Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Let me just say this. I would not want to prevent the United States from being able to respond in cases of war, in national emergency.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Here's the question----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would again remind my colleagues that the last time the Federal Government budget was in surplus was during the Clinton administration, at a time when they took a balanced approach to deficit reduction--unfortunately, one that has been rejected by our colleagues in the communications and conversations with the President of the United States, who has put forward a proposal for $3 in spending cuts, for $1 in revenue, again, generated by closing special interest loopholes and by returning to the rates that were in place for the very top income earners, rates that were in place during the Clinton administration, which was the last time we were in surplus. With that, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has been a real leader on this debate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I just remind my colleagues that only seven States placed both the supermajority requirements and the caps that this would place in the Constitution of the United States. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has been a leader and fighter in this debate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, what the Democratic leader asked was how could we tell the children that we chose to reduce the deficit by cutting their ability to afford college rather than cutting subsidies for the oil and gas industry? Those are the kind of choices we're making. This is not a question about whether to reduce the deficit. This is a question about how we do it and what priorities we have. And we think it's absolutely the wrong priority to put in the Constitution of the United States a preference to cutting education, to cutting Medicare as compared to cutting subsidies for special interest corporations, special interest tax breaks for the purposes of reducing the deficit. With that, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'll end where we started today, which is to say that our Republican colleagues are playing a very dangerous game with the economy and with jobs. What this legislation before us says is that unless we graft onto the Constitution a preference for their way of addressing the budget deficit, unless we do that, they will prevent the United States from paying its bills, with all the terrible economic consequences for American families. So let's see what it is that they're demanding in exchange for letting the economy go. It's the same old plan that we saw in the House before. It does end the Medicare guarantee, it slashes Medicaid, it cuts education, and it protects special interest tax loopholes. But what makes this particularly egregious, what should, I think, upset every American, is they're trying to engineer those changes through the Constitution. We keep hearing this is just a plain old balanced budget amendment; 49 out of 50 States have it. Not true. This would put into the Constitution of the United States, embed in our Constitution, a provision that makes it easier to cut Medicare or Social Security or education, a 50 percent vote; but if you want to cut a special interest tax loophole--I don't care whether it's oil and gas subsidies, corporate jet, you name it--that a lot of Washington lobbyists work overtime to get inserted into our Tax Code and which amounts to spending through the Tax Code, if you want to do that, you need a two- thirds vote. They put another mechanism into the Constitution. They would make it unconstitutional to balance the budget if we're having expenditures at the rate of 19 or 20 percent of GDP, according to the provision that came out of their amendment. In other words, the American people cannot choose a level of expenditures that would allow us to meet our obligations under Medicare and Social Security. Since 1966, our Federal expenditures have been above 18 percent of GDP; in other words, since we enacted Medicare. So they want to prevent us by constitutional fiat from balancing the budget at a higher level of expenditures. Let me make one last point on Medicare, because we've heard about the Democrats cut $500 billion. What we did was we eliminated the 114 percent subsidy that was going to Medicare Advantage plans. We did do that. And, you know what? Republicans say, What a terrible thing. But if you look at their budget, they assume that change. They keep that change. What they don't do is what we did, which was to use the savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. The Republican budget would immediately reopen that doughnut hole. So they took the savings that they're complaining about, but they didn't use any of it to close the doughnut hole. Again, the fundamental question is this. We all understand that we've got to reduce the deficit. We've got to bring the budget into balance. The question is how we choose to do that. And why would we implant into the Constitution a mechanism that stacks the deck in favor of choosing to cut Medicare and Social Security and education over choosing to cut corporate tax loopholes or asking the folks at the very top to pay more? But they would do that to our Constitution. The Founders made it difficult to change the Constitution for good reason. This, I believe, is a corruption of the constitutional process, because it would place these mechanisms into our founding document that essentially graft the Republican budget plan into that document. And that's what this vote is all about. And what they're saying is that unless two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate adopt that kind of constitutional amendment, we're not going to pay our bills, bills which the Speaker of the House and the majority leader and people on both sides of the aisle should pay because they are the consequence of decisions that were made by this body. And right or wrong, when you bring up a bill, you can't say you're not paying for it. And if we take the position that we're not going to pay for it, the economy will suffer, interest rates will go up. That will hurt every American family, and it will make it harder for us to reduce the deficit. So let's come together around a balanced plan. The President's put a proposal on the table: $4 trillion over 10 to 12 years, patterned after the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission; $3 in cuts, $1 in revenue. Let's take a balanced approach. That's the way we did it the last time our budget was in surplus.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree if we saw a wasteful spending program, we should cut it for the purpose of reducing the deficit. And the question is: If there is a wasteful or unnecessary special interest tax loophole, why shouldn't we cut it for the purpose of reducing the deficit? Why should we write into the Constitution of the United States a provision that says you need two-thirds to cut a wasteful tax loophole rather than say let's cut it to reduce the deficit for the benefit of our children? I would also observe, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican plan, with respect to Medicare, would force seniors out of the current Medicare system into the private insurance market where the private insurance industry would ration their care. They would get a lot less support from the Medicare program and yet face much higher costs. That is a deal that Members of Congress don't give to themselves, and I don't think we should ask seniors to take a deal that Members of Congress themselves do not take. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi). (Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, this certainly is the only plan on the table that would insert a provision into the Constitution of the United States that makes it easier to cut Medicare and easier to cut Social Security than it is to cut subsidies to oil and gas companies or other special interests for the purpose of reducing the deficit. We think that's a bad idea. That's why it's not part of the President's balanced plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 to 12 years. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Again, I would remind my colleagues to do the basic math. Go back to the last time the budget of the United States was in surplus; it was during the Clinton administration. It followed on some very difficult decisions in the early 1990s. And what it included, as part of a balanced approach, was asking the folks at the very top to pay a little higher rate than they are today. And what the President has proposed is to ask those Americans, as part of a shared responsibility, to go back to paying those rates. And what our colleagues would plant in the Constitution of the United States is a supermajority requirement, two-thirds vote, to go back to the same tax rates that were in place during the Clinton administration, but a majority vote if you want to reduce the deficit by cutting benefits for Medicare beneficiaries--whose average income, by the way, median income is under $22,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I find it very curious that on the one hand our Republican colleagues are saying that the revenues that the President has requested as part of a balanced plan are peanuts, that they're irrelevant, and on the other hand arguing that somehow if you raise those revenues it's going to crush the economy. They're trying to have it both ways. The fact of the matter is they are a balanced part of an overall approach that talks about reducing our deficit in a balanced way. And I go back to the fact that the last time we had that balanced approach was the last time that we had Federal budget surpluses. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The gentleman asked a question. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman well knows, the President has put on the table a balanced approach, $4 trillion in 10 to 12 years, $3 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue. In fact, the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States, as my colleagues well know, were talking about a number of components of that plan. What was very clear is our colleagues didn't want to touch it because of this principle they have that not $1 from closing a tax loophole or revenue can go for the purpose of reducing the deficit. We heard a little rewrite of history. Let's just remember that when the President of the United States was sworn in, he immediately faced a record $1.3 trillion deficit. The guy took office, and it was $1.3 trillion that he inherited. And 700,000 jobs were going down the tubes every month. It took a little while to turn things around, and things are still very, very fragile. What would be a huge mistake is to go back to the same trickle-down on steroids policy that got us into this mess to begin with, because we know how the movie ended at the end of the Bush administration. They left this administration with a pile of debt, an economy that was falling through the floor. We need to work together to fix this problem. But taking the position that you're going to prevent the United States from paying its bills unless you implant in the Constitution a provision that says it is easier to cut Social Security and Medicare than cut corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit is not going to fly with the American people. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it does not encourage certainty or confidence in the markets or anywhere else for one party to say that if they don't get the budget their way, they're going to prevent the United States from paying its bills. That sends a terrible message. American families don't have the luxury of saying that they're not going to pay their bills. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just quote from a letter: ``Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill-afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion, that we must pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling.'' President Ronald Reagan. Now, there's legislation floating around here that creates this delusion, into thinking that somehow we can get to that date and it's all made up, that Secretary Geithner cooked the books, and there's legislation that says, you know what, let's pay the Government of China and other creditors before we pay our troops, before we pay our Social Security beneficiaries. What Moody's, what Standard & Poor's, what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others are telling us is, you can't decide to pay your mortgage but not your car payment. If the United States is not fulfilling its obligations to pay for what it has already bought, as Ronald Reagan said, that would have catastrophic consequences. That is why it's so dangerous to take the position that somehow unless in the next couple of weeks we pass a constitutional amendment that would make it easier to cut Medicare and Social Security than cut subsidies for the purpose of reducing the deficit, if we don't do that, we're not going to allow the United States to pay its bills, and the economy, as President Reagan said, would go straight downhill. With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, again, the President's proposal, which mirrors the framework of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, says we'll do $3 in cuts with $1 in revenue. It's shared responsibility to reducing our deficit so that our economy in the future can grow. Let's make sure that we don't do anything now that will hurt the fragile economy. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to entertain a debate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I've already indicated that there is a conversation to be had with respect to what is a reasonable approach, but that is absolutely not what we're dealing with in this particular bill as we've debated.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I will not yield on my time. The gentleman pointed out that not even the Republican budget that passed the House, that ends the Medicare guarantee and is draconian, not even that would meet those requirements, that the budget that would meet those requirements was that passed by the Republican Study Group, which is like the Republican plan on steroids. In fact, a lot of Members on the Republican side decided that was way overboard. That would require slashes in things like Medicare and Social Security even more than the Republican budget that passed the House. So that is the one budget that was identified as meeting the requirements of that constitutional amendment. This is not a simple constitutional amendment. They know that that's a popular idea. So they're dressing up their particular version of it in that language, talking about 49 out of 50 States have this. Again, two devices: One, supermajority; a two-thirds vote required to cut corporate tax loopholes when only a simple majority is required to cut Medicare and Social Security. We don't think things like that belong in the Constitution of the United States. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Budget Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).