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

Madam Speaker. I listened carefully to what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said. and I didnt find much that I disagreed with. We agree that we should replace the sequester. and we agree that its a mistake to create the kind of uncertainty thats out there. Obviously. it has an impact. not just in the defense sector. but also in all of the other areas in which our Federal Government has activities. I would just sayand I want to make sure the chairman is on the floor now and has a chance to respondthat he demonstrated some leadership on this issue last fall because he was asked this question. He was asked if he had to put together a plan that included some revenue. He said. Yes. I understand that weve got to make cuts. but Id rather include some revenue than deep cuts to defense. In fact. what he said was: Were going to have to stop repeating ideological talking points and address our budget problems comprehensively through smarter spending and increased revenue. When asked to choose between deeper cuts in defense and cutting some tax breaks. he said we should cut some tax breaks. That was last fall. Thats exactly the kind of balanced approach that the Democrats put forward in the Budget Committee. The chairman of the committee asked for a specific plan. We had a vote on it in the Budget Committee. We wish that our colleagues would have supported it. It would have prevented the sequester from taking place for another year. and it would have eliminated all of the uncertainty the chairman of the Armed Services Committee just talked about. The reason that we havent been able to move forward is that our Republican colleagues continue to insist on supporting these tax breaks for special interests and tax breaks for folks at the very top and that they refuse to eliminate those tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit or for the purpose of eliminating the sequester on defense and nondefense. Thats why we are in the situation we are in right now. The keys to the lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues. We had the same proposal ready to bring to a vote before the whole House of Representatives as part of the reconciliation process. The Rules Committee didnt even allow our proposal to be made in order so that Members of this body could vote on it up or down. So. yes. lets get on with the main issue. Lets focus on replacing the sequester. Lets do it in a balanced way. I have to say. since the gentleman from Texas earlier referenced the comments of Senator REIDS. the majority leader. Ive looked at the Senators comments. The Senators point was the same one Im making here. which is that. if we are going to remove the sequester. we need to take a balanced approach. We need to include cuts. Again. its important to remember we did $1 trillion in cuts100 percent cutsas part of the Budget Control Act. but we also need to include some revenue by eliminating some of these special interest tax breaks and by asking folks at the very top of the income ladder to pay a little bit more for our national defense and for reducing our deficit. That is the underlying issue here. I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee. the gentlelady from Oregon .