Date: 2015-03-24
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just start with some comments about the importance of making sure we make investments in defense in a straightforward and honest way. The chairmans comments were directly contrary to the position he took 1 year ago. Here is what he said as part of the Republican majority: "Abuse of the OCO"-that is the overseas contingency account-"is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process." That is what our Republican colleagues said. They said they werent going to allow it. They are using the overseas contingency account as a slush fund for moneys that should be invested in the normal Defense Department accounts. That is what they said last year. They have done a 180 here. That is a discredit to this House. We keep hearing all day about Price 1 and Price 2. What is that all about? I am sure colleagues listening have got to be going: What is going on. Price 1 and Price 2? It is because our Republican colleagues havent figured out how they are going to fund the defense of the country. But both Price 1 and Price 2 are a violation of the position our Republican colleagues took just a year ago. So lets do this in a way that honors our commitment to our defense and do it in a straightforward manner. the way that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others have recommended. Now. it is always interesting to understand peoples different perceptions in morality. I would just ask a question: Is it right to have a budget that refuses to cut a single special interest tax break in order to reduce the deficit while cutting our investment in our kids education? Is it right to have a budget that wont cut a corporate tax break. like the corporate jet loophole. but cuts our investment in our kids education. increases the cost of prescription drugs to seniors. says to students you are going to pay more for your student loans? I was really interested to hear the chairmans comments about the student loan program. What the Democrats did when they were in the majority was get rid of a system where the big banks were making guaranteed returns off of taxpayer dollars that were not going to students. They were making guaranteed 9 percent returns. So we said: Why should we have a system where the big banks are getting these guaranteed taxpayersubsidized returns? And we moved to a direct loan program. That meant every dollar could go farther in terms of providing student loans. Cut out the big banks. They were just siphoning off dollars that were intended to go to students. That is what we did. But we also understand that despite those improvements. our students are finding it costly to go to college. That is why actually in our budget we provide for increased opportunity and more affordable college. the opposite of what our Republicans do. which is they say they want to increase interest rates on student loans and cut $90 billionplus from Pell grants. Is it moral or. I should just ask: Does the country really think it is right to have a budget that paves the way for cutting the top tax rate for the wealthiest people in the country. the people who have done just great over the last 20. 30 years? Is it right to cut their tax rates by onethird. from 39 percent down to the mid20s. while increasing the tax burden on working families. middle class families. and those who are working their way into the middle class. getting rid of the deduction for higher education. getting rid of the increase in the child tax credit. getting rid of the Affordable Care Act tax credits that help people afford education? The Tax Policy Center did a study that said a proposal like the RomneyRyan plan would provide about an average tax cut of $200.000 to millionaires and increase the tax burden on middleincome families by $2.000. Is that right? Look. the issue here is whether you believe that we should grow our economy and accelerate economic growth in a way with more shared prosperity. or whether you believe in an economy that grows through trickle down. the idea that cutting tax rates for the top will somehow lift everybody up. That theory ran into the hard wall of reality. Folks at the top had their incomes go up. everybody else was running in place. We should not go back to that. I reserve the balance of my time.