when you have a balanced budget. We ask the President 
to do the same thing that American families are doing.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), a new Member of the 
House.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 444, the 
Require a PLAN Act, and commend my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Price, 
for his hard work on this issue.
  I've been surprised by some of the testimony on the other side of the 
aisle today. This bill says one very simple thing, that the President, 
when he submits a budget, must say when or whether it balances. The 
American people deserve to know when the budget proposed by the 
President will budget. That's all this bill requires.
  It doesn't say the President has to balance the budget, though he 
should. It doesn't say he needs to stop sending money we don't have, 
though we must. It just asks him to tell the American people, when, if 
at all, the budget proposal will not be in deficit.
  This should not be a partisan issue. Past Presidents should have 
submitted balanced budgets. Our current President should submit a 
balanced budget. Future Presidents should do the same.
  The Require a PLAN Act is a straightforward, commonsense step in

[[Page H368]]

the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
  Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Require a 
PLAN Act. Each year, law requires the President to submit a budget by 
the first Monday in February. Yesterday President Obama missed this 
deadline for the fourth time in 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people know what it's like to work through 
tough times and to live on a budget. When my wife and I started our 
small business, we made only $50 the first month. We worked hard and 
made sacrifices to live within our means. Families across this great 
Nation are still doing that, and it's embarrassing that the President 
and Senate Democrats refuse to put forth a plan.
  Republicans have produced a budget that made tough choices but 
reduces our debt and achieves fiscal responsibility. The Require a PLAN 
Act demands that the President explain to the American people how he 
intends to do the same. The great people of our Nation deserve at least 
that.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his exceptional work 
on this particular act.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the PLAN Act. For the past 
few years, our government has been operating off of stopgap measures 
that have led to frequent partisan debates and negotiations, 
threatening government shutdowns, and withholding pay from our men and 
women in uniform. At a time when our country is more than $16 trillion 
in debt, all of which is saddled on our children and grandchildren, we 
must act on the years upon years of rampant, runaway Federal spending 
that has occurred under both political parties. To be effective, we 
must create a plan for how we spend the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. 
That plan is a budget--a budget that needs to balance over time.
  The House has passed legislation each year that would work to balance 
our budget. Since the Senate will not take up our legislation that the 
country and the people of Florida so desperately need, we are calling 
upon the President to do his job: to propose a solution that will 
balance our budget throughout the next 10 years.
  The Senate has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years. On Monday, this 
President, for the fourth time, missed his legally obligated deadline 
for filing his budget request. We're requiring the Senate and the 
President to show some leadership by submitting a budget plan to 
preserve America's future.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains on each 
side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Georgia has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire, as I understand, 
we're doing half of the total time tomorrow. Would the chairman know 
how much time remains today on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has a maximum of 16\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Georgia has 16 minutes. The Chair cannot 
enforce informal agreements, and it is up to the gentlemen how much 
time they wish to consume today.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we're 
each going to take 15 minutes' time, which would allow the gentleman 
1\1/2\ minutes, and our side will take 1 minute. And I have no more 
speakers, other than myself to close.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That's my understanding, too.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple comments which are 100 
percent accurate, just so people watching this can understand what 
we're all talking about, since there's a lot of confusion. The 
President is going to submit a budget. He has submitted a budget every 
year of his 4 years. Our Republican colleagues don't like the budgets 
that he submits, but they're free to look at them. They're transparent. 
They're on the Internet. The President was late this year because we 
worked frantically to avoid the fiscal cliff and reach an agreement on 
January 2. You need to know what your revenues are going to be before 
you can put together a budget, number one.
  Number two, the House can take whatever action it wants on the 
President's budget. You can tell the people you don't like it and you 
can have your own alternative, as you will. But he's going to submit a 
budget that's transparent, which is why we shouldn't be wasting time 
talking about this on the floor of the House when in less than 1 month 
we're going to see these across-the-board meat-ax cuts take place that 
our Republican colleagues themselves have acknowledged are going to 
hurt jobs and hurt the economy, which is why we proposed an 
alternative, a substitute to prevent those meat-ax cuts from taking 
place. And, unfortunately, our colleagues who keep saying they want an 
open and transparent process, put the gavel down and said, no, that 
this House of Representatives isn't going to have a chance to vote on 
something to prevent the across-the-board sequester cuts. Instead, they 
just want to keep on whistling by this problem. They haven't taken it 
up in this Congress.
  So I urge my colleagues to get serious, come back with a plan like 
ours and that will demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, that we're serious.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is what it's about. This is the debt of our 
country right down here. The red path is where we're headed under this 
President's proposals. The red path results in extreme hardship to all 
Americans, but especially those at the lower end of the economic 
spectrum.
  We believe that it's extremely important for the Nation to know that 
the positive, principled, fair, caring solutions that the Republicans 
put forward to save, strengthen, and secure the programs are in 
contrast to a specific proposal from the other side. And to date, we 
haven't seen that proposal. We've seen a lot of speeches. We've heard a 
lot of wonderful words. But the American people need to know when the 
President's budget balances. And this bill simply says, Mr. President, 
tell us when your budget balances. Very common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I move that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rodney Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 444) to require that, if the President's fiscal year 2014 budget 
does not achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget, the 
President shall submit a supplemental unified budget by April 1, 2013, 
which identifies a fiscal year in which balance is achieved, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________