Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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 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).

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. VAN HOLLEN

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).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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. 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).

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. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member. If my colleague would remember, one of the first amendments that was offered was to say let's be serious about the deficit. Let's have shared sacrifice. Let's ask those folks paying over a million dollars to go back to the same tax rates that they were during the Clinton administration and put some of that money to deficit reduction. We offered other amendments by saying let's let the big oil companies do a little less with the taxpayer subsidies and focus that on higher priorities. The gentleman asked where the figure was that a senior would have to pay $6,000 more in the year 2022 under the Republican proposal. That is from the CBO letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee where they did their analysis of the long-term impact. It was not a Republican outfit. It was not a Democratic outfit. In fact, the chairman of the committee has made it clear that he has used the CBO baseline for the purpose of his own budget. This is out of a CBO report. And I think we need to take it seriously, because we can all have our own arguments and opinions, but there are certain facts that we can't run away from, and that's one of them.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. His amendment makes the point that if you think this is a good idea, if the Republicans think this is such a good idea, why don't you apply it to veterans? Why don't you apply it to active service personnel? If it is such a great thing, why don't you turn them into voucher premium support--whatever you want--a kind of plan where they have to eat the rising cost of health care? Members are going to have an opportunity. If you vote ``no'' on the previous question, you will be able to vote to say, let's not turn Medicare into a voucher premium support, let's not end the guarantee, and let's not do that for our military personnel or our veterans either.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member. I'm glad my colleague raised the issue of the bipartisan fiscal commission, because the fiscal commission took a look at the Republican budget plan and said it was not balanced and not comprehensive and not a way to achieve deficit reduction in a responsible way. That was the verdict of the bipartisan commission. Why did they say it was unbalanced? Because the Republican budget provides big tax breaks for special interests. You don't get rid of the subsidies to the big oil companies. You want to give additional tax breaks to the very wealthy, including millionaires. And what do you do for the tradeoff? You cut funding for education for kids and you do end the Medicare guarantee. We're going to have time to talk about other parts of the bill later on, but I want to talk about that now because it's going to be the subject of the previous question. What this budget does is say to seniors, you no longer may stay in the Medicare program today; you have to go into the private insurance market. And the way it saves money is it says, as those costs in the private insurance market continue to go up, you are not going to get premium support that will keep up with it. You're going to get something that's a relatively fixed value compared to the rapidly rising health care costs, which is why, as the President said yesterday, in the year 2022 seniors would pay more under the Republican budget plan by over $6,300 than they do under current Medicare. And that continues to rise and rise and rise. I want to put an end today to this other talking point we keep hearing, that somehow they're offering seniors what Members of Congress have. It's not true. What Members of Congress have is something called a fair share formula under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. So as premiums go up, the risk to Members of Congress and other Federal employees is fixed at a certain percentage. Not true under the Republican Medicare plan. The way it saves money in the out years is in fact to make sure that share between Medicare and the senior is not fixed, that the senior has to pick up more of the cost. That is a fact. And that is how they make money in the out years, by putting it on the backs of seniors, even while they say they're going to bring down the top tax rate by 30 percent for the wealthiest people in this country. That's the kind of choices we're facing here. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) had an amendment before the Rules Committee on exactly this issue of ending Medicare and the guarantee that it provides in saying you've got to go into the private system.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. If the Speaker would allow, we are going to be offering a Democratic alternative today, and everyone will have a chance to see the alternative.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield for 5 seconds? Because you will have that opportunity to vote on a Democratic alternative.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I indicated, you will have a Democratic alternative budget that we're going to put forward, and it will present a very clear choice for the Members. We will present a budget that achieves steady, predictable deficit reduction. Again, we make different choices in how we do it, and that is the center of the debate. So everyone will have an opportunity to vote on an alternative budget.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. The President did not offer what we call a budget. He offered what was an outline, an approach, that he wants people to look at on a bipartisan basis. That's what the President proposed yesterday.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We've had a spirited debate this evening about fundamental choices that we need to make as a country. We all agree that we have to reduce our deficits in a predictable, steady way. The question is how do you do it, and we believe, as did the cochairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission, that the Republican plan is unbalanced; and it's unbalanced because it asks very little of the folks at the very top and reduces dramatically our investments in our kids' education and it does end the Medicare guarantee. Seniors will no longer be able to stay in the Medicare program. They will be forced into the insurance program. It immediately does end the prescription drug benefit, something we worked hard to close, the doughnut hole. It ends the effort that was put in place under the Affordable Care Act to end the doughnut hole. So I would say to the gentleman from Georgia who spoke earlier, those seniors who are calling his office, they will lose that benefit in closing the doughnut hole right away if this Republican budget passes. For other seniors and people who have been paying in the Medicare system through their payroll taxes, we want to make sure they have the benefit of the Medicare guarantee. Throwing them into the private insurance market and giving them a deal that Members of Congress do not give ourselves is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. We have a fair share deal, and we are asking seniors to take a raw deal. We have a true premium support system for Members of Congress where the Federal Government shares the risk of increasing costs. Under the Republican plan, they are asking seniors to do what they don't want Members of Congress to do: take all the risk of the rising costs. Those are not choices that reflect American values and priorities. We should not be giving tax breaks to the folks at the top and ending the Medicare guarantee.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Washington law firms. I want to point out, these firms are doing good work. There is nothing wrong with what these firms are doing. But don't tell the American people that these are small businesses. Over $50 million a year. They can help do their share to get our deficit under control. Go back to the Clinton administration rates. Let's have a balanced approach. Yes, we need to do cuts. We understand that. But as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, you've got to do revenues, too, and if you don't, here's what happened: President Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus from the Clinton administration, and where did it go? When President Obama was sworn in, the day he put his hand on the Bible, he faced a deficit in that year of over $1.3 trillion and a 10-year deficit of over $10 trillion. Let's have a balanced approach. Let's have shared sacrifice. Let's be serious about getting our deficits under control.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. The gentleman from Texas mentioned the fact that as part of the Affordable Care Act last year we made some reforms in Medicare. Yes, we did. We got rid of the overpayments to the private plans, the Medicare Advantage plans. Why did we do that? Because they were costing the taxpayer 114 percent of the fee-for-service, which is why this notion, frankly, that by saying to seniors you can't stay in Medicare now, you've got to go into the private insurance market, has been disproven by our experience most recently. So we said we're not going to overpay them. And you know what? We used some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole that seniors fall in. We used some of those savings. Now, it's important to understand that the Republican budget, even though there was a lot of demagoguery about that, you kept those savings, but what you didn't do is continue to close the doughnut hole. Immediately upon passage of the Republican budget, that doughnut hole will stop closing for seniors. I want to pick up on a point Mr. Garamendi made about Medicaid because, as this chart indicates, the great majority of funds for Medicaid go to seniors and individuals with disabilities. Make no mistake, this happens immediately. We're not talking about 10 years from now, 8 years from now. This happens right away. Now, Medicaid is a program where actually the costs of care have grown much slower than the rest of the health care market, including the private market, and yet it is a program that is stretched very thin. You take $700 billion-plus out of that system, you are going to be putting people at serious risk, already overstretched programs. So what choice did you make? Well, this is what choice you made with respect to Medicaid. You cut about $771 billion. Guess what? You returned to the tax rates that were in effect on the top 2 percent income earners during the Clinton administration; over 10 years, $800 billion. Those are the choices you're making. Put all of these individuals at risk--seniors in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, poor kids--so that you can provide that tax break. I've heard it said on the floor that, oh, boy, if we do that, if we go back to the Clinton-era tax rates, that's going to really hurt the economy. That's going to hurt jobs. Look at this. Here's the Clinton-era tax rate: 20 million jobs were created during that period of time. Here's the current tax rate, end of the Bush administration: 653,000 jobs lost. The history tells the story. The reason is because there are lots of factors that go into decisions by businesses how to invest. And while, obviously, tax rates are a part of it, they are not the major driver in the economy. I've heard it said that this is going to hurt small businesses. I hope one thing that we can agree on is that small businesses are the engine of our economy. They're what make this economy go. And so we always hear from our Republican colleagues, well, you go back to the Clinton era rates for the top, you're going to hurt small businesses. Well, I hope everybody will look at the Joint Committee on Taxation. What they say is that there are only 3 percent of small businesses who fall into that higher income category, because we're talking about taxable income. Only 3 percent of small businesses fall into those rates. Now, we hear from our Republican colleagues, oh, that's true it's only 3 percent, but it's 50 percent. Well, here. Fifty percent of the income comes from those 3 percent. Why do you think that is? Well, look at the same Joint Committee on Taxation report. Many such businesses are hardly ``small.'' In 2005, over 12,000 S corporations and over 6,000 partnerships grossed more than $50 million. There's your mom-and-pop store. There's your mom-and-pop store working hard as a small business trying to make ends meet. Those are what Republicans are calling small businesses. I'm going to give you some examples of those small businesses. And there are lots of them, but just to give people an idea of the Republican definition of small businesses: major Wall Street investment house KKR; one of the big four accounting firms, Pricewaterhouse--these are S corporations--Fortune 100; Pipeline Company; Enterprise GP Holdings; Washington law firms.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And that's because you don't like the answer you're going to hear.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Isn't it true that the Republican budget reopens the prescription--

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

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