[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 31 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H958-H965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE COST PER TAXPAYER 
                             OF THE DEFICIT

  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 668) to amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
Code, to require that annual budget submissions of the President to 
Congress provide an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 668

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

     SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO 
                   THE COST PER TAXPAYER OF THE DEFICIT.

       Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) redesignating paragraph (37) (relating to the list of 
     outdated or duplicative plans and reports) as paragraph (39); 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H959]]

       ``(40) in the case of a fiscal year in which the budget is 
     projected to result in a deficit, an estimate of the pro rata 
     cost of such deficit for taxpayers who will file individual 
     income tax returns for taxable years ending during such 
     fiscal year.''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 668, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to thank Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and 
Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen for allowing the House to consider this 
measure, which will require the President's annual budget submission to 
Congress to include the cost per taxpayer of the deficit for each year 
the budget is projected to result in a deficit.
  This bill is based on one simple principle: that each hardworking 
American taxpayer deserves to know how much the deficit costs them each 
year. This requirement would be a powerful reminder to the President 
and Congress that our decisions have real-world consequences for 
hardworking taxpayers.
  It's long past time to hold Washington accountable for its wasteful 
spending. The massive national debt has ballooned to an unsustainable 
level because Washington has refused to make tough choices, instead, 
simply spending money we don't have and ignoring the explosive growth 
of entitlements. This abdication of responsibility is delaying the 
inevitable until there may not be any good choices left.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As one of the earlier speakers said during the 1 minutes, this bill 
simply requires a math calculation, and we have absolutely no objection 
to doing that. As the gentleman may know, about a month ago we passed 
an amendment that did virtually the same thing.
  I do wonder why it is we think the President is better with a 
calculator than Congress. Because what this does require simply is that 
you take the deficit and you divide it by the number of taxpayers. But 
we're certainly fine to have transparency and have the President put 
that in his budget as part of his submission as well.
  Our concern is that this really doesn't address the fundamental 
question that we're facing here in the Congress: number one, making 
sure we get the economy kicked into full gear, and jobs; and, number 
two, reducing the deficit in a smart and balanced way over a period of 
time so that we're not balancing the budget on the backs of our 
seniors, that we're not violating commitments we've made to our 
seniors, that we're not cutting into education funding for our kids--
which is important to making sure that the economy grows and that they 
have opportunities in their lives--and that we do that in a smart way 
that doesn't, in the process, result in fewer American jobs.
  So the real number we should be focused on here today is 750,000, 
because 750,000 is the number of jobs that the independent, nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office says will be lost so long as the sequester 
that began March 1 remains in place through the end of this year.
  So let me say that again. So long as the sequester that started on 
March 1 remains in place through the end of the calendar year, the 
independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that we will 
have 750,000 fewer American jobs. That's not President Obama's number; 
it's not my number; it's an independent number.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, was on the Hill 
testifying just last week and made similar predictions. They have 
both--both the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, as well 
as the Congressional Budget Office--said that our economic growth 
between now and the end of the year will be reduced by a full one-third 
if the sequester remains in place. So that's what this House should be 
doing.
  Today, a little later today, for the fourth time this year--for the 
fourth time this year, Mr. Speaker--I will go, on behalf of my 
colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, to the Rules Committee and ask for 
the opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation that would replace 
that sequester in a smart and balanced way and in a way that doesn't 
result in 750,000 fewer American jobs.

                              {time}  1240

  Now, you would think our colleagues would want to vote on something 
like that instead of voting on a bill that just requires a math 
calculation--which is fine--but it doesn't do anything about jobs, and 
it doesn't actually do anything to reduce the deficit. But we've not 
been given that opportunity.
  So I would just ask my colleagues: Why is it so important to bring a 
bill to the floor that asks the President to do another math 
calculation--which we all can support--and not bring to the floor of 
the House a bill that actually would prevent the loss of 750,000 jobs 
and present a balanced plan to reducing the deficit in a way that 
doesn't harm the economy?
  That really is the question here today, Mr. Speaker, and maybe at 
some point we'll get an answer. And maybe this House will live up to 
its promise of being the people's House and a transparent House, and 
we'll actually get a vote on our fourth request. I'm not holding my 
breath, but it would be nice if those commitments would be kept, as 
well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Representative Van Hollen and 
his comments. As he well knows, this Chamber has twice considered 
sequester replacement bills put forward by the House Republican 
leadership, voted on and passed out of this Chamber.
  The alternatives are clear. I appreciate his recognition that this 
simple little calculation, while admittedly not going to change the 
planet Earth, it is important in providing budget transparency and 
helping the American taxpayer understand how much money we're spending 
here.
  We often hear, as you're out in townhall meetings, How much is $1 
trillion? And what this bill simply shows is that if you take $1 
trillion, if that's the deficit in a given year, and divide it by 145 
million taxpayers we have, it adds up to about $6,800 per taxpayer that 
we are adding to our debt every year.
  Back where I come from in Indiana's Sixth Congressional District, 
that's a lot of money. He cited the number 750,000, and I would concede 
that $85 billion is a lot of money; but it represents about 2 percent 
of what we spend as a Nation every year in our $3.6 billion budget.
  I came to the House floor yesterday and held up two pennies 
representing the two cents--the two percent--the two cents out of every 
dollar that we're asking Congress to trim out of our Federal budget. 
Does anybody in America really believe that our Federal Government is 
so efficient and so effective that we can't afford to trim two cents 
out of every dollar?
  Now, clearly, we can do this in a more sensible way. I know of no one 
in either Chamber who is not arguing that we ought to find a more 
sensible way to bring these reductions forward, but bring them forward 
we must.
  Now, with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Right now, as we stand here, the national debt in this country stands 
over $16 trillion, and one-third of that was rung up just during this 
President Obama's administration. And some outside expert says, what 
does that translate to you and me? Well, the average taxpayer may be in 
debt of $111,000 to the U.S. Government because of that.
  On top of that, do you know that this is the fourth time that this 
White

[[Page H960]]

House, that this President, has failed to follow the law and to submit 
a budget to the House on time? But when he finally does, I really do 
hope that this budget differs from his other ones which were riddled 
with red ink and absolutely had no intent to balance, not in 5 years, 
10 years, or 15 years. They never balanced. In short, his budgets have 
been an economic disaster. Maybe that's why there has been bipartisan 
opposition to these budgets.
  In the Senate, which is Democratically controlled, he got absolutely 
zero support for his budgets in the past. So it's high time that this 
President gets serious about the deficits, acknowledges that frivolous 
spending is part of the problem, and addresses the issues with 
appropriate budgets.
  I support this legislation before us.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The floor manager mentioned that two times our Republican colleagues 
had put forth an alternative to the sequester. I know the gentleman 
knows well that we're in a new Congress, and starting in January, all 
the bills that were put forward in the last Congress were wiped off the 
books. They don't have any meaning at this point in time. And this 
year, since we've been in a new Congress, since the election, the 
number of times our Republican colleagues have put forth a proposal to 
prevent that sequester to replace it is zero--zero times in this 
Congress--when it could actually make a difference. Yet, today, for the 
fourth time, we're going to go and ask for a vote on our proposal.
  Now, we're not asking our colleagues to vote for a proposal, although 
I think that public surveys show the overwhelming majority of the 
American people would think that our alternative to replacing the 
sequester is a lot better than the sequester. We're not even asking our 
colleagues to vote for it. We're just asking for a vote on it. Let's 
let the people's House do its work.
  Now, we talked about the deficit. There's no argument about the need 
to reduce our deficits. We just need to do it in a smart way and in a 
way that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't cost jobs; and our 
proposal does have a balanced way. It combines additional, targeted 
cuts over a period of time with cutting tax loopholes that are in the 
Tax Code over a period of time.
  Our Republican colleagues keep talking about how bad the deficit is. 
We say we agree with you on that, but it apparently isn't bad enough 
that you would close one single tax loophole in order to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, that Grover Norquist pledge that's been signed by 
over 90 percent of our House colleagues says that you promise not to 
close a single tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. 
You can't get rid of a tax break for corporate jets. You can't get rid 
of the special treatment of hedge fund managers under the Tax Code if 
it's part of an effort to reduce the deficit. How is that serious 
deficit reduction?
  So what we've said is we need to do both. We need to eliminate a lot 
of those tax preferences and tax breaks for big oil companies and 
others; and we also need to make sensible, targeted cuts in other areas 
and reduce the deficit in a smart way. The alternative plan that we 
have proposed that we're asking for a vote on would accomplish the same 
amount of deficit reduction as the sequester through this calendar 
year, but do it in a way that does not cost 750,000 American jobs, 
because we don't do it so deeply, so quickly.
  That's the difference, and that's why bipartisan commissions have 
recommended the balanced approach to reducing the deficit. So, again, 
the numbers for this year, which is the only thing that's relevant in 
terms of congressional action, is that there has been zero effort, zero 
times that our colleagues have brought to the floor a proposal to 
replace sequester. We're now asking our fourth time this afternoon 
simply to have a vote.
  I hope that we can finally get one, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to speak in support of Congressman Messer's bill, H.R. 
668. This requirement would be a powerful reminder to the President and 
Congress on how the decisions regarding our government's spending 
impact the constituents that we serve.
  Despite the fact that on the President's watch we have had 4 straight 
years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion and we still have nearly 23 
million Americans who are struggling to find work, the President 
continues to champion more and more deficit spending as a cure to what 
ails our struggling economy.
  But spending money we do not have is not an investment. It's a 
liability that limits the potential and the freedom of the American 
people and future generations. Every man, woman, and child in America 
currently owes $52,000 as their share of the national debt. It's time 
that the President and Congress level with the public about the burden 
of debt that's being placed on the American taxpayer each and every 
year.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important 
legislation offered by my good friend from Indiana.
  For more than 2 years now, my colleagues and I have led a family 
discussion across this country about our debt and deficits. Our current 
national debt stands at over $16.5 trillion and increases by $4 billion 
per day. We have $100 trillion, Mr. Speaker, in unfunded promises 
coming down the pike.
  What many Americans, including some Members of this distinguished 
body, fail to understand is that these numbers have consequences. Our 
debt and deficits are not simply a series of numbers. They are a 
reflection of our morality as a people. And what our debt and deficits 
reveal is that, for the first time in the history of our country, this 
generation is preparing to leave the next worse off.

                              {time}  1250

  I always seem to be able to talk about, at least on one side of this 
body, how many times something was introduced last year versus this 
year, and somehow expecting a difference. Einstein had something to say 
about repeating something and expecting a different result.
  Would anyone in this room be able to stand here and argue that this 
choice, leaving the next generation worse off, is morally correct? Of 
course not. The out-of-control spending coming from Washington will 
have a devastating impact on future generations, our children and 
grandchildren.
  I recently received a letter from a Boy Scout in my district by the 
name of Michael Krane, who said he is ``concerned and disappointed in 
the job Congress has been doing in the handling of the budget.'' 
Unfortunately, Michael does not have a voice in this conversation. He 
is too young to vote. And, of course, his children that he will one day 
have have no voice, yet they will be paying this bill.
  That is why I support Luke Messer's bill, to continue this 
conversation with the American people by simply saying, to those of us 
who are taxpayers, what we bear in terms of the cost for the government 
that we now have, as inefficient and ineffective as it is.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I pointed out earlier, but I think it bears emphasis, about 1 
month ago we passed a virtually identical provision. So why are we back 
here on the floor of this House, again without opposition? I think 
everybody in this House voted to do this calculation and have it put on 
the books. So why we are here one month later when the sequester just 
kicked in, doing something that we already did, rather than focusing on 
the issue at hand, I think is a mystery to the American people. Folks 
who just read from letters they got and from constituents, I think 
those constituents are going to be asking, why are you doing now what 
you did 30 days ago when we have got all these other burning issues on 
our plate right now, and at a time when we are asking for a vote on a 
plan to replace the sequester in a balanced way for the fourth time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished

[[Page H961]]

gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, talking about burning issues, I don't know of anything 
that is more pressing than dealing with this Nation's debt. You can go 
back through the pages and look at what Admiral Mullen had to say on 
July 6, 2010:

       The greatest threat to our Nation's security is our 
     Nation's debt.

  That is the reason we are here. We are not here for ourselves. We are 
here for our children and our grandchildren, and making certain that 
the America that they have, the future that they have, hope and 
opportunity that they have, is going to be greater than anything that 
we ever possibly could have imagined for ourselves.
  Isn't that what preserving freedom for prosperity is all about? It is 
about making certain that we hand over freedom in good shape for 
another generation.
  I will tell you, if you are looking at the debt clock, it's a pretty 
telling story--over $16.5 trillion. And yesterday, the per citizen 
share of that debt was $52,818. The per taxpayer share was $147,238.
  I know there are some in this body who would like to turn the debt 
clocks off in the hearing rooms. They just want to ignore it, and 
supposedly it would go away and we wouldn't have to talk about it. We 
could just pretend that we do not have a spending problem in 
Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not reality. That is being completely divorced 
from reality. In order to defeat a problem, you have to admit that 
there is a problem. There is a problem with spending in Washington. 
There is a problem with our Nation's debt.
  I support the good work that has been done by my friend from Indiana 
and encourage all to vote for H.R. 668.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Listening to this debate on the floor you might think that this bill 
did something to reduce the deficit and the debt. Just in case anyone 
is confused, it does nothing to reduce the deficit and debt. It does 
ask for a calculation, which we agree with.
  In fact, the gentlelady just did the calculation herself, which begs 
the question why you need to go through a bill to get somebody to do 
the calculation. In fact, this calculation changes, because as the 
gentleman and all of us have said, the deficit goes up. That number 
changes every day, and so you have got to do it every day.
  The point is, we passed this a month ago. There is no objection to 
doing a calculation. But this bill does nothing, nothing to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, it is running up the deficit as we spend time, 
taxpayer time, right here on the floor of the House while we continue 
to ask for a vote, up or down vote, on our plan to replace the 
sequester so that we don't lose 750,000 American jobs.
  Today will be the fourth time we have asked for this. Our Republican 
colleagues have not taken any action in this Congress, not one step, 
nothing, to replace the sequester.
  That is what we should be dealing with. Not a bill that we passed a 
month ago, not a bill that the gentlelady did a calculation on the 
floor to achieve the result. Let's focus on jobs and reducing the 
deficit in a smart way, by targeting spending cuts in a smart way, but 
also getting rid of all those tax breaks that our colleagues seem so 
wedded to keeping in place.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for giving me this 
opportunity to support his proposal, the Chris Van Hollen proposal, as 
our ranking member on the Budget Committee, a proposal that is fair, 
responsible, and balanced.

  Mr. Van Hollen has put forth an initiative that cuts spending 
responsibly, ends unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks for special 
interests, and advances the Buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires 
pay their fair share.
  I think it is really important to note, as he did, that this will be 
yet another time we are coming to the floor asking for the Republican 
leadership to allow a vote in what they boast of as an open Congress, 
open to other ideas, that has blocked over and over again the mere 
consideration of Mr. Van Hollen's proposal on the floor.
  Instead, today, we are engaged in subterfuge. What can we do instead 
of doing what we really need to do and make it look as if we are doing 
something responsible? Yes, okay, let's get the calculation. But let's 
reduce that deficit. Let's reduce that deficit.
  And it is important to note that this debate happens in a week that 
we will be taking up the continuing resolution. It has been 4 days 
since the sequester went into effect. The continuing resolution that 
the Republicans are putting forth is a bill that reinforces the 
sequestration.
  So what does that do? The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, 
told Congress last week that cuts of this size, made this quickly, 
would hurt hiring and incomes, slow the recovery, cost the economy 
750,000 jobs this year, and keep deficits larger than otherwise.
  So we are not reducing the deficit by what is really happening on the 
major legislation coming to this floor last week and this week in terms 
of sequester and continuing resolution. That is what we should be 
doing--figuring out a way to get rid of the sequestration.
  What does sequestration mean? Whatever its Latin roots, it equals job 
loss--750,000 by the estimate of the chairman of the Fed.
  And what is the point of all of this? There is an answer. We already 
have agreed in the continuing resolution--the President and the 
Congress have agreed to $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. We all 
recognize we must reduce the deficit. We have all agreed to spending 
cuts of that magnitude. That was in addition to $400 billion of other 
spending cuts in the last term of Congress. So $1.6 trillion in 
spending cuts, which dwarfs the $600 billion, as significant as that 
is, in the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of last year.

                              {time}  1300

  But we need more revenue, and there is a place to get it.
  Our distinguished Speaker said there is $100 billion in tax loopholes 
that could be closed. I think there is more than that, but many of the 
deductions that we would want people to take to strengthen the middle 
class I think we should separate out from what the Republicans want to 
do. The Republicans in Congress are protecting tax loopholes and 
wasteful spending in the Tax Code, which increases the deficit instead 
of solving problems.
  Instead of closing tax loopholes for Big Oil, the Republicans want 
cuts for little children in Head Start--Big Oil over little children. 
Instead of closing tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs 
overseas, 750,000 jobs will be lost here because of the sequester and 
the continuing resolution that contains the sequester, which is a fix 
that we're in because of the refusal of the Republican leadership to 
close those loopholes. Instead of ensuring millionaires pay their fair 
share, our military readiness will be impaired. We have kids who won't 
get the proper training when they're put into harm's way unless the 
Defense Department can reprogram the money; and health care for 
America's military families will be cut.
  So there is an answer to all of this, and that is that we need to 
stop the spending in our Tax Code. Everybody talks about reducing 
spending, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do, and we 
all agree that we need to reduce it. That's why the $1.6 trillion in 
spending cuts, and we can try to find more. But why can't we stop the 
spending on the Tax Code, the spending of tax giveaways? They're called 
``tax expenditures.'' They cost the taxpayer.
  If you are so concerned about how much the deficit is costing every 
individual American, why don't we calculate how much the tax break is 
for Big Oil, corporations sending jobs overseas--the list goes on and 
on--and how much those tax expenditures cost America's working 
families. They do so by increasing the deficit and by not creating jobs 
in our own country.
  Again, there is an answer here. To be hopeful, we can come together 
to say, okay, we all agree: let's reduce the deficit, cut spending, 
make some changes--those that we can--without hurting beneficiaries in 
mandatory spending. But why are these tax loopholes for special 
interests such sacred cows for the Republicans, such sacred

[[Page H962]]

cows that they will not even allow Mr. Van Hollen's bill to come to the 
floor? Are they afraid of the debate? Are they afraid of the outcome of 
their vote?
  With that, I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for 
putting forth a balanced, fair proposal to reduce the deficit in order 
to avoid sequestration, which we didn't, and as a counter to what the 
Republicans are putting forth. It's more than a counter. It's about 
leadership. It's about what is possible if we can work together in a 
bipartisan way to get the job done for the American people.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is reminded 
to address her remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. MESSER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make three quick points: first, as to the 
underlying merits of the bill, transparency matters. It matters that we 
let the American people know what is happening here. This calculation 
called for under the bill shows that in recent years we've been racking 
up $6,800 in debt for every American taxpayer each year. That's a lot 
of money; secondly, we've heard from folks on the other side of the 
aisle about the need to close loopholes. I would submit that there is 
broad consensus that we need major tax reform. There is broad consensus 
that the loopholes that our Tax Code is riddled with should go away. 
The question is: Then what do you do with the money that comes from 
those reductions? Do you put it back in the American economy to help 
grow the economy? The best way to balance our budget and get this House 
back in fiscal order is to have a growing economy with more taxpayers 
who can therefore pay additional tax revenue because they have a job,
  There has been a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle about the 
need for a balanced approach, but that balanced approach seems to 
ignore the fact that we had a $600 billion tax increase that passed 
this body on January 1. The President promised in his campaign 4-1 
spending reductions to tax increases. We're not yet even to 1-1, and we 
talk in this Chamber about balance.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Messer, and I appreciate you 
introducing this very good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Washington continues to spend money we don't have. As we 
all know, the Federal Government borrows nearly 46 cents on the dollar, 
much of it from China, and we are sending the tab to our children and 
our grandchildren. What a shame. Across America, working families have 
had to tighten their belts, and it is past time for Washington to do 
the same.
  That's the bottom line.
  Ignoring runaway deficits and out-of-control spending is not an 
option. With a national debt of more than $16 trillion, Mr. Speaker, 
every American now has a $52,000 share. We must control spending so 
Washington will not saddle future generations with burdensome debts 
that crowd out the private sector and lead to increased taxes and 
higher interest rates. The lack of fiscal discipline and the rising 
costs of the Federal debt have created a dangerous combination, 
necessitating action to prevent Washington from dipping into the 
bottomless cookie jar.
  This legislation before us would simply require the President's 
budget submission to provide an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of 
the deficit the budget would run. This commonsense legislation forces 
us to face this fiscal danger with eyes wide open. I support this good 
bill, this effort by my colleague, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both 
sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 9 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Indiana has 8 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I have to remind people as they listen to this debate that 
this bill does nothing--zero--to reduce the deficit--nothing. All it 
does is ask for a calculation, which we've said we welcome and which 
one of our Members actually did on the floor of the House here as she 
gave her presentation, and it's that which we can all do. But by all 
means, let's say to the President, Put that calculation in your 
budget--even though that calculation is out of date 3 days after the 
budget is submitted if we don't get control of the deficit and do it in 
a smart way.
  I agree with the gentleman when he says the best way to deal with the 
deficit is to grow the economy. That's what we should be focused on, 
which is why we're asking today--for the fourth time--for a vote on our 
proposal to replace the sequester so that we don't lose 750,000 jobs; 
750,000 jobs is the number of jobs that were created between October of 
last year and January of this year. According to the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, if we continue to allow that sequester to remain in 
place, we will see one-third less economic growth.
  Now, if you don't believe the nonpartisan, independent head of the 
Congressional Budget Office, who does professional work, and if you 
don't believe the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who is not a 
partisan, maybe our Republican colleagues will believe the House 
Republican leader, Mr. Cantor. Here is what he said on the floor of 
this House, not that long ago, with respect to the sequester:
  ``Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level 
. . . '' He goes on to say that it would set back ``any progress the 
economy has made.'' He then referred to a study that said, `` . . . the 
jobs of more than 200,000 Virginians, in my home State, are on the 
line.'' That's Mr. Cantor.
  Here is what the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
said about a month ago. This is what Mr. McKeon said when we got the 
numbers from the last quarter showing the economy was slowing, in part, 
in anticipation of these cuts.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. McKeon said:

       This is just the first indicator of the extraordinary 
     economic damage defense cuts will do.

  And that's just the defense cuts. You've also got these across-the-
board cuts in important investments in biomedical research to try and 
find treatments and cures to diseases that hit families throughout this 
country. You're going to be putting people out of work who do that 
important research for our country. And at the end of the day, in 
addition to the furloughs and the disruption that will cause in the 
economy, throughout the entire economy, 750,000 fewer jobs will result 
at the end of the calendar year.
  So why in the world are we debating a bill that we've already 
passed--I believe unanimously--1 month ago that does nothing about 
jobs, nothing about the deficit, rather than take up the proposal that 
we put forward to replace the sequester in a smart and balanced way, 
through targeted cuts, but also the elimination of these tax breaks. 
And the answer is, unfortunately, that our Republican colleagues, many 
of whom have signed that Grover Norquist pledge, have said that they're 
not willing to close one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the 
deficit. Not one penny.
  We hear all of the talk about reducing the deficit, but no, you can't 
take away one tax break for a corporate jet to reduce the deficit. You 
can't say to a hedge fund manager: you're no longer going to get a 
special tax preference if it means we're going to take that away so we 
can reduce the deficit. So if we're really concerned about the deficit, 
as we should be, let's get at it in a balanced way, and not in the 
sequester way, which will result in 750,000 fewer American jobs. That's 
what we should be focused on today, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I think in this debate today, you're seeing 
two very different philosophies of how we move forward as a country: 
one side of the aisle, who believes that the key to America's future is 
raising taxes and growing government; and our side, who believes that 
the key to America's future is controlling spending and giving families 
tax relief now. Let's use tax reform to put more money in the pocket of 
the American taxpayer so they can spend it out in the economy.
  The gentleman mentions the CBO many, many times over and over again 
and fails to mention that the leadership of CBO has said that a 
balanced

[[Page H963]]

budget in the long term will help grow our economy by as much as 1.7 
percent each year annually if we balance this budget. He cites Majority 
Leader Cantor's statements on the sequester. We have virtual unanimity 
in this caucus that we need to replace the structure of those $85 
billion in cuts, but our side of the aisle believes we need to replace 
them with other, more sensible budget reductions that get this 
government under control.
  Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  My good friends across the aisle talk about loopholes and tax reform. 
They might forget that over the last 2 years, this House and this party 
have put forward legislation that does away with the loopholes as part 
of a larger tax reform proposal.
  My friend across the aisle continually talks about a smart and 
balanced way to balance the budget. He talks about responsibility. But 
if you ask him, Mr. Speaker, for his legislation, when does the 
Democrat bill balance? When does their budget balance? It never does. 
Ask him: does it balance in 10, 20, 50 years? How about 100 years? Does 
your budget balance in 100 years? Never does it balance. That is not a 
balanced approach.

  The Senate hasn't put forward a budget in 4 years. The President's 
budget, not one Democrat in this Chamber or the Senate voted for the 
President's budget. And that one, too, never, never balances. That's 
not a balanced approach. America deserves better.
  But on this current legislation, America and Americans have a right 
to know how much their government is accumulating in debt in their 
name. Grandparents and parents, they have a right to know how much debt 
is going to be passed on to their grandchildren and their children. 
Those little preschoolers, those toddlers, those infants that are going 
to inherit this massive debt, they have a right to know. How about 
those young adults that are getting out of high school and tech school 
and out of college? They have a right to know as they look at their car 
loans, at their student loans, at that new house loan. They have a 
right to know how much they're going to inherit and pay back over the 
course of their working years for this irresponsible debt. Americans 
have a right to know.
  This legislation is important because this is the first step to 
making sure that America knows the fiscal trouble we're in, and to 
encourage our friends across the aisle to get together and not use 
terminology of a balanced approach but actually give us a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the American public does have a right to 
know. I don't know how many times we have to say this on the floor of 
this House: We passed virtually the identical bill 30 days ago, 
approximately, and I'm not objecting to this bill. People have a right 
to know. We should have transparency. We should reduce the deficit, and 
this bill does nothing to reduce the deficit.
  What we need to do is make sure that we get our deficits under 
control, that we stabilize the debt, and that we make smart choices for 
the people in this country.
  Yes, there is a difference of opinion. We believe that as part of 
reducing the deficit, we should make targeted smart cuts, but we should 
also cut some of those tax loopholes. Now the gentleman mentioned that 
we passed a tax increase on $600 billion over the next 10 years. That's 
right; we finally said, for higher income earners, you're going to go 
back to paying the same rates as you were during the Clinton 
administration.
  But the gentleman suggested that budget history began on January 1 of 
this year. We were all here--not everybody, but most of us--when we 
passed the Budget Control Act in the summer of 2011. What did we do in 
that act? We capped spending--$1.5 trillion in spending reductions. 
That was the right thing to do. Now we've done $600 billion in revenue. 
So I think most people can do the math on this. We're not nearly close 
to the kind of ratios that the bipartisan commission, the bipartisan 
fiscal commission, Simpson-Bowles, we're not close to the balance that 
they talked about in terms of revenue and cuts, not even in the 
ballpark.
  So let's focus on the fundamental question, which is, number one, 
getting the economy moving again, not losing 750,000 jobs this year, 
and then reducing our deficits in a smart and balanced way over a 
period of time. But yes, by all means, let's have the President do a 
calculation, which one of the earlier Republican speakers did on the 
floor of the House. We can all do that. Of course as indicated, that 
calculation changes day to day. But by all means, let's get it. But 
let's not pretend that this piece of legislation does one thing to 
create one job or reduce the deficit by one penny.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my 
friend, neighbor, colleague, and fellow Hoosier, Mr. Messer, and his 
bill, H.R. 668.
  This legislation would require the President's budget proposal to 
make clear the per-taxpayer cost of any budget deficits. We have 
repeatedly heard President Obama proclaim his desire to have the most 
transparent administration in history. In furtherance of that objective 
then, this should be welcome legislation to all parties.
  To many Americans and to many of my colleagues, Federal budgeting 
might seem like an abstraction, and thus unimportant because dollar 
amounts in terms of billions and trillions of dollars are beyond normal 
human comprehension. Most people just don't think in those terms. In 
fairness, most of us don't think in those terms, so let's clarify this 
process by bringing these numbers down to the individual level. Let's 
tell the American people, for example, under the President's last 
budget, you owe $7,000 just to cover the deficit. That resonates. Folks 
get that. The math is pretty simple. The median income in Indiana is 
around $45,000. Income and payroll taxes will eat up about $9,000 of 
that.

                              {time}  1320

  People will understand what it means when you tell them that, under 
the President's budget, you need almost 20 percent more per year per 
Hoosier just to balance the budget.
  Now, this is important. Contrary to some of the things we heard 
earlier, maybe this bill will even help incentivize those who are 
drafting budgets in the future to put together budgets that actually 
balance at some point in the distant future so that we don't have to 
rely on these suboptimal cutting gimmicks, like the President's 
sequester, to, in some way, get spending under control.
  We know revenue will double over the next 10 years. We know we have a 
spending problem, not a revenue problem in this country, so it's time 
the Federal Government--and the White House, in particular--comes clean 
about the direct impact of our Federal deficits on our Nation's 
families.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this measure of good government by 
voting ``yea'' for H.R. 668.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman). The gentleman from Maryland 
has 2 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana has 3 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
  Mr. MESSER. I think we've got one more.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), another very good friend of 
mine, the third Hoosier speaking on this bill today.
  Mr. STUTZMAN. Thank you to my friend from Indiana. This is, I 
believe, the fifth speaker from Indiana. Maybe we're getting something 
right in Indiana--I don't know what it is--but thank you for sharing 
this bill.
  We do have a balanced budget in Indiana. We have made sure that we 
have taken care of the children in education, we've made sure that our 
law enforcement is taken care of, but we've also made those difficult 
choices early on that Washington could really learn from in budgeting.
  So I appreciate Congressman Messer for bringing this particular bill. 
It's a good government bill.

[[Page H964]]

  And I know the other side of the aisle is talking about the 
sequester. I find it ironic that the Washington Times today has a 
headline that says 400 more jobs are created, in spite of the 
sequester. So I don't believe that the sky is falling here.
  This legislation requires the President to do some simple math and 
include with his budget, should he choose to submit one, an estimate of 
the cost of the deficit per taxpayer. Taxpayers just simply deserve to 
know how much they owe for Washington's out-of-control spending. After 
all, every dime that the Federal Government borrows is saddled on this 
generation and the next generation and generations to follow.
  Right now, the cost of Washington's $16 trillion of national debt 
totals more than $147,000 per taxpayer. In fact, approximately every 
minute, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government borrows another $4 million 
per minute, leaving this generation empty promises and massive debt.
  This is no way to run a government. If the President refuses to break 
the cycle of bailouts, borrowing, and tax hikes, taxpayers deserve to 
know the true cost of the President's irresponsible decisions. The 
American taxpayers deserve transparency, and that's exactly what this 
bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from Indiana, and I thank him for 
bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the support of all of my 
colleagues here in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's always good to see a show of 
Hoosier unity on the floor of the House, and I look forward to joining 
my colleagues in voting for this bill.
  The State of Maryland also has a balanced budget, but we also have a 
capital budget and other parts that we do differently.
  Look, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this bill. I support 
transparency. I supported virtually the identical provision 30 days 
ago. That's really not the issue. Yes, we want more information, and 
we'll get it.
  But the real issue here is the loss of jobs. Now, the previous 
gentleman mentioned that the Washington Times has an article saying 
more jobs were created. Thank goodness we are finally seeing more and 
more jobs created.
  We will have economic growth. There will be jobs created. The 
question is how many fewer jobs we will have as a result of the 
sequester. The CBO hasn't said it will stop every job from being 
created.
  What the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said, and what the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said, is that this 
sequester, if it remains in place through the end of the year, will be 
a drag on growth, so we will have fewer jobs created. In fact, they 
estimate we will have 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of the 
year if we don't do something about the sequester.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'd just go back to the original question: Why take 
up something we've already done, already passed virtually unanimously, 
when we have a much more pressing issue and when we, today, will ask 
for the fourth time this year, when it counts, to vote on a bill that 
would replace the sequester in a smart and balanced way without the 
loss of jobs? That's the fundamental question. And why this House is 
shirking that responsibility and refusing to hold a vote on a proposal 
that would prevent the loss of 750,000 jobs is a question I think the 
American people are asking themselves.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let's get on to the pressing business. Let's focus 
on jobs and really reducing the deficit and not playing these kind of 
games on the floor of the House.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's help and 
comments on this bill. It's a good government bill. It's transparency. 
It makes sure that taxpayers know how much the Federal Government is 
racking up on their dime, and I'm hopeful that it will pass.
  The gentleman makes a very important point, that this bill is not the 
cure-all of the world, and we have lots of work to do. Far too many 
families in this economy have had to come home and deal with a job 
loss.
  I remind everybody in this Chamber that the $85 billion that we're 
talking about in this sequester, while a lot of money, is 2 percent of 
our total Federal Government $3.6 trillion budget. It's two pennies on 
every dollar.
  We agree that this sequester should be replaced; we disagree on how. 
Surely we can find two pennies to save instead of raising taxes and 
taking more money out of the pocket of the American taxpayer.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to question H.R. 668, a 
bill to amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to 
require that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress 
provide an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit. What does 
this bill accomplish--very little.
  More specifically, H.R. 668 requires the President to submit the pro 
rata cost for taxpayers for any deficit projected in the President's 
budget for a given fiscal year.
  While I support genuine bipartisan efforts to resolve our fiscal and 
budgetary issues, it is difficult to see how this bill proposes a 
productive use of the House's time and taxpayer dollars.
  H.R. 668 appears to be a politically motivated bill aimed at placing 
blame on the President for our deficit issues rather than proposing a 
sound, bipartisan solution that would provide a balanced approach to 
turning our annual budgets deficits into surpluses.
  This Congress cannot absolve itself of the duty to reach a bipartisan 
deal to mitigate the devastating effects of the sequester now imposed 
on the federal government.
  We must remember that this sequester was intended to be harmful to 
our nation's progress in the eyes of both parties, in order to 
incentivize this Congress to make the difficult choices necessary to 
forge a sustainable economic future.
  The cuts are arbitrary and are no substitute for sound policy: $42.7 
billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut); $28.7 billion in domestic 
discretionary cuts (a 5.3 percent cut); $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts 
(a 2 percent cut); and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts (a 5.8 
percent cut to nondefense programs, and a 7.8 percent cut to mandatory 
defense programs).
  Each day that passes under the sequester, it imperils our security, 
our economic recovery, and our families across this nation.
  From military readiness, to disaster and terrorism preparedness, to 
law enforcement and emergency responders, to education, to small 
business, to veterans care, to travel, to food safety, to vital 
research and innovation; there is virtually no facet of our way of life 
that will avoid being negatively impacted by the sequester.
  Aircraft purchases by the Air Force and Navy are cut by $3.5 billion.
  Military operations across the services are cut by about $13.5 
billion.
  Military research is cut by $6.3 billion.
  The National Institutes of Health get cut by $1.6 billion.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are cut by about $323 
million.
  Border security is cut by about $581 million.
  Immigration enforcement is cut by about $323 million.
  Airport security is cut by about $323 million.
  Head Start gets cut by $406 million, kicking 70,000 kids out of the 
program.
  FEMA's disaster relief budget is cut by $375 million.
  Public housing support is cut by about $1.94 billion.
  The FDA is cut by $206 million.
  NASA gets cut by $970 million.
  Special education is cut by $840 million.
  The Energy Department's program for securing our nuclear materials is 
cut by $650 million.
  The National Science Foundation gets cut by about $388 million.
  The FBI gets cut by $480 million.
  The federal prison system gets cut by $355 million.
  State Department diplomatic functions are cut by $650 million.
  Global health programs are cut by $433 million; the Millennium 
Challenge Corp. sees a $46 million cut, and USAID a cut of about $291 
million.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is cut by $55 million.
  The SEC is cut by $75.6 million.
  The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is cut by $2.6 million.
  The Library of Congress is cut by $31 million.
  The Patent and Trademark office is cut by $156 million.
  This is neither the way to govern, nor is it a permissible path 
forward. We cannot continue along this path of perpetual, self-imposed 
destruction--moving from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis 
without providing the American people with certainty and clarity as to 
the future.
  In just three short weeks, the federal government faces another 
manufactured crisis; a shutdown that threatens to compound the effects 
of the sequester and further damage our

[[Page H965]]

economy, making it harder for families to endure.
  We must focus our efforts on working together to enact a continuing 
resolution in order to avoid a government shutdown, and to enact a plan 
that provides a healthy balance of revenues and spending cuts that will 
move us forward without devastating the middle class.
  Bills that do not serve any ostensible practical purpose and are 
simply meant to advance an ideological position should not occupy the 
House's time, and the American people expect more of their elected 
representatives.
  We must remember that the faces of those who are negatively impacted 
by the sequester are not of millionaires or billionaires; they are of 
average Americans who, through no fault of their own, have struggled 
through a tough economy and fiscal adversity.
  As we work together to get our Nation's fiscal house in order, we 
should strive to carefully consider the impact of decisions--or in this 
case, the lack of decisions--on the millions of middle and low-income 
Americans who are counting on us to come to an agreement.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on both 
sides of the aisle on a long-term debt and deficit solution, and am 
confident that we can reach an agreement that will work for the benefit 
of all Americans.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation and I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his continued 
leadership on this issue.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  March 5, 2013, on page H965, the following appeared: Mr. 
COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. COLLINS of 
Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Last month, this administration stated that it was the most 
transparent in history. According to recent polls, only 26 percent of 
Americans agree.
  H.R. 668 requires this administration, and future administrations, to 
include a cost-per-taxpayer calculation of the Federal deficit in their 
annual budget submission.
  Transparency is not a political issue. Regardless of which side of 
the aisle we sit on, our constituents deserve to know how they are 
impacted by the decisions we make here in Washington.
  This legislation removes the excuses from those who wish to pretend 
that our country is not facing a fiscal crisis. It replaces rhetoric 
with fact.
  Hard-working men and women in my district, and across America, should 
know what our out-of-control spending here in Washington is costing 
them.
  The administration recently released their budget for Fiscal Year 
2013. It forecasts a $901 billion deficit this year alone.
  My friends in the other body, on the other side of the aisle recently 
proposed a sequester replacement bill that would add $41.5 billion to 
the deficit in 2013. Over 10 years, the bill would add another $7.2 
billion to the deficit.
  Taxpayers deserve to know what such proposals would cost them 
individually. This is a commonsense bill that already passed the House 
in the form of an amendment. This isn't a political issue, it is 
reasonable and rational legislation that lets the American people know 
we can be serious about their financial future, and the financial 
future of the country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 668.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________