[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6190-6194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), a member of 
the Budget Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him 
for his heroic work on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, history walks with us as we debate this budget. History 
offers us not a single example of a nation that has ever spent and 
borrowed and taxed its way to prosperity, not one. But it offers us 
many, many examples of nations that have spent and borrowed and taxed 
their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy.
  And history is screaming this warning at us: that nations that 
bankrupt themselves aren't around very long because before you can 
provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, you 
have to be able to pay for it, and the ability of our Nation to do so 
is now in grave danger.
  Yesterday, the President attacked this budget because he says it 
lowers taxes on the rich while raising Medicare costs for seniors. In 
fact, this budget ends many of the loopholes that have allowed some of 
the wealthy to pay less than their fair share of taxes, while it lowers 
the overall rate for those who have paid more. And since 82 percent of 
small business income is affected, economists tell us that the tax 
relief provided by this plan will produce a million new jobs next year. 
I say to the gentleman from Maryland, that's the healthy way to produce 
new revenue.
  The President apparently believes that by taking more money from 
small businesses, somehow they will create more jobs. That is the 
economic folly that misguides this administration.
  As my friends to my left know, Medicare and Medicaid will collapse if 
we continue business as usual. This budget saves those systems by 
putting them on a sound financial foundation. It reverses the growing 
trend of doctors refusing to treat Medicare patients, and it assures 
future seniors a far wider choice of physicians and plans than is 
available today.
  This budget brings Federal spending back under control, and it places 
our Nation on a path so that when my children retire, their retirement 
systems will be safe and secure and their Nation will be debt free and 
prosperous.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I remind the gentleman that what we're saying is that the top 2 
percent income earners should go back to the same rates they were 
paying during the

[[Page 6191]]

Clinton administration, a period of time when the economy was roaring 
and 20 million jobs were created. When we moved to the current rates 
for the folks at the very top, we saw at the end of 8 years, 2000 to 
2008, a loss of over 625,000 private jobs.
  Let me just say something about this Medicare issue because what the 
Republican plan does will result in rationing by income. Let me be 
clear. Seniors, you will no longer be able to choose to stay in the 
Medicare program. You've got to go into the private health insurance 
market. You're going to be given a voucher, premium, whatever you want 
to call it, that doesn't keep pace with rising health care costs. That 
means that the plan you may be able to afford may not cover the very 
benefits you need, and your doctor certainly may not be on that plan. 
So you lose your choice of doctor if you can't happen to afford the 
plan that they're on, or you lose your benefits. This Republican plan 
is rationing by the insurance industry.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the best way to balance any budget for our country is 
to get everyone back to work who wants to work. The President's 
bipartisan fiscal commission also shows any responsible effort requires 
a balanced approach that addresses both spending and revenues. By 
contrast, this budget from the Republicans fails the simple test of 
addressing both programs--program spending as well as tax break 
spending--and it fails it badly.
  The Republican budget increases tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors, doubling 
their out-of-pocket costs for their insurance premium. And at the same 
time Republicans are doling out a trillion dollars of tax breaks over 
the next 10 years to the wealthiest people in our country, to 
multinational corporations and to those on Wall Street who pay as 
little as 11 percent of taxes.
  Meanwhile, the Republican budget will end Medicare as we know it, and 
it will throw America's seniors at the mercy of insurance companies. 
Seniors love Medicare, and their families love Medicare. Social 
Security and Medicare are compacts of trust between generations, and I 
would not want the next generation to have any less than our generation 
has had, and I disagree with the Ryan proposal because it divides 
generations.
  The Democratic alternative stands in clear contrast. It reduces the 
deficit while preserving the social safety net. In fact, the plan of 
House Democrats would cut the deficit by an additional $1.2 trillion 
more than the President's budget. It achieves primary balance as early 
as fiscal year 2018, and puts our economy on a full path to recovery.
  The Ryan budget fails to say the reasons for the deficit we face--the 
$1.4 trillion in the cost of the Afghan and Iraqi wars and the billions 
and billions spent on Wall Street in bailing them out and all of the 
costs of unemployment and housing foreclosure that has gone with it.
  The Republican budget gives up on jobs and working Americans and 
caters mainly to the upper 1 percent. And, frankly, it gives up on 
America's future. The Ryan budget is the roadmap to ruin. It won't 
create jobs. In fact, it will cause more job loss. It's a dead end 
budget for America, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
simply say that it is well known that our budget doesn't touch 
Medicare, change it for people in or near retirement, 55 years old or 
above. But under the President's plan, if the 15-person board says your 
doctor can't give you the care he wants to, or your hospital can't do 
it, then they can't. That's the government doing this, unelected 
bureaucrats, to current seniors; and we oppose that.

                              {time}  1810

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the distinguished State of Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble).
  Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Budget Committee 
and former small business owner, I rise today in strong support of the 
Budget Committee's 2012 budget resolution.
  I would like to begin today with a quote from a famous American:
  ``At what point can we have a serious conversation about Medicare and 
its long-term liability, or a serious conversation about Social 
Security or serious conversation about budget and debt where we aren't 
simply trying to position ourselves politically? That's what I'm 
committed to doing.''
  Mr. Chairman, that was President Barack Obama just last year. As we 
debate this budget, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to heed the words of our President. Let's stop the demagoguery 
and the political jockeying and actually work toward a solution 
together. Our children--my grandchildren--deserve no less.
  Even most Democrats agree that our current spending is on an 
unsustainable trajectory. So wouldn't you agree that finger-pointing 
and making false claims to scare seniors while offering no solutions of 
your own is counterproductive?
  This budget has real solutions and real ideas. We cut spending by 
$6.2 trillion and shrink the size of government to historically 
normal--historically normal--levels. We start to get our deficits under 
control and put our budget on a path to prosperity.
  As a small business owner, I know what high taxes mean to job 
creators in this country. That's why our budget calls for a flatter, 
fairer tax--now wait for it--that closes loopholes and increases the 
incentives of corporations to keep jobs right here in America.
  I know what small businesses look for when they look to spend and 
invest. They look for certainty. And this budget, more than anything 
else, puts our country back on a certain path of sustainability. Job 
creators and business owners will stand up and cheer when they see real 
ideas like this put forth.
  There are many more ideas of merit in this budget, and we all want a 
vigorous debate. But I hope it will be a debate on policy differences, 
not political maneuvering.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out again that the 
choice is whether we want to ask for shared sacrifice. The fact of the 
matter is the reason the bipartisan fiscal commission said that the 
Republican budget isn't balanced was, among other things, because it 
asks for nothing from the folks at the very top who got the big tax 
cuts.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Republican budget plan, which is not, as they characterize, a 
pathway to prosperity but a true pathway to poverty for our Nation.
  The Republicans' explicit choice to protect millionaires and special 
interests at the expense of job creation is dangerous and forsakes our 
future.
  I'm particularly concerned about the reckless and shameful cuts to 
the National Institutes of Health for the research of cures to cancer, 
stroke, diabetes, heart disease, and all the other illnesses that fall 
under its jurisdiction. That is why last week I introduced an amendment 
in committee that would stop these cuts. Yet each and every one of our 
Republican colleagues voted against it.
  For just half a percent--half a percent--of the cost of extending tax 
cuts for millionaires and billionaires, we could completely reject the 
Republicans' devastating cuts to medical research for next year. Cuts 
of this magnitude will slow research progress while squandering 
critical scientific opportunities that may one day save lives.
  Yet beyond the dangers posed to our Nation's health, these cuts 
prevent us from winning the future.
  The Republicans' cut to NIH kills jobs. NIH grants support more than 
350,000 highly skilled jobs in all 50 States, plus an additional 
800,000 supporting jobs created in the private sector. This means that 
the Republican budget puts over 1 million American jobs at risk--from 
pharmaceutical jobs

[[Page 6192]]

to medical device manufacturers to technicians working in medical labs. 
At the same time, the Republican path to poverty ignores the NIH's role 
in reducing the rising cost of chronic disease and the ballooning costs 
that compound our debt.
  We must make smart investments in our Nation's medical and fiscal 
health. And we must make these kinds of investments now so that we may 
stem the tide of future disease rates.
  Cancer incidence is projected to nearly double by 2020, particularly 
among the aging baby boomer population. As one of the 11 million cancer 
survivors in the United States, I am living proof of the vital gains 
made by research at NIH.
  We can't stop now. Don't turn your back on the millions of Americans 
who are desperately holding out hope that treatments and cures are 
coming to them soon.
  Prevent these deadly cuts. Oppose this Republican path to poverty.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget.
  At the end of the day, this is about jobs, it's about our economy, 
and it's about the people's money.
  You see, all too often Congress talks about its money, talks about 
the way it wants to spend the people's money. No. It's the people's 
money. It's not Congress's to just go and allocate and pull their money 
out of their wallets to hand to somebody else. What we have to 
recognize each and every time a decision is made about where and how to 
spend money is that they're pulling money out of people's pockets and 
handing it to somebody else. And right now we're on a trajectory where 
25 cents--25 cents--out of every dollar spent in this country is spent 
by the Federal Government.
  Fundamentally that's wrong. We have to change the trajectory. We have 
to have systemic changes. And that's what I like about this budget. 
Because not only does it put us on a pathway to balance the budget but 
to actually pay off the debt.
  I ran for Congress because I was sick and tired of what was 
happening. I wanted to be part of the solution, not part of the 
problem.
  We have to recognize that our national debt just 48 months ago was 
$8.67 trillion. Yet with the Democrats in control of the House and the 
Senate, it rose to over $14 trillion, a rise of more than 60 percent in 
just 48 months. We can't continue to do that.
  What I like about this budget is that it's an adult conversation that 
says we're going to have to change the trajectory, everything from 
entitlement reform to the discretionary spending.
  This budget cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next 
decade compared to the President's budget. It eliminates hundreds of 
duplicative programs and brings government spending to below 20 percent 
of the economy--its proper role, its proper level.
  We can no longer continue to borrow, tax, and spend our way. We have 
to reduce spending. We have to produce a responsible Federal budget. 
That's what this budget does. That's why I'm in support of it. And I 
urge the passage of this budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that those 
hardworking American workers paid their payroll taxes, including their 
Medicare contributions, and they should have the benefit of the bargain 
and keep the Medicare guarantee.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as indicated in the chart to my right, the Republican 
Road to Ruin budget ends Medicare and other investments to pay for tax 
breaks to millionaires and some of the most profitable corporations in 
the world.
  Forty-six million Americans rely on Medicare for their health care 
today. Under the Road to Ruin plan to end Medicare, seniors and the 
disabled will lose their guaranteed health benefits. They will be left 
with a voucher. By design, the voucher cannot and will not keep up with 
rising health care costs.

                              {time}  1820

  The private market views seniors and the disabled as a risky and 
expensive investment. That's why Medicare was created in the first 
place. As a result, when the Road to Ruin health plan takes effect--and 
as this chart again to my right reveals--seniors will see their health 
costs double. By conservative estimates, seniors will pay more than 
$12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for the same coverage Medicare 
provides today. Facing dramatically higher health costs with less help, 
our seniors will be forced into life-and-death decisions--do I buy 
groceries or do I buy prescriptions? Do I pay rent or do I pay medical 
bills?
  Never fear, my Republican colleagues say to seniors, you will get the 
same care as a Member of Congress. Well, as a Member of Congress, I 
know that congressional health plans cost about $9,000 this year. 
Seniors will be getting a ration of $8,000 10 years from now for health 
care that will cost over $20,000. With all due respect, I must say that 
the Republican talking point that seniors will get the same coverage as 
a Member of Congress is not just political hyperbole, it is a lie. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that seniors will pay 
68 percent of their health costs under the Republican plan. Members of 
Congress only pay 28 percent of their premiums. Seniors will pay more 
than double the share that Members of Congress pay and more than double 
the amount that they pay today under Medicare.
  We have balanced a budget before without ending Medicare. We can do 
it again. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Road to Ruin plan 
that would end Medicare.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, for the last several weeks--and my guess 
is for the next couple of days--we will be hearing a lot of things from 
our colleagues across the aisle about the relationship between cutting 
spending and jobs. They have taken the position from the very beginning 
that if we cut government spending, we are going to lose jobs.
  We heard earlier this evening my esteemed colleague from Maryland 
talk about the Zandi report that suggested that maybe if we cut $60 
billion from the budget--as we did in the CR, H.R. 1, a few weeks ago--
that that would cost us somehow 500,000 jobs. I've seen a similar 
report suggesting that that same $60 billion cut would shave 2 
percentage points off of GPD. Mr. Chairman, those numbers sort of 
expose the absurdity of the Democrat argument.
  If you took those same numbers and applied it to the $800 billion 
stimulus program, that $800 billion stimulus program should have 
created or would have created over 6.5 million jobs and added 26 
percent to the GPD. It's just wrong. It's misleading.
  I think for the first time maybe in this generation the American 
people are starting to accept the fact that government spending does 
not create jobs. We've seen it. It was an expensive lesson for us to 
learn as a Nation, but we are learning it. If government spending 
created jobs, then I wouldn't have 15 percent unemployment in my 
district. People back home are starting to accept, they are starting to 
learn, starting to agree that what creates jobs in this Nation is 
private investment. It's private businesses investing in their 
business, and it's private individuals putting people to work.
  We've got a graph going back another 20 years here--and I've got 
another one that goes back another 40 years, and another one that goes 
back to World War II--that shows that the only thing that creates jobs 
in this Nation is private investment. You are not going to find a graph 
more directly correlated than this. When private investment goes up, 
the unemployment rate goes down. When private investment goes down, the 
unemployment rate goes up. That is what we are facing as a Nation. And 
until we recognize the fact that government spending does not create 
jobs, we will continue to muddle through, but with too many of our

[[Page 6193]]

folks out of work. This budget allows private industry to get back in 
the job of investing in this country and putting people back to work.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, of course, the private sector is the engine of 
opportunity and the economy in this country. But we also know that 
there are some investments that no individual or corporation takes on 
by themselves. For example, the highway system and some of the big 
infrastructure, you've got 20 percent unemployment in the construction 
industry right now. If you're telling me that a greater investment in 
our infrastructure, roads, and bridges doesn't help generate job 
creation, then you should tell that to the folks who are looking for a 
job right now.
  I would also point out that the same folks--the Heritage Foundation--
who said that the Republican plan that we're talking about tonight was 
going to miraculously increase jobs are the same people who, back at 
the beginning of the Bush administration, predicted that those tax cuts 
were going to generate all sorts of jobs in the country. Here's what 
they predicted in blue; cut those taxes for the folks at the very top, 
jobs are going to go up and up and up. Here's the reality in red. We 
know what happened. So I would be careful about talking about how a 
budget is going to produce jobs.
  We have an alternative budget that has the right balance between cuts 
and shared sacrifice and will generate jobs.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Bass).
  Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of our seniors, I 
rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget that ends Medicare.
  The Republican budget ends the Medicare guarantee in 11 short years. 
In 11 years, reliable care for our seniors will be replaced with the 
risky voucher scheme.
  The Republican plan supposedly generously gives senior citizens a 
gift, an $8,000-a-year voucher. Seniors then must identify an insurance 
carrier that will take it. This is called choice. Since the Republicans 
also want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, there is nothing to 
protect seniors from being excluded from coverage if they have a 
preexisting condition. This is called choice. I don't know too many 
people 55 years and older who don't have some health-related problem.
  There is nothing that protects seniors from insurance companies 
canceling their coverage if an illness becomes too expensive, so I 
don't know where the choice is. There is nothing that will protect 
taxpayers from incurring massive costs when uninsured seniors show up 
in emergency rooms around the country with untreated diabetes leading 
to kidney failure and heart disease, and untreated hypertension leading 
to strokes. This isn't much of a choice.
  We are simply fooling ourselves if we think all seniors will be able 
to just write a check and pay the difference. A more likely scenario is 
seniors will simply not have medical coverage.
  I often say that you can judge a society by how it treats its elderly 
and its children. And the Republican budget plan kicks our seniors to 
the curb while the wealthiest Americans will continue to get wealthier.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican budget and 
protect the Medicare benefit.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  These are serious times that we're in right now with regard to the 
debt and deficit. Serious times call for a serious budget, and this is 
a serious budget. This is one that can actually lead us out of the 
problems we're in. That is what we need.
  For those on the other side of the aisle who are saying that they 
want to preserve Medicare by sticking to the status quo, as I think it 
was George Will said on Sunday, Your problem isn't Mr. Ryan, it's Mr. 
Arithmetic. It just doesn't work. You just can't do it.
  So for all this talk about preserving Medicare, preserving Medicare 
as it currently is means that you are consigning it to history. It 
won't survive. You have to change it. You have to change it in ways 
that make it sustainable and solvent for the long-term future.
  What we are hearing now is that we need more investment, and that 
we've got to maintain current spending levels to have more investment. 
I would refer you to the stimulus that we just passed a year or so ago. 
What good has that done? Sure, it's a lot more investment or spending--
or whatever you call it--government to government, or the government 
spending, but it is not enabling the private sector to create jobs.
  The job of the Federal Government should be to set a conducive tax 
and regulatory environment so that the private sector can produce jobs. 
That's what this budget does. That is why I support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Now we have two cities here--St. Augustine talked about 
it. We are looking at a city very optimistically, and unfortunately we 
have to go back to your figures.
  We have had exactly six quarters of growth in this administration. 
You want to know what the last two quarters of the last 
administration's growth was? It wasn't very good, was it, Mr. Ryan?
  The point of the matter is that you have two different visions of 
America's future, two different cities on that hill. You continue to 
use the payroll tax, which pays for Medicare A, and you continue to say 
all those under 55 years of age are going to go to a new plan, yet you 
continue the payroll tax. This is somewhat like--this is exactly like, 
not somewhat like--what you did with the doughnut hole. You forced 
seniors to pay premiums and they got no benefits. You know it, I know 
it, and the proof is what it is.


                    Announcement By the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded to address his remarks to 
the Chair.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
  This misguided budget is a doubling down on the same failed policies 
that we know don't work and brought us to the brink.

                              {time}  1830

  What our ranking member did not point out is that there was a loss of 
653,000 jobs in those 8 years where there was in the previous 8 years a 
gain of 20.8 million jobs.
  You want to go back and use the same policies? You tried it in 
privatization. We're going to have it over and over again. You don't 
know what to bring up so you go back to the old playbook, which didn't 
work. You're saying that it's going to happen. It's going to work. One 
of these years we're going to try it.
  The American people rejected privatization of Social Security, and 
they reject this. Every poll. Even your polls show that the American 
people do not want to do away with Medicare as it is.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is reminded to address his remarks to 
the Chair and not to other Members in the second person.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, coming from the private sector to Congress, 
I know that America can and will become prosperous again and millions 
of new private sector jobs will be created if we just go back to our 
founding free market principles.
  We must also end big government and wasteful spending. We're faced 
with two very distinct and different directions in which we can lead 
our country. It is clear that we cannot continue on the misguided and 
irresponsible path endorsed by the other side of the aisle of higher 
taxes, reckless spending, and bigger government, explosive debt and 
deficits, and unacceptably high unemployment.
  They've had their chance to make things right, and it has not worked.

[[Page 6194]]

Over the past 4 years that the Democrats had control of Congress, they 
lost 7 million jobs and raised our Federal debt by over $5 trillion. 
Now, it's our turn, and we will do better.
  That's why this Republican budget plan comes at just the right time, 
because we can no longer afford to accept what has unfortunately become 
status quo. Rather than locking in reckless spending sprees that have 
cost our government, our budget plan cuts $6.2 trillion in wasteful 
Washington spending over the next decade. The Democrats' plan, which if 
left unchecked, will raise the deficit by over $9 trillion over the 
next 10 years.
  We will put the Federal budget on a path to balance.
  The President's own fiscal commission said that we need to lower tax 
rates and broaden the tax base in order to stabilize our Nation's 
finances and help grow our economy. The Democrats' plan ignores these 
recommendations and would impose job-crushing tax increases on our 
economy.
  Nearly 1 million new private sector jobs will be created under our 
plan to lower taxes and expand the tax base, and our total employment 
will grow by an annual average of 1.2 million jobs per year over the 
next decade.
  We have a clear choice, Mr. Chairman. We can take Obama's odyssey to 
American oblivion, or we can adopt a plan that restores America's 
promise and prosperity and security for our children and grandchildren.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Chaffetz) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________