Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, we do need to reduce the deficit in a predictable, responsible way. That will require spending cuts, and it will also require 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 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, this is simple mathematics. 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 onto other people, whether you do it by cutting Medicaid, whether you do it by terminating the Medicare guarantee, or whether you do it by cutting education. That's just mathematics.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, there are two parts to the Tax Code. There is the corporate Tax Code. We need to clean up the corporate Tax Code. We agree with the fiscal commission. You've got to get out a lot of clutter, a lot of the tax breaks. In fact, 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. We don't think you need to study the question about whether we get rid of big taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies.

So, yes, we should take a 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 percent break. We have been talking about going back to the Clinton rates. The Republican plan gives you another 30 percent break. You know what? They say we are going to do this in a revenue-neutral way. Well, the result is middle income taxpayers are going to pay more to give the folks at the top another big break.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to somebody who knows a lot about this subject, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Small Business Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, Republicans originally fought the creation of Medicare on the grounds that it was socialism. Apparently, they haven't changed their minds about that as they try and terminate it and put seniors into the private insurance market.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

(Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, one of the other things that China is doing is they're investing an awful lot of their resources in clean energy like solar power and like wind power. The United States should be winning that battle and not our international competitors. Someone who knows a whole lot about that is the next speaker, the ranking member on Natural Resources, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Chairman, 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 8 years, it was gone.

Now, with respect to tax rates and jobs, what this chart shows is that, when the highest income earners in the country were paying the lower rates during the Bush administration, you actually lost jobs versus during the Clinton administration when, at the higher rates, 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 that the numbers show, during the Clinton administration, we had very strong growth. During the Bush years, we ended up losing over 600,000 jobs. So let's at least get our history straight.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 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 is 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 over the next 10 years than the Republican plan. Because they don't do what the commission recommended, they have to cut into Medicaid, which will hurt seniors in nursing homes, disabled individuals, poor kids, everybody who depends on that already stretched program. They have to terminate Medicare. So those are choices they are making. They have made a one- sided, lopsided choice.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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 the tax breaks that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas. We don't have to study about it. We don't have to send it to the Ways and Means Committee. We can instruct them tomorrow, tonight, and we will get it done if you vote for the Democratic alternative.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Chairman, I welcome our friend from Georgia, and I would just say that we agree on one thing: that this budget does pose a fundamental choice. And that's what we're here to debate about. And we believe that it's just 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.

We are going to present, and have presented, a Democratic alternative that we think provides a balanced approach.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Chairman, I have to show us this chart again because I just 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 for the high-income earners at the beginning of the Bush administration, 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 the folks at the very top and end the Medicare guarantee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), who has been a champion of Medicare, Medicaid, and a whole number of other issues important to our seniors and Americans.

Mr. Chairman, hardworking 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 are 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 into Medicare? Why would we say we're going to end the Medicare guarantee?

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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.

The Republican budget, if you look at the long-term forecast provided by CBO, essentially says when you project out here, given the assumptions they were given, you eliminate all of the Federal Government except defense--and even defense is at a smaller share of GDP when you get out there than it is today. That is the kind of result that you get.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, look, the issue here is what is the appropriate role and size of government. There is 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've got to deal with the revenue piece if you're going to do deal with this problem in a realistic way.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we ask every American to read this budget, this Republican budget, and see whether or not it reflects their values and the choices that they would make. We believe when they do that they will reach the same conclusion that the bipartisan fiscal commission did, which is that it's simply unbalanced, it's simply unfair. It puts all the burden of the sacrifice on working men and women. And it does provide those folks at the very top once again--we've seen it before-- with a big tax break.

When it comes to Medicare, it's a fact seniors are no longer going to be able to choose to stay in Medicare. They're going to be forced into the private insurance market with ever-increasing costs and ever- declining support. That is rationing care. That's what insurance companies do. If you don't have enough money to buy the benefits that they are offering, you don't get them. If your doctor's not on that plan, tough luck.

So those are the choices that we're making this evening. And I hope as we go forward the American people will look very closely at this proposal. I'm confident they'll reach the same conclusion the bipartisan fiscal commission did, which is it's just not balanced, and it doesn't reflect American values and priorities.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to say that to say this plan saves Medicare is in my view Orwellian. It does remind me of the phrase from many years ago that you have to destroy the village in order to save it. I have to say that if you look at what we're doing here, you're saying to seniors you've got to go into the private insurance market.

Now, the chairman mentioned a couple other examples of the private market. But in this case we've already experimented, through Medicare Advantage, with that kind of private plan within Medicare. And you know what we discovered? That you had to subsidize them at 114 percent of the fee-for-service program. It cost us more for Medicare Advantage. In fact, one of the reforms that we made as part of the Affordable Care Act was to say we're not going to ask the taxpayers and folks who are on Medicare fee-for-service to subsidize those private plans that are running over cost. And you know what? In this budget our Republican colleagues kept that reform. If it was so great to have the Medicare Advantage plan, how come they took part of the savings from that plan? They did not.

So it is a big mistake to say to seniors we're going to throw you into the private insurance market with an ever-declining voucher premium. The reason this isn't premium support, it doesn't support the premium. What Federal employees and Members of Congress have is a premium support system through a fair share formula. This is not a fair share for seniors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), former insurance commissioner for the State of California.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?

Will the gentleman yield?

Isn't it true that the Republican budget reopens the prescription--

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

Yes, they will have their prescription drug benefit changed.

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

We've had a spirited debate this evening about fundamental choices that we need to make as a country. We all agree that we have to reduce our deficits in a predictable, steady way. The question is how do you do it, and we believe, as did the cochairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission, that the Republican plan is unbalanced; and it's unbalanced because it asks very little of the folks at the very top and reduces dramatically our investments in our kids' education and it does end the Medicare guarantee.

Seniors will no longer be able to stay in the Medicare program. They will be forced into the insurance program. It immediately does end the prescription drug benefit, something we worked hard to close, the doughnut hole.

It ends the effort that was put in place under the Affordable Care Act to end the doughnut hole. So I would say to the gentleman from Georgia who spoke earlier, those seniors who are calling his office, they will lose that benefit in closing the doughnut hole right away if this Republican budget passes.

For other seniors and people who have been paying in the Medicare system through their payroll taxes, we want to make sure they have the benefit of the Medicare guarantee. Throwing them into the private insurance market and giving them a deal that Members of Congress do not give ourselves is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

We have a fair share deal, and we are asking seniors to take a raw deal. We have a true premium support system for Members of Congress where the Federal Government shares the risk of increasing costs. Under the Republican plan, they are asking seniors to do what they don't want Members of Congress to do: take all the risk of the rising costs.

Those are not choices that reflect American values and priorities. We should not be giving tax breaks to the folks at the top and ending the Medicare guarantee.

I thank my colleague.

The gentleman from Texas mentioned the fact that as part of the Affordable Care Act last year we made some reforms in Medicare. Yes, we did. We got rid of the overpayments to the private plans, the Medicare Advantage plans. Why did we do that? Because they were costing the taxpayer 114 percent of the fee-for-service, which is why this notion, frankly, that by saying to seniors you can't stay in Medicare now, you've got to go into the private insurance market, has been disproven by our experience most recently.

So we said we're not going to overpay them. And you know what? We used some of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole that seniors fall in. We used some of those savings.

Now, it's important to understand that the Republican budget, even though there was a lot of demagoguery about that, you kept those savings, but what you didn't do is continue to close the doughnut hole. Immediately upon passage of the Republican budget, that doughnut hole will stop closing for seniors.

I want to pick up on a point Mr. Garamendi made about Medicaid because, as this chart indicates, the great

majority of funds for Medicaid go to seniors and individuals with disabilities. Make no mistake, this happens immediately. We're not talking about 10 years from now, 8 years from now. This happens right away.

Now, Medicaid is a program where actually the costs of care have grown much slower than the rest of the health care market, including the private market, and yet it is a program that is stretched very thin. You take $700 billion-plus out of that system, you are going to be putting people at serious risk, already overstretched programs.

So what choice did you make? Well, this is what choice you made with respect to Medicaid.

You cut about $771 billion. Guess what? You returned to the tax rates that were in effect on the top 2 percent income earners during the Clinton administration; over 10 years, $800 billion. Those are the choices you're making. Put all of these individuals at risk--seniors in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, poor kids--so that you can provide that tax break.

I've heard it said on the floor that, oh, boy, if we do that, if we go back to the Clinton-era tax rates, that's going to really hurt the economy. That's going to hurt jobs.

Look at this. Here's the Clinton-era tax rate: 20 million jobs were created during that period of time. Here's the current tax rate, end of the Bush administration: 653,000 jobs lost.

The history tells the story. The reason is because there are lots of factors that go into decisions by businesses how to invest. And while, obviously, tax rates are a part of it, they are not the major driver in the economy.

I've heard it said that this is going to hurt small businesses. I hope one thing that we can agree on is that small businesses are the engine of our economy. They're what make this economy go.

And so we always hear from our Republican colleagues, well, you go back to the Clinton era rates for the top, you're going to hurt small businesses. Well, I hope everybody will look at the Joint Committee on Taxation. What they say is that there are only 3 percent of small businesses who fall into that higher income category, because we're talking about taxable income. Only 3 percent of small businesses fall into those rates.

Now, we hear from our Republican colleagues, oh, that's true it's only 3 percent, but it's 50 percent. Well, here. Fifty percent of the income comes from those 3 percent. Why do you think that is? Well, look at the same Joint Committee on Taxation report. Many such businesses are hardly ``small.''

In 2005, over 12,000 S corporations and over 6,000 partnerships grossed more than $50 million. There's your mom-and-pop store. There's your mom-and-pop store working hard as a small business trying to make ends meet. Those are what Republicans are calling small businesses.

I'm going to give you some examples of those small businesses. And there are lots of them, but just to give people an idea of the Republican definition of small businesses: major Wall Street investment house KKR; one of the big four accounting firms, Pricewaterhouse--these are S corporations--Fortune 100; Pipeline Company; Enterprise GP Holdings; Washington law firms.

Washington law firms.

I want to point out, these firms are doing good work. There is nothing wrong with what these firms are doing. But don't tell the American people that these are small businesses. Over $50 million a year. They can help do their share to get our deficit under control.

Go back to the Clinton administration rates. Let's have a balanced approach. Yes, we need to do cuts. We understand that. But as the bipartisan fiscal commission said, you've got to do revenues, too, and if you don't, here's what happened:

President Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus from the Clinton administration, and where did it go? When President Obama was sworn in, the day he put his hand on the Bible, he faced a deficit in that year of over $1.3 trillion and a 10-year deficit of over $10 trillion.

Let's have a balanced approach. Let's have shared sacrifice. Let's be serious about getting our deficits under control.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Member from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to simply say there is a new definition, and I want to explain it. Here is 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, we're all of a sudden for tax cuts.

No, I will not yield.

What we are saying is keep the revenues where they are and fix the Tax Code, clear out the loopholes and the deductions so we can lower the rates to create jobs and economic growth.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, we think we should go after corporate welfare. Let's stop subsidizing wealthy individuals and corporations with taxpayer dollars.

Like the fiscal commission, we believe that it's better for economic growth to broaden the tax base and lower the tax rate.

If I can continue on the gentleman's time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget and Ways and Means Committees, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Ways and Means Committee and former member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Rokita.

I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the warm, even-handed comments of my friend from Massachusetts.

Do you know what's really cruel, Mr. Chairman? It's if we give our children a lower living standard.

Do you know what's really cruel? It's if we give our children a debt- ridden Nation. It's if we give our children a debt that they can't afford.

Do you know what's really cruel? It's if we don't save Medicare. It's if we don't keep the promises to our current seniors, like we do in this budget, so that all of these programs they've organized their lives around, which are going bankrupt, are preserved. Medicare goes bankrupt in 9 years. We're preserving it for current seniors.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 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 revenues still increase. Even keeping the Tax Code where we are today, revenues 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 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 an 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 indiscriminately across the board at the time it happens. We want to avoid that.

I yield myself 1 more minute, 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 percent of earners paid 34 percent of the tax burden. Now they pay 38 percent; a higher tax burden. The top 5 percent in 2001 paid 53 percent of the taxes. Today, the top 5 percent pay 59 percent 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 Government Accountability Office is telling us our fiscal gap, the unfunded promises we are making to current Americans, was $62.9 trillion.

I yield myself 1 more minute to explain, Mr. Chairman.

That means we would have to take $62.9 trillion, set it aside, invest it at Treasury rates, just so government can keep the promises that it is now making to everybody in America. In 2009, we owed more than we were worth as total households in America. Last year, 2010, that fiscal gap grew to $76.4 trillion. Now, $99.4 trillion.

We are digging our 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 on the path we are 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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a

senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Rules and Budget Committees, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 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. So 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

(Mr. LANKFORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

That is because GDP growth grows at a faster pace than government. So it is 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 virtuous path to more prosperity, more opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I will give myself a minute to simply say again just to clear up 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 9 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 in 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. That's the status quo.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Chair.

Now, let's take a look at what our drivers of the debt are: Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. The health care entitlements are the biggest drivers. The black line here shows our revenues. These three programs alone take up all Federal revenues. You throw interest on top, which you have to pay interest, by 2035 they consume every single penny of every Federal tax everybody pays.

Now, why are we proposing what we're proposing on Medicare? Because we have experience that this kind of thing works. Giving people more choices, having more competition works. Prescription drugs. That's a program, very successful, very popular. When that program was passed, it was projected to cost $634 billion over the budget window. It ended up costing $373 billion. It came in 41 percent below budget. Premiums are lower than were anticipated. Name me one other government program that actually came in 41 percent below cost projections. There isn't one. Why did this one do that? Choice, competition. The senior is in charge.

We are not interested, Madam Chair, in giving control over Medicare to 15 unelected people to decide where, when, how, and under what circumstances they get their Medicare. We protect Medicare for current seniors. We deny the 15 people on the board the ability to ration their care. And we want 40 million seniors to have the choices. We want them to be in control of their Medicare.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Because what we have learned is that giving them more control, the senior, the beneficiary, the patient, not the government--competition works. We've tried so many different plans at rationing care. They don't work. One person does work to reduce prices: The consumer. That is why we are saving Medicare.

Madam Chair, I will just simply say we do actually put $10 billion back into Medicare Advantage to make sure the program stays alive.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would simply say we have new data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on national health care expenditures. In 2009, the last year we have data available, Medicare costs grew by 7.9 percent. Private health insurance plans costs grew by 1.3 percent.

I will not yield to the gentleman.

With that, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Madam Chair, the House is not in order.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

First, let me say with respect to the Medicare guarantee, we keep hearing that. As you know, because we've said it over and over again, in our budget--by the way, go to budget.house.gov if you want to read the plan. I encourage people to please do that.

With the new Medicare plan with people 54 and below, it's a Medicare guarantee. The plan you will be given to select from, just like a system that works like the one we have, like the prescription drug benefit plan, they are guaranteed plans. You are guaranteed to get them if you want them, and your subsidy is guaranteed.

Now, we simply say, wealthy people shouldn't get as much of a subsidy as everyone else. Lower income people should get a bigger subsidy. And as people get sicker, they, too, should get a bigger subsidy to protect their premiums.

And I would simply say the greatest danger, enemy and threat to Medicare is the status quo. Medicare goes insolvent in 9 years.

But let me look at this from a different perspective. We've had a lot of debt before in our country. When you buy a house or a car or get a business loan, you get debt. What matters is how big is your debt relative to your ability to pay it. What also matters is: Who are you borrowing it from? Are you borrowing it from your local community bank? Are you borrowing it from your brother-in-law? Fine.

Where are we borrowing our money from? We used to lend it to ourselves. Americans would buy T bills and lend it to ourselves. In 1970, 5 percent was held by foreigners, 95 percent by Americans. In 1990, 19 percent of our debt was held by foreigners. Today, 47 percent of our debt is held by other countries. Number one is China. We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar today, and half of that from other countries, the number one being China.

Look at where we're headed. We have a crushing burden of debt. The debt goes to double the size of the economy, then triple the size of the economy, to eight times the size of the economy. The CBO tells us the economy crashes in 2037. Their computers can't figure out how the American economy can grow past the year 2037 because of the debt burdens.

We can't keep borrowing money from other countries to cash flow our government. We are giving them our sovereignty. We are losing control of our own destiny. We are giving our children a debt prison.

Why is this happening? Because politicians from both political parties have been making promises and promises that are empty. We need to get government to live within its means. We can't keep spending money we don't have.

By the way, you don't fix this by raising taxes and raising taxes and raising taxes. You fix this by cutting spending--novel idea. I know it is in Washington.

So we're going to start. We're going to start by cutting $6.2 trillion in spending. We're going to start by putting the right policies in place to grow the economy. We're going to start by keeping the promise to people who have retired so that their Medicare and Social Security is there for them. We're going to start by saving these programs for future generations so they're not empty promises. We're going to start by preserving our social safety net and making it more adaptive, resilient and sustainable for the 21st century.

We want to repair the social safety net so it works. And we want to gear it not toward keeping people on welfare, but getting them back on their feet into lives of self-sufficiency so they, too, can flourish and reach the American Dream. We're going to start by passing this budget so that we can give our children a debt-free nation, so we can maintain the legacy of America, which every generation prior to ours upheld, which has given the next generation a more prosperous America, a better chance, a better chance at securing the American Dream.

If we don't do this, if we don't fix this, if we don't make the tough choices now to get this under control, we will be the first generation to sever that legacy. And, Madam Chair, that's a disgrace. It is within our control. We see this coming. We know what's happening. We know why it's happening. And if we don't fix this before it gets out of control, shame on us.

Madam Chair, on behalf of the Joint Economic Committee, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This country is starved for truth-tellers, people in Congress who will just tell them what the problems are that this country faces, give them options and help them make the right choice, people who are strong enough to lead and bold enough to lead at a time when the country needs leadership. When it comes to the budget, when it comes to the economy where the President has failed, House Republicans will lead.

The Paul Ryan budget helps spur job creation in America today. It stops spending money the government doesn't have. It lifts the crushing burden of debt. This plan puts the budget on the path to balance in paying down the debt over the long term, and it puts the economy on the path to prosperity.

Let's talk about the economy. It is the number one concern of most people, and the debt and deficit have a lot to do with it.

We are undergoing one of the worst recoveries we've seen in a long time. It is two to three times slower than the Reagan recovery, and there is reason for that. We were told by the President and congressional Democrats that if we just spent money, spend it in the stimulus and spend it in increased deficits, that the economy would recover. And they were wrong. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the stimulus, we have 2 million fewer jobs in America today than when the stimulus began. We have fewer jobs today than when all that spending took off.

We were told if Congress passed all the stimulus bills that our unemployment rate today would be 6.8 percent. It's 8.8 percent. And it's only that low because so many people have given up simply looking for work anymore. They've lost hope. And then finally, for those who say we just spend more to create this economy, they were off, their predictions, by 7 million American jobs.

It's time to stop listening to the economists who got it wrong and start listening to economists who got it right.

Let's take a look at what spending has done to our economy in America. Here is a chart. It looks back on the last 40 years in America, and it tracks Federal Government spending against job creation along Main Street, not government jobs but jobs in the private sector, the small-, medium-, and large-sized businesses that our economy depends upon. The blue line is government spending. The red line represents jobs along Main Street. You can tell with the blue line. Look at how different job creation is. In fact, over each of these four decades, not only is there no correlation between Federal spending and jobs along Main Street, but it's a negative correlation in each of the 4 decades. As government spending goes up, jobs along Main Street go down.

Look at this next chart. We also went back the last four decades in America and asked about private business investment. What happens when companies large and small buy new equipment, buy new software, buy new buildings, and invest back in the economy? Here is the chart. The blue is the private, fixed investment from business. The red is job creation along Main Street. As you can tell, it's a very close correlation.

In fact, there is no substitute in America for private investment in the economy--no substitute, no rebates, no stimulus, no shovel-ready projects. Nothing is a substitute for creating jobs like getting businesses to invest back in their workforces, in their workplaces and in the economy.

Recently, I had the Joint Economic Committee take a look at the economic studies over the last 40 years of our competitors around the world, competitor countries that got themselves into debt trouble but that worked their way out of it. You would be interested in the results of this

study, and there are three key points to it.

One is that the countries that were most successful in getting their debt down, in getting ahold of their financial paths, didn't do it by raising taxes. That didn't succeed. They did it by reducing spending. That's how they best and most successfully got ahold of their debt. There were 21 times that 10 different of our global competitor countries got a handle on their debt successfully by reducing spending.

The second takeaway from this study, called ``Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,'' was that countries that got ahold of their debt the right way also grew the economy as well. Economists agree that the countries that get their financial houses in order grow their economies over the long term. What this study shows is that, with our competitors, if you get a handle on your spending the right way, you grow your economy in the short term as well.

Here is Canada. Neighboring Canada got themselves in financial trouble. Their economy was growing at a paltry pace, less than 1 percent a year. They lowered their debt as a nation by about 12 percentage points, and their economy took off. For almost 16 years, they've averaged economic growth of almost 3\1/2\ percent.

Sweden, another developed country with an economy like ours, actually had an economy that was shrinking. It was actually contracting. They got ahold of their financial house and put that in order as well, reducing their debt by more than 11 percentage points. Their economy took off, growing 3\1/2\ percent a year, on average, for almost a decade. New Zealand did the same.

You may say, Look, we're not Canada; we're not New Zealand; we're not Sweden. Yet 26 times, nine of our competitor countries around the world that lowered their debt by reducing spending grew their economies strongly, not just in the long term but in the short term. They didn't grow them a little. Those countries rocketed to the top quarter of economic growth in the world. Countries that reduce their spending and do it the right way grow their economies.

Here is a third and another, again, telling point about this, which is that not all spending cuts are the same. When it comes time to grow the economy, not all spending cuts are the same.

What these economists showed is that the nations that grew their economies the most successfully undertook cuts that were large, credible and difficult to reverse. So they made cuts in savings that mattered, and the cuts in savings that grew their economies made sense. They shrunk their Federal workforces. They right-sized them to what they could afford. They eliminated duplicate programs, obsolete programs--as a business would--programs that waste money. They reduced subsidies to corporations which were interfering in the free marketplace. Finally, they tackled their entitlement reforms in health care and in pensions. What is interesting is that, even if the reforms they made in their entitlements didn't affect their current beneficiaries and even if they phased those reforms in over time, the reforms sent the right signals to the marketplace.

Then what happened in each of these countries is that businesses, in no longer facing higher taxes because of all that spending, felt comfortable getting to reinvest back into their workforces, back into their countries' economies. Households like ours, in no longer facing higher taxes to pay for all these spending sprees, felt more comfortable buying larger ticket items, like cars and houses. As we know, when businesses invest, jobs along Main Street grow. It has been made clear time and time and time again, like businesses, countries that can get ahold of their debt, that can do it the right way and that can put themselves on financially sound paths grow. America's economy can grow as well.

The budget resolution presented tonight by Chairman Paul Ryan meets the test that spending reductions must be large, credible and difficult to reverse once made to boost our economy:

The Ryan budget attacks the medical entitlements that are driving Federal spending higher. It attacks corporate welfare by phasing out government guaranties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It eliminates subsidies for green energy, and it reduces agriculture subsidies by $30 billion over the next decade. The Ryan budget rolls back non-security discretionary spending to its 2008 levels and then freezes it for 5 years.

It adopts a number of the recommendations from the President's own fiscal commission to eliminate waste and to achieve real savings in our budget. It eliminates agencies and programs identified by our own government as wasteful and duplicative. That alone will save over $100 billion in the next decade.

It reduces the Federal workforce. It right-sizes the Federal workforce by 10 percent over the next 5 years by attrition, simply by hiring only one new Federal employee for every three employees who leave or retire. Together, that saves almost $400 billion.

The Ryan budget envisions a pro-growth tax reform that lowers the top income tax rate for both individuals and companies to 25 percent and makes us competitive again in this world.

The Ryan budget is a fiscally responsible plan that accelerates economic growth and job creation. It is a game-changer for this Nation and tells the truth about our challenges, and addresses them with ideas and proven solutions that move us forward.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would remind the listeners that it was Democrats who fought the prescription drug program for our seniors; who last year slashed a half-trillion dollars from our seniors programs, which will hurt our local hospitals, our nursing homes, our hospice programs. They're going to drive 7 million American seniors out of their Medicare Advantage plan. And yet they failed to lead to preserve Medicare for every generation once and for all. They failed; we're going to lead.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a new member of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Yielding myself 30 seconds, I would remind our colleagues that are Democrats that Congress slashed a half trillion dollars from our seniors' care, including nursing homes, just last year. I will also remind our colleagues that Medicare is insolvent. The biggest threat to our seniors today is to do nothing.

Democrats and the President failed to lead. Republicans are not only going to preserve Medicare as it is today for those 55 and older, but for the younger generation, we are going to give them the choices and the options to preserve that program for them for their entire life.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to a new member of the Joint Economic Committee who understands that government doesn't create jobs, it is the private sector that creates jobs, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Yielding myself 30 seconds, I can't help but think many Democrats are eager for everyone else to sacrifice. What about government? Why can't government sacrifice a little? All of those obsolete agencies and all of those wasteful programs, the money they spit away on stimulus programs and to bail out anyone who needs it. Maybe it is time for shared sacrifice, and it can start with the big, fat, bloated Federal Government.

At this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to a physician who has delivered more than 3,000 babies in his life, is a valued member of the Joint Economic Committee, and expert on health care and many of our health care entitlements, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would remind our listeners that it was our Democrats who fought the prescription drug program that has been so critical for seniors to buy their medicine. They slashed half a trillion dollars from Medicare to pay for the new ObamaCare plan, and they did nothing to preserve Medicaid for our seniors.

The exaggerations today that are flying through this Chamber really are shameful. What the Republicans are intent on doing is preserving Medicare for every generation. We are not going to bury our heads in the sand.

I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

The Democrats have failed to lead on these important entitlement programs. They had their chance. They failed. The Republicans will lead, and we will preserve those programs.

Madam Chair, how many Americans really think this country is heading in the right direction? How many Americans, middle class Americans, believe that these deficits, trillion-dollar deficits, can go on and on as far as the eye can see? Although Americans believe that they have better lives and opportunities than their parents, how many of them question whether their children will have the same opportunities in America today?

You know, we can't continue to go down this path, and that's what the Ryan Republican budget is all about, a new direction for America where we no longer hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problems facing America.

Paul Ryan and the Republican budget tell the truth to the American public about how serious a problem we face as a Nation. It offers real commonsense solutions to address them. It gives them ideas that work, solutions that work. It creates economic growth and job creation by fostering the right business climate for growth in America.

It tackles our spending, dangerous spending deficits, by reducing those over time, implying and imposing discipline on our Federal Government. So they have to live within the same means our families and small businesses have to. It provides real security for our seniors and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.

More importantly, it offers hope for young people who don't think those programs will ever be around again. Paul Ryan and the Republican budget offer some hope that they don't have today, and it repeals this terrible ObamaCare and gives America hope again.

I strongly support this budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I think it's very important for us to understand and remember how the economy here grew and how it became much more positive and progressive during those 8 years of the Clinton administration. The deficit that Clinton inherited when he came into office was dramatically reduced and brought back a surplus. When he left office, the national debt was in the neighborhood of a little over $5 trillion. By the time the next President left, George W. Bush, the deficit was about $10.7 trillion. So it's important for us not to have the same kind of experience now that the opposition here on the other side of the aisle is trying to push on us.

The most critical challenge that we face as a country, of course, is the need to create new jobs. If Congress hopes to get the economy moving at the right pace, we are going to have to take this challenge of job creation very seriously. The question is: What should we do? What should we not do to reform government so that we can better compete in the world economy and yield strong, sustainable, long-term growth and prosperity?

After 100 days, Republicans have failed to put forward a single plan to create jobs. Instead, they have laid out a budget plan that shows us exactly what not to do.

We must remember how we got into this budget mess in the first place. While my friends on the other side would like to pretend that our economic woes began the very second that President Obama took his hand off the Bible and was sworn into office, we know that is not the truth at all.

In fact, it was quite the opposite. The things he did as President were positive for the economy, and we are seeing that today. We are seeing the economy growing. We are seeing unemployment declining. We are seeing employment going up, all of that as a positive effect of the actions of this President.

My friends on the other side pushing this budget are the same people who carried President George W. Bush's agenda through Congress, and in doing so nearly doubled our national debt, as I said, from about $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion over the 8 years of the Bush Presidency.

We need to make sure that they are not able to do that again. They did so then by recklessly lowering taxes on the wealthy with the promise that doing so would create jobs and strengthen our economy. Well, we know that neither of those happened. In fact, just the opposite occurred. They did so by passing a prescription drug plan that is a major giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry without finding a way to pay for it. And they did so by taking us into Iraq under false pretenses and committing us to what will ultimately be several trillions of dollars.

Now we are seeing economic inequality at record levels. The wealthiest 10

percent of the population here in the United States of America receives nearly half of all income in our country. And the richest 1 percent has seen its share of the national income increase by nearly 10 percent; and they are now at about 35 percent of all income, all of that increasing for the richest and declining for working people across this country.

This trend has consequences, and it is no coincidence that the last time we saw inequality at this level was during the Great Depression in the 1930s. But instead of working to correct this problem, the House Republican proposal acts as a huge wealth transfer program from the working class Americans to the rich. Overall, two-thirds of the cuts the Republicans propose take dead aim at working class Americans to lower their economy and lower their economic conditions.

The Republicans' budget plan eliminates Medicare, forcing seniors to buy insurance in the private marketplace, using a coupon that barely covers a fraction of the cost of care. It cuts food stamps, Pell Grants, and low-income housing. And at the same time, our friends across the aisle here, their plan would give away $2.9 trillion in tax cuts to the hugest, biggest corporations and to the wealthiest Americans.

This is the exact wrong approach, and it will severely damage our economy, hurt the middle class, and impoverish senior citizens.

Let's take a closer look at how this plan hurts seniors. Their budget eliminates Medicare. It eliminates Medicare and creates a new voucher program that would saddle seniors with a large portion of their health care costs. They would then be more responsible for it, and the whole health care system would decline.

The Republican budget also makes prescription drugs more expensive for seniors. The health care law we passed last year is gradually eliminating the gaps in prescription drug coverage. The Republican plan undoes this essential reform, forcing seniors to pay out of pocket. The Republican budget also threatens to make nursing home care unaffordable by cutting $771 billion from Medicaid over a 10-year period. Medicaid currently covers nearly half of all long-term care costs, and we know what would happen if their plan was to be successful. All of that would be essentially eliminated. The Republican budget also cuts $10 billion from Social Security's administrative budget, which will impact service to seniors.

What this plan does to America's seniors is absolutely unacceptable; but the worst part of it is that while they cut Medicare and Medicaid and they cut prescription drug coverage and the Social Security Administration, they also cut taxes on the very wealthy, reducing substantially the amount of taxes that the wealthiest people in this country pay while at the same time raising taxes on everyone else.

Now, 10 years ago, the conservative Heritage Foundation projected that in 2011, 1.6 million more Americans would be working as a result of the Bush tax cuts. They were wrong. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. We know what happened then, just the opposite of what they predicted.

The Republican debate isn't about good policy or the facts. It is about a dogmatic approach to governing and doing what's best for the very rich, doing what's best for the very rich regardless of how it affects everyone else who are the main promoters of the economy. Working class people, middle-income people are the people who drive the economic growth here in America. If they are forced to decline their economic conditions, then the whole economy of this country declines. All of that is needed to be understood, and the actions that they are proposing must be avoided.

Even President Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, recently said that he finds it ``unconscionable that the Republican leadership, faced with a $1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that good public policy is to maintain tax cuts for the top 2 percent of the population.''

We know that isn't the case. We know that is going to be just the opposite. We know that tax cuts for the wealthiest, making the wealthiest people in this country even wealthier and driving down the economy of the working people, is going to have a deadly effect on the economic circumstances across this country.

Tax rates are now lower than they were, even under President Reagan; and yet the Republicans are actually proposing to cut taxes again for the very rich, lower the corporate rate, and keep special tax earmarks for Big Oil, tax earmarks for Big Oil which is now growing to be one of the highest growing economic aspects of this country that we have to deal with. Tax earmarks for Big Oil and for the biggest companies, and the biggest companies particularly that export jobs overseas, continuing to give tax cuts to those economic companies that take jobs out of the United States and exports them to other countries. What a big mistake that is in the context of rescinding this economy.

Overall, the Republican budget plan for 2012 will not balance the budget; and while it does not balance the budget, it eliminates Medicare by replacing it with a private voucher program that will make it impossible for seniors to get health care. It also provides huge new tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting key investments in our economy.

All of these proposals that we are facing here are clearly deadly. If they were to be successful, the economic circumstances that are now just getting better in this economy as a result of the actions by the Obama administration would be reversed, and it would be reversed dramatically, and we would see a downslide in the economic circumstances here in our country.

We need to oppose this effectively, and we need to have a policy that is going to focus its attention on working class people, on the need to create more jobs, and to create more jobs more effectively.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, can you tell us how much time we have left on both sides?

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Chair, how much time remains?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

The circumstance that we are dealing with is to continue the progress that we have made. We have provided health care for people through Medicare and Medicaid.

The opposition here in this district wants to eliminate that. They want to cut back on Medicare and make it more difficult and more expensive.

We have expanded the opportunity for people to get jobs. They want to eliminate that. We have tried to make this whole system more equitable, more fair, and more genuine. They are trying to provide more funding for the wealthiest people and less for the working people and fewer opportunities for the working people.

For all of those reasons, we oppose this legislation, and we hope that most of the population of this district will oppose it as well.

Madam Chair, for 8 years I was the insurance commissioner in California. And for 8 years I battled the health insurance industry. What we heard on the floor was that 2011, what will we remember? What it will be remembered for is the death of Medicare, the demise, the death of Medicare. The most successful insurance program, the most successful health insurance program in this Nation.

It works. It is efficient. It is effective. It is a nationwide standard policy available to every American 65 years of age and older and some of those who are younger.

I heard the author of this bill a moment ago saying competition would make it better. In fact, it does not. In fact, it does not.

The private health insurance industry is inefficient. It is ineffective, it is discriminatory and it clearly, clearly harms customers. There is a profit motive that has to be paid for. There are compensations for the sale and compensations for those who sell the insurance. All of that adds up.

It is also extremely inefficient in that there are multiple policies, multiple people that have to be paid, insurance companies that have to be paid, different deductions, different copays. All of that is out there.

My Republican colleagues have done everything they can to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, which had insurance reform in it. Without the insurance reform, which clearly they want to do away with, you are throwing senior citizens to the sharks, to health insurance.

I urge us not to do that.

Will the gentleman yield?

If the gentleman would yield, I will answer his question.

Point of order ma'am.

Madam Chair, a point of order.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we've heard a lot of discussion here this evening about what economic policy works, where do the deficits come from. Let's just figure it out.

Beginning with this man over here--I think we would all recognize him--that would be Ronald Reagan. After every year, at the end of the year, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, makes a projection of what's going to happen in the next 10 years. At the end of Ronald Reagan's period, they did their projection, and they said, voila, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. Followed by George Bush the senior. At the end of his 4 years, they did another estimate: What's going to happen in the next 10 years? Well, let's see. That says a $3.3 trillion deficit. How about that?

We were just talking about some economic policy here a minute ago. Well, let's talk about the Clinton period. At the end of the Clinton period, 8 years, another projection was made by the Congressional Budget Office: What's going to happen in the next 10 years? A $5.6 trillion surplus, enough to pay off all of the American debt.

How did it happen? How did it happen?

It happened this way: Early in his administration, they set about to deal with the deficit. There was a tax increase. It cost my Democratic colleagues the House. But they did it. They put it in place. And they also put in place PAYGO and the balanced budget amendment. What happened was that in those 8 years was the largest job growth in America's history except in the 1950-1960 period. It was enormous job growth. More than 20 million jobs were created and extraordinary revenue growth.

So much for the argument we just heard.

In fact, a combination of holding tight on the budget together with a tax increase worked. I was part of that administration, and we were told to reinvent government. We did. At the Department of the Interior, we reduced the number of employees from 90,000 to 75,000, and we maintained and actually increased the efficiency and the effectiveness of that Department. It can and it was done.

However, let's take a look at George W. Bush, the most recent Bush presidency. At the end of his presidency, the Congressional Budget Office did their estimate, and they came up with an $11.5 trillion deficit in the years ahead.

How did it happen? It happened this way: He cut taxes year one, 2001, cut taxes. Year two, 2002, cut taxes. Two wars unpaid for, borrowed money from China, and then backed away from all regulation of Wall Street, and the great crash. The result: An $11.5 trillion deficit. The day Barack Obama came into office, he was handed a $1.3 trillion bill due. That's what the Republican President gave to this Nation and to this Congress. So we've set about solving it.

Now I want to move to another issue here, which happens to be this debate about Medicare. You're not going to solve the Medicare problem, which is one of ever-increasing cost in the underlying health sector of America. When I first got into this in 1991 as insurance commissioner, 9 percent of the American economy was in medical services. This year it's approaching 18 percent. You cannot solve this problem by throwing senior citizens off Medicare. It does not solve it.

Do not throw the seniors to the wolves. The wolves are the insurance companies. I know. I was the insurance commissioner for 8 years, and I fought those characters every year I was in office. I know what they will do to seniors. They will rip them off, they will deny benefits, they will deny coverage, and they will not control cost.

In California this year, insurance companies are raising costs by 20 to 40 percent. Medicare went up 6 percent. Medicare is efficient. Medicare is efficient. It is a nationwide policy. You can get it anywhere in this Nation. There is no administrative cost that even comes close to what the insurance companies' administrative costs are, perhaps 30 percent of the premium. Profit, sales, expenses, all of those things added up, and that includes the chaos at the delivery, the medical delivery. We need to change that.

You want to deal with something more? Take a look at this. This is Medicaid. In Medicaid, the Republican budget intends to cut Medicaid by three-quarters of $1 trillion in the next decade. Who gets Medicaid? Senior citizens and the disabled. The aged, blind and disabled get Medicaid. And this is immediate.

I'm just getting warmed up.

Who gets Medicaid? The aged, the blind and the disabled get Medicaid.

The Republican budget cuts Medicaid three-quarters of $1 trillion. Seniors will be--not 10 years from now, but immediately, as those budget reductions take place, according to the Republicans--thrown out of nursing homes.

I just finished a conversation not more than 2 hours ago with the owner

of nursing homes in California. He said, Don't let them do it. We're just hanging on. Any further reductions, any reductions in the Republican bill will force us to send out of our nursing homes the Medi-Cal, which are people covered by Medicaid.

Who are these children? These are the children in poverty. The children in poverty get medical services from Medicaid, and Medi-Cal in California, 20 percent. Are those the people you want to throw out in the street? You will do it.

Madam Chair, I want to speak directly to the senior citizens of America and to those who want to become senior citizens. The Republican budget destroys, terminates Medicare as we know it today. Under the Republican budget, in 10 years Medicare will no longer exist as it is today, a guaranteed benefit available to every American who turns 65. It will be over. Instead, you will be given a voucher, a voucher that will be insufficient to pay for your health insurance, and there is no guarantee what that health insurance will be.

Let me speak also to those who are on Medicare today. The Republican budget over the next 10 years removes three-quarters of a trillion dollars, $771 billion, from Medicaid. Medicaid provides services to the aged, blind, and disabled. Those senior citizens that are in nursing homes stand the risk of being thrown out of the nursing homes.

I want to now speak to those who want to become 65, who want to live long enough to get into Medicare. If you are 55 years of age and younger, you will not have Medicare if the Republican budget becomes law. It is over. It is terminated. It is gone. Instead, you will be given a voucher to go talk to the insurance companies. And what will you talk about? You will talk about pain, pain, pain.

They say that there is no tax shift in this. In fact, there is a $6,000 tax equivalent to every person 55 and younger.

You are going to wind up paying an additional $6,000.