Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I support this legislation. As the chairman of the Budget Committee said, it passed unanimously out of the Budget Committee.
I believe that more information is better than less. I also believe, and from the comments I've heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we also agree that we have enough information to know right now today that an across-the-board, meat-ax approach to reducing the deficit--a sequester--is a reckless way to deal with our budget.
We've heard a lot about the impact of the cuts on defense. Secretary Panetta has talked about those. We've heard a lot less about the impact of the cuts on other important investments, such as those in biomedical research. A coalition recently reported that the cuts to the National Institutes of Health alone would cut 33,000 jobs. That means fewer people investigating cures and treatments to diseases that plague every American family. That's just one small example on the nondefense side.
But, Madam Speaker, I believe, given what we know, we should be focused today and every day on avoiding the sequester. In the Budget Committee proceedings, the Democrats offered an alternative approach. I've got it right here in my hand. It called for a balanced approach to replacing the sequester, the kind of balanced approach that every bipartisan commission that has looked at our deficit challenge has recommended. It included a combination of cuts, such as direct payments in excessive farm subsidies. It also included cuts to things like big oil companies, eliminating taxpayer subsidies. That plan would totally replace the sequester for 1 year; and it wouldn't have to have the deficit, the impact that we've heard about.
So great to get more information, may have a unanimous vote here today in the House; but let's take a balanced approach to reducing our deficits, and let's take a balanced approach to replacing the sequester.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments about the supercommittee. I think we all wished it had succeeded. It did not, but it was a privilege to serve with my colleague from Texas.
Let me just make a quick correction on the math. I think everybody knows, under the Budget Control Act, which was enacted last September, we cut $1 trillion from the budget, 100 percent cuts.
The alternative that the Democrats have proposed to the sequester takes a balanced approach of additional cuts, but also revenue. In fact, the 1-year proposal that we put forward puts additional cuts in direct payments, excessive subsidies under the farm bill.
Yes, we also eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. Former President Bush testified that, when oil's over $50 a barrel, you don't need taxpayers shelling out dollars to encourage big oil companies to invest. So we think we should eliminate those subsidies to help remove the sequester, including the sequester on defense.
Let's make no mistake. The reason we're here is that our Republican colleagues deliberately chose, as part of the sequester, to put defense spending on the chopping block along with other spending. That was the choice above an offer to deal with revenue as part of a sequester. And when the choice boiled down to cutting tax subsidies for oil companies and other special tax breaks or cutting defense, Republicans chose to put in the sequester cutting defense.
Now, I know we have a hearing today in the Armed Services Committee. I see the distinguished chairman on the floor today. I have to commend him because he has said before that if he were faced with that choice he would take that mixed, more balanced approach. And that ultimately is what we're going to have to do. That's the approach that's been taken by every bipartisan commission that's looked at this challenge.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), a member of the Budget Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said, and I didn't find much that I disagreed with. We agree that we should replace the sequester, and we agree that it's a mistake to create the kind of uncertainty that's 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 say--and I want to make sure the chairman is on the floor now and has a chance to respond--that 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 we've got to make cuts, but I'd rather include some revenue than deep cuts to defense. In fact, what he said was:
We're 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. That's 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 haven't 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 non-defense. That's 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 didn't even allow our proposal to be made in order so that Members of this body could vote on it up or down. So, yes, let's get on with the main issue. Let's focus on replacing the sequester. Let's do it in a balanced way.
I have to say, since the gentleman from Texas earlier referenced the comments of Senator Reid's, the majority leader, I've looked at the Senator's comments. The Senator's point was the same one I'm 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, it's important to remember we did $1 trillion in cuts--100 percent cuts--as 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 gen tle lady from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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 across-the-board sequester scheduled to take place in January. The Senate also agrees with that. Let's 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 don't need more information to understand that the across-the-board 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 didn't 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.
Let's 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 we're 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 don't 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. Let's get that done. If we agree on it, let's act now.
The same is true with the sequester. The keys to this lock are in the hands of our Republican colleagues. We've agreed that part of the solution is cuts. We did a trillion dollars in cuts last year, 100 percent cuts. We've also said we can do additional cuts, but we should also deal with the revenue side of the equation if we're serious about the deficit.
The chairman talked about our use of the word ``balance.'' It's the same use that the Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-Domenici 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 can't eliminate one penny of tax breaks, you can't 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 won't 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 don't 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 wouldn't 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 we're talking about defense. The Armed Services Committee has a hearing today on the impact of defense. As we've said, we agree that we don't 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 won't touch that.
Let's 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. That's what's at issue.
Mr. Speaker, let me close with this. We've 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 we've tried the trickle-down theory. It's 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. Then-President Bush came in with back-to-back 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 that's the reality. That's what we are hearing from our Republican colleagues.
When it comes right down to it, we've been willing to make some tough cuts, and we're 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. Let's take action today to prevent the cuts, not just to defense, but to non-defense.
It's interesting. I hear our Republican colleagues talk about the jobs created by defense, that's true. You know, building aircraft carriers creates jobs. Somehow building aircraft carriers creates jobs that building roads and bridges doesn't. The President has a jobs bill that's 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.
It's a win/win. Let's 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 it's okay not to fund the President's infrastructure proposal to put people back to work building bridges and roads.
Let's have a rational conversation here, Mr. Speaker, about what works and what doesn't 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 non-defense.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source