Date: 2013-03-05
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The floor manager mentioned that two times our Republican colleagues had put forth an alternative to the sequester. I know the gentleman knows well that were in a new Congress. and starting in January. all the bills that were put forward in the last Congress were wiped off the books. They dont have any meaning at this point in time. And this year. since weve been in a new Congress. since the election. the number of times our Republican colleagues have put forth a proposal to prevent that sequester to replace it is zerozero times in this Congresswhen it could actually make a difference. Yet. today. for the fourth time. were going to go and ask for a vote on our proposal. Now. were not asking our colleagues to vote for a proposal. although I think that public surveys show the overwhelming majority of the American people would think that our alternative to replacing the sequester is a lot better than the sequester. Were not even asking our colleagues to vote for it. Were just asking for a vote on it. Lets let the peoples House do its work. Now. we talked about the deficit. Theres no argument about the need to reduce our deficits. We just need to do it in a smart way and in a way that doesnt hurt the economy and doesnt cost jobs. and our proposal does have a balanced way. It combines additional. targeted cuts over a period of time with cutting tax loopholes that are in the Tax Code over a period of time. Our Republican colleagues keep talking about how bad the deficit is. We say we agree with you on that. but it apparently isnt bad enough that you would close one single tax loophole in order to reduce the deficit. In fact. that Grover Norquist pledge thats been signed by over 90 percent of our House colleagues says that you promise not to close a single tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. You cant get rid of a tax break for corporate jets. You cant get rid of the special treatment of hedge fund managers under the Tax Code if its part of an effort to reduce the deficit. How is that serious deficit reduction? So what weve said is we need to do both. We need to eliminate a lot of those tax preferences and tax breaks for big oil companies and others. and we also need to make sensible. targeted cuts in other areas and reduce the deficit in a smart way. The alternative plan that we have proposed that were asking for a vote on would accomplish the same amount of deficit reduction as the sequester through this calendar year. but do it in a way that does not cost 750.000 American jobs. because we dont do it so deeply. so quickly. Thats the difference. and thats why bipartisan commissions have recommended the balanced approach to reducing the deficit. So. again. the numbers for this year. which is the only thing thats relevant in terms of congressional action. is that there has been zero effort. zero times that our colleagues have brought to the floor a proposal to replace sequester. Were now asking our fourth time this afternoon simply to have a vote. I hope that we can finally get one. Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.