Donna Edwards

Ms. EDWARDS

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. 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.

Ms. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield?

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 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.

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.

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.

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----

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.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, the ongoing stubbornness by my Republican colleagues to even entertain the idea of increasing revenues is putting our country at risk. Over the past decade, the top 2 percent of Americans making over $250,000 have done incredibly well. And while I have enjoyed reduced taxes as a result of the Bush-era tax cuts, our seniors, our workers don't even come close. They have lost pensions, 401(k) plans, home values, and all that's left is Social Security and Medicare. As you can see here, these tax cuts are the primary contributor to our debt and deficit over the long term. Madam Speaker, default on America's debt would be catastrophic to both our economy and the world. It's time for my Republican colleagues to get serious. Stop playing with fire and put the future of the Nation first ahead of millionaires, corporations that avoid taxes and benefit from loopholes in the law, and ahead of those who would ship jobs overseas. So, no, seniors and those with disabilities didn't cause this deficit, as we can see, and the long-term debt, and they shouldn't have to cut their benefits to pay for it.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding commitment to public service made by Mr. Arun Shimpi, who retired in June after 43 years of tireless service toward enhancing the social and economic independence of Americans who are blind. When Mr. Shimpi began work at National Industries for the Blind in 1968, he was a new immigrant from India in search of greater opportunity. Fifteen years later, fueled by a desire to participate fully in our democracy, he transitioned from legal resident to U.S. citizen. Not only is his story one that captures the spirit of the American Dream, but he has also worked tirelessly for over 40 years, opening the doors of opportunity to thousands of Americans who are blind or severely disabled, making their own dreams become a reality. National Industries for the Blind, along with its 90 associated nonprofit agencies operating under the AbilityOne Program, remains the largest single source of employment for Americans who are blind. Under Mr. Shimpi's leadership, the AbilityOne Program has made great progress in breaking down barriers for all persons with disabilities. Schooled as an industrial engineer, Mr. Shimpi has approached these barriers faced by Americans with disabilities as problems that can be overcome through concrete solutions. He has provided valuable research and analysis, creating better efficiency within the AbilityOne Program, and his depth of knowledge acquired through four decades of service at National Industries for the Blind has been a valuable resource for those looking to close the 70 percent unemployment gap among Americans who are blind. Please join me in honoring a lifetime commitment to service by Mr. Arun Shimpi.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it's time to talk turkey about jobs. Too many Americans are unemployed, and it's time to get Americans back to work. As we enter this new decade in the 21st century, research and development is critical to rebuilding American manufacturing and to creating jobs. In today's global economy, manufacturing here in the United States and innovation remains a linchpin for economic growth that is being challenged rigorously by our competitors around the world. Today, I rise to highlight legislation I introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Roscoe Bartlett, to spur innovation and economic development. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 682, the 21st Century Investment Act, would encourage companies to co-locate their research and development activities with job creation here in the United States. We'd make permanent the research and development tax credit and increase the domestic manufacturing tax credit to 15 percent. Those are jobs here in the United States. The time was that we were the global leader and the architect of research and development, but not true today. We can and we must do better because of whatever that is we're down to, about number 17 or 21. We can do better; and so by joining Mr. Bartlett and me, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 689 will reclaim the mantle of innovation and create jobs.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. I've been listening all afternoon and I've heard economic philosophy described as Keynesian and I've heard talk of fiscal conservatism and regulation and rugged individualism. We even heard talk of LeBron James. But one thing is really true, we haven't heard anyone on the other side of the aisle talk about hunger, and even LeBron James is not hungry. So I want to talk about a really simple economic theory and it's called hunger. It means when you wake up in the morning and you're a young child in this country and your parents can't afford to feed you, you're hungry. The demand of hunger when you're going to school and you can't think through the school day because you're hungry. It's about going home on a weekend after receiving a school lunch on a Friday but not eating through the entire weekend because you're hungry. And really, Mr. Chair, that's the only economic theory we need to discuss this afternoon. So just before I came to the floor, earlier in the day I had a physical. I had to go 10 hours without eating. I described myself as starving. But clearly, neither I nor any Member of this House of Representatives knows what it's like to be really hungry today. And so before I came to the floor, I had my piece of chicken. And you know what? That was more than the Republicans are prepared to give America's women, infants, and children. And so I rise today in opposition to these extreme cuts to the Women, Infant and Children program and the underlying bill. We know the program is essential to providing nutrition to our Nation's most vulnerable children. Now, I don't need a study to know what it means to be hungry; but studies show that women, infant and children programs reap tremendous benefits to the participants. They lead to fewer premature births, fewer fetal and infant deaths, and result in better cognitive and physical health for children. That's the difference between eating a nutritious meal and being hungry. I also rise today in support of my colleague, Lynn Woolsey's, amendment to block the GOP's attempts to roll back our USDA nutrition standards for our children because not only are some of our children hungry, but we need to make sure that they are eating to a standard that allows them to learn in our classrooms. The WIC program is essential to ensuring our youngest Americans receive the nutrition they need, and the underlying amendments will ensure that children continue to receive nutritious foods throughout their school day. Now, when I first came to Congress, I worked with our then-chairwoman and our friend, Rosa DeLauro, to secure the Afterschool Supper Program in my home State of Maryland for hungry children. We have fed millions of meals through this program. And so I know that in my State and all across the country the Women, Infant, and Children program served 140,000 women, infants and children every month in the last year. The program serves 9.2 million low-income families across the country. And as our Nation continues to recover from a recession, the benefits provided to these families are an essential safety net for our vulnerable populations. And according to Feeding America, there's a 50 percent increase in need amongst families, seniors, and children right now. This is a time when ensuring the economic security of the American people is critical, and we can't stand by the Republican pledge to cut essential safety net programs. It's no surprise to the American people that the Republican Conference selected yet another vulnerable group to slash while continuing to support big oil companies, farm subsidies and huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires instead of supporting women, infants, and children. In this 112th Congress, this new and bold Republican majority began with an attack on women. They proceeded to attack our seniors with a plan to eradicate Medicare, and now they are committed to an attack on our neediest and the health of our neediest infants and children. It's actually really shameful. It's even hard to talk about because it's hard to believe, in America, that even those who sit on the other side of the aisle are willing to take away nutrition programs for needy women, infants and children rather than take away the tax breaks for billionaires and take away the subsidies for oil companies while our gas prices rise. I think that those on the other side of the aisle should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. I know that some of my colleagues have quoted Bible passages. I don't know. Maybe quote the Statue of Liberty. What is happening in this House is not American at all. It doesn't hold to the values that we hold to take care of our neediest, to take care of our poor.

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

Ms. EDWARDS. I'll be gaveled down, but we need to support Women, Infants and Children and to stop the slash and burn on the Nation's neediest children.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Republican ending-Medicare plan. Now some on the other side have complained about the unfairness of characterizing the Republican plan as an end to Medicare. But, Mr. Speaker, I just call it like it is. So here are the facts about the Republican Medicare-ending plan: Seniors will pay approximately $6,000 more in out-of-pocket expenses, double their expenses today. They'll lose benefits. They'll be forced to negotiate-- our seniors will be forced to negotiate with the big insurance companies under the Republican Medicare-ending plan. Under the Republican plan, seniors will immediately reopen the prescription-drug doughnut hole that we close. And so, Mr. Speaker, this is not a mischaracterization. It's just speaking the truth to the power of the Republican Medicare-ending plan for our seniors and for those who are approaching the age of 65. So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to say that the Democrats are going to stand on the side of jobs, of working people, and of those who want to protect Medicare for future generations.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Medicare. It's a decades-old promise that my grandmother made to my mother and that I make to my son. For the last 5 months Republicans have played political theater with our Nation's most pressing issues, putting tax breaks for millionaires and oil companies ahead of the health care of our seniors. Just yesterday, in procedural silliness, it was yet another act by the Republican majority's quest to end Medicare and jeopardize the health of our seniors. Yet again Republicans told our seniors loudly and clearly that they are willing by any means necessary to end Medicare, and that's just wrong. They have also tried to trick our seniors into believing that their budget plan wouldn't affect them today, but that's wrong too. The fact is the end of Medicare would mean that our seniors and individuals with disabilities would pay $12,500 in health care costs. The plan would force seniors to pay nearly $6,800 out of their own pockets in the first year alone. So I am going to urge all of us and our colleagues on the other side to stop the political theater, to stand with the American people, to stop their quest to end Medicare and support our seniors. How about creating jobs instead of ending Medicare?

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the chairman and the ranking member. I represent the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, which is home to Joint Base Andrews. Joint Base Andrews is home to Air Force One, the 11th Wing, and the 113th Wing that supports air sovereignty over the Mid-Atlantic region, including the National Capital region. Currently, 15,000 personnel work at Joint Base Andrews, including 7,000 active duty servicemembers. When the 2005 BRAC process is complete, an additional 3,000 personnel will work at Joint Base Andrews, bringing the total to 18,000 personnel. Unfortunately, when considering shifting resources, the commission did not account for changes outside the gate required to deliver increased personnel to the installation. And I refer to the activity at Joint Base Andrews as one of many examples across the country of these significant BRAC impacts on local infrastructure. The underlying bill goes a long way toward correcting significant transportation infrastructure impacts related to installation realignment. My amendment clarifies that if a significant transportation impact will occur as a result of a realignment action, the action may not be taken unless and until the Secretary analyzes the potential impact of the action on local businesses, neighborhoods, and local government. These can sometimes be quite significant and unaccounted for. My amendment keeps with the spirit of the bill, addressing transportation infrastructure, and simply ensures that our constituents and local congressional districts will have the assurance that their livelihoods are kept in mind when realignment activities are taken. A GAO study published in 2009 found that BRAC growth will result in increased traffic in communities ranging from very large metropolitan areas to small communities, further congesting roads. This has certainly been the case in my community. According to a Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment survey, 17 of 18 BRAC growth communities identified transportation as one of their top challenges. The priority is most clear for us around Joint Base Andrews. Traffic entering and exiting the installation contributes to regional congestion, resulting in the average Washington metropolitan region driver wasting almost 70 hours in traffic per year not just at Andrews, but throughout the region. The Federal Government has provided very limited direct assistance to help communities address BRAC transportation impacts, and State and local governments have adopted strategies to expedite projects within the time frame allowed by BRAC. In years past, this has happened through the earmark process, a process that is no longer available. In other areas, the Department of Defense's Defense Access Roads program has certified transportation projects for funding at three affected communities. OEA has also provided planning grants and funded traffic studies and local planning positions. And while Federal highway and transit programs can be used for many BRAC-related transportation needs, dedicated funds are not available. Instead, BRAC-related transportation projects must compete with other proposed transportation projects in a given State or community. By 2009, communities that identified funding for about only $500 million of the estimated $2 billion needed to address their near-term project needs. In fact, some States and local governments have adopted strategies to expedite highway projects, such as prioritizing short- term high-impact projects because the time frames for completing BRAC personnel moves are much shorter than the time frames for such projects. While legislation mandates that BRAC growth be completed by 2011, major highway and transit projects typically take anywhere from 9 to 19 years to complete, and near-term transportation projects to address these challenges could cost about $2 billion, of which $1.1 billion is related to projects solely in the Washington metropolitan area. BRAC-related transportation infrastructure costs are subject to a number of uncertainties. According to the GAO, and I quote: ``Not all potential projects are included in the estimate. Military staffing levels at some growth installations are in flux, and location decisions of military and civilian personnel have not yet been made. And preexisting, nonmilitary community growth makes a direct link between transportation projects to military growth very difficult.'' To complete some critical projects before BRAC growth occurs, State and local officials are reprioritizing planned projects and implementing those projects that can be completed quickly. GAO, in fact, cited projects from Maryland to Texas and all across the country where the States prioritized certain lower cost intersection projects to improve traffic. This takes away from other planned priorities that States may have had on the books.

Ms. EDWARDS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. EDWARDS. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Madam Chair, Republicans have returned to the Hill after a hard week at work in our districts really trying to explain away the plan to dismantle Medicare to their constituents. But I want to tell it to you really straight, Madam Chair, and that is that the reason that it's hard to explain is because there really is no explanation. The plan that Republicans have under consideration would indeed end Medicare as we know it. It would end Medicare, and it's just that simple. The plan would turn Medicare into a voucher system that would leave seniors paying more and more out of their pockets for health care. I was out at a town hall meeting at a senior center in my congressional district. It's one where people have gone--they come from every level of the private sector and business--to enjoy their retirement. And they receive Medicare benefits. And I asked them, who in this room, a room of about 100 or so seniors, how many of you would like to go into negotiations with an insurance company about how much you're going to pay for your health care? And no surprise, not a single one of those seniors stood up. But that's exactly what the Ryan plan, the Medicare dismantling plan, would do for seniors. It would say to seniors, we want you to go on your own and negotiate with the big insurance companies. Well, we know that that can happen for those of us who are younger, but it certainly cannot happen for our seniors. It would shift the burden on to retirees to make the system much less efficient and increase administrative costs that are eventually passed on to all consumers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican plan would raise the eligibility age for beneficiaries from 65 to 67. And it repeals provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are actually designed to make the system even more efficient. This just doesn't make sense. I think seniors have caught on. In fact, I think all Americans have caught on. The thing about Medicare is it is not just about our seniors, Madam Chair. It is also about the contract that each of us, one generation, makes to the next generation. It is the contract that I have made with my mother and my son makes with me, and it is to make sure that we are taken care of in our old age because we have paid into it and we have paid for it. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 54-year- old worker would need to save an additional $182,000 to pay for the higher cost of private insurance with the government elimination of Medicare; $182,000, let's just absorb that for all of those 54 year olds. How long is it going to take you to get to age 65 and save $182,000 to pay for your health care costs? Well, we know that that would be an impossibility. I want to tell you what is happening in Maryland because it will happen all across this country. It is that our seniors are recognizing that the GOP plan would require seniors to pay an additional $6,800 out of their own pockets for expenses for health care, and that is not including the fact that they will have to negotiate and probably pay even more than that. So at a time when our seniors are vulnerable and they are struggling and they have seen a depletion in their savings, it is really not fair to threaten them and to threaten their quality of life by ensuring that they are going to have to pay these out-of-pocket costs. So I would ask us, Madam Chair, to really examine what it is that we are asking the American people to absorb. I was up with a group of seniors in New Hampshire, and throughout my congressional district; and our seniors are saying to us, It is not just about us, and don't count on us supporting this plan just because we happen to be over age 55. We support Medicare because we understand what it means for future generations. So this is a link, a bond between the young people in this country who are working, our seniors and our retirees, to protect Medicare and to protect the benefits that come with it. I would ask us on this underlying bill--I think some of my colleagues have spoken to this--we need more primary care. Already we are seeing what is happening in our system where 26 year olds, up to 26 year olds, can be covered on their parents' health insurance. Do you know what that is doing? It is actually bringing down the cost. It is making sure that we have more resources to absorb the care that people need as they get older. And so let's not stomach a dismantling of the Medicare protection that we have known for 46 years in this country, this contract from one generation to the next generation, to ensure that our seniors who have worked so hard are able to enjoy their retirement without sacrificing everything that they have to pay the cost for additional benefits while health insurance companies walk away with record profits, and certainly while oil and gas companies walk away with theirs.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the American people to protect Medicare. It's pretty simple. The Republicans, if they had their way, it would mean a catastrophic end to the program and it would deep-six protections for seniors and improvements to Medicare that we made under the Affordable Care Act. Medicare has long been a reliable source of coverage for seniors, ensuring they can afford the care they need. In Maryland, the GOP plan would force seniors to pay nearly $6,800 more in out-of-pocket expenses for health care in the first year alone. And at a time when seniors are economically vulnerable, this proposal would further threaten their quality of life. While their budget, to date, hasn't produced a single jobs-creating bill, what they would do in these next several months is to cut more than 2 million private sector jobs across the country. So right now the Republicans are heading for the hills, trying to distance themselves from what they're trying to do to Medicare, but it's clear that the American people want to protect Medicare. So I urge my colleagues to join with us and oppose this controversial change that would end the decades-old promise to the American people. It's a simple question: Whose side are you on? Well, I'm on the side, and Democrats are on the side of seniors and not the wealthy health insurance industry and Big Oil bandits.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. These school-based health care centers offer a wide range of services, from wellness checks to mental health services for our young people, which is care they wouldn't receive otherwise--or maybe they would in expensive emergency room visits in a crisis. Studies show the link between affordable health care for our students and their education success, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Let's create jobs instead of dismantling a health care system.

Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. Mr. Speaker, here we are, we are at month five, and I thought that we'd be talking about job creation and spurring economic development across this country. Instead, we are yet again talking about how we can repeal elements of a health care bill that passed some time ago. Nonetheless, today I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bills. Let me first just say a few words about the exchanges. In my State of Maryland, our Governor, Martin O'Malley, in working with our legislature, has been in the process of actually trying to make this work--implementing the health insurance exchanges in the State to make sure that people don't fall through the cracks. In fact, our Secretary of Health has come out with a study that shows that, by going through this process of implementing the exchange and moving through reform, we are going to create jobs and provide health care for thousands and thousands of people across the State of Maryland and for our small businesses, which want to do right by their employees by providing health care. So I don't understand what the problem is here, and I'm a bit confused. On the one hand, the majority doesn't want to pursue a public option for millions who are uninsured. On the other hand, they don't want to make a marketplace, which is what these exchanges are, available to people to get health care in their States. You cannot have it both ways unless you want to continue to leave millions and millions of people uninsured across this country and without health care. In the underlying bill as well, the majority proposes in the Act to eliminate funding provided to construct, renovate and improve services at school-based health centers. In my district, the elimination of these funds would mean something very specific: The centers at Fairmont Heights High School, one of the poorest communities in our district, would be without a health center. There is Northwestern High School in Adelphi, Maryland; Oxon Hill High School in Oxon Hill, Maryland; and Broad Acres Elementary School in Silver Spring, which are serving very needed communities.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, all the cards are on the table, and the Republicans want to reduce Medicaid to a mere block grant program and drastically alter the Federal-State partnership that has been struck for over 45 years. The GOP budget argues that under a block grant program, ``States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements.'' Sounds nice, right? But, Mr. Speaker, what they really mean is that States will no longer have to meet standards that ensure quality, delivery of service, and eligibility. The GOP budget argues that block grants will improve health care safety for seniors and low-income families. Again, sounds right, Mr. Speaker, sounds wonderful. But they fail to conveniently mention that the States would be required to spend below projected growth, forcing State governments to make up the difference by increasing spending. Again, that's a fat chance in this environment. And so what they really want to do is to cap enrollment, cut eligibility, limit mandatory benefits, and lower provider reimbursement. Our doctors, our seniors, and our low-income families deserve so much better.

Ms. EDWARDS

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm in the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' This is the conversation that we had last year. It's the conversation that we had the year before. I cannot believe that we're standing here today when we should be talking about creating jobs in this country for the millions of people who are unemployed instead of taking away their health care, instead of taking away the ability of a young person up to age 26 to stay on their parents' health care plan. We're talking about taking away the ability of children who have preexisting conditions--to be denied coverage once again instead of creating jobs. Instead of creating jobs, Mr. Speaker, we're here telling seniors that we want them to reach into their pockets and into their retirement to pay for outrageous prescription drug coverage. We're standing here, instead of creating jobs, and we are telling small businesses that they're not going to get a tax credit to provide health care insurance for their business. I mean, this is ridiculous. And, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you the American people must be wondering what it is that this Republican majority is doing when they want to rip off seniors, rip off children, and stop health care for the American people.