[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 971-985]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 972]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 973]]

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 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.

[[Page 974]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 975]]

  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 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,

[[Page 976]]

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. 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.

[[Page 977]]

  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 Senate would pass a budget that 
goes back on the promises we made to our seniors?

[[Page 978]]

  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.

[[Page 979]]

  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 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. 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

[[Page 980]]

     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 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

[[Page 981]]

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
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 CPIa: 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 CPIa..........................         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 CPla..........................         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.
aThe ``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.

[[Page 982]]

  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.
  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.
  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 that 
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.

[[Page 983]]

  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 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

[[Page 984]]

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.
  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

[[Page 985]]

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.

                          ____________________