Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that the reason Medicare was created in the first place was because the private insurance industry wouldn't cover seniors' affordable care. That's what they want to go back to. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of choosing. Our budget chooses to make investments in our kids rather than choosing to provide even bigger tax breaks to the very wealthy, and we choose to get rid of subsidies for oil companies instead of cutting nursing homes funding through Medicare for seniors and disabled individuals. With that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge Republican Members to read their own budget. It does not give seniors the same deal as Members of Congress. Members of Congress have a fair share formula. Seniors do not under their bill. Seniors get an immediate cut to the prescription drug benefit to the extent that we closed the doughnut hole, and they don't. Let's get our facts straight. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal commission said of the Republican plan it was an unbalanced approach. Our approach is a balanced approach. Secretary Gates' comments were directed to the fiscal commission's recommendations. Our proposals are in line with what the President outlined just the other day. I would point out that Governor Haley Barbour said, ``If we Republicans don't propose some savings of money on defense, we will have no credibility on anything else.'' Of course the Pentagon has never passed a GAO budget, and I think everybody who does budgets recognizes there is some savings to be found there. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished assistant leader, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, our top priority in this Congress should be to support a robust economic recovery and put America back to work. That is what the Democratic plan does. It reduces the deficit in a steady, predictable way without slashing important investments in our kids' education and strategic national investments, without ending the Medicare guarantee, and without putting seniors, disabled individuals and kids at risk who rely on Medicare, and it reduces the deficit in a balanced way by $1.2 trillion more than the President's budget and achieves primary balance in the year 2018. The Republican plan we've been discussing is a narrow vision of America--a place with no shared sacrifice, a place where those who have benefited the most from what our country has to offer give little in return. The Democrats have a different vision for our country. We believe our strength springs not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people pursuing their ambitions and their dreams but also from sometimes harnessing those talents for important national purposes. We believe America's greatness is rooted not only in a collection of individuals acting alone but from our capacity to work together for the common good. We believe that is a patriotic vision of America. We do not see the government as an enemy but as the imperfect instrument by which we can accomplish together as a people what no individual or single corporation can do alone. Small business owners recognize that they must make certain investments to build a successful enterprise. Similarly, our Nation must make the strategic national investments necessary to keep our country strong in an increasingly global economic marketplace. Our plan does that. We also believe we can do that while making cuts, and we make sensible, targeted cuts. But we do it in a smart way, not with a meat ax that threatens the fragile recovery. We also agree with the fiscal commission that security spending should be part of this debate. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated, and I quote, that the most significant threat to our national security is our national debt. There is growing bipartisan consensus that those security agencies must themselves be part of our effort to reduce our debt and strengthen our country. Our approach is a balanced one. We take cuts in the discretionary and bring down that part of the budget to the lowest point as a percentage of the economy since the Eisenhower administration. We take cuts in other areas. We take cuts in mandatory programs, including agriculture subsidies. But we make different choices than the Republican budget. We end the subsidies to Big Oil rather than keeping those as we cut education for our kids. We ask the folks at the very top to pay the same tax rate they paid during the Clinton administration rather than end the Medicare guarantee and slash funding for seniors in nursing homes and others who rely on that support. We make very different choices in this budget, but we accomplish the goal in a fiscally responsible way. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to put in order the Democratic substitute budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind the body that the $500 million in Medicare reform savings, which we got from ending some of the big breaks to the insurance industry, are kept in the Republican budget. You keep those savings. What you do not do is what we did: use some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. So you took the savings, but you left the seniors with the doughnut hole. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we do need to make tough choices. The question is what choices do we make? You choose to give another round of tax cuts to millionaires at the same time you're cutting investments in our kids' education. You choose not to get rid of the subsidies, taxpayer subsidies for oil companies while you end the Medicare guarantee, while you immediately eliminate the effort to close the doughnut hole, and while you cut funding for seniors in nursing homes by slashing Medicaid. Those are the choices you have made. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We can get our fiscal house in order and do this in a balanced way without ending the Medicare guarantee. With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we all agree we have to act now to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to begin my remarks from the beginning and reset the clock.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues. As I said, nobody doubts that every person in this Chamber loves this country and wants to do the right thing. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm tempted to reserve my time and yield it back to the other---- Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the time bomb that's ticking is the time bomb on the Medicare guarantee. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said, I was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to proceed. But as I understand the Chamber is now quiet, let me begin where I left off and say that all of us agree, everybody in this Chamber agrees, we need to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in a predictable, steady manner. The question throughout this debate has been not whether, but how we do that. And as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced approach. And the Republican plan simply fails on that score. And that's what the cochairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. They said it, ``falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a responsible plan.'' And when you peel off the layers, what you find is the Republican plan is not bold. It's just the same old, tired formula we've seen before of providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of America-- except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-sounding talk of reform. But at the end, it's the same old ideological agenda--except this time on steroids. To govern is to choose. Each of us is sent here to make difficult choices, and the choices that are made in the Republican plan we believe are wrong for America. We do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research, and critical investments in the future. We don't think it's bold to provide another tax break to millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for ever-rising health care costs. We do not believe it's visionary to award corporations that ship American jobs rather than American products overseas while we're terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans right here at home. And we don't think it's brave to give Governors a blank check of Federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and poor kids. And we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle-income Americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very top. Yet those are the choices that are made in the Republican budget. Where is the shared sacrifice? We have American men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq, in Afghanistan, while others hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and refuse to pay their fair share to support our national efforts. And that is why the bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the Republican plan is just not balanced. It's not. Let's say ``no'' to the Republican plan. Let's say ``yes'' to finding a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a way that protects the values and priorities of the American people and in a way that gets our economy moving and America back to work. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan fiscal commission--no fringe group--said that the Republican plan was unbalanced because it doesn't ask for shared sacrifice. It's a lopsided approach. This budget takes us farther off the deep end. I yield 2 minutes 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 yield 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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).

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).