Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But let me just say this: the other philosophy, though, is that if you have a robust middle class of consumers who will actually have enough money in their pockets, middle class people, hopefully even including those who aspire to the middle class have more money in their pockets, that that is what's going to drive the economy. They're going to go out, and they're going to spend the money, and that's going to spread throughout the economy. Whereas, the wealthiest Americans may buy another yacht, but probably are just going to accumulate that kind of money and really don't do nearly what the middle class does to make a robust economy for everyone. When we all do better, we all do better.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I rise today to highlight the critical importance of extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy, which expires this month. The Production Tax Credit is essential for energy independence, the environment, and public health; and it is critical for job creation and our economy. The Production Tax Credit has helped to create good-paying jobs across the country, including 7,000 in my home State of Illinois. Because of uncertainty, the wind industry is hurting and job losses have already begun. The failure to extend the Production Tax Credit will result in the loss of 37,000 of the 78,000 American wind jobs. Those are not just numbers on a sheet of paper; they represent people and families and communities. This is not a partisan issue. Eighty-nine percent of Americans, including 84 percent of Republicans, want more wind power. We must act to extend the Production Tax Credit for wind without delay. The American people can't wait any longer.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I did that. You should do it, too.

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Your 92-year-old mother, when she goes into the hospital, if she didn't have--she probably does have--a supplemental insurance policy, the copayment on the first day in the hospital, which some seniors have to pay out-of-pocket, is well over $1,000. Medicare, let's remember, does not cover most vision, hearing, or dental, so seniors are still left with not only their premiums and their copayments and their deductibles but lots of things that still aren't covered by Medicare. With the cost of health care to seniors today, this is no entitlement, which makes it sound like they're getting a freebie here. It's very, very expensive. We want to make Medicare better. We want to make it efficient and actually enhance some of those benefits.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It's part of the Ryan budget.

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

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

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That's why we have Medicare.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. I finally am going to be able to take care of it. So a couple of things I want to reiterate that I think are just myths. One, I already said that we already means-test Medicare. Number two, that raising the age of eligibility--and our Democratic leader wrote on December 11 the ``Truth About Medicare Age.'' She wrote an excellent USA Today article. And in it she says: As one expert, Paul N. Van de Water of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, has noted, raising the age `would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy, it would increase them.' And our leader points out that the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that higher State and private sector costs that result from raising the age would be twice as large as the total Federal savings. So we aren't even doing ourselves a favor when it comes to expenditures, the cost of health care, if we raise the age. It's, as you said, a really bad idea. Another thing, I do think that a lot of people, especially younger people, do think that once you get to 65 you just get this health care benefit without realizing that it is an insurance policy that seniors are paying dearly for. It is a good insurance policy, Medicare. In fact, it is far more efficient, with an overhead of about 3 percent, compared to private insurance, which can have as much as, well, you would know better, it is reaching up into 20 percent overhead costs. So Medicare works very well. And it's popular for very good, good reasons. As you pointed out, we can control the cost of Medicare. I'm not up here saying don't do anything about Medicare. We aren't going to touch Medicare. Yes, we can, as we did through ObamaCare. And you remember the numbers, $716 billion, Democrats were hit over the head with that number, saying that we funneled that kind of money, we stole that money from Medicare, implying that we took it from beneficiaries. The opposite happened. We were able to create more efficiencies in Medicare, stopping our subsidies of private insurance companies, beefing up our fraud division, even though, as you pointed out, we can do better. We saved $716 billion from Medicare and improved benefits. That was just the beginning. I was here when we passed Medicare part D. The truth is, the pharmaceutical companies, the drug companies got language written into the bill that said Medicare, unlike the Veterans Administration, shall be prohibited from negotiating for better prices with the drug companies. That cost us about $250 billion over 10 years, the fact that we cannot negotiate for lower prices with the drug companies, who are making money hand over fist from Medicare part D. If we were to make a change like that, as the Veterans Administration does, drug prices would be lower for the government and for Medicare beneficiaries, as well. It would be a win-win in terms of lowering prices. Yes, the pharmaceutical companies aren't going to like it, but most countries already negotiate for lower drug prices. Why shouldn't we do the same, especially for Medicare?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Now we means-test Medicare for 5 percent of beneficiaries. Under proposals to cover 25 percent of beneficiaries, call them higher income, means-testing would start at $47,000 in income. Really? These are rich seniors? Covering 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would hit individuals with $63,000 in income. Are those wealthy seniors? No. We means-test Medicare right now for people who earn income over $85,000. Here's the other thing. A couple more points I want to make. There is no cap right now on out-of-pocket costs in Medicare, which today average $4,500 for people over 65 years old. So the out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries are very high. The average amounts to about 20 percent of their income, out-of-pocket, already. So Medicare costs are already high. The idea now of going further down in income levels to means-test Medicare beneficiaries makes no sense whatsoever. The other thing I wanted to point out is half of all seniors live in households with less than $22,000 in income. So here's the part I don't get about the fiscal cliff proposals. It seems as if the trophy that the Republicans want in exchange for asking people whose income is above $250,000, even though they'll get a tax break on that first $250,000, to ask them to pay a little more, the trophy in return is to ask senior citizens, whose median income is $22,000, to pay more? Why is this a quid pro quo? Why is this fair? Why is that the trophy? Why is that the exchange that makes sense? The American people say no. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, these are programs that keep people healthy. Raising the age of Medicare; really? That's why we have Medicare in the first place; insurance companies don't want to insure people. The Center for American Progress says that if we did that, in a single year, almost 435,000 seniors would be at risk of becoming uninsured. Is this the goal? I am really confused about these proposals that somehow equate really the wealthiest top 2 percent in our country with extracting something from the poorest adults in our country: seniors and persons with disabilities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We means-test Medicare, exactly. We do.

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you so much, Congressman Garamendi, for leading this hour where, hopefully, we can get just some of the facts out about Medicare and Social Security. I, too, want to concentrate on Medicare. First of all, I want to ask this fundamental question: do we really think that the United States of America is poorer today than we were 70 years ago, when Social Security came into being; that the United States is really poorer as a country today than 50 years ago, when Medicare and Medicaid came into being? The answer is simply, no. The economy has grown 15 times over since Social Security was enacted. And it was enacted because this country decided that it was really important for us to not have poorhouses for our elderly in this country, and that when Medicare and Medicaid came in, that insurance companies really didn't want to ensure old people, and that they weren't able to get the health care that they needed, and that the right thing to do for the richest country in the world, which we still are, is to set a priority that we're going to address the needs of the elderly--not for free, by any means. People pay every paycheck that they're working into Social Security, and we created an insurance company for Americans, an insurance policy for Americans, that if you pay in, when you retire, that money will be there for you. And as you pointed out, we have $2.7 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund right now. If we didn't have that, that means that our deficit would look $2.7 trillion worse than it does. Thank goodness for Social Security and its Trust Fund. So you're right, Social Security should be off the table. Medicare, too. Every single paycheck people pay in. But the difference is when you get Medicare, you continue to pay. And I want to talk a little bit about the truth of what's going on in Medicare today, and the myths. Talk about means-testing Social Security. Guess what? We do. We already means-test Social Security. I want everybody to understand that. We means-test Social Security. Medicare part D premiums--that's for doctor outpatient--and part D--that's for prescription drug premiums--are already higher for individuals with incomes over $85,000 a year. Now let's remember we're calling middle class for everyone else up to the $250,000. But we're saying, for Medicare purposes, people who make $85,000 or more, they're going to pay extra costs ranging from $504 a year to $2,270 a year for part B and $139 to $797 more a year for part D. We means-test Medicare. By 2020, with no changes in current law, annual means-tested part B premiums are projected to range from almost $2,700 to $6,000 more. We means-test Medicare. Higher income households pay more for future Medicare benefits during their working lives as well. There's no cap on the tax that you pay into Medicare. A person with $2 million in wages pays $58,000 into Medicare. So during their working lives, and when they retire and take Medicare benefits, we means-test Medicare.

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

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

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And for the first $250,000 for everyone.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of family caregivers and in recognition of November as National Family Caregivers Month. This month honors those caregivers who serve on the front lines of patient care. Every day, over 65 million family caregivers in this country play a vital role in helping their loved ones with daily activities such as bathing and eating. They help them follow their medical and treatment regimens as well as assist with their daily activities. Family caregivers help seniors to age in their own homes and delay or avoid the need for nursing home placement. Family caregivers also provide care for children and adults who suffer from serious illnesses or disabilities. Family caregivers often make enormous personal and financial sacrifices to be there for their loved ones. Caregivers juggle the care of their loved ones with caring for their children, taking care of their own health, and managing their responsibilities at work. Some even leave the workforce to provide the level of care needed by their loved ones. As we recognize and honor the contribution of family caregivers to their loved ones and to our health care delivery system, we also must recognize the need to provide these caregivers with all the supports that they need. Supports including information and training on how to care for their loved ones, respite care that allows family caregivers to take needed breaks from their caregiving responsibilities, adequate workforce protections for those with work and caregiving responsibilities, and adequate financial and retirement security. I want to applaud all of our family caregivers and urge my colleagues to commit to working to provide needed supports to family caregivers.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the importance of federal investment in research cannot be overemphasized. Our investment in research, including through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Science Foundation, saves lives, improves health, and increases our understanding of the world that we live in. Grants to research institutions, including Northwestern University, University of Illinois at Chicago, and Loyola University in the Chicago metropolitan area, not only help to make medical progress but train our next generation of scientists. Biomedical research funded by the National Institutes of Health has made a real difference in the health and lives of millions of Americans. The outcomes of those research efforts speak volumes. Anti- viral therapies for HIV have been developed that make it possible for HIV-infected individuals to live into their 70s and beyond as compared to a life expectancy of just months when the disease first appeared in the 1980s. New treatments and procedures have been developed for Age- Related Macular Degeneration that will allow hundreds of thousands of Americans to continue to have useful vision over the next five years. Researchers have identified a treatment that could reduce premature birth by 45 percent among at-risk women. Public health research sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention helps us prevent and contain disease outbreaks. As we transition from a health care system focused on the treatment of disease to a system based on disease prevention, we will increasingly rely on public health research to identify new prevention techniques and interventions that help keep people healthy. For example, the CDC has established a research grant program to help develop and test new ways to combat healthcare-associated infections--infections that harm patients and increase health care costs. Through this initiative, the CDC awarded a grant to the Chicago Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Prevention Epicenter, a collaboration between the Cook County Health and Hospitals System and Rush University Medical Center, to research strategies for antimicrobial resistance and infection prevention. The funding of basic research in fields such as chemistry, engineering, physics, and computers by the National Science Foundation has led to discoveries and technological advances that have been truly revolutionary. NSF-funded researchers have decoded the genetics of viruses and created an entirely new state of matter. NSF-funded research is also enhancing our understanding of the link between brain health and overall human health. These examples merely scratch the surface of federally-funded research discoveries and only hint at the promise of our continued investment in research. We can imagine the possibilities--a cure for HIV/AIDS, the elimination of health disparities, or the end of Alzheimer's disease. If we don't stop the sequester cuts, which include budget cuts of $2.5 billion to NIH, $586 million to NSF, and $490 million to CDC, or any other cuts, these discoveries could be severely delayed or even worse never become reality. We can't allow that. We must avert these cuts and replace them with a balanced approach that continues our investment in research.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, frankly, I think that idea is alive and well and was reflected in the elections on November 6----

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That the idea that we are all in this together, that we do have some responsibility. And I want to tell you that there isn't a person that goes to synagogue or church or a mosque or a temple that doesn't learn about, we are our brother's and our sister's keepers, we do feed the hungry and take care of the poor, that we have an obligation to do that. So in our private lives, and in our faith lives, we're taught that as well. I mean, it's good economics, but it's also the right thing to do. And I also think it's a very American kind of ideal, and that, at the end of the day, that most people agree with that. When I say under $22,000, that's income. The average Social Security benefit is far below that. And so we're talking about very little, very little money to provide not a whole lot of security, but some security.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You have the sign, ``The Progressive Message,'' and I am a proud member of the Progressive Caucus. But I believe that if you presented what you just said to the American people, in general, that the vast majority agree with that because it's fair. That's all. We are willing to find cuts, and as you pointed out, we've already done that. That's already been done with $1.5 trillion in cuts. But fairness means not just that starting from scratch, we cut everybody across the board, but we do it in a humane and fair and sensible way in our country. And I think the Progressive message is the American message, the one that we're hearing from the American people. So I thank you so much for your leadership. And going forward, I hope we can help to mobilize, along with the President, mobilize people to support these ideas.