BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
I saw the gentleman from Maryland this morning on television. It was the first time I had heard, Madam Speaker, of his proposal. So I had a chance to take a look at it today, and I also had a chance to look at the CBO report that was performed on it. I saw some interesting things that I don't know if we've discussed fully here today.
It raises taxes by $85 billion over the 10-year window. According to the CBO, it raises spending by almost $80 billion. This is a refrain that I used to hear a lot when I was younger--taxes and spending, taxes and spending, raise taxes and increase spending. I thought it was gone from today's party across the aisle, but evidently, here it is--alive and well--in Mr. Van Hollen's substitute offering, raising taxes by $85 billion and raising spending by $80 billion, which is a net reduction of the deficit of $5 billion over 10 years. According to the CBO, it actually increases the deficit by $55 billion in the first year.
It does that, by the way, in part and parcel by offering what they call the Buffett rule. The last time I came to this well, I believe the gentleman from Maryland and I had a nice exchange about whether or not my amendment was a gimmick. It was the amendment regarding the President's budget. I seem to remember someone else calling the Buffett rule a gimmick. In my research in coming over here today, I found out that it was, in fact, the President of the United States who called the Buffett rule a gimmick. So I'm wondering now if the President believes that part of the gentleman from Maryland's offering is, in fact, a gimmick because it encompasses the Buffett rule in its entirety.
I compare all of this, Madam Speaker, to the offering that we have before you with our bill. That bill reduces the deficit by at least $237 billion over the same 10 years. Theirs reduces it by $5 billion--raising taxes. According to the CBO, ours reduces the deficit by at least $237 billion. That's the smallest number the CBO gives us. It also gives us four times as much in deficit reduction in the first year as does the BCA that it seeks to replace. Again, theirs increases the deficit by $55 billion in the first year. Ours decreases it by more than the BCA it seeks to replace. Our offering does that without asking anybody to pay more money to the government. People pay enough money to the government. We spend their money improperly. It's not that we don't take enough from them. We take enough money from our citizens. We spend it improperly.
So, when I finished looking at this, I thought to myself, I think it would be great to have this come up for a vote. I'm disappointed that the Rules Committee did not give Mr. Van Hollen the chance to bring it to the floor. It has happened to me before, and for that, I am sympathetic. At the same time, I know that he has a chance to do that still. We are going to finish this debate here in a few minutes; and before we vote, there is going to be a motion to recommit. The gentleman from Maryland could easily offer his amendment as the motion to recommit. In fact, I would welcome the opportunity to see that debate. I would welcome the opportunity here, 60 days before an election, to have my colleagues across the aisle come over and say, We want to raise your taxes. Would you please reelect us. I want that on the floor. I'm disappointed the Rules Committee did not bring it. I would love to see if that's really what our colleagues across the aisle stand for.
I heard it described by the gentlelady from California a few minutes ago as a better plan. I think we are doing a disservice by not allowing a vote on this particular bill, because it is not a better plan, and I think the vote here would bear that out, not just on our side of the aisle. I would be curious to see if that's what our colleagues stand for--more taxes, more spending here 60 days before an election.
I encourage folks to support our bill. Our bill cuts spending, lets people keep their money, and still allows us to end the sequester.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT