Floor Statements

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

It seems the Republicans aren't stopping at Medicare alone. Now they're cutting crucial assistance to women and to young children.

In addressing our Nation's fiscal future, we simply cannot afford to lose our values. When the going gets tough, are we a Nation that abandons our most vulnerable while giving tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires? Or are we a Nation that holds close the most basic obligations we have to our fellow citizens, food for young children, Medicare and Social Security for our seniors, and an education for our students?

We have many tough choices to make during these difficult economic times. Cutting a program that provides food assistance for families that would otherwise go without should absolutely not be one of them.

The WIC program is one of our Nation's most cost-effective and successful programs. Nearly 50 percent of babies born in the United States rely on WIC. Ten million Americans benefit from this most basic food assistance at a cost of less than $100 per person. The drastic Republican cuts included in this legislation will leave as many as 350,000 women, infants, and children without access to necessary food assistance.

The Capital Region of upstate New York, my own community, ranks among the 100 most in need of food assistance. My constituents see the plans to cut Medicare and the plans to cut food assistance programs, and they are wondering why their health is being put on the line while some of our Nation's wealthiest individuals and corporations are let off the hook with $45 billion worth of tax breaks.

The Republican budget simply doesn't add up, Mr. Chair. Every $1 we invest in WIC saves up to $3.13 in health costs per child just in the first 60 days after an infant's birth alone. Cutting this program doesn't cut spending, and it doesn't even help reduce our long-term deficit. This program brings down long-term health care costs and, most importantly, most importantly, it saves lives.

In just 1 week, millionaire tax breaks cost our country $866 million and reach only 321,000 individuals. The WIC program, on the other hand, costs $33 million less for an entire year of serving 9.2 million women, infants, and children in need.

It is clear from these numbers, Mr. Chair, where Republican priorities lie. We're all concerned about the Federal deficit. But the majority continues to insist upon cutting programs that work and work well for America's middle class and her families.

WIC saves the taxpayers money in future health care costs and ensures some of our most vulnerable citizens that they will have the most basic food and nutrition assistance. Recent polls show that 64 percent of Americans are concerned that this budget plan will take away needed protections for the poor and underserved.

We have good reason to be concerned given the plan to end Medicare and this most recent attack on the WIC program.

In these tough times, we must stand together in solidarity. This is not the time to abandon our friends and neighbors in need of a helping hand to make ends meet. From Medicare, to WIC, to education and housing assistance, we simply cannot turn our backs on our fellow Americans while we reward the wealthiest amongst us. That is not the compassionate thing to do, it is not the American thing to do, nor is it the answer to solving our debt problem. We can and we must do better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise today in support of my colleague from Connecticut to properly fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, otherwise known as the CFTC. All eyes are upon us. Well, at least we hope they are. Unfortunately, the regulatory eyes of the speculating process are slowly being closed. The CFTC represents the cops on the beat, the regulators in charge of overseeing Wall Street speculators, the eyes of the watchdog, specifically as it relates to the price of oil we're asked to pay.

Let me be clear. Without a proper cop on the beat, the roads are not safe and wrongdoers will get away with whatever mischief they can. In the same way, without a cop on the beat of Wall Street, oil speculators will run rampant and drive the cost of oil and gasoline even higher than it is today. Make no mistake. Fluctuating oil prices with extremely high peaks make many on Wall Street extremely rich. But their gain becomes our loss. Their profit drains our pockets. Their greed causes our pain. Their joy drives our sticker shock at the pump, estimated to increase the cost per gallon by some 67\1/2\ cents due to speculation.

To his credit, President Obama has asked for increasing the investment in cop count on the beat of speculators. Not only does the Republican bill reduce the President's request, but it ends up providing less funds than we have available this year, all while the CFTC is supposed to prepare itself to take on the enhanced powers and responsibilities granted to it under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill. This will mark the third time this year that House Republicans will vote to effectively cripple the CFTC by draining funds it needs to do its job.

Since 1990, the number of oil speculators has more than doubled--from 30 percent of the market to nearly 70 percent today. Even oil executives admit that oil prices are higher than they should be, with Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson recently testifying before Congress that a barrel of oil should cost some $60 to $70 based solely on supply and demand, not the $100 like it is today. Yet the Republicans are once again choosing Wall Street over Main Street. This bill chooses more pain at the pump over reason and fairness.

The world's largest commodity trader, Goldman Sachs, recently admitted that speculation was to blame for higher oil prices, telling its clients that it believes speculators, like itself, had artificially driven the price of oil as much as $27 higher than supply and demand would dictate. Nearly 90 percent of all traders betting on rising prices are speculators, while about 12 percent of those bets were held by producers, merchants, processors, and users of the commodity.

Our families and small businesses simply cannot afford the Wild, Wild West of Wall Street that runs roughshod over our wallets and family budgets. That is why I commend my colleague from Connecticut for her leadership on this issue and implore this body to increase the number of cops on the beat, not lessen them. And who wins in this scenario? The profit-rich oil industry, which is on pace to make over $100 billion in profit this year alone.

And who loses? You got it--working families and middle class Americans that work hard and play by the rules and now are asked to pay for this free rein that keeps driving up prices.

We cannot keep mindlessly handing billions of tax breaks to big oil companies that don't need it while they're raking in record profits at our expense. Again, we simply can't afford it.

The best way we can control gas prices is by developing alternative technologies that will drive down our demand and compete in the marketplace. We can better use the billions going to oil companies in the form of tax breaks on clean energy alternatives that have the potential to make a real impact on our energy costs and on our wallets and will create jobs in the process.

With that, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are wondering when the House majority will hear their cries: Don't end Medicare. In fact, a recent CNN poll showed opposition to the Road to Ruin budget that ends Medicare, with the highest amongst those being senior citizens at 74 percent opposed to the plan.

In addition, the voters in the 26th Congressional District of New York recently made their voices heard when they elected Representative Kathy Hochul to be the newest Member of Congress. Their top concern was that the Republican budget threatens to end Medicare. They know that under the plan, anyone under the age of 55 will be forced to save an extra $182,000 just to pay for their future health care costs in retirements. That number rises to a startling $400,000 for those in their thirties. These statistics are even more astounding when you consider the billions of dollars in tax breaks Republicans have given away to our country's wealthiest individuals as well as Big Oil companies.

Enough is enough. If Republicans are serious about protecting our Nation's seniors, they would work with us to strengthen Medicare, not end it.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the next 20 minutes where we can discuss the future of Medicare. It is being addressed in this House during this 112th session of Congress. We have seen many statements made about Medicare in the last weeks.

I can tell you, a sign like this is greeting many colleagues as they return to their districts every weekend or during the recess that we have, the district work periods that we might have, signs such as this, ``Hands off my Medicare,'' greeting us as we return to our districts, and rightfully so.

Medicare has been a program that has served our senior population for quite some time. Seniors and those living with disabilities have really found life to be far more doable with Medicare assistance.

It was in the sixties when the debate began, and it was President Lyndon Johnson who had been there to sign the measure into law. And at that point in time, our senior population, our senior community across these great United States, had a great concern. They were finding it unaffordable and inaccessible to search for health care insurance coverage.

There was cherry-picking going on. There were those with the preexisting conditions that were denied any opportunity, and I think it's fair to state that the economic stability of those who had retired at that point of retirement, they usually found that that stability had dwindled, had gone south simply because of the medical expenses that they required, and oftentimes with underinsurance or no insurance as a scenario, they were seeing their lifetime worth of savings dwindle because of that dynamic in their lives.

Now, in this four-and-a-half decade stretch forward, many have suggested that their economic consequences have stayed fairly stable, that they have enjoyed a better retirement because of the addition of Medicare to their outcome.

However, this Medicare program has been under attack. It's been under attack. There has been a Republican budget that has come forth and been produced in this House by the majority party, and they have voted on that measure to end Medicare, end the Medicare that would shift risk from government to the pockets of seniors in this country. It would take a given situation where they would be asked to shop, shop in the private sector. This could be a 70-year-old; it could be an 80-85-year- old that might be asked to shop in that private sector market.

Well, the egregious notion is that the value of that coupon they are given to go shop for new insurance holds a value of about 32 cents for every $1 of premium that would be paid on insurance costs. That means that they are tremendously drained economically. It means that 6,000 more dollars would come out of the pockets of our senior citizens individually for the cost of this insurance coverage.

Well, that is an unacceptable outcome. It's one that really makes it difficult for our senior community to be covered for health care purposes and to remain somewhat economically stable in their retirement years. And by the year 2030, it's suggested that the costs would triple for our seniors. By the year 2022, it would at least double.

These are frightening statistics. These are unacceptable notions for our senior community, all of whom need to be responded to with respect and sensitivity and with the utmost compassion.

This does not show compassion; this shows disinterest. It shows an insensitivity to the struggle that many would make and the correlation of the need for health care services.

With age as a factor, it is an understandable partnership. It's one that would mimic and trace each other's curves, because as you grow older, the propensity to require services of health care delivery would naturally grow. And so we do not want to put at risk our senior population.

Now, I think what is quite interesting is that, as we talk about the doubling and the tripling to seniors for this program, just recently a study came out that said that those who are age 55 today should have to save about 185, $182,000 additional for their medical expenses without the efforts made by Medicare as it exists today. And then the numbers simply escalate. I believe it's in the $400,000 realm if you are in your thirties. So this is going to put a huge hardship onto our American working families, onto our senior community of today and certainly of tomorrow.

Now, what I found most generous is the statements made by seniors who are eligible for Medicare today, speaking in a way that is not self- centered but really speaks to the future. They have said that they have enjoyed Medicare as a program. It has provided economic stability. It has provided health care quality of services, and they want that to be preserved for the next generation and the generation to follow. They want their children and grandchildren to enjoy the same order of benefits that they have enjoyed.

So while there might have been this idea that if we safety net somehow a certain given population currently enjoying Medicare and suggest that most of that could maybe be kept intact, well, there was a far broader sense of concern expressed by our senior community. It was not a selfish order of self-centered reflection that some might have anticipated but, rather, the seniors showed that they are truly concerned about generations to come, which I think is a magnanimous statement for our senior population in this country.

When it comes to messaging, it's important, I think, to know, to take lessons from the most recent congressional district election that was held just about a week ago. Last week the voters of the 26th Congressional District in the State of New York, in a rather Republican area, in fact, the ninth most difficult district in this Nation for a Democrat to win in--it was there that a Democrat by the name of Kathy Hochul was running. She was successful in that she was able to bring to the attention of the electorate in that district the facts as to the Republican plan, the Republican budget.

And it was more than just Medicare. She talked about the end of Medicare but then related it to the dollars, the savings accrued from that elimination going toward other spending. Just what was and what is that other spending proposed? It would be handouts, mindless handouts to the oil industry sitting on a profit rich situation, perhaps the most profitable situation that they have known in their history. To date, this calendar year, the industry is sitting on a $36 billion profit margin, $36 billion.

What they are asking here is that some $44 billion worth of handouts, mindless handouts that have continued through the decades, nearly a century now, be continued. And how do we pay for that but by ending Medicare, ending Medicare to take care of the profit rich oil industry. The same is true of millionaire, billionaire tax cuts. You see the savings that can accrue by ending Medicare would then be slid over to provide for millionaire and billionaire tax cuts.

Well, middle-class America is not ready for that sort of assault. They are going to let their feelings be known. And it's why messages like this, ``Hands off my Medicare'' are greeting myself and colleagues across this country. They are concerned. They are concerned. They are letting their legislators know that this is not an acceptable thing to do.

Now, look at the track record where, with Medicare, we have avoided administrative costs to the nth degree; we have avoided marketing budgets; we have avoided all sorts of external costs that don't go to the health care delivery of patients but, rather, are the externals.

Avoiding those dollars has kept down the price tag on Medicare.

When we look at that same stretch from the beginning of Medicare to today, it's been an excess of a 5,000 percent increase in premiums that have risen from that point in 1965 to today.

So it tells us one thing. It tells us that there is this tremendous growth from the private sector in comparison to what the Medicare track record has been.

And we have spent time with the Affordable Care Act to strengthen Medicare. We have made certain that where there were overpayments to the insurance industry for certain services, those dollars were reduced. We made a major effort to go after fraud, abuse, and inefficiency. That strengthens the program. We provide for more dollars for primary care physicians who can be networked into the Medicare formula so that we can provide contact for administering the services. All of this has a growth factor so as to strengthen the Medicare concept as we know it.

But people are concerned. Their health care situation has been addressed in very magnanimous terms by the Medicare program. People fought for years to get this developed, and they have maintained and strengthened it over the decades. And for people to come in and assume that they are going to end the Medicare program simply to pay for oil handouts and millionaire and billionaire tax cuts is just not going to be well received by America's working families, by her middle class that has seen this assault where it's their turn now to get better treatment, not worsened treatment, from the halls of government here in Washington.

The Medicare situation is one that has really defined a stronger sense of quality of life for our senior community and has enabled them to have good coverage.

What we also did in the Affordable Care Act is begin to close, and will close completely by the year 2020, the doughnut hole that existed for pharmaceutical purposes for those on Medicare part D. Well, again, we saw what happened, that we needed to come forward with an improvement in a program that would assist people. And so we closed that doughnut hole eventually. I can tell you of so many seniors who have approached my office, who have seen me in the district, telling me of how difficult it is for them to absorb the doughnut hole concept. Within a few months within any given calendar year, they fall into the doughnut hole where they need to dig into their own pocket to pay for the cost of many pharmaceutical requirements that they have in their medical agenda to stay well or to be healed. So it is a very pricey situation for them, and we want to make certain that those improvements stay intact.

We have also removed copayments and deductibles for the annual checkups and for various medical screenings that are available to our senior population. These are the source of responses that are compassionate, that are speaking to the quality of services and certainly to the dignity factor for our senior population. These are improvements. These are ways to stretch the budget and enable our senior community to be all the more intact and connected with community

While we had worked with the Medicare issue in the Affordable Care Act, we want to make certain we also strengthen the trust fund. So there are things that have been done along the way. And now to just come in and say, look, this is more business for the private sector, this is a way to drive all the accounts of individuals who are enjoying a Medicare program, a concept that has worked well for four-and-a-half decades is now deemed to be ended simply now because of the desire of those who are in the majority in this House to pay for benefits to the oil industry and to continue millionaire and billionaire tax cuts.

Just on the heels of this victory in a congressional district I mentioned earlier, in the 26th District of New York, we took yet another vote in this House to deem the Republican budget a budget from which we'll work. That includes the end to Medicare. So just this week, with another vote right in the shadows of that victorious Democratic win in the 26th Congressional District of New York, we are again at it, putting a close to the Medicare concept in this country. Unacceptable outcomes. People will not tolerate that outcome.

In a CNN poll of recent measurement, there was a huge response in the negative to the Republican plan. Seventy-four percent of Americans are saying, leave the Medicare situation alone or improve it. Build upon it, strengthen it, prepare it to have even stronger values and concepts, and also provide for the trust fund that will be all the more secure to give it the stability, the underpinnings of support, not to end it. People have seen what it meant to them. They have seen what it meant to be able to enjoy the economic relief that is so important, especially as we age as a population.

The life expectancy growing higher with time is an important factor that really underscores the need for Medicare as a model, as a concept in this Nation.

There are many who have been speaking out against this proposal. There are many who understand that it's provided a great deal of stability. It has provided families, working families, with the relief of knowing that the senior members of their family are in good hands with a Medicare program that enables them to have more independence, to have more preventative services, to have more acute care delivery with an affordable outcome for their given family situation. This is an important measurement that needs to be kept in mind. It's an important effort to keep our economic situation in this country all the more doable and all the more viable.

There's an opportunity for many seniors to be involved and invested in community. Medicare enables them to be that more vibrant citizen, to respond to the economy in positive contributory terms. And I think that that is very important.

With the Medicare situation in this country, we have watched the quality of life of our senior population grow and grow exponentially. And for those forces to come here before this House to express this desire to end a concept for which people fought for many years, where there was a documented need for this sort of advice and this sort of concept, and now to watch it at risk where it could fold and not continue, where we could have a situation where the concept is ended, is unacceptable.

There are those in selling this package that suggest that the legislators here in Washington have the same sort of opportunity. It's akin to what we're offering the senior community. Nothing could be farther from the truth. On average, the benefit for a congressional Representative is about 72 cents on the dollar, meaning that every 28 cents worth of coverage would be absorbed by the individual legislator. For the senior population, we're looking at 32 cents, a 40-cent difference, meaning that the gross majority of that premium would be paid for by senior citizens.

That is where the economic consequences become very, very real. That is where the shifting of risk from government to the senior citizen would be a real dynamic. It would be an unbelievably painful outcome for those who perhaps would struggle to find insurance. We would be asking people to shop in a marketplace, asking them to deal with a profit-rich industry, to deal with situations that might return cherry- picking and that might return inaccessible, unaffordable notions when it comes to health care coverage.

We've seen it repeatedly. We know that there were populations that were underserved as we began the debate on affordable care that was completed in the 111th session of Congress, and we certainly don't want that to come back and be the issue for the most senior elements in our society again. This was a victory that was hard fought. It's been a concept that has only been strengthened through the years. And like any good program, it gets adjusted as we move with time.

Fix Medicare is the message. Strengthen Medicare is the appeal, not end it. And the advice for those who want to end it is very basic: Hands off my Medicare. It's the advice that's given, it's the chant that's repeated over and over again across this Nation. And it's been such for quite some time.

This is part of a plan that the Republican budget, introduced by the Budget Committee in this House, has dubbed itself as a Path to Prosperity.

My friends, it is so obvious that this is the road to ruin, not the path to prosperity. You are taking the vulnerable and making them pay more. This is about tough choices. We have seen

where people don't have insurance; they have to make tough choices.

There is nothing tough--people have said, Oh, this is a tough choice that people have made. They have gone forward and taken a situation that they think is not affordable and they are going to make a tough choice and remove it. There is nothing tough about asking the weak or the poor to pay more so that oil as an industry can get more benefits and millionaires and billionaires can draw down a larger tax cut. There is nothing tough about that.

What it is is insensitive. It is un-American. It is immoral to have such an outcome after so much success with a program that has proven itself time and time again to be a great friend to the senior community.

There are those who have spent countless hours and effort to put together a plan that would respond to this Nation's seniors with respect and dignity. And we can simply not afford to walk away from this concept in the very calloused manner that we are asked to. I was proud when I saw so many people stand up and say ``no'' to this vote. Unfortunately, it passed in this House. If this budget had its way to the finish line, it would end Medicare at the expense of so many of our Nation's seniors.

They have enjoyed this benefit. They have prospered from this benefit. They have realized a great sense of dignity with this effort, and we must maintain it. We must continue the fight to preserve a program that has served this Nation very well.

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

In just moments from now, we will have a new Democratic colleague from my home State of New York. The Democratic Congresswoman- elect hails from the most Republican district in my State, a district that John McCain won in 2008.

Just one week ago, voters in her conservative-leaning district resoundingly rejected the Republican plan to end Medicare. Apparently, the Republican majority here in Washington didn't get the message. Voting to end Medicare once was not enough for them. The rule vote that we are about to take will, once again, deem the Ryan plan to end Medicare as enacted and will put us on a road to ruin where seniors will see out-of-pocket expenses skyrocket by at least $6,000 every year as Medicare is ended so as to continue the handouts of tens of billions of dollars to oil companies.

In a few moments, after they've finished voting to end Medicare again, I hope that as my Republican colleagues congratulate our New York colleague on her election they will see her as yet another face and as yet another voice, an outspoken voice, to save Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague regarding the Urban Area Security Initiative.

As New Yorkers, we know firsthand the absolutely critical role that our State and local police and firefighters play in preventing and responding to attacks on the American homeland. The Urban Area Security Initiative, or UASI, administered by the Department of Homeland Security, is a program focused on enhancing regional preparedness in high-risk areas by fostering better communication and collaboration amongst local fire responders. Given the struggles we have faced since the crisis on Wall Street, these are communities that increasingly cannot afford to provide their citizens--our citizens--with the same level of protection that UASI enables.

This bill, as written, arbitrarily restricts UASI to allow only 10 urban areas to be eligible for the program, and its funding, down from more than 60 in previous years. No one here today would argue that Manhattan and Los Angeles are undeserving of priority assistance. However, with this arbitrary cap, we will endanger the progress that many other high-risk urban areas have made to protect our citizens from attacks and crises. We will threaten the ability of these communities-- including my community in upstate New York--to safeguard our citizens.

We are making these cuts at home while we pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year for our military-industrial complex to fight an incredibly expensive war in Afghanistan with the aim of preventing terror attacks in America. We are going to spend more than $12 billion this year to build up Afghan security forces while our own security forces in Albany and the Capital Region and 50 other cities across America are stripped of their funding under UASI. Is our strategic thinking that backwards, or is it just more lucrative to build a multibillion-dollar army halfway around the world than to help our police and firefighters here at home protect and defend our constituents?

I would propose to take $1 billion of that $12 billion and put it back into a deserving and necessary program like UASI, but according to the rules set by the Republican leadership, that is not allowed. So I stand here today in support of this amendment and in support of New York.

In my home district in upstate New York, the Albany Urban Area Working Group has used UASI grants to make great strides forward in boosting local cooperation and collaborative planning. This group unites participants from Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Schoharie Counties around a common goal of protecting a region critical to the security of New York State and the stability of America.

From building a truly interoperable regional communications network to securing the Capital Region's critical infrastructure, the work of this group is absolutely vital to protecting the Empire State. Whether threatened by natural or manmade disasters, it is clear that New York is and should be at the top of our priority list to protect.

I represent New York's Capital Region, an area that bears tremendous economic and symbolic importance. Thirty-five million people live within a 200-mile radius of our State capital in Albany. Albany also houses New York's most vital State government facilities and more than 11,000 State government employees that keep the Empire State up and running. These functions are vital not only to our area, but also to our fellow New Yorkers downstate and across our State, and to Americans across this country who do business in, with, and through New York.

The Capital Region is also home to the third-fastest-growing hub for science and technology jobs in our Nation. That projected clustering, alongside high-profile research and development centers in our Tech Valley corridor, add to the vital importance of this region to an American economy that needs more leaders in innovation.

In Albany, we host the world-renowned Nanotechnology Research Center where 250 industry leaders partner with the United States Army to push us past the current bounds of science. In Schenectady, we host GE's renewable energy global headquarters. In Schoharie, our reservoir provides a significant portion of New York City's water supply. In Watervliet, we have a one-of-a-kind Army arsenal. And just a few miles away we host an atomic power laboratory doing world class R&D for the United States Naval Nuclear Propulsion program. Nearby in Malta is a facility that will soon be the most advanced chip fabrication plant in the world. The hometown heroes who protect all of these facilities and more will lose their funding through UASI entirely if this bill passes in its current form.

And so in support of New York's Capital Region and similar areas across this country, I stand in support of this amendment, this amendment that will remove an arbitrary 10-city restriction on the UASI program from this bill, this amendment, that will not add $1 to the debt or deficit, this amendment that will not cost us one single dollar but rather will provide us a commonsense approach.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Road to Ruin'' Republican budget will end Medicare. It will end a program that 46 million seniors and disabled individuals depend on for their health care. In fact, the end of Medicare will mean seniors are forced to pay more for prescription drugs, they will lose free wellness visits, and they will be forced to pay more out of pocket. In fact, the Republican plan will cause seniors to dip into their pockets twice as deeply as they do today by the year 2020 and three times more by 2030.

And what do we get with the end of Medicare? Where are these funds directed? To continue tax breaks for Big Oil, to continue loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas, and to provide tax breaks for the wealthiest amongst us--those who need them least.

Mr. Speaker, Americans oppose the efforts to end Medicare. I ask my colleagues to work with us to strengthen the program, not destroy it.

Madam Chair, my amendment encourages the DOD Medical Research Program to use the most advanced research technology possible when researching certain diseases.

The DOD Medical Research Program has made great advances in diagnostics relative to breast cancer and prostate cancer, but traditional drug therapies have had limited success. Recent breakthroughs in RNA-based treatments hold the promise of overcoming major limitations of current medicines which are able to target only a limited number of proteins involved in diseased pathways. This would tremendously increase the effectiveness of drug treatments for these devastating illnesses. Over the past several years, scientific and technical breakthroughs have significantly advanced the field of RNA- based therapeutics. Encouraging DOD to use RNA science and technology would make a profound and viable contribution to the eight current medical research programs.

Finally, Madam Chair, this new technology can help identify different drug candidates to treat memory deficiencies and memory disorders that are a factor in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, including depression. With the thousands of young men and women returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan who are experiencing PTSD and depression, we must do everything we can to treat these disorders. We owe it to these brave Americans to use every technology that we can to help ease their transition here at home.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the underlying legislation guts funding for vital teaching health centers across the country. Teaching health centers are residency programs for primary care physicians. They provide community-based training for doctors who will go on to work in rural and our underserved areas.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. It requires that we find out exactly how many primary care physicians we will lose if Republicans succeed in cutting teaching health centers across the country. My amendment commissions the Government Accountability Office to report on these findings so that the American people can see how drastically these cuts will eliminate jobs and hurt the quality, access, and affordability of primary care health options.

I'm interested to know, Mr. Chair, if some of my Republican colleagues are aware that if H.R. 1216 is adopted, there will be fewer primary care doctors working in their communities. For example, this bill guts funding for 23 physicians at the teaching health center in the heart of Scranton, Pennsylvania. These 23 individuals are being trained to provide basic health care for constituents in the greater Scranton area. If my Republican colleague from the Scranton area joins the Republican leadership in eliminating this program, his community will lose training for 23 new primary care physicians. That's 23 jobs, jobs that they support, and 23 individuals who help serve constituents with their health care needs.

Again, Mr. Chair, my amendment is a matter of effective oversight. It asks that we find out from a nonpartisan source exactly how many primary care physicians we will lose if the Republican leadership moves forward to cut teaching health centers across the country.

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

Mr. Chair, my friends on the other side of the aisle seem steadfast and determined in their attack on access to affordable, quality health care. Couple that with their plan to end Medicare, and our Nation's seniors are put in quite a bind. Meanwhile, they want to place our health in the hands of Wall Street and Big Insurance, not between doctors and their patients. The seniors in my district and across the country know that vouchers will not cover their health care needs. They see the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and handouts for Big Oil, and are vehemently opposed to this plan.

Today, we have yet another assault on affordable access to health care. My Republican colleagues have found their next boogeyman: family practice physicians. This is surprising as we have a dire shortage of primary care physicians in our country.

The American Association of Medical Colleges has estimated that an additional 45,000 primary care physicians are required by 2020 just to meet America's health care needs. A few short months ago, both sides of the aisle agreed on the need to build our Nation's primary care workforce. This is a proven way to bend the health care cost curve by decreasing health spending through prevention and early, simple treatment.

Unfortunately, Republicans have since changed their tune. They have declared that the problem is not that we have a shortage of these crucial doctors. Instead, they must believe we have too many primary care physicians, and so we face this call to eliminate training for those on the front lines of the fight for quality care.

The underlying legislation guts funding for vital teaching health centers across our country. Teaching health centers are residency programs for primary care physicians, providing community-based training for doctors who will go on to work in rural and in our underserved areas. From Medicare to high gas prices to tax rates, my friends on the other side have proposed time and time again policies that put middle class Americans on the line and let Wall Street, Big Oil and Big Insurance take over and earn big. The constituents in my home district, in the Capital Region of New York State, need a break. They are looking at the price of gas, at the price of food and at the price of prescription drugs, and are just wondering how they will make it through the month.

Do we need to balance the budget? Yes. Do we need to balance the budget on the backs of hardworking Americans who play by the rules? Absolutely not.

Mr. Chair, my amendment is very simple. It requires that we find out exactly how many primary care physicians we will lose if Republicans succeed in cutting teaching health centers

across the country. My amendment commissions the Government Accountability Office to report on these findings so that the American people can see how drastically these cuts will eliminate jobs and will hurt the quality, access and affordability of primary care health options.

I am interested to know, Mr. Chair, if some of my Republican colleagues are aware that, if H.R. 1216 is adopted, there will be fewer primary care doctors working in their communities. For example, this bill cuts funding for 23 physicians at the teaching health center in the heart of Scranton, Pennsylvania. These 23 individuals are being trained to provide basic health care for constituents in the greater Scranton area.

If my Republican colleague from the Scranton area joins the Republican leadership in eliminating this program, his community will lose training for 23 new primary care physicians. That's 23 jobs, the many jobs they support and 23 individuals who will serve constituents in need.

Mr. Chair, if my colleague from Pennsylvania would like to come to the floor to defend the rights of the teaching health center in Scranton against this shortsighted and unjust attack by the Republican leadership, I would gladly yield him time.

The same challenge is faced by my colleague from the Billings, Montana, area, whose district will lose funding to train seven primary care physicians specifically for the health care needs of rural Montanans. In Idaho, Illinois, Texas, and Washington, it's the same story. All of these communities are seeing good American jobs put at risk--and for what?--to fund handouts to insurance and oil companies? to pay for even more tax breaks to millionaires, billionaires and some of the wealthiest corporations on Earth?

I would gladly yield my Republican colleagues from these districts time to defend their constituents.

Again, Mr. Chair, my amendment is a matter of effective oversight. It asks that we find out from a nonpartisan source exactly how many primary care physicians we will lose if the Republican leadership moves forward to cut teaching health centers across our country.

When it comes to ensuring our constituents have access to basic primary health care, when it comes to protecting Medicare and Social Security for our seniors and to ensuring they have healthy and comfortable retirements, there should be no disagreement.

Please join me in supporting this amendment and in standing with middle class Americans across the country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1216, the underlying bill. As a resident of upstate New York, where much attention has been given to today's special election for a congressional seat, people are saying loud and clear, Hands off my Medicare.

Republicans are determined again to put us on the road to ruin with their plans to end Medicare. Despite outcries from their constituents, they are pushing forward to end a program that 46 million seniors and disabled individuals depend on for their health care. This gross injustice is made immeasurably more egregious and offensive by the fact that this is being done not to balance the budget, but to expand and permanently guarantee even bigger tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and to give new tax breaks to some of the world's most profitable companies, including oil.

I have heard a lot of talk in the last few months about the need to make tough choices these days. The average senior on Medicare earns just over $19,000 a year. About one quarter of Medicare beneficiaries suffer from a cognitive or mental impairment, and most have at least one or more chronic medical conditions. So I ask my Republican colleagues, what exactly is it about stripping these Americans bare of their health and economic security that qualifies as tough? There is nothing tough about stealing from the poor or the weak to give to the rich.

Our seniors, on the other hand, know all about tough choices: Do I buy groceries, or do I buy prescriptions? Do I pay rent, or do I pay medical bills? It hurts, but how much will it cost? These are those tough choices. These are life and death choices. With the passage of Medicare in 1965, we entered into a covenant with each and every American citizen.

The Republican voucher plan ends Medicare. Instead, seniors will be on their own with a measly voucher and forced to buy insurance in the private market, where all decisions will be profit-driven. More profits for insurance companies on the backs of seniors. Sounds like a Republican plan to me. This new voucher program amounts to a ration card. The value of the voucher is not linked to increases in health care costs in the private market, yet the costs of private health insurance have risen over 5,000 percent since the creation of Medicare--5,000 percent.

The analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in less than 20 years these vouchers would pay just 32 cents on every dollar that a senior would spend on health care premiums. Now, the Republican leadership has repeatedly stated that this budget gives seniors the same coverage as Members of Congress. Well, as a Member of Congress myself, I know that our health plans pay for about 72 cents on every dollar of health coverage, not 32 cents.

America knows that legislation in Congress carries a statement of priorities and values, not purely dollars and cents. And what sense does it make to cut funding for training primary care physicians who are on the front lines not only of keeping our constituents and communities healthy, but also of lowering health care costs with early, simple treatments?

I urge my colleagues to stand with our seniors and stand up for middle class priorities. Let's defend our middle class. Let's defend our working families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Tonko

Amendment No. 2: Page 4, after line 12, add the following:

(d) GAO Study on Impact on Number of Primary Care

Physicians to Be Trained.--The Comptroller General of the

United States shall conduct a study to determine--

(1) the impacts that expanding existing and establishing

new approved graduate medical residency training programs

under section 340H of the Public Health Service Act (42

U.S.C. 256h), using the funding appropriated by subsection

(g) of such section, as in effect on the day before the date

of the enactment of this Act, would have on the number of

primary care physicians that would be trained if such funding

were not repealed, rescinded, and made subject to the

availability of subsequent appropriations by subsections (a)

and (b) of this section; and

(2) the amount by which such number of primary care

physicians that would be trained will decrease as a result of

the enactment of subsections (a) and (b).

Absolutely.

Absolutely, Representative.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together in what is this usual important discussion. You have done that time and time again for us to focus on an innovation economy, on building it, and making it in America is an important aspect of the work we do. Thank you for bringing that to the attention of the greater public that watches these proceedings.

I do represent this region in upstate New York where we have the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, and it was birth to the Erie Canal, and that birth to the Erie Canal developed a port called New York, which became a major metro area, and a necklace of communities that were given birth to by that canal movement that became epicenters of invention and innovation, that then inspired a westward movement, and not only inspired the growth of this great Nation, but impacted the quality of life of people throughout the globe.

That pioneer spirit should speak to us again as we develop budgets, as we promote public policy. It should be about investing, not dis- investing. It should be about funding, not defunding.

The current climate here in this House with the new majority is to defund, to take those dollars away from economic recovery and to shift them over to tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for billionaires, ending Medicare, block granting Medicaid, dis-investing, providing for corporate loopholes.

This is not the strategy that America needs. This attack on middle class America is unwarranted. It is not going to resolve what we need to resolve here in the great United States of America.

We need to invest in a way that allows us to bulk up and compete and compete effectively on the global scene so that we can drive this clean energy economy, this innovation economy.

I know from my work prior to coming here to the House of Representatives, with NYSERDA, the New York State Energy, Research and Development Authority, there is job opportunity galore. There are entrepreneurs, there are innovators that work with the Angel Network, work with venture capitalists, and work with public funding like that from the Federal Government that enable us to take ideas and move them along. Where R&D is, where research and development lands, so will manufacturing. That's what we have within our grasp, but what I see happening is walking away from that progressive approach and catering to a crowd that has grown stronger and stronger through this recession.

When we look at some of the outcomes as the majority here challenges us about not doing the mindless handouts to oil companies, we're seeing some of the CEOs garnering some quarter of a million shares, prime shares of stock. That's what they're doing with these payments, these handouts to the oil companies, when we could invest that in job creation, and that's what this Make It in America is all about.

I know when we put those down payments on invention and innovation, we can expect lucrative dividends and we can have job growth, and the kind of job growth that is secure because it stakes itself in the community as small business and they grow within the community; they grow and expand their opportunity.

I have, within the capital region of New York, the third fastest growing hub for science and tech jobs, and that's happening because of investment from the public sector, partnered with private sector investments, and it works. It's a winning formula, and I would say that we just need to pursue in that fashion and we can gain tremendously. And why would you change that slow but steady growth upward in recovery from the recession? After 8.2 million jobs lost through the Bush recession, why would you turn that around? And that's the attempt right here. Stop it, turn it around and go back into the ditch that drove this recession.

I just think we don't want to repeat that recent history of Reaganomics and the second Bush Presidency. It is devastating to the economy. It's devastating to America's working families, middle class. It's devastating to job growth.

Absolutely. I think what people will say too is, well, we don't make those products anymore in America. Well, we might be able to if we modernize our manufacturing processes.

But also, if you're going to try and convince, if we try to convince each other that all the products that America can make, design, engineer, discover and manufacture are over, what are we telling ourselves?

There are products coming out as we speak. There are products coming out every week, and a sophisticated society braces itself to invest in education, in R&D, in the down payments of taking ideas and moving them along; and we can then manufacture those latest products on the scene. That's the growth of a sophisticated society.

So this can-do spirit prevails in the Democratic Caucus in this great House in which we serve. I am proud to serve with these Members who are visionary, who are supportive, reinforcing the efforts of manufacturing of a newest kind here in the country.

Not only is it promoting energy efficiency; it can help us along this trail of energy self-sufficiency, which then pulls us out of our dependency, which is gluttonous to date, on unfriendly nations providing us our supplies for energy. It just doesn't make any sense.

The clarion call that we heard at the voting booth last fall was to start growing the economy, stop shrinking the middle class, and that is what we are about with this Make It in America.

I know our friend, Representative Tim Ryan from Ohio, has something to add to that agenda because he has been aggressive on this, also.

I would just encourage us here in Washington on the Hill as we develop policy and debate budgets to keep in mind the history that should be replicated, sound history, history that had a proven track record, like that of the global race on space.

Some of us are old enough to have been youngsters or adolescents when that message, that very noble vision, of President JFK and his offering in an inaugural address that we are going to win the race on space, the global race on space, and land a person first on the Moon. And it was more than that poetry of landing the first astronaut on the Moon, that happened to be an American, and his quote of ``one small step for man, one giant step for mankind.'' It went well beyond that. It was this opening of the gates to technology that then invaded every sector of our economy, all aspects of life. And it was that technology investment that grew because of the soundness of a plan that enabled us to win a global race.

Now, that was done with passionate resolve and a thoughtfulness and a clear vision. We need to embrace that sort of American spirit, that pioneer spirit in this present moment and repeat good history, sound history, that grew our economy. I think we can do it and I believe we can do it, and Make It in America is the way to make it all happen.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity this evening for the Democratic Caucus in the House to address this budget and to go forward with a discussion on our stand on the issues and solutions that we're proposing is an important opportunity for us to be able to dialogue here amongst each other on the House floor and also to share that messaging with the viewing public.

Certainly, the general public out there is watching many of these proposals. They are concerned about the stability of the middle class. They're concerned about the economy, concerned about job creation.

We are now well into the 112th session of Congress. We watch as many weeks and months have passed without one single measure that would increase jobs in this country coming before the House. Nothing that deals with the economy, nothing that deals with the retention of jobs or the job creation situation has been produced here as legislation and voted upon on the House floor, a rather dismal track record when the clarion call, the message that resonated from the voting booth to these Halls of Congress on the Hill in Washington was very clear: Start growing the economy, stop shrinking the middle class, and people are concerned about the opportunities that will be passed by. As we walk through these very difficult times, it is about job creation and retention.

There's also a concern that there has been this very strong attempt to make the comfortable even more comfortable with the new Republican majority in the House. And we'll talk about that. Let's talk about it.

We have a situation where people will allow for corporate loopholes that cost

our economy money. They'll allow for a continuation of millionaires and billionaires to receive tax cuts; they'll advance the reducing of Medicaid, where two-thirds of those dollars go toward sustaining the elderly in health care settings; and they want to end Medicare. And all of this is professed to be some sort of savings in Federal Government.

Well, that is only part of the story. The real truth is that these savings quickly dissipate. They're gone because they are used as payment for tax cuts for millionaires, handouts to the oil companies that sit on historic profit that has been realized, $1 trillion nearly in profit realized by the big oil companies of this Nation, and that is the vulgar outcome that has so infuriated the middle class.

As I travel to my district, I hear repeatedly about the concerns to end Medicare. People will say, we're not ending it, we're fixing it; that we're not really providing for an end, we're offering, at first what was a voucher, now it's called ``a transformation.''

Look, as we shift risk from the government to the individual senior household, we are ending a benefit that has lasted for some four and-a- half decades, that came about for the very reasons that seniors could not access an affordable health care plan, that there was cherry- picking going on, that only the easiest to insure would be covered, that those who might have come with some preexisting condition would be passed by, and where the notion of an affordable health care insurance premium, a policy that was unaffordable, was just beyond the grasp of our Nation's seniors. And so it's why the program grew in strength and popularity, and why it has provided stability for our Nation's seniors.

Now, when we look at what's happening here, we'll talk about the many dynamics, but there are those who professed very boldly that what we're doing here is exactly what the Congress has in terms of an insurance policy.

Well, Congress has about 72 cents of its premium costs covered. With this plan, with this voucher plan initiated in this Republican budget approved in this House, the Republicans suggest with their plan that it would be every 32 cents on a dollar covered with their voucher program. And just what guarantee is there that the senior who shops will, in fact, land a policy that will cover them? So it's very concerning.

We just recently did a mailing that informed people of the various reforms that are being proposed. We also solicited their input on what priorities they believe we should hold in our hearts and minds here as we move forward, and we've received a great supply of information already in the very infant days in responding.

As they come in, they keep growing more and more one-sided.

Let me just hold up what the first few days has produced. We have one pile here of speaking out against the Medicare end. This is one copy. We have yet a second pile all received in the first few days of people receiving their mailing. We saw those two bulky piles. This is the response in favor of. Well beyond 90 percent of the returns to date is: don't mess with benefits.

Now, mindful, when we were addressing the Affordable Care Act, when we were holding town forums, when we were holding some 3,000 to 4,000 forums across this country discussing the health care reforms, how to improve it, what exactly is included, what the priorities ought to be, there were clarion calls of ending Medicare, of death panels, and all sorts of risks to the seniors, and denying access and affordability. Well, we proved that that was not the case, that it was misinformation.

This one walks right into that argument, because it ends Medicare. It ends Medicare and it turns it into a voucher system, and it has everyone shopping in the private sector insurance market to get their coverage. We can't allow this to happen.

We have seen, since the initiation of Medicare, the growth in premiums in the private sector market, and that equates to some 5,000 percent. That's a huge increase. But there are friends out there that helped to bring the wrong candidates to this House, and I think it's time for them to come forward, as they believe, to get some sort of return on that investment.

Well, we cannot afford to have that investment come down onto the senior community, because we know it will be devastating. So we are going to continue to do battle to fight that Medicare issue. To end Medicare would be devastating to our Nation's seniors. Can we make it stronger? Absolutely. Can we provide more stability? Absolutely. That began in the ACA, the Affordable Care Act. We are going to continue to work on it. But seniors did not tell me--and I talked to my colleagues, they did not tell colleagues across this Nation: go back to Washington. We want to return to Washington. End our Medicare program. They said absolutely the reverse, and they knew they were benefited by it.

There are a number of others that attacked the middle class, working families of this country. We are going to work to make certain that there is not an attack on the middle class, because that attack drains worthy programs of dollars and then gets transferred over to payments for millionaire tax cuts, billionaire tax cuts, Big Oil handouts, and corporate loopholes to be paid for.

We are joined this evening by a very good friend who has entered the House this year as a freshman Member. He is the former mayor of Providence, Rhode Island. He now represents Rhode Island's First Congressional District. He has been an outspoken voice. I am impressed with David Cicilline's absolute impassioned voice to save Medicare. He has been outspoken on the House floor, and he has been outspoken in our caucus. It is a pleasure, Representative Cicilline, to have you here this evening to talk about this Medicare situation and perhaps what you are hearing in your district.

Thank you, Representative Cicilline. And, again, thank you for your outspokenness, because we need to make certain that all of America is involved in this dialogue, because this is a critical tipping point in this Nation's history. We can raid on the middle class and cut domestic programs that feed their very heart and soul, or we can do it intelligently, where we share the pain.

Speaking of sharing the pain, a budget, as you indicate, is nothing more, nothing less than our values, our principles, our priorities. And we have seen where the priorities lie with the majority of this House. They have said it is about Big Oil first; it is about corporate loopholes first. It is about millionaires and billionaires first. The people now see this. They see this because they know they are going to have to pay two times what they pay today for Medicare coverage out of their pocket. They know it's shifting risk from government to the senior citizen household, the senior citizen individual. They know that, by the year 2030, triple the amount of money, plus the risk of going out there and making certain that you can find a carrier that will cover you, because they will put your coverage at the whims of the insurance company. If they want to cover some of your health care needs, they will. If not, they won't. And that is really what will ache here. What really happened was that we are taking this moral compass that has been expressed by a program like Medicare and denouncing it, saying that, look, go fend for yourself, find your program.

What I find most generous about my district seniors, and I'm certain this is across the country, coast to coast, they are saying: I'm not just talking about myself or my generation. I am talking about my children and grandchildren. We know what comfort, what security, what stability this brought our household.

What comfort does it bring to adult children to know that their relatives, their parents are sitting in a situation that is responding with dignity?

And when you talk about the principles, about the priorities, look at the road to ruin. They call it the ``path to prosperity'' with the Ryan plan with the Republican budget. The road to ruin, as I refer to it, really takes money from our seniors on Medicare, $4.3 trillion, that then goes and transfers itself over to, guess what? $4.2 trillion worth of benefits for Big Oil and millionaires and billionaires.

So the scales are balanced in terms of where the dollars are, but the real pain here is that they get emptied from the seniors' coffers, programs that address a basic core need of health care, and then get emptied into the pockets of millionaires and billionaires and Big Oil.

I know our friend from California, Representative John Garamendi, who is always leading us on the floor with wonderful, interesting discussion, has something to say about big oil companies, and it speaks to this flipping from one side of the scale to the other, where an equal amount of money found in savings by cutting the middle class, by cutting our seniors is now going to be spent. It is not savings. It was accruing the dollars necessary to just transfer over in some sort of way and some sort of painful way that finds itself with oil companies, millionaires and billionaires.

Representative Garamendi, please.

Representative Garamendi, if you will suffer an interruption and yield, you talk about those Big Oil profits. You talk about the trillions they are willing to spend. And then they have the audacity to say it is a spending problem.

Well, where are we spending? We are making the comfortable more comfortable. With those Big Oil handouts, up to 90 percent, according to studies released, up to 90 percent are going toward bonuses for executives in the oil industry--up to 90 percent. What quantifiable societal good is there from

these handouts? They are mindless. And today, today, someone from the industry was quoted as saying to not offer these handouts is un- American. It is unbelievable.

Right. And when you look at the statistics, the median household salary for our seniors is $19,000; the average individual salary is $19,000. When you look at the onerous outcome of having to reach for thousands more dollars out of your pocket on a base of a median of $19,000, when we are looking at millionaires and billionaires getting even more assistance, that is spending. So let's not get off track here. It is spending.

Where are we going to invest? Investing in health care, a basic core need, when premiums in the last decade have risen over 130 percent and where the administrative costs of the private sector and insurance are higher, where they are much lower in Medicare, where the advertising costs aren't there, where we know we have had coverage. And now we are going: here is your voucher payment. It is not going to be indexed appropriately so that with time it becomes less and less valuable.

This is the kind of un-American behavior that we are witnessing here and that people get upset about saying they are lies, they are fear tactics. This is what is happening. It ends Medicare.

Once you remove the risk that falls with government and transfer it over to our Nation's seniors, you have ended the core principle. When you deny a given bit of certainty and stability to our seniors, you have ended Medicare. When you are going to inflate the cost of health care, you have ended Medicare. And we have now taken that money and transferred it over to the big oil companies.

Representative Garamendi.

Representative Garamendi, if you will, that Medicaid cut also will impact the Nation's seniors because when they're in institutional settings we know about 66 percent of the expenditure is for our seniors. Again, we understand the compassion that is required. We know the American spirit to respond to those who have served society so well. And in their golden years they need the assistance. But every attempt that is being made here, we have tried every which way to inform the public of the attack on Medicare, the attack on Social Security, to privatize Social Security. This is about giving Big Oil, big insurance companies, big banks more business. This is like cashing in on being good to some people here. That is not how this government should be guided. It should be guided on the principles of providing the basic core needs in a way that's most effective, most efficient.

We have even attempted--the House was addressing the Republican version of the budget. I introduced an amendment on the Budget Committee where I serve and presented it before the Budget Committee, and it went down by party vote to stop the attack on Medicare, to end Medicare. There was an absolute amendment that said, Let's pull out ending Medicare from your budget plan. It was denied. Then, I traveled to the Rules Committee and attempted once more before the bill came to the House, Let's stop the effort to end Medicare. It was denied at the Rules Committee again with the Republican majority at the Rules Committee.

So now we're visiting this situation. And the budget was approved in this House with this raid on the middle class and the attack on the values of the middle class, of working families. It is really disturbing that the most comfortable continue to get that effort made their way. And especially when history speaks--and speaks so abundantly well to us. It should resonate. When we put people to work with FDR's programs back years ago, decades ago, the result was 8.5 million people put to work and public projects built that still serve us well today. JFK investing in global technology to win the space race. Those are examples of things that worked. LBJ promoting a Medicare program. Now we're repeating this driving the car into the ditch scenario. Reaganomics and its trickle-down didn't work. The Bush II Presidency and its cuts to the millionaire, billionaire companies didn't work. Why would we revisit that as we crawl out of the most painful recession and propose ending Medicare--ending Medicare--denying dignity to our Nation's seniors and avoiding the fundamental responsibility of good government, efficient government, which is what I think the voters asked for in November, not this sort of pain.

Representative Cicilline.

Thank you.

Representative Garamendi, we have about 4 minutes remaining in our one-half hour here of dialogue.

Thank you, Representative Garamendi. I appreciate you and Representative Cicilline joining in this important half-hour of discussion. But I can clearly state that no one that I talked to in this House, no Representative, was hearing advocacy to end Medicare during our campaigns last year. I didn't hear one individual tell me that--senior, non-senior. I didn't hear anyone ask me to give more profits, more handouts, to big oil companies. I didn't hear one person say, Protect the corporate loopholes for corporations out there. I didn't hear anyone say, Hand more tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires.

I did hear, Make my budget work at home. I need the basics. I did hear, I can't survive with the situation as it is. I did hear, We need jobs. I did hear, Start growing our economy. Stop shrinking the middle class.

Well, evidently this majority was not listening. There was anger-- undeniable anger, understandable anger--that existed out there. But this is not this quantification that they were looking for. They did not want to see this as a result, as an outcome. I think we need to continue to fight this effort to end Medicare, and we're going to continue that fight.

With that, I thank the gentlemen for joining me in this half hour.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for yielding me time.

Let there be no doubt, Americans are worried about the price of gasoline; and its recent spike has, once again, put us on notice. Yet this bill that relieves regulation provides the wrong tools.

Americans know we can do better. We cannot afford to mindlessly give billions of dollars to Big Oil companies while they make record profits. In the short term, we must ensure that speculators and Wall Street quit playing games with the price of oil. Finally, we must provide motorists with fueling options at the pump. It is unconscionable that we would give $4 billion of taxpayer money to Big Oil companies this year alone while they're on track to make nearly $100 billion in profits in 2011. With prices this high, does Big Oil really need even more money? Taxpayers know they don't, and taxpayers are hit twice with taxes on gasoline--once at the pump and once on tax day. This must end.

We can help consumers at the pump by going after Wall Street speculators who drive up the cost of oil. We can increase mileage standards, and it's entirely reasonable that they could reach 60 miles per gallon by the year 2025. Also, we can invest in fueling options so that consumers can choose the lowest alternative.

High gas prices are painful. They are painful to American families; they are painful to seniors living on fixed incomes; and they are painful to small businesses; and the Big Oil subsidies that accompany them are painful for our Nation's economy as it recovers from the Bush recession. Let's end these Big Oil giveaways to some of the most profitable companies in the world, and let's provide drivers with alternatives--fueling options, better vehicles--and create the clean- energy jobs of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William ``Bill'' Schultz.

Bill is an educator who has dedicated over three decades, specifically 34 years, to teaching in Maine, New Hampshire, and New York. Upon retirement, he has dedicated his energies and talents to other retirees.

Bill was a leader in the labor movement and served two terms as president of the Niskayuna Teachers Association in my congressional district. Serving 8 years as president of Retiree Council 12 of the New York State United Teachers Association, Bill was influential in organizing the council.

Bill's leadership, dedication, compassion, and knowledge have had a profound influence on the lives of the students he has taught, the retirees for which he has advocated, and the friends he has made along the way.

In 1921, John Cotton Dana said, ``Who dares to teach must never cease to learn.'' It is in this spirit that Bill will be honored later this month.

I commend and congratulate him on all his efforts and hope his service and dedication can stand as a model and inspiration for countless others. After all, our future and our children's future are only as good as those who teach them.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Madam Speaker, in the last week I have twice offered an amendment to protect health care for seniors, veterans, and active duty military and military families. And to my great disappointment, the Republican majority has twice blocked this effort, first in committee, where Republicans voted unanimously on a party line vote to end Medicare, and again yesterday, when the Republican leadership refused to allow this amendment to be heard, debated, and voted on in this Chamber.

I have twice asked my Republican colleagues to honor the Constitution. They must allow the democratically elected representatives of the American people to have an honest up or down vote on whether or not we support privatizing Medicare, a trend that could lead to similar privatized plans for the health coverage provided to our troops and veterans. For if they honestly believe that seniors will receive quality care at a more affordable price to the taxpayer, what's to stop them from going after TRICARE and the VA?

My amendment will protect health care provided to seniors and the disabled from being privatized or being subject to arbitrary spending caps. It would extend the same protection to health coverage for active duty military and their families, as well as veterans. This amendment would protect Medicare, TRICARE, and VA health care from being eliminated and replaced with voucher or premium support programs.

The Road to Ruin budget ends Medicare. This is a program that 46 million seniors and disabled individuals rely on for their health care. Rather than guaranteed benefits, seniors and the disabled will be left with a voucher, or so-called premium support, that by design cannot and will not keep up with rising health care costs. The private market views seniors as a risky and expensive investment. So too the disabled. So too military servicemembers and veterans who have unique health needs earned through their sacrifice in service to America.

The question before us today is not whether to reduce the deficit, but how. We have balanced the budget before without ending Medicare. We can do it again without the painful consequences that the Republican plan would initiate, where our seniors would pay 68 cents of every dollar of insurance required as compared to Congress paying 28 cents on every dollar.

Forty-six million people rely on Medicare today. Even more will depend on it in the future. Those many millions deserve a vote. That vote has been denied to them by the Republican leadership of the House.

I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, as indicated in the chart to my right, the Republican Road to Ruin budget ends Medicare and other investments to pay for tax breaks to millionaires and some of the most profitable corporations in the world.

Forty-six million Americans rely on Medicare for their health care today. Under the Road to Ruin plan to end Medicare, seniors and the disabled will lose their guaranteed health benefits. They will be left with a voucher. By design, the voucher cannot and will not keep up with rising health care costs.

The private market views seniors and the disabled as a risky and expensive investment. That's why Medicare was created in the first place. As a result, when the Road to Ruin health plan takes effect--and as this chart again to my right reveals--seniors will see their health costs double. By conservative estimates, seniors will pay more than $12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses for the same coverage Medicare provides today. Facing dramatically higher health costs with less help, our seniors will be forced into life-and-death decisions--do I buy groceries or do I buy prescriptions? Do I pay rent or do I pay medical bills?

Never fear, my Republican colleagues say to seniors, you will get the same care as a Member of Congress. Well, as a Member of Congress, I know that congressional health plans cost about $9,000 this year. Seniors will be getting a ration of $8,000 10 years from now for health care that will cost over $20,000. With all due respect, I must say that the Republican talking point that seniors will get the same coverage as a Member of Congress is not just political hyperbole, it is a lie. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that seniors will pay 68 percent of their health costs under the Republican plan. Members of Congress only pay 28 percent of their premiums. Seniors will pay more than double the share that Members of Congress pay and more than double the amount that they pay today under Medicare.

We have balanced a budget before without ending Medicare. We can do it again. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Road to Ruin plan that would end Medicare.