Floor Statements

We know from polling that most Americans have no idea what ``sequester'' means at all. In fact, one of our colleagues said that she was talking to a constituent who said, Yes, I am all for sequester. Let's sequester all the Members of Congress in a room and make sure that they come up with a plan.

That's not exactly the idea. ``Sequester,'' which most Americans don't know the definition of, actually means that for domestic discretionary spending--the things that help ordinary people and communities and law enforcement--there will be about a 9 percent across-the-board cut; just a meat-ax approach. You can't even decide between cutting conferences or leave in the research into cancer at the National Institutes of Health. No, everything is going to be across the board, a real meat-ax approach. There will also be about a 13 percent across-the-board cut in military spending. That's what we're talking about. And if people aren't following exactly what the definition is, they're going to soon find out what it means in their ordinary life.

In education, we're going to see cuts that are going to require the firing of teachers. About 70,000 little children are not going to be able to have their Head Start programs. Small businesses are going to find that almost $900 million will be unavailable to them in loans for their small businesses. We're going to lose about 2,100 food safety inspectors. How will it feel if we don't know for sure if we're going to have safe food available? And we've all been talking about the need for more mental health services around this whole issue

of gun violence, yet it's predicted that about 373,000 adults and children who need mental health services won't find them available.

Military readiness will be affected. We got some data on every State. In my State of Illinois, approximately 14,000 civil Department of Defense employees are going to be furloughed under the sequester; and that means reducing the gross pay that comes to them, citizens of Illinois, by $83.5 million. That's money that they won't be able to spend in our economy. Base operation funding for Army bases will be cut about $19 million in Illinois, and funding for Air Force operations will be cut by about $7 million. These are real cuts in military readiness.

Vaccines for children. Does anybody really think that the way to save on our budget is to cut the availability of vaccines for little children? And does anybody really think that the burden of cutting the deficit should be on the backs of senior citizens? The median income for people over 65 years old is $22,000 a year. The average Social Security benefit is $15,000 a year and provides most of the income for most of the seniors in this country.

Does anybody think there isn't one tax loophole that can be closed, not one more penny that can come from huge and profitable corporations that often pay no taxes? We have some of those huge corporations paying no taxes, outsourcing jobs, setting up their corporate headquarters in post office boxes in the Cayman Islands. Some of them are getting, actually, tax breaks, refunds from the government.

Multimillionaires and billionaires can't pay a penny more, but we can cut the National Institutes of Health and research for finding cancer cures; that new drug approvals ought to be cut; that we ought to cut veterans services; that people ought to just wait longer at airports. We should even shut down some airports because we're going to have to furlough the air traffic controllers; that we should cut Meals on Wheels for senior citizens, that that's really the preferable way to go.

I have to tell you this is just a crazy way to do business in the United States Congress, particularly since we have sensible alternatives. We have not seen one bill from the Republican side of the aisle that says, Here's our idea instead of these meat-ax cuts that are going to hurt people, and the Democrats have several bills we should be hearing on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance of federally supported women's health research; especially reproductive health research in regions of the country that have high contamination such as Superfund sites.

The reproductive health effects of environmental toxins can have significant ramifications for bone, cardiovascular, neurological, and sexual health, resulting in serious health conditions such as osteoporosis, heart attack, and stroke. In the state of Illinois, we currently have 70 Superfund sites that could pose a health threat to nearby communities. While the Federal Government supports a strong portfolio of research into the health implications of exposure to chemicals at these sites, there is a noticeable lack of reproductive health research in this area. It is essential that Congress supports this important area of research.

Northwestern University is developing one of the first major studies on the impact of Superfund contaminants on our reproductive health. The study will examine the reproductive health impacts of exposure to metals including zinc and lead that are present near a former zinc smelter site on the Illinois River near the Village of DePue, Illinois. The site is one of over 30 similar zinc and lead smelter sites across the country, so understanding the health impacts at DePue will help determine best practices for future disposal of those toxic chemicals.

Northwestern has also spearheaded an effort to update the scientific guidelines that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, uses to determine the threat of environmental toxins to our reproductive health. The Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment have not been reviewed or revised since 1996. I strongly support their effort to ensure that the scientific guidelines adequately account for the reproductive health threats posed by toxins to both sexes and across the lifespan. This will help ensure that the EPA has the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific guidance to assess the risks of chemicals in our environment on our reproductive health.

The environmental effects of toxins threaten the health of more than 10 percent of men, women, and children. It is critical that we increase support for research into the reproductive health implications of different environmental exposures.

Mr. Speaker, 2013 will mark the 10th anniversary of a unique and historical gathering of scientists from 15 Middle East countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and United Arab Emirates. In 2003, the first conference, ``Frontier of Chemical Sciences: Research and Education in the Middle East--A Bridge to Peace,'' was held on the Mediterranean island of Malta. These conferences later came to be known as ``The Malta Conferences.''

In each of the conferences, scientists meet for five days with six Nobel Laureates to work on scientific issues of importance to the region: Air and Water Quality, Alternative Energy Sources, Nanotechnology and Material Science, Medicinal Chemistry, and Science Education for All Levels. Since 2003, five conferences were held. By invitation from UNESCO, Malta V was held at UNESCO's Headquarters in Paris in December 2011. The conference was opened by the Director General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, and followed by a speech by HRH Prince Hassan of Jordan on his vision for the new Middle East.

Although acts of war and terrorism have destabilized the political and economic climate in the Middle East and around the world, it remains possible for scientists from opposing sides of the political and cultural conflict to meet in an attempt to forge relationships that bridge the deep chasms of distrust and intolerance.

In the Middle East, it is especially important that stable, mutually respectful, personal relationships be created that will enhance research interactions and collaborations, contribute to a more peaceful atmosphere, encourage international development, help establish a more favorable environment for regional peace and security, and foster further growth in regional scientific and technological cooperation. This is the goal of the Malta Conferences.

In 2012, the Malta Conferences Foundation was established as a nonprofit organization and my great friend and constituent Zafra Lerman was elected its president. Like other people who foster social change, she too had a dream. The fulfillment of this dream was the Malta Conferences.

Zafra Lerman is a world-renowned scientist and science educator. She received her Ph.D. from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and conducted research on isotope effects at Cornell University, Northwestern University, and at the Swiss Polytechnic in Zurich, Switzerland. Professor Lerman developed an innovative approach of teaching science to non-science majors by integrating science with the arts, and with students' personal interests and cultural backgrounds. These methods have received national and international recognition. She has been invited to lecture on her methods all over the U.S. and around the world.

For the past 25 years, she has worked tirelessly on behalf of dissidents all over the world. She chaired the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights for the American Chemical Society (ACS). At great risk to her personal safety, she has worked within the Soviet Union, China and other countries and has succeeded in preventing executions, releasing prisoners of conscience from jail and bringing dissidents into freedom.

Professor Lerman has received many national and international awards. In 1999, she received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics and Engineering Mentoring from President Clinton. In 1998, she received the Kilby Laureate Award for extraordinary contribution to society through science,

technology, invention, innovation and education. In 2003, she was the recipient of the American Chemical Society's (ACS) Parsons Award in recognition of outstanding public service to society through chemistry. The Royal Society of Chemistry in England awarded her the 2005 Nyholm Award, and the New York Academy of Sciences presented her with the 2005 Heinz Pagels Human Rights for Scientists Award. She received the 2007 George Brown Award for International Scientific Cooperation from the U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation (CRDF). In 2011, she received an award for Stimulating Collaborations and Ensuring Human Rights by the International Conference on Chemistry for Mankind in India.

The capstone of her career is her work on the Malta Conferences. The Malta Conferences are the only platform where scientists from 15 Middle East countries are collaborating and cooperating on scientific issues as well as developing professional and personal relationships with each other. The common language of science is used for science diplomacy, which serves as a bridge to peace, tolerance and understanding in the Middle East and improves the relationships between the Muslim countries and the U.S., and between the Arabs, Iranians and Israelis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Runaway Safeline, which changed its name last month from the National Runaway Switchboard.

The NRS was established in 1971 to fill a need for comprehensive crisis intervention for young people in Chicago. It was conceived as a centralized organization with free 24-hour services, expertise in all youth-related issues and as an information clearinghouse of youth services.

In 1974, NRS received an eight-month federal demonstration grant to establish a national hotline for runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth. The need for the service was clearly demonstrated over the eight-month period, during which time 11,000 calls were received. Since then, its capabilities and services have grown considerably, now handling over 100,000 calls each year.

Since its founding, NRS grew into a national organization and expanded its crisis intervention offerings to include bulletin boards, crisis emails, and live chat. Recognizing that the term ``switchboard'' does not reflect the various ways youth in crisis can connect with its services, the organization has changed its name to the National Runaway Safeline.

The organization maintains its holistic and expert crisis intervention model focused on addressing at-risk issues immediately. Its services remain confidential, anonymous, and available 24/7, providing a comprehensive connection to more than 10,000 different organizations and resources for at-risk youth and their families. The organization continues its service as the federally-designated communication system for runaway and homeless youth.

As a strong advocate of helping homeless individuals and as a long- time supporter of the organization, I am pleased that the NRS will continue its mission to help keep America's runaway, homeless and at- risk youth safe and off the streets. We are proud to have this nationally-recognized effort housed in Chicago, and I congratulate Maureen Blaha and her staff for their vision and leadership.

I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the growth, progress and impact that the National Runaway Safeline has had in the last 42 years and will continue to have in the decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy said, ``When written in Chinese, the word `crisis' is comprised of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity.'' Those words ring true with regard to perhaps the greatest crisis facing our world: climate change. We face imminent and continuing danger, but we also have an opportunity to change course and leave behind a better planet for future generations.

Global warming is happening. The ten hottest years on earth since 1880 have all occurred since 1997. According to the New York Times, 2012 was the hottest year ever in the continental United States, a full degree hotter (in terms of average temperature) than the previous record. More than 60 percent of the country, including much of the Midwest, experienced severe drought. Wildfires spread throughout areas of the western United States, and severe storms ravaged the east coast.

We face serious danger. Over the next few centuries, sea levels could rise an average of 12 feet, swallowing coastal areas in the U.S. and around the world. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, drought and famine could lead to decreased water availability, increased starvation, and new instability in many regions of the world--particularly Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

This crisis presents an opportunity. This Congress has a unique ability to take leadership in addressing what is a planetary problem for us right now. We can act now, or we can let our opportunity pass by. The choice should be clear.

I support a comprehensive approach to climate change. I was a strong proponent for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House in 2009. That legislation would have introduced a renewable energy standard, subsidized important research and development of clean technologies and energy efficiency, and created a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would have had a significant impact in curbing the warming of our planet, and I believe it should be the model for action taken in the current congress.

As a member of the Environment and the Economy subcommittee and of the Waxman-Whitehouse climate change task force, I will continue to push for comprehensive and immediate action. I promise to collaborate with anyone from either side of the aisle to work toward constructive and meaningful solutions. We must act together to forge a legislative solution to this crisis while we can still do something about it.

The time is now. This is our moment--all of us--Republicans and Democrats. We must act to preserve and protect the planet for our children and grandchildren, and for their children and grandchildren. We cannot afford to be on the wrong side of history.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Coach Andrew Trenkel and the Maine South High School Constitution Team for their achievement in winning the Illinois State Title of ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution.'' This marks the twenty-first time that Maine South's Constitution Team has won this title. ``We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution,'' a program sponsored by the Center for Civic Education, aims to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and cooperative participation skills through educating students about the American Constitutional democracy. During the competition, students participate in replicated Congressional hearings, present arguments, and respond to complex questions on the United States Constitution.

The primary goal of ``We the People'' is to encourage civic proficiency and develop responsibility among the students of the United States. Clearly the 2012-2013 Maine South Team members have accepted this challenge and are working to become future leaders.

Congratulations to all of the members of the 2012-2013 Constitution team: Coach Andrew Trenkel, Mark Abtahi, Jane Acker, Hannah Beswick- Hale, Elizabeth Black, Anthony Borkowski, Matthew Brendza, Patrick Devereuz, Claire Dockery, Renee Hannan, Natalie Kirchhoff, Rebecca Klages, Kevin Kohler, Philip Kulas, Michael Martino, Maddie McGrady, Jenny Mocarski, John Moran, Emily Murphy, Gibson Odderstol, Augusta Paulik, Tim Prinz, Paige Sammarco, Michael Solberg, Pavel Tamas, Jack Touhy, Justin Tomczyk, Dragan Trivanovic, Ryan Walek, and Henrik Weber.

On behalf of the 9th Congressional district of Illinois, I congratulate you on your achievement, and wish you the best of luck in the national competition in April 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the progress we've made in ensuring equal pay for equal work, and the 4th year anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Lilly Ledbetter performed equal work but received less pay than her male colleagues at Goodyear. Despite experiencing pay discrimination over the course of her career, Ledbetter was barred by the Supreme Court from challenging her discriminatory pay because she did not pursue legal action soon enough.

Fortunately, this is no longer the case. On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. This law restored an employee's right to challenge pay discrimination. Women today have the right to pursue legal action for pay discrimination whenever it occurs.

Despite this victory, challenges still remain for women receiving equal pay for equal work as evidenced by the pay gap that still exists. Today, women are paid only 77 cents to every dollar made by men. And for women of color, that number falls even lower. African American women receive 68 cents and Hispanic women 59 cents to every dollar earned by men. This pay disparity not only affects women during their careers, but follows them into retirement as they receive lower pensions and Social Security benefits based on receiving lower wages than they deserved.

Although today we take a moment to celebrate the restoration of the right to challenge pay discrimination, now more than ever, we must strengthen our resolve to ensure equal pay for equal work. Eliminating pay discrimination not only benefits women--it benefits families. In most American households today, women are either the sole breadwinner or essential co-breadwinner. Those families rely on women's income to meet the daily needs of the family--including groceries, rent, and medical care. As we celebrate the 4th anniversary of this important law, we must commit to passing the Paycheck Fairness Act now to take another major step in ensuring equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the importance of funding medical research for epithelioid hemangioendothelioma and other diseases. Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, known simply as EHE, is a rare cancer affecting both men and women of all ages, causing disability, pain, and often death. The disease causes tumors in the endothelium, often affecting numerous organs at a time.

A study done by the American College of Chest Physicians states that EHE most often affects the lungs, liver, and bones, or a combination of these organs. Moreover, the disease causes a range of symptoms including pain, upper respiratory infections, bone fractures, weakness, and fatigue. The study also cites that while EHE is more common in women, men are more likely to die from it.

Currently, there is no effective treatment for EHE. The American College of Chest Physicians study states that EHE does not respond to chemotherapy and radiation as well as other cancers, causing many sufferers of the disease to resort to surgeries and organ transplants to try to relieve EHE's painful symptoms.

My constituent, Isaac Weinberg, is currently suffering from EHE. Because there is no cure for the disease, Isaac must have a liver transplant to alleviate some of the pain caused by it. Cutting medical research funding and limiting access to affordable healthcare would only hurt Isaac and other people suffering from EHE, as well as those suffering from other diseases.

However, providing funding for medical research would not only help those with EHE, but people with other diseases, as well. EHE is a sarcoma, a type of cancer that is very common. Therefore, research for EHE would be beneficial in finding effective treatments and cures for many different cancers and diseases, potentially helping thousands of people.

I want to thank my constituent and Isaac's father, Dr. Guy Weinberg, for establishing the Center for Research and Analysis of Vascular Tumors. CRAVAT provides desperately-needed research money dedicated to learning more about EHE. However, we cannot rely on private efforts alone. Federal funding is necessary if we are to make significant advances in discovering ways to treat, cure, and eliminate EHE and other diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring awareness to this important cause. Cutting medical research funding will hurt thousands of Americans suffering from diseases both rare and common, and we cannot allow that to happen. Instead, we must provide the crucial funding needed to research EHE and other diseases, allowing us to find cures, save lives, and help families like the Weinbergs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Family Medical Leave Act. Twenty years ago today, we took an important step to protecting workers that need to take time off to deal with a serious health or family issue. Since then, American workers have used FMLA leave more than 100 million times to address a serious health condition, including pregnancy; to care for a family member with a serious health condition; or to care for a newborn child, newly adopted child or a newly placed foster child. FMLA allows workers to take time from work to care for themselves or their loved ones without jeopardizing their jobs. FMLA does not a salary during the leave--an omission that needs to be corrected--but it does guarantee their job will be there when they return.

In recent years, President Obama has signed into law expansions of FMLA coverage to our brave women and men serving in our armed forces and airline employees. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2010 expanded FMLA leave for military families to include coverage of qualifying exigency leave to employees and families in the Regular Armed Forces, and coverage of military caregiver leave to employees who are a spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of certain veterans with a serious illness or injury. The Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act makes more airline flight attendants and crew members eligible for FMLA leave.

Yet, despite those expansions, the United States lags behind other countries. A total of 137 countries mandate employers to offer paid leave, while 121 countries guarantee workers at least two weeks of paid leave each year. The absence of a paid leave requirement forces many Americans to choose between protecting their finances and taking time off to deal with a serious health or family crisis. Many of the employees who qualify for FMLA leave cannot financially afford to take leave without pay. 78 percent of employees who wanted to take FMLA leave, but did not, reported it was because they could not afford to lose those extra paychecks. Hardworking Americans--both men and woman-- should be free to take the family and medical leave they need without fear of emptying their bank account.

The Family Medical Leave Act took an important step in ensuring workers that their jobs will be secure in the event that they need to take time off to deal with a serious health or family issue but we can and must do more. We must ensure that every job provides paid leave in times of sickness or family emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I just don't get this discussion about the fiscal cliff.

Republicans are saying that in order to raise taxes on the very wealthiest Americans--and actually, by a historically small amount-- that the price that has to be paid is to ask the poorest adult Americans to pay more, that is, to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits.

I don't get the equivalency that is being asked for: the richest to pay a bit more, and the price to be that the poor, the poorest, have to pay more. Seniors in this country have a median income of just $22,000 a year. That means half of all seniors are below that. They also spend an average, right now, of $4,500 a year on health care costs out of their own pockets.

So I think that we have to change the debate here. There is a parable in the Bible that makes this point. When you ask a person with one coat to give up that coat, it's not the same as asking someone with 10 coats to donate one to the cause.

As a mother and grandmother, I offer my words to the mountains of condolences to the families of the 20 children and the six heroic adults in Newtown, Connecticut. All of America is mourning with you, but we owe you more than our grief and our condolences.

It is almost unthinkable that a school could be the scene of such horror. Parents across the Nation are worrying about how to keep their own children safe, and the terrible truth is that children in the United States are 13 times more likely to be killed by gun violence than children in other industrialized countries.

We need to close the gun show loophole and require criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a gun--a proposal supported by 74 percent of NRA members and 96 percent of all Americans. We must outlaw assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. These are weapons of mass destruction made for the military battlefields, not our neighborhoods.

It is time to grieve. It is time to act to end the gun violence before we lose more of our precious children and loved ones.

I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct. I join my colleagues first in congratulating Congresswoman Davis for the enormous work that she has done to protect the women of Afghanistan, and I thank my Republican colleagues, too, for their support. This truly is a bipartisan effort.

I am committed to a peaceful transition and to a secure future for Afghanistan as U.S. troops withdraw. There is no better way to reach that goal than to involve women in the process--to ensure their voices are heard, to protect their fundamental rights. The security of women has to be a top U.S. priority.

Afghan women have made incredible advancements over the past decade, but they face enormous challenges. Just this week, the acting head of Women's Affairs in an eastern Afghan province was shot to death in broad daylight as she was traveling to work. Her predecessor in that position was killed in July when an IED exploded under her car. Particularly women who are involved in the political process or

civil society are targeted, intimidated, threatened, and even killed.

Since the 2009 trip I took to Kabul, I've kept a sky blue burqa in my office as a reminder of the responsibility that we have to the women of Afghanistan. Women's rights are essential to the long-term stability of Afghanistan. Women must feel safe participating in politics and in civil society, and they have to be free to seek education and to start businesses, and they must have the opportunity to help their country forge a peaceful future.

Mr. Speaker, the Casey-Hutchison amendment requires a three-part plan to promote the security of Afghan women and girls. By including this language in the NDAA, we show that we are serious about human rights in Afghanistan and that we are committed to a peaceful transition away from U.S. military engagement. We have the opportunity to use the NDAA to stand with our Afghan sisters, to promote the security of all Afghan women and girls, and to ensure that women have the opportunity to engage in the rebuilding of their country.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here representing the Progressive Caucus and talking about our fiscal situation now that I think a lot of people out there are worrying about, confused about, don't know how it's really going to affect them, wondering what the heck we're doing. Sometimes Members of Congress who aren't part of the negotiations are wondering what's going on too. But what I want to talk about today are the things that are at stake for ordinary people in our country, the things that are on people's minds as we deal with these economic issues that face our country.

I am Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky, and I represent a district, a

very diverse district, in Illinois, diverse in every way--economically, certainly by race and ethnicity--and I think in many ways a microcosm of the country. I know that we're getting a lot of calls from our constituents. The calls that I'm getting were reaffirmed by a poll that I saw on Tuesday in our National Journal Daily on page six that says: ``Poll: Entitlement cuts feared most in cliff talks.'' It goes like this:

As President Obama and congressional leaders race to avert the fiscal cliff, Americans remain concerned that whatever budget deal they strike will cut too much from Medicare and Social Security, according to the poll. More of the Americans surveyed are worried about such cutbacks than seeing their tax bills rise, the latest United Technologies/ National Journal Connection poll has found.

I was looking at who was involved in the poll. In total, 35 percent of Americans are worried it will cut too much from government programs like Medicare and Social Security; 27 percent--that's eight points less--that it will raise taxes on people like you; 15 percent, it won't meet its target for reducing the Federal deficit and debt; 13 percent, it will allow for too much Federal spending. Only 13 percent were worried it will allow for too much Federal spending in the next 2 years.

But when I looked at, for example, women, 40 percent of women are most worried about those cuts in Social Security and Medicare and other government programs. Forty-six percent of people whose income is $30,000 or less, that's what they're really, really worried about; that's the thing they're worried about most.

So most Americans, that is their top concern--not really so much that their taxes are going to go up and not really so much about the deficit. They're worried about the cuts in the programs that mean so much to their lives.

So that's really what I wanted to talk about today. If any Members are listening in their offices and they want to come down and talk about the fiscal cliff, as it's called--many of us don't see it as a cliff, nor as a slope, that we actually have time to set the problem straight. That's what most economists are saying, that if we go a few weeks into January, it's not the worst thing so that Americans shouldn't panic about this. But if you want to come down and talk about that, I am really happy to do that.

I wanted to welcome one of my colleagues, Hank Johnson, here to the floor today to add his thoughts. I know he had another something he wanted to talk about this afternoon, and I welcome you. Thanks for coming down, Congressman Johnson.

I think, actually, you have done a service to make people understand that there are those who are deeply offended by it and that we should all learn what to say so as not to offend people.

Thank you very much. I appreciate both--you know, sometimes as legislators we like to think we're always right, and sometimes we make mistakes, inadvertent mistakes. And coming to the floor to actually clear the air I think is really commendable, and I appreciate that.

And also, your talk about the decisions that were made in Wisconsin-- you know, government is to serve the people, the best interests of the American people. And right now, we're trying to figure out how are we going to, in a fair way, ask Americans to be able to fund the programs that we need, to fund the services that we need as a country, to make sure that our roads are there and drivable, to fund our military so that we can be safe and strong, to help States to fund their law enforcement, et cetera, all those things that are important to Americans, and as I mentioned earlier, including things like Medicare and make Medicaid.

Budgets aren't just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper, and government policies aren't just documents. But, in many ways these are moral statements about who we are as a country. I think we have to ask, are we really a poorer country today than we were 70 years ago when Social Security went into effect, when Social Security went into effect to say that we're not going to let older people end up in the poorhouse or out on the street, that we're going to have an insurance policy that they pay into, that everyone pays into during your working life, so that we can ensure that when people reach the age of 62, 65, 67, that they're going to be able to retire with some level of dignity?

At the time that Social Security was passed 70 years ago, there was a three-legged stool. One was this new program, Social Security, to provide retirement benefits that you paid for; two, private pensions, that was kind of

the common normal then. Many of those private pensions were won because workers were able to collectively bargain and get pensions for their family. The third were savings, savings for people.

So between all of that, we thought we'd be able to see a country now where the elderly were lifted out of poverty and they had some semblance of security.

Well, are we really poorer today than when we made that decision that we're not going to let old people end up in the poorhouse? That was a decision on how to fund a program that has never once missed a monthly check ever. In the 70 years plus, never ever has Social Security missed a monthly check. So it's been a program that works really, really well.

And I just want to point out that Social Security helps middle class families, not just older people. I have two grandchildren who get a Social Security benefit. Why? Because, tragically, their mother died. So it is an insurance policy for all families.

The other great thing about Social Security is that unlike many pension programs, there's actually a cost-of-living adjustment. You don't get it every year, as seniors know. There really hasn't been an increase in the economy so much in certain years, but it has been a success, a treasure to our country.

Some people want to put Social Security on the table as part of this discussion to reduce the deficit that we face.

I yield to the gentleman.

Let me just say that right now we're paying very low interest because people do have confidence in our American economy and in those Treasury notes and it is a good, safe, and solid investment.

And I yield to the gentleman.

Let's talk about that for a minute.

It seems that there are those on the Republican side of the aisle who are willing to go to the mat to protect tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans, people who make $250,000 and more. Of course, our proposal is to say that the first $250,000 of income for everyone, even if you make $500,000 a year, on the first $250,000--I think we all agree that we should extend those tax cuts. It's for the dollars above $250,000 that some of our colleagues are saying, no, we are not going to ask those people even to pay a penny more than they were.

Yet they're saying the only way that we will consider that, the only way that we will consider taking a little bit more from the wealthiest, is to go to the poorest.

I'm not talking about children. The poorest adults are people over 65 years of age and persons with disabilities. Their median income is $22,000 a year. The median income for older Americans is $22,000 a year. Really? Somehow this is a fair balance to ask the wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--to pay a little bit more, but darn it, we're not going to do it unless we get those poorest people through their Social Security, through their Medicaid, through their Medicare to pay a bit more? It doesn't seem right to me.

Especially for Medicare. They're talking about that.

I think it's something like $850 billion that would come out of the Medicaid fund. I know.

Yes, and go to private insurance companies.

Let me just say one area in which I disagree a bit with you. Most Americans support these programs. I'm talking about huge percentages of Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--who say, no, we don't think that Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid ought to be cut. We don't think so.

So I think, in terms of the role of government, most Americans see that it's important that when it comes to education, when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to public safety, when it comes to health care, government cannot do it all. Americans aren't saying, just take care of me. From cradle to grave, I want you to take care of me. No. Americans are willing to work hard and play by the rules, but they see an important role for government. If we cut government too much, in some ways, we kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Here is what I mean:

It is true that the Internet really did come from research that was done by government. Look at the billions and billions--I don't know-- maybe trillions of dollars, and then look at the advance of the Internet and everything that led from that--bio research, talking about curing diseases. Then, of course, the money that comes from that for the pharmaceutical industry, et cetera, mostly comes from the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Institute, et cetera, in coming up with the cures and the medications. That's government research. I mean, look at NASA and the space research. It was really the Federal Government, in many ways, that developed the aviation industry. So we'd better be careful about cutting government too much.

Think about the potential in the energy industry if we just help to promote some of these clean, renewable energy technologies.

One of the things on this cliff is the end of the wind energy production tax, which has been so incredibly successful in helping build this wind industry that is ready to take off but still needs a bit more support. This means clean energy to my State, Illinois, and the Middle West, where we've got lots of wind--it's free. And investing in wind energy--if that expires, we're going to lose 7,000 jobs in Illinois alone because of the failure to help invest in the wind energy industry.

That was Eisenhower; wasn't it?

Along rail lines, along highways, of course, that's the engine of commerce that keeps not only our wheels turning, but the stores--everything going, all of the infrastructure.

You were talking about how government helps to prime the pump. So government spends money, and it spins out and often becomes commercialized. There are three ways that we can really deal with our economy right now to make it stronger: We can raise revenue, that's raising taxes; we can cut spending; and the third--that's not talked about enough--is the issue of growth in the economy, jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what grows the economy.

I am so proud that our President, as part of this overall deficit reduction plan, has recommended spending about $50 billion on jobs. They would spend money on infrastructure, infrastructure spending that's supported by both business and labor because it is so important. And it's kind of a no-brainer. If you spend money that will create jobs, you now have people, one, who are not having to get unemployment insurance or food stamps. They are working and can support their families, so we get them off public support. And, two, now they're paying taxes. They're going out and they're buying stuff, and businesses are going to have to hire more people because they're buying holiday presents for their kids. They're buying winter coats now. So there is an economy through growth. That is an underrated portion when we talk about how do we save our economy.

I have been circulating a letter among our colleagues, Representative Johnson, saying we ought to encourage investment, that we ought to encourage spending on jobs in this deficit reduction, this economic growth package.

Some people say it didn't create any jobs. Well, I think

the testimony is that many of our colleagues, almost all of our colleagues, showed up at the ribbon cuttings.

It actually created millions of jobs.

You were talking about a difference in philosophy and even economic philosophy. There are those who call that top 2 percent the job creators. Well, if that's true, then where are the jobs? Because most of the growth, almost all of the growth in income over the last many years has gone to the wealthiest Americans where, for ordinary Americans, their income has remained flat.

When we have a situation in this country where the top 1 percent of Americans, 1 percent, control as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, that's not a healthy situation. I don't want to moralize about it. It's just not a healthy situation.

I have to tell you, I introduced legislation that actually would increase the taxes on people starting at a million going up, ratcheting up, different tax brackets up to a billion dollars.

And I've got a lot of very rich people who say, yeah, that's fair. That's right.

But let me just say this: the other philosophy, though, is that if you have a robust middle class of consumers who will actually have enough money in their pockets, middle class people, hopefully even including those who aspire to the middle class have more money in their pockets, that that is what's going to drive the economy. They're going to go out, and they're going to spend the money, and that's going to spread throughout the economy.

Whereas, the wealthiest Americans may buy another yacht, but probably are just going to accumulate that kind of money and really don't do nearly what the middle class does to make a robust economy for everyone. When we all do better, we all do better.

That was a lot of jobs that would have gone down.

And all the money's been paid back to the United States Treasury.

Part of the solution.

Can I just ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have remaining.

I want to say a few things about organized labor.

I'm old enough, Congressman Johnson, when I was growing up, one person could work in the steel mills on the south side of Chicago, tough job, but you could not only make a decent wage that put you in the middle class; you could buy a car, you could have a little house, modest house, and you could even afford to send your kids to college. You had health care benefits. You had a pension, a private pension. And that was the normal. That was the normal in the United States. You worked hard, often really hard, but you could, you know, make a wage that would afford you a good, middle class life.

I think there's a lot of people who think that, well, unions, that is so 20th century. You know, that was yesterday. We don't need them anymore today. But I want to say that if we have a low-wage economy-- you know, some of the companies that are coming back to the United States, you know what they're saying, that the differential in wages between the United States and Bangladesh is insignificant enough that they might as well come back and make their products in the United States.

Let me end with this since we just have a couple of minutes. As we face all these negotiations that are going on, I think there's a couple of bottom lines. One--and the President has been very clear--we are

going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a bit more.

And, number two, I think we ought to say that those programs that help people have a decent retirement--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as well--that that is the wrong place to go in order to balance our budget. We don't have to go to the poorest people. We can make those programs more efficient. We can cut the costs of those programs, but we don't have to reduce the benefits and further impoverish people who aren't making a lot of money right now.

For me, those are sort of bottom lines for the deal that we want to make. All of us are in this together. We should all see each other as our brother's and sister's keepers. With that kind of philosophy in mind, I think we can come up with some sort of an agreement that serves our country, that serves its people, that is just and fair and helps us go forward.

Do you have a final word?

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to highlight the critical importance of extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy, which expires this month. The Production Tax Credit is essential for energy independence, the environment, and public health; and it is critical for job creation and our economy.

The Production Tax Credit has helped to create good-paying jobs across the country, including 7,000 in my home State of Illinois. Because of uncertainty, the wind industry is hurting and job losses have already begun. The failure to extend the Production Tax Credit will result in the loss of 37,000 of the 78,000 American wind jobs. Those are not just numbers on a sheet of paper; they represent people and families and communities.

This is not a partisan issue. Eighty-nine percent of Americans, including 84 percent of Republicans, want more wind power. We must act to extend the Production Tax Credit for wind without delay. The American people can't wait any longer.

Thank you so much, Congressman Garamendi, for leading this hour where, hopefully, we can get just some of the facts out about Medicare and Social Security. I, too, want to concentrate on Medicare.

First of all, I want to ask this fundamental question: do we really think that the United States of America is poorer today than we were 70 years ago, when Social Security came into being; that the United States is really poorer as a country today than 50 years ago, when Medicare and Medicaid came into being? The answer is simply, no. The economy has grown 15 times over since Social Security was enacted. And it was enacted because this country decided that it was really important for us to not have poorhouses for our elderly in this country, and that when Medicare and Medicaid came in, that insurance companies really didn't want to ensure old people, and that they weren't able to get the health care that they needed, and that the right thing to do for the richest country in the world, which we still are, is to set a priority that we're going to address the needs of the elderly--not for free, by any means.

People pay every paycheck that they're working into Social Security, and we created an insurance company for Americans, an insurance policy for Americans, that if you pay in, when you retire, that money will be there for you. And as you pointed out, we have $2.7 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund right now. If we didn't have that, that means that our deficit would look $2.7 trillion worse than it does. Thank goodness for Social Security and its Trust Fund.

So you're right, Social Security should be off the table. Medicare, too. Every single paycheck people pay in. But the difference is when you get Medicare, you continue to pay. And I want to talk a little bit about the truth of what's going on in Medicare today, and the myths.

Talk about means-testing Social Security. Guess what? We do. We already means-test Social Security. I want everybody to understand that. We means-test Social Security. Medicare part D premiums--that's for doctor outpatient--and part D--that's for prescription drug premiums--are already higher for individuals with incomes over $85,000 a year. Now let's remember we're calling middle class for everyone else up to the $250,000. But we're saying, for Medicare purposes, people who make $85,000 or more, they're going to pay extra costs ranging from $504 a year to $2,270 a year for part B and $139 to $797 more a year for part D. We means-test Medicare. By 2020, with no changes in current law, annual means-tested part B premiums are projected to range from almost $2,700 to $6,000 more. We means-test Medicare.

Higher income households pay more for future Medicare benefits during their working lives as well. There's no cap on the tax that you pay into Medicare. A person with $2 million in wages pays $58,000 into Medicare. So during their working lives, and when they retire and take Medicare benefits, we means-test Medicare.

We means-test Medicare, exactly. We do.

Yes. So during your working life and when you start on Medicare, you are paying more if you make $85,000 or more.

Now we means-test Medicare for 5 percent of beneficiaries. Under proposals to cover 25 percent of beneficiaries, call them higher income, means-testing would start at $47,000 in income. Really? These are rich seniors? Covering 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would hit individuals with $63,000 in income. Are those wealthy seniors? No. We means-test Medicare right now for people who earn income over $85,000.

Here's the other thing. A couple more points I want to make. There is no cap right now on out-of-pocket costs in Medicare, which today average $4,500 for people over 65 years old. So the out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries are very high. The average amounts to about 20 percent of their income, out-of-pocket, already. So Medicare costs are already high. The idea now of going further down in income levels to means-test Medicare beneficiaries makes no sense whatsoever.

The other thing I wanted to point out is half of all seniors live in households with less than $22,000 in income. So here's the part I don't get about the fiscal cliff proposals. It seems as if the trophy that the Republicans want in exchange for asking people whose income is above $250,000, even though they'll get a tax break on that first $250,000, to ask them to pay a little more, the trophy in return is to ask senior citizens, whose median income is $22,000, to pay more?

Why is this a quid pro quo? Why is this fair? Why is that the trophy? Why is that the exchange that makes sense? The American people say no.

Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, these are programs that keep people healthy. Raising the age of Medicare; really? That's why we have Medicare in the first place; insurance companies don't want to insure people. The Center for American Progress says that if we did that, in a single year, almost 435,000 seniors would be at risk of becoming uninsured. Is this the goal?

I am really confused about these proposals that somehow equate really the wealthiest top 2 percent in our country with extracting something from the poorest adults in our country: seniors and persons with disabilities.

Thank you. I wanted to also make the point that there are many people who throughout their life have not been able to afford health care, and so they really are in need of health care when they turn 65. I have people coming into my office every day, or at least once a week--I bet this happens to you and to most Members--who say, I just hope I make it until I'm 65. Then I can have this fixed or that fixed or all these things that are really debilitating me and causing such a loss in lifestyle.

Yes. I finally am going to be able to take care of it. So a couple of things I want to reiterate that I think are just myths. One, I already said that we already means-test Medicare. Number two, that raising the age of eligibility--and our Democratic leader wrote on December 11 the ``Truth About Medicare Age.'' She wrote an excellent USA Today article. And in it she says:

As one expert, Paul N. Van de Water of the Center for

Budget and Policy Priorities, has noted, raising the age

`would not only fail to constrain health care costs across

the economy, it would increase them.'

And our leader points out that the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that higher State and private sector costs that result from raising the age would be twice as large as the total Federal savings. So we aren't even doing ourselves a favor when it comes to expenditures, the cost of health care, if we raise the age. It's, as you said, a really bad idea.

Another thing, I do think that a lot of people, especially younger people, do think that once you get to 65 you just get this health care benefit without realizing that it is an insurance policy that seniors are paying dearly for. It is a good insurance policy, Medicare. In fact, it is far more efficient, with an overhead of about 3 percent, compared to private insurance, which can have as much as, well, you would know better, it is reaching up into 20 percent overhead costs. So Medicare works very well. And it's popular for very good, good reasons.

As you pointed out, we can control the cost of Medicare. I'm not up here saying don't do anything about Medicare. We aren't going to touch Medicare. Yes, we can, as we did through ObamaCare. And you remember the numbers, $716 billion, Democrats were hit over the head with that number, saying that we funneled that kind of money, we stole that money from Medicare, implying that we took it from beneficiaries. The opposite happened.

We were able to create more efficiencies in Medicare, stopping our subsidies of private insurance companies, beefing up our fraud division, even though, as you pointed out, we can do better. We saved $716 billion from Medicare and improved benefits. That was just the beginning.

I was here when we passed Medicare part D. The truth is, the pharmaceutical companies, the drug companies got language written into the bill that said Medicare, unlike the Veterans Administration, shall be prohibited from negotiating for better prices with the drug companies. That cost us about $250 billion over 10 years, the fact that we cannot negotiate for lower prices with the drug companies, who are making money hand over fist from Medicare part D.

If we were to make a change like that, as the Veterans Administration does, drug prices would be lower for the government and for Medicare beneficiaries, as well. It would be a win-win in terms of lowering prices. Yes, the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to like it, but most countries already negotiate for lower drug prices. Why shouldn't we do the same, especially for Medicare?

I think it's important to point out too that the full provisions of ObamaCare haven't even rolled out yet, although these preventive services are in place. And look at what's already happened.

Let me just say on that point, though, on the cost savings, that's why when the Affordable Health Care Act passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it saves--people said, How are we going to afford that? How are we going to pay for that? But it actually saved a $1 trillion over 20 years in costs to the government.

Exactly.

The real benefit of the Affordable Care Act and it's effect on Medicare and everything else is that we are making this system more efficient. The health care system in the United States of America is very inefficient. We are going to be rewarding outcomes, we are going to be rewarding value and good performance, rather than just getting-- you know, a doctor sends a bill or the hospital sends a bill, Medicare sends off a check. We are going to be rewarding efficiency and good practices now in the health care system. I think that that is what everybody wants. You want better results for a lower cost. That's what we are getting.

I did that. You should do it, too.

I just want to say that this is not about party. This is about people who know the realities of life--Democrats, Republicans, Independents and, I'm sure, some people who are identified with the Tea Party. They don't want to see this Congress cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security benefits, and this is overwhelming in every single poll. It's not because people are greedy; it is because they need these bedrock programs--these treasures of our American system--in order to live a decent quality of life. Americans are willing to work hard, to pay into these programs, to follow the rules--to do everything they're supposed to do. Then when they're either disabled or when they're past 65 years old or, in the case of Social Security, 67 years old, they want the fruits of their labor to be there for them. Again, continuing when they get Medicare, they pay dearly for those services. I think it's really important to remember that.

Your 92-year-old mother, when she goes into the hospital, if she didn't have--she probably does have--a supplemental insurance policy, the copayment on the first day in the hospital, which some seniors have to pay out-of-pocket, is well over $1,000. Medicare, let's remember, does not cover most vision, hearing, or dental, so seniors are still left with not only their premiums and their copayments and their deductibles but lots of things that still aren't covered by Medicare.

With the cost of health care to seniors today, this is no entitlement, which makes it sound like they're getting a freebie here. It's very, very expensive. We want to make Medicare better. We want to make it efficient and actually enhance some of those benefits.

That's why we have Medicare.

It's part of the Ryan budget.

We can do it. And I hope that everyone will stand with our President who has said that we're not going to raise the age of Medicare and that the Republicans now first have to agree that we're going to ask the wealthiest people in our country to pay a bit more, and not to begin with the least able to pay more, the poorest adults, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

And for the first $250,000 for everyone.

Thank you.