[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2804-H2811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent
resolution, H. Con. Res. 34.
{time} 1655
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 34) establishing the budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021, with
Mr. Terry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is
considered read the first time.
General debate shall not exceed 4 hours, with 3 hours confined to the
congressional budget, equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and 1 hour on
the subject of economic goals and policies, equally divided and
controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) or their designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 90 minutes of debate on the
congressional budget.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today we passed a continuing resolution that
will ultimately save billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Today we
are converting and switching this debate to now saving trillions of
dollars.
Mr. Chairman, let me just begin by saying this: The spending spree is
over. We cannot keep spending money we don't have.
The American people deserve the truth. They deserve an honest, fact-
based conversation about this budget. We have got to get on to the days
of no more budget gimmicks, timing shifts, accounting tricks. And we've
got to get on to fixing our country's fiscal problems while we still
can and while they're still within our control.
Mr. Chairman, specifically what our budget does is it cuts $6.2
trillion in spending from the President's budget. It brings the
government's spending as a share of our economy back down to where it
historically has been, contrary to where the President is taking it.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a revenue problem in Washington. The
problem here today is not that people don't
[[Page H2805]]
pay enough taxes; the problem is Washington borrows and spends too much
money.
This shows you where Washington is headed, where the President's
budget goes, the path we are on.
Mr. Chairman, I am 41 years old. My wife and I have three beautiful
kids who are 6, 7, and 9 years old. By the time our children are my
age, the government will be twice the size it is today. When they're my
age, double the government, double the taxes just to keep this current
government afloat.
What we are really trying to do, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day
is fulfill the legacy that we have been given by our parents and by our
predecessors in Congress. We're going to have a vigorous debate about
how to do this. We're going to have a vigorous debate of our priorities
and processes, and it's going to be emotional.
At the end of the day, this is what we are trying to do: We know,
according to every fiscal expert out there, that we are giving the next
generation a mountain of debt. So we have a choice of two futures, Mr.
Chairman. Which future do you want your children to have? One, where
the debt gets so large, it crushes the economy and it gives them a
diminished future, a stagnant economy; or, two, this budget, using CBO
numbers, that literally not only gets us on the way to balancing the
budget but pays off our debt, gets our debt manageable, preempts and
prevents a debt crisis, and fixes this so we can preserve this great
legacy of giving the next generation a higher standard of living.
{time} 1700
Now, Mr. Chairman, we had a speech yesterday from the President--not
a plan, so to speak, but a speech. And unfortunately, I think the
speech, which was a framework with no details, was really not about
solutions but about partisanship.
I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that leaders here in town are more
concerned about the next election than the next generation. I hope that
that's not the case. I hope that leaders in this town change their tune
so we can fix this problem, but it's going to require them to change
their tune. We don't need good politicians; we don't need clever
politics.
We need real leadership and real solutions to fix this country's
problem because, Mr. Chairman, if we don't make some tough decisions
today, our children are going to have to face much, much tougher
decisions tomorrow.
I want to talk about one particular program, and I will yield myself
2 additional minutes to do that.
Medicare. Medicare is one of the most important programs we have;
it's one of the most successful programs we have. Medicare is in
trouble. Medicare is going broke. CBO tells us that in 9 years it has
exhausted its trust fund. We need to save Medicare. This budget doesn't
change anything for anybody on Medicare now and within 10 years of
retiring, and it saves the system for the next generation.
Contrary to what the President proposed yesterday, he wants to
delegate more authority to 15 people on a bureaucracy that was created
in his new health care law to do price controlling and rationing of
Medicare for current seniors. He wants these 15 people--without a
consent of Congress, just to do it directly--to impose more price
controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting
services to current seniors.
We repeal this agency. We don't think Congress should be delegating
this kind of power and authority to unelected people to make unilateral
decisions on senior health care. So we preserve, protect, and save
Medicare for current seniors and those 10 years away from retiring, and
then I'll get into the details about how we save it for future
generations.
Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, this budget is about choices. We
do four things. We want to grow the economy so we create jobs and have
a climate for job creation with tax reform. We want to save the mission
and preserve the mission of health and retirement security. We do that.
We want to preserve our social safety net and make it more sustainable,
more reliable, more adaptive, and more conducive to the 21st century
and geared not toward keeping people on welfare, but getting people
back on their feet and into jobs and careers to have flourishing lives.
At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, what it's really about is giving
our children a debt-free Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
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} 1710
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.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds simply
to say the gentleman is talking about Medicare. If he had read that CBO
letter a little later, he would see it says that Medicare is on such an
unsustainable path that there's no way it can sustain itself where it
is.
So we're making comparisons to fiscal myths. We're making comparisons
to futures that aren't going to exist. The greatest threat to Medicare
is the status quo and those who cling to it.
I would also simply say the President yesterday said he wants this
unelected board of bureaucrats to cut a trillion dollars out of
Medicare. We don't want to see that happen.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise today to commend Chairman Ryan in this
effort to craft a sustainable and responsible budget proposal.
This budget represents a valiant effort to effect real change in the
way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. This plan couples tangible
spending cuts with the entitlement reform necessary to get our budget
back into balance starting now and continuing into the long term.
This Republican majority understands that we must end the
skyrocketing budgets of the last several years, and this budget
reiterates our commitment to smart but limited government spending.
The resolution includes an annual discretionary spending level of
$1.019 trillion for next year, bringing us back to the fiscal year 2006
funding levels for non-security programs. This is a reduction of an
additional $31 billion from the level that we just passed in the CR.
Based on the experience we've just had in bringing the fiscal year
2011 budget to a close, this will present significant challenges to the
Appropriations Committee and the body in the weeks and months ahead. It
will not be an easy task, but I know that with the support of House
Members, we will rise to that challenge.
In addition, while I commend the budget resolution for making such
significant strides to rein in spending and address long-term budget
challenges, I do have some concerns over various budget process changes
that may have unintended consequences.
For example, the Appropriations Committee may be faced with
challenges related to our emergency authority after May 31, the
beginning of the hurricane season, due to limitations on the
committee's ability to respond to natural disasters and other
emergencies.
Along these same lines, there may be challenges related to the
committee's flexibility to provide for additional funding--beyond
expected needs--for the global war on terror and our military efforts
overseas.
I look forward to working with Chairman Ryan and the leadership to
address these as well as other process concerns as we go forward.
These matters aside, I applaud this budget proposal. It will help put
us back on a path of sustainable spending, allow for job creation and
economic growth, and help us make the right fiscal decisions for our
Nation's future.
I thank the chairman for the time.
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.
Mr. HOYER. I think at the beginning of this debate we need to put it
in context. I know that I must bore my friends on the majority side of
the aisle, but during my 30 years in this body, there have been
essentially three economic programs adopted: One was in 1981 when we
adopted what is referred to as Reaganomics. The second was in 1993 when
we adopted the Clinton economic program. The third, of course, was in
2001 and 2003 when we adopted what was the Bush economic program.
During the first economic program, we ran up $2.4 trillion of
deficits. During the second, the Clinton economic program, which lasted
for 8 years, we had $62.9 billion of surplus over 96 months. $2.4
trillion during the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, $62.9
billion surplus during the Clinton administration, and then another
$2.8 trillion of deficits during the Bush economic program.
The reason I raise that as we begin is because I want to tell my
friends, and I know we will tell our constituents, that the message
that we hear today from my good friend, Mr. Ryan--for whom I have a
great deal of respect. We have a disagreement, but I do not believe
that he speaks with a forked tongue, if you will. He speaks what he
believes--he first of all says, correctly, that we have a deficit
problem that must be dealt with by us all, those of us who serve here
and with those whom we represent. We must with courage, with honesty,
and, yes, with discipline address this deficit. In order to do so, we
must address all items of expenditures and revenues. Revenues, of
course, are what we use to pay for things we buy.
Why did we run up deficits during the Reagan administration when one
person could have stopped spending in its tracks, Ronald Reagan; or the
George Bush, I, administration where one person could have stopped
spending in its tracks? Because we bought more than we paid for--$2.4
trillion worth.
During the Clinton administration, what happened? Well, we had
divided government, we constrained spending, and we constrained cutting
revenues so that we were able to pay for what we bought.
During the second Bush administration, we spent some $2.4 trillion
more than we paid for. Every American knows that if you do that, you're
going to run deficits. That's how we got to that $4.8 trillion of
deficit because, as the gentleman today will argue, if we only adopt
this program, we will bring down deficits, we will grow employment.
Well, that's the argument used in 2001 and 2003. You didn't do
either. In fact, employment disappeared--the worst employment record of
any administration since Herbert Hoover--so that the arguments that you
made in 2001 and 2003 that this would magnify employment did not prove
to be the case.
[[Page H2807]]
You also made the argument when you inherited a $5.6 trillion
surplus, according to George Bush himself, you said that we could cut
revenues, increase spending, and, by golly, we would have growing
employment and a surplus. We had neither. We had lost employment, the
worst economy of any administration since Herbert Hoover, an almost
depression-like response that was called upon by President Bush in his
last year, and an exploding deficit.
{time} 1720
So now we will debate between two perspectives. We will have a number
on our side; you will have a number on your side. Now, I think at least
two on your side. But basically, we adopt the premise on our side first
of all you've got to protect the most vulnerable. You've got to make
sure that we apply the resources that we have to make sure that every
American is in a place where we want them to be in the richest country
on the face of the Earth. We want to grow the economy and we want to
bring the deficit down.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. That will be the proposition on our side. Very frankly, I
tell my friend from Wisconsin the premise on your side, in my view, has
been consistently for the 30 years that I have been here, if you simply
reduce revenues somehow magically the economy will recover.
When we adopted the Clinton program in 1993, not a single Republican
voted for it, unanimous in your conviction that it would have an
adverse effect because we raised revenues, as you will recall, on the
upper 1 percent. In fact, of course, what happened is exactly the
opposite of what you argued in 1993.
So in that context, as we have this budget debate, I hope the
American public understands that if you repeat the same mistakes of the
past you will be condemned to live in the same problems that were
created then by those mistakes.
I urge my colleagues to listen to this debate very carefully. Listen
to the debate of the consequences of the actions that are proposed on
both sides of the aisle, and remember what happened when that rhetoric
was carried to fruition.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will just simply say we choose
to reduce spending. And we don't reduce revenue; we reform the tax
system.
With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget
Committee and the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman
Ryan's FY 2012 budget. For the first time in several years, this budget
tackles our fiscal reality and stops burying our collective heads in
the sand. Let's start where we all agree: We are in dire financial
trouble. But if we make some adjustments now, we will set our country
on a long-term path of fiscal solvency. That's exactly what the
Republican budget does.
President Obama and my friends on the other side of the aisle lament
the lack of tax increases in our budget. First, let's remember that we
already have a deeply progressive tax structure. The top 5 percent of
earners pay 60 percent of Federal income taxes collected. Yet our
President and my friends on the left want to tax them even more.
There seems to be a trifecta of economic strangulation under
President Obama: increased regulation without congressional consent,
skyrocketing energy prices and the doubling of gas prices, and now an
attempt to increase taxes. How can businesses survive in this
environment? We're not just talking about a precipice of fiscal
solvency in our country; we're talking about the death of the American
entrepreneur as we know it if we go down the path outlined by the
President.
Thankfully, there is a better way, the only way. The Republican
budget recognizes that we must end the relentless drive to seize wealth
and redistribute it. This is an alternative to the class warfare
tactics of the left that pits one American against another. The
Republican budget is a fair, pro-growth plan rather than a punitive tax
plan. Make no mistake, the budget includes tax reforms to simplify our
Tax Code, broaden the tax base, create a more fair and equitable system
that will provide certainty.
The Ryan budget reflects the most basic American principles. It
provides for the strong defense of our Nation, ensures the safety net
for our most vulnerable citizens remains solvent, and it gets
government out of the way of the American free enterprise system and
makes sure that entrepreneurs can survive.
The budget demands that we as leaders step up and make a choice
between what's popular and what's right. I choose right.
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).
Mr. DOGGETT. This budget is just not my cup of tea. When the
Republicans use the terms ``modernize'' or ``reform,'' what they really
have in mind is a four letter word: less--less retirement security,
less health security, less economic security.
This budget does not share the sacrifice. It focuses the pain on the
young, on the very old, on those who are trying to climb up the
economic ladder, or just barely prevent themselves from slipping
backward.
``Fair and balanced,'' that's a most inaccurate media logo, but it's
a spot-on description of the budgetary path we ought to be on. Our
budget should be balanced, but not unfairly on the backs of those least
able to bear it, like our elderly in nursing homes. It's troubling
enough that this Republican budget demands even more tax cuts for those
at the top and our largest corporations. But what's truly outrageous is
that they seek balance by cutting the opportunity for our young people
to get all the education they are willing to work for.
How can our economy be second to none when Republicans again and
again turn to education to cut first? Nor can you fix this budget or
make up revenue lost by squeezing so much out of those on fixed
incomes. We need to be creating jobs with job training and education
and infrastructure investment.
The size of our deficit, the level of our taxes, those are important,
but they are not the sole lens through which the strength of America
should be viewed. We want an America where the young have educational
opportunity, where the not so young have the dignity of their old age,
and a bigger middle class shares in the success of our country. To
secure our long-term future, every American can give a little. But this
unfair proposal asks little from those with much, and so much from
those who have so little.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 10 seconds to simply say, yeah,
less spending, less government, less debt; more jobs, more prosperity.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the
Appropriations and Budget Committees, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole).
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, we've heard it all before. In the 1990s, when
Republicans proposed welfare reform, we were told that it was going to
lead to poverty and starvation. Instead, it was the most successful
poverty reduction program in modern American history. And when we
pushed through Medicare part D over the opposition of our opponents, we
were told that drug prices would go up and it was an unsustainable
program. The reality is it came in 40 percent under cost for both the
individual and for the government, something no other health care
program has done. The reason why those two programs were successful
were flexibility for States, choice, and competition for individuals.
I am proud to support the Ryan budget, the only serious budget
proposal that either party has offered. Frankly, it's quite a contrast
to what we heard yesterday, which was long on political
[[Page H2808]]
rhetoric and partisanship by the President and very short on specifics
and solutions.
In Medicare, my friends won't tell you that nobody on Medicare is
going to have anything other than the programs that they already enjoy,
that there is no reduction for seniors in the near term, and that we
actually make the changes that are necessary to protect and save the
program for the long term. If we stay on the course that they currently
advocate, there will be no Medicare for people in their twenties and
thirties and forties.
The same thing's true with Medicaid. My friends on the other side of
the aisle, frankly, forget that we are not the laboratories for
innovation; the States are. We'll provide them with block grants, more
flexibilities, more opportunity for change and innovation. We'll end up
with a better program that actually protects more people.
So I urge my colleagues to support this budget. We know we're on an
unsustainable path. Mr. Ryan has offered us an alternative. Sadly, my
friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United
States have not.
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).
{time} 1730
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, we know that budgets are about values. As the chairman
of the Budget Committee has mentioned, they are about choices.
And we know that this reckless Republican budget makes a very
disastrous choice. It chooses to sacrifice the safety net of millions
and millions of Americans in favor of millionaires and billionaires.
Every time we mention that, the other side says, class warfare. Oh,
the Democrats are engaged in class warfare. Guess what, Mr. Chairman?
That war is over. The wealthy class has won.
The wealthy class has already declared victory. That's why the 1
percent of income earners, the top 1 percent, now has as much wealth in
this country as the bottom 90 percent. So when we are talking about
what we can do to try and get our fiscal house in order, the idea that
we would ask that 1 percent that has accumulated enormous wealth, the
greatest disparity of wealth in the history of this country, to pay a
little bit more, the Republicans say ``no,'' that's class warfare.
Instead, they would rather cut security for seniors, for our students,
for our struggling families, because millionaires and billionaires,
left to their own devices, will make everybody's boat rise.
We have been down that road before, Mr. Chairman. We have seen what
has resulted when that choice was made. This budget, when we asked for
millionaires, people making a million dollars or more to pay a little
bit more, to pay that 39.6 percent, the highest rate under the Clinton
administration, the Republicans all said ``no.''
We can't even ask people making a million dollars or more to pay a
little extra to help balance this budget. This is unbalanced, this is
unfair. It doesn't call for shared sacrifices. It ends Medicare. And
while the Budget chairman says, and I know he believes this, that he is
trying to preserve Medicare for the next generation, he does nothing.
The Republicans do nothing in this budget to make sure that the people
who are now in Medicare, or somebody who is 56 or 57, is going to have
that program 30 years from now, not one reform measure to help save
Medicare.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a senior
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend you and all of my colleagues for their tremendous
work that has been done on this budget. It's a bold vision for our
country and a remarkable accomplishment. It's inspiring to have the
opportunity to participate in this reform.
As we have heard many times over the past couple of weeks, to govern
is to choose. Last year, as the Nation well knows, the choice by our
friends across the aisle was to do no budget at all. The Democrats
failed in perhaps their most basic responsibility.
Now continuing in this line of inaction, the President gave a speech
yesterday with much preceding hype, but again the defining aspect of
the speech was no plan. Our rudderless President decided to take the
two biggest drivers of our national debt, Medicare and Social Security,
and take them off the table. His solution to addressing health care
costs is further empowering the Independent Payment Advisory Board to
ration health care instead of dealing with structural reforms.
What this all means is that we have a stark choice, a choice of two
futures. One future is the President's plan, the one in red here, Mr.
Chairman, the plan by the House Democrats that's a path to national
bankruptcy. The other choice is a Path to Prosperity, the green, that
gets us on a path to a balanced budget.
It's time to address the American people in an honest and a factual
manner. Let's face it. The American people are sick and tired of
Washington's gimmicks and empty promises, and the Path to Prosperity is
a bold vision for the future which relies upon facts, not dishonesty.
As a physician, I could tell you that ObamaCare is a threat to the
affordability and accessibility and quality of health care, all the
principles that we hold dear in American medicine.
The facts are that ObamaCare is a violation of these principles, and
it takes away choices from patients and doctors while saddling workers
and job creators and taxpayers with trillions of dollars in costs.
So, we completely repeal and defund ObamaCare. Further, we will save
and preserve Medicare for future generations by providing commonsense
solutions so that folks have essentially the same kinds of health care
choices that Members of Congress have. It's imperative that people
recognize that no changes are made that would affect those in or near
retirement.
Now many folks on the other side of the aisle would rather bury their
heads in the sand and ignore the reforms that need to be made to
Medicare. The President has even decided to take it off the table, but
the facts are that the current Medicare spending is growing at a rate
twice as fast as the Nation's economy.
Ten thousand baby boomers are reaching retirement age every single
day. As a physician, when I talk to Medicare patients in my district
back home, they tell me that they can't even find a doctor who is
taking new Medicare patients.
The system is broken and unsustainable. The status quo is
unacceptable. By completely repealing and defunding ObamaCare and by
saving Medicare, we advance this Nation in a positive direction, a Path
to Prosperity.
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).
(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Frankenstein
monster of accounting that the Republicans call a budget. The
Republican
[[Page H2809]]
budget, endorsed by every member of the Republican Conference, from
John Boehner down to the rank and file, has two goals: One, end
Medicare, and, two, provide hundreds of billions in tax cuts to the
rich.
A lot will be said about these two things by my colleagues, so I want
to discuss some of the more dangerous cuts that may not make it to the
front page of USA Today, but will still hurt every working family and
their children. If you look at this chart beside me you will see that
in the red that the Republicans provide the rich with $800 billion,
with a B, in tax cuts over the next 10 years.
How do they pay for this spending? On the backs of working families
and children.
We will show you charts that are very explicit with details. You will
see other charts that may not be very explicit. But right here we show
you the cuts to vital services to our people. The column on our right
shows the cuts to every American in this country that needs day-to-day
services, things like roads, access to health care and, above all,
great schools for all our children. The Republican budget is nothing
short of a disaster for our children.
I am a classroom teacher, and I should know. The Republican budget
cuts over a quarter of funding for education. This Republican budget
cut means huge cuts for Head Start. This is the Republican budget
paying for tax cuts for the rich on the backs of 1 million poor
children. The Republican budget means huge cuts for K-12 education.
This is how the Republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich--on
the backs of 20 million elementary and secondary students.
The Republican budget means huge cuts to Pell Grants to help working
class kids pay for college and secure the American Dream. This is how
the Republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich--on the backs of 9
million college students.
In short, the Republican budget requires heavy sacrifices for
everyone except the richest Americans and the richest corporations.
It's like the billionaire CEO who cuts a thousand jobs and gives
himself a bonus. This is not right.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
(Mr. STUTZMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are 1 day away from Tax Day, and I
believe that this is an appropriate time to be talking about the budget
for our country. Many folks back in Indiana and across this country are
talking about how they are going to meet the demands of their budget.
I believe that this is a jobs bill. There is a lot of talk on this
House floor about what are we doing about American jobs. I believe that
this is the jobs bill of this Congress.
We hear a lot from the other side of the aisle that we are going to
revise and reform Medicare as we know it. Well, folks, we are facing
$14.2 trillion of debt right now. We are facing a $1.6 trillion deficit
in the current budget. Just as many families in Indiana and across this
country do with their family budget, when the bottom line hits red,
they start to make changes.
{time} 1740
We have to start controlling spending. I would encourage every
American to read this budget. This budget bravely saves $6.2 trillion
over the next decade. It also calls to simplify the Tax Code and lower
the rates for individuals and businesses. This budget not only stops
the growth in government, it actually grows the economy and starts to
create jobs.
Furthermore, we eliminate hundreds of duplicative programs, ban
earmarks, and curb corporate welfare. In addition to the trillions in
savings, this budget will put our Nation on a sustainable path, keep
the sacred trust of our seniors, and presents to the American people
real leadership in the absence of any from our executive branch. If you
look at the President's budget, his budget proposes $9.1 trillion of
new debt over the next decade.
Let's talk about job creation. As a small business owner from
Indiana, I don't need government to take more money away from the
people that live in Indiana who are working hard. Let them keep that
money so they can apply it to their businesses in order to grow jobs
and grow the economy. There's no reason for more of our dollars to come
to Washington, D.C., and be redistributed through our government.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the people of this Congress to support this
budget.
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.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms.
Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ. For decades, Medicare has been a lifeline for older
Americans, providing quality and affordable health coverage to all
seniors in this country. The creation of the Medicare program in 1965
addressed the fundamental challenge of ensuring aging seniors access to
essential health care. Before Medicare, almost half of all seniors over
65 had no insurance at all. Seniors were just not a good risk for
private insurers, and they still aren't.
Medicare is a promise to American seniors that we would not abandon
them even as they age, even as they need medical care--until now. The
Republican budget will end Medicare as we know it, offering a limited
voucher and expecting seniors to find insurance no matter how sick they
are or how expensive it is.
Every day, 48 million elderly and disabled Americans count on
Medicare for their lifesaving medications, doctor visits, and hospital
care. Seniors know that changing Medicare to a voucher program means
they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits.
Seniors know that privatizing Medicare means limits on benefits;
obstacles to care; and uncertain reimbursements, copayments for primary
care and specialty care; exclusions for certain services;
discrimination based on income, illness or age; and uncertainty if
serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. Seniors know that
privatizing and voucherizing Medicare will mean that they pay more in
premiums or do without.
And it doesn't end there. The Republican budget also threatens
Medicaid for nearly 6 million disabled and frail elderly who depend on
it for their nursing home and home health services.
American seniors are not looking for handouts. They're looking for
the security that they have earned and we have promised.
Budgets are about choices. In this very same budget where Republicans
end Medicare as we know it, they protect billions of dollars in tax
subsidies to the oil and gas industry. They protect billions in tax
breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.
Budgets are about our priorities and our values. Yes, we should get
serious about our deficit. But let's get our priorities right and not
threaten our obligation to our seniors, our children, and our future.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds simply
to say the only part of this budget that mentions oil is that we want
to drill for it in our own country so we can actually lower gas prices
and get ourselves off foreign oil.
The second point I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, is this budget
saves Medicare as we know it. The President is proposing to ration
Medicare as we know it.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the chairman.
Imagine that you are on the bank of a river. It's deep in winter.
It's a peaceful scene. You look out on the river, and it's frozen.
There's a deep current of cold water under the ice. But then you see a
small child, and he is walking out onto the ice. He doesn't fall, and
he walks further out. You begin to warn the child, but he walks further
out. As we know, the ice gets thinner the further out we go. And we are
on that ice today as a country, and every day we take one step further
out. And tragically, the young child falls through the ice and is swept
away.
That's what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the
repeated warnings that we've received.
[[Page H2810]]
Chairman Bernanke told us just last week that unless we act
immediately in a long-term way, we will not have economic growth nor
will we have financial stability.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, told us
that the greatest threat to our economy and to our national security is
our debt.
The IMF yesterday--this is unthinkable. They said of all the advanced
countries in the world, our debt was growing the fastest, it was
unsustainable, and it would lead to instability both here and across
the world.
Now, imagine those pictures of countries where the children are in
economic distress where there's no stability. Those could be our
children. Those could be our grandchildren. So with the warning today
is a vote for our children and our grandchildren. We've heard the
warning. We're not children. Let's save our children and grandchildren
from that fall through the ice.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we share the gentleman's concern and
view. As I said, the question is not whether we reduce the deficits but
how we do it and the choices we make in the process.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Blumenauer, the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The chair of the Budget Committee is a friend of
mine, a man of sunny disposition, but he has helped shepherd to the
floor of the House the most profoundly negative view of America's
future that I have heard in my 15 years in Congress. They cannot reform
Medicare, so they dismantle it for 230 million Americans who will be
shifted to higher costs and given a voucher to insurance companies.
It will, in fact, according to independent analysts, increase overall
health care costs for all America while it reduces some of the burden
for the Federal Government. It doesn't deal with the reform of the
military. It turns an opportunity for tax reform to more tax benefits
for those who need it the least.
Their America and their budget cannot afford to improve our fraying
infrastructure, and, in fact, envisions a massive $100 billion cut,
according to the CBO. It will shortchange environmental protections and
make college education more expensive for our young people.
The Democratic alternative that you will hear will provide progress
with some hard decisions, but by having shared sacrifice, by not giving
up on health reform but by moving forward with it, to provide
infrastructure investment and educational support.
Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity, and we welcome people looking
at independent appraisals of the visions of America: one which
basically gives up and forces the costs on middle income, elderly, poor
and children; the alternative is to invest in our future in a
responsible fashion, making some hard choices, to be sure, but with the
opportunity to reform areas like the military, like health care, and
like the tax system.
Things that America has done in the past we think America can do in
the future.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Yesterday, President Obama had an opportunity to put forth a serious
budget proposal, but instead, again, he called for higher taxes and
trillions of dollars in spending we just can't afford.
{time} 1750
The President offered nothing but lip service to serious spending
cuts and real reform. We can't tax our way to prosperity or ignore the
unsustainable future of Medicare and Medicaid. The President's plan
fails to recognize that Washington has a spending problem, not a
revenue problem. This is a time that demands leadership, and the
President answered with a plan to nowhere.
Today, the House is debating a serious budget that will address our
dangerous debt and deficit while strengthening Medicare and Medicaid.
The President missed another opportunity to engage in this debate in a
meaningful way. He chose, instead, to deliver a campaign speech, filled
with class warfare and scare tactics, hoping the American people
wouldn't know any better.
He was wrong.
Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, for 12 years, I was in
business, and there were two things I learned in business: One, if you
spend more than you take in, you're headed towards financial ruin.
Second, if the government continues to take away more and more from
small businesses, they won't create jobs; they will eliminate jobs.
This budget deals with those two fundamental issues.
The American people are demanding real change and an honest budget
with no gimmicks, and that is what Chairman Ryan has produced. This
week, the House is going to deliver for future generations by putting
our government on a path to fiscal responsibility and prosperity.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Republicans have said on the floor,
the Republican budget will impose new cuts on today's seniors.
The Republican plan repeals the Affordable Care Act, which
strengthens Medicare and reduces costs. For seniors on Medicare today,
the Republican plan brings back the doughnut hole, forcing seniors to
pay more for their prescription drugs. It repeals seniors' free annual
checkups and gets rid of reforms to better manage their chronic
conditions. The Republican plan eliminates Medicare altogether and,
instead, hands seniors vouchers and kicks them into the black hole of
health insurance.
All Americans, pay attention. If you're 54 and younger, you've been
put on notice. Start saving now. In addition to saving for your
retirement, you'll need to save for the new out-of-pocket expenses your
health care will incur.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates seniors will be
forced to pay an additional $6,000 a year on health care--that's
$12,000 for a couple--which is the best case scenario seniors can
expect. The plan in front of us tonight begins to double out-of-pocket
spending for seniors, and it's only going to increase from there.
When you dig a little deeper, you realize that more than half of the
Medicare beneficiaries today have five or more chronic conditions. What
awful choices will seniors be forced to make when their health care
costs are greater than their vouchers? Will they be able to afford
their diabetes care? Will they be able to afford to go to their doctors
for colonoscopies or mammographies?
It seems to me that the only seniors who will benefit from the
Republican proposal will be senior insurance executives.
Vote ``no'' on the Republican plan. Vote ``no'' in order to protect
and save Medicare.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to
simply say, if the gentlelady had taken the time to read the CBO
report, it's not a voucher program. In a voucher program, the money
goes to the people, and then they go to the market. It's a premium
support program.
What does this look like?
It looks just like the plan that you and I have as Members of
Congress and that all Federal employees have. It works like the
prescription drug benefit, which has come in 40 percent below cost.
More to the point, it saves Medicare. It applies to people 54 and
below, and it occurs in 2022. Guess what happens 2 years before that
under the status quo? Medicare goes bankrupt.
We want to prevent Medicare from going bankrupt. We want a system
that's sustainable. We want a system that's solvent and that people can
rely upon: guaranteed coverage options just like we have in Congress.
That's what we are proposing.
More to the point, what we are opposing is delegating to 15 people
the ability and the power to ration over $1 trillion of Medicare
against current seniors. We repeal that. The President proposes that.
That's the big difference between us.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
[[Page H2811]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this fiscally responsible
budget plan.
For the past few weeks, Congress has been occupied, arguing over a
continuing resolution because the previous Congress failed to put in
place a spending bill for this year. We cannot afford to make the same
mistakes that they did in the last Congress. We are facing a record
$1.6 trillion deficit, a $14 trillion debt, and we need a plan to get
spending under control--a plan, not a campaign speech and not partisan
bickering. We've taken positive steps in the right direction. However,
we must move from saving billions to saving trillions, and this budget
will let us do just that.
At the same time, we must fulfill our promises to our constituents
and pass policies that will spur job creation and economic growth to
strengthen and preserve Medicare and Medicaid. The proposed budget
would create nearly 1 million new private sector jobs next year.
Additionally, according to the studies, it would bring the unemployment
rate down to 4 percent by 2015. It would spur economic growth by
increasing the GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It does
this by creating a less burdensome Tax Code for families and small
businesses and by incentivizing job growth and investment.
We will get out of debt only when we focus on pro-growth policies and
budget-tightening plans. This plan will do that by reforming Medicare
and Medicaid to ensure that those programs are still available for our
children. It is the safety net that we have promised. Without reform,
those programs are unsustainable and will cease. The plan we will vote
on tomorrow represents a fundamental shift in how the government does
business--a shift back to fiscal sanity. The budget proposal saves $6.2
trillion compared to President Obama's plan. If a person spent $1
million a day, every day, since the first day of year 1 A.D., he still
would not have spent $1 trillion by today. We will save six times that
amount in 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, I was taught a valuable lesson as a kid. If you weren't
responsible with your allowance, you didn't get it again. No taxes.
Save money.
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).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the vote on the Republican
budget is one of the most important votes that I and my colleagues will
cast as Members of Congress. The vote will tell the story of two
distinct visions for America: how we reduce our debt, our economic
future, and what we value as Americans.
The Republican plan to destroy Medicare, to replace it with a voucher
system, and to saddle our older neighbors and hardworking families with
nearly the entire burden of reducing the Federal deficit betrays our
American values. Medicare has allowed our parents and grandparents and
our older neighbors to live in dignity in their retirement years.
Medicare has kept families out of poverty for decades. It has worked
well. With the baby boomers coming, we need to be mindful of necessary
reforms.
The Republicans should not use these difficult economic times as a
reason to destroy Medicare. After all, the Republican plan will not
save any money. It will simply shift the cost to older Americans and
their families. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an
analysis, which reads: In 2022, with an increase of nearly $7,000 per
year, the Republicans would double the cost per person. Not $1 of that
increase in beneficiary cost goes to reducing the deficit. It all goes
to cover the higher costs of private plans that the Republicans would
force you to join.
{time} 1800
The President said yesterday this debate over budgets and deficits is
about more than just numbers on a page. It is about the kind of future
that we want. It is about the kind of country that we believe in, and I
agree. Each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and
dignity. He said that we recognize no matter how responsibly we live
our lives, hard times or bad luck or a crippling illness or a layoff
may strike any one of us. There but for the grace of God go I.
And let me say, back home in Florida under this Republican plan to
end Medicare, life will be very different. We need to reject this
pessimistic Republican plan. On this most important vote, I urge my
colleagues to save Medicare and keep the promise of health security and
dignity for older Americans.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me say a couple of things. Let's look at current law that was
passed here not too long ago, the President's health care law. We've
all done town hall meetings where people have said: Why do you keep
raiding the Social Security trust fund? Stop the raid of Social
Security. We agree; that was wrong. We shouldn't have done it, and now
we're out of surplus.
Well, guess what, the current health care law raids Medicare. The
current President's health care law takes $682 billion out of Medicare
to spend on the ObamaCare entitlement. We're ending the raid of
Medicare. We're making sure that those savings go to making Medicare
solvent. It only gets it to 2021.
More to the point, Mr. Chairman, we believe that seniors should be in
charge. We believe that the best way to make Medicare better is to give
seniors more choices. Give them the ability to make choices and have
providers compete against each other for their business.
Here's the difference: The President wants 15 people to make the
choices in Medicare. We say let 40 million seniors have choice, have
power, and have those providers compete against each other for their
business so they're in charge of their Medicare.
The President's law, the law today, has him appoint 15 people to
ration Medicare, and Congress can't even do a thing about it. Their
decisions go right into law. That's the future of Medicare under the
current law. The President said, let's throw another trillion on top.
So here's what happens: When the President is coming up with a need for
more savings, what does he do, he calls up his Medicare rationing board
and says, go find another $480 billion.
That is not the future we want for Medicare. There's a difference
between us. We don't want to have government ration health care. We
want people to be in charge of their own health care.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Yoder). The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Terry) assumed the chair.
____________________