Date: 2012-12-20
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the outset. I just want to say to my friend. the chairman of the Budget Committee. I have great respect for him. And I hope he wont take it the wrong way. but Im glad to have you back. and look forward to actually working with you next year. I actually hoped that wed be able to work in a bipartisan way. starting right now. Unfortunately. that doesnt appear to be the case. and we are engaged here in the House on this floor today in what has become a ridiculous political stunt which will actually take us much closer as a country to going over the fiscal cliff. Were wasting valuable time. The Speaker should be engaged with the President of the United States in negotiations rather than having walked away from those negotiations with the President. That walking away is becoming a bad habit. The President put on the table a balanced budget plan that calls for shared responsibility. It calls for $1.2 trillion in additional revenues from highincome earners over the next 10 years. and $1.2 trillion in additional cuts. if you include the interest savings over the next 10 years. And by the way. Mr. Speaker. that $1.2 trillion in cuts comes on top of the over $1 trillion in cuts that have already been agreed to this year. And to our colleague. the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. when he says that the President hasnt lifted a finger to remove the sequester on defense. thats just not true. Its just not true. In fact. the Presidents proposal to cut the $1.2 trillion would also remove the sequester for at least 1 yearand maybe for 10. And its more cuts total than what were talking about on the floor here today. So what we really have. Mr. Speaker. is the fact that too many of our Republican colleagues still think that compromise is a dirty word. And thats what brings us to the floor today in this political exercise. As has. unfortunately. been the case throughout the year. the Republican package that were dealing with today has two objectives. One objective is to minimize the impact of the budget challenge on highincome earners and to shift that burden on the middleincome earners and working people. The numbers tell the story. Mr. Speaker. Because if we go over the fiscal cliff. people earning over $1 million will face a significant income tax hike. But under the Republican Plan B. compared to the Senate plan that is before this House right now. the House Republican plan would give those millionaires a $50.000 tax break on average. But do you know who would pay more under a Republican Plan B? A whole lot of middle class families. Eleven million families will see an average of $1.100 tax increase because the Republican Plan B takes away the tuition tax credit. Twelve million families will lose the enhanced child tax credit. they will face $800 more burden. EITC. 6 million families will pay more. The typical U.S. Army privateincluding those men and women serving us in Afghanistan todaymarried with a newborn infant will see a $453 increase in taxes as a result of Republican Plan B. On average. 25 million families will pay an average of $1.000 more so that 402.000 families who make over $1 million can get an average tax break of $50.000. Thats the tax part of Republican Plan B. Were here today right now talking about the cutting part of Republican Plan B. I think all of us recall during the election the Republican Presidential candidate said: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. And then he went on to say: And so my job is not to worry about those people. Well. you know what? The Republican sequestercutting plan today is making their nominees promise come true. It sends a signal that our Republican colleagues just dont care about the 47 percent. Because you know who gets hit? Heres what it would do. This is according to the Congressional Budget Office. By the way. Mr. Speaker. this is a recycled version. We had virtually the same bill on the floor last spring. were just doing it again. That bill did not get one single Democratic vote. and now its brought here under the premise of some kind of bipartisan approach. The reason it didnt get Democratic support is. while theyre providing these tax breaks to people making over $1 million compared to what it would be if we went over the fiscal cliff. 22 million children will face reduced or eliminated food benefits. Thats according to the Congressional Budget Office. 1.8 million Americans will permanently lose their food assistance. and of those. nearly 300.000 children will lose their school free or reduced lunch program. So what this sequesteravoidance plan does is make good on the promise that Republicans dont care about the 47 percent. Thats why it didnt get any Democratic votes last spring. Thats why. Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to vote against it today. I reserve the balance of my time.