[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10946-10953]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        DEBT CEILING LIMIT TALKS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. TONKO. 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

[[Page 10947]]

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.
  Ms. CHU. Thank you, Congressman Tonko. Thank you for putting this 
hour together for us to talk about what is at stake with regard to 
Medicare.
  The economic recession is hurting our seniors. The programs they rely 
on to get by, like Nursicare and Meals on Wheels, are being slashed at 
the local, State and Federal level. Though prices have risen, they 
haven't seen a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks. 
Yet the Republicans have been in control of the House for over 6 months 
and have done nothing to help our struggling seniors. Instead, they 
have been waging a war on programs that keep them afloat.
  First, they pushed through a budget for next year that ends Medicare. 
It would deny seniors and those of us who are getting older what was a 
50-year health care guarantee, one that we have been paying throughout 
our lives.
  Today, under Medicare you are guaranteed coverage the day you turn 65 
and for the rest of your life. You can get free preventive care. You 
can get a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescriptions if you are in 
the doughnut hole. But now the Republicans are trying to take all that 
away. The GOP wants to replace Medicare with a voucher system where 
seniors, once they turn 67, go out into the private market to buy their 
own health insurance. That puts seniors at the mercy of insurance 
companies instead of in control of their own care.
  We've seen that private insurers will line their pockets rather than 
provide quality and secure health care. Insurance companies could limit 
benefits, raise copays, and change which doctors are in their network, 
none of which occur under Medicare today.

                              {time}  2000

  The proposal, rather than tackling skyrocketing health care costs, 
simply shifts these costs onto the backs of seniors in Medicare. And 
because the amount of the Medicare voucher won't be tied to rising 
health care costs, seniors will be forced to shoulder the burden as 
health care costs increase. According to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office, in just 10 short years, out-of-pocket health care 
expenses for a typical 65-year-old will double under the Republican 
budget. And in 2030, a new retiree will be paying over $20,000 out of 
pocket for medical expenses. Rather than fixing our fiscal problems, it 
just makes seniors pay the bill.
  Proponents voted to end Medicare for our seniors because they say we 
can't afford it. But they're openly pushing for even more budget-
busting millionaire tax giveaways. In the same budget that ends 
Medicare as we know it and makes seniors pay double the health care 
costs, Big Oil gets tax subsidies, millionaires get tax breaks, and 
corporations have to pay less taxes. And now we're hearing that 
Republicans want to make massive cuts in Medicare as payment for their 
votes on the debt ceiling. Some have proposed requiring Medicare 
beneficiaries to pay even more for their Medicare benefits, either 
through higher copays or through higher premiums.
  The solution is fixing the real problem of increasing health care 
costs for all Americans, not shifting cost burdens on our seniors. 
That's not going to work for the 40 million seniors enrolled in the 
program who have Medicare for their health and economic security.
  But that's not all. Next week, Republicans are going to push through 
a constitutional amendment to the floor that will force the deepest 
cuts in Medicare yet. This so-called ``balanced budget amendment'' is 
just pulling the rug from under the seniors in the name of cutting 
spending. This amendment is designed to make it easier to reduce the 
deficit by slashing Medicare benefits rather than by closing tax 
loopholes for private jets. The way the bill is written, we'd have to 
privatize Medicare completely and raise its eligibility age to 67.
  By forcing Congress to keep spending at unheard of levels, we would 
inevitably shift the real economic burdens onto the backs of our 
Nation's most vulnerable, the elderly. It would make it virtually 
impossible to repeal special tax breaks for the wealthy or Big Oil and 
gas producers. But it would allow

[[Page 10948]]

Congress to destroy Medicare with a simple voice vote.
  Well, I think that our Federal debt and budget is more than just 
about dollars and cents. The way we spend our money is a statement of 
our values and priorities. Republicans want us to believe that cutting 
benefits to seniors is the only way we can solve our debt crisis, but I 
say there are other ways. The debt must be addressed, but it should be 
done in a way that's fair to all. Today the average senior lives on 
$19,000 a year, just $19,000. We should not balance the budget on the 
backs of our Nation's seniors. We must protect and strengthen Medicare, 
not gut it. These talks are about priorities. And my priority is 
keeping seniors in their own homes, communities, and off the streets.
  Mr. TONKO. 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?
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. It is Maryland's Fourth 
Congressional District, which is just outside of the Nation's Capital. 
But I can tell you that in the Fourth Congressional District in 
Maryland, just like across the country, people in my congressional 
district are just stymied at the idea that we would in any way reduce 
Medicare benefits----
  Mr. TONKO. Or end them.
  Ms. EDWARDS. That we would end them, that we would shift costs on 
things like Medicaid to our States, that we would reduce benefits for 
Social Security, all of this in the context of a conversation about 
lifting a debt ceiling and making cost cuts to things that impact our 
debt, our long-term debt and our deficits.
  I just wanted to point out to the gentleman, most Americans don't 
know this, but I think they need to understand that, as you can see 
here from this chart, that the largest portion of our long-term debt is 
caused by the Bush-era tax cuts, not by Medicare and not by Social 
Security. Now to be sure, one might argue, I think that we need to make 
sure that Medicare and Social Security are solvent for generations to 
come because we want to honor the contract that I've made with my 
mother, that my son has made with me. But that shouldn't be anywhere 
near this conversation about lifting the debt ceiling because it isn't 
the burden of seniors and those with disabilities to bear the burden of 
paying for these Bush-era tax cuts for those who make over $250,000 
instead of shifting that burden where it really needs to be.
  Mr. TONKO. 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.

  Ms. EDWARDS. Right. And I think that you were right to correct me. I 
mean, I think sometimes even I would like to think that perhaps what 
we're talking about with the Ryan budget that we've heard so much about 
and with these other ideas is about changing Medicare. But it's 
actually not about changing Medicare. You're right. It's about ending 
Medicare, turning it into a system where our seniors and those with 
disabilities would just kind of get, you know, a check or a voucher and 
then have to go negotiate with their insurance companies.

  Well, I have to tell you, although my mother's a pretty tough 
negotiator, it would be tough for me to imagine her and other seniors 
around this country having to negotiate a better health care cost and 
to navigate that system by negotiating with insurance companies. I 
think the only one who wins in that game are the insurance companies.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. TONKO. 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.

  Ms. EDWARDS. If the gentleman would yield, I think you point exactly 
to what the problem is: that rather than our seniors facing their older 
age with some degree of certainty about being able to meet their health 
care needs, instead we throw them out to the wolves. This plan would 
throw them out to the wolves. And I know that's why the gentleman from 
New York and this gentlewoman from Maryland and all across, frankly, 
our Democratic Caucus we stand very firmly united behind protecting 
Medicare benefits from those kinds of cuts and, really, from 
demolishing the program.

  After all, can you imagine that if you were--I just turned 53. And 
that for

[[Page 10949]]

those of us who were under age 55, that we would have to, starting now, 
dig into our pockets, saving up to $6,000 a year so that we could 
actually pay for costs. That would mean that between now and the time 
of my retirement, I would have to save up to almost $200,000 to be able 
to meet those costs. And this at an age when I should be thinking about 
how I have saved up to this point to have a more comfortable 
retirement.

  Well, that's the predicament that the Ryan budget that was passed by 
the majority in this Congress in April, that would be the result. Now, 
we may not know all the dirty details of the proposals that some on the 
other side have for Medicare in the context of this debt ceiling, but 
we can only imagine that if their true gift that they wanted to give to 
the American public and give to our seniors was a plan that would 
decimate Medicare, I can only imagine what the ideas are for so-called 
cost savings, which could be quite devastating for our seniors as they 
look to increase out-of-pocket costs.

  And let's think about Medicare for a minute. Because what a lot of 
people don't understand is they get caught in this business of 
discussing things like the Consumer Price Index. Well, you know, 
adjusting things like that is just a fancy way for saying ``cuts.'' So 
I like to use the one syllable word ``cuts'' to describe what has been 
on the table for Medicare. Cuts that would result in our seniors having 
to meet more of the expenses for their health care out of their 
pockets.

  I have talked to seniors in my congressional district who told 
horrifying stories about how challenging it is for them to meet their 
day-to-day needs, and that they live and rely almost exclusively on 
Social Security and on Medicare for their health care coverage. They 
even do things like, to save money, to save money on their prescription 
drugs, you know, they may split that heart medication in half. Well, 
consider, if you will, that if some of these proposals were to go into 
effect that rather than even splitting that pill in half they would be 
splitting it in thirds. I mean, this would have a devastating impact on 
our seniors.

  Some have suggested, and the gentleman from New York understands 
this, that these are about scare tactics. Well, the seniors in my 
district don't need a scare tactic; they just need the facts. And the 
facts are that those on the other side, in exchange for providing this 
huge orange clump here in Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans, those 2 percenters who make over $250,000 a year, rather 
than have them pay their own way, we want to tell our seniors, Dip into 
your own pocket and meet your health care costs. Negotiate with health 
insurance companies, when we know that as you age things happen. And 
they would just say, No, can't cover you or, if we can, it would be for 
a real premium.

  This would be devastating to the Nation's seniors.
  I think the thing that I most admire about those who first enacted 
Medicare is that it really was about how we feel about one neighbor to 
the next, one generation to the next, that bond that we have that says 
we actually care about each other and meeting our health care costs, 
that we don't want seniors left out in the cold when it comes to their 
health care in their golden years. I want to keep that promise. And I 
know the gentleman from New York wants to keep it, too.

  Mr. TONKO. 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.

  Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.
  Ms. EDWARDS. They are saying it with good reason. It's because it's 
worked. It's because our seniors are no longer wondering in their 
golden years whether they will be able to meet their health care needs. 
It's because our seniors and their families are not struggling to make 
sure that those health care needs are met.

  It would be one thing if we were arguing about a program that was 
inefficient and not cost-effective. But every single piece of data 
about Medicare tells us it's more efficient than the private sector, 
that in terms of its cost-effectiveness it's more cost-effective than 
the private sector. And what I like is that when we passed the 
Affordable Care Act, and the gentleman will remember this, is that we 
actually did some things to really strengthen Medicare. I am proud of 
that.

  And I do want to have the discussion about making sure that we 
strengthen, for future generations, Medicare, Social Security, these 
important safety net programs. I don't know about your district, the 
gentleman's district, but I know that in my district in Maryland people 
have lost their 401(k) plans. They've lost their private pensions to 
the extent that they have had them. They've lost value in their homes.

                              {time}  2020

  The only thing they have left in their golden years is their 
retirement, their Medicare, and their Social Security; and they are 
counting on us to protect that

   .And perhaps it is that unfortunately this debate about raising the 
debt ceiling, which I think is an imperative, a moral imperative for us 
to do, has actually crystallized the bright line between those of us 
who want to protect Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and those 
who want to destroy it, those who have long held the belief that these 
systems should be privatized, as though somehow that market that fell 
apart yesterday, if we were investing there, that that would protect 
people's retirement security when all of us, each of us knows that that 
won't be true.

  And so I am interested in making sure that the 2 percenters, those 
who make over $250,000, should not have to put the cost and have the 
cost shifted to our seniors to bear the costs for their tax breaks for 
corporate loopholes and for things that our seniors didn't have 
anything to do with, and that's why I like the bright line test of 
those of us who want to protect Medicare for future generations and 
those who want to destroy it.

  Mr. TONKO. 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

[[Page 10950]]

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.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am so glad to have the opportunity to 
join the gentleman from New York and to specifically focus on his 
leadership, along with my colleague from Maryland, who, as we were 
developing the Affordable Care Act, worked so hard on some of these 
finite issues ensuring that we had the oversight over insurance rates.

  We tried to do everything that we could to produce legislation that 
embraced the concept of Medicare, for example, recognizing and 
respecting Medicare and then broadening the concept to ensuring that 
all people had access to health care. But isn't it interesting just a 
few months later we are standing in the well of the House and we are 
literally having to hang on to the commonsense program of Medicare.

  If I could, I would like to frame the discussion in this manner. You 
have articulated a very commonsense approach that in any debt ceiling--
by the way, let me give my editorial comment. I have voted for a clean 
debt ceiling just simply to pay America's bills. Unfortunately, that 
didn't carry the weight of the day.

  But what I will say is that the discussions that are being crafted in 
the media, or at least have been perceived in the media that our 
Republican friends want to provide to the American people, is that we 
are broke, is that we have no way of doing anything.

  I want to be very clear, I am aware that Americans are out of work. I 
am aware that we have had 6 months without a jobs bill and that 
Democrats are trying to put one on the floor.

  But I want everyone to know that we have had a significant recovery 
because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. So we are moving 
forward except for the fact that we have got to get jobs. We have had 
seven consecutive quarters where the GDP has grown.

  So to make our seniors the brunt of what we have made up in terms of 
saying we have no money, we cannot think any other way, we have to hit 
someone who has paid their dues, if you will, is simply wrong and 
unfair.

  As I have said, we are not where we want to be, but the sacrifices 
that Democrats have made in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act have put 
us forward. In addition, we have seen growth.

  Now we have a budget. First of all, we started off in 2011 with a 
budget, a Ryan budget, that then suggested that we were so broke we had 
to voucher Medicare. Frankly, vouchering Medicare is extinguishing 
Medicare. It's eliminating Medicare as we know it. It is telling a 
senior that you need a dollar's worth of health care, we can give you a 
quarter. We are going to give a senior who has invested in America, who 
has worked all of his or her life, who, as my colleague has said, maybe 
has fallen on difficult times with a 401(k) and certainly that is 
because markets have gone up and markets have gone down, and you are 
going to say now you are going to get a quarter.

  Now bring us forward. That bill, of course, was passed by the House, 
predominantly Republican, with any number of Members who believe there 
is nothing wrong with that. It has gone nowhere in the Senate. Now we 
are at a crucial point where the President has asked for us all to be 
adults, to sit around the table and talk about how can we work this 
together.

  Can we do it with the airplanes and jets? Can we let the Bush tax 
cuts expire? Can we call upon our friends in the energy industry that 
is leaps and bounds in profits to craft or to understand a way that we 
can recraft those particular provisions to bring that money here into 
the Federal Government?
  And I would say to my good friends in business, where it might be, 
the climate of the United States allows you to thrive. You are doing 
better because you live in a democracy, you live in a place where we 
respect property, where we don't run into a corporation and say, you 
know what, I think I am going to take about, you know, half a trillion 
dollars from you if you have that much. Just send that check over to 
the United States Treasury.

  We don't do that.

  So I want the point to be made tonight that we are on the side of the 
angels, because it is absolutely ludicrous to not see the difference in 
life span pre-1965, before Lyndon Baines Johnson, a fellow Texan, 
announced his desire in the Great Society to find a way to, in essence, 
respect the senior citizens, the elderly. And at that time he was 
probably looking at individuals in their 60s because of the wear and 
tear and the lack of health care to be able to give them an extra 
lifeline.

  To say that he was right and to make sure, I just want to add these 
points as I come to a close, to be able to suggest that the millions of 
seniors who now have access to guaranteed benefits are in jeopardy 
because of the games that are being played about the debt ceiling, a 
simple, procedural vote, if you will, that allows the debt ceiling to 
be raised so that we can pay our bills, something that we have done, if 
I may put in the Record, some 74 times since 1962 with no quarrel 
whatsoever.

  Finally, I would argue this: many of those on Medicare are families 
of veterans, themselves, obviously, may have served, even though I know 
that they have veterans benefits. But they are people who are willing 
to sacrifice to build this country. They are seniors.

  For us to take away this lifeline is unspeakable. And I hope that as 
Democrats we will draw a few friends, a few reasonable friends to know 
that there should be no tying of raising the debt ceiling to Medicare. 
There should be a tie to raising revenue. That's the commonsense 
approach to take.

  Mr. TONKO. 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.

                              {time}  2030

  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

[[Page 10951]]

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.

  Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you for yielding, and it's wonderful to be able to 
join my colleague from New York and my colleague from Texas in this 
discussion.
  It's so important for the American people, and I just want to remind 
my colleagues that 46 million to 47 million people, Americans, rely on 
Medicare for comprehensive health care coverage. When Medicare was 
first passed, more than half of those who were over 65 didn't have any 
health care coverage--more than half. Today, that's not true. Thirty 
percent of the number of elderly Americans lived in poverty before 
Medicare, and that number is now reduced to about 7\1/2\ percent. So 
the quality of life and the health care of our seniors has improved 
radically since Medicare's passage in 1965.

  So, what would it really mean to end Medicare? Well, it would mean 
that those seniors who are out in my congressional district and yours 
around the country would be subject, once again, to perhaps being one 
of the more than half of those who would not have comprehensive health 
care coverage.

  And I am struck, as you are, when I look at these lines of what is 
really causing our long-term debt. And I see this big orange glob right 
here into the future, and I realize that it is the Bush-era tax cuts 
for millionaires and billionaires. And I think, how fair is that to our 
seniors who are living on Medicare and Social Security? I look at the 
cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some have argued that those 
wars are really unsustainable into the future, and yet they comprise a 
substantial portion of our long-term debt because they were never paid 
for when we began those engagements.

  I look at the Troubled Asset Relief Program into the future. But what 
I see there is that it's this thin bluish line here, the thin one 
there. And what that means is that we have actually paid that back 
under the Obama administration and Democratic control of the Congress. 
And then we have this big glob here that's about the current economic 
downturn. And it strikes me that if the Congress really wanted to do 
something, if the majority really wanted to do something, leave 
Medicare alone, leave Social Security alone and leave Medicaid alone. 
Don't shift that to the States. Focus on creating jobs and getting 20-
some million people back to work so that they can contribute to our tax 
base, so that they can contribute to Medicare and to Social Security. 
Do a jobs program, and that will strengthen some of these programs that 
we care so deeply about.

  Mr. TONKO. 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.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank you for your passion. What you're 
saying makes me think what we're doing even to the younger generation 
because you just made a point that it's lasted for over half a century, 
if I could use that term, over 50 years. And it is a framework that can 
be in place for those who are young. And if we take it apart, we will 
not have this structure that has been helpful. There is no reason to 
ignore modernizing. We're not against that, looking at ways to improve 
Medicare. But that's not what our Republican friends are saying. 
They're talking about ending it as we know it, vouchering it.

  And there's a story about the running of the bulls. And frankly, I 
have this image of a voucher plan, or the plan that will come about 
through cuts in guaranteed benefits, of the running of the bulls, the 
running of seniors running toward, trying to get that last voucher that 
is being handed out, trampling each other because they're seeking that 
one lifeline that they need.

  In addition, we need to be very real about Medicare. Medicare is the 
infrastructure of our hospital system. You cut into Medicare, you're 
talking about closing hospitals, you're talking about eliminating 
physicians, and you're talking about ending care as we know it. Is 
there any understanding to the fact that we need to be adults and sit 
down?
  When I left my city of Houston, I spoke to my constituents on Sunday. 
I held a press conference to indicate my commitment to helping to 
preserve Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The idea was that this 
will impact our city. You will see jobs lost. We have the Texas Medical 
Center. It will see businesses close and people have the inability to 
care for themselves or their senior family members.

  So this simple issue of a debt ceiling speaks, I think, very 
eloquently to the need for common sense. And you have laid out very 
clearly we've had it for this period of time, we've been able to keep a 
structure that has helped to

[[Page 10952]]

save lives, it has this amount of life, it can have a longer life as we 
continue to improve it and to ensure that there is no waste, fraud, and 
abuse. And for me, I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine a picture of 
seniors trampling each other to get that last voucher or having to be 
told by their government, a country that they've served and worked for 
and raised their children in, there is no room at the inn for you, 
there's no opportunity for your health care, there's no more Medicare; 
by the way, we had to pay tax cuts or we had to give the billionaires 
and rich folk the long period of time of tax holidays, and we just 
didn't have any opportunity for you.

  That is unacceptable. It is un-American. And I think we can do 
better. And we need to fight to protect Medicare as we are doing as 
Democrats. And I would encourage and welcome my friends, my Republican 
friends, to join us in doing the right thing.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. TONKO. 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.
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman 
from Texas for pointing out the fallacy of this argument that somehow 
in this discussion of lifting the debt ceiling, which I believe each of 
us voted to lift that debt ceiling in a clean vote. We understand that 
that is our moral responsibility, it's our obligation to meet the full 
faith and credit obligations of the United States, but that's not what 
this discussion is, and it is precisely the reason that I caution us 
against putting into the debt ceiling discussion any changes to 
Medicare benefits and Social Security benefits and Medicaid. The reason 
is because, as I've demonstrated by showing this chart, and I would 
love to say that this is my chart but it's not. It was produced by the 
independent Congressional Budget Office, and it shows the contributing 
factors, the significant contributing factors in these colors here of 
the long-term debt. That's what we're talking about, raising the debt 
ceiling to meet those obligations that have already been laid out.

  Some people have described that those of us who are speaking in favor 
of Medicare and Social Security and making sure that we protect 
Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries from cuts, that we're 
passionate, but that passion is deeply connected to fact. It is 
connected to the fact that we are passionate about the guaranteed 
benefit of Medicare. It's connected to the fact that we are committed 
to lowering prescription drug costs by closing the doughnut hole, 
whereas the Ryan budget, the Republican budget, would open that 
doughnut hole all over again for our seniors, causing them to dip into 
their already fragile pockets to meet their prescription drug needs.

  The gentleman from New York has already pointed to ways in which we 
could actually negotiate prescription drugs in bulk so that we could 
significantly lower costs for our seniors, but that's not what's on the 
table. Those of us who are passionate have been described as passionate 
because we want to ensure that our seniors are receiving primary care, 
getting preventive care so that it does bend that cost curve. That's 
the source of our passion, but it's rooted in fact.

  And what is really true is the fact that our seniors did not cause 
the significant factors that are related to our long-term debt. I want 
to repeat that to the gentleman. I know that you know this, but it's 
really important for the American people to understand that the 
contributors to our long-term debt are tax cuts, that are not paid for, 
for millionaires and billionaires. We should get rid of them. We should 
not be protecting those tax cuts on the backs of our seniors.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President has already begun a 
drawdown. It could be more significant so that we could save in the 
long run, making certain that we get people back to work so that they 
are contributing to our tax base in the way that we need. And, of 
course, we know that we have to raise revenue. We must raise revenue. 
Our seniors understand that. But what we cannot do is shift the burden 
for these things that were not caused by seniors onto the backs of our 
seniors by pushing them into really unfair cuts to their Medicare and 
Social Security benefits.

  Mr. TONKO. 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

[[Page 10953]]

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.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much for leading us in this 
discussion.

  The message should be albeit we have some concerns, we are not broke. 
We need to fix jobs and investment and we need to save Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security. They have not contributed to our debt, 
and we cannot allow seniors to run like bulls to seek medical care in 
this great and wonderful country. I, for one, will not stand for it.

  Thank you.
  Mr. TONKO. And now to Representative Edwards, and then we will be 
through.

                              {time}  2050

  Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I thank you, and I thank the gentleman for 
bringing us together.

  I hope what the American people understand is that the Democrats in 
this House are prepared to protect Medicare benefits and Social 
Security benefits for our seniors and for future generations; that our 
young people should know that as they enter the workforce, because we 
are going to make sure that they have jobs for the future, that they 
will be contributing to Medicare and Social Security for future 
generations.

  This is really a values test. This is where we have to have the 
perfect alignment of policy, of politics, and our values, and that 
rests in protecting Medicare and Social Security from benefits cuts.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________