Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's start with taxes. What the Republican budget does is provide a windfall tax break for folks at the very top. People listening can do the math. You're dropping the top tax rate from 39 percent to 25 percent right off the bat. That's about a cut of one-third in the top rate for millionaires. That's a huge loss of revenue. How do they make up that revenue? Well, if you're going to really make sure you don't increase the deficit, math tells you you're going to increase taxes on middle-income people to help pay for those tax breaks, which is exactly why we offered an amendment in committee saying, okay, Ways and Means Committee, when you do tax reform, don't raise taxes on middle income folks. They voted against that. There are lots of other provisions in the Republican budget that provide guidance to other committees, but they didn't want to provide them that guidance. So the point is that they provide tax breaks to the folks at the very top while leaving middle-income folks vulnerable; but on net, they do not close one tax loophole out of those four trillions to reduce the deficit. Do you know how we know that, Mr. Chairman? Because their revenue line is constant with the baseline. So Mr. Price is just dead wrong when he says they close tax loopholes to increase revenue for the purpose of reducing the deficit. It's not in there. It's just dead wrong. Now let's get the record straight about what the Republican budget does to different groups that Mr. Price referenced: Seniors. Here is what the AARP, the largest organization representing seniors, says about what the Republican plan will do: The chairman's proposal fails to address the high costs of health care and, instead, shifts costs on to seniors and future retirees. Removing the Medicare guarantee of affordable coverage seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work is not the answer. That's the AARP. The Medicaid cuts. There are $810 billion in cuts. Again, I'll remind people that two-thirds of that goes to seniors and people with disabilities. Here is what the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office said would be the impact of those kinds of cuts: It means, because they block-grant the program to States with a lot less money, States would need to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them or both. Cutbacks might involve the reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP--that's children's health--the coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries, all of which would reduce access to care. So whether it's in Medicare or in Medicaid, we violate commitments to seniors in this budget. He talked about kids and education. Their budget would allow in July the doubling of the student loan interest rate from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, making college less affordable. Our budget makes sure there is not that doubling. Also, we had an earlier conversation with Ms. Moore about the impact of people in poverty. I'll just give you one example: In the category of the budget that helps with the Women, Infants, and Children program--this is the program that helps pregnant women and women with very young children get nutrition assistance--they double the sequester cut. Then they tell us it's not going to have any impact--not on that and not on doubling the sequester cut on the National Institutes of Health and the research they do. Somehow, magically, all that will be funded even though you double the sequester cut--more than double it--in that category of the budget. So their budget, while providing these windfall tax breaks to the folks at the very top, and their budget, while slowing down economic growth in the economy right now, also means we undermine other important priorities in our country. I would now like to yield 2 minutes to a new, distinguished member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a new Member of Congress, who is on the Veterans' Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We heard earlier about the United States becoming Spain and others have compared it to Greece. The reality is that right now the danger is that we follow the European austerity measures that we've seen do damage to economies like that in the U.K., and that's what our Republican colleagues are calling for in their budget. Yes, we need to reduce our long-term deficits, but we also need to make sure we keep the facts straight. And in the Republican budget pamphlet this year, they show this big tidal wave of red ink, which I believe the chairman showed earlier today, that's based on an outdated Congressional Budget Office analysis that doesn't take into account much of the deficit reduction we've done over the last couple of years, including the revenue in the fiscal cliff agreement. That's why the organization FactCheck.org said that the Republican budget proposal exaggerates future growth of the Federal debt in a chart contained in their newly released budget plan. So we need to keep this in perspective, and that's what we do in our budget: we focus on economic growth now and economic growth in the future. And, yes, because of the reduction in the rate of increase in health care costs and using, actually, an assumption that the discretionary parts of our budget and mandatory we assume grow faster than the chairman asked the CBO to project, our budget comes into balance the same year as the Republican budget last year came into balance, but we do it without balancing it on the backs of other essential priorities that are important to the American people. With that, I yield 2 minutes to a terrific new member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, just to be very clear on what the Senate Democratic plan does and what the House Democratic plan does with respect to revenue, again, we heard from Governor Romney and others last year that there are about $4 trillion in these distortions and preferences in the Tax Code that help very wealthy people. What we say is, we should get out some of that clutter, some of those preferences, and use some of that to help reduce the deficit. And we say at the same time when you do tax reform, don't touch middle-income taxpayers, and when we asked our Republican colleagues to give us that assurance in the form of an amendment in the Budget Committee, they all voted ``no.'' So, yes, we think that you can eliminate some of the tax breaks and preferences that Mr. McClintock just talked about, and you can use some of them to reduce the deficit. But the Republican budget won't use one dime of those to help reduce the deficit. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State who is both on the Budget Committee and on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to a terrific new member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That means, as in your budget, that we will help reduce the deficit by whatever amount it was. But what we do not do in our budget is fund tax breaks for folks at the very top by raising them on folks in the middle. Listen, let me say just one other thing here, Mr. Chairman. We've had four balanced budgets in this country in the last 40 years. It wasn't under President Reagan. It wasn't under the first President Bush. It wasn't under the second President Bush. It was 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. It was under President Clinton. And then President Bush came in and did a big tax cut in 2001, putting us out of balance for a long period of time. During the period of time when the budget was in balance the last four times out of 40 years, the revenue that was coming in was higher than it is in any year in the Republican budget that's before us now. What that tells you is that their budget approach is trying to seek balance on the backs of everybody else by really cutting into those important investments that have helped power our economy by violating important commitments to seniors and, in the end, by raising taxes on middle-income people. Why else would they not have joined Democrats in sending a policy statement to the Ways and Means Committee that says: When you go about eliminating tax preferences, don't hit middle-income taxpayers in the process. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the mortgage interest deduction, for example, the mortgage interest deduction really helps middle-income people--homeowners. So in addition to saying: Ways and Means Committee, when you do tax reform, don't hit middle-income taxpayers, we specifically said: Don't take away the mortgage interest deduction for middle-income taxpayers. Again, all our Republican colleagues voted against that. They've been talking about tax reform for 3 years now. We've never seen a piece of paper from them as to how they would do it, which is why we wanted to make sure that they don't do it in certain ways that help middle-income people. But no, can't do that. So let's make sure that as we address our deficit issues, we do it in a way that calls for shared responsibilities, not another round of tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of everybody else. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), one of our distinguished members of the Budget Committee. (Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues that the Affordable Care Act, with the reforms it made to Medicare, we extended the life of the Medicare trust fund as part of that effort going forward.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Do you know what's wrong, Mr. Chairman? What's wrong is to pretend to the American people that you can have it all ways. What's wrong is to pretend that you've got a budget that's in balance in 10 years and pretend that you're getting rid of all of the Affordable Care Act, all of ObamaCare. What's wrong is going around the country demagoguing $715 billion in Medicare savings, which we achieve by ending overpayments to private insurance companies and Medicare, and then using it to balance your budget and then saying, We didn't use it to balance our budget. That's what people don't like, is people trying to have it all ways. We have taken an approach to steadily and rapidly reduce our deficits in a way that doesn't interfere and hurt economic and job growth right now. And we do it in a balanced way. And what I find astounding is to hear our Republican colleagues talk about the deficit and debt in one breath and then talk about all those tax breaks and expenditures that disproportionately benefit very wealthy people in the other breath and then say they won't close one single tax loophole for wealthy people for the purpose of reducing the deficit--not one dime in their budget for that purpose. And yet they're willing to hit Medicaid to the tune of $110 billion. They're willing to hit the food and nutrition program by over $100 billion. They're ready to hit transportation funding by over 15 percent in this budget window. And yet they're not willing to close one of those more than $4 trillion in tax loopholes to reduce the deficit. I think that's wrong. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, a member of the Budget Committee (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we actually have a kind of a yardstick that we can use to measure whether these budget approaches have a balanced approach, meaning that they ask for shared responsibility. You have the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission report, and they said we should reduce our deficits in a steady way through a combination of revenue, but also targeted cuts. This Republican budget is totally lopsided. It provides tax windfalls to folks at the very top, and balances the budget at the expense of everybody else. What we've proposed, actually, when you take into account the $1.5 trillion in cuts we made over the last couple of years and the $700 billion in revenue from January, and what we have in this budget, we actually have a higher ratio of cuts to revenue than that bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan when you look at everything that's embedded in it. So that's measured against a bipartisan approach, and that gets us to where we need to be without hitting all the other priorities we have in our country. With that, let me yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has looked at these numbers backwards and forwards, and I look forward to his comments. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to point out again that our Republican colleagues cannot have it both ways. You can't claim you're going to balance in 10 years and claim that you got rid of all of the ObamaCare provisions, because if you look at this chart, you'll see in the year 2023, 10 years from now, they claim a balance of about $7 billion, right there. And yet if you look at this blue section here and the red section, you've got the revenues from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare, and the savings from Medicare that our colleagues campaigned against last fall, but they kept them right in their budget. Without those items, they don't come close to balance. In fact, they're about $400 billion short, in the 10th year, from balance. We believe you've got to focus on getting the economy moving right now. That's why we call in our budget for getting rid of and replacing the sequester now, so you achieve the same deficit reduction over a longer, more measured, targeted period of time and don't do damage to the economy. And we reduce the deficit in a steady way so that it's way down below the growth in the economy by the 10-year window; and we do it in a way that is balanced, meaning we ask for shared responsibility. So we do it through a combination of cuts, but also we do say, for folks at the very high end of the income ladder, we can get rid of some of those tax expenditures, tax expenditures that our Republican colleagues have talked about, but not simply to reduce the rates for high-income individuals, but to help reduce the deficit as part of a balanced approach. Now, if you look at the math on the Republicans' tax reform plan, it drops the top rate for folks at the very top from 39 percent all the way to 25 percent. We know that's going to cost about $4 trillion. They say they're going to make all that money up by taking tax expenditures away just from high-income people. The math doesn't work that way. You're going to have to increase taxes on middle-income taxpayers, or you're not going to hit your deficit target, one or the other. So in the Budget Committee, we Democrats said, look, let's say to the Ways and Means Committee, when you do tax reform, don't raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers. And we had an amendment--I've got it right here--Protect the American Middle Class from Tax Increase. We said, if you're going to do tax reform, at least make the commitment that you're not going to increase taxes on middle-income families in order to finance tax breaks for the folks at the very top. Every one of our Republican colleagues on the committee voted ``no'' on that amendment. The committee's got lots of policy instructions on other stuff, but a policy request statement about not increasing taxes on the middle class, they all voted ``no.'' So we believe we have to reduce our deficits in a smart and vigorous but also balanced way, asking for shared responsibility going forward, not violating our commitments to seniors by reopening the doughnut hole, not by shredding Medicaid, which they cut by over $810 billion, and which would be one-third less in 2023 than it would otherwise be. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind people that two- thirds of Medicaid spending goes to seniors and individuals with disabilities. So it's not a question of whether we reduce our long-term deficits, it's how we do it, and we do it in a balanced way. If this was just a race to be the first to balance, then you should support not the chairman's budget. Support the Republican Study Group, that other budget. But if your priority is to grow jobs and the economy, then you should support the Democratic alternative budget. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, actually the Republican budget does follow some of our European friends, but follows them in the wrong way. The strategy places like the U.K. have followed is an austerity approach--immediate deep cuts. And guess what that did? That sent them back into a recession. And again, the umpire around this place, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that if you take the approach in our Republican colleagues' budget, you'll have 750,000 fewer jobs by the end of this year. That is not a growth strategy. We cannot afford, here in the United States, the European-style austerity plan that is hurting those economies. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, who recognizes how important it is to keep our economy moving forward, not backwards.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last fall throughout this country, we had a vigorous debate. President Obama laid out his vision of how we deal with some of our big challenges with respect to the economy and the budget, and Governor Romney did the same thing. Both of them said the American people face a very important and fundamental choice, and the American people chose. They chose to support President Obama's vision of accelerating economic growth, putting more people to work, taking a shared- responsibility approach to our long-term deficits so we bring them down in a balanced and smart way, and they rejected the idea that we're going to move the economy forward by giving windfall tax cuts to the very wealthiest in the country and that somehow the benefits of that would trickle down and lift everybody up. They rejected that lopsided approach that balanced the budgets on the backs of everybody but the folks at the very top. It balanced the budget on the backs of our kids' education by slashing important investments. In that category of spending that we make these important investments for our country and our future, they doubled the cut from the sequester. Those are investments in our kids' education. Those are investments in science and research to help power our economy. Those are investments to help modernize our infrastructure. They cut transportation by 15 percent when we have 15 percent unemployment in the construction industry. Mr. Chairman, the American people rejected the kind of uncompromising, lopsided approach that we see once again presented here in the House. It is the same thing we've seen for the last 3 years, as if we hadn't even had a debate last fall. In the Democratic alternative, we focus on the main issue right now and in the future. We don't only want strong economic growth in the future; we want to see accelerated job growth right now. We've seen some momentum in the jobs market in the last couple of months, but the Republican budget will put the brakes on that growth. The chairman of the Budget Committee can quote economists all he wants. There are economists that say it will do this or it won't do this or it will do that. But we have an umpire here in the Congress. We have a referee. It's called the Congressional Budget Office. They're nonpartisan. They're independent. They tell us if you follow the approach of the Republican budget and keep the sequester in place through the end of this year, that by the end of this year we will have 750,000 fewer Americans working than otherwise. Why would we want to do that? They tell us that if you take the approach followed by the Republican budget, that economic growth this calendar year will be cut by one- third. Why would we want to do that? The Congressional Budget Office also tell us that a full half of our deficit this year is as a result of the fact that there are still lots of people looking for work who haven't found a job, and they project that three-quarters of the deficit next year in 2014 is as a result of the fact that you have too many people who are unemployed. So let's attack the root of the problem right now and help put people back to work rather than put the brakes on the economy. That's what our budget will do. This calendar year, in addition to preventing the 750,000 lost, we will generate another 450,000 jobs by investing in the economy. Next year, the difference between our plan and our colleagues' plan is 2 million more jobs under our budget proposal. We believe that you've got to deal with the budget deficit, and at the same time you also need to focus on the jobs deficit to help deal with the budget deficit. We also reduce the deficit in a steady, sustained way. We do it with balance. We do it with targeted cuts. But we also do it, Mr. Chairman, by eliminating some of the tax breaks and tax expenditures for very high-income individuals. We heard from Governor Romney and we heard from the chairman of the Budget Committee last fall and this year that there are trillions of dollars of tax expenditures that disproportionately benefit very wealthy people. Under the Republican plan, they say we're going to get rid of some of your tax expenditures for high-income people, but we're going to bring down your top rate. So in the end, the folks at the very top actually get a big windfall. We say let's eliminate some of those tax breaks for very wealthy people in order to help reduce our deficit so when you combine that savings with targeted cuts, you can reduce it in a balanced way rather than increasing the tax burden on the middle class, which is what their budget will do. We also want to make sure we keep our commitments to our seniors and not transfer the risk and cost of rising health care costs onto the backs of seniors as the Republican budget does. We don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole, as the Republican budget does, which means that seniors with high prescription drug costs will end up paying thousands more out of pocket over the period of this budget. In our budget, we make sure that student loan interest rates, which are set to double in July from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, we make sure they don't double. The Republican budget makes sure that they do. That will make college less affordable to millions of students. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by talking about the deficit impacts because the Republican budget does hit this--they say they're going to hit this political target of balance in 10 years. But it's a hoax because they say at the same time that their budget balances, that they're repealing all of ObamaCare, all of the Affordable Care Act. The reality, Mr. Chairman, is they get rid of all the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. So the millions of Americans who would have had more affordable coverage, they won't get it; and the people who will no longer be excluded from getting coverage because of preexisting conditions, they'll make sure that they're denied coverage because of preexisting conditions because they take away the benefits. But the dirty little secret, Mr. Chairman, is they keep the savings from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare. Without those savings, that budget doesn't balance. So if we did what our Republican colleagues here say they want to do, which is this instant--repeal ObamaCare--they wouldn't have a budget that was in balance. You don't have to take my word for it. The Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think tank, just issued this statement: ``Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget''--meaning the Republican budget--``is that it keeps the tax increases associated with ObamaCare.'' It keeps those. It keeps all the savings in Medicare that were achieved as part of the Affordable Care Act where we achieved them by reducing the overpayments to the private insurance companies by changing the incentive structure to focus more on the quality of care rather than the quantity of care. Do you remember all those Medicare savings that we heard our colleagues demagog in the last election last fall? They keep all those savings, and their balance wouldn't balance without them. Our budget dramatically cuts the deficit and makes sure that our deficits are not growing faster than the economy, down to 2.4 percent by the end of the window. We stabilize the debt below where the CBO projects today, we stabilize 70 percent GDP. And, yes, we also will balance our budget in the same year that the Republican budget from last year balanced. If this were just a race to balance the budget first, then people should vote for the Republican study group proposal--4 years. But if your priority is jobs and economic growth, as it should be as part of a measured and balanced approach to reducing the deficit, then you need to support the Democratic alternative. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, today's legislation is a missed opportunity. As our economy recovers, job training services are more essential than ever, and we should be reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act to ensure that these services are delivered efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, H.R. 803 will not do that. This bill establishes a single block grant for Workforce Investment Act funds, creating a one-size-fits-all model and jeopardizing services for the most at-risk populations, including workers with disabilities, older workers, disabled veterans, and youth. It also weakens Workforce Investment Boards by eliminating representation requirements for community-based organizations, community colleges, and labor. Without these important stakeholders, Boards will lose vital expertise in training and placement. While Democrats believe the Workforce Investment Act needs to be updated to meet today's job training needs, H.R. 803 is not the way to do it. I support the substitute offered by Mr. Tierney, Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Miller that would streamline programs and improve accountability without threatening services for underserved populations. It would authorize the President's Community College Fund to expand the role of community colleges in job training and allow them to offer specialized skills and recognized credentials. It would increase access for work experience programs, including summer employment, internships, and pre-apprenticeship programs, so workers can receive training on the job. And it would establish common reporting and performance measures across all programs so we can better assess what is working. It is a better approach and I regret that the Republican Majority did not work with us to incorporate these ideas into the final bill. Unfortunately, H.R. 803 on the floor today is a step backwards, dismantling protections and access for underserved populations and weakening community involvement in job training and placement. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation and come together to in a bipartisan way to responsibly reform our workforce development programs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, today presents our last chance this month to deal with the harmful effects of sequestration, and yet the bill on the floor does nothing to address this critical issue. This week, for the fourth time, House Republicans blocked my amendment to replace sequestration, even as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that these arbitrary cuts will cost the economy 750,000 jobs and lower economic growth by nearly one-third. By failing to address sequestration, this bill underfunds education, scientific research, and consumer protections. Moreover, while I appreciate that today's bill makes necessary adjustments to defense and veterans programs, I regret that it fails to make similar provisions for every other federal agency. By failing to adjust agency budgets outside of defense, this bill continues spending on old policies while failing to fund important priorities like implementation of the Affordable Care Act and enforcement of Dodd-Frank protections against abuse in the financial sector. This bill also continues to unfairly penalize our federal workforce, extending their pay freeze through the end of the year. I support my colleague Gerry Connolly's bill to freeze Congressional pay, but our federal employees have already paid more than their fair share, sacrificing more than $100 billion in pay and benefits to reduce our Nation's deficit. Private-sector wages rose by an average of 1.4 percent in 2011 and 1.7 percent in 2012, but federal pay has been frozen since 2010. Denying a 0.5 percent cost-of-living increase for the federal workers who secure our airports, patrol our borders, conduct research in national labs, care for our veterans, and inspect our Nation's food supply will only jeopardize our ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest. We stand ready to work with our Republican colleagues to end sequestration and responsibly fund our national priorities. Instead, the Republican Leadership, driven by their most extreme members, continues to move from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, ignoring our most pressing needs--jobs and the economy. We can and must do better for the American people. It is my hope that we can work with our colleagues in the Senate to craft balanced, responsible legislation that avoids a government shutdown, ends sequestration, and properly funds our Nation's priorities.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. McGovern, and thank my colleague, Mr. Cole, for his efforts, but this bill falls short in a number of areas. But most of all, it falls short because it does nothing to prevent the loss of 750,000 American jobs that will result because of the sequester. ``Sequester'' is just a fancy Washington name for hundreds of thousands of American jobs lost. That's going to squeeze middle class families; it's going to squeeze small businesses. And that 750,000 jobs lost number, that's not the President's number, Mr. Speaker. That's not my number. That's the number from the nonpartisan, independent Congressional Budget Office, who have told us that if the sequester stays in place till the end of this calendar year, you'll have 750,000 less Americans working at a time when we have a very fragile recovery going on. Just last week, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that it would reduce economic growth this year by one-third. Why would we want to do that when we have an alternative? And, as Mr. McGovern said, we have now tried four times to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of this House on a plan that would replace the sequester in a balanced way. So it would achieve the same amount of deficit reduction as the across-the-board sequester, but without the massive job loss that comes with the sequester because we do it in a targeted way over a period of time. We reduce overpayments and subsidies to the agriculture area, which there's consensus on, but we also close some big tax loopholes. We say big oil companies no longer need big taxpayer subsidies, something that President Bush proposed. And yet our colleagues are so insistent on protecting those special interest tax breaks and not allowing those funds to be used to reduce the deficit, that they haven't even allowed a vote up or down here on the floor of the House. As my colleague, Mr. McGovern said, we have now tried four times. How many times have our Republican colleagues put forward a solution to replace the sequester this year? Zero. Zero when it counts. So this is a very simple question. As part of this bill, we should have an up-or-down vote in the people's House on a choice. We're not asking our colleagues to vote for it, but I think if you look at surveys from the American people, the overwhelming majority of the American people support this replacement approach, this balanced approach to avoiding the sequester, than the huge job losses that result as a result of the sequester. And people should not be misled when they look at the numbers in different funding categories in this bill, because it's not what it seems. They will be cut dramatically. That will mean fewer researchers looking for cures and treatments to diseases, fewer nurses taking care of veterans at our hospitals. So, Mr. Speaker, we just ask, in the interest of openness and transparency, give us a vote. Give the American people a vote on an alternative to the sequester so we don't lose hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's always good to see a show of Hoosier unity on the floor of the House, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in voting for this bill. The State of Maryland also has a balanced budget, but we also have a capital budget and other parts that we do differently. Look, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this bill. I support transparency. I supported virtually the identical provision 30 days ago. That's really not the issue. Yes, we want more information, and we'll get it. But the real issue here is the loss of jobs. Now, the previous gentleman mentioned that the Washington Times has an article saying more jobs were created. Thank goodness we are finally seeing more and more jobs created. We will have economic growth. There will be jobs created. The question is how many fewer jobs we will have as a result of the sequester. The CBO hasn't said it will stop every job from being created. What the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said, and what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said, is that this sequester, if it remains in place through the end of the year, will be a drag on growth, so we will have fewer jobs created. In fact, they estimate we will have 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of the year if we don't do something about the sequester. So, Mr. Speaker, I'd just go back to the original question: Why take up something we've already done, already passed virtually unanimously, when we have a much more pressing issue and when we, today, will ask for the fourth time this year, when it counts, to vote on a bill that would replace the sequester in a smart and balanced way without the loss of jobs? That's the fundamental question. And why this House is shirking that responsibility and refusing to hold a vote on a proposal that would prevent the loss of 750,000 jobs is a question I think the American people are asking themselves. So, Mr. Speaker, let's get on to the pressing business. Let's focus on jobs and really reducing the deficit and not playing these kind of games on the floor of the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I have to remind people as they listen to this debate that this bill does nothing--zero--to reduce the deficit--nothing. All it does is ask for a calculation, which we've said we welcome and which one of our Members actually did on the floor of the House here as she gave her presentation, and it's that which we can all do. But by all means, let's say to the President, Put that calculation in your budget--even though that calculation is out of date 3 days after the budget is submitted if we don't get control of the deficit and do it in a smart way. I agree with the gentleman when he says the best way to deal with the deficit is to grow the economy. That's what we should be focused on, which is why we're asking today--for the fourth time--for a vote on our proposal to replace the sequester so that we don't lose 750,000 jobs; 750,000 jobs is the number of jobs that were created between October of last year and January of this year. According to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, if we continue to allow that sequester to remain in place, we will see one-third less economic growth. Now, if you don't believe the nonpartisan, independent head of the Congressional Budget Office, who does professional work, and if you don't believe the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who is not a partisan, maybe our Republican colleagues will believe the House Republican leader, Mr. Cantor. Here is what he said on the floor of this House, not that long ago, with respect to the sequester: ``Under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level . . . '' He goes on to say that it would set back ``any progress the economy has made.'' He then referred to a study that said, `` . . . the jobs of more than 200,000 Virginians, in my home State, are on the line.'' That's Mr. Cantor. Here is what the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee said about a month ago. This is what Mr. McKeon said when we got the numbers from the last quarter showing the economy was slowing, in part, in anticipation of these cuts. Mr. McKeon said: This is just the first indicator of the extraordinary economic damage defense cuts will do. And that's just the defense cuts. You've also got these across-the- board cuts in important investments in biomedical research to try and find treatments and cures to diseases that hit families throughout this country. You're going to be putting people out of work who do that important research for our country. And at the end of the day, in addition to the furloughs and the disruption that will cause in the economy, throughout the entire economy, 750,000 fewer jobs will result at the end of the calendar year. So why in the world are we debating a bill that we've already passed--I believe unanimously--1 month ago that does nothing about jobs, nothing about the deficit, rather than take up the proposal that we put forward to replace the sequester in a smart and balanced way, through targeted cuts, but also the elimination of these tax breaks. And the answer is, unfortunately, that our Republican colleagues, many of whom have signed that Grover Norquist pledge, have said that they're not willing to close one tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. Not one penny. We hear all of the talk about reducing the deficit, but no, you can't take away one tax break for a corporate jet to reduce the deficit. You can't say to a hedge fund manager: you're no longer going to get a special tax preference if it means we're going to take that away so we can reduce the deficit. So if we're really concerned about the deficit, as we should be, let's get at it in a balanced way, and not in the sequester way, which will result in 750,000 fewer American jobs. That's what we should be focused on today, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the American public does have a right to know. I don't know how many times we have to say this on the floor of this House: We passed virtually the identical bill 30 days ago, approximately, and I'm not objecting to this bill. People have a right to know. We should have transparency. We should reduce the deficit, and this bill does nothing to reduce the deficit. What we need to do is make sure that we get our deficits under control, that we stabilize the debt, and that we make smart choices for the people in this country. Yes, there is a difference of opinion. We believe that as part of reducing the deficit, we should make targeted smart cuts, but we should also cut some of those tax loopholes. Now the gentleman mentioned that we passed a tax increase on $600 billion over the next 10 years. That's right; we finally said, for higher income earners, you're going to go back to paying the same rates as you were during the Clinton administration. But the gentleman suggested that budget history began on January 1 of this year. We were all here--not everybody, but most of us--when we passed the Budget Control Act in the summer of 2011. What did we do in that act? We capped spending--$1.5 trillion in spending reductions. That was the right thing to do. Now we've done $600 billion in revenue. So I think most people can do the math on this. We're not nearly close to the kind of ratios that the bipartisan commission, the bipartisan fiscal commission, Simpson-Bowles, we're not close to the balance that they talked about in terms of revenue and cuts, not even in the ballpark. So let's focus on the fundamental question, which is, number one, getting the economy moving again, not losing 750,000 jobs this year, and then reducing our deficits in a smart and balanced way over a period of time. But yes, by all means, let's have the President do a calculation, which one of the earlier Republican speakers did on the floor of the House. We can all do that. Of course as indicated, that calculation changes day to day. But by all means, let's get it. But let's not pretend that this piece of legislation does one thing to create one job or reduce the deficit by one penny. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As one of the earlier speakers said during the 1 minutes, this bill simply requires a math calculation, and we have absolutely no objection to doing that. As the gentleman may know, about a month ago we passed an amendment that did virtually the same thing. I do wonder why it is we think the President is better with a calculator than Congress. Because what this does require simply is that you take the deficit and you divide it by the number of taxpayers. But we're certainly fine to have transparency and have the President put that in his budget as part of his submission as well. Our concern is that this really doesn't address the fundamental question that we're facing here in the Congress: number one, making sure we get the economy kicked into full gear, and jobs; and, number two, reducing the deficit in a smart and balanced way over a period of time so that we're not balancing the budget on the backs of our seniors, that we're not violating commitments we've made to our seniors, that we're not cutting into education funding for our kids-- which is important to making sure that the economy grows and that they have opportunities in their lives--and that we do that in a smart way that doesn't, in the process, result in fewer American jobs. So the real number we should be focused on here today is 750,000, because 750,000 is the number of jobs that the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says will be lost so long as the sequester that began March 1 remains in place through the end of this year. So let me say that again. So long as the sequester that started on March 1 remains in place through the end of the calendar year, the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that we will have 750,000 fewer American jobs. That's not President Obama's number; it's not my number; it's an independent number. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, was on the Hill testifying just last week and made similar predictions. They have both--both the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, as well as the Congressional Budget Office--said that our economic growth between now and the end of the year will be reduced by a full one-third if the sequester remains in place. So that's what this House should be doing. Today, a little later today, for the fourth time this year--for the fourth time this year, Mr. Speaker--I will go, on behalf of my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, to the Rules Committee and ask for the opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation that would replace that sequester in a smart and balanced way and in a way that doesn't result in 750,000 fewer American jobs. Now, you would think our colleagues would want to vote on something like that instead of voting on a bill that just requires a math calculation--which is fine--but it doesn't do anything about jobs, and it doesn't actually do anything to reduce the deficit. But we've not been given that opportunity. So I would just ask my colleagues: Why is it so important to bring a bill to the floor that asks the President to do another math calculation--which we all can support--and not bring to the floor of the House a bill that actually would prevent the loss of 750,000 jobs and present a balanced plan to reducing the deficit in a way that doesn't harm the economy? That really is the question here today, Mr. Speaker, and maybe at some point we'll get an answer. And maybe this House will live up to its promise of being the people's House and a transparent House, and we'll actually get a vote on our fourth request. I'm not holding my breath, but it would be nice if those commitments would be kept, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.