Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would remind the body that the $500 million in Medicare reform savings, which we got from ending some of the big breaks to the insurance industry, are kept in the Republican budget. You keep those savings.
What you do not do is what we did: use some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. So you took the savings, but you left the seniors with the doughnut hole.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we do need to make tough choices. The question is what choices do we make? You choose to give another round of tax cuts to millionaires at the same time you're cutting investments in our kids' education. You choose not to get rid of the subsidies, taxpayer subsidies for oil companies while you end the Medicare guarantee, while you immediately eliminate the effort to close the doughnut hole, and while you cut funding for seniors in nursing homes by slashing Medicaid. Those are the choices you have made.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our top priority in this Congress should be to support a robust economic recovery and put America back to work. That is what the Democratic plan does. It reduces the deficit in a steady, predictable way without slashing important investments in our kids' education and strategic national investments, without ending the Medicare guarantee, and without putting seniors, disabled individuals and kids at risk who rely on Medicare, and it reduces the deficit in a balanced way by $1.2 trillion more than the President's budget and achieves primary balance in the year 2018.
The Republican plan we've been discussing is a narrow vision of America--a place with no shared sacrifice, a place where those who have benefited the most from what our country has to offer give little in return.
The Democrats have a different vision for our country. We believe our strength springs not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people pursuing their ambitions and their dreams but also from sometimes harnessing those talents for important national purposes.
We believe America's greatness is rooted not only in a collection of individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the common good. We believe that is a patriotic vision of America. We do not see the government as an enemy but as the imperfect instrument by which we can accomplish together as a people what no individual or single corporation can do alone.
Small business owners recognize that they must make certain investments to build a successful enterprise. Similarly, our Nation must make the strategic national investments necessary to keep our country strong in an increasingly global economic marketplace. Our plan does that.
We also believe we can do that while making cuts, and we make sensible, targeted cuts. But we do it in a smart way, not with a meat ax that threatens the fragile recovery.
We also agree with the fiscal commission that security spending should be part of this debate. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, and I quote, that the most significant threat to our national security is our national debt. There is growing bipartisan consensus that those security agencies must themselves be part of our effort to reduce our debt and strengthen our country.
Our approach is a balanced one. We take cuts in the discretionary and bring down that part of the budget to the lowest point as a percentage of the economy since the Eisenhower administration. We take cuts in other areas. We take cuts in mandatory programs, including agriculture subsidies.
But we make different choices than the Republican budget. We end the subsidies to Big Oil rather than keeping those as we cut education for our kids. We ask the folks at the very top to pay the same tax rate they paid during the Clinton administration rather than end the Medicare guarantee and slash funding for seniors in nursing homes and others who rely on that support.
We make very different choices in this budget, but we accomplish the goal in a fiscally responsible way.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal commission said of the Republican plan it was an unbalanced approach. Our approach is a balanced approach. Secretary Gates' comments were directed to the fiscal commission's recommendations. Our proposals are in line with what the President outlined just the other day. I would point out that Governor Haley Barbour said, ``If we Republicans don't propose some savings of money on defense, we will have no credibility on anything else.'' Of course the Pentagon has never passed a GAO budget, and I think everybody who does budgets recognizes there is some savings to be found there.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished assistant leader, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge Republican Members to read their own budget. It does not give seniors the same deal as Members of Congress. Members of Congress have a fair share formula. Seniors do not under their bill. Seniors get an immediate cut to the prescription drug benefit to the extent that we closed the doughnut hole, and they don't. Let's get our facts straight.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of choosing. Our budget chooses to make investments in our kids rather than choosing to provide even bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy, and we choose to get rid of subsidies for oil companies instead of cutting nursing homes funding through Medicare for seniors and disabled individuals.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that the reason Medicare was created in the first place was because the private insurance industry wouldn't cover seniors' affordable care. That's what they want to go back to.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 45 seconds.
What we heard just doesn't fit the facts. In fact, our budget does make cuts to domestic programs, but we do not do it in a meat ax way. We make cuts to agriculture subsidies. We do tax reform as the commission recommended, getting rid of a lot of clutter in the Tax Code for special interests. That is what we do.
With respect to defense, our numbers track what the President was saying the other day, but we do get rid of a so-called overseas contingency fund which we think our Republican friends would like to join us on which gives the executive branch a blank check to undertake any military operations whatsoever for the next 10 years and doesn't have to ask Congress. That's what we do.
What we don't do? We don't end the Medicare guarantee. What we don't do is we don't keep giving subsidies to oil companies while we cut education for kids. That's what we don't do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, what the Republican budget does is turn back the clock on a fair deal for the American people.
Every person in this body today loves this great Nation of ours and believes it's a special place. We have to maintain the dynamism and exceptionalism of this country. We see different paths and make different choices to accomplish that goal.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said, I was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to proceed. But as I understand the Chamber is now quiet, let me begin where I left off and say that all of us agree, everybody in this Chamber agrees, we need to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in a predictable, steady manner. The question throughout this debate has been not whether, but how we do that. And as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced approach.
And the Republican plan simply fails on that score. And that's what the cochairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. They said it, ``falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a responsible plan.'' And when you peel off the layers, what you find is the Republican plan is not bold. It's just the same old, tired formula we've seen before of providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of America--except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-sounding talk of reform. But at the end, it's the same old ideological agenda--except this time on steroids.
To govern is to choose. Each of us is sent here to make difficult choices, and the choices that are made in the Republican plan we believe are wrong for America.
We do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research, and critical investments in the future.
We don't think it's bold to provide another tax break to millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for ever-rising health care costs.
We do not believe it's visionary to award corporations that ship American jobs rather than American products overseas while we're terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans right here at home.
And we don't think it's brave to give Governors a blank check of Federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and poor kids.
And we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle-income Americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very top.
Yet those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget. Where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq, in Afghanistan, while others hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and refuse to pay their fair share to support our national efforts. And that is why the bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the Republican plan is just not balanced. It's not.
Let's say ``no'' to the Republican plan. Let's say ``yes'' to finding a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a way that protects the values and priorities of the American people and in a way that gets our economy moving and America back to work.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it's hard to see how someone would define saving the social safety net by ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors, by slashing Medicaid by over $750 billion, a program that disproportionately helps seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals. It's really hard to understand how that is preserving the social safety net. It reminds me of that strange statement we once heard that you have to destroy the village in order to save it.
Now, let's understand what happens under this budget to Medicare. This budget ends the Medicare guarantee for seniors. It doesn't reform Medicare; it deforms and dismantles it because it forces seniors off the Medicare program, into the private insurance market.
And it does nothing, as it dumps the seniors into the private insurance market, to control the rate of increase in health care costs. Instead, it transfers to the senior all those risks and all those costs. Seniors will pay a lot more, while the insurance companies will get all their Medicare payroll taxes. They'll get a bonanza out of this thing, but seniors will be left holding the bag.
If your voucher amount, call it whatever you want, is not sufficient to pay for the increased cost, you eat it. And we saw earlier the fact that by the year 2022 seniors will have to pay more than $6,000 above what they would have had to pay under the regular Medicare program. If your doctor's not on a private plan that you can afford, tough luck. This is rationing health care by income, nothing more.
And I want to say something just to clear the record one more time. We keep hearing that they're offering seniors exactly what Members of Congress get. It simply is not true. What Members of Congress get is what's called a fair share deal. I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the aisle just to look at the Federal Employees Benefit Plan. And you look in the Office of Personnel and it says: ``This formula is known as the fair share formula because it will maintain a consistent level of government contributions as a percentage of program costs regardless of what plan the enrollees elect.'' And it says that the government contribution equals the lesser of 72 percent of the amounts OPM determines are program-wide, or 75 percent.
The point is Members of Congress get a fair share formula. The Republican budget does not give a fair share formula to seniors on Medicare. It just doesn't. In fact, the way it saves money is to give them an unfair deal. It unconnects the support we give to seniors from rising health care costs. That's why seniors will end up paying so much more and more and more, because you make the savings--health care costs are going up like this, and the support, if you want to call it support, it's really not coming from the Medicare program or the Federal Government, is going like this. That's why the seniors are having to eat those additional costs. That is what the Republican budget does. At the same time they do provide additional tax breaks for the folks at the very top.
If you want to get rid of some of the junk in the Tax Code, you can support the Democratic plan, because we got rid of subsidies for the oil companies. We got rid of those perverse tax incentives to reward corporations that are shipping American jobs instead of American products overseas.
So if you want to start with tax reform, vote for the Democratic plan. Those are the choices we made, not ending the Medicare guarantee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that even if we adopt the Republican budget, we're going to have to lift the debt ceiling for years and years to come. So let's not play Russian roulette with the economy and the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
Now, on the question of jobs--the question of jobs--during the Clinton administration, we asked the very wealthiest for a little bit more sacrifice than they have today. And do you know what happened to jobs? Twenty million jobs were created during the Clinton administration. Under the current tax rates, after 8 years of George Bush, the private sector lost 630,000 jobs.
So you see the pattern here. During the Clinton administration, economic growth was booming, and 20 million jobs were created. During the 8 years of the Bush administration, there was a net loss of 653,000 jobs. We need to continue to invest in this country and make sure that the entrepreneurs of this country can continue to thrive. We need to do this in a balanced way.
I would point out that the folks who said that this Republican plan we are debating would increase jobs are the same people who predicted that the Bush tax cuts would create jobs. That's the blue line. That's the prediction of the Heritage Foundation about what would happen. The red is the reality. If we want to create jobs and reduce the deficit, we need to do it in a balanced way. That's what the fiscal commission said. That's what the Democratic plan does.
We urge everyone, respectfully, to vote ``no'' on the Republican plan. It's the wrong choice for America.
With that, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source