Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for yielding to tell him how proud he makes us all for his important work in constructing a Democratic alternative to the Republican budget, that is, Mr. Van Hollen's budget proposal that is a statement of our national values that says to the American people what is important to you about the education, health and well-being of our children, the economic security of their families, and the health security of our seniors, those are important values to us; and those values are reflected in the Democratic alternative.

The Republican Ryan bill, on the other hand, I do not believe is a statement of our national values as to what is important to the American people as reflected in their budget priorities. But you be the judge. Would it be a statement of your values if you had a budget that said to seniors we're going to end the Medicare guarantee and you're going to pay $6,000 or more while you get less in terms of benefits, while at the same time, we're going to give an over $300 billion tax break to the wealthiest people in our country? Would that be a statement of your values, this $6,000 more for seniors with fewer benefits, $300,000 or more to the richest people in our country?

Would it be a statement of your values for you, my colleagues and the American people you represent, if you had a budget that said to Big Oil, we're going to continue to subsidize you to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, but at the same time, we're going to freeze Pell Grants, we're going to eliminate them for 400,000 young people and make them less available to over 9 million young people? Lower the benefits for some, eliminate it for others, and use the money to give tax subsidies to Big Oil, Big Oil which is making tens of billions of dollars in record profits each year?

Would it be a statement of your values if you said in your budget that all of those young people who are now children who have a preexisting medical condition--asthma, diabetes, birth defect--any of those preexisting medical conditions, under present law, under the Affordable Care Act, they may not be discriminated against in obtaining health insurance? But the Republican budget says they should be because we're going to eliminate that.

To the 2.5 million young people who are now on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old, this budget says ``no'' to you too. We're eliminating that. We're too busy giving tax breaks to the richest people in America. And while we're at it, with young people just graduating from college, some of them may have student loans, and in the House budget--thank you, Mr. Van Hollen--in the House budget, we have a provision that says that come July 1, the interest on those loans will not double. We have taken care of that. Under the circumstances, the path we're on, the interest rates would go from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The House Democratic budget says ``no'' to that doubling of interest. The Republican budget keeps it the same.

That's just to name a few things that I think may not be a statement of the values of the American people, whether it's interest paid on student loans, availability of Pell Grants to young people, ending the Medicare guarantee, and as the distinguished ranking member said, right now today, overturning the resources that were put in the Affordable Care Act to reduce, to narrow the doughnut hole. Maybe 5 million seniors have benefited to the tune of $3.2 billion already in the bill. Also, there are preventative services; there are annual wellness visits without a copay.

So we're talking about kitchen table items for people where people are trying to make ends meet, where people wonder about if their children will be able to go to college, and if they do, will they be able to have health insurance so that when they look for a job, they can reach their aspirations without having their choices only narrowed by whether they have health insurance or not until the bill comes into full effect.

So there are just a couple of things that I would want people to know about this bill. They are: ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee; ends the Medicare guarantee while making seniors pay more for less, while giving over $300 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country. And by the way, did I mention it? It's a job loser.

So I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support the House Democratic proposal, which is a statement of our values and which our distinguished colleague will present--I don't know if it's tonight or tomorrow morning. I understand that it keeps changing.

The House Democratic alternative invests in America's priorities, creates jobs, protects our seniors and our students, strengthens the middle class. Democrats protect Medicare; Republicans dismantle Medicare. The Democratic plan asks the wealthiest to pay their fair share and put our fiscal house in order; the Republican plan gives them more than the tax break they've had, they almost double their tax break.

Our Democratic plan reflects the most enduring theme in America, the American Dream. Democrats want to reignite the American Dream, to build ladders of opportunity for all who want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility. It does this by investing in small businesses and entrepreneurialism in our country, by strengthening the middle class. In that regard, we believe that our budget is a statement of our values.

We call upon our Republican colleagues to work with us on a budget that reflects our values. We must work together to protect and strengthen Medicare. We must put people back to work and build a broadly shaped prosperity for all Americans. We must make it in America to stop the erosion of our manufacturing base. We must rebuild America, putting people back to work. We must do this with community involvement. And all of these things strengthen the middle class, which is exactly what our Democratic alternative achieves.

For the sake of our seniors, for our families, for our children, for our workers, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican plan, which ends the Medicare guarantee and makes seniors pay $6,000 or more for fewer benefits while it gives $300,000 in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the United States. And it costs us jobs to do so and doesn't reduce the deficit until nearly 2040. It's not a good deal for the American people. The Democratic budget is.

I urge a ``yes'' on the Van Hollen budget, a ``no'' on the Ryan Republican budget.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source