Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Twenty-four hours, Mr. Chairman. Will you have a number tomorrow?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My time has expired.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. For an answer to that question, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, we just heard from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that there was no ceiling for 2011 in place. I am going to make a copy and ask the pages to distribute this. This is the Budget Enforcement Act for last year, for fiscal year 2011, and there you have the budget ceilings, whereas what you are proposing is a piece of paper that doesn't set the budget ceilings and doesn't contain any of the numbers in it. I would just ask the chairman of the Rules Committee this: During the hearing, you said we're going to wait for CBO; CBO's numbers are coming tomorrow. Tomorrow are you going to have a number for us?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My question, Mr. Chairman, is simple: Do you think it makes a difference to the process whether the number that ends up being here is $120 billion, which may mean a 30 percent across-the-board cut, or do you think it matters that it's $100 billion or $80 billion?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his very useful guidance, but let me just tell you this: The fact of the matter is, in the spring, we will begin the budget process in the Budget Committee. We are now dealing with fiscal year 2011. As the chairman knows, there was a budget resolution in effect at the end of the last Congress that had a number in it. You chose not to extend it. Now, for the first time ever, you have asked this House-- every Member--to surrender his or her responsibility on the number to one person. That is budget malpractice, and it also cedes our responsibility as Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Here we go again. As my colleague said, if this were a serious proposal on the budget, you would have a budget number in this document. There is no number in this document. Look, on opening day our Republican colleagues passed a measure that immediately gutted the pay-as-you-go rule that we have in this body and did an end run around the pay-as-you-go law. A few days later, we figured out why they did that, because they added $230 billion to the deficit over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. Those aren't my numbers, those are the numbers of the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office with respect to the impact of their effort to repeal health care reform instead of doing what we should be doing, which is focusing on jobs. That measure on opening day also did another thing. It gave the chairman of the Budget Committee unprecedented power to unilaterally pick the budget ceilings, the spending ceilings for this entire Congress. No input from anybody else, no debate, no vote. So all of us thought when this new measure was coming up maybe now we're going to have some accountability. Maybe this body will have an opportunity to vote on the very important spending ceilings for the United States Congress and for the government. But lo and behold hold, when you look at the resolution, there's no number. Where's the beef? And I have to say to my colleagues that, if you want transparency, why are you hiding the ball? Is the number going to be 100 billion? Is it going to be 80 billion? Is it going to be 60 billion? We hear all different numbers in the press out there, and they haven't put it in the measure. Instead, they've said once again, we're going to allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to decide. Now, I have great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee, but none of us should be contracting out our votes and our responsibilities to another Member of Congress. We shouldn't ever do that. Certainly we shouldn't be doing that on something as important as setting the overall budget and spending ceilings for the United States Government. That's irresponsible. And yet that's what this rule will ask every Member to do--contract out his or her vote to one person. So why are we doing this? Why are we bringing a budget resolution to the floor with no number? As my colleague said, timing is everything here. This is an opportunity to have a press release tomorrow, the day the President's going to deliver the State of the Union address, to create the illusion that they're making progress on the budget number, without a number. Now, we heard from our colleagues on the Republican side, Well, you know what? We have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to tell us what their projections are so we can figure out the magnitude of the reductions.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. We asked them, Why don't we have the number? They said, Well, we've got to wait for CBO. We are pleased to hear the newfound respect for the CBO numbers, but here's my point. That's going to happen within 24 hours of tomorrow. Twenty-four hours. We could have a budget resolution with the beef, with the number, so everyone could decide what the ceilings are going to be. No, we've got to do it tomorrow. Why? State of the Union address. Great press release. Now, I've heard my colleagues say they've got to do this because there was nothing in place in the House from a budget perspective. Well, in fact, the House last year passed a budget enforcement act. I've got it right here. It's got a number in it. It's got a number in it like these budget documents have.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. There was a vote on a resolution in the House. If you want to talk about deeming----

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't remember the exact vote, but it passed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listen, what we are doing today is the ultimate example of deeming. We are passing a resolution that deems, in advance, the passage of a number that we don't even know, and it's going to be decided by one person. We are deeming that individual all the authority. And the shame of it is that that's a process that I think we all recognize is flawed. And yet this is deeming on steroids. So I would suggest that we come up with a real number, put some beef on this, have a real argument, and let every Member vote and take responsibility.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. Speaker, as those of us on this side of the aisle have said, we need to focus our efforts on job creation and getting the economy going. I know that the chairman said that is what this bill is all about, but let's look at what the Bipartisan Commission on Deficit and Debt Reduction said. They said two things: one, absolutely we need to put our country on a sustainable path toward deficit reduction, and we should work together to get that done. But they also said another thing. They said draconian cuts right now would, in fact, reverse the economic progress that we are making, and that it would threaten the fragile economic recovery and it would hurt job creation in this country, which is one reason we would like to know what the number is, and I would yield immediately if you can tell me whether it is going to be $100 billion this year, $80 billion, $60 billion, whatever it will be, because there is no number. And if you've got it, it should have been in here. Let me get to the other issue the gentleman raised. We have pointed out that if you do the $100 billion cut, which is what you all talked about in the fall, right now in the immediate moment, it results in approximately 20 percent across-the-board cuts. Now, all of you say, whenever we raise specifics like cutting research for treatment and cures at NIH, no, no, no, we're not going to cut that. Then we say, okay, you're going to cut the FBI budget because that is not a part of the protected budget. No, no, no, you say, we're not going to cut that. You keep moving stuff off the table. You know what that does to the rest of the budget? It means it goes from a 20 percent cut to 30 percent to 40. Who knows what it is. But the point we are making is you haven't given us the starting point number; so you don't have a clue, and of course we don't either. But you don't have a clue because you haven't come up with a number. And we know there has been a lot of discussion on your side of the aisle--it's no secret--about what that number will be, you amended this rules provision, but if you've got the number, put it in here now, and if you're going to get it the day after tomorrow, on Wednesday, wait 24 hours, and let this body vote on it.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, America lost one of her greatest public servants this week. Sargent Shriver dedicated his life to others. He was the driving force behind the creation of Head Start and Upward Bound, opening the door to education for countless children. He was passionate about service, and through his stewardship of the Peace Corps and VISTA, gave millions of others the opportunity to serve. Sarge and his wife, Eunice, were visionary advocates for people with disabilities, and today the Special Olympics empowers young people with intellectual disabilities around the world. Sargent Shriver's courage under fire earned him a Purple Heart for his service in the Navy during World War II. After directing the Peace Corps and the Kennedy administration and helping launch the War on Poverty in the Johnson administration, Sargent Shriver applied his formidable talents to our Foreign Service as ambassador to France from 1968 to 1970. In 1994, President Clinton awarded Sargent Shriver the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor. Despite all these accolades and well-deserved recognition, those who knew Sargent Shriver knew that he considered his work its own reward. His life was a tireless crusade for peace and justice, willing to lend a hand wherever one was needed and building institutions that could carry his work into the future. ``When our deeds match our ideals,'' Sargent Shriver would say, ``we will be living life as it ought to be lived.'' Sargent Shriver lived life as it ought to be lived. I extend my deepest sympathies to his five children, Mark, Robert, Maria, Timothy and Anthony, and to their families. I hope they are comforted by the thoughts and prayers of all those who knew, admired, or were helped by Sargent Shriver. His legacy--the children given a head start, the volunteers whose lives were changed and who changed lives in their service around the globe, and the individuals with disabilities now treated with dignity and respect that they deserve-- that legacy is with us today and will continue for years and decades and more to come.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The House Republican majority has brought this resolution to the House floor claiming that they will take action to replace the health reform bill that they voted to repeal yesterday--yet again, with no specifics. But the Republican record on tackling the issues with our health care system is clear. Between the years 2000 and 2006, health insurance premiums doubled--went up 100 percent--and the profits of the major health insurance companies quadrupled. What did the Congress do during those years to stop those skyrocketing premiums? Nothing. In contrast, the health reform bill signed by President Obama finally provides the chance to rein in those exorbitant premiums and will reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion in the next 20 years. It has already put in place important consumer protections, reduces prescription drug costs to seniors by closing the Medicare Part D donut hole, and provides tax credits for small business owners who provide insurance coverage. And Washington Republicans just want the American people to trust that they will come up with a plan--without a single detail, without a timeline, without any track record of addressing this crisis in our Nation. There are certainly areas where we can improve this historic reform legislation. In fact, the House voted in the last Congress to repeal the 1099 provision on small businesses--House Republicans opposed that effort. But the American people don't want to go backwards by repealing these new rights, and doing so without a specific plan to replace it is simply irresponsible. It's time to stop playing shell games and start working to move America forward. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues vote nay on this resolution.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, many of us believe we should focus our efforts and energy on measures to help put people back to work rather than on a bill that takes away important patient and consumer protections. And we don't think it makes much sense to debate a bill that thankfully will go nowhere in the Senate and would certainly be vetoed by the President. However, the new Republican majority is certainly entitled to use its time here as it chooses. And while many of us believe our time would be better spent focusing on jobs, I do believe that this debate may help clear up many of the myths and misinformation about the health care law signed by President Obama. The issue of health care is personal to every American individual and family. That is why this debate can become so emotional and heated. Let us have a vigorous, spirited debate. But let us work to ensure the debate generates more light than heat, and illuminates rather than obscures the key issues. The insurance reforms that have taken effect since last March are already making a huge and positive difference in the lives of millions of American families. We wish our Republican colleagues would have taken a least a few days, a few hours to have Congressional hearings to listen to those individuals and families. The new Republican majority said it wanted to listen, but you have not invited a single American outside of this Congress to a hearing to testify on the repeal bill we are debating here today. As a result, those of us who oppose the efforts to strip away important patient protections had to organize an unofficial hearing to listen to testimony from our fellow Americans. We heard stories from across America about why it is such a bad idea to repeal, to take away the many protections patients and consumers finally have to fight the abusive practices of some insurance companies. We heard the moms and dads of young people tell you how relieved they are that their sons and daughters are no longer kicked off their health insurance policies at age 19 or when they graduate from college, but can now stay on their parents' plan until age 26. As a result, if their 22-year-old gets very sick or gets into a terrible accident, that 22- year-old can get care they need without the family going bankrupt. We heard from moms and dads with kids who have cancer, asthma, or diabetes or other pre-existing conditions tell how relieved they are that insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those kids. We heard senior citizens who were unable to pay huge bills for essential prescription drugs tell you how relieved they are that--as of January 1st--they are now paying less and can afford the medicines their doctors say they need. We heard from small businesses that are already using the tax credits to be able to purchase affordable health care coverage for their employees. And as a result of being able to purchase more affordable health care, small businesses have been able to hire more employees. Now the new Republican majority has used a lot of supercharged and inaccurate rhetoric to support their claims. They even named their bill the ``Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act''--as if putting those words in the title and saying them over and over somehow makes it true. It doesn't and they aren't. Let me be clear--there is only one job that will no longer be available as a result of the health reform bill, and that is the job of the guy at the insurance company who was told to examine the fine print in your insurance policy--the kind you can only read with a magnifying glass--and come up with reasons why the insurance company will not pay for the care you need when you need it, even though you had been dutifully paying your premiums all along. The reform bill signed by the president banned those abuses. With that solitary exception, the health insurance reform law will create jobs. More people will be providing more cost effective health care services to ensure that more Americans are healthy and productive at work. And the health reform bill--when it fully kicks-in in 2014--will finally give Americans the freedom to move from job to job without fear of losing their coverage. That means more Americans will be able to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams and start their own businesses without fear of losing their health insurance. Now, we all recognize that ever rising health insurance premiums are making insurance less affordable for millions of Americans. Indeed, between the years 2000 and 2006, health insurance premiums doubled-- went up 100 percent--and the profits of the major health insurance companies quadrupled. The insurance industry loved that pattern. What did the Congress do during those years to stop those skyrocketing premiums? Nothing. By contrast, the health reform bill signed by President Obama finally provides the chance to stop those skyrocketing premiums. That's why it was so bitterly fought by the insurance industry and why they would like to see it repealed. Now some critics claim that the continued rise in health insurance premiums this year is proof that the health care bill is not working. But that claim exploits widespread confusion about how the bill works. Anyone who has read the bill--and I do encourage all Members to read the bill--knows that the key insurance market reforms in the bill don't even take effect until the year 2014. That is because the market reforms cannot be implemented overnight without disruption to the system. But when those reforms are fully implemented in 2014, premiums will no longer accelerate at warp speed. Those reforms will change the very inefficient system that contributes to rising premiums. As of today, all of us who have health insurance coverage--we pick up the tab for those who don't. We pay higher premiums because of those who pay none, but get their primary care in the emergency room. That broken system results in less preventive care and higher premiums. Those premiums will come down in 2014 once everyone takes personal responsibility for purchasing their own coverage and the risks are pooled throughout the population. Now, when market reforms kick-in fully in 2014, the non-partisan, independent CBO has indicated that individuals and families will be able to pay less for their health coverage. In their letter to Speaker Boehner, CBO projects that premiums for employer based coverage will rise if you repeal the bill. And CBO indicates that the majority of people in the individual market will get fewer benefits and pay more for coverage if you repeal the bill--because you eliminate the tax credits. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office--the CBO--has also said something else about the health care bill signed by President Obama. They have calculated that it will reduce our national deficit by over $1.4 trillion over the next twenty years. Now many people ask how that can be possible. How can a health reform bill that provides more affordable access to health care for millions of Americans reduce the deficit? The answer is simple: those expansions were more than paid for by eliminating huge taxpayer subsidies that were flowing to certain health insurance companies, by incentivizing more efficient care, and by having the top 2% income earners contribute more in payroll taxes. That is the budget math of the health care reform bill. This means that by repealing the bill signed by President Obama, Republicans would add over $1.4 trillion to the deficit, adding to our debt to China and others. Now, because they don't like the CBO deficit numbers they have tried to discredit them. But these criticisms are coming from the same people who praised many of the CBO's earlier estimates during the debate on the health care bill. In other words, when they like what the CBO has to say, they endorse their numbers, but when the CBO presents an inconvenient budget truth, they trash the numbers. CBO is the independent budget referee for the Congress. Just as in football, sometimes you agree with the referee; sometimes you don't. But you don't get to kick the referee off the field and substitute your own call. Yet that is exactly what our Republican colleagues seek to do. Only this is not a sports game; they are playing these games with the federal budget. It is unprecedented and fiscally reckless. It is Enron-style accounting that will lead to budget anarchy and fiscal chaos. So much for fiscal accountability. Mr. Speaker, those of us who support the health care reform law know that it is not perfect and certain adjustments should be made as we implement the reforms. In fact, last year this House tried to remove the burdensome 1099 provisions, and the Senate was unable to pass similar legislation. But making necessary adjustments is one thing. Completely eliminating important patient and consumer protections that are currently benefiting millions of American families would be a historic mistake. The insurance industry would celebrate at the expense of the American people. Let's put health care providers in charge of health care decisions, not the insurance industry. We have seen this narrative play out at other times in our history. After the historic passage of Social Security in 1935, its Republican opponents called it ``a cruel hoax'' and ``a fraud on the working man.'' After the historic passage of Medicare in 1965, we heard the same distortions. Mr. Speaker, let us not make the mistake of repealing health care reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided and mislabeled bill. Mr. Speaker, this House is a place to have great debates where we can openly air differences of opinion. But we should try in the process to separate differences of opinion from the facts of the case. Earlier this month, with the passage of the Rules package, there was an effort to provide a whole new approach to accounting when it comes to the budget deficit. In essence, what the rules say is that we are going to exempt the budgetary effects of certain measures, including repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The majority has written into the governing rules of the House a mechanism to disguise the true budget deficit impact of repealing this legislation. And as a result, today the Chairman of the House Budget Committee inserted a statement into the Congressional Record which asserts that H.R. 2, the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, will have no budgetary effect at all. In fact, CBO' s preliminary estimate of the bill is that it would increase the deficit by $230 billion over ten years. What the majority is doing is rank budget gimmickry of the worst kind. It is the job of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to inform us of the deficit impact of legislation we pass in this House. Sometimes we agree with their estimates, sometimes we disagree. But the whole budget process will collapse in chaos if we decide to write the political budget estimates of individual Members of Congress into these bills and ignore the estimates of the professionals. It is like being at a football game and when the referee makes a call, and you don't like the call, you throw the referee off of the field and think that your team gets to make the call instead. We should all recognize, as Republicans and Democrats, that we will have budget anarchy if we think that we can have Members of Congress in a politically charged environment substitute their own judgment for that of CBO. With this action, the majority is committing budget malpractice. It is a sure-fire way to run up the red ink in this country over a period of time. House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, January 19, 2011. Budgetary Effects of Legislation Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to Public Law 111-139, I hereby submit prior to the vote on passage, the attached estimate of the budgetary effects of H.R. 2, ``Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,'' for printing in the Congressional Record. Rep. Paul Ryan, Chairman.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that this body voted on a majority basis to repeal the 1099 provision. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I hope the tenor and substance of the debate we have in this House over the next few days will be worthy of the American people and reflect well on this Congress. Many of us believe we should focus our efforts here today on measures to help put people back to work, rather than on a bill that takes away important patient and consumer protections. And we don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to debate a bill that, thankfully, will go nowhere in the Senate and would certainly be vetoed by the President. However, the Republican majority is entitled to use its time here as it chooses. And while we believe we should be doing that focused on jobs, perhaps this debate will clear up many of the myths and misinformation about the health care law that was signed by President Obama. I'm interested to hear my colleagues say that they can identify with all the problems in the health care system. Between the year 2000 and year 2006, premiums in this country doubled, health insurance company profits quadrupled, and this Congress did nothing. Why not put your plan on the table first so everybody can see it before you begin taking away the important patient protections in this bill taking effect just since last March? And within that 9-month period, that law has made an important and positive difference to millions of Americans. In fact, we wish our Republican colleagues would take a few days, maybe even just a few hours, to have congressional hearings to listen to those individuals and families. The new Republican majority said it wanted to listen to the American people, but it has not invited a single American outside this Congress to a hearing to testify on the repeal bill we are debating today. As a result, we on the other side of the aisle have had to schedule an unofficial hearing. It's going on right now, not 100 yards from where we debate, in the Capitol Visitor Center. And I encourage all of you to drop by, because if you do, you're going to hear some stories. You're going to hear the stories from moms and dads of young people who will tell you how they are relieved that their sons and daughters are no longer kicked off their insurance policies when they turn age 22 or graduate from college and cannot now stay on their parents' insurance plan until the age of 26. As a result, if their 20-year-old child gets sick or hit by an automobile or another terrible accident, they can get care without the family going bankrupt. You will hear from moms and dads with kids who have cancer, asthma, diabetes or other preexisting conditions telling you they're relieved that finally insurance companies can't deny their children coverage because of preexisting conditions. And you will hear from senior citizens who are unable to pay for the huge prescription costs of their bills, and then as of January 1 of this year, they are getting a 50 percent discount and they can afford to pay for the medicines their doctors say they need. You will hear from small businesses. The number of small businesses using the tax credit has exceeded everyone's expectation. You will hear from those small businesses saying they can now afford to purchase affordable coverage for their employees and, as a result, hire more people. You would hear all that and more. That is why it is such a mistake, it's an historic mistake, to take away these patient protections and throw these individuals back over to the whims and the many abuses of the insurance industry. There's no doubt that the insurance industry will be popping champagne bottles if the health care law was ever to be repealed. Let's put the interests of our constituents, patients and consumers first in this debate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.