Chris Van Hollen: “I thank the gentleman from Texas for his comments about the supercommittee. I think we all wished it had succeeded. It…”

“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.…”