Date: 2012-07-18
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start on the points of agreement. We agree with this piece of legislation. As we said. it passed the Budget Committee unanimously. What it does is ask for some more detailed information on the impact of the acrosstheboard sequester scheduled to take place in January. The Senate also agrees with that. Lets make no mistake. there was an amendment on the Senate side. a bipartisan amendment by Senator PATTY MURRAY of Washington State and Senator MCCAIN. asking for additional information. There was also agreement that we dont need more information to understand that the acrosstheboard sequester cuts would have a very negative impact on the economy and on defense and on important nondefense investments that are important to the American people. The issue really is what are we going to do about it. We have proposed an alternative in this House. We proposed an alternative in the Budget Committee. and it didnt pass. We asked for this whole House to have a chance to vote on an alternative that had a balanced approach that included cuts. but also additional revenues from closing tax breaks and loopholes. and we were denied that opportunity for a vote over here. Lets be very clear about what Senator REID has said and what the President has said on a number of these issues. both the tax issue. as well as the sequestration issue that were debating today. The President of the United States has been very clear that he would like today for the Congress to pass legislation to extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people. all the middle class tax cuts. He wants us to get it done today. In fact. what some people dont realize is that those tax cuts would also benefit folks at the very top. In fact. it provides tax relief to 100 percent of Americans compared to current law. Lets get that done. If we agree on it. lets act now. The same is true with the sequester. The keys to this lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues. Weve agreed that part of the solution is cuts. We did a trillion dollars in cuts last year. 100 percent cuts. Weve also said we can do additional cuts. but we should also deal with the revenue side of the equation if were serious about the deficit. The chairman talked about our use of the word "balance." Its the same use that the SimpsonBowles and RivlinDomenici bipartisan commissions have made. What they have said is any serious approach to reducing the debt. in this case replacing the sequester. requires cuts. yes. but also revenues. The reality is. in this House of Representatives. 98 percent of our Republican colleagues have signed a pledge to this fellow by the name of Grover Norquist. What that pledge says is you cant eliminate one penny of tax breaks. you cant eliminate one dollar of taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies. or ask folks who are making more than a million dollars a year to pay one more dollar for the purpose of deficit reduction. They wont do it. Nor does that pledge allow them to take a dollar tax subsidy away for the purpose of defense spending. We hear a lot of talk about the importance of defense spending. We agree. Secretary Panetta has talked about it. We think we should pay for it. Rather than just talk about defense spending. why dont we also pay for it? We have put two wars on our national credit card: Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of us proposed that we help pay for those as we go so we wouldnt be leaving the bill to future generations. to the children of the troops that are fighting those wars. We should pay for them. But. no. those two wars went on the credit card. Now were talking about defense. The Armed Services Committee has a hearing today on the impact of defense. As weve said. we agree that we dont want to see that. But when faced with the simple choice of cutting more tax breaks for oil companies or asking folks at the very top to pay a little bit more for defense and to reduce the deficit. no. they wont touch that. Lets understand the underlying issue here. both on the tax issues at the end of the year. which we can solve today if our Republican colleagues will stop holding 98 percent of the American taxpayers hostage until they get a continuation of the tax breaks for the folks at the very top. and we can deal with the sequester today if our colleagues are willing to take the balanced approach recommended by every bipartisan commission. Thats whats at issue. Mr. Speaker. let me close with this. Weve heard a lot of talk about how asking the folks at the very top to pay a little more would hurt the economy. The reality is weve tried the trickledown theory. Its in place right now. We tried it for 8 years under the previous administration. The last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the Clinton administration in 2001. ThenPresident Bush came in with backtoback tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the very wealthy. What happened at the end of the 8 years? We lost private sector jobs. So much for the theory that tax breaks for the folks at the very top trickle down and lift everybody up. They lifted the yachts. but the boats ran aground. and thats the reality. Thats what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues. When it comes right down to it. weve been willing to make some tough cuts. and were willing to make more. But because of this pledge or other reasons. our Republican colleagues refused to deal with the deficit in a balanced way. They refused to ask folks at the very top to chip in a little bit more to reduce our deficits and to help pay for defense. Lets take action today to prevent the cuts. not just to defense. but to nondefense. Its interesting. I hear our Republican colleagues talk about the jobs created by defense. thats true. You know. building aircraft carriers creates jobs. Somehow building aircraft carriers creates jobs that building roads and bridges doesnt. The President has a jobs bill thats been sitting in this House of Representatives since September. a major boost in infrastructure. We have 14 percent unemployment in the construction industry. We have roads. bridges. and transit systems in need of repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers has given our Nation a D. grade D. Its a win/win. Lets spend more there. boost jobs and the economy. do a job that needs to be done. But no. you know. cutting defense spending and work on tanks. that will hurt jobs. but its okay not to fund the Presidents infrastructure proposal to put people back to work building bridges and roads. Lets have a rational conversation here. Mr. Speaker. about what works and what doesnt work. and how we can take this balanced approach to reducing our deficit and eliminating replacing the sequester so we can avoid the cuts to both defense and nondefense. I look forward to getting the information called for by this piece of legislation. OMB is actually already crunching the numbers. There are lots of details. I hear. but our time here would be best spent putting in place a plan to replace the sequester rather than simply asking for more information. More information is good. Solving the problem is better. I yield back the balance of my time.