[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 53 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E517-E518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 29, 2012

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H. Con. Res. 112) 
     establishing the budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2013 and setting

[[Page E518]]

     forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 
     through 2022:

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, over the last two days, we have debated 
very different visions and choices for addressing the budgetary 
challenges facing our Nation. We do not have a difference on the 
question of whether or not we should reduce our long-term deficits and 
the debt. We must. We have a difference over how to do it.
  Unfortunately, the Republican plan makes all the wrong choices. It 
abandons the economic recovery and ends the Medicare guarantee to 
seniors, while providing a whopping average tax break of almost 
$400,000 for people making over $1 million a year. This Republican plan 
will weaken economic growth. It rewards corporations that ship American 
jobs overseas, while slashing investments in education, in science and 
research, and infrastructure that help America grow our economy right 
here at home. In short, it is a path to greater prosperity, if you're 
already wealthy. But it leaves seniors, working Americans, and future 
generations behind.
  During the course of this debate, we will have the opportunity to 
consider several alternatives to the Republican budget, offered by 
Democrats. Every single one of these alternatives is far superior to 
the Republican plan, because they embody a more sensible, fair approach 
to our fiscal challenges.
  To be clear, the only Democratic alternative that I fully and wholly 
support is the one I will offer. I have concerns with certain aspects 
of the other Democratic plans. I believe some of them rely too heavily 
on raising revenues and spend more than I think is necessary, and some 
of them make cuts to defense that I believe are too deep. Nevertheless, 
they provide important alternative approaches to reducing the deficit.
  Another proposal was offered by Mr. Cooper and Mr. LaTourette. I 
commend these Members for offering an alternative budget. However, 
claims that their proposal embodied the recommendations of the Simpson-
Bowles Commission are simply untrue. Most importantly, their proposal 
calls for significantly less revenue than Simpson-Bowles. It does this 
by changing the baseline used as the starting point for the revenue 
increase. The Simpson-Bowles baseline assumed the revenue generated by 
allowing the top tax rate to rise to 39 percent--as it is scheduled to 
do under current law. The Cooper-LaTourette proposal failed to account 
for that revenue. The difference is substantial--approximately $1 
trillion in revenue. I believe in truth-in-advertising, and Cooper-
LaTourette is very different from Simpson-Bowles. It moves the goal 
posts. As a result, the Cooper-LaTourette proposal has a significantly 
higher ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases compared to the 
deficit reduction in the Simpson-Bowles package. The Cooper-LaTourette 
plan also differs from Simpson-Bowles in other respects, such as by 
making deeper cuts in spending for discretionary programs. And it cuts 
nondefense discretionary funding by $350 billion more than required by 
the Budget Control Act over ten years--which is also inconsistent with 
Simpson-Bowles.
  I continue to believe the original Simpson-Bowles proposal offers an 
important framework for achieving a bipartisan deficit reduction plan. 
I would also point out that both the President's budget and the 
Democratic alternative I have offered share many of the same principles 
as Simpson-Bowles. Indeed, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles said the 
following about the President's budget:

       In the framework he announced in April and what he 
     submitted to the Select Committee in September, the President 
     embraced many of the goals and principles outlined by the 
     Fiscal Commission and incorporated some of the policies we 
     proposed. We are pleased that the President's latest budget 
     continues to focus on deficit reduction and are also 
     encouraged to see real, specific policies for limiting tax 
     expenditures, slowing health care cost growth, and reducing 
     spending throughout the government.

  While they went on to urge the President to go further, they 
recognized that his budget was a step in the right direction. The 
Democratic alternative budget mirrors the overall framework of the 
President's budget, and actually reduces the deficit more than the 
President's plan.

                          ____________________