National Security and Job Protection Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is really quite a charade we're engaged in here today on the floor of the House of Representatives. Let's just flash back a year ago to how we got to this spot.
At that time, our Republican colleagues threatened that the United States would default on its full faith and credit, that we wouldn't pay the bills that we already incurred, that this Congress had already voted for, and threatened to tank the economy unless we passed their version of the budget, the Ryan budget, the budget that came out of the House Budget Committee. In order to prevent the United States from defaulting, everybody got together--the House, the Senate, and the President--and they passed the Budget Control Act. To hear our Republican colleagues today, you'd think they had nothing to do with the Budget Control Act. We heard the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, on television the other day not wanting to associate himself with that.
The reality is he voted for it. The Speaker of the House said he got 98 percent of what he wanted. Here's the Speaker of the House after we passed the Budget Control Act:
I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy.
Now we are faced with the consequences of the Budget Control Act. What did it do? Two things: It cut spending, discretionary spending over 10 years by a trillion dollars by putting in spending caps, and it created a sequester process.
There's agreement in this House that allowing the meat-ax sequester agreements to take place would really be a stupid thing to do. There's agreement on that.
The issue is: How do we replace that? How do we achieve a similar amount of deficit reduction to replace that sequester?
We hear our Republican colleagues say there is no leadership from the President; they haven't heard any alternatives. That's just not true.
There are lots of alternatives that have been put on the table. They just don't like the alternatives. And do you know why? Because the Democratic alternatives to the sequester, and the one put forward by the President, takes the same balanced approach that's been recommended by bipartisan commissions.
They say that in order to tackle our deficit we should make additional cuts. But we should also eliminate a lot of special interest tax breaks for Big Oil companies. We should ask the very wealthy to go back to paying a little bit more in taxes, about what they were paying when President Clinton was President, the last time we balanced our budget.
The President has submitted that. In fact, a year ago the President sent down a plan right here on how we could take a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
Just yesterday in the Rules Committee, on behalf of my Democratic colleagues, we proposed a substitute that would totally have replaced the sequester, again through a mix of cuts, cutting some of the excessive agriculture subsidies, but also raising revenue by cutting some of the big breaks for Big Oil companies and asking the wealthiest to chip in a little bit more.
Our Republican colleagues who say they want a big open debate on the floor here, they denied us even a vote on that amendment. We're not going to get to vote today on that amendment. Instead, we're voting on this resolution that, even if we pass it and the Senate passes it and the President would sign it, it would do nothing about the sequester--nothing. That's why I said this is a charade.
We had an option to bring to the floor of this House a real substitute proposal that, if we passed it, it would have removed the sequester, made sure that there are no cuts to defense and nondefense under the sequester. We don't get to vote on that today. Instead, we're voting on something that is totally meaningless.
They say they're going to ask the President to submit a report to the
Congress. He's already done it. He did it a year ago. They just don't like it because it takes a balanced approach, because it does ask Big Oil companies to give up some of their big taxpayer subsidies.
So, Mr. Speaker, let's end the charade. The moment our Republican colleagues come to the conclusion that it's more important to protect defense spending than it is to protect special interest tax breaks for Big Oil companies, we can move on and deal with this in a balanced way, the same way bipartisan commissions have recommended.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We've heard before that there was this vote on the President's plan and that it got no votes. We had a vote on a fake President's plan. When we actually had to vote on the Democratic alternative, which the White House made clear was closer to their plan than the one that was put up for a fake vote, it got a huge vote from our Democratic colleagues.
I would just ask Mr. West to read his own amendment. Because if you read the bill, it's pretty clear if we were to pass it and the Senate was to pass it and the President would sign it, it doesn't make the sequester go away. No, it doesn't make the sequester go away. It calls for action. In fact, it says the President should submit a plan within a certain period of time. It's right here in your bill: Presidential submission not later than October 15, 2012. The President shall transmit to the Congress a legislative proposal.
Mr. WEST. If the gentleman will yield, it says that it would be replaced. If you come up with a plan, it will be replaced.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Exactly. And reclaiming my time, that's exactly right. That's exactly what it says. But you tell the President what his plan has to do. You tell the President that his plan cannot include one penny of revenue for the purpose of reducing the deficit. In other words, you say the President's plan has got to look like your plan.
So, Mr. Speaker, the issue here is not whether the President has a plan or not. He does have a plan. Our Republican colleagues don't like it because it says that it's more important to protect defense spending and protect domestic spending like NIH than it is to protect special interest tax loopholes. And I see the chairman of the Armed Services Committee on the floor, and I respect him greatly. That's the position he took last October. Here's what he said when he was asked:
``If it came that I had only two choices, one was a tax increase and one was a cut in defense over and above where we already are, I would go to strengthen defense.''
That is the President's position. That's the President's position, Mr. West. He said we need to take a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. We need to combine cuts. But we also should end special interest tax breaks for the big oil companies. George Bush himself said when you've got oil above $50 a barrel, you don't need these ridiculous incentives to keep them drilling. And we should ask very wealthy individuals, frankly, to pay the same tax rate that the people who work for them do; the same effective tax rate. And we should eliminate some of these ag subsidies.
Now you asked about other proposals. I have a proposal in my hand. I took it to the House Rules Committee yesterday. It would have totally replaced the sequester. If we actually voted on this, it would replace the sequester for defense and nondefense. You know how we do it? We do it through cuts to big ag subsidies, we do it by eliminating subsidies for the big oil companies, and yes, we ask people making more than a million dollars a year to pay a little bit more because we think it's more important to do that than allow these cuts to defense to take place and all the consequences you talk about, and we think it's important to protect investments in places like NIH, people who are fighting to try and find cures for diseases.
So, Madam Speaker, the issue is not whether we replace the sequester. The President's got a proposal. I've got a proposal. It's how we do it. And, again, our Republican colleagues have doubled down on this idea that you're going to protect every tax break that's out there before you protect spending on our national defense.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just would ask the gentleman, and I would yield to him for an answer, whether he means Bain Capital is a small business.
Mr. WEST. I'm not talking about Bain Capital. You said raise taxes on individuals. I'm talking about personal income.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. Mr. West, when Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan and all our Republican colleagues cite those figures about passthroughs, that includes companies like Bain Capital. It also includes some Fortune 100 companies. The President has put forward a proposal that says let's act right now to extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people and 97 percent of all passthrough businesses.
It's true we don't think that Bain Capital needs a big additional tax break when we've got a big deficit that we should deal with in what we think should be a balanced way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It's hard to know where to begin because--I hope everyone was listening very carefully. If we allow these spending cuts to take place, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in Virginia alone. Thousands of jobs around the country.
You know, I've heard a lot of complaints from our Republican colleagues about the recovery bill and the fact that we had to do some emergency spending to prevent the loss of millions of jobs. You know what? That worked. And here our Republican colleagues here today are saying that we've got to make sure the spending cuts don't take place because if we do, it will result in a lot of lost jobs.
Well, you know what? It takes jobs to build an aircraft carrier, absolutely. It also creates jobs when you invest in trying to repair and modernize our roads and our bridges, our infrastructure.
The President submitted a jobs bill more than a year ago to this House to do exactly that. Let's invest more in modernizing our infrastructure. We haven't had a single vote on the President's jobs bill.
So I'm really glad to hear our Republican colleagues say that if we make these kinds of cuts, it's going to result in lost jobs because you know what? You are right about that.
The debate today is not about whether we should prevent the sequester from taking place. As I said, we should. It's how we do that.
I heard again from the Republican leader the President doesn't have a plan. He has a plan. They just don't like his plan. They don't like his plan because it takes a balanced approach. It says, you know what? In addition to cuts, we should also ask people who make more than a million dollars a year to contribute a little more to reducing our national deficit and preventing the sequester. We should ask big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies.
So, the question, Madam Speaker, is not whether we replace the sequester. There are lots of plans that I've already talked about. The one in my hand, I offered it yesterday. I can't get a vote on it today.
The issue is not whether; it's how. We should take a balanced approach.
I yield now 3 minutes to the gen tle lady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; we should act like adults.
We agree that the sequester cuts are done in a stupid, meat-ax way. We also agree with what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said last October when, if it came to choosing between allowing all of the terrible consequences that he rightly spoke about and taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction which included some additional revenue, he would accept the balanced approach.
Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will yield for a very quick question.
Mr. McKEON. You presented something that I said when I was asked after a speech what I would do, given two bad choices. But you don't have anything on the floor yet. You haven't passed a bill, so I don't even have the opportunity to vote for increased taxes because you haven't passed a bill yet.
Thank you.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We wanted to give you that opportunity yesterday, which is why I went to the House Rules Committee with this substitute--which is in my hand, Mr. Chairman--that said you can replace the sequester right away if you're willing to cut some big ag subsidies, which I thought we were all agreed that we could do, but also get rid of some of the subsidies for the Big Oil companies, not some of the smaller producers, the big five, and you ask folks over $1 million to pay the same effective rate that people who work for them pay.
I agree with what you said last October, which is that it's more important to prevent the kind of cuts that we're talking about here today to defense and non-defense than it is to protect tax breaks for Big Oil companies.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to vote. We wanted to vote. If the Rules Committee will allow us a vote, you can do it right now. In fact, the thing I have in my hand, the substitute, if we passed it, would actually replace the sequester. The resolution on the floor doesn't replace the sequester, even if it goes to the White House.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for those comments, and I would just say this:
I have in my hand a proposal, a substitute amendment. If we passed it, it would prevent the sequester from taking place on defense and non- defense in a balanced way. You spend these things one time to get rid of the sequester.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee said he wished he had an opportunity to vote on something like this, and I say to him, I wish the Rules Committee had given him that opportunity.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I wish Mr. Mulvaney were more persuasive with his colleagues because we agree. I wish we had a vote on this. We're happy to have that debate. In fact, that's what we've been having on the floor today.
We heard a lot from our colleagues about the devastating impact of these cuts on defense and other things, and we agree, which is why we think it's appropriate to ask people who earn more than a $1 million a year to help contribute a little bit more to our deficit so that we don't have to see these consequences.
I now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Madam Speaker, the issue all afternoon has not been whether we should replace the sequester. Yes, we should. The issue has been how we do that.
We've heard our Republican colleagues talk about the devastating impact of the sequester on defense and nondefense. We agree. That's why we put forward a plan to replace the sequester in the balanced way that has been recommended by bipartisan groups through a combination of cuts, but also revenues generated by things like closing the tax loopholes for big oil companies. Our Republican colleagues have just doubled down on the position that it's more important to protect tax breaks for big oil companies and very wealthy individuals than it is to protect our investment in spending in defense or other important national priorities. That's what this debate is all about.
I hope we will reject this proposal and adopt a more balanced one.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, let's just flash back to a year ago when we were working on the Budget Control Act, and it's, I think, worth reminding everybody what the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, said at that time:
I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy.
That's what the Speaker of the House said about the Budget Control Act.
We now find ourselves here trying to find a way to prevent these across-the-board meat-ax cuts from taking place in the defense budget and the non-defense budget. There is agreement that that would be a stupid way to deal with our deficit, so there's no dispute there.
The issue is: What do we do to replace the sequester, to achieve deficit reduction, but do it in a reasonable and credible way?
That's where the rub is.
What Democrats have said is we need to do it in the way that bipartisan groups have proposed that we do it, through a combination of additional cuts in a targeted way, not in a meat-ax, across-the-board way.
But, yes, we also have to ask the very wealthiest Americans to contribute more to reducing the deficit, because the math is pretty simple. If you don't ask very wealthy people to contribute one more penny to reducing the deficit, then you have to hit everybody else much harder. You have to hit seniors on Medicare harder. You have to reduce dramatically our investment in our kids' education. You have to cut investments in infrastructure, our roads and bridges. Those are the consequences of not taking a balanced approach.
So we say, when it comes to the sequester, we should avoid all the terrible things our colleagues have said and which we agree with. Let's take a balanced approach to do doing it.
You know what? The President submitted a plan to do just that, more than a year ago. It's not that he doesn't have a plan; it's our Republican colleagues don't like the plan. Why? Because he says we don't need to provide these big taxpayer giveaways to the Big Oil companies anymore. We don't need to cut dramatically into things like Medicaid and Medicare when we should be asking seniors to pay a little bit more. Let's ask them to pay what they were paying when President Clinton was President. That's the last time we balanced our budget.
The question is: How do we do it?
The President submitted a proposal. As I said earlier, I took a proposal yesterday to the Rules Committee that would have done this in a balanced approach. Our colleagues say they want an open, democratic process. We haven't had a vote on that.
Instead, we're going to have a vote on something that actually, even if it passes the House and the Senate and is signed by the President, doesn't do anything to eliminate the sequester, doesn't do a thing. It just says that the President has to come up with a plan. But they tell him what it has to do. They say it cannot be balanced. It cannot include any revenue. It has to be across the board in cuts.
Now let's talk a minute about taxes.
The President has called upon this Congress to immediately enact tax relief to 98 percent of the American people, let's do it now before they expire at the end of this year, and our Republican colleagues say, No, no. Nobody gets tax relief unless very wealthy people get a bonus tax break, because everybody on the President's proposal gets tax relief on the first $250,000 of their income. Our Republican colleagues say, No; unless people like Mitt Romney get an extra tax break, nobody gets tax relief.
You know what? The President's proposal provides tax relief to 97 percent of all pass-through businesses. The Republican colleagues say, No; unless you're going to give businesses like Bain Capital a bonus tax break, we can't ask them to contribute one more penny to reducing the deficit.
Let's talk about jobs. It was really interesting to hear our Republican colleagues talk today about the fact that, if you allow these budget cuts to take place, it will have devastating impacts on the jobs in this country.
You know what? A year ago this month, the President submitted a proposal to this Congress, a jobs initiative. It called for investing more in our infrastructure, in our roads and in our bridges, to help put more persons back to work. We have 14 percent unemployment in the construction industry.
So here are our Republican colleagues saying, Well, we can't allow any of these cuts to take place because people who were building tanks will lose their jobs. And we agree; spending that money on defense has consequences. But how is it that spending money on roads and bridges and infrastructure doesn't also put people back to work? That's what the President proposed a year ago. Not a single vote on the President's jobs bill. There were 37 votes to repeal ObamaCare, but not one vote on the President's jobs bill.
So, Madam Speaker, whether it's acting on the jobs bill, which has been sitting here for more than a year, or acting on the President's proposal to immediately extend tax relief to 97 percent of the American people, or whether it's taking a responsible balanced approach to replacing the sequester, let's do what bipartisan groups have recommended and take that balanced way to build our economy and reduce our deficit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source