Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 801 (H.R. 320) had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

As we seek ways to get America's economy growing again, one part of this effort must be to create the right environment to grow private-sector, cutting-edge jobs and cutting-edge industries. That is why I have joined several of my colleagues in a bipartisan, bicameral basis to introduce legislation that will keep America on the front edge of scientific research and development and offer new opportunities for job creation in America's life sciences industry.

This legislation provides targeted tax credits to promote innovation, entrepreneurship, and new, high-quality jobs here at home. It expands on the research and development tax credit, and allows companies to bring back overseas earnings for the purpose of creating American jobs and investing in American startup companies.

American universities, research centers, and private companies are the world leaders in medical sciences and the development of new medical devices and therapeutics, but we are no longer alone. This legislation will help ensure that our life sciences industries maintain their competitive edge in the global marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of innovative small businesses and the new jobs that they create. Let's help them create the cures and treatments of tomorrow right here at home today.

We are faced with an important moment for our Nation: a moment of enormous economic uncertainty, a moment to significantly reduce our deficit and make the right choices for our future.

The Boehner bill does neither. As a result, it has little support from either side of the aisle because it does not seriously reduce the deficit. It will ensure uncertainty in the markets for many, many months ahead, and it cuts $1 trillion over 10 years.

Speaker Boehner had the opportunity, in working with the President, to reduce the deficit, not by $1 trillion but by $4 trillion, and he walked away from that plan. The Gang of Six made a bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit by $3 trillion, and he rejected that plan as well. This moment is about choices. Speaker Boehner made a choice to walk away from the plans that offered trillions of dollars in deficit reduction, and he substituted, instead, a political document with significantly less deficit reduction.

This is not a serious proposal, and we have little time to avoid default. Let's stop wasting time. Members from both sides of the aisle should reject this bill because it is an inadequate response to both deficit reduction and because of the harm it will do to our Nation's economy.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the ranking member and this discussion.

Let me be very clear. Let me start by just saying that Republicans continue to play politics rather than do what is best for this country, particularly to do what is responsible at a critical time for our Nation. They are once again holding American families and American businesses hostage by threatening to allow the United States to default on our debt, to not meet our responsibilities until their extreme ideological demands are met.

Their plan is not a balanced approach to what is right for our country. It ends the Medicare guarantee for our seniors. Let me repeat that: It ends the Medicare guarantee for our seniors. And it slashes educational opportunities for the next generation of Americans. It inhibits our ability to foster an environment for private sector economic growth by cutting any chance of investment in scientific research and technology, in roads, bridges and highways, and in access to higher education, to the very, very kinds of actions we need to take to establish an atmosphere for private sector growth in this Nation, whether large or small business.

The Republican plan is disastrous at a very fragile time in our economic recovery. It will devastate America's future economic competitiveness. The Republican majority has yet to produce legislation that puts the American economy back on track and Americans back to work.

This legislation guarantees that we won't meet our obligations of the Nation to our seniors or to our children, and it would dramatically reduce our ability to compete in a global economy. Make no mistake, the Republican plan is, and always has been, to cut Social Security and Medicare, to cap economic opportunity, and to balance the budget on the backs of middle class families.

Cut, Cap, and Balance is bad for American families, bad for American businesses, and bad for our Nation's economy now and into the future. We should not let it pass.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 518, the Sherman Amendment on H.R. 2219, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Huntingdon Valley Fire Company #1 as they celebrate their 100th anniversary.

One does not need to look far to see signs of the distinguished history of Huntingdon Valley Fire Company. After their founding the company used a local barn to store their equipment; that barn still stands just up the road from the current firehouse. After struggling to raise funds for equipment, a locomotive tire was donated to the company to be used as an alarm bell. The tire is currently hanging in front of the firehouse. The fire company's website shows pictures of every major piece of equipment the company has owned in its century long history.

In addition to the ties to their founding, the fire company also has a consistent record of being strongly supported by the community. The use of the old barn to store their first pieces of equipment in 1911 was volunteered by a local resident. To raise funds for their first fire wagon in 1911 the company held carnivals, dances, and minstrel shows for the community. Their first make-shift fire alarm, the locomotive tire, was donated by the Midvale Steel Company. In 1912 the four wheeled fire cart was pulled by the closest two horses available. When the fire company needed to build a new addition to their garage it was built and paid for by members of the company. In 1929 the residents contributed the funds necessary to purchase a piece of modern fire equipment. With the growth in population of the 1940's it became clear that the fire company needed additional funds to continue to provide fire protection. A question was raised and the community agreed that a fire tax was necessary to ensure that the company had the funds needed to purchase and maintain modern firefighting equipment.

Over the 100 years that Huntingdon Valley fire company has been protecting its residents they have upgraded their equipment, modernized their operation, and expanded their services. Through the decades, the fire company has never lost sight of their original goal of fulfilling the time honored tradition of volunteers risking their lives to protect their neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the Huntingdon Valley Fire Company as they mark their 100th year of protecting the community.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1216.

This legislation is yet another Republican attack on health care innovations that promise to increase patient access to care. We must make a successful transition to a more efficient, high-quality health system and, through health care reform, we can.

Instead, Republicans are making every effort to undermine this mission by chipping away at the graduate medical education system.

H.R. 1216 threatens progress toward patient-centered health care delivery, in which primary physicians ensure that patients receive preventive, comprehensive and ongoing care.

Academic medical centers have long been integral to developing innovative treatments and assuring access to care for Americans who need the most help. As we begin to implement health care reform, these institutions are seeking to become leaders in biomedical science as well as innovators in new delivery models.

The Albert Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, for example, was recently approved as a patient-centered medical home. The Hospital and its network of physicians is now offering patients a new model of coordinated, continuous care in an academic setting, all while improving quality and reducing costs.

Community-based training, such as the teaching health center program, is a valuable supplement to our Nation's prestigious teaching hospitals.

Our Nation faces a crisis in access to primary care--more than 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries have difficulty finding a new primary care physician.

In 1961, half of U.S. physicians were generalists, primarily general practitioners. Since then, the percentage has dramatically declined, while the cost of delivering care has increased substantially.

While our Nation's hospital-based teaching programs yield thousands of highly trained physicians, we simply do not have the capacity to meet demand--specifically when it comes to primary care.

The teaching health center program is uniquely positioned to address primary care training for underserved populations.

Community-based training models, such as teaching health centers, will serve the Nation by creating new capacity in our graduate medical education system, which will lead to an increase in the total number of primary care physicians.

Primary care and community-based health centers, particularly, produce excellent outcomes at lower costs, and have the potential to save the system billions of dollars annually by preventing avoidable emergency room visits.

If every American made use of primary care, the health care system would see $67 billion in savings annually.

Yet this bill would create uncertainty and unpredictability in a program intended to move us toward this ideal.

I urge my colleagues to support training of primary care physicians and cost-saving innovations by opposing H.R. 1216.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 11, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall vote No. 312, the Connolly of Virginia Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 1231.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the amendment.

For decades, Medicare has been a lifeline for older Americans, providing quality and affordable health coverage to all seniors in this country. The creation of the Medicare program in 1965 addressed the fundamental challenge of ensuring aging seniors access to essential health care. Before Medicare, almost half of all seniors over 65 had no insurance at all. Seniors were just not a good risk for private insurers, and they still aren't.

Medicare is a promise to American seniors that we would not abandon them even as they age, even as they need medical care--until now. The Republican budget will end Medicare as we know it, offering a limited voucher and expecting seniors to find insurance no matter how sick they are or how expensive it is.

Every day, 48 million elderly and disabled Americans count on Medicare for their lifesaving medications, doctor visits, and hospital care. Seniors know that changing Medicare to a voucher program means they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits. Seniors know that privatizing Medicare means limits on benefits; obstacles to care; and uncertain reimbursements, copayments for primary care and specialty care; exclusions for certain services; discrimination based on income, illness or age; and uncertainty if serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. Seniors know that privatizing and voucherizing Medicare will mean that they pay more in premiums or do without.

And it doesn't end there. The Republican budget also threatens Medicaid for nearly 6 million disabled and frail elderly who depend on it for their nursing home and home health services.

American seniors are not looking for handouts. They're looking for the security that they have earned and we have promised.

Budgets are about choices. In this very same budget where Republicans end Medicare as we know it, they protect billions of dollars in tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry. They protect billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

Budgets are about our priorities and our values. Yes, we should get serious about our deficit. But let's get our priorities right and not threaten our obligation to our seniors, our children, and our future.

For decades, Medicare has been a lifeline for older Americans, providing quality and affordable health care for all seniors. But this week House Republicans are proposing to strip seniors of this guaranteed benefit. The Republican budget proposal dismantles Medicare as we know it, telling seniors they are going to be on their own to find insurance no matter what the cost or how sick they are. And it slashes Medicaid coverage for seniors who need long-term care, threatening our sickest, most frail elderly in nursing homes with no care at all. This is absolutely the wrong approach to solving our Nation's budget problems.

Every day, 48 million elderly and disabled Americans across this country count on Medicare for their life-saving medications, doctor visits, and hospital care. Sixty-nine percent of people over the age of 65, and they are both Democrats and Republicans, oppose Medicare becoming a voucher program. Seniors know that changing Medicare to a voucher program means that they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits, that the value of a limited voucher won't keep up with rising health care costs, that the voucher would become insufficient over time, and the care they need could become unaffordable, that too many taxpayer dollars will be spent on advertising campaigns and administrative costs instead of actual medical expenses.

And seniors know that privatizing Medicare means limits on benefits, obstacles to care, uncertain reimbursements, copayments for primary care or specialty care, exclusions for certain services, discrimination based on income, illness, or age, and more uncertainty if a serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. Seniors know that privatizing or voucherizing Medicare will mean that they pay more in premiums or do without. And it doesn't end there.

In addition to Medicare cuts, Republicans also want to take away Medicaid for the nearly 6 million seniors who depend on it for nursing home or long-term care. They say proudly that they will cut funding to States by $1 trillion. This means that disabled and frail elderly Americans will be placed on waiting lists for services or have no access to care at all.

In Pennsylvania, my home State, nearly 40 percent of funds spent on long-term care would be at risk. This includes 62 percent of nursing home residents and 25,000 Pennsylvanian seniors who receive home health services.

And yet when Republicans had the opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining and strengthening care for our seniors, they demonized the plan, voting time and again to stop important improvements in Medicare. And they still want to repeal the law that eliminates copayments for preventive care services, that makes prescription drug benefits more affordable and improves coordination of care and health outcomes, reduces errors and reduces costs for seniors.

They want to repeal the law that curbs the growth in Medicare spending, saves taxpayers almost $500 billion by ending overpayments to insurance companies, and extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund for 12 years. Instead, the Republicans here in Washington want to end Medicare as we know it and put health care for American seniors at great risk.

As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I know how important it is to find solutions to reducing the deficit. To do this right, the solution must include spending cuts, tax policy reform, and economic growth.

We should not fix our budget problems by failing to meet our obligations to our seniors. Every day we hear how determined Republicans are to slash billions of dollars from the central programs because we simply can't afford it. They say we can't afford to make investments in the future. We can't afford to educate our children or fix our roads or fuel innovation or cover health care costs for seniors.

Yet in the same proposal to slash Medicare and Medicaid for millions of seniors, Republicans make permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. In the very same budget proposal where Republicans take away guaranteed benefits for seniors, they protect billions of tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

In the very same budget proposal where Republicans give seniors a limited voucher to pay for higher insurance premiums, they protect the Pentagon from spending cuts on unnecessary weapon systems.

One trillion dollars in tax expenditures, $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy few, $40 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, and billions of dollars to continue inefficiencies at the Pentagon--all of this spending is protected by the Republican budget. And instead, they choose to slash benefits to our seniors and our disabled Americans.

Budgets are about priorities and they're about our values. Yes, we should get serious about our Nation's deficit, but let's be sure that our priorities are right and we do not threaten our obligations to our seniors, to our children, or to America's future.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Thank you very much. I'm pleased to participate in their conversation, and I just want to make a few comments, and then maybe we can talk further about really what the Republicans proposed in their budget.

We sit on the Budget Committee. We went through 12 hours in what we call here in Congress a markup, but really it was a debate and a real reflection on the contrast between what the Republicans are offering to the American people and the way to tackle what are very, very serious financial problems for the country. I think we all agree that they're serious, that we have to make sure that we take seriously the deficit and bring down the deficit over time and be able to get to a balanced budget at some point and begin to pay down the national debt. We all agree on that.

The real issue here is how do we do it? What are the choices we are making? What's on the table for discussion? And we offered up a number of suggestions and ways that we might take some of the money--you've talked about this already before I got here, about the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, the tax subsidies for the five largest oil and gas companies. We're talking about literally hundreds of billions of dollars here, that instead they have chosen to

protect those subsidies and those tax breaks and instead to make real cuts in what we believe are some real priorities for us. So budgets are all about choices and priorities.

I want to particularly talk about not just the spending cuts and where else we might be able to take spending cuts. We're interested in everything being on the table and looking at the Department of Defense, for example, which some Republicans agreed with us on.

But one of the changes that they are making--and many of us refer to this as the Ryan budget, but right now it is actually the Republican budget. This is no longer your colleague from Wisconsin's ideas, but it is really the Republican budget that was passed. It was announced by the Republicans last night and will be on the floor potentially next week. And there are dramatic changes for our seniors in this country. Dramatic changes.

We have said to our seniors and our future seniors that when you get to be 65, there's going to be security for you in terms of payment for your health care. They have changed that for future seniors. There will no longer be guaranteed benefits for future seniors. They will instead be offered a voucher. It will not be the whole cost of buying private insurance. They have said that. It will be support for the premium, not the whole thing. And then seniors will have to go--and I think Paul Ryan mentioned this yesterday--shopping in the insurance marketplace for the best insurance they can get.

When I think about that, maybe that sounds okay. You know, you go shopping. You've got a voucher in your pocket. It sounds like a coupon. You can go to the store, and you're going to be able to get 80 percent of costs paid.

However, this is health insurance, and what we already know is that the insurance industry was not inclined, before the Affordable Care Act, to cover insurance for sick people. They didn't want to cover sick kids. We had to pass a law that said you can't discriminate against children. You have to let them buy health insurance and cover that illness. And they certainly don't want to cover sick adults.

Well, when I go talk to a group of seniors, and I can be at a senior center or any number of places we've all visited as Members of Congress, and we'll have a group of 50, 100 people, and I ask, Do any of you take any medications?

And they all laugh: Of course, I take medication.

Do any of you take two prescription medications?

Of course.

Do any of you take three or four?

These are a healthy group of seniors. They look healthy to me. You know, they're out and about and they're listening to a Member of Congress. And I ask, Well, how are you going to go out and buy insurance that's going to be affordable for you?

What we know and what seniors tell us is that they know that if they go to a voucher program and they're no longer guaranteed, they will no longer have guaranteed benefits, that their voucher will become less helpful over time as expenses go up, that there will be no controls on how their taxpayer dollars will be used.

So let me just close, if I may, by saying that seniors know that privatizing Medicare--and that's what this is, it's privatizing Medicare--will limit their benefits, will be obstacles to care and on certain reimbursements, that copayments for primary care or copayments for specialty care could be quite significant, that there could be exclusions for certain services that they need, that there could be discrimination based on income and age and illness, and there's more uncertainty if they face a serious illness going forward.

So I just wanted to show two charts that maybe we will want to talk about as we go forward. One of them is, to just follow up on what I said about choices, here we are faced with a choice that the Republicans have made, which is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. It's going to cost about $800 billion, and instead they are going to dismantle--this is the case of Medicaid, which is really about seniors in nursing homes, frail elderly in nursing homes, costing about $771 billion. That's a decision they've made.

We can talk more about how we've bent the cost curve, if we can use that language, on Medicare. We have already taken some serious action.

I'm happy to have further conversation with my colleagues about what this Republican budget means to seniors across this country.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 226, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the momentous 300th anniversary of the Trinity Church Oxford, one of the oldest churches in the United States, constructed in 1711 in what is now the Lawncrest neighborhood of Northeast Philadelphia.

The church's congregation pre-dates the building. A marble stone in the west wall of Church states that Church of England services were first held on the site in 1698 in a log meeting house that belonged to the Oxford Society of Friends. The Church still has in its possession the original land conveyance deed dated January 30, 1700. Queen Anne of England presented a solid silver communion chalice to the Church in 1713.

While small in physical dimensions, Trinity Church Oxford carries a rich history of rectors related to some of the most beloved people and institutions in our local and national history, including:

Rev. Aneas Ross (rector 1742-1758), the father-in-law of Betsy Ross and the brother of George Ross, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Rev. Dr. William Smith (rector 1766-1779, 1791-1798), who helped found the University of Pennsylvania

Rev. John Hobart (rector 1798-1801), who became bishop of New York in the new Protestant Episcopal Church formed after Independence and founded Hobart College.

Rev. Edward Buchanan (rector 1854-1882) who was the brother of President James Buchanan. The church school is named in his honor.

Frank Furness, acclaimed American architect who designed additions to the church in the mid-19th Century, decorated with Tiffany windows and elaborate woodwork.

At first tied to the Church to England, after independence Trinity's rectors helped to organize the Diocese of Pennsylvania of the new Protestant Episcopal Church and the church was admitted to its Convention in 1786.

As our nation grew and became more industrialized, Trinity Church Oxford welcomed industrialists and working class families to its congregation. A neighborhood that began as farmland and homes for gentry developed into a residential community for working people. With a parish house added in 1928 and a community center in 1962, Trinity Church Oxford holds true to its religious precepts of service, today housing a childcare center and hosting the Philadelphia Police Athletic League.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the generation of rectors

and parishioners of Trinity Church Oxford who have dedicated themselves to sustaining their spiritual home and ensuring its contribution to history and community.

Last week, we saw real signs of economic recovery when the unemployment rate dropped below 9 percent for the first time in 2 years. This is encouraging news, but we still have a long way to go to promote private sector growth.

The Republicans are digging their heels in on billions of dollars of reckless cuts that threaten our economic growth and put 700,000 American jobs at risk. We agree that spending cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit. This is not about whether to cut or not. This is about where to cut, how much to cut, and how fast to cut. The Republican agenda threatens our core obligations to our seniors, to our safety, and to our future.

We need disciplined budgeting. We need targeted cuts that won't hurt our economy. And we need strategic investments to make America competitive for future generations. Republicans are putting partisan politics ahead of American priorities. Instead of enacting job- destroying cuts, we should be focusing on job creation and sound budgeting.

Enough is enough. It's time to get serious and pass a responsible spending plan that grows the economy and invests in the future.