Transcript of Pelosi, Van Hollen Press Conference Today

Washington, D.C. - Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, held a press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center.  Below is a transcript of the press conference.  

Leader Pelosi.  Good morning.  Good morning, again.  I'm pleased to be here with our distinguished ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee.  That is the subject of the day, week, hour, year.  It is a valid statement of our national values, and we are very proud of the work of our House Democrats on the Budget Committee.

Yesterday, President Obama promoted a strong vision for America's future, a clear statement of our principles, and a vision and a plan.  He made it clear that we have a responsibility to create jobs, to educate our children, to protect the health of our seniors, to strengthen or middle class as we focus on reducing the deficit.  His plan is one about shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, with each of us contributing to the future prosperity of our great country.

Today marks the 100th anniversary, the 100th day, of the Republicans having the majority in the House of Representatives.  In the past 100 days, the Republicans have created no jobs and do not have a jobs agenda.  They are voting to end Medicare as we know it, and while they give big subsidies to Big Oil they have voted to deny patient's bill of rights.  They have voted to deny women's health issues.  That is the record of the first 100 days.

Democrats will move forward to create jobs, to strengthen the middle class, grow the economy, and to do this in a way that reduces the deficit.

The GOP budget, as you know, it ends Medicare while giving tax subsidies to Big Oil.  It block grants Medicaid, throwing many seniors out of nursing homes, while it gives tax breaks to companies sending jobs overseas.  It cuts education and increases the cost of college for many young adults, while it continues to give tax cuts to the rich.  It is unfair.

We will judge every measure that comes before us as to whether it creates jobs, reduces the deficit, strengthens the middle class, or grows the economy.  That is exactly what our Democratic budget does.

And I'm pleased to yield the floor to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee Mr. Van Hollen.

Congressman Van Hollen.  Thank you, Madam Leader.  It's great to be with all of you today.  As the Leader said, everyone is very focused on the budgets and what values and priorities they reflect.  And the question is not whether we need to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit; the question is how we do it, and what choices we make in the process.  And the President laid out very clearly those choices.

Later today or tomorrow, we will offer a Democratic alternative that reduces the deficit and debt in a steady and predictable way without doing damage and harm to our fragile economic recovery, and making--ensuring that we make the investments we need to make to keep this country's economy strong going forward.

The Republican budget in contrast is the wrong choice for America.  And as the Leader said, the choice that it makes is to provide millionaires and the wealthiest in the country, oil companies with tax breaks and subsidies at the same time they slash investments in education for our kids, end the Medicare guarantee, and will end important supports for seniors in nursing homes, poor kids and disabled individuals who rely on Medicaid.

Now, with respect to Medicare, it should be very clear about two things.  We need to be clear about two things.  Number one, while the Republican budget adopted some of the Medicare reforms that we made as part of the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform act, that we made by getting rid of some of the overpayments and subsidies to some of the bigger insurance companies, the Medicare Advantage plans, they demagogued those reforms before, but they took those savings in their budget.

But unlike what we did, which was to say that we are going to use some of those savings to close the prescription drug donut hole, they took the savings, but they left that donut hole wide open.  In fact, they reopened it, because under the current law it will be closed over a period of time.  Under the Republican budget, that is wide open once again.  And that happens immediately.  The day that Republican bill were to pass, that donut hole widens up again as, and also what goes away, a lot of the preventive care services that we provided seniors.  So that happens right away.  And by the way, the impact on vulnerable seniors, and others in nursing homes and poor kids, that's going to happen right away in their bill.

Now what they do that is entirely different than what we did last year is they end the Medicare guarantee going forward.  And people need to be very clear about what this does, because they force seniors to leave the Medicare program and go into the private insurance market where costs continue to rise day in and day out.  And they're going to force the seniors to eat those costs because they're going to give them    I don't care what you call it, voucher payments or whatever you call it, the point is this:  The seniors are going to bear the costs of rising health care.  This chart show it very clearly.  And the President mentioned what happens to seniors in the year 2022 under their plan.

Under the current Medicare system, you see this breakdown in the share.  So the Medicare program pays $8,600, and the senior citizen on Medicare pays $6,150.  So you can see the difference.  This is the senior under the Republican plan in the year 2020 is going to pay $6,350 more.  Bear in mind these are individuals who are on fixed incomes, they are retired, and now they are being asked to eat those costs of the Republican plan.  And it gets worse and worse and worse as time goes on.  These are based on CBO numbers.

So by the time you get to the year 2030, the senior retiree you see under the Republican budget, the government's share, the Medicare program's share, is much smaller.  The senior is paying much larger than they would be under the current law.  And, in fact, the difference there is $11,550.  So as time goes on, the seniors are asked to eat a larger and larger amount of the costs.

Let me close with this.  One of the Republican talking points has been, well, we are just giving to seniors what Members of Congress and Federal employees have.  Just not true, because under the Federal employees' plan which Members of Congress are on, you have what is called the fair share formula.  And the program, Federal Government, picks up a fixed share, about 72 percent thereabouts of the cost.  So as premiums rise, the risk shared between the employer, the government, and the employee is fixed as well.

The whole way this makes money is by not sharing those, the risks of those rising costs, between the senior and the Medicare program.  The way this saves money is to put those costs on the seniors.

So very simply, the Republican plan gives seniors a very raw deal and does not give seniors the deal that Members of Congress give themselves.  They give seniors a much worse deal.

Leader Pelosi.  One further point for your information.  These projections here are contained in a letter from Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, to Chairman Ryan, dated April 11th.  This is an extension that was based on that.  But you can find these figures in that letter.

Q:  Madam Leader, before you turn to the budget, there is the question of where you are, wrapping up this year's spending.  How are you going to vote?  And if you are going to oppose it, why are you going against a deal that President Obama and the Democratic leaders of the Senate worked out?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, I haven't made any statement as to how I would vote, but it was pretty evident that the House Democrats were not any part of that agreement.  I would rather call it an agreement rather than a deal.  It was self evident that the Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate were the two majorities.  They were the ones who had the vote, so they had the strength to negotiate, and the President presided over that.  I feel no ownership of that or any responsibility to it, except that we don't want to shut down government.

Q:  So how are you going to vote?

Leader Pelosi.  I will be consulting with my Ranking Members to see what impact it has on our homeland security, consumer protections…Every domestic initiative in the bill has had a cut from 2010.  The defense has had an increase, and tax cuts for the rich are still thriving and well in all of the stuff that is going on here.  There is no change in that.  So I will have to make an evaluation.

Q:  Some of the liberal members of your caucus think the President gave away too much in this deal.  Do you share that sentiment?

Leader Pelosi.  I'm studying it, and I will make an evaluation as I vote in consultation with my Members.  You have to remember that we didn't see this until Monday night or Tuesday morning.  It was--some of the particulars within subcommittee jurisdiction were not determined until the beginning of this week.  So we are making evaluation about it.  But it was very important to keep government open.  We all support that.

Q:  Madam Leader, do you get a sense that there is a very wide swath of your caucus that will vote against this?

Leader Pelosi.  I don't have any idea.

Q:  And do you think that part of that, do you think, how many, a third?

Leader Pelosi.  We have not whipped it.  We have not encouraged one way or another.  People are just making their own judgments about it, because you are talking about subjects that people know a great deal about, but they all do want to keep government open.  So that will be part of the equities that will be weighed as we make a determination.

Q:  And to follow up, do you think some who do vote no, have they told you that are doing so because of their displeasure with the President; they felt they were sold down the river in the tax deal in the fall?

Leader Pelosi.  No, I haven't heard that at all.  It is about the particulars of the bill that is before them.  They will make a judgment about what they believe, and that is how they will vote.

Q:  When were you Speaker and you brought bills to the floor, typically you had 218 of your Members to bring it across the finish line.  Speaker Boehner has relied on the Democrats in the PATRIOT Act, on previous CRs.  Could you reflect on that a little bit?  What does that mean about his leadership and his caucus, having been in that position before?

Leader Pelosi.  Every caucus is different.  He has many new members, and as you indicated, we had to keep government open with, 84 Democrats, I think, voted for that first continuing resolution, while 54 Republicans voted against it.  But you're just going to have to talk to him about the dynamic within his caucus.

What we did--I can speak to what we did--we came to the floor when we had consensus.  There was a lot of collaborative working together, whether it was regional disparities, whether it was philosophical differences, whether it was generational, ethnic, you name it, every difference, because we have a very diverse caucus.  I call it the giant kaleidoscope.

You have to make sure that the design has 218.  That affects certain people one time and other people another time.  But we always put the bill together together, and that's what we did.  You'd have to talk to him about his dynamics.

Q:  Madam Leader, if the Speaker loses support because of these recent CBO numbers, and it appears that the bill might not have enough votes to make it over the threshold, will you assure that there are enough Democrats to make it pass? 

Leader Pelosi.  Well, you know, again, we have our own collaboration in our caucus and respect each other's thinking that will take us to a place when the vote comes to the floor.  And so we will see, but it was as is clearly evident, the Speaker spoke for the House of Representatives in those negotiations for his majority.  I have--I have always thought that if he didn't have enough votes, if he didn't get 218 on his own, that there would be Democrats who could help put it over the top.  It's just a question of how big that disparity is.

But I think that the fact that many of us have our unease with what is in there should signal to the Republicans that they should probably feel pretty be comfortable with the bill.

Q:  Madam Leader, if there are a certain number of Democrats that are needed to push it over the top, is there a price for that, or is it free? 

Leader Pelosi.  Oh, this is about keeping government open, this is about our responsibility to the public.

Q:  Yes, but you have leverage in that case. 

Leader Pelosi.  When you say 'a price to pay,' what do you mean?

Q:  A price to pay for your support.  You're in a discussion with the Speaker, and he needs your help on something very important like this.

Leader Pelosi.  Well, I think that kind of negotiation is something that could have gone on before so that we could have weighed in on the bill.  It's a little late for that because the bill is what it is.  But, you know, I assume they have the votes.  They seem pretty confident.  I think you sound less confident than they do.  They seem pretty confident about what they have, and, you know, since it's their product in terms of the House Republicans, they seem pretty confident that they are going to be able to deliver.  And so we will see.

Q:  Can I ask you about this chart, if I could again?  2012, this may be a dumb question, but one of the primary goals of last year's health care law was to reduce or stabilize costs.  One of the Republican arguments is because costs will be reduced or stabilized, you won't get these huge increases.  Aren't you arguing against your own health care law to say costs will go up?  Explain that disconnection.

Congressman Van Hollen.  The issue is the rate of increase.

Q:  Right, but you supposedly stabilized the rate.

Congressman Van Hollen.  No, the issue is the rate of increase in costs, and, in fact, the reforms that were made in Medicare will, and within the whole health care bill, do slow the rate of cost of increase.

Now, with respect to the entire health care system, as you know, 2014 is the year where the exchanges kick in, and that's when you get the benefits systemwide of driving down costs, because people no longer use emergency rooms as their primary care, which is very inefficient both for their own health and for the taxpayer.

But there were also some changes in Medicare, and you also, as the President mentioned, you also have the IPAP.  Now one of the ironies of the Republican proposal is, unlike the President who said that he is going to look for ways through IPAP to be able to reduce costs without putting the burden on the senior and the beneficiary, is by repealing health care, they have repealed one of the efforts to constrain the cost increases in Medicare as the same time they are going to ask the seniors to eat more of those costs.  They not only are going to make Medicare costs go up faster, but they are going to demand that the seniors pay a greater percentage of the cost.

Q:  You're assuming that they repeal health care, which is not going to happen, at least not in the next few years.

Congressman Van Hollen.  What?

Q:  You're assuming repeal of health care.  These figures don't make sense if you are going to stabilize health care costs.  If your bill works, it doesn't make sense. 

Congressman Van Hollen.  Medicare costs have been rising very rapidly.  This is based on the, I'm happy to give it to you, the CBO analysis.  In fact, they have charts in there that these are based off of.  This is based off of their analysis.

Leader Pelosi.  Let me just say this, if you are sitting at home, and, like me, you are over 65 years of age, and you are wondering what this means to you, what this means to you is that you will no longer be able to choose your doctor.  Your money that has been put into the system now goes to the insurance company.  They will tell you what doctors you may choose.  You may no longer choose your own doctor.  If you are 54 and a half, just about 55 years old, in 10 years you will not have the option to sign up for Medicare.  It will be gone.

In 1995, then Speaker Newt Gingrich [said] Medicare will wither on the vine because people will voluntarily leave it.  "Voluntarily," he said.  This goes one step further by not having it be there for you to sign up for if you are 55 years or younger.

So again, for those who are at home wondering what does this mean to me, it means when this bill passes, and the instructions are given to implement it to the committees of jurisdiction, you no longer can choose your own doctor.

Didn't you have one already?  No?  Okay.

Q:  Can you talk about the equities in the way, in terms of the removal of the provision to defund Planned Parenthood, but the cuts in women's health and family planning from HHS that would remain in the bill if it is passed?  How important is that going to figure?

Leader Pelosi.  Well, it will figure because it is a very important issue to women in our country.  And one of the main things that we have in our affordable health care bill was that being a woman will no longer be a preexisting medical condition; that women will have access to reproductive health.

For decades we have been saying to the American people that the Republicans in Congress do not support family planning and everything that goes with it, and I'm not sure they understand everything that goes with it, but women do.

And so with the legislation now they have said by their actions more eloquently than we could ever tell people with their words how radical they are when it comes to family planning.  Abortion is one issue.  Family planning is something [else]…we know they oppose a woman's right to choose abortion.  We all want to reduce the number of abortions in our country, but in terms of family planning, that is one way to do it, which they do not support.

So it is again not the dollars and cents, it is the values.  It's the higher ground, not the common ground that you try to find and make a budget deal.  It is the higher ground of what does this mean to the respect that we have for women our country?  What does this mean to the dignity of a family and the woman to determine the size and the timing of her family.  This is all very, very important.

As we go into the next phase, which will be when we talk about the debt ceiling, as you know, the President has asked us to appoint Members to a group that will be talking about some of the options that are there in order to reduce the deficit.  Of course, we want to reduce the deficit to create jobs, not deter the growth of the economy, and as we strengthen the middle class.

I'm very proud of the amendments that were put on the table in the Budget Committee by Mr. Van Hollen and the House Democrats here.  One of them that I would like to try out in that forum is while the Republicans say they're not    it is a nonstarter to have any tax increases for the rich, I would like--and now it is $250 [thousand] and above--what we're saying those tax cuts should go away, I would like to know what they think about $1 million and above.  Make, not have.  If you make $1 million a year, should you not participate in the sense of community of our country?  Should you not, can we not raise the taxes on people making $1 million and above?

So just to take us to the next scenario, which seems to be a place to tax the well to do or not, let's just clear it up to $1 million.  Mr. Van Hollen, that was one of the amendments in the committee.  Do you want to speak to that?

Congressman Van Hollen.  Sure.  I mean, there were a couple of amendments on this issue, but this was an amendment that we proposed to our Republican colleagues to--we all say we want to reduce the deficit.  Let's do it in a balanced way.  Let's do it in a balanced way.  We understand you're going to have to make some cuts in certain areas, but we should also ask the folks at very high income ladder just to go back to the same rate that was in effect in the Clinton Administration, a time when the economy was roaring and 20 million jobs were created.

So they didn't want to do that, so we said, okay, how about just for folks over a billion dollars?  Well, they didn't want to do that either.  In fact, as you know, in their budget plan they actually cut the top rate by 30 percent.  They bring it down from 35 percent to 25 percent.  You do the math.  If you do that, what they said they want to do in a revenue neutral way, the folks at the very top, millionaires and very wealthy people will pay a lot less, and who is going to have to pay more in order to make it revenue neutral?  Middle income taxpayers.  It is going to shift the burden from, it's going to, in order to give the tax breaks to those at the very top, middle income taxpayers will have to pay more.

That is the basic math of their plan.  So we put in an amendment saying let's not raise taxes on middle income Americans in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, and they voted against that, too.

Leader Pelosi.  And they give a $100,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, while in the same conversations they are asking seniors to pay so much more for their basic health care.

Thank you all very much.