Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that scheduling information.

As the gentleman knows, we have, as I calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in July and the beginning of August, of which 3 of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. As a result, we don't have much time left, and I would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the regulatory--I understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. Other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor?

I understand the gentleman's answer, and I think we have consensus on this floor about cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the Federal Government or by the State government or by local government. We have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. I think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. However, when I ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on a couple of levels.

I think I may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that Bruce Bartlett, whom I think the gentleman probably knows, a former President Reagan and President H. W. Bush administration official, says that no hard evidence is offered for the claim that regulatory issues have increased. But he says that Republicans have embraced ``the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.''

As I said, he says no hard evidence is offered for this claim. He then says:

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented

by Republicans that allows them to use current economic

problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business

community year in and year out. In other words, it's a simple

case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal

with high unemployment.

Now, that's his opinion, I understand that. But my concern is, if you ask an economist whether or not many of the pieces of legislation we've passed that we've called jobs bills--the gentleman's pointed that out-- economists say in the short term--which is really what

we need to deal, we need to deal in the short term and the long term-- is not going to create jobs. This week, we haven't done anything to create jobs.

By the way, might I ask the gentleman, because I didn't see it next week, do we expect a 32nd or a 33rd vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act either next week, the week after, or the week after that? As the gentleman knows, CBS opines that we've spent some 80 hours on that issue, with whatever cost is attendant to that. You can answer both questions, I suppose, but certainly I would be interested and the Members would be interested to know whether or not we're going to have another vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act.

I yield to my friend.

Well, the gentleman knows full well I think you have wasted a lot of time on this House floor, wasted a lot of effort on this House floor knowing full well that that had no chance of passage and that you were simply appealing to the base that you were just appealing to. In fact, this gentleman believes that what you would do if your bill is passed, you would take away benefits from millions and millions and millions of people. I think that's incontestable. It's incontestable that seniors, who are now getting more help with the doughnut hole for their prescription drugs which enhance their quality and length of life, would lose it if we repealed the Affordable Care Act.

It is incontrovertible, I will tell my friend, that millions of young people who can't find a job unfortunately in this economy--and we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the President on this floor to even consider, pass or fail--millions of young people would lose their insurance.

Millions of children who have a preexisting condition, who now, under the Affordable Care Act, cannot be precluded by the insurance companies--which is really who you want to put in--not you personally, but who the defeat of the Affordable Care Act would put insurance companies back in charge, not government bureaucrats, but insurance companies.

So many of your Republican Governors don't want to set up the exchanges. All the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can make a judgment: Do they like policy A, B or C? It's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they're getting a good bargain for the price they're paying for their health insurance, which is very expensive. And I will tell the gentleman that the Affordable Care Act will also create--CBO says, economists say--millions of jobs in the health care area. So, contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people access to affordable quality health care.

As Mr. Romney said, we are requiring responsibility. So everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that, if they can, they will insure themselves. So, what? So that the rest of us won't have to pay when they go to the hospital or get sick. They will be responsible for themselves. And if they need help, as Mr. Romney said in Massachusetts when RomneyCare was adopted--a model just like we've adopted for the Nation--it's important to make sure that they get some help. That's what that bill does.

In addition to that, we've made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies--not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies--say you're too sick, we're not going to cover you anymore.

So I will tell my friend, he and I have a radically different view on what the consequences are of the 31 votes that we've had, that the gentleman knew were not going to pass the Senate, knew the President wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. You're making a political point, I understand that. There are people who disagree with the Affordable Care Act; I understand that as well. But I frankly think that, had we dealt with jobs legislation during that period of 80 hours and considered the President's jobs bill, we would have millions of more people employed today in America right now.

Now, let me just, so that there's no misunderstanding, so I don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion, he's right. He and I agree: we need to cut government red tape; we need to speed approvals; we need to make sure that we do not impede, by regulation, the growth of our economy and the growth of jobs. I couldn't agree with him more. I think we ought to deal with that on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully we will continue--or perhaps start to do that, I might say, or continue to do that in some instances. But the gentleman is correct.

Now, let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, because you also mentioned bringing taxes down. Let me ask you something: Do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the August break? I yield to my friend.

Yes. Do you expect the vote on taxes, which you have referred to, to occur the last week--which I believe is the 29th of July, the week of 29 July--to be on that week?

I'll look forward to seeing the latter bill because the gentleman is correct, I think we do need to reform our tax system. We need to make it simpler. I would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down, as the Bowles-Simpson/ Domenici-Rivlin--Gang of Six, whoever you want to refer to--has suggested. I think that's moving in the proper direction.

I also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring down the deficit and debt confronting this Nation. And I think, as Bowles-Simpson pointed out, you've got to do that in a balanced way.

Let me ask you something on these packages that you said are coming that last week. There have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either of those bills, as I understand it, in the Ways and Means Committee.

Does the gentleman expect there to be hearings on those? And does the gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the Ways and Means Committee?

I yield to my friend.

When you say, I presume, as the gentleman said, we're talking about two different bills, are we not?

I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Let me say to the gentleman that when the gentleman says there have been hearings on tax reform, I think that's probably accurate. What there has not been, in my view and in Mr. Levin's, who's the ranking member of the committee, there's been no hearing on the ramifications of the bill, which, apparently, is going to be brought to the floor, which simply extends all the Bush-era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt and, indeed, ramifications to the economy.

I would say, with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, I don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. There have been hearings on, should we reform the Tax Code. The gentleman and I agree. We should simplify it. We should reform the Tax Code. We should make it more compatible with economic growth, and very frankly, for average individual Americans who want to pay their taxes, would like to pay as little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well.

So I don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says he's going to bring to the floor, and that's what I asked.

Now, let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of it. Is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to bring to the floor in terms of taxes? To clarify, so that Members on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of that action, and that Members will have an opportunity to reflect on that bill.

I yield to my friend.

I take it the answer is no, there will not be a markup on a bill that will have extraordinary consequences to all Americans, and possibly extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our economy. Am I correct in interpreting your answer as no, there will not be a markup of this very important bill? You will bring it straight to the floor without committee consideration? Is that an accurate interpretation of what you said?

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I did hear the response, and apparently I accurately characterized it. I think that's a shame, Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Boehner said that we were going to be an open House, that we were going to consider matters, and that everybody would have their opportunity to have their input.

Usually, tax bills are brought to the floor, not subject to amendment. You have just said, as I understand what you said, this bill, our way or the highway. If you don't like the bill the way we brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. You don't have an option. You can't put any of your ideas into this bill.

If that's the way you intend to consider this bill, Mr. Leader, I think that's unfortunate.

I yield to my friend.

My way or the highway. That's what you just said, Mr. Leader. I understand that concept.

Very frankly, in my view, we have agreement. We have agreement on something that you won't bring to the floor, and it is that all middle class, working Americans will not get a tax hike, all of them. And everybody, up to $250,000 of income, will have no tax increase.

But we have a big deficit and a big debt, and we need to pay our bills. We have a debt limit vote coming up at the

end of this year. Very frankly, we took the country to the brink of default and very adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence.

You talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, Mr. Leader. I agreed with you. I think we need to instill confidence, not undermine confidence.

But I will tell my friend that if you wanted to work together, as you've said on a number of occasions now, as for instance we did with the Export/Import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't work together on. They were passed on a partisan vote, for the most part. Not all of them. And some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. And guess what happened? They became law. The President signed them. Export/Import bank, the jobs bill that you promoted and which I voted for.

You said you want to work together. Now, it's interesting when you say ``work together,'' because what you say you're going to give us is a motion to recommit. And what you will instruct, and what your whip will instruct, is for all of your Members, vote ``no,'' and your side will inaccurately say it is a purely procedural vote. And as you have for the last 18 months, your Members will vote ``no'' on motions to recommit, notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the substance.

And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, we can have a vote that ought to pass with 435 votes, 435 votes. Everybody in this Congress says that we ought to not have a tax increase on working Americans, on working Americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. As you know, that's more income.

But we won't get that vote except on an MTR, on which you have instructed your Members to vote ``no,'' incorrectly arguing that it's a procedural vote only and not a substantive vote. I would say to my friend, not only will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so that we can vote on that.

Yes, we have disagreement; but you're prepared to hold hostage working Americans by saying, if the richest people in America might have a little bit of a tax increase, then everybody else is going to get a tax increase. You said it a different way, I understand; but the reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which I think there is overwhelming support of, in making sure that working Americans and, yes, 97 percent of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all. We have agreement on that, Mr. Leader.

Why don't we bring that to the floor and show the American public that, yes, we can come together, as you have suggested; that yes, we can agree; and that yes, we can make sure that they don't get a tax increase? Then, yes, we can have a debate on the balance. You will take one position, and I may take another position, and the American public will see that, and then they can make a judgment as to with whom they agree.

Now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public will agree with me, and you will think the overwhelming majority of the American public will agree with you. That's what democracy is about. Let us have this debate. Let us have this vote. Let us make sure that working Americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country.

If the gentleman is asking me am I for the President's proposal, the answer is absolutely yes. I don't want the gentleman confused in any way. If the motion to recommit is the only option we have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option, but we're not going to pretend, either to ourselves or to the American people, that your side will treat it as a real vote.

Do you want to put it on the floor as an amendment? Do you want to have a real debate on it, not 5 minutes on one side and 5 minutes on the other side, which the motion to recommit is limited to?

You're shutting us down--you're gagging us--and, yes, you're putting middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, I know, and the American people know the President of the United States has said he would veto your bill. He has said he will sign a bill that together we could pass making sure that 98 percent of Americans do not get a tax increase. What you are proposing to do, Mr. Leader, is to bring to the floor a bill which simply protects the 2 percent, that says that the 2 percent should not pay more. The gentleman says, oh, they're great job creators. I understand what the gentleman is saying.

By the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. It was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009. You and I both know what happened, not solely because it was in place, of course--let us stipulate to that. The fact is we had the deepest recession in your lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetimes of anybody who is younger than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we continue with. I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I don't think that's a great way to proceed. At least we ought to have the opportunity to debate it. At least we ought to have more than 5 minutes on our side to tell the American people where we're coming from. At least we ought to have a vote where you don't instruct your Members it's a procedural vote and don't vote for it.

I will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of your act--and you do it knowledgeably--will be that middle class taxpayers will be put at risk. Why? Whether you agree with it or not, the President will veto it. The Senate, I don't think will pass it. The fact of the matter is we can do for 98 percent of Americans that which we agree on. You don't want them to have a tax increase. I don't want them to have a tax increase. We agree on that. Americans can not understand, when we agree on that, why we can't at least pass something on which we agree which will help 98 percent of Americans in this struggling economy, which is as you clearly point out.

Now, you point out--you didn't use the term--that we only added 80,000 jobs last month. I was disappointed by that; that was unfortunate. But in the last month of the previous administration, we lost 818,000 jobs in 1 month with your program in place. That's an 890,000, almost 900,000, turnaround. From 818,000 minus to 80,000 plus, we created 4.4 million jobs in the last 28 months. Not enough. Not enough by far.

I want to work with the gentleman to create many more--work with him on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, Make It in America legislation. If we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we think it would be helpful.

So I say to my friend that I feel very strongly, as you can tell, that if we are going to have this vote, which is an extraordinarily consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute--at least-- not just an MTR, which your side incorrectly argues is just a procedural vote, not just a 5-minute debate on our side and a 5-minute debate on

your side. Don't you think Americans expect more of us in terms of a very substantive debate on the floor of this House, not in a political forum but in a legislative policy forum? I would urge the gentleman to consider that objective.

If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. As the chairman of the Budget Committee said, it passed unanimously out of the Budget Committee.

I believe that more information is better than less. I also believe, and from the comments I've heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we also agree that we have enough information to know right now today that an across-the-board, meat-ax approach to reducing the deficit--a sequester--is a reckless way to deal with our budget.

We've heard a lot about the impact of the cuts on defense. Secretary Panetta has talked about those. We've heard a lot less about the impact of the cuts on other important investments, such as those in biomedical research. A coalition recently reported that the cuts to the National Institutes of Health alone would cut 33,000 jobs. That means fewer people investigating cures and treatments to diseases that plague every American family. That's just one small example on the nondefense side.

But, Madam Speaker, I believe, given what we know, we should be focused today and every day on avoiding the sequester. In the Budget Committee proceedings, the Democrats offered an alternative approach. I've got it right here in my hand. It called for a balanced approach to replacing the sequester, the kind of balanced approach that every bipartisan commission that has looked at our deficit challenge has recommended. It included a combination of cuts, such as direct payments in excessive farm subsidies. It also included cuts to things like big oil companies, eliminating taxpayer subsidies. That plan would totally replace the sequester for 1 year; and it wouldn't have to have the deficit, the impact that we've heard about.

So great to get more information, may have a unanimous vote here today in the House; but let's take a balanced approach to reducing our deficits, and let's take a balanced approach to replacing the sequester.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments about the supercommittee. I think we all wished it had succeeded. It did not, but it was a privilege to serve with my colleague from Texas.

Let me just make a quick correction on the math. I think everybody knows, under the Budget Control Act, which was enacted last September, we cut $1 trillion from the budget, 100 percent cuts.

The alternative that the Democrats have proposed to the sequester takes a balanced approach of additional cuts, but also revenue. In fact, the 1-year proposal that we put forward puts additional cuts in direct payments, excessive subsidies under the farm bill.

Yes, we also eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. Former President Bush testified that, when oil's over $50 a barrel, you don't need taxpayers shelling out dollars to encourage big oil companies to invest. So we think we should eliminate those subsidies to help remove the sequester, including the sequester on defense.

Let's make no mistake. The reason we're here is that our Republican colleagues deliberately chose, as part of

the sequester, to put defense spending on the chopping block along with other spending. That was the choice above an offer to deal with revenue as part of a sequester. And when the choice boiled down to cutting tax subsidies for oil companies and other special tax breaks or cutting defense, Republicans chose to put in the sequester cutting defense.

Now, I know we have a hearing today in the Armed Services Committee. I see the distinguished chairman on the floor today. I have to commend him because he has said before that if he were faced with that choice he would take that mixed, more balanced approach. And that ultimately is what we're going to have to do. That's the approach that's been taken by every bipartisan commission that's looked at this challenge.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), a member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said, and I didn't find much that I disagreed with. We agree that we should replace the sequester, and we agree that it's a mistake to create the kind of uncertainty that's out there. Obviously, it has an impact, not just in the defense sector, but also in all of the other areas in which our Federal Government has activities.

I would just say--and I want to make sure the chairman is on the floor now and has a chance to respond--that he demonstrated some leadership on this issue last fall because he was asked this question. He was asked if he had to put together a plan that included some revenue. He said, Yes, I understand that we've got to make cuts, but I'd rather include some revenue than deep cuts to defense. In fact, what he said was:

We're going to have to stop repeating ideological talking

points and address our budget problems comprehensively

through smarter spending and increased revenue.

When asked to choose between deeper cuts in defense and cutting some tax breaks, he said we should cut some tax breaks.

That was last fall. That's exactly the kind of balanced approach that the Democrats put forward in the Budget Committee. The chairman of the committee asked for a specific plan. We had a vote on it in the Budget Committee. We wish that our colleagues would have supported it. It would have prevented the sequester from taking place for another year, and it would have eliminated all of the uncertainty the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just talked about.

The reason that we haven't been able to move forward is that our Republican colleagues continue to insist on supporting these tax breaks for special interests and tax breaks for folks at the very top and that they refuse to eliminate those tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit or for the purpose of eliminating the sequester on defense and non-defense. That's why we are in the situation we are in right now. The keys to the lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues.

We had the same proposal ready to bring to a vote before the whole House of Representatives as part of the reconciliation process. The Rules Committee didn't even allow our proposal to be made in order so that Members of this body could vote on it up or down. So, yes, let's get on with the main issue. Let's focus on replacing the sequester. Let's do it in a balanced way.

I have to say, since the gentleman from Texas earlier referenced the comments of Senator Reid's, the majority leader, I've looked at the Senator's comments. The Senator's point was the same one I'm making here, which is that, if we are going to remove the sequester, we need to take a balanced approach. We need to include cuts. Again, it's important to remember we did $1 trillion in cuts--100 percent cuts--as part of the Budget Control Act, but we also need to include some revenue by eliminating some of these special interest tax breaks and by asking folks at the very top of the income ladder to pay a little bit more for our national defense and for reducing our deficit. That is the underlying issue here.

I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

There was one other gentleman who said he was on his way. He's not here yet. If he is not here by the time you finish, we will close.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me start on the points of agreement.

We agree with this piece of legislation. As we said, it passed the Budget Committee unanimously. What it does is ask for some more detailed information on the impact of the across-the-board sequester scheduled to take place in January. The Senate also agrees with that. Let's make no mistake, there was an amendment on the Senate side, a bipartisan amendment by Senator Patty Murray of Washington State and Senator McCain, asking for additional information.

There was also agreement that we don't need more information to understand that the across-the-board sequester cuts would have a very negative impact on the economy and on defense and on important nondefense investments that are important to the American people.

The issue really is what are we going to do about it. We have proposed an alternative in this House. We proposed an alternative in the Budget Committee, and it didn't pass. We asked for this whole House to have a chance to vote on an alternative that had a balanced approach that included cuts, but also additional revenues from closing tax breaks and loopholes, and we were denied that opportunity for a vote over here.

Let's be very clear about what Senator Reid has said and what the President has said on a number of these issues, both the tax issue, as well as the sequestration issue that we're debating today. The President of the United States has been very clear that he would like today for the Congress to pass legislation to extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people, all the middle class tax cuts. He wants us to get it done today. In fact, what some people don't realize is that those tax cuts would also benefit folks at the very top. In fact, it provides tax relief to 100 percent of Americans compared to current law. Let's get that done. If we agree on it, let's act now.

The same is true with the sequester. The keys to this lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues. We've agreed that part of the solution is cuts. We did a trillion dollars in cuts last year, 100 percent cuts. We've also said we can do additional cuts, but we should also deal with the revenue side of the equation if we're serious about the deficit.

The chairman talked about our use of the word ``balance.'' It's the same use that the Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-Domenici bipartisan commissions have made. What they have said is any serious approach to reducing the debt, in this case replacing the sequester, requires cuts, yes, but also revenues.

The reality is, in this House of Representatives, 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed a pledge to this fellow by the name of Grover

Norquist. What that pledge says is you can't eliminate one penny of tax breaks, you can't eliminate one dollar of taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies, or ask folks who are making more than a million dollars a year to pay one more dollar for the purpose of deficit reduction. They won't do it. Nor does that pledge allow them to take a dollar tax subsidy away for the purpose of defense spending.

We hear a lot of talk about the importance of defense spending. We agree. Secretary Panetta has talked about it. We think we should pay for it. Rather than just talk about defense spending, why don't we also pay for it? We have put two wars on our national credit card: Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of us proposed that we help pay for those as we go so we wouldn't be leaving the bill to future generations, to the children of the troops that are fighting those wars. We should pay for them. But, no, those two wars went on the credit card.

Now we're talking about defense. The Armed Services Committee has a hearing today on the impact of defense. As we've said, we agree that we don't want to see that. But when faced with the simple choice of cutting more tax breaks for oil companies or asking folks at the very top to pay a little bit more for defense and to reduce the deficit, no, they won't touch that.

Let's understand the underlying issue here, both on the tax issues at the end of the year, which we can solve today if our Republican colleagues will stop holding 98 percent of the American taxpayers hostage until they get a continuation of the tax breaks for the folks at the very top, and we can deal with the sequester today if our colleagues are willing to take the balanced approach recommended by every bipartisan commission. That's what's at issue.

Mr. Speaker, let me close with this. We've heard a lot of talk about how asking the folks at the very top to pay a little more would hurt the economy. The reality is we've tried the trickle-down theory. It's in place right now. We tried it for 8 years under the previous administration. The last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the Clinton administration in 2001. Then-President Bush came in with back-to-back tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy. What happened at the end of the 8 years? We lost private sector jobs. So much for the theory that tax breaks for the folks at the very top trickle down and lift everybody up.

They lifted the yachts, but the boats ran aground, and that's the reality. That's what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues.

When it comes right down to it, we've been willing to make some tough cuts, and we're willing to make more. But because of this pledge or other reasons, our Republican colleagues refused to deal with the deficit in a balanced way. They refused to ask folks at the very top to chip in a little bit more to reduce our deficits and to help pay for defense. Let's take action today to prevent the cuts, not just to defense, but to non-defense.

It's interesting. I hear our Republican colleagues talk about the jobs created by defense, that's true. You know, building aircraft carriers creates jobs. Somehow building aircraft carriers creates jobs that building roads and bridges doesn't. The President has a jobs bill that's been sitting in this House of Representatives since September, a major boost in infrastructure.

We have 14 percent unemployment in the construction industry. We have roads, bridges, and transit systems in need of repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation a D, grade D.

It's a win/win. Let's spend more there, boost jobs and the economy, do a job that needs to be done. But no, you know, cutting defense spending and work on tanks, that will hurt jobs, but it's okay not to fund the President's infrastructure proposal to put people back to work building bridges and roads.

Let's have a rational conversation here, Mr. Speaker, about what works and what doesn't work, and how we can take this balanced approach to reducing our deficit and eliminating replacing the sequester so we can avoid the cuts to both defense and non-defense.

I look forward to getting the information called for by this piece of legislation. OMB is actually already crunching the numbers. There are lots of details, I hear, but our time here would be best spent putting in place a plan to replace the sequester rather than simply asking for more information.

More information is good. Solving the problem is better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 5872, the Sequestration Transparency Act, sponsored by Congressman Jeb Hensarling. This is a bill that will bring needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on January 2. Chairman Paul Ryan and the Budget Committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so I expect it to be brought up under suspension of the rules.

Finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the House will consider H.R. 5856, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, sponsored by Congressman Bill Young. This will be the House's seventh appropriations bill of the year.

I expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. Members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on Wednesday, July 18, and Thursday, July 19.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

Madam Speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo making Members aware of where we're headed for the remainder of the July period. I would say to the gentleman that, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. As we know, the regulatory atmosphere in this country is making it more difficult and more expensive for small businesses and large to create jobs. We'll be focusing on that.

The following week, Madam Speaker, will be the week in which we will bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all Americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year.

In addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so that we can actually achieve results for the American people so that our job creators and working families can get back to work.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say to the gentleman about this week's vote--in fact, today-- today we voted on a bill that helps us ``Mine it in America.'' The gentleman likes to speak about ``making it in America.'' Why shouldn't we also be mining it in America? So it's very much a bill to facilitate that business and industry in this country in an environmentally sensitive way. In fact, 22 of the gentleman's caucus Members joined us in that vote--"Mine it in America,'' Madam Speaker.

As to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real growth in this country, that is something that I don't believe the gentleman agrees totally with that statement, because I know he and I both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. We don't want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or working families.

So again, I would take issue with the suggestion that economists would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework don't have anything to do with job creation. Of course it does. It has to do with the environment for one to take a risk, for investors to put capital to work, for entrepreneurs to go out and sign their name on the dotted line with the bank. Of course regulation has something to do with job creation and growth. That is exactly our point. And I hope the gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we can roll back the unduly burdensome framework and make sure we have a smart framework of regulation so that we can see America grow.

As to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal vote of ObamaCare, if the gentleman would like to do so, I'm happy to meet with him. Right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that this week. And I would say to the gentleman, the reason why perhaps we spent so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many millions of Americans. It's their health care; it's their family's health care. At the end of the day, this election season will underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the election.

The real question is, Madam Speaker, are we going to have Washington- based health care or patient-based health care? That's what it comes down to. Who's in the driver seat, patients and their doctors, or Washington-based bureaucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can have? We all know what's happened with that approach under ObamaCare: costs have gone up, employers are beginning to shed the plans, and people will not be able to have the health care they have. That's why we've spent the time we have on this bill.

I'd say, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman, can you repeat the question?

I would respond to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, that, yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on the bill to extend existing rates. That extension will be for a year.

We will also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles for tax reform that I know the gentleman also

has said we need to reform our Tax Code so that we can help make it fairer, more simple, and so that we can see the economy grow again. Those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I'd say to the gentleman, I think I disagree with the gentleman, there haven't been hearings.

I think, for the last year and a half, Chairman Camp and his committee have been fast about looking at the Tax Code, talking about tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased tax environment for this economy. We've been all about the economy and growth.

I'd say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs bills? We have been doing jobs bills. He complains about the 30-some bills we've been doing relating to ObamaCare. I would say we've done even more than that relating to jobs.

I would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit right now. They're on the doorstep of the Senate, and the leader over there refuses to bring them up.

And so, again, I'd say to the gentleman, we stand ready to work together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us here, and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have been talked about, have been dissected, in terms of existing tax rates, where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy. That's what we're doing.

We've had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. If you want to stop the tax hike for all Americans, at all income levels, you'll vote for the bill. If you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the Tax Code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, rates brought down, loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill. It's that simple.

I would say to the gentleman, that is correct.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, this is a very simple and clear choice here. Given this economy, if one wants to raise taxes on all Americans, you vote against the bill. If you want to go and help folks through a more simple Tax Code, and you want to look towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. Straight up or down.

There has been enough discussion, enough hearings, in the Ways and Means Committee, as well as the Budget Committee. These issues were central to our budgets. Your Members on the Budget Committee, as well as ours, I had a full open hearing on that budget document and a markup.

We believe now's not the time to raise taxes on working people, small businesses and large. The economy is anemic. We don't have enough job growth. Why do we want to take more of people's hard-earned money? That's why we're bringing this bill forward.

This bill is straight up or down. Stop the tax hike or not.

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman has heard my response.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the aisle will have an opportunity to posit their position on taxes through the regular process of a motion to recommit. And as I had said publicly yesterday, when asked, are the Democrats in the House going to be able to offer the President's tax proposal, I said, absolutely they will.

So we'll see. We'll see, Madam Speaker, if the gentleman decides to put forward the President's tax proposal calling for a tax hike on American small businesses. We'll see if that happens, Madam Speaker. But we will see, and that will be the week it will happen.

You're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not.

Madam Speaker, what I would say to the gentleman is holding hostage working families is denying them a job. It's about jobs. The gentleman can play with the statistics all he wants and claim that 97 percent of the small businesses will get a tax break this way and that let's leave the other for later; but the significant fact is, it's with the others where the significant job growth can be.

Why would we want to go and tax job creators? We know that 50 percent of the people who will get a tax hike under the President's proposal get at least a quarter of their incomes from small business, and the more their incomes the more the percentage. That means the jobs

So why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people? Because Washington takes more of their money. Why would we want tax rates to go up on anybody in this anemic economy? And why would we want to go and raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control spending in Washington? Because what you're doing is digging the hole deeper.

That's our position, Madam Speaker.

So I would ask the gentleman straight up: Is the gentleman going to bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the President's proposal? Is that going to be the motion to recommit? Will the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their motion to recommit?

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5872) to require the President to provide a report detailing the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 on January 2, 2013, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5872, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, here's basically why we are here today with the Sequester Transparency Act. As a background, under the current law, because the supercommittee was unable to agree on a deficit-reduction package, the Office of Management and Budget will implement a $110 billion across-the-board cut--which we have referred to as a sequester or a sequestration--on January 2, 2013. This comes half on defense, half on domestic discretionary--in other words, a $55 billion cut, which is a 10 percent cut to defense immediately, and then an 8 percent cut to domestic discretionary--but we do not know the actual reductions that will result from this sequester.

As we debate this bill today, we will probably not be able to avoid the contentious issues on the sequester, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the bill before us simply directs the Office of Management and Budget to tell us how they will implement the sequester. So we're just asking for more transparency and more details. Within 30 days, they should give us the plan on how they will do this.

This bill is essentially about transparency. It's not re-litigating the budget fight; it's about making sure that we have as much information as we can to make the right decisions. It's about carrying out a constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that we fully understand the Budget Control Act sequester, how it's going to be implemented.

It has strong bipartisan support. The House Budget Committee voted 30-0 to report this bill here to the floor, and the Senate has passed similar legislation on a bipartisan basis.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the author of this bill, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that when we hear the words ``balanced approach,'' what that means to taxpayers in this country is, You give us your checkbook and we'll balance it the way we think it ought to be balanced here in government. Government first, taxpayers second. That's what the so- called ``balanced approach'' means. It means keep feeding higher spending with higher taxes.

The problem is, Madam Speaker, the arithmetic just doesn't add up. You literally cannot tax your way out of this mess. Spending is the cause. We need to address our spending. The sooner we do it, the sooner we can get back on to a path to prosperity.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield that 5 minutes as he chooses.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the House Budget and Armed Services Committees, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who serves on the Budget Committee and who also, I believe, serves on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I believe they have the right to close, so let me inquire of the gentleman from Maryland whether or not they have another speaker.

With that understanding, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if all this borrowing, taxing, and spending was the secret to economic success and prosperity, we would be on the verge of entering a golden age, along with Greece.

The so-called balanced alternative plan by the other side is balanced in that it does have deficit reduction of $30 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but only because after the $55 billion spending increase scored by CBO, it has an $85 billion tax increase. If we keep going down this road, Mr. Speaker we're going to get the same results.

What did we start with in this Congress? We passed a budget that cuts spending, that reformed government, that reformed the taxes and gets back to economic growth to puts us on a path to prosperity to pay off the debt.

The Senate hasn't passed a budget for 3 years. Then we engaged in negotiations on the debt limit to try to get a down payment on deficit reduction and the Budget Control Act resulted.

Therefore, the supercommittee failed, and the sequester is about to kick in. So again we took action in the House, and we passed the reconciliation package that replaces the sequester, which resulted in a net $242.8 billion in additional deficit reduction. We put specifics on the table, passed them through the House again. The crickets are chirping in the other body in the Senate. No leadership from the President, no leadership from the Senate, no leadership.

What this is is simple. Since there is an absence of leadership on these critical fiscal issues from the President of the United States, from the Senate of the United States, at the very least show us how this is going to work. If you're not willing to replace the sequester, tell us how it's going to be implemented.

That is simply a matter of transparency. We're not judging the debates or the merits or the each other's ideas and how to replace it; we're simply saying to OMB tell us how it's going to go down, because this seems to be your only plan.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to follow the bipartisan example that has been set in the Budget Committee and let's have a nice bipartisan vote on behalf of transparency from the legislative branch.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him and Chairman Ryan for bringing this bill to the floor. It is greatly needed.

Barring a new agreement between Congress and the White House on deficit reduction, over $1 trillion in automatic cuts, known as sequestration, will take effect. Although the House has passed a measure that would achieve this necessary deficit reduction to avoid sequestration for a year and give us time to work on it outside of election-year pressure, the Senate has yet to consider any legislation.

Now, I hear a lot of good ideas from the other side and they talk about increased revenue. All I'm saying is put it down on paper.

We have a process by which we work. It's outlined in the Constitution of the United States. One body passes legislation, the other body passes legislation, a conference committee is formed, and the differences are resolved. It goes back to the bodies for final passing and then goes to the President for his signature.

We have taken action in the House. We're waiting for the other body to take some action.

The President weighed in on this. He submitted a budget. His budget sought $1.2 trillion in alternate deficit reduction. He followed the process. That budget was defeated in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. Now, we need another bill that we can work on.

This impasse and lack of a clear way forward has created a chaotic and uncertain budget environment for industry and defense planners. Compounding the issue is a lack of guidance from the administration on how to implement sequestration.

We just held a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where we had industry leaders come in to tell us the problems they're having on getting guidance.

You know, I come from a small business background, nothing like building planes or ships or boats or the other things that our warfighters need to carry out their mission.

And I might remind people that we are at war. We do have warfighters going outside the wire, as we speak, every day, putting their lives on the line, and they're watching this. They're watching what we're doing. They're wondering if they're going to have the things that they need to carry out this mission and to return home safely.

My business, as I said, was a small family business. We were in the western wear business. We sold boots and hats in a retail way. And we would go, my brothers and I, family business, would go to the market in January. We would buy for our needs for the next 6 months. We would buy shirts, hats, jeans, boots. And then our suppliers would go to their suppliers and buy the things they need to make those things, and then they would ship them to us in an orderly manner, and then we would be able to have the product on the shelves when our customers came in in February, March, April, May.

These industry leaders are asking for a little guidance. All they know is the law, as we have it now, kicks in January 2, says that there will be no thought, no planning, just we take out the budget and cut every line item by a margin, 8, 12, 20 percent, whatever it is, realizing we're already a quarter of the way into the year.

One of the leaders gave us this quote in this conference. This is Sean O'Keefe, president and CEO of EADS North America and chairman of the National Defense Industrial Association. And I quote:

Most immediately, the administration must communicate today

its sequestration implementation to the public, our Armed

Forces, and to industry.

The current uncertainty has effectively put sequestration

and its consequences in motion. In the absence of any

guidance, industry is already holding back investments,

questioning the fairness of ongoing competitions, doubting

the viability of existing contracts, and starting to trim

capacity.

In the absence of definitive guidance from the DOD, the

OMB, and the Defense Contract Management Agency, we feel

compelled to act in the spirit of this law and, in all

likelihood, will issue WARN notices to those employees

engaged in ongoing Federal contract activities.

We are going to put thousands of people in jeopardy of their jobs between

now and when sequestration should kick in. This is already in motion.

Madam Speaker, I ask that we come together on this issue, that we solve this issue. I ask the President to put forth some leadership. As Commander in Chief, he has the obligation to help us solve this problem. I ask our colleagues to please support this legislation and to bring transparency.