Floor Statements

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thank you for bringing us together on some very important discussions and laser-sharp focus which is essential as we face this default crisis, where there are those who are dragging their feet and not resolving the default crisis and refuse to have us pay our bills. And when we default on our debt, it's very problematic because it can disrupt our pensions, it can disrupt our 401(k)s, it can disrupt our mortgages because of the interest rate being somewhat fluctuated by that default crisis and our failure to pay our bills.

What I think is important here is that you outline how unfair this process can be, how it can be routed to support easily deep pockets, efforts to give windfall industries a mindless handout, the big oil companies getting a handout. It's much easier to retain that benefit, and it's very difficult to save Medicare. It's a simple majority that can end Medicare.

Many of us go home every week, others as frequently as they can because of the distance they have to travel to get to their districts, and we're greeted by signs like this: Hands off my Medicare.

And it's no wonder, because what we've seen yesterday was the third attempt in this given few months of the 112th Congress to end Medicare. Three votes. One with the Republican Study Committee, one with the Ryan plan, a Path to Prosperity--which we have redesignated as the Road to Ruin. And then yesterday with this cut, burn and whatever, slash-and- burn attempt. I won't even get into the nomenclature because it's misrepresenting what would really happen.

Yesterday, we had a vote on this floor to make it easy to end Medicare and easy to maintain handouts to the oil companies. And when we look at the dollars that are saved by ending Medicare, we see where they somehow are transitioned over to tax cuts that are maintained for the millionaire-billionaire community, mindless handouts, the Big Oil industry.

So this is buyer beware week. We've seen this three times over, and it's an assault on the middle class.

When you talk about the impact on women, you know, an armchair scientist can take a look at the population of seniors and understand the proportional representation to the greater degree is women in that category. So this is an assault on senior women who require Medicare.

We talked about this last night on the floor, that things have changed since 1965 when President Truman and Mrs. Truman were the first to sign up for Medicare with that wonderful legislation. They began a process of dignity for our Nation's seniors where affordable, accessible care, a certainty in their lives, became a much-needed concept because there was cherry-picking going on. There was the unaffordable notion, the inaccessible notion of health care insurance coverage.

And to put that now at risk and develop and mess with our Constitution to make that all work, it's no wonder Wall Street, The Wall Street Journal, called it a very foolish approach. They labeled it in just very negative tones.

And certainly Bruce Bartlett, who was the economic adviser to President Reagan, said that it was akin to an intern writing a bill on a napkin. Well, I think that's a pretty tough slam for our interns. They would do better.

So we need to go forward with sensible strategies. We need to solve the default crisis. And let's face it, it should be about investing in jobs.

The jobs crisis is the number one priority of the American public. We see it in public opinion surveys over and over again. And that job crisis when we resolve it addresses any revenue crisis, any spending crisis, any deficit crisis. This is the best solution: Create jobs, invest in innovation, infrastructure, education.

Well, by their own acknowledgement, their own leaders indicated that this would enshrine the Republican agenda to end Medicare in the

United States Constitution. So what we end up with is that we have these very bold statements made, that right there after the freedom of religion and the freedom of thought, the freedom of assembly, we can have the freedom from health care for anyone age 65 and older. That's not quite an honorable position to follow or to promote.

Yes. I just think that what we have witnessed is a messing with a very precious document, one that governs this democracy, this Republic in a way that was carefully planned by our founding parents. And to take that precious document and to use it in order to promote a political agenda and one that denies access to a health care concept is wrong.

When we look at this 1966 threshold, when we take it back to spending opportunities at that vintage, we need to keep in mind that Medicare, assisting grandparents, grandma and grandpa, means that they're denying the fundamental fact that since 1966, grandparents, grandma is living 10 years longer, on average. So it's not real to take us back to this unwarranted threshold of 1996. And also, we've had much progress in technology and research in medicine so that there are new opportunities for which we avail ourselves the funds.

So I think that a lot of this is not based on reality. It's not based on the desire to serve. It's rather based on denial. And that's not what this should be about. There is a certain bit of dignity. There is a respect factor shown to the senior population. And I can tell you, when you get messages like this at home, Keep your hands off Medicare, we're getting this in letter format, email format, faxes coming into the office, phone calls. Nine to one, every 10 calls coming in, you'll get nine phone calls of advocacy to not only keep Medicare but to strengthen it.

And what we did, as you know, Representative Garamendi, we went through and provided those screenings and those annual checkups and made certain that no copayments or deductibles would hold back the opportunity for our seniors. We made certain that we began the process of filling the doughnut hole, and we found savings in the Medicare situation.

And, yes, they're right. They talk about cutting back. We found savings by reducing the profit columns of the insurance industry when it came to Medicare and then transferred--in a very fungible way, we transferred those savings into the development, positive outcome for seniors in the pharmaceutical area because we know that the doughnut hole is a very pricey thing for many people. In just a few months into a calendar year, seniors are dipping into their own pockets to pay for the pharmaceutical costs in order to stay well or to recover from an illness.

So there was great compassion shown here, and we moved forward with a way to fill the doughnut hole completely, completely. And we began that process last year. That is denied again in this process.

Again, to the fact of being concerned about women, if you are concerned about women, why would you cut Head Start programs? Many working moms require Head Start, not only to maintain a career or perhaps work, because you may be a single parent, or even a double income household still needs that job.

Head Start is a good way to develop the social, the educational, and the cognitive skills of youngsters. Why would you deny a quarter of a million of children Head Start? That's that attack on women, working women.

Why would you reduce education by 12 percent in title I areas, as they had suggested, as they did with their budget. That's an attack on educators, most of whom are women. It's still a very highly predominant field for women.

So when we look at some of the attacks here by gender, by age, by income strata, it's clearly assumed here, and documented, that it's an assault on middle class America, on working families. And it is time to grow the middle class, strengthen the middle class, enhance their purchasing power. In so doing, you develop a stronger America.

And so we need to go forward with a laser sharp focus and an honesty that's built by truth, not fiction, and do what is best as we go forward to invest in infrastructure, education, and certainly the improvements that we need to make in innovation.

Representative Garamendi, what I didn't hear, though, was the resolve of the default crisis. I didn't hear advocacy from the other side about paying our bills. I'm hearing about cutting away at middle class values and middle class needs. I didn't hear about the default crisis and paying our bills.

We're saying we need to respond to a default crisis, and we're also talking about a jobs agenda. We haven't seen one jobs bill in the House brought forward. And that is a major concern, because the jobs crisis, when resolved by

producing jobs and investing in jobs, resolves the revenue crisis, the spending crisis, the deficit crisis. So we need to go forward.

Just on the Medicaid/Medicare piece, if I could just say one thing.

When we fall short on the Medicaid side, it falls again upon the property taxpayer, and again, if you're on a fixed income, as many seniors are, and again, the disproportionate number of women in households in the senior years are going to be, again, impacted by a property tax that, when levied on that home, doesn't know if you're unemployed, on fixed income, underemployed, so it will be hitting a retiree on fixed income very, very hard.

And so we're transferring from a progressive income tax and a progressive series of taxes at the Federal level on over to a State situation where it's going to trickle down into a property tax, which is grossly unfair.

We've had three votes to end Medicare.

To give tax cuts to the job creators.

We're told it's the millionaire-billionaire tax cut that responded to the needs of the job creators.

Representative Garamendi, I think that the message from the Democrats in the House of Representatives is straightforward and very logical: Don't end Medicare. We saw three votes to end Medicare in the House. We say save Medicare, make it stronger. But then we talk about cutting, cutting programs that don't create jobs; do those cuts where there are not jobs created. Where there are, save those programs, strengthen them; provide for jobs by investing in education, in innovation, and in infrastructure. And it's very easy when you take the education investment, the infrastructure investment, and certainly the education investment, that equals jobs for Americans, for middle class Americans. And that's what it's all about. If we create jobs, it drives down the unemployment factor, drives down the deficit. And there's no stronger form of medicine, bar none, than jobs being created. It solves a revenue crisis, it solves a deficit crisis, it solves a spending crisis.

Some of these programs are correlated directly with unemployment. There is a need to address the needs of the unemployed, the poor. If you put people to work, if you invest in retraining programs, education, if you invest in R&D to grow, move ideas along to a manufacturing mode and then you make it in America, these are the values that we embrace as a party in the House.

I think it has been a refreshing message, one that really gets to something here. And at the same time we're speaking to the default crisis, we're saying this is how we resolve that default crisis. Don't walk away from the obligation, the responsibility to pay our bills. And as you said, two wars, a pharmaceutical deal for part D for Medicare, and millionaire and billionaire tax cuts were all spent, those were all forms of spending. And all of that, all of that was borrowed in order to spend on tax cuts. And now the bills have come home to be paid. It happened a decade ago--it doesn't matter,

they are bills that have to be paid. We cannot put the economic vitality and viability of this Nation at risk or trigger an international economic crisis by not paying our bills.

So we address the default crisis, we save Medicare and strengthen Medicare, and we have a formula of innovation, education, and infrastructure that equals jobs for Americans, working families, and middle class Americans. It's straightforward. It's straightforward.

I don't know because it was messing with the Constitution. And The Wall Street Journal advised, don't mess with the Constitution, leave the Constitution out of this. And there were those who were economic advisors to President Reagan who said this is frightening--the exact words were very denouncing. And so no one took that seriously. And we spent hours here debating on a format that adjusts the Constitution, and some of the best minds who have worked in government from very conservative perspectives have said this was a wasteful measure.

They want to work.

The original tech valley. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. I know we don't have much time. I'll do this quickly.

The 21st Congressional District that I represent in upstate New York is the host community to the Erie Canal barge canal. It gave birth to a necklace of communities dubbed mill towns that became the epicenters of invention and innovation. That same pioneer spirit is fed today. It's part of our DNA. But you need investments in R&D. It's why my region is now one of the top five in the country for the growth of green collar jobs, innovation that is being advanced simply by investing, as we did in the prior Congress, in job creation. Not cutting programs that provide opportunities for work.

Instead, they are going and building up programs like handouts to the oil companies that aren't producing a job, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They need the dollars for that. They're cutting valuable programs that either speak to the dignity factor for our seniors through Medicare or advancing research and development that grows jobs. That's what we need to do.

The Democrats are on message. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Solve the jobs crisis, you'll resolve the deficit situation, the revenue situation, and the spending situation.

Our country is strong. Our economy is one that is bolstered by job creation. And we've said it so many times over and over again: Don't cut valuable programs. Allow our seniors the dignity of Medicare. That enables them to have economic sustainability, vitality. That is important. And we invest from children to seniors in a way that produces jobs, strengthens regional, State, and the national economies, and we go forward.

And I think the optimism is there. Our message is one of can do, not denial, cuts, slash, burn.

I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there is not a single person in this Chamber who doesn't want to balance the budget, but the legislation before us today is not about that. It is about enshrining a particularly radical interpretation of the Republican agenda into the foundational document, a precious document, our Constitution, that guides our system of government.

If successful, it would put in place a cap on Federal spending at 18 percent of GDP, turning back the clock more than half a century to the glory days of 1966. Though it makes for a great press release, why didn't anyone else think of this solution? Even President Reagan never once requested a Federal budget that spent nearly this low.

Well, to begin with, our population is much larger and much older on average than it was in 1966. Some see that as a problem. Seniors are expensive, they say. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. And if all you're worried about is how much Grandma's nursing home care costs, then this is the bill for you. But since 1966, Grandma is living, on average, nearly 10 years longer. There is no price you can place on that, and there is no question that it's because she's getting a guaranteed level of health care.

This bill, according to their own leaders, enshrines the Republican plan to end Medicare in the United States Constitution. Right there, after the freedom of religion, the freedom of thought, the freedom of assembly, we can have the freedom from health care after age 65.

This is nothing more than a political stunt, a gimmick that would change the fundamental rules of our democratic system so our Republican colleagues can make it easier to end Medicare and more difficult to cut tax giveaways to millionaires, to billionaires and their friends in Big Oil.

Let's stop this nonsense and get back to work. Let's stop the nonsense that is playing games with America's working families. They promote this as a way to fiscal sanity, but, rather, it's a lack of investment in sanity. It's an assault on our children, our families, our veterans, our seniors. Let's put America back to work. Let's invest in those opportunities and reduce the deficit as we move forward. Enough with the foolish gimmicks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is our pleasure during the next 40-or-so minutes to express concerns about a Medicare program that has served this Nation's seniors so very well for 45 years and is at risk of being ended.

Tonight, we witnessed on this floor the third such vote to end Medicare by the Republican majority. We know that our seniors would be forced to shop in a private market. The certainty of a guaranteed program that has been available to our Nation's seniors since 1966 is at risk. The money that the government would kick in for coverage would not keep pace with the costs for those health care policies, and so our seniors would be forced to dig into their pockets, reach into those pockets and perhaps have their costs, their contributions, more than doubled. This is an unnecessary step that is being taken against our Nation's seniors that is irresponsible.

We believe that what we have seen since that threshold in time in 1965 when we approved such a measure, the impact from the private sector health care industry has witnessed a growth of over 5,000 percent in the cost of premiums in that time since 1965. The impact on seniors has been certainly far

less than that. We have seen the containing of administrative costs, we avoid marketing requirements with the Medicare program, and we have been able to share benefits with our Nation's seniors in a way that protected their health care coverage, that enabled them to enjoy a quality of life.

It can easily be documented that when our Nation's seniors retired back in the sixties, they would see their economic durability challenged. Their strength, their economic opportunity to grow forward into retirement was oftentimes impacted by the cost of medical needs. There was cherry-picking going on, there were opportunities that were denied our Nation's seniors, and they were asked to absorb an inordinate amount of pressure in order to continue forward in soundness, in wellness and certainly to have the coverage that was required to meet their health care needs.

All of this now is at risk with several proposals. We've seen a Ryan plan, a budget that Republicans produced. The Ryan Road to Ruin, as we've designated it, would cause severe hardship on our Nation's seniors. We saw the Republican Study Committee come up with a vote that again ended Medicare. And today, when we witnessed this attempt to play with the United States Constitution, to make it very easy to end Medicare while making it even more difficult to address those deep pockets that get favorable treatment by some go continuing on because it would be more difficult to end that opportunity.

So what we have here tonight is an opportunity to discuss the assault on America's working families, the assault on her seniors, the Nation's seniors, by ending Medicare, ending Medicare that puts the private sector insurance industry in control. They put them in the driver's seat, they require our seniors to shop with a voucher that won't nearly cover the cost of those premiums, and, again, require them to pay double as we go forward.

We are joined by Representative Garamendi from California here this evening and Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut. The three of us will share thoughts about how to better address the economic pressures on this Nation today without ending Medicare. It has been a lifesaver for so many of our Nation's seniors and has provided a sense of security, of predictability in their budgeting as they go forward in retirement years.

Representative John Garamendi from California, thank you for joining us this evening. You witnessed it here tonight, as Mr. Courtney and I both did, Representative Courtney from Connecticut and I, witnessed yet another vote that would mean the end for Medicare, because it's an attempt to play with the Constitution, mess with our Constitution in a way that would really focus on hardship for our Nation's seniors.

I think it's important for us to share with the American public what's happening on this floor in the House of Representatives. So many suggest that the history that drove Medicare to be developed, the dynamics that were so impacting on the senior community across this country coast-to-coast, could be revisited if their proposal to end Medicare--the Republican proposal to end Medicare--were to take hold. And I know Representative Courtney, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, understands that. He has shared those concerns over and over again, that we could go back and revisit history of 45 years ago, 46 years ago, when people literally were impacted by cherry-picking going on, where they couldn't afford policies even if they were offered to them, and many times they couldn't get policies written to cover them.

Representative Courtney, thank you for joining us this evening on what is an important bit of information exchange for America. They need to know that the seniors are at risk.

Very well said, Representative Courtney.

What I think upsets all three of us is the fact that, with the Affordable Care Act, where we found savings by reining in some of the profit margins of insurance companies that were used--those savings were used to fill the doughnut hole that you just talked about--they're now taking those savings and sharing them in a way that's not going to benefit seniors, and they're not going to fill that doughnut hole. So when seniors come to us and say, Look, what is this talk about Medicare? they're saying, You destroyed Medicare. No. We were working to make it stronger. We're working to fill the doughnut hole so that prescription costs that are impacting seniors--my gosh, with the passage of time, we have seen advancements in pharmaceutical research that provides more opportunity for wellness or for cure. That has stretched opportunities galore for our seniors. But they would raid those savings and pull them away again from our senior community and use those in other ways, which we find very offensive.

This ending of Medicare with this third vote tonight, how much more do we need to challenge the security of seniors out there? They're disturbed every time they hear of this effort to end Medicare. We want to make it stronger. We're talking about all sorts of efforts to bulk purchase pharmaceuticals for the Medicare program, which would make it stronger. They forecast $156 billion or $157 billion of savings to the Federal Government that would provide correspondingly some $27 billion in savings for individual seniors just by doing that.

So there's an all-out effort here to strengthen Medicare, not to end it. And it's sad that tonight we witnessed the third vote cast here, with the majority's support so that it passed in the House, to move forward and include in that packaging the ending of Medicare.

Representative Garamendi, you have a chart up there.

Representative Garamendi, earlier you had talked about the impact on the 55-year-old or 54-year-old. If you look at a 54-year-old today, that individual is advised to save some $182,000 to $190,000 so as to have that available cash to cover the deficiency that's going to come with this end to Medicare, where you shop with this voucher, and it's only going to cover 32 cents on the dollar. So that 54-year-old is already impacted, but there is more to the picture than that.

When you draw the line in the sand and say, ``look, we end Medicare, and so those under 55 today will have to fend for themselves,'' they'll shop out in the private sector market, but when you don't have the newly entering senior community as they turn 65 enter into the mix, there is a correlation of age with the drawdown of the health care system. As you take the younger senior population, they provide for that ebb and flow within the pooling that Representative Courtney talked about earlier. The beauty of the program is that you pool seniors from the very youngest of seniors to ``senior'' seniors, and as that need for health care grows with age, the newly entering help provide that balance. So the

stability of the program and the durability of that program is at risk, I believe, because we're changing the dynamics.

Representative Courtney, you have talked about the security of that program, of the stability that we can provide, and how we in this House, as Democrats, have been working to strengthen the Medicare program: to build the trust fund so that there is this underpinning of support that will enable the program to continue to meet the needs of the upcoming population of baby boomers.

I believe it's $157 billion, right. It's a benefit that ought to be shared on behalf of our Nation's seniors.

To the points made earlier in this discussion as to the efforts for prevention, for screenings, that do not require co-payments or deductibles--the annual checkups--these are all elements that were introduced and imbedded into our reform package to contain costs, to bend that cost curve.

The real concern that so many have raised from the Democratic membership in this House is that we're not providing the sorts of savings for our seniors, that we're not bending that cost curve. When you send them out to shop and don't even give them adequate coverage-- 32 cents--and then the indexing into the future is not keeping pace with the projected inflation of health care costs, we're putting them at risk. We're targeting them for defeat. They're saying, Well, you're going to have 13 or 15 plans from which to choose as you shop in the open market.--That isn't bending the cost curve.

So the economic consequences here are, first and foremost, the hardship that seniors will have to embrace, that they'll have to endure. Then also, when we look back at 1966 and 1965, the available cash--the economic vitality of a senior household--was drained. It went south because medical costs were usurping their retirement funds.

Think of it. Those dollars not only help provide stability and security for our Nation's seniors, but that's available cash that they can use to perhaps have a meal out at a restaurant in their local community. There are dollars that are made available that get spun into the regional economy that allow for the comeback. So this is very interesting.

The programs, the cuts that they're suggesting, are all in areas that can help create jobs and improve economic viability.

Representative Courtney, I think what we're talking about here is legitimate reform in a way that bends that cost curve and takes a sound economic program like Medicare for our Nation's seniors and allows for that benefit and pulls the resources from coast to coast to serve our Nation's seniors well.

The concern here is, Representative Garamendi, they want to give their friends with deep pockets more opportunity for business. End Medicare to provide more business for the private sector insurance industry. Privatize Social Security, right?

I think you have a chart there that talks about another special interest.

It's very obvious from the polls being taken by many, many organizations out there that the American public said it's about jobs. We need jobs in the economy in order to make things work. It will reduce the deficit. It will put people to work. It will start growing the economic engine of neighborhoods and States and the entire country.

But what we're seeing is that there's this Republican assault on the middle class. They're cutting programs that serve the middle class. They're cutting programs that create jobs and invest in a new economy. But they're leaving alone these groups that are actually not--they're earning record profits, and we're still giving them hard-earned taxpayer dollars in the form of handouts and subsidies to the oil industry, to various industries that are just befriended by those in the House that want to play off the middle class and end Medicare, which is a very dangerous precedent that will be set.

Representative Garamendi, you wanted to make a point.

And that's equaling 33 seniors.

Thirty-three seniors paying $6,000 more per year. So we're making happy one millionaire and we're economically distressing 33 seniors who are going to pay at least $6,000 more to have the health care coverage if they, in fact, can get it.

And, Representative Courtney, when you talk about all of those costs, they were never put in the budget. They were off-budget. So that meant that those two wars, the pharmaceutical deal for Medicare part D, and the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires all had to be borrowed money, and so we borrowed from China, Saudi Arabia, all to make it happen.

This was dishonest budgeting, and it was favoring deep pockets over, evidently, seniors. And now the solution? End Medicare, block grant Medicaid, privatize Social Security. This is an assault on middle class values on our Nation's seniors.

Representative Garamendi, we'll move to you.

At least nine of every 10 comments we get either through the mail or on the phone are: Save Medicare. Don't let them mess with it.

We're fighting the good fight here. America needs to know there is a risk of losing Medicare. There are those who want to end it. We saw another vote here tonight.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this, the 27th week of this session of Congress, and continue to ask the leadership in our House to move legislation that will create jobs. Over the course of the last few weeks and months, this body has been so obsessed with the debt ceiling that it seems to have forgotten the plain and simple truth that the American people acknowledged last November and repeat over and over again: the best way to grow our economy and drive down the deficit is to put people back to work.

There are plenty of people looking for work. With unemployment around 9 percent, this body must make jobs and the economy our top priority. In fact, a Quinnipiac poll released yesterday found that by a 30-point margin, Americans say it is more important to reduce unemployment than to reduce the budget deficit.

But the biggest threat to jobs today: failure to increase the debt ceiling and playing politics with our economy. Holding the economy hostage in order to protect Big Oil, tax cuts for the wealthy, and tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas is not only un- American, it's immoral. Leadership requires difficult decisions and compromise. I hope we'll see more of these traits in the coming days, not less.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, we must fund the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damage caused by recent storms and floods and to prepare for future disaster events, there is no question about it. But doing so by cutting long-term investments in high-speed rail makes absolutely no sense, and I rise in strong opposition to this offset. This reckless recision will eliminate thousands of jobs, halt a large number of rail projects across the country, and hurt local and State economies.

The program is critical to our country's competitiveness by putting Americans back to work, revitalizing our construction and manufacturing sectors, boosting the domestic economy, and ending the United States' dependence on foreign oil. And it flies in the face of President Obama's stated goal of connecting 80 percent of America by high-speed rail in the next 25 years.

Should this recision pass in this House, the Capital Region of New York State alone stands to lose three critical projects, thousands of jobs, and millions in investments. Specifically, the bill, as written, would eliminate over $150 million intended for the Empire Corridor Capacity Improvements project, the Empire Corridor South: Albany to Schenectady Second Track project, and the Empire Corridor South: Grade Crossing Improvements project. This would lead to the loss of some 4,223 jobs.

Plain and simple, Madam Chair, we cannot afford these cuts at this time.

Just a few weeks ago, the local chambers of commerce from the capital region of upstate New York flew down to Washington, DC, to meet with Members of Congress to discuss their areas of interest and attention. It turns out that one of their top priorities was high-speed rail. Why is that? It's plain as day. High-speed rail investments create jobs. Jobs are the building block of our recovering economy, and a strong economy leads to a reduced Federal deficit.

Madam Chair, why is it that Europe, Japan, China and other countries can invest in 200-plus-mile-per-hour trains, but when the United States wants to simply lay additional track, upgrade some crossings, and guarantee timely, affordable, relatively average speed trains, we are left out in the cold?

Let's not let shortsighted politics trump our long-term economic viability. These are commonsense investments that have already been committed to, have already increased reliability in our rail system, and have already created jobs. Let's not pull the rug out from the feet of our job creators, not now. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot afford to deny the hope for jobs. We cannot afford to deny the American pioneer spirit.

I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Slaughter from New York, for her tireless advocacy on this issue and for having the vision and determination to make high-speed rail in upstate New York and across this State and country a reality.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about jobs. My home district, the capital region of New York, is a leader in clean energy jobs. But don't take my word for it. The Brookings Institution recently completed a study that found that the capital region has the largest share of green jobs in the country. That's over 6 percent. That's over 28,000 green jobs. And not only is the region growing now, it is poised for growth in the future. Whether at Albany NanoTech, GE, Plug Power, AWS Truepower, or GlobalFoundries, the capital region is producing the high-tech manufacturing jobs of today and tomorrow.

This doesn't just impact our domestic economy. Along with L.A., New York, and San Francisco, Albany is the only other metro area contributing $1 billion annually to the clean export economy. We can ``make it in America.'' We can manufacture the best products in the world here and do so in a way that grows jobs and rebuilds our economy.

The real question is: Does this Congress believe we are worthy of that investment? I think we are. Let's invest in jobs for America, and in so doing, let's cut the deficit. This report from the Brookings Institution proves it.

Mr. Speaker, this evening it is my pleasure to initiate discussion as to the events here in Washington as they affect our debt ceiling limit.

There is much attention being paid to the efforts for America to pay her bills, and obviously America's working families understand what it's all about. They understand that you work hard, you roll up your sleeves, you make ends meet, and you pay your bills on time.

Well, the concern we have today is that as we attempt to get that phenomenon done--as we have many times over the last several years--the bills have been rung up, perhaps by those Members of Congress before us and by administrations before us; but nonetheless, they are bills that need to be paid. And as we go forward, I think it's important for us to recognize that the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge that we need to pay those bills so as not to accrue additional interest charges, pay them as soon as we can, and make certain that we don't draw all sorts of havoc and damage to the American economy and perhaps the international economy as we move forward with the saga of being able to pay our bills with a debt ceiling limit being addressed.

Now, many Presidents have asked for this opportunity so as to be responsible in their administrative role, in their executive role. This President has now been addressing this issue. And we have brought in discussion to enable to authorize that debt ceiling limit being adjusted, that it should be accompanied by spending cuts. And so it has created a certain give and take, a tug of war, so to speak, here in Washington to enable us to pay those bills and have the ceiling limit addressed.

An agenda is being attached that would include spending cuts, spending cuts that in some ways can devastate the working families of this Nation, an assault on many of the needs that they have.

There is, with the Ryan plan--that now has become the ``Republican plan,'' as it has been passed by this House--would address Medicare as we know it. It would end Medicare, a program that was initiated back in 1965, took hold about 45 years ago in 1966, and has addressed the economic vitality of many senior households since that time.

Prior to that legislation for Medicare, many of the seniors were victimized, not being able to access that sort of care, not having the health care plans they required. The industry would cherry pick; they would take certain elements of a senior population that were a safer risk, an easier risk. And when it came to affordability, again, a drain on the economic vitality of retirees. Those who would retire at a certain level of economic viability would have that situation dip southward as their medical costs would drain those retirement savings.

And so history has shown that that economic vitality of our senior community has stayed more constant, more durable since the time of Medicare. It has enabled a cushion, a security to be there for our senior population so as they advanced into their golden years, they would have that coverage that was so essential.

There is this correlation of the need for health care with growing older. That's easily understood. And so what we needed was a plan that would provide security and stability, and we found it, and the Nation celebrated in bipartisan fashion. And for decades we have improved the system and addressed it so as to meet the needs of our Nation's seniors.

And now, as we look to address a debt ceiling limit, discussions have brought in a cutting services agenda where we are going to deny certain programs, amongst them Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid being reduced, programs that speak to core needs--Pell Grants for higher education, education aid and Head Start for our youngsters, the workforce of the future. A number of issues under attack, an assault on the middle class, programs that are required for working families, for their children, for seniors, for veterans, for establishment of jobs.

To create a jobs agenda, we need oftentimes to invest. Also at a time when we're asked to invest in a clean energy and innovation economy because there is a global sweepstakes going on amongst the world nations to compete for clean energy with investments that are required for R&D, and you name it, so as to develop that soundness of an agenda and create jobs here, utilizing and embracing the American intellect.

So all of that is put at risk by this frenzy to have spending cuts while we authorize this debt ceiling limit, which allows us, authorizes us to pay our bills, has the executive branch pay its bills, has this country pay its bills, as the President has suggested time and time again.

But the outcome is that many are thinking this is giving us new authorization to spend when in fact it covers the bills of the past. And to accompany their vote here, they would want spending cuts. And so Medicare has

been on that block; it has been on that chopping block, and many of my colleagues are concerned about that.

We're joined tonight by my colleague from California, who represents, I believe, the 32nd District of the State of California, Representative Judy Chu, who has been outspoken in her defense of maintaining the Medicare program, improving it, strengthening it, providing greater opportunity for generations of seniors yet to come, and not ending it. Ending Medicare would be a torturous thought for many out there. And there are those who defend the program here in the House, amongst them Representative Judy Chu.

Representative Chu, thank you for joining us this evening, and I welcome your thoughts on where we're at as we address these debt ceiling limit negotiations and now having these demands of spending cuts put upon us that could impact the senior population via the end to Medicare.

Representative Chu, you raised an interesting fact with the end to Medicare proposed by the Republicans in the House. The cost shifting that takes hold, it's about a two-thirds/one-third split today. And the out-of-pocket expenses to a senior at times--as you pointed out, $19,000 as an average income--even those out-of-pockets for the one-third today can be rather demanding. But to shift that now to flip it to one-third/two-thirds, where 32 cents on the dollar would be what you're provided with your voucher--as you suggested, through the course of time, it will not reflect accurately well enough the growth in health care costs because they don't index it correctly.

So you start with a one-third burden of what government will contribute. That means 68 cents out of pocket for seniors. I don't know how they would afford it. I represent a disproportionately high number of senior citizens in the 21st Congressional District in New York State. This would be a drain on many households. And when we see the costs that some of them would have to absorb, with pharmaceutical costs that enable them to either recover or at least live in some sort of dignified manner, it is really a strong concern.

And for the groups who are proposing this to have the audacity to suggest that it's what Congress gets--when Congress is getting 72 cents, I believe, on the dollar for their health care coverage, so for every dollar of premium that they pay, 72 cents is covered, as opposed to the 32 cents they would have go the way of senior citizens--nothing could be farther from factual than what they portray here. So this is a cost shifting that is a very painful measure.

We've had a program that's worked so well that seniors in my district say, Hands off my Medicare. Hands off the Medicare. If you want to do anything, make it even stronger. Protect that Medicare program. But that, for 45 years, has worked so well and has worked in a way that has addressed the dignity of seniors in their retirement years. So Representative Chu, we thank you for your participation here this evening.

We've been joined by another colleague, from the State of Maryland, Donna Edwards. I believe it's Maryland's Fourth District, Representative Edwards?

Or end them.

Representative Edwards, when you talk about this debt, I think we need to state too very clearly that these were off-budget. All of these tax cuts, the wars during those Bush years were paid for by borrowing, and we borrowed from China and other nations totally to pay for this because they were totally off-budget. So people need to know, this debt ceiling limit authorization is to pay for bills that have accrued from decisions made in administrations prior to this and perhaps sessions of Congress that came far before the 112th session of Congress. So it is an authorization to pay bills. And in order to get that approval, there are many who are suggesting we have to cut spending, including ending Medicare.

Again, if you would suffer an interruption, when we talk about the beginning days of Medicare, the propensity to do something then would become the same cause today, because people were being impacted by cherry picking, by unaffordable rates, by inaccessible outcomes, where there was absolutely no desire to write a policy for some. And as we look at that age curve rise exponentially, I mean the life expectancy, I believe, in 1965 was 70 years of age. That has grown tremendously. And so now you are going to have more and more people living longer, and we need to help strengthen Medicare. But to end it at a time when people would go back to this rat race of trying to find someone to cover you, it puts the insurance company back in the driver's seat. Seniors would have precious little control over their destiny.

And what I think can be documented clearly from that time in 1965, 1966 is that the economic vitality of senior households, that durability of their income status was held harmless with Medicare. And it used to dip south because health care costs would drain those retirement incomes in some format that would really impoverish our senior community. We're going to head back into the disaster of pre- 1965.

Absolutely. Representative Edwards, you struck on a chord that is just repeated over and over again in my district. Many thought, well, if the seniors are told that this will affect senior communities into the future, that they will get buy-in from today's senior citizens. I am impressed with the very generous statements made, the advocacy embraced by our senior community of today saying, This has served me so well, I don't want it denied my children or my grandchildren.

And as you pointed out, you know, a 54-year-old of today will have to save about $182,000 out of her or his pocket in order to pick up the slack that would be part of this shop on your own, you know, putting the insurance companies back into control. The senior's going to get a voucher that covers a third of the costs that they need to have health care coverage and then dig into their pockets for the rest. So that means a 54-year-old of today will have to save $182,000, but then the 30-year-old will have to save $400,000.

Where are we going with this? This is all to cut a program that has served, with dignity, the senior community of this country, all to pay for the Bush-era tax cuts. So this is a way of sliding savings by ending Medicare and bringing it over to pay for millionaire and billionaire tax cuts and for subsidies to oil companies. This is as vulgar as it can get.

And to attach this to a discussion on debt limit, where we look for authorization to pay our bills, just like America's working families roll up their sleeves, earn that money and pay their bills, they expect the government to do the same thing. And to play a game on Medicare where you deny access and affordability for a basic core human need after a record of tremendous performance since 1966 is, I think, so objectionable that it's no wonder when we go home, when you go to Maryland, when I go back to upstate New York, people are saying, Hands off my Medicare.

Absolutely.

Very well said, Representative Edwards, and I just want to attach my comments to yours about the impact of Medicare, an investment that has produced a lucrative dividend. We have kept the dignity factor alive for seniors, we have kept our seniors well, we have enabled them to recover, we have enabled to them to live because of an attachment to our health care plan.

On the other side, we have allowed for spending for a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, spending on a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires time and time again, knowing that the result is no real lucrative dividend, negligible. We look at not only the spending that people acknowledge was okay for something not returning a dividend, we lost 8.2 million jobs in the Bush recession, but then we borrowed all the money to spend, needed to spend, for that tax cut.

What a contrast. And the Democrats in this House have said, no, let's do programs that have a return. Let's invest in our senior community and let's not spend on these tax cuts that have no dividend, no lucrative dividend.

And if we didn't have the money to spend for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, why then did we go and borrow from China and Saudi Arabia?

So it makes very little sense to follow that road to ruin which the Republican plan, once the Ryan plan, now speaks to.

We have been joined by Representative Jackson Lee from the State of Texas. Welcome, Representative, and thank you for joining in the discussion on the attempts here to end Medicare and to allow for those savings to go toward spending on tax cuts that get somehow attached to a discussion on the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling being raised so that America can pay her bills. It's convoluted at best.

Well said, Representative Jackson Lee.

You know, for us to now quickly approach this deadline by which the debt ceiling has to be raised and to put the added pressure of ending Medicare into that discussion is vulgar.

Forty-six million Americans are watching this. And they know that they're at risk here simply because people want to unnecessarily attach the end of Medicare into this discussion. And as Representative Edwards said earlier, we've improved it with the Affordable Care Act, we've allowed for no deductibles, no copayments for annual checkups and for certain screenings. We're making it stronger. We're trying to get prevention in there to bend that cost curve. Many of us are looking to allow for bulk purchasing of pharmaceuticals, which we do with Medicaid and we do with the VA program. But it was not allowed when the Bush agenda was authorized.

Representative Edwards, that chart that you're holding there tonight is still haunting me because I look at all of that debt that was assumed for tax cuts for millionaires that now they want to do again, continue forward, and I look at the wars that were not paid for, I look at the, again, the Medicare part D program that was part of that growth of debt that we're now being asked to pay as the bills have accrued, the interest that we would have to pay if we don't raise that debt ceiling is astronomical.

So, again, we welcome you to the floor this evening on a very important discussion. And your thoughts. You were going into the concerns about Medicare being ended for those that count on you to be their voice here in the House.

Congresswoman Edwards and Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I would say, too, that Medicare, yes, speaks to the health care needs of senior households, but there's also a stability there. There's a security so that some of the available expenditures that are out there today from seniors investing in their community, spending in their community, would be lost. And so the economic recovery, then, again, gets threatened.

And when I look at this, all through that blob of color of which you speak, all during that time was like a loss of 8.2 million jobs. So where was the quantifiable benefit of all of this relief to those perched way high on the income ladder? There wasn't a corresponding benefit. So we need to recognize what works and works well. And when Medicare has worked for all these years, why would we threaten it? And what I think bothers me most--I'm on the Budget Committee, and today we had a hearing with Secretary Sebelius. And when you talk about bending that health care cost curve, the Republican plan, after they end Medicare and they toss it to the market for the shopping to be done by our senior community, there's no bending of the cost curve. They're saying sharpen the pencil, bottom-line benefit through competition to help our seniors.

We have watched, Representative Jackson Lee, since the start of Medicare the private sector insurance costs have risen by over 5,000 percent, that's 5,000 percent. The track record on Medicare, no administrative burden to speak of--no heavy one--no marketing

budget, no wasteful expenditures and no high profit columns, we've seen back-to-back profit columns go out of sight for these industries. And when we look at this, when we say we need to go to the bank to borrow, that's helping the friends in the big bank industry. When we need to put it in the private sector and end Medicare, that's helping the deep pockets of the insurance industry. This is like helping those who are looking for more business at the expense of containing costs, bending a health care curve, providing for dignity for the senior community and shedding a program that has worked for nearly half a century and that people have advocated should be there for their children and their grandchildren and generations yet unborn. That is uniquely American. That's uniquely American. It shows and expresses a degree of sensitivity, of compassion and of ability to make things happen.

A budget, a plan that we put together here is merely a listing of our priorities. What do we deem most essential? And when you can reach 46 million, 47 million people in their golden years and provide guaranteed health care, that ought to be a high priority, not taking the savings of ending Medicare to pay for millionaire tax cuts, billionaire tax cuts, or oil industry handouts. Let's get real. Let's get real here. Let's get compassionate. Let's be understanding that what we're ending has a tremendously sound bit of history.

The Representative from Texas talked about strengthening and improving Medicare, not ending it.

Some have suggested as much as $156 billion could be saved by bulk purchasing for our pharmaceutical needs for the program, for Medicare. That also is a savings of probably, I think I've heard, $27 billion as the number for seniors, themselves, because there is a fraction that they assume in those costs. If we do that, we send over not only the savings for government but we send it over to the senior community, also. And so there are ways to address fraud and inefficiency.

The New York Times reported just a short while ago that there were double chest CT scans being done, CT chest scans being done and that the Federal Government was overbilled by some $25 million. That's one small example of accountability, or lack thereof, and the need to continually stay vigilant in our efforts to search out fraud and inefficiency.

But take it, make it work, strengthen it and provide for that continuation, just the stability that we can provide to enable seniors to breathe more easily, to know that a basic core need for them that's correlated as they grow older, as any of us grows older, it's correlated that you're going to require that health care attachment.

And how dare we--I say ``we''--how dare they, how dare a Republican majority in this House suggest it's worked well, it's been there for seniors for 46 years, but we're ending it, because we're going to box the situation: if you want your debt ceiling limit to be raised so America can pay her bills, you're going to do it with spending cuts and we're starting with Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid.

Well, isn't that nice? That's a take-it-and-weep scenario, and that is terrible because the people that would weep deserve our voice to be heard resoundingly on the floor, to say we step in and we defend the program and, more importantly, we defend the recipients of the program.

Representative Edwards, Maryland's Fourth District Rep.

Very well said.

We have about 5 minutes left. I'm just going to do a bit of close and then ask for each of our Representatives that remain here on the floor--we were joined earlier by Representative Chu from California--to offer your sentiments, and then we will bring the hour to a close.

What I think is very important to note is that if we can find ways to save on Medicare, we should invest that in Medicare to strengthen Medicare. If we can find ways to save in Social Security, reinvest in Social Security. They deserve to be stand-alones because they are prime, prime opportunities, programs for strengthening the fabric of America's families. So that should be a separate turf and not be using these dollars, these savings as the Republicans would end Medicare, to somehow bring that over in a fungible fashion to pay for these tax cuts.

Today, I talked to my medical colleges, and they are going to get impacted by the cuts to NIH. In New York State, we probably have over a billion dollars in revenue streams that go to hospitals for research. So you cut the NIH program, you put more people out of work, and you cut a revenue stream for hospitals that need to train the human infrastructure that will make all of our health care programs work. Similarly, when you look at our need to compete effectively in a global economy on clean energy and innovation, the winner of that race will be the go-to nation that will create stability for generations of their workers. Why shouldn't America be number one in that investment?

If we can find savings somewhere or if we do create revenues, they need to go into investments to grow jobs. That's what America told us at the polls last November: we want jobs to be the number one priority. We haven't done a jobs bill in this House; but we've come up and found ways to end Medicare, which right now is so vulnerable to this discussion on the debt ceiling limit. We have to end that crazy plan, and we need to go forward with a sensible plan that enables us to invest in jobs, invest in our senior community, invest in their well- being and to again see these two programs worthy of saving and strengthening; and if we have the economic means, let's do it.

Representative Jackson Lee, we will go to you and then to Representative Edwards, and we will be done with our hour.

And now to Representative Edwards, and then we will be through.

Thank you very much.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, first I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for offering this bipartisan amendment with me. He is a leader on energy issues, and I thank him for his support.

Mr. Chair, the Tonko-Bass amendment is simple. It will restore three specific, results-driven energy efficiency programs within the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill to last year's levels. It is neither a stretch nor an overreach. It is a balanced approach, and it is fully offset.

First, this amendment will restore funding to the Weatherization Assistance Program, or WAP. WAP is the largest residential efficiency program in our Nation. It reduces the energy burden on low-income families and the elderly and disabled, and creates jobs, invests in local businesses, and advances technology, state-of-the-art technology. The 35 percent savings as a result of weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual utility bills for the average homeowner.

Second, the amendment restores funding to the State Energy Program or SEP. SEP is the only cost-shared program administered by the United States Department of Energy that provides resources directly to the States for allocation by the Governor for use in energy efficiency. This includes 56 State and territory energy offices. And according to a study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for every $1 in federal SEP funds, annual savings of 1.03 million source Btu's are saved, along with the cost savings of $7.22 and a leveraging of $10.71 on that same $1.

Finally, the Tonko-Bass amendment restores funding to the Building Technologies Programs. Buildings in the United States use about 40 percent of our total energy and two-thirds of our electricity. As such, this program seeks to promote American innovation and technologies to reduce operating costs to building owners, which is vital in today's market.

Finally, Mr. Chair, this amendment has a net impact of zero dollars on budget authority and reduces 2012 outlays by $58 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It does so by offsetting the increase of spending with cuts to the Weapons Activities Account, specifically to the Readiness in Technical Base Facilities account. The Appropriations Committee report suggests they are seriously concerned with the recent cost growth reported for construction of two major projects in the account. The committee report claims modernization will take several years and the considerable number of variables still at play argues against an excessively aggressive funding curve.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to close by saying I do not believe we can afford to slip any further behind our global competitors in energy investments. A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, creating local, private sector contracting jobs, and providing State control on energy projects.

Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Hampshire for his leadership on this issue and thank him for his support.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

To: Southern States Members of the U.S. House of

Representatives

From: Kenneth J. Nemeth, Secretary and Executive Director

Date: July 7, 2011

Re FY12 SEP, WAP and BTP Appropriations under H.R. 2354--

Tonko Amendment

As an interstate compact organization representing 16

southern states and two U.S. territories, we are disappointed

with the budget cuts to the U.S. State Energy Program (SEP),

Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and the Department

of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Program (BTP) under

the House Energy and Water Development FY 12 appropriations

measure that was approved on June 15, 2011. The Southern

States Energy Board (SSEB) has a long and direct relationship

with the state energy offices and fully supports their role

as a key component of implementing our country's energy

policies.

I am writing to you to ask for your support of

Representative Tonko's amendment to H.R. 2354 to restore

funds to the State Energy Program, Weatherization Assistance

Program and the Building Technologies Program. Representative

Tonko will be circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter seeking

your support for the amendment and we are urging you to sign

in support of the amendment. Mr. Tonko's amendment would add

funding for these three key programs to bring them up to FY11

levels as follows:

State Energy Program--add $25 million for a total of $50

million

Weatherization Assistance Program--add $141 million for a

total of $174 million

DOE Building Technologies Program--add $62 million for a

total of $212 million

This Nation's future is reliant on reducing our energy

dependence. As a policy maker, it is important to understand

the role of State Energy Offices and the importance of the

State Energy Program, Weatherization Program and the Building

Technologies Program to achieve these national goals. The SEP

allows states to support a variety of energy efficiency and

renewable energy projects including improvements to schools

and hospitals, establishing partnerships with utilities,

businesses and industry and facilitating the economic

development opportunities for states while maximizing the

development of states' renewable energy resources.

In keeping with protecting our economy while increasing the

efficient use of energy, the U.S. DOE Buildings Technologies

Program is essential and requires full FY11 funding levels to

continue deploying technologies that will reduce pressure on

tight energy supplies and help to restrain prices while

protecting the environment. This program encourages

innovation for emerging technologies and contributes to our

global leadership while creating jobs and strengthening our

economy.

Also, the Weatherization Program is essential to helping

low-income families, the elderly and disabled by improving

the energy efficiency of their homes and lowering their

energy bills. During the economic strain that we are

experiencing all across the country, cutting funding to this

program would create even a larger burden on our citizens

forcing them into more difficult choices on basic needs.

I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the Tonko Amendment

so that these critical programs can continue contributing

toward our Nation's energy goals.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

For a point of clarification, I would just point out the statutory deadline for the weatherization program and the State Energy Program is on March 31 of any given year, in this case 2012. So, of course, it's not all spent yet. There is expected to be an accelerated spending on these investments that are made. The drawdown on those moneys will come in an accelerated way. But also the intent was a 3- year spend-out. And I think if we pull the rug out from these job creators at this stage, we stand to reduce employment among our private sector contractors, our builders and renovators. What I had seen in New York, especially with the State Energy Programs, they had a 3-year waiting list.

There is a great deal of good that comes from this program, and I think everyone in this Chamber is well served by investment in this program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Tonko

Amendment No. 34: Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(increased by $226,800,000)''.

Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount insert the

following: ``(reduced by $226,800,000)''.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2219.

Madam Chair, the highest individual government salary funded by the American taxpayer is that of the President of the United States at a total of $400,000, or so I thought. The President is certainly the highest paid public servant, but it turns out that the leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on the taxpayers' payroll.

In fact, the highest Federal Government salaries by far can be earned by private sector executives who are paid up to $700,000 per year directly in taxpayer dollars. I do not mean executives who earn their multibillion-dollar incomes by selling often overpriced and

underperforming equipment to our men and women in uniform, though the customer is the Federal Government. Those salaries are paid through transactions in the private sector. No, I am talking about the Federal Government salaries paid directly by the Pentagon and other agencies to private contractor executives, direct salaries paid for 100 percent by taxpayer dollars.

You won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government income lists. They certainty aren't subject to the current Federal employee pay and hiring freeze.

In fact, that $700,000 maximum salary increases every year to reach even greater heights even as we contemplate cutting other areas of our budget to new lows, including that of our military service branches.

These salaries are being paid by a department that has not been able to pass a standard audit in its entire history. It cannot even tell us how many contractors are on its payroll.

Madam Chair, the salary of a typical Army private starts at a meager $20,000 per year. General Petraeus, a four-star general with 37 years of active service, the commander of the international coalition in Afghanistan and the next director of the CIA, earns a salary of approximately $180,000. The Secretary of Defense earns about $200,000. How then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense contractor executives?

I understand that there may be contractors who supply services to our Nation that our government cannot perform on its own. However, I am also absolutely certain that there is no one single private contractor whose value to our national security is twice that of the Commander in Chief of the United States military.

At a time when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is telling us that the Nation's debt is the number one threat facing America, we cannot continue using taxpayer dollars to pay lavish and unjustifiable private contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military leadership.

My amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used to pay a Federal Government salary for any individual defense contractor that exceeds the salary of the Secretary of Defense. That salary is level 1 of the executive schedule, or about $200,000.

This is a very modest reform. It is not about limiting contracts or contract spending more broadly. It does not deal with outsourcing or insourcing. It does not, in fact, cap contractor pay, which may include private sector projects, profit sharing, or other earnings. It merely deals with the salary paid to contractors directly by the taxpayer, limiting the cost of that compensation in an effort to reduce the deficit and stop paying exorbitant Federal salaries to private sector employees.

I think this amendment forms a perfect complement to section 8050 of the underlying bill, which deals with limiting contractor bonuses. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and other modest simple reforms that can help us tackle the deficit.

With that, I thank you, Madam Chair.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Offered By: Mr. Tonko

Amendment No. 118: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

This evening I will be joined by my colleague from California, Representative Garamendi. He and I will discuss for this next hour the issue that deals with a program that is tremendously popular in this country, that deals with our senior population as they have the resources through a program dubbed ``Medicare'' that enables them to enjoy with dignity their senior years and to be able to have the security of knowing that there is affordability and accessibility for their health care needs. Obviously, as our senior population continues to grow and the longevity curve continues to climb upward, our senior population has reminded us that their dignity and their quality of life has been addressed in a very strong way as the calculated curve for life expectancy continues to mount, which is a positive force in the lives of all Americans.

The efforts that we see afloat in this House at this Capitol range across a number of cuts and reforms that people are proposing for the future budget for this country. There is this Ryan Roadmap which has been developed and dubbed the ``path to prosperity'' by the author and by the Republican majority in the House. However, many of us have seen it for its true value and its attempts to end Medicare, so much so that we have dubbed it the ``road to ruin,'' a situation that would undo a Medicare program, and it is why signs such as this next to me here would greet many of us when we arrive in our district for district work period or on weekends as we break from session here in the House of Representatives: ``Hands off my Medicare.'' It's very bold, it's very straightforward, and it's very understood. The message is real, and it has reached us because it talks about an attempt here to end Medicare in this House. It would force seniors to find their own insurance in the private market. They would be asked to shop with a coupon in hand. The money that the government would kick in for coverage, part of that coupon would not nearly keep pace with the actual costs--the costs that seniors would be forced to pay.

Of course, as 32 cents--which has been the on-average expectation of the coupon--for every $1 of premium costs would be the outcome, that means that the risk would shift from our senior population to have them dig into their pockets, and the risk would be removed from government and placed in the hands of seniors. It would take away what is a stable, dependable system and put a profit-driven insurance arena of companies in charge of rationing care for our seniors.

This is a very unacceptable outcome, Representative Garamendi, and I'm glad that you have joined us this evening in this Special Order, where we'll focus on the Ryan Roadmap and what it really means, what it calculates to do, and the impact it has on so many elements of the population out there. And thank you, Representative Garamendi, for joining us this evening as we talk about this attempt to end Medicare and shift the risk from government to seniors.

You point out the line in the sand drawn for 55 and over and 55 and under and that there is a different treatment. People would try to suggest, if you're 65, say, and you're qualifying for Medicare, if you go forward, the folks below 55 will never join the system, and that will cause fluctuations in the crowd that's 65 and over today. As that happens, as they grow older and as the life expectancy keeps strengthening and going north, not south, there is no replenishing of the younger eligible Medicare community. As you climb the age chart, the correlation with health care and your need for services rises. So the younger element within the Medicare eligible community was, I think, providing stability in the fund. I think it disrupts even the actuarial outcome of that universe as you no longer allow the entry of new populations with time.

With no younger seniors coming in.

Right.

A community for whom we have not done insurance writing. The actuarial science has not been applied. We've had 45 years of reprieve.

Right. If you'll suffer an interruption here and allow me to just share what, I think, both of us have talked about, people at home, because this is such a drastic proposal, can't believe that it's a real proposal. We have to remind people it is very much alive and it has legs, so much so today that the majority leader of the House, who was at the Vice President Biden table for negotiations on the debt ceiling bill today, walked, along with a Republican Senator spokesperson for that House, for their conference, the Republican Conference. They dropped out of the talks today simply because they want certain revenues at that negotiating table to be exempt, or certain proposals.

So we're saying, look, this has to be a bipartisan approach that has a tender balance here: that you cannot drop out of that balance certain impacts to the economy, like $800 billion worth, which is the price tag for the wealthy in this country, where they want that dollar amount to be absolutely cast in stone.

Exactly.

We're saying as Democrats in the House and as Democrats on the Hill what must be on the table. We need to have on the table discussions about oil breaks, which trace their roots over a hundred years' worth of policy decisions. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans must be on the table. These are the important things. Big Oil profits, which are historically the largest, are the reason, in order to afford those sorts of handouts and wealthy tax cuts, they need to carve into a program like Medicare. It's in order to make it all balance. So we're saying no, no, no, that these things must be on the table.

You know, you talk about choices, and the choices are do we continue Medicare--and obviously the Democrats in the House want to improve, they want to strengthen Medicare, not deny it, not end it-- make it more stable, make it an even stronger program. There's a choice. Their choice would be to have tax earmarks for what sort of things? For corporate jets, for golf bags, for snow globes. These are the choices. And beyond choice, there are contrasts.

Now, this chart here somewhat incorporates what you're talking about there with Big Oil. We have $131 billion that is given away yearly to Big Oil and millionaires, handouts, tax cuts.

$131 billion.

Yes. Contrasted with the $165 billion that are yearly cuts to Medicare. So it's almost an equal swap. And we see that you need to end Medicare in order to provide for the wealthy tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and handouts, mindless handouts to oil companies sitting on historic record profits. This year alone, in the first quarter, we're at about $36 billion in profits.

So why, if we'd done just this mindlessly for nearly a century's worth, why would we continue that and put at risk a program that will be celebrating its 45th anniversary in a few days? Why would we do that when the quality of life for the many, many, the many in the masses of Medicare eligibility are being put at risk for the far fewer who are going to get the millionaire, billionaire tax cuts and the oil handouts?

Not only do they talk about these choices over and above the senior community, but they've made it clear that their negotiations at the table begin and end with this destruction of Medicare while protecting subsidies for Big Oil and to include the tax breaks for millionaires. That, you know, is very clear. That is the directive. That is part of a line drawn in the sand on negotiations, which makes it very difficult, because what it tells us is that they're willing to put at risk the full faith and credit of these United States on the line.

And we know we have just struggled to crawl out of a situation, a recession that's found 8.2 million jobs lost in America. We're just climbing that hill to recovery, and they're willing to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk and perhaps, most likely, cause a new economic calamity.

And if someone could at least rationalize the benefit of that program, if they could at least quantify good, societal good that comes with that sort of thinking. In recent history, twice over in recent history we've witnessed that relief, that that top income strata has not caused and inspired a trickle down that produced jobs, that enabled people to see investments made in an economic recovery. In fact, the reverse was true. We saw what happened. They reduced these taxes for millionaires and billionaires, 8.2 million jobs lost, and the American economy brought to its knees, when in fact, now, the people have said, look, our top priority is jobs. We heard it. All of us that serve in this wonderful Chamber heard it in the last election of November of 2010. It couldn't have resonated more boldly, more clearly. It's about jobs. It's about growing the economy.

Stop shrinking the middle class. Start growing the economy. That was the directive, and so what they wanted was to make certain that we would allow for dignity to continue, that health care costs would be contained. As we did the reforms to health care, we included improvements for Medicare. They wanted that Medicare program to continue. And when you listen to the American public out there--and we'll talk about this in a minute--the polling, most recent, today that was released indicates there is strong support for continuing Medicare. They support strengthening Medicare, and they have denounced this attempt to bring an end to Medicare. They are angry about it, not just for their generation. And I'm saying ``they'' as seniors. They are concerned because they want their children and grandchildren to enjoy that same order of security that has served them so well with their health care needs.

And you know, you are so right. That preclusion that came in that measure was an outright avoidance of providing a benefit to the senior community. I know the number because we talked about it today in another session. It's $156 billion that could be saved over that 10- year stretch just by bulk purchasing the pharmaceutical needs for the Medicare program.

Exactly.

And it's not just a savings to the government, but it's also a savings of $27 billion to individual seniors. So right there is an opportunity to provide for stability and to rein in costs within the Medicare program. But it takes the sort of compassion and the determination and the outright leadership to make certain that we make it stronger. What they've said today--I was in a hearing on the Budget Committee--is that, well, look, the way we're going to do this is sharpen the pencil. There is going to be this competition, and everyone's going to fight to serve the senior citizen for her or his health care needs. With the market taking over, they're going to drive down the costs and provide the benefits.

Since Medicare was initiated, the private sector premium costs have risen by 5,000 percent. Medicare is far below that curve. There isn't that marketing program. There isn't that administrative overcharge that really has driven these prices to go out of sight. And what we have here is an attempt to put the insurance company into the driver's seat.

And I think it's probably what underlies the thinking of Americans out there, because when they were polled just recently with the poll that was shared with people today, there is overwhelming opposition to the GOP plan to end Medicare. So much so that in that effort by the GOP to convert Medicare to a voucher system, 57-plus percent said ``no'' to that idea. And when you look at independent voters out there as a separate bloc of measurement, it closes into 60 percent, at 58-point-some percent.

So people are saying overwhelmingly, We do not want to convert this into a voucher system, where you get 32 cents on every dollar that you need. And they're saying very clearly: Hands off my Medicare. The message couldn't be clearer: Hands off my Medicare.

Just to get the concept up and running.

Right.

And where we saw overpayment for services provided, where there was unnecessary profit accrued in certain areas, we said enough is enough. The taxpayers shouldn't pay for adding to the profit column beyond reason for those private sector types that said they can do it cheaper, which was the claim. We can do it cheaper. Let us have this Medicare Advantage model, and we will show you how we can provide benefits. It didn't require such vast overpayment.

Right.

In situations where we found recently--and there was an article in a major paper, The New York Times, that reported that there were CT chest scans done two times over at many locations where they were recovering those dollars through Medicare and found that to cost some $25 million worth of waste, of fraud in the system. Now, that's just one small example of one small bit of opportunity and activity in the health care field.

Think of it. If you have the agents, as you suggested, and if they are funded in a way that produces dollars of savings simply by having the infrastructure, the human infrastructure, to go out and chase this fraud down, we can then benefit. There are systems here that we developed that have the checks and balances, that have the bells and whistles, that have the preventative element. Even the efforts that we made in the Affordable Care Act to not require copayments or deductibles for any of the screenings and the annual checkups for our seniors--wonderful concepts to, again, contain the costs of health care within the Medicare model, which we thought was a wonderful thing to do.

And you're right, there's no move here. When you end Medicare and make no adjustments and just hand it over to the private sector and say, Keep on your trend of being much more expensive than Medicare and go out there and sharpen the pencil, without changes that they want to induce into the program, nothing changes; but the cost increases for the seniors.

And the annual checkups. Don't forget those. And just undoing the requirement for copayment or deductibles for those screenings and annual checkups. There was this compassionate, reasonable, thoughtful approach to contain costs, provide for the continuation of a program that has grown immensely valuable in the lives and the fabric of our senior community.

And you know what's interesting too? This ``hands off my Medicare'' is not just resonating with today's seniors. In the recent poll that I just cited, 61 percent of those age 35, Representative Garamendi, and older and 63 percent of those age 55 and older said they would be worse off under this GOP plan. Worse off. So the more people check this out, all age groups--under 55, under 35, over 65--are all saying, Hands off my Medicare. It's no wonder that the message has been resoundingly delivered throughout this country, no matter what region. You're on the west coast. I'm on the east coast. We're hearing it from coast to coast.

So you're saying that--to quote your dollar figure from earlier--if you're 54, 55 years old, save another $182,000 to cover your health care costs with the end to Medicare because the system has to pay oil subsidies to the historically profit-rich oil industry.

So they're saying, okay, garner up those dollars, save somehow the $182,000 additionally that you will require for your health care coverage because we have to give this mindless handout to the oil companies. Or guess what, $6,000 more out of your pocket per year for your health care coverage because we won't have the dollars if you don't do that to pay the oil companies or to give the millionaires and billionaires their tax cut.

These are the priorities that need to be addressed thoughtfully at a negotiating table. And the ridiculousness of the empowerment of the most powerful at the expense of the masses of those who have received quality of care and dignity addressing their golden years, that has to be sacrificed just so that this stubbornness of negotiation can continue where you're going to have this Darwinistic outcome.

What does grow jobs is strengthening purchasing power so that as the middle class of America, which is the engine that drives the economy, has the available cash to purchase things, to be out there and allow for the upper strata to have their products sold, purchased, you're going to destroy purchasing power of many households, senior households, those who have to save $182,000 before they qualify as seniors. That's going to drain this economy.

Absolutely. The 21st Congressional District of New York, in the capital region, Mohawk Valley of upstate New York, hosts the original

infrastructure of the Erie and Barge Canals, the route that gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns that became the epicenters of invention and innovation that inspired a westward movement, that inspired an industrial revolution.

That pioneer spirit is the DNA of America. Give us the opportunity to invest in ideas, and we turn that into manufacturing and we go forward.

But it begins and ends with a quality workforce. And the cuts proposed in Head Start, with a quarter of a million children being denied Head Start opportunities, the huge cuts to title I funding to get resources to our schools, especially those in most difficult situations, would destroy the workforce of the future. Without investment in education, there is not a strong and vibrant workforce that can continue to carry our strength as a Nation in this global economy. So that is a start.

And then also, I have witnessed in my region, where we're the third- fastest growing hub in this Nation for science and tech jobs, high tech jobs, that when you start cutting away at R&D, you're going to destroy the opportunity that we have as we continue to cluster with these science and tech-related jobs.

Not for long.

Absolutely. The currency issue is epicenter to the solution that's required. Fair trade is what really allows us to compete effectively. This imbalance that's been able to continue is very harmful to our economy, to the workers of this country.

You know, the working families have taken it on the chin. The middle class of America needs that purchasing power, that enhancement of purchasing power. Then you see economic recovery. Then you see people putting people to work because, as that activity continues to grow and snowball, you will require the investment in jobs in all, from service sector on over to manufacturing on over to R&D. And where you plant R&D as a center of invention, of ideas of innovation, there will come to be next door to that planting the manufacturing elements that will allow our manufacturing sector to prosper.

And when you talk about battery manufacturing, advanced battery manufacturing taking place in my district, you're talking about the linchpin. You're talking about that connector to all of the opportunities out there that transition us into alternative technologies. It begins and ends with that battery development. And we have those opportunities. We've invested in those. We need to continue to take that curve northward so that you put the money down that will grow jobs. That's investing.

There is the rightful expectation that there will be lucrative dividends from that investment. And when you look at the global race, this is much similar to the global race on space in the early sixties, when we got knocked on the seat of our pants in the late fifties with the Sputnik moment, and that woke us up, and we involved ourselves, and we embraced with great passion getting that race done in winning style. And we won it.

Today we have more competitors. You've got China, Brazil, India, Germany, Japan, all investing in a global race on clean energy and innovation, and we're going to tie our hands behind our back.

There are quantifiable benefits that come not just with job creation, but with service delivery. If you provide for this sort of basic research, you're providing for cures to illnesses that have continued to haunt the fabric and quality of life of individuals. And if we can discover and unleash that potential, there is a quality of life that's addressed. There's hope that's delivered to the doorsteps of families across this country. And so it goes well beyond job creation. But you're absolutely right. These are jobs that are of high quality, that require, again, the investment of America's know-how. They are opportunities for intellectual capacity that we, as a Nation, invest in higher ed, and this is putting that higher ed product to work.

And talk about this sort of innovation economy where you invest in America, you make certain that our infrastructure that moves goods and people is as sound as it can be. But as we invest in the growth of jobs and ``Make it in America,'' and you talk about the clean energy economy, the alternative technologies, the innovation that comes with advanced battery manufacturing, that stops the trail, eventually, of dollars that are exported out of this Nation, going into the Mideast, $400 billion plus a year to maintain this fossil-based economy that has us gluttonously dependent on fossil-based fuels that are imported from unfriendly nations to the United States.

There has to be a cleaner way, a more innovative way, one that embraces the American intellect and the ingenuity that enables us to grow products that are not on the radar screen. That's how a great nation continues its greatness; that's how it continues to become even greater, by putting to work its brainpower and developing products that are kinder to the environment, strong in their manufacturing element that produces here in these United States and draws upon the workforce and the R&D potential of everyone from trades up to the Ph.D.s involved in that equation of success. I think it's a way to empower us across the board.

And you know, Representative Garamendi, just about an hour ago we were talking about it all being about principles, values, priorities, contrasts, and choices. Well, if we go with the choice to not make it in America, not invest in innovation, research for medical purposes, means that we may not be able to contain those costs of medical needs, of health care, because we will avoid the discovery of better treatments, new cures, prevention elements that all come with the medical research and medical innovation that can be made in America.

And then we have opportunities to keep Medicare alive, not destroy it, by containing costs for health care and allowing for the dignity of life and the quality of care to go forward without this treatment to end Medicare. And the choice is to avoid powerful industries like the oil industry, giving them mindless handouts, or do we invest in education, higher education, job creation, quality of life issues, housing opportunities? These are the choices we're talking about.

This hour has been, I think, an opportunity for us to exchange, with a clearer expression, what the contrast is on the floor of the House of Representatives and what it is between this Path to Prosperity that we have seen as a Road to Ruin, one that would end Medicare, continue handouts to record profit oil industries, to continue to advocate for millionaire and billionaire tax cuts at the expense of America's middle class that needs a stronger purchasing power and needs to know that her children and grandchildren will have the opportunities, equal opportunities for quality education and a college degree.

Thank you very much, Representative Garamendi. It has been a great opportunity to share this hour with you.

We only ask that thoughtfulness guide the negotiations--either on a deficit ceiling bill or on budgets as we go forward--thoughtfulness and a desire to grow opportunity for all Americans. We're at our best when the inclusiveness of this process enables everyone to be empowered and not just the special interests, the wealthy oil industry that has set record profits 2 years in a row.

With that, I thank the Speaker for the opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are some 3 years into the worst recession since the Great Depression. I have heard repeated claims that these are times that call for courageous leadership and bold decisions. Well, there certainly has been no lack of audacity during recent talks on the budget.

I'm joining my colleagues on the Budget Committee here today to ask, on behalf of my constituents in New York's 21st Congressional District, for less hubris and more humility from some of our Nation's leaders as we attempt to solve a problem that impacts the lives and livelihoods of our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our constituents.

I have but two requests: first, that any budget agreement must not hurt our economy further. In 2008, the financial crisis brought this Nation to its knees. It was a crisis of our own making; and though we must not dwell on blame, we must learn from this experience to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Is there no way to encourage business growth, small and large, without wasting $130 billion a year on tax giveaways and without gutting programs that educate our workforce? I refuse to believe that there is no smart solution to this problem. My constituents refuse to believe it. We have learned our lesson, and we know better.

Second, any budget agreement must take a balanced approach. It is the height of arrogance to sit down at a negotiating table to solve a fiscal crisis and declare an $800 billion question off limits. Federal Government subsidies for some of the most profitable corporations on Earth, oil tax breaks that trace their roots to policy decisions made nearly 100 years ago must be on the table. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of America must be on the table. Tax earmarks for corporate jets, for snow globes, for golf bags, these must be on the table.

America is watching. America is waiting for us to wake up, eat our Wheaties, and flex the powerful muscle of human reason to get this country on a sustainable path. Sustainability means cutting spending where it is not needed and where it offers no common good. It means cutting tax kickbacks where they are not needed. It means protecting the present and the future of Medicare in a form that provides more than a coupon to our seniors and more than an unsympathetic ``so be it'' to proud men and women who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It means knowing that the Big Five oil companies can stand on their own two feet. It means playing for the same team, putting everything on the table and winning this one not for our campaigns, but for our constituents.

If I might refer to this chart using data from OMB and the Ways and Means Committee, my Republican colleagues have shown the so-called ``courage'' to ask America's seniors to make yet another great sacrifice for their country--giving up their hard-earned, guaranteed Medicare benefits in favor of a voucher. This will lead to thousands of dollars in new out-of-pocket expenses each year.

Certainly the $165 billion in cuts is rivaled by the $131 billion yearly giveaways, that $165-billion-a-year question from the Republican budget that is on the table in these talks. I do not like it. I will not vote for it. I will fight it every time it comes to this floor for a vote, but it is on the table. It is being discussed and debated, fought for and against in a process that makes our democracy run as it was intended to. But again, we will fight any cuts and any end to Medicare.

But there's another line on this chart, and that's this $131-billion- per-year question of giving tax breaks to wealthy special interests. Look, the two of them are comparable, giving oil companies more subsidies versus taking away Medicare. This is the question of using taxpayer-subsidized support from the Federal Government to add a few extra billion to the Herculean profits of some of the world's wealthiest corporations.

The Big Five oil companies have pocketed almost $1 trillion in profits in the past 10 years. In the midst of our recession, they are doing just fine. They have told us, We don't need the tax breaks. So why would my colleague

from Virginia, the Republican majority leader, declare that tax reform--like cutting the $20 billion in subsidies that these companies will receive in the next 10 years--is off the table? Why are tax write- off earmarks for corporate jets off the table? Why are hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires off the table? Why are we talking about cutting programs for nursing homes and preschools, for local cops and firefighters, for retirement security and the future of renewable energy? Why are we talking about cutting these programs without asking the Big Five oil companies to stand on their own two feet?

I have watched programs that my constituents rely on end up utterly decimated on the floor of this House this year. And yet I come before you today not asking for less sacrifice, but for more. I'm asking for those at the top to bear their fair share of both the burden and the potential triumph of this historic moment.

Again, I must merely ask for a little humility as we attempt to solve a challenge that no one woman or one man among us should attempt to tackle--or scuttle--alone. Nothing is off the table, and nothing is more important than getting every single American who wants to do a hard day's work for a fair wage back on the job site. Any budget agreement must take this balanced approach and must not hurt our economy further.

I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on this historic day in the 112th Congress.

Six months. That's it. Six months. It took less than 6 months for the Republican majority to come to the floor of this House and break their most treasured promise to the American people, a promise made in writing to the rules of the House of Representatives. Today, by waiving the House CutGo rule, my colleagues across the aisle are giving up on their foundational principle of deficit reduction--no new spending without offsets.

Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office clearly states that the manager's amendment, as we just heard, to the base bill, H.R. 1249, breaks the rules of the House. So the majority has written a new one-time rule that breaks their most fundamental promise to America, that this Congress will not enact a dime of new spending without cutting spending from another area of our Federal budget.

This bill is going to increase discretionary spending by nearly half a billion dollars with no offset to cover that new spending. From my seat on the Budget Committee, I have watched how fiercely they have clung to this promise; and though I disagree with many of their choices and cuts, this is truly a new low. It is a historic breakdown that only took 6 months to arrive.

Though America is watching and waiting for a solution, a jobs bill, for instance, to our Nation's fiscal and economic crisis, Republicans began the year by saying that half the budget question was off the table. For instance, questions like $800 billion were spent on tax breaks for the wealthy, or like tens of billions in subsidies and deliberate loopholes for some of the wealthiest corporations on Earth.

CutGo doesn't lay down any rules about tax expenditures. We could entirely stop collecting taxes and let the budget and the economy collapse tomorrow, and that would abide by CutGo.

Again, this rule only deals with spending without finding the roughly half a billion dollars' worth of offsets to pay for the bill. Not surprisingly, this rule has lasted us only 6 months. I would ask my Republican colleagues, what will the next 6 months bring and the next 6 months after that?

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority seems to be using any route possible to hide the truth about its ``road to ruin'' budget and its plans to end Medicare. The Washington Post, the New York Times, the National Journal, and others recently reported that mass mailings sent from Democratic Members of Congress to their constituents have been heavily edited by majority leadership if they address the Republican plan to end Medicare.

But Americans know the truth, Madam Speaker. Every day, I hear from many of my constituents in the Capital Region of upstate New York who tell me how much they rely on Medicare and how worried they are over the majority's plan to end the program. My constituents know that a voucher will not even come close to covering their rising prescription drug costs and doctors' visits. Our senior community is tremendously wise. They know that the risk associated with the Republican plan is shifted from our government to their pockets.

No matter how it is spun, Americans are opposed to ending Medicare. Let's instead work together to strengthen the program and ensure it remains on strong financial footing.