[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H377-H390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP AND NO DEFICIT ACT
General Leave
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of South Carolina). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 444.
Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly take the
chair.
{time} 0918
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 further 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 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
February 5, 2013, 30 minutes remained in general debate.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each has 15 minutes remaining.
Who yields time?
{time} 0920
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, a family that earns $27,000 but spends $36,000 and
has run up a credit card debt of $165,000 is obviously on the brink of
financial ruin. Proportionally, that is exactly where our Federal
Government is today.
Now, if that family went to see a credit counselor, the first thing
he's going to tell them is we've got to sit down and draw up a budget.
Now, that family is going to have to make some very difficult choices.
It may take several years to work its way back to solvency. But our
Senate has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years, and our President has
offered only entirely un-serious budgets that continue to spend
recklessly and that never balance.
This bill simply requires that if the President can't balance the
budget this year, he tell us how long it will take and what needs to be
done to do so. We would expect that from any family. We should demand
it from our government.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, as we debated yesterday, the bill
before us is unfortunately nothing more than a political gimmick at a
time when we're facing huge issues with respect to jobs and the
economy.
It's very unfortunate that we did not have an opportunity to vote on
an amendment that we proposed to replace the sequester--which is now
less than a month away and which will do grave economic harm--our
proposal to replace that sequester with a balanced mix of cuts and
revenue from closing loopholes. But in this body, which says it wants
to be transparent in the people's House, we were denied an opportunity
to take a vote on something that's very important to the American
[[Page H378]]
people, as opposed to playing the political games we've been playing
with this bill.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader,
the Representative from San Francisco and the daughter of Baltimore,
the home of the Super Bowl champions, the Ravens.
Ms. PELOSI. Well, if the Ravens' and the 49ers' fans can come
together, hopefully so can the Democrats and the Republicans on an
issue of this grave concern to our country, our budget, which should be
a statement of our national values. Instead, as Mr. Van Hollen said, we
see the Republicans playing games with the budget. Playing games--
that's what they have been doing and that's what they continue to do as
we go into this spring, when we need to find solutions; playing games
that give new meaning to the term ``March Madness'' because that's what
will result if we have to face a sequester. It's a very bad idea. A
sequester should be out of the question, and we should be talking about
how we find a solution instead of a sequester.
Mr. Van Hollen offered a solution. Here we have a debate on the
budget, the blueprint for how we go forward. And the Rules Committee,
dominated by the Republican majority, has said we won't even let your
proposal come to the floor, not in the form of an amendment or a
substitute or in any other way. What are they afraid of? They're afraid
of common sense because that is what Mr. Van Hollen's proposal is
about.
It recognizes that we need to have spending cuts. In fact, we've
already agreed to $1.6 trillion in spending cuts in the Budget Control
Act. It recognizes that we must address the entitlement issue. In fact,
Democrats have already agreed to more than $1 trillion in Medicare
savings to strengthen Medicare and to protect beneficiaries. So with
that as a basis, we go forward with the Van Hollen proposal, which is a
very commonsense solution. It is a plan to replace sequester. It makes
further spending cuts in a responsible way. It ends tax breaks for Big
Oil, and it ensures that millionaires pay their fair share. Who could
be opposed to that?
So let's get serious. It's time for us to get serious. We have a
serious challenge. We should be working in a bipartisan way to find a
solution. Instead, again, the Republicans are playing games leading up
to what will make ``March Madness'' a term that would be inadequate for
the consequences to our children, millions of whom will be affected in
terms of their education and their wellbeing; to our seniors, to our
veterans, to our safety industry in terms of cops on the beat. The list
of cuts across the board and a meat-ax approach with no common sense
given to it is ridiculous. It's ridiculous.
Let's stop this march to folly, this ``March Madness.'' Let's get
serious. Let's accept the President's challenge that he put forth. If
we can't have a big, bold, and balanced solution now, let's at least do
something that is balanced and bold as we go forward to the end of the
fiscal year, as Mr. Van Hollen has proposed, so that we can do what is
right for the American people instead of what is wrong for our economy.
What the Republicans are proposing is a blueprint for a downward
spiral in our economy. It's irresponsible. It does not have value in
terms of being solution-oriented.
I might add, in conclusion, Madam Chair, that I'm listening
attentively to this debate and I hear my colleagues on the Republican
side talking about how important it is to reduce the deficit--and we
are in total agreement on that subject. I think we have a moral
obligation to reduce the deficit. I think we have a moral obligation to
create jobs, to put people to work because growth, in addition to
spending cuts and revenue increases, growth is what's going to help us
reduce the deficit.
But I didn't hear one ``boo'' out of any of the people, not one
little hoot, one little peep, or any other sound an endangered species
of a deficit hawk would have made during President Bush's term when
most of this deficit was amassed--tax cuts for the wealthiest people,
which did not create jobs but increased the deficit; giveaways to the
pharmaceutical companies with an ill-advised pharmaceutical plan; and
two unpaid-for wars. Just not fair to investments that we should be
making in America's future, whether it's biomedical research to create
cures and to keep America preeminent in terms of science, whether,
again, it's invested in the seed corn and the education of our
children. The list goes on and on. The list goes on and on of all of
the initiatives that are important to growth, to making our future
brighter, to keeping America competitive, to keeping America number
one.
So I urge a strong rejection of what the Republicans are proposing.
It's, frankly, silly and, as I said before, unworthy of the challenge
that our country faces and the bipartisan solutions that we should be
trying to achieve.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, it is probably appropriate to
refocus ourselves on the bill that we're discussing today, that's
before us today, H.R. 444. It simply does one thing. It says to the
President: when you bring a budget to Congress, tell us when it's going
to balance. That's all it does.
Now, the sequester is an important issue, there's no doubt about it.
President Obama's sequester is an important issue. House Republicans
have passed two times spending reductions that prioritize in a much
more responsible way. We agree that it ought to be much more
responsible. The ball is in the Senate's court. The ball is in the
President's court.
This bill, though, simply says to the President: when you bring your
budget to us, just let us know when it balances. That's important
because the last four budgets that the President has brought to this
House, to this Congress, have never, ever balanced.
I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. DesJarlais).
Mr. DesJARLAIS. I thank my colleague for his leadership on this
issue.
This is the fourth time in 5 years that the White House has proven
that it does not take trillion-dollar deficits seriously enough to
submit a budget on time. In contrast, House Republicans, since taking
the majority in 2010, have done that every year and will do so again in
just a couple of weeks.
We still do not know when the President plans on actually submitting
his budget. When asked, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said
that the administration favors substance over deadlines. Let me
translate that for you: they don't have a solution to addressing the
Nation's spending and debt crisis.
Today, the House will pass the Require a PLAN Act. I'm hearing
comments that this is a gimmick, this is a ploy. Are you kidding me? We
need to do our job. The American people get it. They want Congress to
work together. They're not in love with Republicans or Democrats right
now. They want us to solve this problem.
{time} 0930
It's sad that we have to resort to a Require a PLAN Act to get the
other side to work with us. Please work with us. We have submitted
budgets. We need the Senate to submit a budget. Every missed deadline
is a missed opportunity. We need to get serious about spending now. We
cannot continue to delay choices that we need to make. We owe it to our
future generations.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, for those Members of this body who
were not focused on this debate yesterday, let's make a couple of
things clear. The President will introduce a budget, he is going to
submit a budget, and he has submitted a budget every year. Our
Republican colleagues don't like his budget because he takes a balanced
approach to reducing the deficit, meaning that in addition to cuts, he
also calls for additional revenue from taking away special tax breaks
for special interests. That's number one.
Number two, what this bill does is, number one, require the President
to submit his budget in a certain way; and number two, it criticizes
the President for submitting his budget late.
Again, for those who weren't part of the debate yesterday, the reason
the President's budget is late is because we had to pass the fiscal
cliff agreement. We didn't get that done until January 2. And I have to
say, Madam Chairman, we got it done despite the overwhelming opposition
of House Republicans. We were pleased to get the overwhelming support
of Senate Republicans, but House Republicans continue
[[Page H379]]
to take the position that they were prepared to go over the fiscal
cliff in order to protect tax breaks for very wealthy people.
That's why the President's budget is late, because as any American
family knows, if you don't know what revenue is coming in, you can't
put together your household budget. We didn't know what kind of revenue
was coming in until January 2.
So, with that, Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. The Republican mantra is no revenues, cuts at any price,
whether it damages health research, our kids' education, our national
defense, or our national economy. So beneath their new talk of
softening their image remains their hard edge.
Now we're less than a month away from a sequester--$85 billion in
arbitrary, across-the-board cuts just in 2013. Just yesterday, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned us that allowing the
sequester budget cuts to take effect would reduce GDP growth by more
than 25 percent this year, wiping out hundreds of thousands of jobs--
hundreds of thousands of jobs--and pushing the unemployment rate back
up to 8 percent.
So I say to the Republicans, instead of opening your arms to the
sequester and risking our Nation's economic recovery, Republicans
should be opening their minds to a balanced, bipartisan solution.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to
our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, on Monday, the President missed the deadline for
submitting his fiscal year 2014 budget. So, unfortunately, we haven't
yet seen what the President will propose to address our exploding debt.
But if the President's 2014 budget is similar to his plan from last
year, it will never achieve balance, not next year, not in 10 years,
and not even in 30 or 40 years. Apparently, the President does not
believe we have a spending problem in America.
Unfortunately, the facts tell us that we do. Federal spending is 22
percent higher than it was in January of '09, and debt held by the
public nearly doubled by the end of the President's first term after
four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits.
The seriousness of this problem was underlined yesterday when the CBO
told us that unless changes are made, Federal debt held by the public
will reach 76 percent of our GDP by the end of this year, the highest
level since 1950, when the bills were fresh from winning World War II.
The American people recognize that perpetual large Federal deficits
threaten their economic security. That's why a recent Pew Research
Center poll showed 72 percent of respondents said reducing the deficit
should be a top priority for national leaders. That was second only to
the 86 percent who cited strengthening the economy and improving the
jobs outlook. Concern about the deficit has risen from ninth among 20
issues 4 years ago to third in last month's survey.
People are worried about what perpetual Federal overspending will
mean to their future. Will taxes on low- and middle-income working
families have to rise to pay the bills we're racking up? Will inflation
kick in, eating away at the incomes of senior citizens living on fixed
incomes who already struggle to pay for gas and groceries?
Will our economy stagnate as government demand for capital crowds out
private-sector borrowers who want to expand their businesses? Will our
kids be condemned to a lower standard of living once our overseas
creditors become concerned we won't be able to pay them back? These are
real concerns.
These are the reasons we brought the PLAN Act to the floor today. I
thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership. Life teaches that
if you don't have a plan, you're planning to fail. And this President
does not have any plans to balance the Federal budget ever.
The House has developed a plan to balance the budget, and we voted on
it twice. This year, we intend to improve on that plan and balance the
budget even sooner than the 10 years our prior proposals called for.
But we can't do it alone. We need to have the cooperation of the
President and the other body to make any meaningful progress.
Last month, we enacted the No Budget, No Pay law which requires both
Houses of Congress to adopt a budget by April 15. Now we are hearing
that the other body is planning on producing its first budget since
'09, so we're making some progress.
The PLAN Act is the next step in this process. It will require the
President to tell us when he thinks a balanced budget can be achieved
and how he'd get us there. If his budget submission does not balance,
he'll have to submit a supplemental budget by April 1 telling us the
earliest date when balance can be achieved, and he will have to show us
the policies he will use to make that calculation.
This way, we can begin to develop a common destination. Until we are
all headed in the same direction, we'll never get there. The public is
telling us we need to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. The
PLAN Act will help us do that, and I urge adoption of the bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bill is entitled the PLAN Act. What we really need is a plan to
avoid the sequester, these across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that
are going to take place on March 1, which we all know are going to hurt
jobs and the economy.
We just heard from the Republican leader. Last September, he made a
very good point on the floor of this House. He said that if you allow
those sequester cuts to take place, you're going to see more than
200,000 jobs lost just in the State of Virginia just in the defense
sector. The across-the-board cuts are going to hurt jobs in defense,
but they're also going to hurt other jobs as well as important national
efforts, whether it's the FBI, whether it's border security, or whether
it's medical research at the National Institutes of Health. All those
things are going to be cut.
Now, the majority leader just made the point that when the American
people are asked what their number one priority is, it's jobs and the
economy. So why aren't we doing something about jobs and the economy?
Why did the Republican leadership deny us an opportunity just to have a
vote on a plan, a plan to prevent that sequester from taking place in
less than a month, a plan that would replace that sequester with a mix
of long-term, targeted cuts as well as revenues from, for example,
getting rid of the taxpayer subsidies for the Big Oil companies?
That's the real plan we need, and yet we haven't seen any plan from
our Republican colleagues in this 113th Congress. So, let's focus on
what really is important to the American people. The deficit is, of
course, important to the American people. As the Republican leader
said, it ranked number two. There's no debate there.
The issue all along has been not whether we reduce the deficit but
how we do it, making sure, number one, we don't do it in a way that
hurts the economy, like some of the austerity plans in Europe, which
apparently our Republican colleagues would like us to copy. That hurt
the economy. We saw it didn't work in the U.K., and we believe we need
to reduce the deficit in a balanced way--cuts but also revenue, by
asking very wealthy people to contribute a little bit more and by
closing those tax breaks that we heard about from the Republican
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate all last fall.
{time} 0940
Those tax breaks are still out there. We propose to eliminate some of
those for the purpose of reducing the deficit in a balanced way. That's
the plan we need. That's the plan we've offered. Unfortunately, that's
the plan we haven't had a chance to even get a vote on.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, how much time remains on each
side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 10\3/4\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend my friend from Maryland on
the
[[Page H380]]
other side for trying to change the subject. There's a lot of talk over
here about the sequester. That's an important issue. There's no doubt
about it. We look forward to that debate.
This is about having the President submit a budget to Congress that
balances, and we're concerned about that because the last four budgets
that this President has submitted to this Congress have never, ever
balanced.
With that, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I'm grateful to Congressman Tom Price and his tremendous leadership
on this very important issue of balancing the budget. Congressman Price
has a vision for fiscal responsibility which creates jobs.
Spending money that we do not have is irresponsible. For the past 4
years, the Federal Government has spent over $1 trillion more each year
than it receives. American families know better than spending beyond
their means without consequences. The government should stop passing on
depressing debt to our younger citizens.
House Republicans recognize that national security risks are at stake
if we fail to get our spending under control. I hope the Senate and
President will adopt actual solutions that will decrease the size of
skyrocketing national debt.
The passage of Require a PLAN Act will be a significant act by
requiring the President to propose a budget that balances over a 10-
year period, and the American people will begin to restore their faith
in Washington and believe that hope and prosperity are the future for
our Nation. Balancing our budget not only protects and preserves
entitlement programs for our seniors and future generations, it also
provides economic certainty, which helps American small businesses
create jobs.
As a grateful cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues and
those across the aisle to put party politics aside and vote in favor of
the bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to a member of the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means
Committee, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chair, yesterday, the President took to the White
House briefing room to lecture, as he has done before, on the virtues
of the so-called ``balanced approach'' to budgeting. However, while he
failed to mention that his balanced approach would never lead to a
balanced budget, his last 4 years have made that abundantly clear. It's
long past time for the President to level with Congress and the
American people about when his so-called ``balanced approach'' will
actually balance the budget.
Today, the House will take up the Require a PLAN Act, which will
force the President to do just that. By requiring the President to
explain when and how he would balance the budget, we can begin to have
an honest and constructive discussion about what it is actually going
to take to prevent a debt crisis. History and math tell us that our
fiscal challenges can only be solved through responsible budgeting that
cuts spending and reforms entitlements.
The President's incessant demand for higher taxes is not a solution
to our fiscal problems but, rather, a deceptive rhetoric that cannot
withstand the scrutiny of basic math or honest budgeting. No amount of
tax hikes will ever be able to steer us away from the looming debt
crisis we face.
Averting the most predictable crisis in U.S. history is not a
question of how, but a question of if the President will have the
courage and the foresight to work with the House Republicans to lead
our country out of economic stagnation and away from a future limited
by mountains of debt.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I think it's important to remind our
colleagues that as part of the Budget Control Act and other measures we
took over the last several years, we have already cut $1.5 trillion
over the 10-year budget period by placing a cap on spending. The
President has been very clear, as have Democrats in the Congress. We
understand we've got to make some important cuts. We did $1.5 trillion.
We can do more. In fact, the substitute amendment that I proposed would
eliminate these direct payments for agribusinesses, over $29 billion in
unnecessary subsidies.
The question isn't whether we should do cuts. Yes, we should do them.
We should do them in a smart way and not in an across-the-board way.
But we should also generate revenue by closing the tax loopholes to
reduce the deficit.
We heard again from our Republican colleagues throughout the last
Presidential campaign about all these tax breaks that benefit very
wealthy people. Let's close them to help reduce the deficit, and that's
exactly what our substitute would do to help replace the sequester.
I'm now pleased to yield 2 minutes to someone who knows these issues
well, a terrific new Member of Congress from the State of Maryland (Mr.
Delaney).
Mr. DELANEY. In my judgment, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles are American
heroes because they were given a job by the President of the United
States. It was a very difficult job, and the assignment required
significant vision. Their job was to work in a bipartisan way with
experts and come up with a proposal that was in the best interest of
the common good of American citizens.
That's exactly what they did. The fact that it was rejected by our
government, in my judgment, is a tragedy. If you contrast what they did
to what we're considering here today with H.R. 444, it puts into
context exactly the problems we have with this Congress. Because what
Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles did is they came up with a specific proposal
that had additional revenues and had important cuts to put the country
on a better fiscal trajectory.
We're not here debating what proposal we should put in place to put
this country on a better fiscal trajectory. That would be a worthy
discussion. Nor are we talking about the things we need to do as a
country to make our country more competitive, to create jobs. We're not
talking about immigration reform. We're not talking about a national
energy policy. We're not talking about investing in our infrastructure.
What we're talking about is a gimmick that has nothing to do with the
substance of the fiscal debate that we need to have in this country.
This proposal, this bill is a gimmick for career politicians in their
game of chess. It has nothing to do with the substance of what the
American people need us to do as a Congress. We need to adopt the
framework that was put forth by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, where
people actually did their job, and we need to use that as a framing
document to deal with our fiscal trajectory. We then need to get on
with the business of making this country more competitive so we can
create jobs that have a good standard of living. To do that, we need to
change important policies in this country around immigration, energy,
infrastructure, and education. That's what the business of this
Congress should be.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to a new Member on our side of the aisle, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding as I
rise in support of H.R. 444, the Require a PLAN Act.
As a small business owner, I understand the importance of a balanced
budget. Ensuring that you spend within your means is vital to your
employees and the success of that business. Spending beyond your means
could result in layoffs, mothers and fathers not being able to put food
on the table, and it ultimately could mean the demise of that company.
I get it. Families from my district in western North Carolina get it.
Just last week, Eric from Asheville wrote to my office saying:
To me it is just basic math. This is how most people that
have a budget work. If you are in debt, you either need to
spend less and cut back, or make more money. So I spend less,
and I cut back on some of the things that are not essential.
Why can't our government figure it out?
I agree with Eric from Asheville, North Carolina, and that's why I'm
a proud cosponsor of Representative Tom Price's Require a PLAN Act,
which will force President Obama to explain how he intends to balance
our budget.
[[Page H381]]
It's time for the Federal Government to do what hardworking, tax-
paying Americans and some businessowners from across the country have
to do: balance a budget and live within our means. The time is now.
{time} 0950
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to
another new member of our Conference, the gentleman from Texas, who
knows a significant amount about budgets and who is a new member of the
Budget Committee, Mr. Williams.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 444, the
Require a PLAN Act. I am a small business owner, and I have submitted a
budget to my bank for 41 straight years. It is astounding that the
President has shirked his responsibility to submit a budget on time for
4 of the last 5 years.
Our Nation has trillion-dollar deficits. They are threatening the
economic future of this great country, yet the President and his
Democratic Party leaders in the Senate have made it a habit to ignore
their budgetary obligations. Under President Obama, the national debt
has increased faster than under any U.S. President in history. Now is
not the time to sit back and continue racking up debt that our children
and our grandchildren will have to shoulder, not to mention small
businesses.
The American people deserve better leadership. They have made it
abundantly clear that Congress should balance the Federal budget just
like families and business owners do across the country, and they do it
every single day. That's why I support the House bill requiring the
President to submit a balanced budget and to get Washington's spending
under control, so I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``yes'' on
this bill.
I remember that Ronald Reagan's birthday is today. May God bless our
country.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another
new member of our Conference, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Bridenstine).
Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 444, the
Require a PLAN Act.
It is perfectly appropriate for the President to present a budget
that balances within 10 years. If he does not, this bill would require
him to tell us when his budget might balance. Trillion-dollar deficits
for the foreseeable future are harming seniors, the poor, and middle-
income families who are struggling to make ends meet. Here is how:
Our deficits are financed by Treasury bonds, most of which are being
purchased by the Fed with newly created money. This drives up the price
of bonds and keeps interest rates artificially low. Seniors on fixed
incomes, who have saved their whole lives, now cannot make a fair
interest on their savings. In addition to squeezing the incomes of our
seniors, creating money to fund deficits also drives up prices, which
has a disproportionate adverse effect on the seniors, on the poor, and
on middle-income families.
Creating money out of thin air to fund the President's spending must
stop. The first step is to stop the reckless spending by having the
President present a plan to balance the budget. This is a simple
request with no reasonable excuse for opposition. I support H.R. 444,
the Require a PLAN Act, to protect our seniors, the poor, and middle-
income families.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, we've heard a number of the last speakers complain
about the fact that the President's budget will be a little late this
year.
Again, for the new Members joining us--and we welcome all of the new
Members, those being Republicans and Democrats--in the last session of
Congress, we were here until January 2 trying to put together an
agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. That was the President's
priority--to make sure that we didn't hurt jobs and the economy by
going over the fiscal cliff.
The overwhelming majority of our Republican colleagues in this House
voted against that plan because they were more focused on protecting
tax breaks for very wealthy individuals than about protecting jobs and
the economy. That's their choice. Their Senate Republican colleagues
made a different choice, but our House Republican colleagues can make
the choice that they want.
Now, with respect to the budget, the President will submit a budget,
and our House Republican colleagues can reject it or do what they want
with it. The issue is not whether he'll submit a budget. He will. The
issue is whether or not we would dictate to the President what the form
of his budget should take, and that is wrong.
It is also a little curious to hear this newfound support for these
sort of balanced budgets from our Republican colleagues. I would just
remind everybody that the last time we had a balanced budget was at the
end of the Clinton administration. Why? Because, in addition to
economic growth, they asked the American people to contribute a little
bit more in terms of tax revenue. The Bush administration came in and
immediately squandered those surpluses. I think it's important to know
that, since 1950, we've had a balanced budget on only eight occasions,
unfortunately. The last time we had a Republican President who balanced
his budget without inheriting it from a Democratic President was Dwight
Eisenhower.
So we are pleased that our Republican colleagues are joining us in
trying to get back to fiscal responsibility. We see reducing the
deficit as a very important part of that, but we disagree that we
should do it by cutting important commitments we've made to seniors, by
slashing our investment in our kids' educations, by cutting science and
research and things that help power our economy and make us
competitive. We think that's the wrong approach. We need a balanced
approach that combines cuts with revenues from closing these tax breaks
for the purpose of reducing the deficit. That's the kind of plan we
need.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Sometimes in these conversations and debates, Madam Chair, it's
important to set the record straight. My friend from Maryland says that
the reason the President hasn't been able to submit his budget on
time--by the way, the law is by February 4, the first Monday in
February--is due to what happened at the end of last year.
I would remind my colleague that President Obama has missed the
budget deadline more than any other President. In the 90 years since
the President has been required to submit a budget to Congress by the
first Monday in February, President Obama is the only President to miss
the deadline 2 years in a row, and he's the only President to miss the
deadline 3 out of 4 years in his first term. So that's just to set the
record straight.
Secondly, I would remind my friend from Maryland that the last time
this country had a balanced budget it was a Republican Congress that
did it. In fact, President Clinton vetoed the budget twice and then
signed it, but it was a Republican Congress, and we reduced taxes at
that time.
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to our policy chair on the Republican
side, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. I thank the gentleman.
Back home last week, I had a gentleman who came up to me who said,
``I make $80,000 a year between my wife and me. That has always been
enough until now. With the economy's slowing down and prices continuing
to increase, it's not enough. What is going on?''
The simple statement that I can make to him is that the economy
continues to slow down because the Federal Government continues to
borrow more and more money for its own debt, taking that money out of
the private sector's hands, which would typically increase the economy,
increase jobs, increase economic activity; but instead, right now, it's
all coming towards the Federal Government as we require more and more
money, thus slowing the economy down more and more.
The unemployment rate under this President has been higher longer
than any of the last 11 Presidents combined. There is something unique
that I can
[[Page H382]]
say to the college student coming out of college who can't find a job:
This is not a typical American economy.
What's going on? We're borrowing too much money. We're slowing down
the economy. It's not stimulating. It's hurting what's going on.
This simple bill just says this: as is already required by law for
the House, the Senate, and the President to all put a budget out, this
also says let's put a budget out because of the dire times that we are
in. It says, at some point in the next 10 years, let's bring it to
balance.
When the President sent his folks over last year to the Budget
Committee in order to present the President's budget, I asked
specifically, Does this budget balance at any point--10 years? 25
years? 75 years? Is there a point of balance? The response was, No.
We are just asking for things to balance sometime. Tell us when there
is a proposed balance out there. Have a plan. Right now, we have no
plan to plan, and that needs to change. The Senate hasn't had a budget
for the last 4 years at all. The President presents a budget that never
balances. After the fiscal cliff issues and after all of the things
that have happened, our tax revenues estimated by the CBO will go up 25
percent next year. It is estimated that our revenues next year will be
the highest revenues in the history of the United States, yet the
President still comes back and says he needs more revenue.
We need to find areas to cut. We need a plan. We need to get into
balance.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains on both
sides.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Chairman, again, just to put all this into perspective, I
appreciate the sort of newfound vigor with which our Republican
colleagues are approaching this issue. I would just remind them that,
in the budget they brought to the floor in the last 2 years, it did not
balance, according to the CBO, until 2040. Even then, if you read what
the Congressional Budget Office said, it wasn't as a result of the
Congressional Budget Office's analysis of their policies; it was simply
based on assumptions that our Republican colleagues provided to the
CBO.
{time} 1000
So the real question here is: How do we reduce our deficits in a way
that does not hurt the economy right now but does make sure that, as
the economy improves, public spending and deficit spending does not
squeeze out private investment? Actually, for the last couple of years,
the problem has been the opposite. We have seen less private
investment, and so the moneys the Federal Government has spent have
been very important to helping the economy from going into free fall.
But there's no doubt that we have to come up with a balanced approach
to dealing with this issue in the outyears, and that's where the debate
lies, in how we should do that.
And again, our Republican colleagues have said ``no'' to the balanced
approach; they've said ``no'' to the plan that we offered to prevent
the sequester; and they didn't say ``no,'' they wouldn't even allow a
vote on the plan we offered to prevent the sequester that's going to
hit on March 1 and which our Republican colleagues in statement after
statement on this floor have said is going to hurt the economy, and
which we know from the last quarter's economic report is already
hurting the economy just because businesses are anticipating the
possibility of these across-the-board cuts.
So that's the plan that we should be focused on. That's the plan that
helps the economy, that will help save jobs. And it's just unfortunate
that we've been denied an opportunity in the people's House to even
have a vote on the one plan that's been submitted in this Congress, in
this House, to prevent those job losses and prevent harm being done to
our economy.
So I would hope, Madam Chairman, that we put aside this political
gimmick. The President will submit a budget. Our Republican colleagues
can do with it whatever they want, but let's put aside the political
games and focus on jobs and the economy and let's have a vote on the
plan that we have introduced to prevent that sequester from taking
place and prevent the economic damage that it would do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, this is pretty simple stuff. It's
what families do across this country. It's what businesses do across
this country, and that is to make certain that they don't spend more
than they take in. All this bill does is say to the President, When you
bring your budget to the Congress, Mr. President, let us know when it
balances. And hopefully it's not never, as he's had for the last 4
years.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. I rise in opposition to this bill.
Madam Chair, it is already over one month since Congress temporarily
avoided the so-called fiscal cliff, and the clock is ticking on
sequestration: the across-the-board spending cuts triggered on March 1
that will devastate our economy. Yet the majority in the House is
wasting time voting on an unnecessary bill (H.R. 444) which shirks
their responsibilities, while pinning the blame on the President.
This legislation does nothing to address the urgent priorities of the
American people--to create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce the
deficit in a balanced way. It does not prevent the next self-imposed
crisis, thereby threatening our recovery, risking job growth, and
harming the middle class.
The majority calls this the ``Require a PLAN'' bill, but this bill is
a stunt, not a solution. Now is the time to take action to avoid the
harmful effects of sequestration, not for political posturing.
I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan gimmick and join me in
voting against it.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Chair, a nation that does not operate on a budget is
plagued by irresponsible spending with bloated budgets, unfathomable
debts and jeopardizes its long-term sustainability. That's true of any
family or business and it's true of governments as well.
Every state is required to have a budget and nearly all states are
required to balance their budget. Sadly, the federal government has
failed to operate on a budget for the past four years, and it's past
time for that to come to an end.
In four out of the last five years, the President has failed to
submit a budget to the Congress by the date required by law.
Furthermore, each of those budgets, when eventually submitted,
projected trillions of dollars in deficit spending as far as the eye
could see. That is a recipe for national bankruptcy and it is morally
wrong.
You would not steal from your children or grandchildren and we should
not let Washington do it either.
That is why I rise in support of legislation that I have cosponsored,
H.R. 444. This bill is really very simple. It requires the President to
do what the U.S. House of Representatives has already done--pass a
budget that balances.
I am also hopeful that the U.S. Senate will do something that it too
has failed to do for the past four years--pass a budget. Any budget.
That will enable the House and Senate to do what is required by law:
establish a budget for the U.S. Government and live within that budget.
The House and Senate can have disagreements, but the Senate and the
Administration need to go on record with their spending priorities so
our system can work.
In 1997, the Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
passed the House of Representatives, but fell one vote short of passage
in the Senate. That year the national debt was $5.4 trillion. Today it
is more than three times that amount--$16.5 trillion. The debt burden
for each American citizen has grown from about $20,000 to over $52,000.
Back then, liberals in Washington said the same thing that they say
today--that we don't need a Balanced Budget Amendment to control
spending and responsibly manage the Nation's finances. There are eleven
trillion reasons to prove they are dead wrong. Washington needs a
spending intervention.
Earlier this week the Administration once again missed the statutory
deadline for submitting a budget to Congress. It's been four years
since the Senate approved a budget. All the while allowing billions of
dollars in wasteful spending to slip through the cracks, further adding
to our trillion dollar deficits.
We need a responsible plan to bring federal spending under control
and ultimately balance the budget. Washington can no longer afford to
fund itself on short-term stop-gap resolutions, last minute deals
struck in the wee-hours of the morning and massive, ``too big to read''
1,000 page omnibus spending bills.
Washington is literally charging away our children and
grandchildren's futures, depriving them of the opportunities that were
so readily available to current and previous generations.
[[Page H383]]
Let's pass H.R. 444 and set the Nation on a more secure footing. Let's
act today, before we are actually confronted with the inevitable debt
crisis to come, which we have been warned about and can avoid if we get
serious.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and the bill shall be considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 444
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 ``Require Presidential
Leadership and No Deficit Act'' or the ``Require a PLAN
Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND FINDINGS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to require the
President to submit to Congress a supplemental unified budget
if the President's budget for fiscal year 2014 does not
achieve balance in a fiscal year covered by such budget.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) With this year's expected failure to meet the statutory
deadline for submission of his budget, as stated by the
Office of Management and Budget, the President will have only
met the statutory deadline in one of his five budget
submissions.
(2) Despite a promise to cut the deficit in half, the
deficit doubled during the President's first year in office
and has exceeded $1 trillion for four years now.
(3) Since taking office, the President has allowed the
Federal debt to grow by nearly $6 trillion and total debt now
exceeds the size of the entire economy of the United States.
(4) Under the President's most recent budget submission,
the budget never achieves balance.
(5) The President's fiscal year 2013 budget submission
includes the admission that under his own policies the
Federal Government's ``fiscal position gradually
deteriorates''.
SEC. 3. SUBMISSION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFIED BUDGET.
(a) In General.--If the President's budget for fiscal year
2014, submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of
title 31, United States Code, results in a projected deficit
in every fiscal year for which estimates are provided in such
budget, then the President shall submit a supplemental
unified budget pursuant to subsection (b).
(b) Contents of Supplemental Unified Budget.--Not later
than April 1, 2013, the President shall submit to Congress a
supplemental unified budget that includes--
(1) the information required under section 1105(a) of title
31, United States Code;
(2) an estimate of the earliest fiscal year in which the
supplemental budget is not projected to result in a deficit;
(3) a detailed description of additional policies to be
implemented in order to achieve such result; and
(4) an explanation of the differences between the
President's budget for fiscal year 2014 and the supplemental
unified budget referred to in this subsection.
(c) Definition.--The term ``unified budget'' means the
total level of outlays, total level of receipts, and the
resulting deficit or surplus of the United States Government
for a fiscal year.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill is in order except those
printed in House Report 113-8. Each such amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Takano
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 113-8.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amend section 2(b)(3) to read as follows:
(3) Since the President took office, Congress has allowed
the Federal debt to grow by nearly $6 trillion and total debt
now exceeds the size of the entire economy of the United
States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I like to call this the ``don't shift blame
amendment.'' The bill before us today tries to blame President Obama
for all our fiscal woes. Judging by the language of this legislation,
I'm convinced the House Republicans live in a world where our entire
national debt suddenly appeared on January 21, 2009. But let's be
clear: Our debt was not created by the President alone. And while the
President may be responsible for spending us a budget blueprint, it is
ultimately Congress that holds the power of the purse. I think my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are forgetting a key part of
our job: the President does not pass budgets, nor does he appropriate
funds; Congress does.
My amendment makes a simple change to the findings section of the
bill to clarify that Congress has the constitutional responsibility to
fund the Federal Government.
I can guarantee that when the majority introduces its budget this
month, it will be so extreme that it has no chance of passing both
Houses. The Republican majority seems to be able to come together for
meaningless proposals, but they know that when it comes to sensible
legislation such as preventing us from going over the fiscal cliff or
providing aid to Sandy victims, the 218th vote will come from a
Democrat. The only thing allowing the House Republican caucus to govern
is the House Democratic Caucus.
It is the majority's failure to negotiate in good faith on the budget
that has gotten us here today. Year after year, the House Republican
leadership has chosen to do anything within its power to discredit the
President instead of working to solve our Nation's challenges.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's
amendment, and although possibly well-intentioned, we're not saying at
all that this is just on the President's watch, that this is simply
this President that is culpable, but you'd have to ignore the
President's fiscal issues that he's had over the past 4 years to think
that he didn't have a hand in this.
On taking office, President Obama promised to cut the deficit in
half. Madam Chair, the deficit, when the President entered office, was
$458 billion. We all know that the deficit last year was $1.3
trillion--hardly in half, not even with new math.
Instead, he's presided over four straight trillion-dollar-plus
deficits. Spending is 22 percent higher at the end of this President's
first term than it was when he took office. Under his own budget,
spending will be 40 percent higher at the end of his second term if
Congress were to go along with the proposals he brings forward. And
finally, the President is on track to double the national debt by the
end of his term in office.
Now, my new colleague from California says that all you've got to do
is pass a budget through the Congress and all things will be wonderful,
and the House Republicans have passed a budget. And, Madam Chair, it's
been a budget that has put us on a path to balance, yes, and we'll do
that again this year. But I will remind my colleague that the Senate
hasn't passed a budget in nearly 4 years, which is why 2 weeks ago this
Congress, this House, passed a bill--No Budget, No Pay--where we
finally got the Senate to admit that they hadn't passed a budget. And,
oh, yes, by the way, they'll do one this year. We got their attention.
So, Madam Chair, though well-intentioned, trying to change the
subject and the issue a little bit, this amendment doesn't--doesn't--
assist in getting us to the point where it is the President's
responsibility to tell the American people--in fact, it's only fair for
the President to tell the American people when he brings his budget
forward, when will it balance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, the House Republicans have been more focused
on passing budgets that message well than introducing a budget that
both the House and Senate can agree on. These are budgets that don't
stand a chance of passing the Senate simply because the GOP refuses to
compromise on anything. How many of their budgets end Medicare as we
know it? What makes them think that the
[[Page H384]]
Senate would pass a budget that goes back on the promises we made to
our seniors?
The budgets passed by House Republicans are less valuable than the
paper they're written on. They do not bring both sides together and are
a complete waste of time and the taxpayers' money.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, what time remains for each side,
please?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the vice chair of our conference, the gentlewoman from
Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this
time.
Today, there are still more than 12 million Americans unemployed.
Parents are taking home lower wages to support their children, and
families are paying more for everything from gas to groceries. For
these Americans, the recession never ended.
If government spending was the key to economic growth and job
creation, the economy would be booming right now. But instead, last
week we found out things are getting worse. We all know the problem.
For 4 years we racked up trillion-dollar deficits year after year,
adding another trillion to the national debt. It's not a partisan
issue. We all agree we need to fix it.
Serious problems call for serious discussions, and serious
discussions require everyone to put their plan on the table. We took a
solid step last week by requiring the Senate to pass a budget for the
first time in 4 years, but we must continue moving forward by requiring
not just a budget but a plan that actually fixes the problem.
{time} 1010
We need to pass the Require a PLAN Act so the House, Senate, and even
the White House are all forced to step away from campaign rhetoric and
short-term gimmicks. Unlike the President's previous budget proposals,
the PLAN Act will require the President to finally tell the American
people when and how his budget will achieve balance.
It's time to get serious. Americans deserve better than gimmicks and
campaign rhetoric; they deserve a plan.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I urge a rejection of this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 113-8.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 2(b), add the following:
(6) The President created the National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform chaired by Erskine Bowles and
Senator Alan Simpson, which recommended a balanced package of
revenue and spending reforms to bring down projected deficits
and stabilize the Federal debt as a share of the economy.
(7) These recommendations enjoy wide bipartisan support and
should be considered the basis for meeting the requirements
of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.
I'm very pleased to offer the only real bipartisan amendment to this
bill, and maybe one of the few bipartisan amendments we'll see this
Congress. I hope not.
This is actually an attempt to rectify some of the deficiencies in
the underlying bill. I certainly don't agree with the findings. As has
been pointed out, the lack of a budget at this point in time is because
of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Congress, frankly, is to blame for
that. The President usually starts his budget in November or December,
and that was impossible.
Also, I think there's a little revisionist history regarding the debt
that the President did inherit. Almost one-half to two-thirds of that
$1 trillion he inherited from the previous administration and previous
Congresses.
Nevertheless, we do have a huge debt, and the deficit problem needs
adjusting and addressing. The only bipartisan solution to that has been
put forward by Simpson-Bowles. This has had widespread recognition by
folks here in Congress, folks outside of Congress, businessmen and -
women, as a possible solution to a long-term, unified approach to our
debt and deficit. The tenets of that, of course, deal with the tax
expenditures that we have and the health care costs that are going up.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I want to commend my colleague
from Oregon and the colleagues that came together to submit this
amendment, as I believe it truly to be well-intentioned, but I think it
misses the mark. I think for two reasons, specifically, that it ought
not be adopted by this body.
First, it unnecessarily restricts the ability of the President to
determine how he would balance the budget. Remember, the underlying
bill doesn't tie the President's hands in any way. It simply says to
the President when you submit your budget to Congress, just let us know
when it's going to balance. And if it's not going to balance within the
period of time that's defined by the budget window, then tell us when
it's going to balance, and tell us what you're going to do to make it
come into balance.
And the reason that balance is important, Madam Chair, is not just
because it makes numbers, zero equals zero on a page somewhere. It's
because it's about the economy, to get the economy rolling again and
get jobs being created. That's why it's important.
Secondly, this amendment would have the President build his balanced
budget around a foundation that never balances. A lot of talk about
Simpson-Bowles, and I commend them for the wonderful work that they
did. However, if you get down into the details of that, there are some
things in there that just simply will not work. And the biggest thing
is that it never gets to balance.
So the underlying bill again, Madam Chair, is crafted very carefully
so that it gives the President the greatest amount of flexibility to
propose how he believes the budget ought to be balanced.
And finally, maybe the most important thing about this, the
inadequacy of this amendment, is that the President has already
rejected the findings in the Simpson-Bowles commission. The President's
already rejected it, his own commission; said never mind, that's not
the way I want to do it.
So we would suggest that allowing the President the greatest amount
of flexibility on how he would propose to balance the budget--something
he's never done, but we want to leave him the greatest amount of
flexibility, so we ought to retain the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to my respected colleague
from New York (Mr. Gibson).
Mr. GIBSON. Madam Chair, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Schrader,
for offering this amendment. I rise in support of it.
Madam Chair, we're only about 3 weeks away from the specter of
sequestration, always meant to be a forcing function for us to come
together to get a grand agreement. And what this amendment says is the
President should use the framework, the Simpson-Bowles framework, as a
starting point to get that conversation going.
You know, the President said, when he initiated that fiscal
commission:
For far too long, Washington has avoided the tough choices
necessary to solve our fiscal problems, and they won't be
solved
[[Page H385]]
overnight. But under the leadership of Erskine and Alan, I'm
confident that the Commission I'm establishing today will
build a bipartisan consensus to put America on the path
toward fiscal reform and responsibility.
Madam Chair, last year, Cooper-LaTourette--we offered a bipartisan
budget that was inspired by Simpson-Bowles, although we modified it
some. What I'm asking the President to do is to come forward, to
recognize this commission as a starting point, so that, once again, we
can come together so we can address these unsustainable deficits.
So I'm proud to support this amendment, and ask my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. America is broke. America is in trouble, and the Simpson-
Bowles plan is the only framework out there that truly reforms Social
Security and saves it for our children and grandchildren.
When I go into high schools in my district and I ask the students,
how many of you believe the Social Security system is sound, in the
last 4 years, not one senior has raised their hand. The seniors know
more than the Congress, both the Republican and Democratic Party, and
more than the President.
Just yesterday, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf noted that the number of
seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits will increase
by 40 percent over the next decade. In order to preserve Social
Security and save it for our children, the President should use
Simpson-Bowles as a starting point. He created the commission. It
received bipartisan support, and then he walked away.
Some Members on both sides are afraid of this vote. You know what you
ought to be afraid of? You ought to be afraid of facing your children
and your grandchildren and your constituents when this country goes
bankrupt and goes into decline.
I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and strongly urge a
unanimous ``yes'' vote.
Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Schrader for yielding, and thank the other
cosponsors of this amendment, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Gibson, for their
work.
I continue to believe that the only way to address our Nation's
massive debt, which is crippling our ability to compete, is by adopting
a comprehensive proposal along the lines of the Simpson-Bowles
framework. It would put our Nation on a sustainable path by reducing
deficits by 4 trillion dollars through a mix of spending reductions--
both mandatory and discretionary--and comprehensive, pro-growth reform.
By finding these savings, sequestration wouldn't even be necessary.
This amendment is simple. It adds a finding to this legislation that
the president created the Simpson-Bowles Commission and suggests using
Simpson-Bowles as a starting point, to meet the underlying requirements
of the bill.
Quite honestly, I am disappointed that an amendment is even
necessary. As Alan Greenspan noted in May, ``The worst mistake the
president made was not embracing that vehicle [Simpson-Bowles] right
away.''
I am submitting for the Record letters I sent earlier this week to
both the president and the speaker asking both to embrace bipartisan
efforts to ``turn off'' sequestration. Simpson-Bowles is a valid
approach to deal with this problem, even though the president walked
away from his own commission's hard work.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the
bill.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I want to share the enclosed letter I
sent to President Obama today urging him to immediately send
a written proposal to the Congress to prevent sequestration.
As has been widely reported, sequestration was originally
proposed by the president's chief of staff and Treasury
Secretary nominee, Jack Lew. Unfortunately, the bluntness of
this policy's across-the-board cuts will lead to a hollow
military force and a government unable to nimbly respond to
the needs of its citizens.
Over the past two years, the House Appropriations
Committee, on which I serve, has led the way in reducing
discretionary spending by $98 billion, which will result in
$917 billion in deficit reduction over the next decade. While
these discretionary cuts have made a substantial impact, no
similar reductions in spending have been made to entitlement
programs or tax earmarks and other spending through the tax
code. Unfortunately, the impeding sequestration would just
continue the process of discretionary spending reductions,
which have already been substantially reduced, while
essentially leaving all other spending--the real drivers of
the deficit--on autopilot. This is the area of the budget
that must be reformed in order to preserve and protect them
for future generations. These programs are broke. Everyone is
to blame, and therefore we all need to be part of the
solution. Simply put, if we do nothing, within 25 years,
every Social Security recipient, regardless of age, will face
an across-the-board cut of 25 percent.
That is why I have called on the president to support the
bipartisan Simpson-Bowles proposal, which will ``turn off''
the need for sequestration by finding the necessary spending
reductions. I therefore am offering an amendment with several
of our colleagues to H.R. 444, Require a PLAN Act, which will
be considered on the floor this week. This amendment simply
adds a requirement that the president use this framework when
submitting his budget request. It is disappointing that the
president walked away from his own commission, and
disappointing that he is again late in submitting his budget
request to Congress. That is why, if the president continues
to fail to advocate for this bipartisan solution to avert
sequestration, the House must lead the way by adopting this
amendment.
It is imperative that the Congress find a solution to avert
sequestration before it hits at the end of this month. I ask
for your support for the amendment my colleagues and I will
offer today and for your broader support for the bipartisan
Simpson-Bowles recommendations.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 4, 2013.
Hon. Barack H. Obama,
The President, The White House,
Washington DC.
Dear Mr. President: During your October 23, 2012 debate
with Governor Romney, you forcefully stated that
sequestration ``will not happen.'' Despite your assurance on
national television to the American people, we are now less
than a month away from sequestration and I am deeply
concerned that your administration is failing to exhibit any
urgency in addressing this issue.
Sequestration will lead to a hollow military force and a
government unable to nimbly respond to the needs of its
citizens. I hope that you will not stand by and allow this to
happen. The idea of ``sequestration'' was proposed by your
chief of staff and nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury,
Jack Lew. I write today to ask that you immediately send a
written proposal to the Congress to prevent sequestration.
I am not advocating that spending reductions scheduled for
our discretionary military and non-military accounts simply
be waived--far from it. Our nation is nearly $16.5 trillion
in debt, and, when added to our unfunded obligations and
liabilities, we are facing roughly $71 trillion in future
unsustainable spending commitments. Unless we change course,
every penny collected by the federal government will be
consumed by spending on entitlements and interest on the debt
by 2025. We are spending $4.2 billion each week on interest
payments to finance our debt, and this money is going to
nations such as China, one of our strongest competitors which
is actively spying on both our public and private sectors and
has an abysmal human rights record. Our current path is
simply unsustainable and is not the firm foundation our
children and grandchildren expect and deserve.
I have repeatedly advocated and voted for the only
bipartisan fiscal solution that has been proposed: the
recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which would
have reduced the deficit by more than $4 trillion, with two-
thirds of the savings coming from spending reductions, and
one-third through tax reform. More importantly, it would have
reduced enough spending to completely ``turn off' the need
for the sequestration cuts. While you walked away from this
bipartisan proposal, I was one of 38 bipartisan members of
Congress to vote for it last year.
In addition to voting for bipartisan solutions like the
Simpson-Bowles recommendations, I have worked to make the
difficult but necessary cuts to our nation's discretionary
spending. During the 112th Congress, as chairman of the
Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, I
reduced spending from nearly $64 billion to nearly $52
billion for these agencies, nearly a $12 billion reduction.
The House Appropriations Committee recognized the need to
lead by example and started the process of reducing
unnecessary spending. As subcommittee chairman, I still
managed to continue investing in our nation's critical
counterterrorism and research and development programs. In
fact, I am proud that I was able to make these substantial
cuts while funding the National Science Foundation's basic
research programs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
national security work at all-time high levels. This is the
type of thoughtful and deliberate allocation of resources we
[[Page H386]]
can achieve through a careful process, rather than
sequestration.
But a real fiscal solution cannot be reached by focusing
only on reductions to discretionary spending accounts, which
account for roughly 15 percent of all federal spending. Since
Fiscal Year 2010, Congress has enacted $95 billion in cuts
from discretionary accounts, which has resulted in a 10-year
savings of more than $917 billion.
While these discretionary cuts have made substantial
progress in reducing the deficit, no similar reductions in
spending have been made to entitlement programs or tax
earmarks and other spending through the tax code.
Unfortunately, sequestration would just continue the process
of discretionary spending reductions, which have already been
substantially reduced, while essentially leaving all other
spending--the real drivers of the deficit--on autopilot. This
is the area of the budget that must be reformed in order to
preserve and protect it for future generations. These
programs are broke. Everyone is to blame, and therefore we
all need to be part of the solution. Simply put, if we do
nothing, within 25 years, every Social Security recipient,
regardless of age, will face an across-the-board cut of 25
percent.
Fortunately, there are bipartisan solutions on the table
proposed by your Simpson-Bowles Commission. One of the
commission's suggestions to save Social Security was to
gradually raise the full Social Security retirement age by
one month every two years, to slowly raise the full
retirement age from 67 to 69.
What 50-year-old in McLean wouldn't be willing to work just
one more month to help ensure a sound program for future
generations? And I know a 40-year-old in Winchester is
willing to start planning now so that they can be prepared to
make the commitment to work just six more months. And, since
most 30-year-olds in Clarke County believe Social Security
won't even exist when they're ready for retirement--I know
they'd be willing to work 11 more months to ensure that they
receive benefits. That's the same reason I believe parents in
Manassas will work today to prepare their four-year-olds to
retire at 69, instead of 67.
I have repeatedly advocated for this bipartisan Simpson-
Bowles proposal, despite my misgivings with certain sections,
because I believe it is the only proposal that truly can
receive the bipartisan support and embrace by the American
people. Large proposals of the magnitude that are necessary
to address our debt must be bipartisan in order to receive
support from the American people. For example, consider the
national tone that erupted after your health care reform
was signed into law on a party-line-vote. Imagine how
different the discourse would be if this legislation would
have incorporated minority views.
It has been frustrating that you have never fully embraced
your own commission's recommendations. This commission was
based on legislation introduced by Senators Conrad and Gregg,
that, in turn, was based off of my bipartisan SAFE Commission
Act, which I first introduced in 2006 during the Bush
Administration, and since partnered with Democratic
Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee.
I agree with Alan Greenspan's analysis ``one of the worst
mistakes [you] ever made was not embracing the [Simpson
Bowles] proposal right away.'' Your leadership would have
made a difference. I still believe this proposal is the path
forward. I will still advocate for many of the policies
presented in this document, because it was a comprehensive
approach that recognized that everyone, even the advocates of
``political sacred cows,'' must be asked to contribute to
deficit reduction efforts.
Today, I am offering a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 444,
Require a PLAN Act. This amendment would require you to
incorporate the Simpson Bowles recommendations into your
budget submission to Congress. I am disappointed that this
amendment is even necessary, as I would hope you would have
done this on your own initiative. It is also equally
troubling that, for the fourth time in five years, you have
again failed to meet your statutory deadline for filing your
annual budget request.
The threat of sequestration is already having an impact on
our economy, The economy unexpectedly shrank in the fourth
quarter for the first time since 2009, due in large part to
reductions in federal defense spending. Contractors--not just
the Boeings, Booz Allens and Lockheeds of the world, but the
small, women- and minority-owned subcontractors--are already
feeling the pinch.
In addition, federal agencies are already being forced to
prepare for this uncertainty. For example, temporary workers
are not being rehired, positions sit unfilled and federal
employees face the threat of 22 days of furloughs. That's one
day a week for the remainder of the fiscal year where they
won't get paid.
FBI agents will be pulled out of the field off of active
investigations. According to a recent Washington Post
article, ``New federal grants for medical research are being
postponed, resulting in layoffs now and costly paperwork
later. And military leaders, who are delaying training for
active and reserve forces, are trying to negotiate millions
of dollars in penalties that the Defense Department is
incurring from canceled contracts.''
These are the same federal employees who have already been
asked to contribute $103 billion to the deficit reduction
efforts through your two-year pay freeze and decision to
partially pay for a 10-month extension of a short-sighted
payroll tax holiday by requiring new federal employees, and
those with less than five years of credible experience, to
spend the rest of their careers paying higher pension
contributions.
Today, National Journal Daily reported that it appears that
damning news articles may be the only hope to avert
sequestration. This is not the way a great nation should act.
I am willing to look at all options and find a solution--a
solution that truly deals with entitlements and is a long
term, not piecemeal, approach. Efficient contracts are not
designed to be signed on two-month, six-month, or for that
matter, one-year basis; they are multi-year endeavors.
Under the Constitution, there is only one person who is
elected to serve all of the American people: the president.
Unlike the Congress, which is elected just by one district or
state, your office, as the chief executive, must strive to
represent all Americans, including the parts of the country
that will be devastated by the thoughtless cuts enacted
through sequestration.
Yet over the last month, you have used your ``bully
pulpit'' not to bring the American people and Congressional
leadership together on a sequestration solution, but instead
to start ``national conversations'' about guns and
immigration. While there may be merit to addressing these
issues, the looming sequestration deadline should make
resolving this crisis the most important item on your agenda.
But both your recent actions and your words do not represent
the seriousness of the task at hand.
Mr. President, House Republicans are just a majority of the
minority--we control one half of one of three branches of the
government. Your leadership is needed. I have always strived
to represent my constituents in an honest and open manner.
Let's dispense with the straw man arguments. We all bear
responsibility for the situation before us, and thus must
consider all options, even those that are not ideal. I know
you appreciate the severity of the situation. I'm prepared to
give full consideration should you propose a serious
bipartisan solution.
I suggest you start with the recommendations of your own
Simpson-Bowles Commission, which you have thus far failed to
support. Its time has come and I hope you will embrace its
bipartisan solutions and call on Congress to adopt it.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen.)
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Mr. Schrader, and
his colleagues for offering this amendment.
I support the overall framework of Simpson-Bowles. I've said that
many times. If you look at the balance in Simpson-Bowles between the
cuts and the revenue, it's something, I think, that is the model that
we should be using in this body. And I do want to submit for the Record
an analysis that was done by the Center For Budget Policy Priorities
that shows exactly what that breakdown would be.
I don't support every single recommendation within Simpson-Bowles,
but I think we have an obligation, if we don't like one of their cuts,
to come up with an alternative cut. If we don't like their revenue, we
should come up with alternative revenue.
But what the Simpson-Bowles proposal does is it creates a framework
saying that we need to take a balanced approach to reducing our
deficit.
I was listening to my friend, Mr. Price, explaining his opposition to
this. He didn't want to impose requirements on the President; simply
ask the President to consider these proposals. And as the President
himself has said, he has incorporated many of the proposals from
Simpson-Bowles into his own budget, the ones he submitted last year and
the one that he will submit this year. So I support the framework, not
every recommendation, but the overall framework.
Summary of Updated Bowles-Simpson Estimates
To assess Bowles-Simpson today so that policymakers can
compare it with other plans, one must look at the Bowles-
Simpson savings over 2013-2022, relative to a current policy
baseline. One must also account for the $1.5 trillion in
discretionary spending cuts that policymakers have since
enacted. When that is done, the results show that:
TABLE 1--SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL BOWLES-SIMPSON PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet
Total plan enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten-year cumulative totals in trillions of dollars
Revenue increases-............................ 2.6- 2.6
Program cuts-................................. 2.9- 1.4
[[Page H387]]
Interest savings-............................. 0.8- 0.6
-------------------------
Total deficit reduction-...................... 6.3- 4.6
Ratio, program cuts to revenue increases
Not counting interest-........................ 1.1 to 1.0- 0.5 to 1.0
Counting interest-............................ 1.4 to 1.0- 0.8 to 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Covers 2013 through 2022; excludes Social Security solvency
proposals; measured relative to current policy; may not add due to
rounding.
Over 2013-2022, Bowles-Simpson called for $6.3 trillion in
deficit reduction--$5.5 trillion in policy savings and about
$800 billion in interest savings. (That figure excludes
Bowles-Simpson's Social Security solvency proposals,
consistent with their presentation of the plan's deficit
reduction totals; see the box on page 2.)
The $5.5 trillion in policy savings in the Bowles-Simpson
plan consists of almost $2.9 trillion in program cuts and
almost $2.6 trillion in revenue increases--that is, 53
percent from budget cuts and 47 percent from revenue
increases, or almost a 1-to-1 ratio of program cuts to
revenue increases.
This nearly 1-to-1 ratio does not include the interest
savings. If one counted interest savings as a spending
reduction, the ratio is 59 percent in spending cuts to 41
percent in revenue increases, or a 1.4-to-1 ratio of program
cuts to revenue increases.
Bowles-Simpson was typically described as having a 2-to-1
ratio, but that is because the co-chairs assumed the
expiration of the upper-income tax cuts as part of their
baseline and thus did not count the revenue savings in their
ratio. They also estimated higher interest savings (which
counted under their plan as a spending reduction) than our
analysis does because the interest rates projected at that
time were higher than interest rates now are projected to be.
Of the nearly $2.9 trillion of program cuts in the Bowles-
Simpson plan, about half--or just under $1.5 trillion--have
already been enacted. If one excludes the enacted savings:
TABLE 2--DEFICIT REDUCTION UNDER THE ORIGINAL BOWLES-SIMPSON PLAN
[EXTENDED TO COVER 2013-2022; DOLLARS IN BILLIONS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-yr
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue increases:
Tax reform............................ 20 40 80 90 105 120 150 180 215 250 1,250
Revenue increases built into baseline. 49 62 89 99 110 121 130 138 148 157 1,103
Increase gas tax 15 cents............. 2 7 11 16 18 18 18 18 18 18 144
Chained CPI a: revenue effect......... 2 3 5 7 8 10 11 12 14 16 88
Subtotal.......................... 73 112 185 212 241 269 309 348 395 441 2,585
Mandatory health programs................. 19 31 33 37 43 49 58 65 70 75 480
Other mandatory programs/fees:
Chained CPI a......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 55
Other mandatory programs/fees......... 10 13 18 22 25 29 32 36 38 40 263
Subtotal.......................... 11 15 21 26 30 35 39 44 47 50 318
Appropriated (discretionary) programs:
Security.............................. 61 86 101 117 133 148 163 178 193 208 1,386
Non-Security.......................... 27 36 48 57 65 73 81 90 98 107 682
Subtotal.......................... 88 122 148 174 197 221 244 267 291 316 2,068
Total deficit reduction policies:
Revenue increases..................... 73 112 185 212 241 269 309 348 395 441 2,585
Program reductions.................... 118 168 203 237 270 305 341 376 408 441 2,866
TOTAL............................. 191 280 388 448 511 574 650 725 803 882 5,450
Resulting reductions in interest costs.... 1 3 6 17 38 72 107 144 187 234 807
Total: policies and interest 191 283 394 466 549 645 756 869 989 1,116 6,257
savings..........................
Addendum: Social Security solvency:
Increase the ``taxable maximum''...... 5 8 12 15 19 22 26 30 35 40 212
Chained CPl a......................... 3 5 8 10 12 15 17 19 22 25 136
Benefit improvements.................. 0 0 0 0 0 -5 -6 -5 -4 -3 -34
Subtotal.......................... 8 13 20 25 31 32 37 44 53 62 325
Resulting reductions in interest costs 0 0 0 I 2 4 6 8 11 14 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May not add due to rounding. Sources: Moment of Truth Project, Updated Estimates of the Fiscal Commissions Proposal, June 29, 2011; author's extension
for 2022; adjustments for current policy revenue baseline and CBO's 2010 discretionary baseline based on data from CBO and the Joint Committee on
Taxation.
a The "chained CPI" refers to a proposal to alter the way the Consumer Price Index is measured; a number of analysts believe the proposal would measure
inflation more accurately, slightly reducing the measure. Because the tax code, Social Security, and some other federal programs such as Supplemental
Security Income are indexed to the CPI, the proposal would cut spending and raise revenues.
The Bowles-Simpson plan would achieve an additional $4.6
trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. (This doesn't
include the small savings in the first ten years from the
plan's Social Security proposals.)
The majority of the remaining savings in the plan is on the
revenue side: for every $0.54 of additional spending cuts,
there would be $1.00 in new revenue under the Bowles-Simpson
plan (or 35 percent budget cuts and 65 percent revenue
increases), excluding interest savings.
If one counts interest savings as a spending reduction,
then the ratio of the remaining savings would be 43 percent
program reductions and 57 percent revenue increases, or $0.76
of spending cuts for each $1.00 of revenue raisers.
The figures in this summary are shown in Table 1.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, again, I think the intention of
the amendment is sound. However, it's important to appreciate that the
Simpson-Bowles approach fails to address the primary driver of
spending, and that's health care. And maybe that was why the President
rejected it. I don't know.
{time} 1020
But the fact of the matter is that the Simpson-Bowles approach leaves
in place the President's health care law with its $1.7 trillion in
higher spending, soon to be over $2 trillion, and its trillion-plus
dollars higher taxes. So I think this amendment, again, ties the
President unnecessarily and that it's a step in the wrong direction. I
would urge its defeat.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the discussion here. I hope that America would know this
is a bipartisan amendment. America should be pleased that some
Republicans and some Democrats are coming together to solve our
country's problems.
The good chairman from Georgia is unfortunately misinformed regarding
Simpson-Bowles. It did include, of course, a great deal of discussion
on health care and health care costs. The ACA, contrary to some
misconceptions, actually saved over $700 billion in taxpayer money over
the long haul.
I think at this point in time, the President, whose own debt
commission was Simpson-Bowles, would be pleased to have a little
direction from the ultimate appropriating budget body, which is
Congress, not the President. Give him some direction; enable his
commission to guide us with that bipartisan balanced approach,
including revenues, including through tax reform, making sure that our
health care and safety net is there for our kids and grandkids, as the
gentleman from Virginia talked about.
This is a very important point in this Congress' deliberations. We
have to come together. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I commend the gentleman once
again, but I would point out that there's nothing in the underlying
bill that precludes the President from using this as a model if that is
what he so desires. But there isn't any reason why we ought to
constrain the President to hopefully bring to this Congress a budget
that, for the first time in this administration, actually gets to
balance. That's what the underlying bill is all about. Mr. President,
bring us a budget. Just tell us when it balances, because, oh, by the
way, the last four budgets that you submitted have never gotten to
balance.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H388]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Fleming
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 113-8.
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Section 3(b)(3) is amended by inserting after ``result''
the following: ``(including an evaluation of duplicative
agency functions and agency effectiveness, and proposals for
consolidating duplicative functions and programs between
agencies in the interests of cost-savings)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
H.R. 444, the PLAN Act, introduced by my colleague, Dr. Tom Price.
Dr. Price's bill is straightforward: if the President's budget
doesn't balance, tell us when it will and what policies he will use to
get us there.
My amendment adds a requirement that the President's supplemental
budget, as required by the PLAN Act, must include proposals to
consolidate duplicative agency functions and programs.
Here's the good news: Reducing duplication in government is low-
hanging fruit. There's bipartisan agreement on this. Even the President
in his State of the Union address in 2011 talked about the desire to
consolidate the different agencies that oversee salmon.
Now, it's true that the President does submit a document as part of
the budget, called, Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings; but in last
year's budget, these savings only amounted to $24 billion, a tiny
percentage, 2.2 percent, of our annual trillion-dollar shortfall. That
is woefully inadequate.
My amendment would require the President to go back to the drawing
board within the context of the PLAN Act, which asks the President to
tell us when his budget will balance and how he will get us there.
We are now in receipt of two reports from the GAO that identify
opportunities to reduce duplication and overlap in government programs,
and we anticipate the third annual report to be released in just a few
weeks. The first report identified 81 areas of duplication, and the
executive branch and Congress responded with only limited action on
many of those areas. The second report identified an additional 51
areas.
In addition, Senator Tom Coburn has produced a helpful report that
points out some very obvious ways we could consolidate government
programs and reduce government spending.
Suggestions from both of these sources should be added to the
President's proposals for cuts. Surely, we can come to some bipartisan
agreement about cutting government programs that are duplicative,
obsolete, or wasteful aspects.
Sometimes the cause of this is special interests: businesses or
industry groups that are arguing for a particular program that benefits
them, or a geographic area that benefits from a program that others
can't take advantage of, or a group that is adept at leveraging
identity politics to protect special preferences. Other times, Congress
is its own worst enemy, bickering over jurisdiction and bringing
goodies back home.
Regardless of where the problem is, we need to fix it. This is a
start in the process, but unfortunately we can't actually force
consolidations in this bill. I will be introducing legislation in the
coming weeks to do just that: force the elimination or consolidation of
duplicative agencies through a BRAC-like process that is fair and
bipartisan.
The Realign and Eliminate Duplicative Unnecessary Costly Excess in
Government Act, otherwise known as the REDUCE Government Act for short,
creates a six-member, evenly split bipartisan commission selected by
the congressional leadership and the President. The commission will use
resources from GAO and standard program evaluation tools to come up
with a list of duplicative, ineffective, and wasteful programs and a
plan to consolidate or eliminate those programs. After submitting a
list to the President, Congress will have 45 days to pass a resolution
of disapproval. After that, the consolidation goes into effect.
This process mirrors the highly successful, nonpolitical Base
Realignment and Closure process, otherwise known as BRAC, used to take
politics out of the highly sensitive and politically charged military
basing process. With clear, transparent criteria, a nonpartisan agenda,
and a streamlined process for action, the BRAC Commission has been able
to do what Congress or the President has never been able to do before.
Clearly, with our spending problem, we need a mechanism like this to
set in motion the reduction in the growth of government.
In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and
allow it to be debated in the full House. While I would hope the
President would do this, we can't leave it to chance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time
in opposition, even though I will not ultimately oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I support this amendment because this
is something we all want to see happen and which the President himself
has indicated he wants to see happen. In the last fiscal year budget,
in fact, the President, through OMB, the Office of Management and
Budget, submitted something called Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings to
be considered by the Congress and the executive branch; and he also
asked that legislation be submitted on his behalf to help give him more
authority to reorganize some of these government agencies, which was
introduced during the last Congress by Mr. Barrow, who may well intend
to reintroduce that.
Madam Chairman, these are things I think we all would like to see,
greater efficiencies that help save money in a smart way. The President
has indicated not only his intention but specific proposals to do so,
and so we do not object. In fact, I support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1030
Mr. FLEMING. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for agreeing
with what is really common sense. We all, I think, want to squeeze out
waste in government and certainly take away the duplication that's
behind much of it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Messer
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 113-8.
Mr. MESSER. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 3(b), strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(3), strike the period at the end of paragraph (4) and insert
``; and'', and add at the end the following:
(5) an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the annual
deficit for each year in which the supplemental unified
budget is projected to result in a deficit.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MESSER. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Require a
PLAN Act because the American people deserve to know when or whether
the budget proposed by the President would achieve balance and what
policies are being pursued to require the Federal Government to live
within its means.
My amendment today is based on a very simple principle--that each
hardworking American taxpayer deserves to know how much the deficit
costs
[[Page H389]]
them every year. To achieve this goal, the amendment very simply will
require the supplemental unified budget called for in the underlying
bill to include the cost per taxpayer of the annual deficit for each
year that budget is projected in deficit. This requirement would be a
powerful reminder to the President and Congress that our decisions have
real world consequences for hardworking taxpayers.
We've all heard the question asked, how much is a trillion dollars?
It's very difficult to quantify. It's very difficult to bring it into a
real world context. What this bill will do is allow us to do that for
taxpayers.
Our constituents might be surprised by what they learn. According to
the Internal Revenue Service, there were about 145 million tax-paying
Americans last year. With a trillion-dollar budget deficit that we've
had in recent years, that would calculate out to about $6,896 per year
per taxpayer to cover our existing deficit. The total tab for the past
4 years of $1 trillion each year would be about $27,500 a year. Back in
the Sixth District of Indiana where I come from, that is a lot of
money. I think we owe it to the taxpayers to let them know what we're
doing here in Washington.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time
in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think it is very useful to let everybody in the
country know exactly what the debt and deficit will be on a per capita
basis. We in Congress of course can do the math. I think it's no
problem asking the President to run that calculation as well.
Again, I want to emphasize the fact that there's agreement on
reducing the deficit; the real differences here are over how we do it.
But regardless of how you want to do it, I think the gentleman has
offered a useful amendment. The more information for the American
people, the better, and we will not object and in fact support the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MESSER. I yield 1 minute to my good friend and classmate, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this
amendment because in the 60 seconds that I speak before this body, the
Federal Government will spend $7 million. Madam Chair, in the 60
seconds I speak before this body, the Federal Government will borrow $3
million.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment because in
Washington political will has replaced principled leadership, and our
economy is paying the price.
These discussions over spending cuts and fiscal priorities can be
difficult. Telling the President that he has failed to lead can make my
friends on the other side of the aisle uncomfortable, but we cannot let
the emotion of the moment override the honesty of the moment.
Sustainable debt is a myth. The number of people in Federal programs
has grown faster than the U.S. population, and continuing to grow our
Federal debt is like driving with the emergency brake on--it will not
get us where we want to go and do significant damage in the process.
The more government borrows, the more interest it pays. Last year,
the U.S. spent $220 billion in net interest on its debt, and this
number will only continue to grow unless serious reforms are made.
This is a commonsense amendment that our constituents deserve to see
passed. This amendment forces Washington to confront the very same
reality that American taxpayers face every day: you cannot spend more
than you earn. I support this amendment and the underlying bill, and
thank the gentleman from Indiana and my colleague from Georgia for
their leadership.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MESSER. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his
statement in support of the bill. It's a commonsense provision, and I
appreciate your support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Scalise
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 113-8.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Section 3(b) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting ``; and''
at the end of paragraph (4), and by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
(5) under a separate heading entitled ``Direct Spending'',
which shall include a category for ``Means-Tested Direct
Spending'' and a category for ``Nonmeans-Tested Direct
Spending'' and sets forth--
(A) the average rate of growth for each category in the
total amount of outlays during the 10-year period preceding
the budget year;
(B) information on the budget proposals for reform of such
programs;
(C) a description of programs which shall be considered
means-tested direct spending and nonmeans-tested direct
spending for purposes of this paragraph; and
(D) an annual estimate of the total amount of outlays for
each such program for the period covered by the budget
proposal.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring forward just
puts some additional transparency into a piece of legislation that I
strongly support that just requires the President to lay out a detailed
plan of how his budget would balance.
What this amendment would do would be to specifically carve out
direct spending. Direct spending, Madam Chair, represents more than 60
percent of all Federal expenditures. So more than 60 percent of our
budget is direct spending, both means tested and non-means tested. All
we ask for with this amendment is the transparency that as that
supplemental budget is produced, that it also breaks out how means-
tested spending and non-means-tested spending, number one, was averaged
over the prior 10 years, but also, in this supplemental budget the
President would lay out, what would happen to those direct spending
programs over the course of the period that the President would lay out
in that supplemental budget.
One other thing it does is it makes sure that if there are any
reforms, just like in the House budget, if we lay out any reforms,
those would have to be spelled out in the language of this amendment.
So if any reforms to direct spending would be included in the
President's supplemental budget, that those reforms would have to be
spelled out in an actual text of that document.
This is something we already included in the House rules package.
It's part of the House rules when a House budget is presented, so we
felt like the American people deserve this kind of transparency,
especially when you're talking about more than 60 percent of the
budget. Let's just make sure it's laid out.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time
in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Again, what this amendment does is ask the President,
when he submits the budget, to provide certain information about
mandatory spending and means-tested spending. In fact, the President
already does this in his budget. I have in my hand, in fact, the budget
for fiscal year 2013--that's the current fiscal year that we're in
now--historical tables that were submitted by the President as part of
that budget submission. The categories include mandatory spending, and
within mandatory spending they break it down: Social Security deposit
insurance, means-tested entitlements, and others. So this is
information that the President already provides as part of the budget
process. I'm happy to support him continuing to do that.
[[Page H390]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the author of the underlying
bill.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend my colleague from Louisiana
and the chair of the Republican Study Committee for bringing forth this
amendment and supporting the underlying bill.
The amendment, as the gentleman from Maryland said, simply provides
greater information, more transparency, more information from the
President in his budget on the differences between the mandatory and
the means-tested in the discretionary side of the budget.
It also, I think, is so important for the American people to gain as
much information as possible as we move through this national debate,
the national debate of whether or not it is appropriate for the
President to bring a budget to Congress that in the past 4 years has
never balanced.
The underlying bill, again, urges the President to bring a budget to
the Congress that gets to balance and let's the American people know
when it does. So I want to commend my colleague from Louisiana for his
amendment and urge adoption of the amendment and the underlying bill.
{time} 1040
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, if I may inquire, how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 4\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SCALISE. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Radel).
Mr. RADEL. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his
hard work.
I would like to take a moment to speak, in fact, in support of the
Scalise amendment. In doing so, there's a much bigger picture here, a
bigger picture that, quite frankly, isn't even being talked about when
it comes to the challenges our country faces today. Our problems go
beyond Republican and beyond Democrat. Our problems are numbers, debt
and deficits that we cannot even begin to wrap our arms around.
So what we must do as a country and beyond party lines is work
together as Americans. Today I ask for your support of this amendment
to demand accountability and transparency from Washington,
accountability when it comes to your money--not tax dollars, not
stimulus dollars--your money.
We often hear from the President that we cannot cut, cut, cut, and I
agree. This is not about cutting. This is about saving. This is about
saving Social Security, saving Medicare, saving our economy and
ultimately our government. In the big picture, we must demand that we,
as elected officials and servants of the people, are held accountable.
Both the Scalise amendment and the Require a PLAN Act do just that.
Mr. SCALISE. At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the Republican whip from Kendall, California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the amendment. This amendment will help bring
transparency and accountability back to the budget process, something
that has been sorely lacking under this President.
Let's just look at the facts:
The last budgets from this President that were voted on have not
received one vote in support from the House or the Senate--that's on
the Democrat side nor the Republican side;
Every year this President has been in office, he's had deficits of $1
trillion, adding $6 trillion to the debt;
Out of the last five budgets, four of them have been late;
The President has never submitted a budget to this House or the other
that balances.
That is a record of failure that is distressing to this House and to
the American people. We deserve better.
It's unfortunate that this House has to pass bills to get responsible
budgeting. That's why I support this amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I'm prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, I will not use all the time. As I
said, what this amendment requests is information that, in fact, the
President already provides as part of the budget submission. I
indicated I have in my hand that information from the last fiscal
year's budget. I do think that in pursuit of transparency it's
important to point out that when the President was first sworn in his
first term, before he put his hand on the Bible, he faced a projected
deficit of well over $1 trillion--a record deficit at that time.
As we saw from the Congressional Budget Office in their report just
the other day, that deficit is now coming down. As the economy has
improved and as the President's policies have begun to take shape, that
deficit is on its way down. Is it far enough down? No. And there's a
legitimate debate as to the best way to get there, but as part of that
debate, certainly the more information, the better. And as I indicated,
this information that is being requested is, in fact, already provided
to the Congress. So we will not oppose it. In fact, I would support the
amendment.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of this amendment.
As our ranking member has said, this information is already provided.
But I also rise in support of the Simpson-Bowles proposal. I voted for
it on the floor of the House, one of only three dozen who support it,
but hopefully many more will support it.
We need to get our fiscal house in order. The majority party has this
kind of selective amnesia, however, about this. When the President was
sworn in, we were $11 trillion in debt at that moment. We had a $1
trillion deficit for that fiscal year the day he was sworn in. Your
party seems to run away from any responsibility for this.
And then you passed a budget the last couple years that doesn't
balance until 40 years from now, and now this rush to the floor that we
must have balance, we must have transparency. But that's okay. Whatever
brings you to the party. It's like in my church. If you come and you
find a belief, a shared belief that a fellowship of faith has, that's
great.
So if you're joining this party that we want to get our fiscal house
in order and that deficits do matter and that the debt matters, then we
welcome that. If this is a political charade, then you should be
concerned about your credibility.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, clearly, if you look at what happened, we
don't have the numbers from the President because he missed his
statutory deadline, so we're hoping that he at least puts forth a
budget. It would be ideal if he puts forth a budget that shows balance
in some period of time, as we've done; but at the same time, we also
expect transparency so that the American taxpayers can see where more
than 60 percent of the budget is spent.
So I urge adoption of this amendment and the underlying bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Collins of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Acting
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.
____________________