Date: 2011-12-13
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. It was just a few weeks ago that our Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate said they didnt want to do any payroll tax cut for working Americans. They were opposed to any payroll tax cut for the 160 million working Americans. and at the same time they were arguing vigorously in support of protecting tax breaks for the very wealthy in this country. They had been very clear: They dont want to ask the very wealthiest to simply go back to paying the same tax rates that they were paying during the Clinton administrationa time when the economy was booming and 20 million jobs were created. They dont want to do that. but they were prepared to increase the payroll tax on 160 million working Americans. Well. they realized that that didnt sound so good to the American people. and so we are here today. And what the Republican proposal does is two things: It inserts into their bill poison pills which the President has said he will not sign. and they know he said that. What will the result be? It will be the same result that our Republican colleagues wanted 2 weeks ago. which is no payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans. But what they could not bring themselves to do. Mr. Speaker. was pay for that payroll tax cut for 160 million by asking very wealthy people. millionaires and billionaires. to share a little bit more in the responsibility for reducing our deficit. They didnt want to do that. and so their bill cuts other people. For example. their bill would cut the pension of the folks who helped track down Osama Bin Laden. Thank you very much for helping us track down Osama Bin Laden. Were going to cut your pension. Were going to cut your pension and that of other hardworking men and women who protect this country every day in that way. Who else are we going to ask to pay for it? Well. lets ask seniors who earn $80.000 or so. Lets increase their premiums. We dont want to ask folks over $1 million to pay a little bit more. share a little bit more responsibility. Lets ask seniors at $80.000 a year. And you know what? Lets change the current unemployment compensation law from what it would be if we extended current law. Lets change it in a way where folks who are out of work. through no fault of their own. theyre looking every day for a job. lets give them less than what they would get if we extended the current unemployment compensation. So those are all the gymnastics that bring us here today. simply because the majority doesnt want to ask the folks at the very top to pay a little more. What our motion to recommit does is say. we need to have shared responsibility in this country. Lets work together to bring down the deficit. We all know from independent economists that increasing the payroll tax cut will raise another 300.000 jobs. so. in fact. our motion to recommit increases that. And it also does other things to hold Members of this body accountable. So the choice is simple. Do we want to ask folks at the very top to help reduce our deficit and provide that payroll tax cut. and do we want to hold this body accountable? On that issue. I defer to the gentlelady from New York. the ranking member of the Rules Committee.