Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber loves America and everybody in this Chamber wants to preserve the dynamism of this country and American exceptionalism. We also all agree that we have to reduce our deficits in a steady and predictable way. The question is how we do that, and we have very different views of how we should do that.

Later this evening and tomorrow, we will debate a Democratic alternative budget which will strengthen our economy, promote job growth, and decrease the deficit in a steady, predictable and responsible way, but the Republican budget is the wrong choice for America. I urge every American to read this budget because if you do, no amount of spin can hide the fact that this is a wrong turn for America. It is a yellow brick road for the already prosperous, but it's a dead end for the rest.

Just today, we had an analysis come out from the former economic adviser to John McCain when he was running for President, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, who said that the Republican plan will cost Americans 1.7 million jobs by the year 2014, with 900,000 jobs lost next year. And the Republican budget violates the warning from the bipartisan commission that we need to do the cuts and the deficit reduction in a responsible way.

The cochairs of the President's fiscal commission stated that the Republican budget ``falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach that we need for a responsible plan.'' They are absolutely right. It is not balanced; it is a totally one-sided approach to deficit reduction. Because when you sweep away all the soothing, sweet-sounding talk of reform, at its core this Republican budget is not bold. In fact, it's the same old formula of increasing tax breaks to the very wealthy in this country and to the special interests, like Big Oil, at the expense of the good of the rest of the country, except this time it's the same old plan on steroids.

We all know that to govern is to choose, and the choices made in the Republican budget are wrong for America. It is not bold to give tax giveaways to the oil companies and executive board rooms while slashing investments in our kids' classrooms, in scientific research, and in critical infrastructure for this country.

It is not courageous to provide additional tax breaks for millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the cost of the rising health care. It is not visionary to reward corporations that ship American jobs instead of products overseas while we terminate health care for tens of millions of Americans here at home. It is not brave to give Governors a blank check of Federal taxpayer money and a license to cut support for seniors and nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and low-income kids on Medicaid. And it's not fair to give yet another tax break to the very wealthy and ask middle-income Americans to pay for it. Yet, if you read the Republican budget, those are the choices they make.

We ask, where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women putting their lives on the line as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan while others hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and refuse to pay their fair share to support our Nation. That is not right.

The pattern is clear: first you cut taxes for special interests and the very wealthy, and then mathematically what happens? Yeah, when you do that, the deficits go up. You drive up the deficit, and then you say, well, we've got to handle this--not by going back and asking the folks at the very top to do more, but by cutting investments for working families and violating our commitments to seniors and others.

Let me turn to the Republican plan for Medicare because what the Republican plan does is it ends the Medicare guarantee. It forces seniors to go into the private insurance market and have to deal with the rising costs of health

[Page: H2806]

care that they face there, and the seniors have to eat that cost. And since the chairman raised this specifically in his opening statement, I would like to just take a look at this chart based on the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office--and the President did mention this in his speech yesterday.

What this shows is what happens to Medicare under the Republican budget versus current Medicare and how much of the increased cost will now be shifted to seniors instead of Medicare. As you can see, compared to current Medicare, senior citizens are going to have to pay more than $6,000 on top of what they would have had to pay in the year 2022. And the problem gets worse and worse over time so that by the time you're out in the year 2030, you're talking about in the range of $11,000 more paid by seniors.

[Time: 17:10]

Now, let me say this. One of the talking points we've heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, Don't worry, seniors, we're just giving you the same health care deal Members of Congress have.

That's not true. What Members of Congress have is what's called a fair share deal agreement, just as other Federal employees do and as many employees around the country do where the risk of rising premiums is shared.

So for every dollar increase in premiums, the Federal Government puts in 72 cents, thereabouts, and the Member of Congress or the Federal employee puts in the rest. But the point is, no matter how fast the costs go up, you share that risk equally. That's not what happens in the Republican plan.

There's much more to talk about, but let me just say that we welcome this debate. Fundamentally, this is a debate about choices for our country, and as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, the choice made in the Republican budget is not balanced and it is not comprehensive. We agree, and we should reject this budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee mentioned the IPAB, and it is true that the President indicated yesterday that that is a mechanism for trying to reduce the rise in Medicare costs. The chairman said they repeal the IPAB, which we believe will result in higher Medicare costs, which will mean that seniors have to absorb an even greater amount of the increase.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do ask the big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies. And yes, we do ask the very top 2 percent of income earners in the country to go back to the same tax rate they were paying during the Clinton years when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created, instead of the dramatic job loss we saw between 2000 and 2008.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the Medicaid program is one where the costs of health care have actually grown much more slowly compared to the growth in health care costs elsewhere. Cutting $1.4 trillion out of an already stretched program is not a recipe for helping more people. It will definitely hurt those who depend on Medicaid. You are just giving Governors a blank check with no accountability.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the Republican budget, I want to make it clear, they took some of the savings that we gained through Medicare reform last year. We gained those savings by ending the overpayments to some of the Medicare Advantage insurance companies that were being overpaid compared to others. They demagogued it when we did it, but they kept that in their budget, but they got rid of our initiative to close the prescription drug doughnut hole for seniors.

So if you pass that budget, the moment it passes, there goes the big doughnut hole all opened up again because they took the money but didn't keep our effort to close the doughnut hole.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we agree that you've got to make cuts. We just think you need a balanced approach where you also deal with the revenue side. And because yours doesn't deal with that piece at all, that's why the fiscal commission said it was unbalanced and lacked the comprehensive solutions that we need.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go back to the point that was raised again with respect to what Members of Congress have in terms of health insurance plans. We have what's called a ``premium support plan.'' The idea behind a premium support plan is that the employer and employee share the premium, and the employer--in this case, the U.S. Government--pays a certain percent. I have right here the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program handbook, and it reads: The government's share of premiums paid is set by law.

So Members of Congress have protected themselves by law. For most employees, the government contribution equals the lesser of 72 percent or 75 percent of the total premium for the particular plan. In other words, the Member of Congress/Federal employee has 72 cents for every premium dollar paid for. Whenever premiums go up, 72 percent of the cost of that premium is picked up by the government.

The Republican plan gives seniors a raw deal. It does not give seniors the deal that Members of Congress give to themselves, and that should be put to rest right now. Just look at the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program handbook.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source