tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN April 14, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
futures, mr. speaker. which future do you want your children to have. one where the debt gets so large it crushes the economy and gives them a diminished future, a stagnant economy? or two, this budget, using c.b.o. numbers that literally not only gets us on the way to balance the budget but pays off our debts. gets our debt manageable, preempts and prevents a debt crisis and fixes this so we can preserve this great legacy of giving the next generation a higher standard of living. now, mr. speaker, we had a speech yesterday from the president, not a plan, so to speak, but a speech. unfortunately, i think the speech, which was a framework with no details, was really not about solutions but about partisanship. i'm concerned, mr. speaker, that leaders here in town are
more concerned about the next election than the next generation. i hope that that's not the case. i hope that leaders in this town change their tune so we can fix this problem. but it's going to require them to change their tune. we don't need good politicians. we don't need clever politics. we need real leadership and real solutions to fix this country's problems because, mr. speaker, if we don't make some tough decisions today, our children are going to have to face much, much tougher decisions tomorrow. i want to talk about one particular program, and i'll yield myself two additional minutes to do that. if you caught that, mr. speaker, i'll yield myself two additional minutes to do that. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: medicare. medicare is one of the most important programs we have. it's one of the most successful programs we have. medicare's in trouble. medicare's going broke.
c.b.o. tells us in nine years it's exhausted its trust fund. we need to save medicare. this budget doesn't change anything for anybody on medicare now and within 10 years of retiring. and it saves the system for the next generation. contrary to what the president proposed yesterday, he wants to delegate more authority to 15 people on a commission, on a bureaucracy that was created in his new health care law to do price controlling and rationing of medicare for current seniors. he wants these 15 people without a consent of congress, just to do it directly, to impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to current seniors. we repeal this agency. we don't think congress should be delegating this kind of
power and authority to unelected people to make unilateral decisions on senior health care. so we preserve, protect and save medicare for current seniors, those 10 years away from retiring, and then i'll get into the details of how we save it for future generations. mr. speaker, at the end of the day this budget is about choices. we do four things. we want to grow the economy so we create jobs and have tax reform. we want to save the mission and preserve the mission of health and retirement security and we do that. we want to preserve our associate safety net and make it more sustainable, more reliable, more adaptive and more condusive to the 21st century and geared not toward keeping people on welfare but getting people back on their feet and into jobs and careers to have flourishing lives. and at the end of the day, mr. speaker, what it's really about is giving our children a debt-free nation. with that i'll reserve the
balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. everyone in this chamber loves america and everybody in this chamber wants to preserve the dynamism of this country and american exceptionalism. we also all agree that we have to reduce our deficits in a study and predictable way. the question is how we do that and we have very different views of how we should do that. later this evening and tomorrow we will debate a democratic alternative budget which will strengthen our economy, promote job growth and decrease the deficit in a steady, predictable and responsible way. but the republican budget is the wrong choice for america. i urge every american to read this budget because if you do
no amount of spin can hide the fact that this is a wrong turn for america. it's a yellow brick road for the already prosperous but it's a dead end for the rest. just today we had an analysis come out from the former economic advisor to john mccain when he was running for president, mark zandi, the chief economist at moody's an lytics who said the republican plan will cost america 1.7 million jobs by the year 2014 with 900,000 jobs lost next year. and that republican budget violates the warning from the bipartisan commission that we need to do the cuts and the deficit reduction in a responsible way. the co-chairs of the president's fiscal commission stated that the republican budget, and i quote, fall short of the balanced comprehensive approach that we need for a responsible plan. they are absolutely right. it is not balanced, it's a
totally one-sided approach to deficit reduction, because when you sweep away all the soothing, sweet-sounding talk of reform at its core, this republican budget is not bold. in fact, it's the same old formula of increasing tax breaks to the very wealthy in this country and to the special interests like big oil at the expense of the good of the rest of the country except this time it's the same old plan on steroids. we all know that to govern is to choose, and the choices made in the republican budget are wrong for america. it is not bold to give tax giveaways to the oil company and executive board rooms while slashing investments in our kids' classrooms, in scientific research and in critical infrastructure for this country. it is not courageous to provide
additional tax breaks for millionaires while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the cost of the rising health care. it is not visionary to reward corporations that ship american jobs instead of products overseas while we terminate health care for tens of millions of americans here at home. and it is not brave to give governors a blank check of federal taxpayer money and a license to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and low-income kids on medicaid. and it's not fair to give yet another tax break to the very wealthy and ask middle-income americans to pay for it. yet, if you read the republican budget, knows are the choices they make. -- those are the choices they make. we ask, where is the shared
sacrifice? we have american men and women putting their lives on the line as we speak 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 nation. that is not right. the pattern is clear. first, you cut taxes for special interests and the very wealthy. and then mathematically what happens? the deficits go up. you have to handle this not by going back and asking the folks at the very top to do more but by cutting investments for working families and violating our commitments to seniors and others. let me turn to the republican plan for medicare. because what the republican plan does, it ends the medicare guarantee. it forces seniors to go into
the private insurance market and have to deal with the rising costs of health care that they face there. and the seniors have to eat that cost. and since the chairman raised this specifically in his opening statement, i would like to just take a look at this chart based on the numbers from the congressional budget office and the president, i -- he did mention this in his speech yesterday. and what this shows is what happens to medicare under the republican budget versus current medicare and how much of the increase costs will now be shifted to seniors instead of medicare. and as you can see, compared to current medicare, senior citizens are going to have to pay more than $6,000 on top of what they would have had to pay in the year 2022. and the problem gets worse and
worse over time so that by the time you're out in the year 2030 you're talking about in the range of $11,000 more paid by seniors. now, let me say this, one of the talking points we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, don't worry, don't worry, seniors. we're just giving you the same health care deal members of congress have. that's not true. what members of congress have is what's called a fair share deal agreement just as other federal employees do and as many employees around the country do where the risk of rising premiums is shared. so for every dollar increase in premiums the federal government puts in about 72 cents, thereabouts, and the member of congress or federal employee puts in the rest.
but the point is no matter how fast the costs go up you share that risk equally. that's not what happens in the republican plan. there's much more to talk about, but let me just say we welcome this debate. but fundamentally this is a debate about choices for our country and as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, the choice made in the republican budget is not balanced and it's not comprehensive. we agree and we should reject this budget. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds simply to say, if he read that c.b.o. letter a little letter it would say that medicare is on such an unsustainable path that it cannot sustain itself where it is. we are making comparisons to futures that are not going to exist. the greatest threat to medicare is the status quo. the president yesterday said he wants this unelected board of
bureaucrats to cut $1 trillion out of medicare. we don't want to see that happen. with that, mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for yielding. i just rise today to commend chairman ryan and this effort to craft a sustainable and responsible budget proposal. this budget represents a valiant effort to effect real change in the way washington spends real taxpayer dollars. this couples tangible cuts with the entitlement reform necessary to get our budgets back into balance starting now and continuing into the long term. this republican majority understands that we must end the skyrocketing budgets of the last several years, and this budget reiterates our commitment to smart but limited government spending.
the resolution includes an annual discretionary spending level of $1.019 trillion for next year, bringing us back to the fiscal year 2006 funding levels for nonsecurity programs. that's a reduction of an additional $31 billion from the level that we just passed in the c.r. based on the experience we've just had in bringing the 2011 budget to a close, this will present significant challenges to the appropriations committee and the body in the weeks and months ahead. it will not be an easy task, but i know that with the support of house members we will rise to that challenge. in addition, while i commend the budget resolution for making such significant strides to rein in spending and address long-term budget challenges, i do have some concerns over various budget process changes that may have unintended
consequences. for example, the appropriations committee may be faced with challenges related to our emergency authority after may 31, the beginning of the hurricane season, due to limitations on the committee's ability to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies. along these same lines, there may be challenges related to the committee's flexibility to provide for additional funding beyond expected needs for the global war on terror and our military efforts overseas. i look forward to working with chairman ryan and the leadership to address these as well as other process concerns as we go forward. these matters aside, i applaud this budget proposal. it will put us back on a path of sustainable spending, allow for job creation and economic growth and help us make the right fiscal decisions for our nation's future. i thank the chairman for the time and i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. the chairman of the committee mentioned the ipab and it is true that the president indicated yesterday 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 means seniors will have to absorb an even greater increase. with that i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i think at the beginning of this debate we have to put it in context. i know i must bore my friends on the minority side or the majority side of the aisle, but during my 30 years in this body, there have been essentially three economic programs adopted. . one was referred to as
reagannomics and the second was in 1993 and the third was in 2001 and 2003 when we adopted what was the bush economic program. during the first economic program, we ran up $2.4 trillion of deficits. during the second, the clinton economic program, which lasted for eight years, we had $62.9 billion of surplus over 96 months. $2.4 trillion during the 12 years of the reagan-bush administrations. $62.9 billion surplus during the clinton administration. and then another $2.8 billion of -- trillion, excuse me, of
deficits during the bush economic program. so the reason i raise that as we begin, because i want toll tell my friends and i know -- i want to tell my friends and we will tell our constituents that the mess eaming we hear today from my good friend, mr. ryan, for whom i have a great deal of respect, we have a disagreement. but i do not believe that he speaks with a forked tongue, if you will. he speaks what he believes. he first of all says, correctly, that we have a deficit problem that must be dealt with by us all, those of us who serve here and with those whom we represent. we must, with courage, with honesty, and yes, with discipline, address this deficit. and in order to do so, we must address all items of expenditures and revenues, revenues, of course, are used to
pay for things that we buy. why did we run up deficits in the reagan administration when one person could have stopped it in its tracks or the george bush i administration when they could have stopped spending in its tracks? because we bought more than we paid for, $2.4 trillion. during the clinton administration, what happened? well, we had divided government, constrained spending and we constrained cutting revenues so we were able to pay for what we bought. during the bush administration, the second bush administration, we spent some $2.4 trillion more -- we bought that -- more than we paid for. every american knows if you do that, you are going to run deficits. that's how we got to $4.8 trillion of deficit. as the gentleman will argue that
if we only adopt this program, we'll bring down deficits and will grow employment. well, that's the argument you used in 2001 and 2003. you didn't do either. in fact, employment disappeared. the worst employment record of any administration since herbert hoover, so that the arguments you made in 2001 and 2003 that this would magnify employment did not prove to be the case. and you also made the argument when you inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus, according to george bush himself, you said that we could cut revenues, increase spending and my golly, have growing employment and a surplus. we had neither. we had lost employment, the worst economy of any administration since herbert hoover, a almost depression that
all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks like response caused by president bush in his last year and an exploding deficit. now we will debate between two perspectives. we will have a number on our side and will have a number on your side, at least two on your side, but basically, we adopt the premise on our side, first of all, you have to protect the most vulnerable. you have to make sure that we apply the resources that we have to make sure that every american is in a place where we want them to be and the richest country on the face of the earth. we want to grow the economy and bring the deficit down. one additional minute. mr. van hollen: i yield a minute. mr. hoyer: very frankly, i tell my friend from wisconsin, the premise on your side has been consistently for the 30 years i have been here, if you simply reduce revenues, somehow the
economy will recover. when we adopted the clinton program in 1993, not a single republican voted for it. unanimous in your conviction that it would have an adverse effect, because we raised revenues on the upper 1%. in fact, of course, what happened is exactly the opposite of what you argued in 1993. and so in that context as we have this budget debate, i hope the american public understands that if you repeat the same mistakes of the past, you will be condemned to live in the same problems that were created then by those mistakes. i urge my colleagues to listen to this debate very carefully. listen to the debate of the consequences of the actions that are proposed on both sides of the aisle. and remember what happened when that rhetoric was carried to fruition.
and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: i would simply say we choose to reduce spending and we don't revenue. and with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from budget committee and appropriations committee, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. mr. calvert: i rise in strong support of chairman ryan's fiscal year 2012 budget. for the first time, this budget tackles our fiscal reality. let's start where we all agree. we are in dire financial trouble, but if we make adjustments now, we will set our country on a long-term path of fiscal solvency. president obama and my friends on the other side of the aisle lament the fact that tax increases -- lack of tax increases in our budget. first let's remember we have a deeply progressive tax structure. top 5% pay 60% of federal income taxes collected, yet our
president and my friends on the left want to tax them even more. there seems to be a strangulation under president obama without congressional consent, skyrocketing energy prices and doubling of gas prices and now an attempt to increase taxes. how can businesses survive? we aren't talking about fiscal colvensy but the death of the american entrepreneur if we go down the path outlined by the president. thankfully there is a better way, only way, republican budget recognizes that we must end the drive to seize wealth and redistribute it. this is an alternative to the class warfare tactic of the left that pits one american against the other. make no mistake, the budget includes tax reforms to simplify our tax code, and provide certainty. the ryan budget reflects our
most basic american principles. it provides for strong, defense of our nation, ensure a safety net and make sure our country remains solvent and gets big government out of the american enterprise system. the budget demands that we as leaders step up and make a choice between what's popular and what's right. i choose right. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: yes, we do ask the big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies, and yes, we do ask the very top 2% income earners in our country to go back to the same tax rate they were paying during the clinton years when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created instead of the dramatic job loss we saw between 2000 and 2008. 2008. with that i yield to mr. doggett.
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: this budget is just not my cup of tea. when the republicans use the term modernize or reform, what they really have in mind is a four-letter word, less, less retirement security, less health security, less economic security. this budget does not share the sacrifice. it focuses the pain on the young, on the very old, on those who are trying to climb up the economic laderor just barely prevent themselves from slipping backward. fair and balanced, that is the most inaccurate media logo but a spot-on description of the budgetary path we ought to be on. our budget should be balanced, but not unfairly on the backs of those least able to bear it. it's troubling enough that this republican budget demands even more tax cuts for those at the top and our largest
corporations, but what's truly outrageous is that they seek balance by cutting the opportunity for our young people to get all the education they're willing to work for. and how can our economy be second to none when republicans again and again turn to education to cut first? nor can you fix this budget or make up revenue lost by squeezing so much out of those on fixed incomes. we need to be creating jobs with job training and education and infrastructure investment. the size of our deficit, the level of our taxes, those are important, but they are not the sole through which the strength of america should be viewed. we want an america where the young have educational opportunity, where the not so young have the dignity of their old age. and a bigger middle class shares in the success of our country.
to secure our long-term future, every american can give a little, but this unfair proposal asks little from those with much and so much from those who have so little. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i say yeah, less spending, less government, more jobs, more prosperity and with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from from the appropriations and budget committee, mr. cole from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: we have heard it before, in the 1990's, we were told it was going to lead to poverty and starvation and it was the most successful poverty-reduction program in modern american history and when we pushed through medicare part d, we were told drug prices would go up and it was an unsustainable program. it came in 40% under costs for both the individual and for the
government, something no other health care program has done. the reason why those two programs were successful were flexibility for states, choice and competition for individuals. i'm proud to support the ryan budget, the only proposal that either party has offered and it is a contrast to what we heard yesterday, which was long on rhetoric and partisanship by the president and very short on specifics and solutions. in medicare, my friends won't tell you that nobody on medicare is going to have anything other than the programs that they already enjoy, that there is no reduction for seniors in the near term and that we actually make the changes that are necessary to protect and save the program for the long-term. if we stay on the course that they currently advocate there will be no medicare for people in their 20, 30 and 40's. same thing for medicaid. my friends on the other side of the aisle forget that we aren't
the laboratories for innovations, but the states are. we will give them more opportunity for change and innovation and will end up with a better program that protects more people. i urge my colleagues to support this budget. we know we are on an unsustainable path. sadly, my friends on the other side of the aisle and the president of the united states have not. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the medicaid program is where the costs of health care have grown much more slowly compared to the growth in health care costs elsewhere, cutting $1.4 trillion out of an already stretched program is not a recipe for helping more people. it will definitely hurt those who depend on medicaid. you are giving governors a blank check with no accountability. with that, i yield two minutes
to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: we know that budgets are about values. they are about choices. and we know that this reckless republican budget makes a very disastrous choice. it chooses to sacrifice the safety net of millions and millions of americans in favor of millionaires and billionaires. every time we mention that, the other side says, class warfare, the democrats are engaged in class warfare. that war is over. the wealthy class has won and declared victory. that's why the 1% of income earners, top 1% now has as much wealth in this country as the bottom 90%. so when we are talking about what we can do to get our fiscal house in order, the idea that we would ask that 1% that has accumulated greatest wealth, the
greatest disparity of wealth in the history of this country, to pay more, republicans say no, that is class warfare. instead, they would rather cut security for seniors, for our students, for our struggling families because millionaires and billionaires, left to their own devices will make everybody's boat rise. we have been down that road before, mr. speaker. we have seen what has resulted when that choice is made. this budget, when we asked for millionaires, people making $1 million or more to pay a little bit more and pay that 39.6%, the highest rate under the clinton administration, republicans said no. we can't even ask people making $1 million or more to pay extra to help balance this budget. this is not on balance and unfair and ends medicare and while the budget chairman says, and i know he believes this, that he is trying to preserve medicare for the next
generation, he does nothing -- the republicans do nothing in this budget to make sure the people who is now on medicare or someone who is 56, 57, going to have that program 30 years from now. not one reform measure and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and all of our colleagues that's worked on this budget. if it's a bold vision for our country and it's inspiring to have the opportunity to participate in this reform. as we heard many times over the past several couple of weeks to govern is to choose, and last year as the nation well knows the choice of our friends across the aisle was to do no
budget at all. the democrats failed in their most basic responsibility. now, continuing in this line of inaction, the president gave a speech yesterday with much preceding hype but, again, the defining aspect of his speech was no plan. our president decided to take the two biggest drivers of our national debt, medicare and social security, and take them off the table. his solution to addressing health care costs is further empowering the independent payment advisory board to ration health care instead of dealing with structural reforms. what this all means is that we have a stark choice, a choice of two futures. one future is the president's plan, the one in red here, mr. chairman, the one by the plan by the house democrats that's a path to national bankruptcy. the other choice is a path to prosperity, the green, that gets us on a path to a balanced budget. it's time to address the american people in an honest and a factual manner. let's face it, the american
people are sick and tired of washington's gimmicks and empty promises and the path to prosperity is a bold vision for the future which relies on facts, not dishonesty. as a physician, i can tell you that obamacare is a threat to the affordability and accessibility and quality of health care, all the principles that we hold dear in american medicine. the fact are that obamacare is a violation of these principles and it takes away choices from patients and doctors while saddling workers and job creators and taxpayers with trillions of dollars in costs. so we completely repeal and defund obamacare. further, we will save and preserve medicare for future generations by providing commonsense solutions so that folks have essentially the same kind of health care choices that members of congress have, and it's imperative that people recognize that no changes, i repeat, mr. chairman, no changes are made that would
affect those in or near retirement. now, many folks on the other side of the aisle would rather bury their heads in the sand and ignore the reforms that need to be made to medicare. the president has even decided to take it off the table but the facts are the current medicare spending is growing at a rate twice than the nation's economy, 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age every single day, and as a physician, when i talk to medicare patients in my district back home they tell me that they can't even find a doctor who's taking new medicare patients. the system is broken and unsustainable. the status quo is unacceptable. by completely repealing and defunding obamacare and by saving medicare we advance this nation in a positive direction, a path to prosperity. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. honda. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. honda: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this monster of accounting that the republicans call a budget. the republican budget endorsed by every member of the republican conference from john boehner down to the rank and
file has two goals. one, end medicare. and, two, provide hundreds of billions of tax cuts to the rich. a lot will be said by my colleagues, so i want to talk about some of the dangerous cuts that may not make it to the front page of "usa today" but will still hurt every working family and their children. now, if you look at the chart you'll see that in the red republicans provide the rich with $8 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. how will they pay this spending? on the backs of working families and children. and we will show you charts that are very explicit with details, you'll see other charts that may not be very explicit but right here we show you cuts to vital services to our people. the column on the right shows the cuts to every american in this country that need day-to-day services. things like roads, access to
health care and above all great schools for our children. the republican budget is nothing short of a disaster for our children. i'm a classroom teacher and i should know. the republican budget cuts over a quarter of funding for education. this republican budget means huge cuts for head start. this is the republican budget paying for tax cuts for the rich on the backs of one million poor children. the republican budget means huge cuts for k-12 education. this is how the republican budget pays for tax cuts for the rich, on the backs of 20 million elementary and secondary students. now, the republican budget means huge cuts to the pell grant. this is how the republican budget pays for taxes on the backs of nine million college students. in short, the republican budget requires heavy sacrifices for everyone except the richest americans and the richest
corporations. just like the billionaire c.e.o. who cuts 1,000 jobs and gives himself a bonus. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. honda: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. well, mr. speaker, we are one day away from tax day and i believe that the budget is -- this is an appropriate time to be talking about the budget for our country. many folks back in indiana and across this country are talking about how they're going to meet the demands of their budget. i believe that this is a jobs bill. there is a lot of talk on this house floor about what we are doing about american jobs. i believe that this is the jobs bill of this congress. we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle that this is -- we're going to revise and reform medicare as which know -- we know it. well, folks, we're facing $14.2 trillion of debt right now. we're facing a $1.6 trillion
deficit in the current budget. just as many families in indiana and across this country do what their family budget when the bottom line hits red they start to make changes. and we have to start controlling spending. i would encourage every american to read this budget. this budget bravely saves $6.2 trillion over the next decade. it also simple fies the tax code and lower -- simplifies the tax code and lowers the rates for individuals. this bill does not only stop growing the government, it creates jobs. further, we eliminate hundreds of duplicative programs, ban earmarks and cut welfare. in addition to the trillions in savings, this bill will keep the sacred trust of our seniors and presents to the american people real leadership in the absence of any from our executive branch. if you look at the president's budget, his budget proposes
$9.1 trillion of new debt over the next decade. let's talk about job creation. as a small business owner from indiana, i don't need government to take more money away from the people that live in indiana who are working hard. let them keep that money so they can apply it to their businesses, grow jobs, grow the economy. there's no reason for more of our dollars to come to washington, d.c., and be redistory butted -- redistory butted through our -- re distory butted through our government. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: we think we need a balanced approach to deal with the revenue side. because yours doesn't deal with that piece at all, that's why the fiscal commission thought it lacked a comprehensive solution that we need. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you. for decades medicare has been a
lifeline for older americans, providing quality and affordable health care coverage for all seniors in this country. the creation of the medicare program in 1965 addressed the fundamental challenge of ensuring aging seniors access to eventual health care. before medicare, almost half of all seniors those over 65 had no insurance at all. seniors are just not good risk for private insurers and they still aren't. medicare is a promise to american seniors that we would not abandon them even as they age, even as they need medical care, until now. the republican budget will end medicare as we know it, offering a limited voucher and expecting seniors to find insurance no matter how sick they are or how expensive it is. every day 48 million elderly and disabled americans count on medicare for their life-saving medications, doctor visits and hospital care. seniors know that changing medicare to a voucher program means they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits.
seniors know that privatizing medicare means limits on benefits, obstacles to care, uncertain reimbursements, co-payments for primary care and special care, exclusions for certain services, discrimination based on income, illness or age, and uncertainty if serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. seniors know that privatizing and voucherizing medicare will mean they will pay more in premiums or do without. and it doesn't end there. the republican budget also threatens medicaid for nearly six million disabled and frail elderly who depend on nursing home and home health services. american seniors are not looking for handouts. they're looking for the security that they have earned and we have promised. budgets are about choices, and in this very same budget, the republicans end medicare as we know it, they protect billions of dollars in tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry, they protect billions in tax breaks
to the wealthiest 2% of americans. budgets are about priorities and our values. yes, we should get serious about our deficit, but let's get our priorities right and not threaten our obligation to our seniors, our children or our future. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds simply to say the only part of this budget that mentions oil is we want to drill for it in our own country so we can lower gas prices and get ourselves off foreign oil. i want to say, mr. speaker, this budget saves medicare as we know it. the president is proposing to ration medicare as we know it. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. bachus. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bachus: i thank the chairman. imagine that you're on the bank of a river -- bank of a river, it's deep in winter, it's a peaceful scene. you look out on the river and
it's frozen. there's a deep current of cold water under the ice, but then you see a small child and they're walking out onto the ice. they don't fall and they walk further out. you begin to warn the child, but he walks further out. as we know, the ice gets thinner the further out we go, and we're on that ice today as a country. . and every day we take one step out and tragically, the young child falls through the ice and is swept away. that's what we're here to talk about. we're here to talk about the repeated warnings we've received. chairman bernanke told us just last week, unless we act immediately in a long-term way,
we will not have economic growth, nor will we have financial stability. joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen told us our greatest threat to our economy and to our national security is our debt. the i.m.f. yesterday, this is unthinkable, they said of all the advanced countries in the world, our debt was growing the fastest. and it was unsustainable. and it would lead to instability, both here and across the world. now, imagine those pictures of countries where the children are in economic distress, where there is no stability. those could be our children, those could be our grandchildren. so with the warning today is a vote for our children and grandchildren. we've heard the warning. we're not children.
let's save our children and grandchildren from that fall through the ice. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. and we share the gentleman's concern and view and 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. and with that, i yield two minutes to mr. blumenauer, the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. the chair of the budget committee is a man -- a friend of mine, a man of sunny disposition but has brought to the floor of the house the most profoundly negative view of america's future than i have heard in my 15 years of congress. they cannot reform medicare so they dismantle it for 230
million americans who will be shifted to higher costs and given a voucher to insurance companies. it will, in fact, according to independent analysts, increase overall health care costs for all america while it reduces some of the burden for the federal government. it doesn't deal with the reform of the military. it turns an opportunity for tax reform to more tax benefits for those who need it the least. their america and their budget cannot atord to improve our -- afford to improve our infrastructure and has a massive cut. it will shortchange environmental protections and make college education more expensive for our young people. the democratic alternative you will hear will provide progress with some hard decisions but by having shared sacrifice and not giving up on health reform, but
moving forward with it, to provide infrastructure investment, educational support. mr. chairman, this is an opportunity and we welcome people looking at independent appraisals of the two visions of america, one which basically gives up, forces the costs on middle income, elderly, poor and children, the alternative is to invest in our future in a responsible fashion, making some hard choices to be sure, but with the opportunity to reform areas like the military, like health care, like the tax system, things that america has done in the past. we think america can do in the future. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: yesterday, the president had an opportunity to put forth a serious budget
proposal, but instead, again, he called for higher taxes and trillions of dollars in spending we just can't afford. the president offered nothing but lip service to serious spending cuts and real reform. we can't tax our way to prosperity nor sustain the uncertain future. washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. this is a time that demands leadership and the president answered with a plan to nowhere. the house is debating a serious budget that will address our dangerous debt and deficit while strengthening medicare and medicaid. the president missed another opportunity to engage in this debate in a meaningful way. instead, he chose to deliver a campaign speech filled with class warfare and scare tactics hoping the american people wouldn't know any better. he was wrong. mr. speaker, before i came to congress, i was in business. two things i learned in business, one, if you spend more than you take in, you are headed
towards financial ruin. and second, if the government continues to take away more and more from small businesses, they won't create jobs but eliminate jobs. this budget deals with those two fundamental issues. the american people are demanding real change and an honest budget and that is what chairman ryan has produced. this week the house is going to deliver for future generations by putting our path on fiscal prosperity. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, ms. mccolum. >> contrary to what republicans have said on the floor, the republican budget imposes new cuts on today's seniors. the republican plan repeals the affordable care act which strengthens medicare and reduces costs. for seniors today, the republican plan brings back the
doughnut hole, forcing seniors to pay more for their prescription drugs. it repeals seniors' free annual checkups and gets rid of reforms to better manage chronic conditions. the republican plan eliminates medicare all together and hands seniors a voucher and kicks them into the black hole of health insurance. all americans -- pay attention, if you are 54 and younger, you have been put on notice, start saving now. in addition to saving for your retirement, you need to save for the new upe expenses. the -- out of pocket expenses. seniors will be forced to pay an additional $6,000 a year on health care, $12,000 for a couple and that's the best scenario. this plan in front of us tonight begins to double out of pocket spending for seniors and only going to increase from there and
when you dig deeper, you realize more than half the medicare beneficiaries at least have five or more chronic conditions. what awful choices will seniors be forced to make when their health care costs will be greater than their voucher. will they be able to afford deebts -- diabetes care? the only seniors who will benefit are the senior insurance executives. vote no on the republican plan. vote no in order to protect and save medicare. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute to say that the gentlelady had taken the time to read the c. bmple o. report, it's not a voucher program. voucher program, it goes to the person and then the market. it is a premium support program. what does it look like? just like the plan that you and i and all have federal employees
have, the prescription drug benefit, 45% below costs and saves medicare and applies to people 54 and down below and guess what happens? medicare goes bankrupt if it is on status quo. we want a system that is sustainable and solvent and that people can rely upon, guaranteed coverage options just like we have in congress. that's what we are proposing, more to the point, what we are opposing is delegating to 15 people the ability and the power to ration over $1 trillion of medicare over current seniors. we repeal that, the president proposes that, that's the big difference between us. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise to support this budget
plan. mr. gardner: congress has been arguing over a continuing resolution because the previous congress failed to put in place the spending bill for this year. we cannot afford to make the same mistakes that they did last congress. we are facing a record $1.6 trillion deficit, $14 trillion debt and we need a plan to get spending under control, a plan, not a campaign speech, and not partisan bickering. we have taken positive steps in the right direction. however, we must move from saving billions to saving trillion and this budget will let us do just that. we must fulfill our promises to constituents and past policies that will spur job creation and economic growth to strengthen medicare and medicaid. the proposed budget would create nearly one million private sector jobs and bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, according to the studies. it will spur economic growth by
increasing g.d.p. by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and creates a less burdensome tax code and incentivizing job growth and investment. we will get out of debt only when we focus on pro-growth policies and budget-tightening plans. this plan will ensure that medicare and medicaid are available to our children, the safety net we have promised. without reforms those programs are unsustainable and will cease. the budget we will vote on tomorrow will be a shift back to fiscal sanity. the budget proposal saves $6.2 trillion compared to president obama's plan. if a person spent $1 million a day every day since the -- since year 1 a.d., they still would not have spent $1 trillion by today. we will save six times that
amount in 10 years. mr. speaker, i was taught a valuable lesson, if you weren't responsible with your allowance you wouldn't get any more. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i go back to the point that was raised again to what members of congress have in terms of the health insurance plan. 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 federal employees health plan handbook and said the government's share paid is set by law. members have protected themselves by law. the government contribution equals the lesser of 72% or 75% of the total premium for the particular plan. in other words, the member of
congress, the federal employee has 72 cents for every premium dollar paid for. whenever premiums go up, 72% of the cost of that premium is picked up by the government. what the republican plan does is give 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 employee handbook. and with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: mr. speaker, the vote on the republican budget is one of the most important votes that i will cast and my colleagues will cast as a member of congress. the vote will tell a story of two distinct visions for america, how we reduce our debt, our economic future and what we value as americans.
the republican plan to destroy medicare, replace it with a voucher system and saddle our older neighbors and hard-working families with nearly the entire burden of reducing the federal deficit betrays our american values. medicare has allowed our parents and grandparents and older neighbors to live in dignity in their retirement years. medicare has kept families out of poverty for decades. it has worked well. and with the baby boomers coming, we need to be mindful of necessary reforms, but the republicans should not use these difficult economic times as a reason to destroy medicare. after all, the republican plan will not save any money, it simply shifts the costs to older americans and their families. the nonpartisan congressional budget office released an analysis that says in 2022, with an increase of $7,000 per year, republicans would double the cost per person. and not $1 of that increase in
beneficiary costs goes to reducing the deficit. it all goes to cover the higher costs of higher plans that the republicans would force you to join. the president said yesterday this debate over budgets and deficits is more -- is about more than just numbers on a page. it's about the kind of future that we want. it's about the kind of country we believe in. and i agree. that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. he said that we recognize no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck or crippling illness or layoff may strike any one of us. there but for the gays of god go i. under this republican plan in florida, life will be different. we need to reject this republican plan on this most important vote. i urge my colleagues to save medicare and keep dignity for older americans.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. . mr. ryan: i wish i could have that chart, save medicare. let's look at current law passed here not long ago, the president's health care law. we've all done town hall meetings where people say, why do you keep raiding the social security trust fund? we agree, that was wrong. guess what, the current health care law raids medicare. the current president's health care law takes $682 billion out of medicare to spend on the obamacare entitlement. we're ending the raid of medicare. we're making sure those savings go to making medicare solvent. it only goes to 2021. more to the point, mr. chairman, we believe that seniors should be in charge.
we believe that the best way to make medicare better is to give seniors more choices. give them the ability to make choices and vo providers compete against each other for their business. here's the difference. the president wants 15 people to make the choices in medicare. we say, let 40 million seniors have choice, have power, and have those providers compete against each other for their business so they're in charge of their medicare. the president, the law today, have him appoint 15 people to ration medicare and congress can't do anything about it. their decisions go right into law. that's the future of medicare under the current law. president said, let's throw another trillion on top. so here's what happens.
when the president's coming up with a need for more savings, what does he do? he calls up his medicare rationing board and says, go find another $480 billion. that is not the future we want for medicare. there's a difference between us. we don't want to have government ration health care. we want people to be in charge of their own health care. with that, mr. chairman, i yield -- the chair: will the gentleman suspend briefly. the committee will rise informally. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has failed to agree to h.con.res. 35 and h.con.res. 36. concurrent resolutions directing the clerk of the
house of representatives to make a correction in enrollment of h.r. 1473. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, i'd loo like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. history walks with us as we debate this budget. history offers us not a single example of a nation that's 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.
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 8 % 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 pr deuce new revenue. the president of -- the president apparently believes that by take manager money from small businesses, somehow they'll create more jobs. that's the economic folly that misguides this administration.
as my friends to my left know, medicare and medicaid will collapse with if we continue business as usual this budget saves those systems by putting them on a sound financial foundation. it reverses the trend of doctors refusing to treat medicare patients and assures future seniors a 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thele tissue the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i remind the gentleman that what we're saying is that the top 2% income earners should go back to the rates they were paying in the clinton administration, a period of time when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created. when we moved to the current
raters in folks at the very top, we saw at the end of eight 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, senior, 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 or 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'll lose your choice of doctor, 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 two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. i thank congressman van hollen for yielding. 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 fail 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 premiums. 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% of taxes. meanwhile, the republican budget will end medicare as we know it and it will throw american seniors at the mercy of insurance companies. seniors love medicare and their families love medicare. social security and medicare are compacts of trust between yen rations and i would not want the next generation to have less than our generation has had. i disagree with the ryan proposal because it divides yen rations. the democratic alternative reduces the deficit while preserving the social safety net. the plan of house democrats would cut the deficit by an additional $137b9 trillion more than the president's budget and achieves primary balance as early as fiscal year 2018 and put ours economy on a full path to recovery. the ryan budget fails to say the reasons for the deficits we face.
$1.4 trillion in the cost of the afghan and iraqi wars and the billions and billions spent on wall street, bailing them out and all the cost of unemployment and housing foreclosure that's gone wit. the republican budget gives up on jobs and working americans and caters mainly to the upper 1% and frankly it gives up on america's future. the ryan budget is the road map 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 can my colleague it is oppose it. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to say, it's well known, our budget doesn't touch medicare, change it, for people in or near retirement, 55 years old or above. under the president's plan, 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. with that, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the distinguished state of wisconsin, mr. riddle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ribble: as a member of the house budget committee and former small business owner, i rise in strong support of the 2012 budget resolution. i'd like to begin today with a quote from a famous american, quote, 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. end quote. mr. chairman, that was president barack obama just last year. as we debate this budget, i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed the words of our president.
let's stop the demagoguing 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 whont you agree that finger pointing and making false claims to scare seniors while make nothing solutions of your own is counterproduct snive we cut spending by $6.2 trillion and shrink the size of government to historically normal levels. we start to get our deficits under control. and put our budget on a path to prosperity. i know what high tacks mean to job trainers in our country, that's why our budget call farce flatter, fairer tax 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 loaners will stand up and cheer when they see real ideas like this put forth. more ideas of merit in this budget and we want a vigorous debate but i hope it will be a debate on policy differences not political maneuvering. thank you and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from m.d. is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i point out again, the choice is whether we want to ask for shared sacrifice. the fact of the matter is the reason the bipartisan fiscal commission said 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 two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the chair: the gentlelady is
recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise in opposition to the republican budget plan, which is not 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 fore sakes our future. i'm concerned about the reckless and shameful cuts to the national institute of research for cures to cancer, stroke, diabetes and other illnesses that fall under its jurisdiction. that's why i introduced an amendment 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 plnaries, we could completely reject the devastating cuts to medical research for next year. cuts of this nagny tude -- magnitude will slow the process and cut work that may save
lives. the cuts prevent us from winning the future. it kills jobs. n.i.h. 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 but -- budget puts over one million american jobs at risk from pharmaceutical jobs to medical device manufacturers to technicians working in medical labs. at the same time the republican path to poverty ignores the n.i.h.'s role 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 the investments now to stem the tide of future disease rates. cancer incidents is expected to double in 2020, particularly among the aging baby boomer population. as one of 11 million cancer survivors i'm living proof of the vital gains made by reserming at n.i.h.
we can't stop now. don't turn your back on the millions of americans who are holding out hope that treatments and cures are coming soon. oppose this republican path to poverty. i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz a member of the budget committee. . mr. chaffetz: this is about jobs, about our economy and about the peoples' money. congress talks about its money and the way it wants to spend the people's money. no, it's the people's money and not congress' to go and allocate and hand it to somebody else. we have to recognize each and every time a decision is made about where and how to spend money is they are pulling money out of people's pockets and handing it to someone else. 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 and have systemic changes and that's what i like about this budget, because not only does it put us on a path to balance the budget, but 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 and with the democrats in control of the house and senate, it rose to over $14 trillion, a rise of 60%. we can't continue to do that. what i like about this budget is that it is an adult conversation that says we are going to have to change trajectory, everything from entitlement reform to discretionary spending, it cuts $6.2 trillion over the next decade compared to the
president's budget and eliminates hundreds of duplicative program. 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 and i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i would remind my colleagues that host hardworking american workers paid their payroll taxes including medicare contributions and should have the benefit of the bargain and keep the medicare guarantee. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tonko: i thank the distinguished colleague for yielding and as indicated in the chart the republican road to
ruin budget will give money to the most profitable corporations in the world. 46 million americans rely on medicare. on the road to ruin, seniors and disabled will lose guaranteed health benefits and be left with a voucher. by design the voucher cannot and will not keep up with rising health care costs. the private market views seniors and the disabled as a risky 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 they which pay more 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 buy prescriptions, do i pay rent or do i pay medical bills? never fear, my republican colleagues say, you will get the same care as a member of congress. 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 the republican talking point that seniors will get the same coverage as a member of congress is not just republican rhetoric, it is a lie. the congressional budget office estimates that seniors will pay 68% of their health costs under the republican plan. members of congress only pay 28% of their premium. seniors will pay more than double the share that members of congress pay and more than double the amount they pay today under medicare. we have balanced the 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. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mulvaney: 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 if we cut spending we are going to lose government jobs. we heard about the zandi report that suggests if we cut $60 billion as we did a few weeks ago that would cost us 500,000 jobs. i have seen a similar report suggesting that that same $60 billion cut would shave 2 percentage points off of g.d.p. mr. chairman, those numbers sort
of expose the absurdity of the democrat argument. if you take the same numbers and apply it to the $800 billion stimulus program, that should have created or would have created 6.5 million jobs and added 26% to the g.d.p. it's just wrong. it's misleading and 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 have seen it. it was an expensive lesson for us to learn as a nation. if government spending created jobs, i wouldn't have 15% unemployment in my district. people back home are starting to accept, starting to learn and agree that what creates jobs in this nation is private investment. it's private bestes investing in their business and private individuals putting people to work. we have to go back to another 20 years here and i have another one that goes back to 40 years and world war ii that shows the only thing that creates jobs in
this nation is private investment. you aren't going to find a graph more directly correlated. 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 too many folks out of work. this allows private industry to invest in this country and putting people back to work. i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: of course the private sector is the engine of opportunity and the economy in this country, but we also know 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 have 20% 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, you should tell that to the folks who are looking for a job right now. i would also point out that the same folks at the heritage foundation who said that the republican plan that we're talking about tonight was going to 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 taxes for folks at the top, jobs will go up and up. here's the reality. here's the reality in red. we know what happened. i would be careful 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. and with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. bass. the chair: the gentlelady is
recognized for two minutes. ms. bass: 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, $8,000 a year voucher. seniors 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 pre-existing condition. this is called choice. don't know too many people 55 years and older who don't have some health-related problem. there is nothing to protect seniors from insurance companies cancelling their coverage if an illness becomes too expensive. 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 hypertension leading to strokes. this isn't much of a choice. we are fooling ourselves if we think seniors will be able to write a check and pay the difference. a more likely scenario is seniors will not have medical coverage. i often say you can judge a society about how it treats its elderly and children, and the republican plan kicks our seniors to the curb while the wealthiest americans will continue to get wealth year. i urge my colleagues to vote against the republican budget and protect the medicare benefit. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: these are serious
times we are in right now with regard to debt and deficit and 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's 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 who said on sunday, your problem isn't mr. ryan, it is mr. arithmetic. it doesn't work. you can't do it. for all of this talk about preserving medicare as it currently is means that you are con signing 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 we need more investment and we have 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's 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 the private sector can produce jobs. that's what this budget does. that's why i support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell. the chair: the chair recognizes gentleman. mr. pascrell: we have two cities here. we are looking at a city very optimisticically and 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? wasn't very good, was it, mr. ryan? the point of the matter is 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 you're going to and 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 allowed seniors and forced seniors to pay premiums and they got no benefits. you know it, i know it and the truth is what it is. the chair: the gentleman is reminded to address his remarks
to the chair. 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. with our ranking member did not point out is that there was a loss of 653,000 jobs in those eight years. where there was in the previous eight years, a gain of 20.8 million jobs. you want to go back and use the same policies? you tried it in privatization. we are going to have this over and over again. you don't know what to bring back and go back to the same old playblook. 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. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is remind todd address his remarks to the chair and not to other members of the body. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas. . mr. flores: i know that america can and will become prosperous again and millions of new private sector jobs will be created if we go back to our free market principles. we must end wasteful government spending. we are faced with two very different directions we can lead our country. it is clear we cannot continue on the misguided and irresponsible path endorsed by those on the other side of the aisle of big government, spending, and unacceptably high unemployment. they've had their chance to make things right and it has not worked. over the past four years that
the democrats have had control of congress they lost seven million jobs and cost our -- 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 can -- we can no longer afford to accept what has become status quo, rather than locking in reckless spending sprees that have cost our government, our budget plan cut $6.2 trillion in wasteful washington spending over the next decade. the democrats' plan will raise the deficit by over $9 trillion over the next 10 years. we will put the plan 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 grow our economy. the democrat's plan ignores these recommendations and will
impose job-crushing tax increases on our commism fearly one 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 average of 1.2 million jobs a year over the next decade. we have a clear choice, mr. chairman. we can take opaw ma's odyssey to american oblivion. or we can adopt a plan that restores america's promise an prosperity and security for our children and grandchildren. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed without amendment h.r. 1473, an act making propings for the department of defense and the
other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves, the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. miller. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. miller: we have heard how the house republican budget is courageous and bold. but this is not cramings or bold. it's not courageous to throw head start kids out of their classroom and continue subsidies to oil companies with their record profits. it's not bold to cut pell grants and retain incentive for
companies to ship jobs overseas. it's not bold to make future generations of americans more dependent, not less, on dangerous dictators and fossil fuels. it's neither bold nor courageous to end medicare for seniors shifting thousands of dollars of costs onto the backs of the elderly to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. for 45 years, seniors have relied on medicare to provide health care in their retirement years. the republican budget within that guarantee. seniors would no longer be guaranteed coverage for basic health items like diabetes and cancer screening. what insurance company is going to write an individual policy for a 70-year-old that's remotely affordable? because of this, more seniors will go into debt and they'll be forced to sell their homes and rely on their children to pay for their medical costs. that's not a dignified
retirement, that's not good for america. we need to make sure that medicare is sustainable for seniors and taxpayers, but one thing is certain, the republican budget does not save medicare, it ends it. this is not bold or crainls. it might be easy for the republicans to make cuts on the backs of those who can't afford high priced lobbyists but it's not easy for seniors on whose backs the burden is being placed. the democrat plan asks all americans to share in the deficit and debt. i urge my colleagues to vote down the republican budget to end medicare and vote for the democratic budget that's fair and balanced. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the senior member from indiana, mr. pence. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana for two minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding and ski unanimous consent to revise and extend.
the chair: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, mr. chairman. this country is in a lot of trouble. we're facing a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. they say the first step toward ending an addiction is recognizing you're an addict. i've got to tell you, after spending 10 years here in washington, d.c., after witnessing runaway federal spend big both political parties, one thing is clear. washington, d.c. is addicted to spending. it's high time for congress to own up to its spending addiction and institute long-term, sustainable budget and spending reforms that will permanently limit the size and scope of the federal government. happily, the budget resolution today offered by the distinguished chairman paul ryan of the committee put ours nation back on a pathway toward fiscal solvency and prosperity. this republican budget represents a bold step toward fiscal responsibility and limited government. cuts $6.2 trillion in spending
over the next 10 years. reins in government spending below 20%. includes tax reforms to increase competitiveness for american companies and ensures that medicare will be solvent for future retirees. it even ends the one size fits all approach to medicaid, giving states more flexability. it stands in stark contrast to the president's budget which includes a $1.6 trillion tax increase on families, small businesses and family farms and adds $3 trillion to the national debt this budget forces congress to live within our means and we must succeed in this cause. because if we fail, the american dream will fail. we will burden our children and our grandchildren with a mountain range of debt, robbing opportunities and prosperity and leaving, for the first time in american history, the next
american generation worse off than the generation that went before. this we must not do. i urge my colleagues to offer strong support for the ryan budget resolution. let's put our nation on a pathway toward fiscal solvency and prosperity. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from m.d. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we d do need to reduce the deficit in a predictable, responsible way. that will require spending cuts and shared sacrifice. the reason that the fiscal commission said that the republican plan was unbalanced is they try and do it all one way. history has shown that doesn't work. i yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. we've heard this afternoon our debt is unsustainable. it's a warning.
it's a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. but heaven forbid to try to solve those great problems that our country has right now, the problem that we have, we ask the wealthiest in the country to just pay a few more thousand dollars. those people who have seen tremendous gain, you know, cry me a river and here we have david stockman, former head of the o.m.b. under ronald reagan talking about the budget being presented by the republicans, it's simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution, it's a measure of how far off the deep end republicans have gone with this religious catcism about taxes. -- -- catechism about taxes. we are asking for shared sacrifices. you're getting into medicare, medicaid, pell grants but the
wealthiest walk away would sacrificing one thing. three wars we're in, and we can't ask the wealthiest to pay a few bucks? this ends medicare. these people 55 and under, whose wages have been stagnant for 30 years, now when they get into the medicare program, they're going to have a voucher or premium support that increases by 2.2%, indexed to c.p.i., or 2.5%, and the g.d.p. and health care will grow between 4% and 5%, so every single year that this person that's 55 is in medicare, they'll lose 2% to 3% ground in being able to pay for their own health care. we need to go back and remember why medicare started in the first place. it is not a good business proposition to provide health insurance to older people in the united states of america. you can't make money off it. so we're going to give these folks a voucher that doesn't keep up with health care
inflation and send them into the private is market? and somehow think we're doing them a favor? no shared sacrifice. again, we're putting the burden on the middle class person who has paid into medicare, depends on medicare, has been getting wages that have been stagnant, probably doesn't have health insurance between 55 and 65, so you want to talk about driving up medicare costs, now we have someone who doesn't have health insurance, into a market that they won't be able to afford it when they do turn 65 this budget is wrong, we need balance, we need shared sacrifice, and we need investment in the united states. this budget comes up short. david stockman says the same thing. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield myself one minute to simply say, there's a new definition and i want to explain it. here's what a tax cut now means.
if you're not in favor of the forthcoming tax increases, you're cutting taxes. that's the new math around here. what we don't do is we don't sign up for all these new tax increases that are being proposed by the president in his budget, that are coming in the future, and so by not supporting new taxes, all of a sudden we're for tax cuts. i will not yield. what we are saying is keep revenues where they are and fix the tax code, clear out the loopholes and the duckses so we lower the rates to create jobs. and economic deprothe. with that, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from budget committee, mr. lankford, the gentleman from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lank spord feather thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. lankford: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to continue on the same subject. do we have a debt and deficit
problem in america or a spending problem in america? words like balanced approach, investment in america's future and the of the-quoted shared sacrifice confuse the issue. it's not just about reducing the deficit. it is about reducing spending so we can pay off the debts we have. this would be like a man who ran up a huge credit card bill and went to his boss and said, i need a raise. the boss would say, you don't need a raise you need to get on a budget. the current proposal from the president suggests that tax requirement closer to 22% of g.d.p. to close the deficit gap, all income taxes will have to double or corporate taxes will have to increase five-fold, a tax increase on the wealthy may make some people feel better that they're sticking it to the man but historically tax
increases only lead to more government spending and ultimately it will not solve the debt crisis. washington likes handing out other people's money for noble causes. here's a novel idea. how about dealing with our existential problem, we spend too much. in 2009, 140,000 new federal employees were hired. during the previous 10 year, there was no change in employment in the federal government. the number of federal contractors increased 25% since 2006. in four year, discretionary spending has increased 25%. in that same four year, medicare and medicaid spending has increased by 50%. none of that includes the special tarp or stimulus funding, which would make the cost to taxpayers even higher. we cannot spend our way to prosperity. we have to get back to getting a handle on our debt an deficit and our basic spending. the reason the house budget has gained so much traction is it does what americans know in their gut must be done. it cuts spending. finally, someone is saying what many have felt, we cannot solve
the budget problems quickly without significant spending changes. with that, i yield back. . mr. van hollen: this is simple math. when you went from the clinton rates for the folks at the very top and you dropped the tax rate, we ended up losing a lot of jobs because of the economy, you also lose revenue. and when you do that, you shift the burden on to other people, whether you do it by cutting medicaid, whether you do it by terminating the medicare guarantee or by cutting education. that's just math. i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman, mr. ryan, for the purposes he wants to ask a question. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ryan: i would like to ask a question, wherein this budget is the sacrifice that is being made by the top 1% of the people? and i would be happy -- the
wealthiest 1%. mr. ryan: first of all, we should go to corporate welfare. let's stop subsidizing wealthy individuals and corporations. mr. ryan: you are lowering the corporate income tax. what sacrifice is being made? mr. ryan: like the fiscal commission we believe it is better for economic growth to broaden the tax base and lower the tax rate. if i can continue on the gentleman's time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, let me say, there are two parts to the tax code. the chair: does the gentleman yield himself -- yield additional time? mr. van hollen: i yield myself time. there are two parts of the tax code, corporate tax code and need to clean up the corporate tax code and we agree with the fiscal commission. we don't think you need a study to decide to get rid of the tax
breaks that reward corporations for shipping american jobs overseas. you don't need to study the question about whether we get rid of big taxpayer subsidies to the oil companies. yes, we should look at the corporate tax code, but in the other part of the tax code, the individual tax code, what the republican plan does is actually give the folks at the very top another 30% break. we have been talking about going back to the clinton rates, the republican plan gives you another 30-cent break. they say we are going to do this in a revenue-neutral way. the result is middle-income taxpayers are going to pay more to give folks at the top another big break. with that i yield 2 1/2 minutes to someone who knows a lot about this subject, ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes.
mr. levin: we do not need to tear up what america has done in the past in order to build for the future. we should not confront present and future problems including the nation's deficit as we must by repealing america's past. the republican budget tries to tear up and repeal 75 years of american experience and the supreme example is medicare. it tears it up. it repeals it. and contrary to what we have heard today, they would not save medicare, but end it. they would not change it, but they would end it. our nation would be a different nation without it. millions today would be less healthy without medicare. one of my constituents wrote to me recently to say, medicare
saved her life and her life savings when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and there are tens of thousands of people like her in this country. and what the republicans want to do is to give seniors a voucher for health care and -- an underfunded voucher for 10 years. it would double health care costs for seniors. a voucher that in 20 years would pay only a third of senior health care costs. there's no place to hide for anyone who votes for the republican budget. and what happens with the savings? tax cuts for the wealthy. the average income of the bottom 90% of the families in america has fallen in the last decade. the opposite is true for the wealthy. the top 1% have seen their incomes climb by more than a quarter of a million dollars. if what we have built in our
nation needs to be adjusted, fix it, don't destroy it. we must address the deficit without deepening deficits and availability for our senior citizens of jobs, health care and education. the choice today could not be more decisive. a vote against the republican budget is a vote for basic american values. vote no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. black. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. black: i stand here as a proud member of the budget committee supporting our budget that was introduced on time and takes real steps to get the country's finances back on track, focusing on real economic growth and job creation. lately, we have heard a lot of
scare tactics about this budget and first it came from the other side of the aisle and yesterday we heard those same remarks by the president. but my constituents don't want to hear the same old partisan attacks and rhetoric. they want washington to tell them the truth. the truth is this about our budget. number one, it's a jobs budget. in the first year this budget creates one million new jobs. number two, it cuts 6 -- $6.2 trillion in government spending. number three, it eliminates duplicative government programs. number four, preserves medicare for the next generation. number five, puts caps on spending for the coming year and the next decade. and next, it takes us on a path to pay down our debt. the republicans are getting this country back on track and i'm
proud to be here today as part of the republican majority that will lead where the president has failed and restore america's future, growth and prosperity. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the small business committee, ms. velazquez. ms. velazquez: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. velazquez: i rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived mean-spirited budget. mr. chairman, all of us recognize the need to reduce the deficit, but it must be done responsibly. this budget fails that test. cutting services that we need in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy. for new yorkers this cut will be particularly unfair. $10 billion will be taken from
low-income housing programs, rental assistance will be reduced making it harder for new yorkers to find affordable apartments. this at a time when we are facing the first -- the worst housing crisis ever. housing is just one area where this budget fails our country. with medicaid spending reduced by $735 billion, millions of americans will find it harder to afford health care. instead of tackling rising health care costs, this budget ends medicare as we foe it. medicare is a promise to america's seniors. whether we honor that promise defines us as a nation. just as seniors will face tough times, this budget will address its hardship on young people, head start, child care and nutritional assistance for low-income families will be cut. 26,000 college students from new
york's 12th district will see tuition assistance reduced. beyond slashing social services, this budget undermines our economic recovery. small business lending will drop by $3 billion, depriving 5,000 firms of capital they need to create jobs. if this is the way we are going to create jobs in this country, 12,000 entrepreneurs and 9,000 veterans, those coming back from afghanistan and iraq will lose business counseling services to help them launch or expand their businesses. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, we need a serious thoughtful discussion about how to cut spending. vote no against this bill. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california,
mr. nunez. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. nunes: this stops the efforts of democrat leaders to track the american people on a high-speed train trip. this is a trip, one-way ticket to bankruptcy. however, if you support the ryan budget, you will help this government recover from a debilitating and life-threatening illness that put everyone in favor of a left-wing agenda. we have two choices. we can look forward and pave the path to economic prosperity or we can become the world's most heavily taxed nation in a dangerous zone of bankruptcy. mr. chairman, throughout modern history, socialists have been searching for the last exit to utopia, of big government collectivism. unfortunately for the socialist
utopian in this town that support president obama's spending plan, this last exit to utopia will remain a mystery, a relic of 1960's radicals. and i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: republicans originally sought the creation of medicare on the grounds of socialism. apparently they haven't changed their minds about that as they try to terminate it and put seniors into the private insurance market. i yield two minutes to the -- i'm sorry, to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: health care costs are a crisis in every american family. one surgery, one heart attack,
one cancer diagnosis can put a family in financial ruin. this is a crisis for business both small and large. general motors pays more for health care than for steel. that is why the affordable health care act is needed to bend the health care costs downward for all american consumers. americans, including those who are consumers of medicare and medicaid simply cannot afford the insurance and drug companies' runaway profits. these companies are reaping recordbreaking profits. in 2009 while debating the bill, the nation's largest companies saw a combined profit of $12.5 billion and that is for five companies sm the executives did well, too. the top executives pulled in almost $200 million in compensation. and at the same time, there were
double-digit premium increases. so no matter where you get your health care, medicare, medicaid, employer's policy, you can't afford that rate increase year after year and they are going up faster than any part of the family's budget. these costs are crowding out housing and other basic needs. in 2009, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies made over $60 billion in profits and the profit margin in this industry is out of control. in 2007, profits ranged as high as 36%. the health care reform law also curbed some of these outrageous profits to the pharmaceutical industries. yes, medicare and medicaid are large portions of our federal budget, but we can only rein in their costs if we implement the affordable health care act.
something that the republican budget refuses to do. and i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: in indiana, under the governor, we have seen a government that spends less and taxes modestly and we have seen that that leads to job growth. indiana during these tough economic times is a national leader in private sector job growth. the budget committee crafted a budget for a federal government that like indiana, spends less, and keeps a lid on taxes. and the result is a plan that will help create 2.5 million private sector jobs. recent economic history isn't good to the big spenders. borrowing and spending trillions of dollars that we don't have
doesn't create jobs and they won't be created if we go along with the president's plan and the plan of sorts from the other side of the aisle to increase taxes. it's no great secret that the job creators in this country aren't hiring because unchecked spending of course leads to fears, it leads to fears that we are going to raise taxes in the future and leads to future inflation and fears that interest rates are going to go up. by calling for a measure of spending discipline as we do, we replace that fear with hope, hope that we can restore conditions where private sector job creators can go out and put americans back to work. that's what the people of southern indiana want. i mentioned indiana a minute ago and the success we have had in creating private sector jobs. we didn't do it all through our policies with respect to spending. instead, we also looked at tax policy. we understood that it just didn't make sense to jack up taxes during a down economy. instead, we kept them steady and
made our tax crode more efficient just as some of our neighboring states were doing the opposite. many businesses chose to move back to indiana or move to indiana the first time. we see the reverse trend nationally. many businesses are leaving this country or not getting off the ground because of our job-destroying tax code and our punitive tax rates. we improve upon those policies and i urge my colleagues to help us create jobs by voting yes on this house republican budget. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. . mr. van hollen: i yield to minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gonzalez: at the heart of the plups' budget proposal is the thought, and i quote directly, the numb of makers
diminishes and the number of takers grows. as a result our government and economy and country will collapse. forget about the impoverished view that this offers us a vision of america that can't be bothered or is unable to care for anyone who needs help system of let's have a discussion about who truly would be the taker and who truly would be the maker. people who manipulate an unfair tax system at the expense of millions of others, makers. when you look at the republican proposal. corporations that don't invest in their own country, paying a lower tax rate on their profits than their employees would pay on a $40,000 salary. those are makers under the republican plan. wall street firms that ruined our financial system then asked working families to bail them out while they paid billions in bonuses, those are also makers under the republican plan. yes, that's who the republicans have identified as the makers.
it rewards them handsomely in their proposal. their budget would perpetuate a taxation and employment system that resulted in sag nant wages for workers and allows 5% of the wealthiest among us to enjoy 66% of all the wealth while 80% of americans share only less than 13%. now who would be the takers under this republican plan? 9.4 million students working toward a college degree so they can get a good job and contribute to this economy. their pell grants would be slashed. 218,000 low income kids and families removed from head start, depriving them of a decent education. again, takers under the republican plan. 2,400 schools that serve one million low income students across the country that would have to shut their doors. takers under the republican plan. countless seniors who would no longer be able to remain in nursing homes because of cuts
in medicaid funding. those are the takers. you decide, america. who are the takers and who are the makers? this is not a pathway to prosperity, it's a dead end. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chairman. for -- where the president has failed to lead and be honest with us, we've had the courage to tell the truth about america's debt crisis. we propose honest solutions required to fix it. as a new member of congress, i have already learned that the rules in washington are stacked in favor of people who want to spend more money. in contrast, in indiana we have a balanced budget, we have a triple-a bond rating and we have not raised taxes because we know that tacks are not the
problem. the problem is, mr. chairman, our colleagues who continue to push for government spending knowing that our debt is over $14 trillion and growing. they haven't offered one alternative expect to confiscate more of the people's money. they have tried to scare a lot of people. but this time, mr. chairman, i don't think the people are buying it. as you can see from this chart, our reliance on foreign countries to supply our reckless spending is growing dramatically other the past decades to where nearly half of the debt we owe as a country, we owe to foreign countries, china being the best. in fact, mr. chairman, china can buy three joint strike fighters every week for the money we pay them, the interest for the money they owed us. and still have $50 million left over. eventually they and other countries will stop low en-- loaning us money or make us pay more to borrow. as treasury rates increase,
rates on mortgages, college loans and car loans will follow. we are no longer kicking the can down the road, we're kicking it over the cliff. in 1970, these kinds of entitlements consumed 30% of our budget, today they're nearly of% and continue to grow. in just a few decades, when our kids are raising their children, literally every single dollar the country takes in will go to paying these programs. this budget seeks to save these programs so they're around for my kids and your grandchildren. i yield back. the chair: the members will refrain from engaging in personalities with the president. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from m.d. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. one other thing that china is doing is they're investing an awful lot of their resources in clean energy like solar power, like wind power, and the united states should be winning that
battle and not our international competitors, and someone who knows a whole lot about that is the next speaker, the ranking member on natural resources, mr. markey of massachusetts. mr. marquee: i thank the gentleman. you know the republicans are allowing nostalgia for a time before medicare and medicaid were ever on the books to replace the idealism that we need to have in order to deal with the real challenges of the future. but for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, the -- the past is just a memory and the future is their hard reality. that's what this budget will be for those people. a hard realcy. -- reality. it takes no courage for the republicans to stand here on the house floor and to call for an evis ration of the medicare
budget or the medicaid budget and all the other programs for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the disabled in our country that they opposed ever having on the books in the first place. if you kicked this budget in the heart you'd break your toe. g.o.p. used to stand for grand old party, now it stands for get old people. that's what this budget is, it is a a targeting of the poor, the sick, and the elderly in our country. do they ask for sacrifice from the defense stpwhument do they ask for the defense budget to go down? no, it keeps going up year after year. do they ask for sacrifice from the wealthy? no, they say tax breaks for the wealthy, year after year after year, who do they target? they target grandma. they don't even have the ability, the courage to stand up and say to the oil companies who at $100 a barrel are making
$100 billion in profits a year, that we're going to take away your tax breaks. no. tax breaks for oil companies say to tissue stay on the books. what do they do? they say to the clean air industry, we're cutting your taxs -- your tax breaks by 70% but leaving the tax breaks on the books for the wealthy, we're cutting the tax breaks for wind, solar and those new technologies. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman. it's a formula for the past, it's a formula for the nostalgic among the republicans who wish to go back to a time before medicare, medicaid, wind and solar and new energy technologies taking us into the future. but let me tell you something, 50% of the people in nursing homes in our country have alzheimer's and they are on medicaid. that's how we pay for the bills. you slash the budget for those people in nursing homes with
alzheimer's. that's 50%. that's grandma. and you don't touch the wealthy. you don't touch the defense department this budget is so cruel if you kicked it in the heart, you'd break your toe. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute to respopped to the warm comments of my friend from massachusetts, the even-handed comments. you know what's really cruel, mr. chairman? if we give our children a lower living standard. you know what's really cruel? if we give our children a debt-ridden nation. if we give our children a debt that they can't afford. you know what's really cruel? if we don't save medicare. if we don't keep the promises to our current seniors like we do in this budget so that all these programs they've organized their lives around which are going bankrupt are preserved. medicare goes bankrupt in nine years.
we're preserving it for current seniors. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. gun ta. -- mr. guinta. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guinta: i rise today to speak in support of the path to prosperity. this budget is truly a job creator. the path to prosperity provides a framework for creating nearly one million jobs, new private sector jobs, next year alone. how does it do this? it doesn't involve advanced economic theory, just basic math. when you lower taxes you put more money into people's hands. they spend it and it circulates, making businesses prosper and allowing them to hire new employees. it's just that simple. when i think of the opportunities that the path to prosperity will create, i think of countless small businesses and small business owners who
will benefit from this plan in my state. small businesses are the back bone of new hampshire's economy, much like they are across our great nation. i think if people -- i think of people like craig leonard who owns bonn cey craftsmen in londonderry, new hampshire. he remodels bathrooms and kitchens. with the uncertainty, everyone is keeping their wallets closed he recently had to lay off three employees and pairly has enough work to keep himself busy. without the confidence that can come from passing the path to prosperity, there's no telling when his business will return to prosperity itself. and when he can dare to hire again. i think about people like charlie and laura morgan who own a storage company in new hampshire. they've lost tenants in that down economy, charging -- causing them to reduce the rents they charge. this is keeping them from hiring additional employees and
creating depretter opportunities for our fellow granite staters. the path to prosperity provides confidence by charting a responsible course so that creditors can loan with confidence and people can borrow money knowing that they'll be able to repay it. the example of hard-pressed small business owners i cited are located just in new hampshire but all over the country. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. clark. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to talk on behalf of the people that i represent in michigan, many of them lost their jobs and when they become seniors, they're likely to have to survive on a fixed income and if they get medicare on a voucher that won't fully cover the costs of their health services, they're going to have to pay for that out of pocket. you know what, folks on a fixed
income, they don't have the money to pay for these services out of pocket. they'll likely end up bankrupt. the other issue is this. a lot of folks that i represent, they've got multiple health conditions. heart disease. diabetes, arthritis. they all go to different doctors and very few of them actually talk to each other, the providers, that is. nor do they coordinate with hospitals and other long-term health care providers. all of these services, the medicare providers, these services will be coordinated under our new affordable care act. that's why we need those provisions in place to better coordinate health care so i urge you right now, let's table putting medicare on the voucher, let's keep our affordable care act, that's the best way for seniors on a fixed income to get the best health care possible. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves, the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin.
mr. ryan: yield to the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i thank the chairman of the budget committee for yielding to me. i was listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the ranking member of the budget committee, our friend from maryland, talked about the fact that, according to his poster, that the bush tax cuts in the years 2000 and 2006 cost the loss of an untold number of jobs. mr. chairman, i have my own statistics which basically show that during that period of time we had an increase revenue, despite those tax cuts, an increase revenue of something like $700 billion. now, i don't know, i'll check my facts with his facts later on, mr. chairman, but how in the world could you produce $700 billion of additional revenue when you lose jobs? it's not possible. and the fact is that those tax cuts created a broader base, albeit at a lower rate, tanned
generated more revenue and that's exactly -- and it generated more revenue and that's exactly what the chairman of the budget committee is talking about in his path to prosperity. another one of our colleagues on the other side of the -- side of the aisle stood up and said that, according to this budget plan, at least we have one, the democrats couldn't produce one last year because of their fear of the political consequences. but she said that under this budget plan that medicare, as we know it, by the year 2022 would disappear. well, how is that possible? when by that time there will probably be 75 million people on medicare, on medicare as we know it, before we will go to this premium support plan that chairman ryan has proposed. and as our friends on the other side keep saying, well, you know, you keep giving breaks to the rich. you tax breaks to the rich. well, according to this plan, the people who are in the top 2% of income will only get 30% of the premium support of an
average of $8,000 a year. the people in the top 8% would get 50%. so you keep, you keep wanting to beat on the producers in society that create the jobs. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gingrey: support this plan. it's a great budget and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would remind my friend, mr. gingrey, that when mr. bush became president he inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus. by the end of the eight years it was gone. now with respect to tax rates and jobs, what this chart shows is when the highest income earners of the country are paying the top rate during the bush administration, you actually had drn were playing -- paying the lower rate, the clinton administration at the higher rate, 20 million jobs were created.
the point is not that higher tax rates increase jobs. the point is that small differences in the top tax rates are not the main drivers of our economy. they are not the main engines of job growth. the figures tell the story. trying to tell another story is just anti-historical. the reality is, the reality is that the numbers show that during the clinton administration we had very strong growth, -- the bush years we ended up losing over 600,000 jobs. so let's at least get our history straight and with that i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. capps: thank you for yielding and, mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the republicans' misguided budget and attack on medicare. the issue of s not whether we reduce the deficit but how we do it. simply put, the republican plan uses our deficit as an excuse to
end medicare as we know it. medicare is the cornerstone of the american dream. a promise that health care will always be there for our seniors and our permanently disabled citizens. the republican budget takes away that guarantee and what does it give our future seniors in return? no guarantee of coverage, a real chance of being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions and around $6,000 a year in additional out-of-pocket costs as well as the knowledge that the insurance companies will be well taken care of while they are struggling to get by on their fixed income. and not one aspect of the plan will do anything to reduce the cost of care, it just passes the buck. this is not a plan for our future, it's a recipe for disaster for our seniors. 45 years ago when seniors were the most uninsured group in our country we made a promise that health care for seniors would be guaranteed. the republican voucher proposal breaks that promise. i urge a no vote on the
republican budget proposal. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'll yield myself two minutes. i have heard a lot of debate today about how we're slashing taxes, slashing revenues for the rich and for everybody else and bad oil companies and things like that. let me just show you a little chart. under our budget revenues rise. revenues go up over $12 trillion . so rev knews still increase, even -- so revenues still increase. now, the president's plan says he wants to raise them another $1.5 trillion. the gentleman from maryland's plan wants to raise them another $1.7 trillion. but what's -- let's not kid ourselves. revenues, even under our plan, continue to increase. now, we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem.
the green line is the revenue line. the red line is the spending line. revenues are stable, increasing, spending is on a tear, mr. chairman. spending is growing at a unsustainable rate. we can't keep spending money we don't have. if we keep doing this we're going to have a debt crisis. people are going to get hurt. interest rates will go up, we will have to cut across the board at the time it happens. we want to avoid that. i yield myself one more minute to say, mr. chairman, let's talk about the bush tax cuts or what happened. let's talk about the distribution of the tax burden. in 2001 the top 1% of earners paid 34% of the tax burden. now they pay 38%.
higher tax burden. top 5% in 2001 paid 53% of the taxes. today the top 5% pay 59% of the taxes. so on and so forth. we don't have a revenue problem, a tax problem, we have a spending problem. but here's the real problem. if we don't get our situation under control we really go in the hole. in 2009 the general accountable office was telling us our fiscal gap, the unfunded promises we're making to current americans, was 62 -- $62.9 trillion. that means, to yield myself one more minute to explain, mr. chairman, that means we would have have had to take that money, set it aside just so government could keep the promises it's now making to everybody in america. in 2009 we owed more than we're
worth in total households in america. last year, 2010, that fiscal gap grew to $76.4 trillion. now? $99.4 trillion. we are digging a hole more than $10 trillion a year by kicking the can down the road. every year we fail to fix this problem we are submitting our children to a worse future, a diminished country. so the sooner we get our act together, the sooner we fix this problem, the better off we're going to be. if we keep ignoring this, if we keep spending in the path we're on this fiscal gap, the pile of empty promises that politicians from both parties have been making to americans, gets that much higher. we have about $100 trillion of empty promises washington is making to americans. it is time we tell people the
truth, it is time we get government to live within its means and it is time we get washington to honor its promises , fix these programs, get spending under control and give our children a debt-free nation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman is absolutely right. we need to come up with a plan that puts the country on a predictable, steady course of deficit reduction. and we need to do it in a balanced way. the chart the chairman showed about revenues presumed that we wouldn't have certain changes in the revenue. for example, that we wouldn't say to the wealthiest, we want you to pay the same rates you were paying during the clinton administration when the economy was roaring and jobs were being created. there's a reason the bipartisan fiscal commission called the
republican plan unbalanced. and this is what it is. under the commission plan they have a balance of spending cuts and revenue increases. for example, they say, the folks at the top, they should be paying a little more. in fact, $2.5 trillion more in the next 10 years than the republican plan. and because they don't do what this commission recommended they have to cut into medicaid which will hurt -- it will hurt seniors in nursing homes, disabled individuals, poor kids, everyone who depends on that already stretched program. they have to terminate medicare. so those are choices that we are making. they have made a one-sided, lop-sided choice. and with that i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. chairman, we are in a debate of generational proporpgses. the promises that were made -- proportions. the promises that were made in the 1960's and before that and after that about expanding our country, making it a greater country are now being abdicated. we're seeing a budget offered by a budget chairman that says to our seniors who have cut a path for all of us younger people that, you know what? we can't be there for you anymore. we're seeing a budget where we say to our students who are the intellectual drivers of our economy, we cannot be there for you anymore. as a matter of fact, 2/3 of this budget, 2/3 of this budget, 2/3 of the cuts are from low income programs that serve people who are making it, hardworking americans trying to make it every single day but that's where the cuts come from. the question on the table is what's the proper role of government? we believe the proper role of
government is to look after our seniors. they believe grandma has to figure out what she's going to do. we believe that young people have to have an opportunity and thing like the pell grant are going to help them and help us. they believe if you're smart enough to go to college, you should pay for it by yourself or maybe get a high-cost loan to do that. we have a different vision of america. as a matter of fact, we have a vision that the people who are well to do and the cormingses who have done so well should -- corporations who have done so well should help out more. we believe in equity and a shared burden. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. mr. ellison: a shared burden. in fact, the big five oil companies have received profits that are enormous when you look at these on this chart. the gentleman keeps talking about tax reform. i'd love to know what corporate loopholes are you going to close? are you going to close these big oil subsidies or not? and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland
reserves. the chair rozzes the gentleman from wisconsin. -- recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a senior member of the appropriations committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to be the first to say we do want to close the tax loopholes for big oil. for the four years that the democrats were in charge, we're not sure why they did not take it on. we are ready too take it on. -- to take it on. think about this, mr. speaker, for every $1 we spend, 40 cents is borrowed. if that had happened or was happening in your family, you would bring everybody to the kitchen table and you would say, look, we've got to make some changes here. we want continue to spend money the way we're -- we can't continue to spend the money the way we're doing it. today the national debt is 90% of the g.d.p. spend something approaching 24% -- spending is approaching 24% of the g.d.p. we can't get to a balanced budget with a spending gap that high above revenues and yet
that's what we're doing. that's why the republican budget, the ryan budget, not just reduces spending by $4 trillion, but changes the trajectory of spending. because unless we change the pattern and we make some choices for the next generation, the important programs like social security, like medicaid, like medicare will not be there. too often we hear from the liberals in washington the scare tactics, republicans hate seniors, they hate clean acres they hate education and that's what we're seeing here tonight. in fact, yesterday the president tried to claim a mulligan on his budget. he actually introduced a budget in february and did not bring in one recommendation of his own deficit reduction commission. even though i've seen a chart on the floor tonight about it, it sounds great, but it's not in the president's budget because it wasn't presented. we think it might be a good idea to use some of the recommendations of the deficit reduction commission and that's what the ryan budget does. but more importantly it doesn't
do anything to the important entitlement programs for anybody over the age of 55. medicare will be there for them as it is today. but for younger people, it is not going throb because it's going broke. that's why we need to make changes and giving them a subsidy to have them have more choices of medicare is just one part of the program. that's one aspect of the ryan budget that's well worth supporting. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i was pleased to hear my friend is interested in getting rid of the subsidies for big oil. we can do it tonight or tomorrow. all you've got to do is vote for the democratic alternative. and by the way, you can at the same time get rid of tax breaks that reward companies for shipping american jobs overseas, we don't have to study about it, don't have to send it to the ways and means committee, we can instruct them tomorrow, tonight, and we'll get it done if you vote for the
democratic alternative. with that, i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. choil the jep is -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. engel: as ronald reagan used to say, there you go again. my republican friends want to repeal the 20th century. they want to use the budget deficit to kill and destroy every program they've hated all these years, including medicare and medicaid. this budget would roll back 50 years of progress on medicare and medicaid and repeal these programs which are two of the most important social programs of this century. this budget shifts the burden from the wealthiest americans and puts the burden on the poor and middle class. i understand that my republican colleagues want to protect their rich friends but on the democratic side on the aisle, we care about working people, the middle class, poor people, seen crors and children. the republicans last year
promised to focus on two things if they got the majority, jobs and spening. all we've seen is attacks on middle class and lower income people. their idea of cutting spending is to kill medicare and medicaid. instead of passing this budget we'd be more likely to cry ate jobs by waving the magic wand and saying abracadabra. the american people want us to come together and compromise but all the legislation we're seeing from the other side is extreme. we need to come together. we do have a -- we do have difficulty. we don't want our children to have a diminished standard of living but this is not the way to do it, to try to balance the budget on the backs of poor people, on seniors, on children. we need to have a fair and balanced budget. i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield go minutes to a distinguished member of the rules and budget committee, the gentleman from fwea, mr. wood yawl. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wood yawl: we see a lot of shrill things here on the house
floor. i want to have a slightly different voice. i want to tell you how proud i am to be here. how proud i am to be here. as the gentleman who previously spoke said accurately, i ran on two things. i ran on cutting spending and creating jobs. tonight because of the hard work of the chairman on the budget committee, i get a vote tomorrow to do just that. just that i've been here 00 days and i get a vote to change the direction of this country from driving it off the edge of the cliff, to restoring the freedom and economic success that we're known for the world around. 100 days and i get to make that choice. i'm thrilled in the spirit of openness that we have some alternatives. if you want to raise taxes, you're going to have budgets that get to do that. but if you want to close $2.9 trillion in tax expenditures in loopholes in lobbyist-funded giveaways, you've got one budget to choose from. the ryan budget.
we go after those items that for whatever reason folks hadn't gone after in years past. we do those things that for whatever reason people couldn't find the courage to do in years past. volt after vote after vote, i presume people had to vote on things they didn't like to vote on. they didn't want to run up spending. they didn't want to increase the debt limit. they didn't want to do those thing bus had to do it. tonight, i'm here to talk about something i want to do. i cannot wait to come to this floor tomorrow and cast a vote for my children, for america's grandchildren, for the future of this land and that's a vote in favor of the ryan budget. i'm deprate to feel my colleagues for giving me that opportunity. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i welcome our friend mr. wood yawl and i'll say we agree on one thing. this budget does pose a fundamental choice, that's what we're here to debate about.
we believe it's wrong to be providing another round of big tax breaks to the wealthiest americans when you're ending the medicare guarantee, when you're cutting investments in kids' education, those are choices that we shouldn't be making. and we are going to present and have presented a democratic alternative that we by provides a balanced approach. with that, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: i'm so glad you pick me at this time, i want to join the previous speak for the saying that the atmosphere and the attitude here is just too shrill. we should really if we're dealing with the lives and futures of the generations to follow, it should be in a different way. we should not just be fighting with each other. and so i'm making an appeal to ministers and priests andra buys and imams to try to figure
out as we go into this holy holiday, whether or not the screaming is going to help or whether or not we're going to find ourselves with the lesser among us. i don't know the whole story but it runs something like, i was hungry and you didn't give me anything to eat, i was thirsty, you didn't give me anything to drink, i was sick you didn't visit. it sounds like the answer that going to be given, i told the state to take care of you, i'm sorry they didn't. or, i'm the guy who gave you a voucher. or, i pulled myself up by my own boot straps, why can't you do it without a scholarship? i think not. this great nation was built to believe in god we trust and it seems to me when you're talking about the lives of our mothers and grandmothers and the future of our children that all the things we hope -- hoped and dreamed about is not going to be shattered by a political budget put together by the majority.
it's going to be, if it's not stopped here, it's going to be stopped in the senate or stopped in the white house but i hope those that are listening, that are involved in providing spiritual care, that recognize how important health care is for our sick and our poor, why don't you just write your congressperson and share with us whether or not you think that we have an obligation to protect the wealthy among us, rather than the lesser of our brothers and sisters. we'll be going home for a couple of weeks during these easter holidays and i do hope that all of us try to find out which side are we on? the rich, or the lesser of these. thank you. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two mississippi. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate chairman ryan bringing this issue to the floor. basically, the entire discussion that we're having in
washington right now centers around two figures. we spend $3.5 trillion, and we bring in $2.2 trillion in revenues to the government from taxes. now, it's the bringing together of those numbers that's the difference of opinion here in washington. i listened to the president's speech yesterday, i read the tech of his speech, did not get a chance to listen, and he says that we can close that gap by taxing the millionaires and billionaires. it sounds so good. it comes off so easy. but i will tell you it's a process that many nations have followed before. tax the millionaires. i don't know what bill sweatt in arteesha is worth purk he says to create a new job costs him $400,000, to create a new job. our friends on the other side said we need to be taxes that money away from him. nancy pelosi said we need to
tax the profits of the corporation and spend them. what you do is take away mr. sweatt's $400,000 and he doesn't get a new bulldozer and we don't get a new job. we have this $1.3 trillion in deficit on those top line figures, then that go into our debt payroll -- barrel, $15 trillion is what we have over the life of our country from george washington until today. approximately $15 trillion and we're bringing in $2.2 trillion. if we begin to give the tax increases that the president says, we're actually going to squeeze down the $2.2 billion because companies will not be hiring people. for instance, off the shore of louisiana, we're choking off those jobs. so every job off louisiana that the government kills takes one person from paying taxes and puts them up here receiving welfare, unemployment, and foot stamps. economic growth is the only thing that can cure this nation's economic problems. the ryan budget does that. the president's budget does not
do it. let's support the ryan budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i have to show us this chart again. i need to remind the body that during the clinton administration, when we had the folks at the very top paying a little bit higher rate, 20 million jobs were created. when that rate was dropped from the -- for the high income earners at the beginning of the bush admanager, not only did it contribute to deficits going up but at the end of that period, over 653,000 jobs were lost. now the point isn't, again, that by changing the tax rate, that was the driver, the point is that small differences in tax rates are not the main engines of economic opportunity and we need to make choices here, again, they choose to provide tax breaks to folks at the very top and the medicare guarantee, for somebody who has been a champion of medicare,
medicaid, and a whole number of other issues important to seniors and americans, ms. schakowsky of illinois, two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the republicans are trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility today. it's just ridiculous. they are the party responsible for a decade of fiscal recklessness with two unpaid-for wars, two unpaid-for tax cuts, and a blind eye to wall street leading to a disastrous recession. as the president said yesterday, quote, there's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending $1 trillion on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. this chart illustrates that from 1979 to 2005, the bottom 20% of households saw their incomes increase by a grand total of $200.
over the same period, the top .1% here in the red saw income growth of nearly $6 million each year. there's nothing courageous about a plan that would protect the wealthy and big oil and big corporations that shipped jobs overseas at the expense of the elderly and their medicare and their medicaid and the disabled and children. the republican budget resolution does not reflect the values of americans. i urge my colleagues to reject it soundly. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute. unshared prosperity. spending money on tax cuts. mr. chairman, the presumption behind that is that all the money out there made in america is the government's. and then the government decides
who they spend it back to. we do have different philosophies. the money that people make is their money. and then the question is, how much of it does the government take. the money made in america by individuals, by businesses, is their money. it's not the government's money. so we don't spend money on tax cuts. by the way, mr. chairman, we're not even cutting taxes in this bill. we're just not raising them system of the new definition of cutting taxes apparently is if you're against raising taxes, you're cutting them. i don't even know where to start with this but i'm going to start by yielding two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, a member of the budget committee, mr. heels camp. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: we have a choice
here in washington, we can have the same old status quo with more spending, more taxes and more government control, or the real american way, making good on promises made last year by cutting spening. the choice is our the opportunity is now. the path to prosperity offers a long overdue fix to medicaid. there are many problems with the program and the costs are out of control. hemorrhaging the budgets of state after state and our federal government. clearly the answer is not more money. instead, the solution is spending more -- spending money more wisely and more efficiently. governors from all across america have expressed the desire for more flexibility with medicaid and this budget offers exactly that. in converting federal spending on medicaid to block grants, folks closest to the american people, governor, legislators and local officials, not some bureaucrat sitting in washington will make decisions best for their citizens and design programs that work best for their state and their people.
they will have the freedom to adapt medicaid to their own state's unique needs and priorities. also, because this budget defunds obamacare, we are preventing the federal government from imposing another mandate on the states. obamacare forces states to expand medicare eligibility and leaves it up to them how they will pay for it. we put a stop to this intrusion through the federal government and make medicaid better for those who truly need it. this path to prosperity will increase the medicaid budget and provide much-needed regulatory reform for the 50 states of this great union. only those committed to the status quo, including many of the colleagues across the aisle, can make the ridiculous claim that somehow spending more taxpayer money and pushing more washington red tape is somehow a solution. by lifting the heavy hand of washington from medicaid we make this program more effective and more efficient for the states to manage these programs and provide compassionate care for
the americans who truly deserve assistance. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. hardwork withing american people have been paying their medicare payroll taxes day in, day out, month in, month out. the choice we have here is whether we're going to make good on that medicare guarantee or whether we're going to say to the folks at the very top, we just can't take you back to the tax rates that were in place during the clinton administration. why would we say that to people who have been putting their payroll taxes in the medicare? why would we say we're going to end the medicare guarantee? with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes.
ms. jackson lee: unlike the gentleman from wisconsin who just doesn't know what to do and seems to be confused on his side of the aisle as to what his budget is all about, i will say that i am getting unconfused because his budget is a destruction of the fabric and the way of life of all americans. you want to know what the republican budget does? it cuts food assistance for struggling families. it takes away affordable health care coverage for working families and it dismantles the health care safety net. but also it deals with education of our children and as the co-chair and founder of the congressional children's caucus, let me show you what happen when is we don't educate our children. we can see the numbers of individuals who are unemployed, who have not had a high school degree. our friends on the republican
budget are going to cut education and they're going to wind up with increasing unemployment because you can see that less of our americans are being able to go to colonel and therefore without college, without a high school education, we just undermine a growing child opportunity. let me tell you what else we do. we go from children to their grandparents. and i remember standing on this floor of the house, trying to prevent the doughnut hole from coming about, but republicans again established a doughnut hole that millions of seniors have fallen through. in fact, the republican budget causes seniors to pay some $12,000 on their medicare. listen to me clearly, seniors. you will be paying an extra $12,000 with the republican budget plan. and of course we will open up the doughnut hole again. the very doughnut hole that has been taken care of by the affordable care act. on the other hand, the democratic budget balances the budget and of course it recognizes the value of a shared
sacrifice. i just visited texas soldiers, national guard, they understand about shared sacrifice. they support each other. but this is a suicidal budget, it has no shared sacrifice and all of the cuts come from the most vulnerable, the republican plan is all about turning back the clock the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield, excuse me, two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, a gentleman of the budget committee, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. lankford: it's just a little surreal to walk in the chamber and be able to hear that somehow republicans are interested in throwing old people off the bridge and somehow old people, that we're focused on all these things, that we hate those in poverty and we hate our own
parents and all these other things and in reality, as a newcomer walking into this body, i walk into a chamber saying, we came to get things done. and the driving factor that i walked in this chamber with was the reality that we have $14 trillion in debt. that's hard to be able to wrap your head around, $14 trillion in debt. the way i try to wrap my head around it is with an elled he will strailt -- illustration for me. i remember being 9 years old and watching the voyager spacecraft take off and thinking it would be forever for it to get up to jupiter. it would take 10 years to get out there. but i remember when those pictures are done and how significant they were. just imagine this, in 19 7 when the voyager -- in 1977 when it took off, if it started dropping a dollar a mile, how long would it take it to drop $14 trillion? remember, the voyager spacecraft has been out there 34 years, still operating, it has left the solar system now.
it is past polluteow, headed out to the solar system. if it dropped a dollar a mile since the time it took off it will drop $14 trillion 41,801 years from now. a spacecraft that's already flown out of our solar system will have to continue flying at the same speed another 41,801 years from now. it is surreal for us to stand here and to be able to not take seriously the amount of spending that we do and how out of control we really are. this is not just a tax problem, this is a long-term issue that's not republican and democrat, we both spend too much money, it is time for to us pull our own budget back and to take this serious. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the chair rozz recognizes the gentleman from maryland. -- recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman, and i too remember the voyager spacecraft and also the
apollo program and moon launch. great examples of things that individuals and corporations can't do by themselves. things that we have to do by coming together as a people behind a purpose. and the republican budget, if you look at the long-term forecast provided by c.b.o., essentially says, when you project out here, given the assumptions they were given, you will limit -- you eliminate all of the federal government except defense and even defense is at a smaller share of g.d.p. when you get out there than it is today. that's the kind of result that a you get -- mr. ryan: will the gentleman yield? i wish it were so. joking on that. it's because g.d.p. growth grows at a faster pace than government. so it's not as if government goes away, government keeps spending, government keeps defense and education, it's just that the economy outgrows the
size of government and we're on a path -- mr. van hollen: reclaiming my time. look, the issue here is what is the appropriate role and size of government? there's no doubt that we have to take what we think should be a balanced approach. that involves both cuts and as the fiscal commission, the bipartisan fiscal commission says, you got to deal with the revenue piece if you're going to deal with this problem in a realistic way. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you very much, mr. van hollen. i appreciate it. let me commend you for the excellent leadership that you are providing. in this fight. ladies and gentlemen of the congress, this is america. this is the greatest country in the world. and we are great because we have certain values, paramount among
those values is the sense of fairness. now let me tell you what the flaw is in the republican budget. the flaw in the republican budget is it is not fair. whatever polls we read, wherever we look, the american people are beginning to see it. how can you justify cutting seniors, cutting young people, cutting the low income, cutting the middle class while at the same time giving over $1 trillion to billionaires and millionaires in this country? that is the disconnect, mr. speaker. i don't care which side you're on or where you are in this
country, the american people know that we, yes, must, must bring down our deficit and cut this debt. it has become a national security issue. for eight years since i've been in congress i have been arguing for that, standing up for paying down our debt. during the years of the bush administration, which let's tell the truth, was a primary cause of us being in the position that we're in now, to have three wars going at the same time. so, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion i'm just saying that the point we have to make is, it's not fair -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: to cut this budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly and the young while at
the same time giving billionaires over $1 trillion. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: yes, mr. chairman, i'll give myself a minute to simply say again, just clear it for the record, if you're a person who is 55 years of age or older there's no change in medicare for you. the medicare you're on or that you're organizing your life and getting ready to prepare for when you retire will be there as it is forever for your life under our proposal. contrary to the status quo, medicare goes bankrupt in nine years. status quo, the president has a new board called the independent payment advisory board, 15 people he appoints, they ration medicare, they put price controls on medicare, they decide what medicare can do or
what it can't do, congress is out of the loop, unelected bureaucrats by the president, his people, they do it and the president just yesterday said, you know what? go cut more go get more savings -- more, go get more savings. that's the status quo. with that, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my colleague from wisconsin for the exceptional leadership he has been bringing to this house on this issue of the budget. i want to say i agree with my colleague from georgia, we are the greatest country in the world. we also have the smartest people in the world and they're not going to buy this demagoguery anymore. the president and democratic political strategists are engaged in democrat gol goingry of the worst sort -- demagoguery of the worst sort. yesterday the president accused
of us of wanting to leave sick kids to fend for themselves. we heard this before. senator frank lawsuitenberg voiced his concern that the bill would transform america into a third world nation leaving, quote, children hungry and homeless, begging for money, begging for food and even at 8 and 9 years old engaging in prostitution. senator moseley brown trumped him by wondering allowed whether the welfare reform bill would prompt the widespread auctions of abandoned children into slavery. jill nation of the nation did one better by predicting that working and middle class communities all over america will become scary violent wastelands. representative jim mcdermott made a more pro sayic prediction that within two years of enactment, the bill would put 1.5 million to 2.5 million children into poverty. even daniel patrick moin han warned that the wall would have, quote, children sleeping on grates.