Allyson Schwartz

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Huntingdon Valley Fire Company #1 as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. One does not need to look far to see signs of the distinguished history of Huntingdon Valley Fire Company. After their founding the company used a local barn to store their equipment; that barn still stands just up the road from the current firehouse. After struggling to raise funds for equipment, a locomotive tire was donated to the company to be used as an alarm bell. The tire is currently hanging in front of the firehouse. The fire company's website shows pictures of every major piece of equipment the company has owned in its century long history. In addition to the ties to their founding, the fire company also has a consistent record of being strongly supported by the community. The use of the old barn to store their first pieces of equipment in 1911 was volunteered by a local resident. To raise funds for their first fire wagon in 1911 the company held carnivals, dances, and minstrel shows for the community. Their first make-shift fire alarm, the locomotive tire, was donated by the Midvale Steel Company. In 1912 the four wheeled fire cart was pulled by the closest two horses available. When the fire company needed to build a new addition to their garage it was built and paid for by members of the company. In 1929 the residents contributed the funds necessary to purchase a piece of modern fire equipment. With the growth in population of the 1940's it became clear that the fire company needed additional funds to continue to provide fire protection. A question was raised and the community agreed that a fire tax was necessary to ensure that the company had the funds needed to purchase and maintain modern firefighting equipment. Over the 100 years that Huntingdon Valley fire company has been protecting its residents they have upgraded their equipment, modernized their operation, and expanded their services. Through the decades, the fire company has never lost sight of their original goal of fulfilling the time honored tradition of volunteers risking their lives to protect their neighbors. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the Huntingdon Valley Fire Company as they mark their 100th year of protecting the community.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1216. This legislation is yet another Republican attack on health care innovations that promise to increase patient access to care. We must make a successful transition to a more efficient, high-quality health system and, through health care reform, we can. Instead, Republicans are making every effort to undermine this mission by chipping away at the graduate medical education system. H.R. 1216 threatens progress toward patient-centered health care delivery, in which primary physicians ensure that patients receive preventive, comprehensive and ongoing care. Academic medical centers have long been integral to developing innovative treatments and assuring access to care for Americans who need the most help. As we begin to implement health care reform, these institutions are seeking to become leaders in biomedical science as well as innovators in new delivery models. The Albert Einstein Healthcare Network in Philadelphia, for example, was recently approved as a patient-centered medical home. The Hospital and its network of physicians is now offering patients a new model of coordinated, continuous care in an academic setting, all while improving quality and reducing costs. Community-based training, such as the teaching health center program, is a valuable supplement to our Nation's prestigious teaching hospitals. Our Nation faces a crisis in access to primary care--more than 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries have difficulty finding a new primary care physician. In 1961, half of U.S. physicians were generalists, primarily general practitioners. Since then, the percentage has dramatically declined, while the cost of delivering care has increased substantially. While our Nation's hospital-based teaching programs yield thousands of highly trained physicians, we simply do not have the capacity to meet demand--specifically when it comes to primary care. The teaching health center program is uniquely positioned to address primary care training for underserved populations. Community-based training models, such as teaching health centers, will serve the Nation by creating new capacity in our graduate medical education system, which will lead to an increase in the total number of primary care physicians. Primary care and community-based health centers, particularly, produce excellent outcomes at lower costs, and have the potential to save the system billions of dollars annually by preventing avoidable emergency room visits. If every American made use of primary care, the health care system would see $67 billion in savings annually. Yet this bill would create uncertainty and unpredictability in a program intended to move us toward this ideal. I urge my colleagues to support training of primary care physicians and cost-saving innovations by opposing H.R. 1216.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 11, I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall vote No. 312, the Connolly of Virginia Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 1231. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the amendment.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. For decades, Medicare has been a lifeline for older Americans, providing quality and affordable health coverage to all seniors in this country. The creation of the Medicare program in 1965 addressed the fundamental challenge of ensuring aging seniors access to essential health care. Before Medicare, almost half of all seniors over 65 had no insurance at all. Seniors were just not a good risk for private insurers, and they still aren't. Medicare is a promise to American seniors that we would not abandon them even as they age, even as they need medical care--until now. The Republican budget will end Medicare as we know it, offering a limited voucher and expecting seniors to find insurance no matter how sick they are or how expensive it is. Every day, 48 million elderly and disabled Americans count on Medicare for their lifesaving medications, doctor visits, and hospital care. Seniors know that changing Medicare to a voucher program means they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits. Seniors know that privatizing Medicare means limits on benefits; obstacles to care; and uncertain reimbursements, copayments for primary care and specialty care; exclusions for certain services; discrimination based on income, illness or age; and uncertainty if serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. Seniors know that privatizing and voucherizing Medicare will mean that they pay more in premiums or do without. And it doesn't end there. The Republican budget also threatens Medicaid for nearly 6 million disabled and frail elderly who depend on it for their nursing home and home health services. American seniors are not looking for handouts. They're looking for the security that they have earned and we have promised. Budgets are about choices. In this very same budget where Republicans end Medicare as we know it, they protect billions of dollars in tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry. They protect billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Budgets are about our priorities and our values. Yes, we should get serious about our deficit. But let's get our priorities right and not threaten our obligation to our seniors, our children, and our future.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. For decades, Medicare has been a lifeline for older Americans, providing quality and affordable health care for all seniors. But this week House Republicans are proposing to strip seniors of this guaranteed benefit. The Republican budget proposal dismantles Medicare as we know it, telling seniors they are going to be on their own to find insurance no matter what the cost or how sick they are. And it slashes Medicaid coverage for seniors who need long-term care, threatening our sickest, most frail elderly in nursing homes with no care at all. This is absolutely the wrong approach to solving our Nation's budget problems. Every day, 48 million elderly and disabled Americans across this country count on Medicare for their life-saving medications, doctor visits, and hospital care. Sixty-nine percent of people over the age of 65, and they are both Democrats and Republicans, oppose Medicare becoming a voucher program. Seniors know that changing Medicare to a voucher program means that they will no longer have access to a guaranteed set of health benefits, that the value of a limited voucher won't keep up with rising health care costs, that the voucher would become insufficient over time, and the care they need could become unaffordable, that too many taxpayer dollars will be spent on advertising campaigns and administrative costs instead of actual medical expenses. And seniors know that privatizing Medicare means limits on benefits, obstacles to care, uncertain reimbursements, copayments for primary care or specialty care, exclusions for certain services, discrimination based on income, illness, or age, and more uncertainty if a serious illness or need for long-term care occurs. Seniors know that privatizing or voucherizing Medicare will mean that they pay more in premiums or do without. And it doesn't end there. In addition to Medicare cuts, Republicans also want to take away Medicaid for the nearly 6 million seniors who depend on it for nursing home or long-term care. They say proudly that they will cut funding to States by $1 trillion. This means that disabled and frail elderly Americans will be placed on waiting lists for services or have no access to care at all. In Pennsylvania, my home State, nearly 40 percent of funds spent on long-term care would be at risk. This includes 62 percent of nursing home residents and 25,000 Pennsylvanian seniors who receive home health services. And yet when Republicans had the opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining and strengthening care for our seniors, they demonized the plan, voting time and again to stop important improvements in Medicare. And they still want to repeal the law that eliminates copayments for preventive care services, that makes prescription drug benefits more affordable and improves coordination of care and health outcomes, reduces errors and reduces costs for seniors. They want to repeal the law that curbs the growth in Medicare spending, saves taxpayers almost $500 billion by ending overpayments to insurance companies, and extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund for 12 years. Instead, the Republicans here in Washington want to end Medicare as we know it and put health care for American seniors at great risk. As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I know how important it is to find solutions to reducing the deficit. To do this right, the solution must include spending cuts, tax policy reform, and economic growth. We should not fix our budget problems by failing to meet our obligations to our seniors. Every day we hear how determined Republicans are to slash billions of dollars from the central programs because we simply can't afford it. They say we can't afford to make investments in the future. We can't afford to educate our children or fix our roads or fuel innovation or cover health care costs for seniors. Yet in the same proposal to slash Medicare and Medicaid for millions of seniors, Republicans make permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. In the very same budget proposal where Republicans take away guaranteed benefits for seniors, they protect billions of tax subsidies to the oil and gas industry. In the very same budget proposal where Republicans give seniors a limited voucher to pay for higher insurance premiums, they protect the Pentagon from spending cuts on unnecessary weapon systems. One trillion dollars in tax expenditures, $700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy few, $40 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, and billions of dollars to continue inefficiencies at the Pentagon--all of this spending is protected by the Republican budget. And instead, they choose to slash benefits to our seniors and our disabled Americans. Budgets are about priorities and they're about our values. Yes, we should get serious about our Nation's deficit, but let's be sure that our priorities are right and we do not threaten our obligations to our seniors, to our children, or to America's future.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 242, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you very much. I'm pleased to participate in their conversation, and I just want to make a few comments, and then maybe we can talk further about really what the Republicans proposed in their budget. We sit on the Budget Committee. We went through 12 hours in what we call here in Congress a markup, but really it was a debate and a real reflection on the contrast between what the Republicans are offering to the American people and the way to tackle what are very, very serious financial problems for the country. I think we all agree that they're serious, that we have to make sure that we take seriously the deficit and bring down the deficit over time and be able to get to a balanced budget at some point and begin to pay down the national debt. We all agree on that. The real issue here is how do we do it? What are the choices we are making? What's on the table for discussion? And we offered up a number of suggestions and ways that we might take some of the money--you've talked about this already before I got here, about the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, the tax subsidies for the five largest oil and gas companies. We're talking about literally hundreds of billions of dollars here, that instead they have chosen to protect those subsidies and those tax breaks and instead to make real cuts in what we believe are some real priorities for us. So budgets are all about choices and priorities. I want to particularly talk about not just the spending cuts and where else we might be able to take spending cuts. We're interested in everything being on the table and looking at the Department of Defense, for example, which some Republicans agreed with us on. But one of the changes that they are making--and many of us refer to this as the Ryan budget, but right now it is actually the Republican budget. This is no longer your colleague from Wisconsin's ideas, but it is really the Republican budget that was passed. It was announced by the Republicans last night and will be on the floor potentially next week. And there are dramatic changes for our seniors in this country. Dramatic changes. We have said to our seniors and our future seniors that when you get to be 65, there's going to be security for you in terms of payment for your health care. They have changed that for future seniors. There will no longer be guaranteed benefits for future seniors. They will instead be offered a voucher. It will not be the whole cost of buying private insurance. They have said that. It will be support for the premium, not the whole thing. And then seniors will have to go--and I think Paul Ryan mentioned this yesterday--shopping in the insurance marketplace for the best insurance they can get. When I think about that, maybe that sounds okay. You know, you go shopping. You've got a voucher in your pocket. It sounds like a coupon. You can go to the store, and you're going to be able to get 80 percent of costs paid. However, this is health insurance, and what we already know is that the insurance industry was not inclined, before the Affordable Care Act, to cover insurance for sick people. They didn't want to cover sick kids. We had to pass a law that said you can't discriminate against children. You have to let them buy health insurance and cover that illness. And they certainly don't want to cover sick adults. Well, when I go talk to a group of seniors, and I can be at a senior center or any number of places we've all visited as Members of Congress, and we'll have a group of 50, 100 people, and I ask, Do any of you take any medications? And they all laugh: Of course, I take medication. Do any of you take two prescription medications? Of course. Do any of you take three or four? These are a healthy group of seniors. They look healthy to me. You know, they're out and about and they're listening to a Member of Congress. And I ask, Well, how are you going to go out and buy insurance that's going to be affordable for you? What we know and what seniors tell us is that they know that if they go to a voucher program and they're no longer guaranteed, they will no longer have guaranteed benefits, that their voucher will become less helpful over time as expenses go up, that there will be no controls on how their taxpayer dollars will be used. So let me just close, if I may, by saying that seniors know that privatizing Medicare--and that's what this is, it's privatizing Medicare--will limit their benefits, will be obstacles to care and on certain reimbursements, that copayments for primary care or copayments for specialty care could be quite significant, that there could be exclusions for certain services that they need, that there could be discrimination based on income and age and illness, and there's more uncertainty if they face a serious illness going forward. So I just wanted to show two charts that maybe we will want to talk about as we go forward. One of them is, to just follow up on what I said about choices, here we are faced with a choice that the Republicans have made, which is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. It's going to cost about $800 billion, and instead they are going to dismantle--this is the case of Medicaid, which is really about seniors in nursing homes, frail elderly in nursing homes, costing about $771 billion. That's a decision they've made. We can talk more about how we've bent the cost curve, if we can use that language, on Medicare. We have already taken some serious action. I'm happy to have further conversation with my colleagues about what this Republican budget means to seniors across this country.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 226, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the momentous 300th anniversary of the Trinity Church Oxford, one of the oldest churches in the United States, constructed in 1711 in what is now the Lawncrest neighborhood of Northeast Philadelphia. The church's congregation pre-dates the building. A marble stone in the west wall of Church states that Church of England services were first held on the site in 1698 in a log meeting house that belonged to the Oxford Society of Friends. The Church still has in its possession the original land conveyance deed dated January 30, 1700. Queen Anne of England presented a solid silver communion chalice to the Church in 1713. While small in physical dimensions, Trinity Church Oxford carries a rich history of rectors related to some of the most beloved people and institutions in our local and national history, including: Rev. Aneas Ross (rector 1742-1758), the father-in-law of Betsy Ross and the brother of George Ross, signer of the Declaration of Independence. Rev. Dr. William Smith (rector 1766-1779, 1791-1798), who helped found the University of Pennsylvania Rev. John Hobart (rector 1798-1801), who became bishop of New York in the new Protestant Episcopal Church formed after Independence and founded Hobart College. Rev. Edward Buchanan (rector 1854-1882) who was the brother of President James Buchanan. The church school is named in his honor. Frank Furness, acclaimed American architect who designed additions to the church in the mid-19th Century, decorated with Tiffany windows and elaborate woodwork. At first tied to the Church to England, after independence Trinity's rectors helped to organize the Diocese of Pennsylvania of the new Protestant Episcopal Church and the church was admitted to its Convention in 1786. As our nation grew and became more industrialized, Trinity Church Oxford welcomed industrialists and working class families to its congregation. A neighborhood that began as farmland and homes for gentry developed into a residential community for working people. With a parish house added in 1928 and a community center in 1962, Trinity Church Oxford holds true to its religious precepts of service, today housing a childcare center and hosting the Philadelphia Police Athletic League. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating the generation of rectors and parishioners of Trinity Church Oxford who have dedicated themselves to sustaining their spiritual home and ensuring its contribution to history and community.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Last week, we saw real signs of economic recovery when the unemployment rate dropped below 9 percent for the first time in 2 years. This is encouraging news, but we still have a long way to go to promote private sector growth. The Republicans are digging their heels in on billions of dollars of reckless cuts that threaten our economic growth and put 700,000 American jobs at risk. We agree that spending cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit. This is not about whether to cut or not. This is about where to cut, how much to cut, and how fast to cut. The Republican agenda threatens our core obligations to our seniors, to our safety, and to our future. We need disciplined budgeting. We need targeted cuts that won't hurt our economy. And we need strategic investments to make America competitive for future generations. Republicans are putting partisan politics ahead of American priorities. Instead of enacting job- destroying cuts, we should be focusing on job creation and sound budgeting. Enough is enough. It's time to get serious and pass a responsible spending plan that grows the economy and invests in the future.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I rise today to offer some truth on the Republican spending bill. Over 300 economists believe the Republican bill to cut $61 billion in midyear would eliminate 700,000 American jobs and shrink economic growth by 2 percent just this year. These are shortsighted cuts that could threaten our economy and our economic competitiveness. Our goal should be job creation, not job destruction. Our Republican colleagues only care about cutting, without regard to where the cuts come from, how they negatively affect American families, or how detrimental they could be for our economy. This is not governing. Spending cuts should not be politically motivated or economically harmful. We do need to cut spending to reduce our deficit, but these cuts must be targeted, and they must be responsible. They shouldn't cut into our core obligations to our seniors, to our safety, or to our future. Our Nation's economy and our economic growth depends on investing in education, infrastructure, and innovation, all critical to private sector competitiveness. Balancing spending cuts with sound investments is the only way to ensure job growth and new jobs. It's time for the Republicans to move beyond political rhetoric to actions that really work to grow our economy.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance and necessity of senior care programs such as the Retired Senior and Volunteer Program (RSVP). Philadelphia's RSVP is based in the Jewish Community Center Klein Branch and currently enlists about 600 volunteers. The program offers much-needed community services as well as an opportunity for seniors to volunteer their time. RSVP provides important volunteer services such as tutoring, food for Meals on Wheels and assistance with tax preparation. The following article from the Philadelphia Daily News illustrates the importance of programs like RSVP and the need for our continued support of their worthy accomplishments. [From the Philadelphia Daily News, Feb. 7, 2011] Seniors, Life's Calling You. Send Your RSVP (By Stu Bykofsky) DON'T TRUST anyone under 30. Maybe reversing the infamous (and bigoted) catchphrase from the '60s is overdoing it. But while many cultures, equating experience with knowledge, revere elders, here in the U.S. of A. we lionize ``youth'' (even while watching the reading and math scores of our ``youth'' fall, like tokens into a fare box). Baby Boomers who cranked up the social-revolution line are now in the Social Security line. In addition to the vast financial wealth that the Boomers piled up, they (and their elders) also collected a warehouse of wisdom, which some of them like to share. Motivated older adults--55 and up--form the backbone of RSVP--the Retired Senior and Volunteer Program, a 40-year-old national agency which in Philly operates from the Klein JCC, in the Far Northeast. Klein has about 600 RSVP volunteers. Some are way above 55, like Harold and Libby Yaffe, the 93-year-old married couple who come in to serve lunches. ``The only way we can do what we do is through volunteers,'' says Marcia Gross, RSVP project director, as she shows me around the lowslung Klein JCC at 10100 Jamison Ave. Gross is a woman of a certain age with no hard edges, a smiling round face framed by light-brown hair. There are lots of underutilized or bored retirees, and a lot of programs that need help but can't afford to hire people, Gross says. You don't have to be Einstein to connect two dots. When some people hear ``volunteer,'' for free, they hit the exits. Better people see service to others as a benefit to society--and to themselves. ``I have to have something to do in the morning and I love every minute of it,'' says widowed Center City grandmother Laurette Feltoon, who admits to ``65-plus.'' For the last 13 years, she's been taking her master's in psychology (she had a private practice in marital and premarital counseling) and volunteering, every day, as a mediator in Municipal Court's Dispute Resolution Program. The city and the warring parties get the benefit of her decades of experience, while Feltoon has a place to go and a mission to accomplish. Dots connected. Win-win. Volunteers go only to nonprofit agencies, says Gross, ranging from the American Red Cross (bloodmobile aides) to WHYY-TV (special events, begathons). Sure, there are expected needs for people who can do data entry and fill clerical roles, make weekly visits to the homebound, tutor students or prepare food for Meals on Wheels. But there are less-conventional volunteer options, such as tax preparation, historical research, ushering at local theaters, guiding tours at Independence National Historical Park or the Philadelphia Zoo, and providing immigration assistance. For those better with their hands than their mouths, RSVP uses people to drive vans, walk dogs at the PSPCA, stock food pantries, knit, garden and provide minor home repairs. If you don't know whether you have a useful skill, Gross says, ``Come in and we may suggest something you hadn't thought of.'' Anyone with computer literacy is needed, and RSVP is looking for people to teach financial literacy. Retiring after 42 years working on the railroad, Norm Feldman wanted a new challenge. The Tacony resident, a volunteer at the Clean Air Council for 27 years, has become an expert in indoor air pollution and radon. The octogenarian volunteers Wednesdays, and takes emergency calls at home, goes out to talk to schools and community groups on other days. He took some EPA training, but mostly learned on the job, and is so much an expert that he gets calls from county health departments. ``Even professional people have problems and they can't get answers from the city, state or federal government,'' Feldman says, because most law deals with outside air. He's the man on the inside. After Sunny, his beloved wife of 51 years, died four years ago, Ike Silverberg was depressed, even suicidal. He tried some shrinks, but it didn't help. The 85-year-old still misses Sunny like hell, but RSVP gave him a new life. Mondays and Fridays, mornings and afternoons, he's at the Delaware Valley Veterans' Home, pushing a beverage cart, making sure the vets are hydrated. He's happy doing it because the vets are appreciative. His Tuesdays and Wednesdays are very different. He drives from his Rhawnhurst home to Mayfair Elementary, where he sits with eight first-graders at a round table. Everyone reads in turn and Ike challenges them on spelling. The great- grandfather of seven loves kids, so this is a treat for him. Wednesdays the chatty former construction worker, salesman and bagel-baker reads with third-graders at the JCC. All the volunteering keeps him out of ``that house,'' as he refers to his formerly happy, now lonely home. Getting out into the world is a benefit to volunteers, says Gross. According to a poll, she says, the No. 1 reason people give for not volunteering is: ``No one asks them.'' RSVP is asking.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Ms. Barbara Allen on the occasion of being named as a winner of the Purpose Prize. Ms. Allen was selected from over 1,000 applicants for her work raising funds for public school art programs. The Purpose Prize is an award given by Civic Ventures, a think-tank that focuses on work and social purpose. For the past five years the purpose prize has been given to 10 people, all age 60 and over, who have developed new ways to solve social problems. As individuals who have completed their mid-life careers, the winners of the purpose prize have all shown that social innovation is not the sole province of the young. Civic Ventures considered the Purpose Prize to be not a lifetime achievement award, but an investment in the future of the winner. Ms. Allen has won this award through her laudable efforts to maintain the arts in public schools. She is the founder and CEO of Fresh Artists, a nonprofit that has raised more than $100,000 benefiting 272 Philadelphia public schools to the enrichment of over 53,000 children. Fresh Artists utilizes the creativity of our students to achieve the goal of funding the art programs that can help more students harness their own creativity. The organization invites students in grades K through 12 to donate their artwork to be used in large-scale reproductions. Fresh Artists then collects monetary donations from businesses and organizations who display the artwork in their buildings. The donations are then used to buy art supplies for Philadelphia's most under-resourced public schools. Since its founding in 2008, Fresh Artists has installed nearly 600 reproductions. Barbara Allen's vision and dedication to the arts have provided students with an opportunity to not only have their work displayed, but also to have their work contribute to the purchase of supplies that allow other students to produce further works of art. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Ms. Allen on this momentous occasion. Her dedication to the art will ensure that the students of Philadelphia's public schools continue to have access to the supplies that will allow them to fully realize their creative potential.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I rise to speak very forcefully, I hope, about the importance of proceeding with the health care bill, the health care law that we had in place and the critical protections that it is providing to literally millions of Americans in each and every one of our districts; and each of us, I think, have heard from them. The new health care law reduces the deficit. We're here talking about, from the Budget Committee, it is going to reduce the deficit while promoting more efficient and higher quality care. Reducing the deficit and slowing the growth of health care costs means real savings to American families, American businesses and to the Federal Government. And yet their first major act in the majority, congressional Republicans want to repeal this law. Repealing the protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. We just heard this morning the Washington Post reported on a study that says that one-half of all Americans under the age of 65 have a preexisting condition. So this isn't just about a few of us. Really it's about almost all of us. We all know someone and we may all love someone who has a preexisting condition. If Republicans got their way-- and they will probably in the House but fortunately not in the Senate-- they would repeal the protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, or for children who can now already be covered. They will repeal the new law that says annual limits for coverage if you have cancer will be repealed. They will repeal the prescription drug benefits for our seniors, and will repeal tax credits for small businesses. And in doing so, they will add to the cost for American taxpayers. Let's be clear on what this means. Repeal increases the deficit by $252 billion over 10 years and $1.4 trillion over 20 years. Repeal reverses progress in getting health care costs under control, causing families and businesses and, yes, the government--which really means the taxpayers--to face higher health care costs. It repeals benefits for millions of Americans, important consumer protections and insurance reform, such as making sure that the children with preexisting conditions have coverage. And the repeal means starting over. We're going to hear it over and over again, I think, over the next 7 hours. What starting over means is no consumer protections and months and maybe years of just talk, possibly no action, while the costs go up for American businesses, go up for our families and go up for our Nation.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Let's be clear that the new rules allow the Republicans to do this, but it's going to cost trillions of dollars to our budget and it's going to cause greater suffering for the American people. So it's a wrong course of action. Let's not repeal this bill. It will hurt Americans, it will hurt our economic competitiveness, and it will hurt the fiscal condition of this nation. I encourage a ``no'' vote.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, last Saturday in Tucson and across the country, so many Americans, including myself, were horrified and deeply saddened by the mass shooting at a congressional outreach event hosted by U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords. The senselessness, the violence and the magnitude of death and injury were stunning and alarming. It is a personal tragedy. It is a national tragedy. It is heartbreaking and wrenching because we all share in the pride of our representative democracy. Members reaching out to their constituents and constituents having the opportunity formally and informally to talk to their Representatives of Congress is at the core of our responsibilities and is a value we all hold as Americans. So even as we mourn, as Americans, we cannot allow this to diminish or deter our civic interactions. I ask for my colleagues to join together in honoring those who were killed. My thoughts and my deepest sympathies are with them and with their loved ones. And, to Gabby, Gabby is our colleague and she is our friend. I share in acknowledging and honoring her commitment to public service and her principled leadership on behalf of her constituents. She has a deep passion for who we are as Americans and for working to find that common ground to meet our Nation's challenges. Her inner strength, determination, and her good spirit are all serving her well as she struggles to recover from her wounds. Reports from her doctors have been remarkably positive. So my heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with Gabby and with all those injured, and I wish them swift and full recoveries. I extend those thoughts and prayers to her husband, Mark; to all the families and friends of the victims; to Gabby's staff; and to all those affected by this senseless shooting. I love this country deeply and the values we all share. It is my hope that our Nation will come together to honor those who perished and to affirm our commitment to move forward in a way that allows us to voice our differences and to debate the solutions to our challenges while respecting our shared love and dedication to our great Nation.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Amendment 20: ``The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the third day of January of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.''

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. As I listen to this debate, I want to say that I and many of my colleagues agree that we must take the deficit seriously; but to do so, we have to not only examine spending cuts. We have to look at tax expenditures. This new rule that is being presented is literally less than 3 hours old. Since the Republicans have taken control, they have said simply-- and so most Americans understand this--that they will look at spending cuts as really being cost-savers for the government, but tax expenditures--tax cuts--maybe for the wealthiest Americans, maybe for certain companies--maybe some good, maybe some we would even agree with--will not be counted as part of a cost to government, as a reduction in the amount of revenue that we get into the government. They will simply ignore it, and the expenditures will just get added to the deficit. Just last week--and for weeks and weeks before that--they said deficit reduction was at the top of their agenda. It took them 3 hours to make that an untrue statement. They have simply already set up a situation where they can add trillions and trillions of dollars to the national deficit, and we can do nothing about it.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, tonight I rise in support of middle class Americans. As families and the Nation continue to face economic challenges, we should extend tax cuts for Americans; yet the Republicans insisted that tax cuts apply to all incomes, even multimillionaires. And they are insisting, even tonight, on including an additional tax break for just 6,600 wealthy estates at the expense of tax relief for middle class Americans. The goals of this tax relief package should be to help middle-income Americans and promote economic growth. And because of the President and Democrats in Congress, most of this bill accomplishes just that. I commend the pro-growth business provisions, particularly the acceleration of business depreciation and extension of the research and development tax credits, which encourage innovation and investment. And I strongly support the extension of tax breaks for middle class families. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans' last-minute estate tax provision does not meet the goal of either economic growth or tax relief for the middle class. It is simply a bonus to the wealthiest few that is not fair, not justifiable, and not fiscally responsible. Instead, the estate tax proposal that we offer as a substitute saves $25 billion. The House should vote for this proposal because it promotes economic growth, extends tax cuts for all Americans, and provides sensible estate tax relief for 99.75 percent of the Nation's small businesses, families, and farms. Vote for the tax cuts. Vote for fair estate tax policy. Vote for this legislation, as amended.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I ask unanimous consent to control the time until the gentleman from Michigan returns.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I rise in support of middle class Americans. As Americans continue to face economic challenges, the deadline looms for extending middle class tax cuts that provide relief where it is most needed; but congressional Republicans are holding these middle class tax cuts hostage in favor of tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, burdening our children and our grandchildren with unsustainable debt. Their argument for millionaire tax breaks: it will trickle down to the middle class and create jobs. But if that were true, America would not be in the economic situation it is in now. If personal tax cuts for the very wealthy create jobs-- and they've had them for 10 years--where are those jobs? Congressional Republicans have made it quite clear that they are willing to hold up tax breaks for middle-income families to protect multi-millionaires. Republicans talk about reducing our deficit, but they are perfectly happy to balloon the deficit by $700 billion to give tax breaks to the richest Americans. In the coming weeks, we will see if Republicans stand up for middle class Americans or if they stand against them.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Mary, Mother of the Redeemer's Catholic Education Center on the momentous achievement of being designated a 2010 Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. Mary, Mother of the Redeemer is a Catholic Parish in North Wales, Montgomery County. In 1997, the ten-year old parish saw the need for a school of its own and began laying the groundwork to establishing what would become an award winning educational center. In 2002, after years of planning and fundraising, the parish began construction and only two years later the school had an enrollment of nearly 700 students. The education center has a mission statement of recognizing the uniqueness of each student to provide a quality Catholic education. The Blue Ribbon Program is a project of the Department of Education that identifies the best school leadership and teaching practices, setting a standard of excellence for all middle and high schools. This year, 254 public and 50 private schools were chosen for this honor. Schools are chosen based on their ability to produce students who, regardless of their backgrounds, are high performing. Being chosen as a Blue Ribbon School designates Mary, Mother of the Redeemer as a model for other schools across the country. Of the 413 schools nationwide that can be nominated, only 50 originate with the Council for Private Education, through which Mary, Mother of the Redeemer was nominated. The school is fully committed to maintaining its five year Blue Ribbon designation and being nominated again in 2015. I am proud to represent in congress a school that is so committed to excellence that it is nationally recognized, serving as a model nationwide. Madam Speaker, once again I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Mary, Mother of the Redeemer on its momentous designation as a blue ribbon school.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Raymond and Miriam Klein JCC on its milestone 35th anniversary. Located in Northeast Philadelphia, the Raymond and Miriam Klein JCC is a multifaceted community center committed to a strategic mission of serving the versatile needs of the surrounding Jewish community. The Klein JCC is a living example of Tikkun Olam--repairing the world-- right here in our community. Since 1975, when the Klein Branch opened its doors, it has been a community center, an educational center, and a constant source of support and enrichment for the Jewish community. Located on a 20 acre lot and featuring a theatre, 2 swimming pools, a gym, and classrooms, the JCC provides childcare, immigration counseling, and summer camp, as well as athletic and aquatic fitness programs. But Klein JCC is much more than a center that provides entertainment and recreation. Throughout the decades, the Klein JCC has adapted its mission to meet the changing needs of its neighbors and has reemerged as a fully functioning social services agency. Today, the Klein JCC provides critical quality services to our youngest members of the community through pre-school and kindergarten while providing a lifeline to our most seasoned senior citizens. Education for the very young as well as courses for those over the age of 90 are all available in the same facility. And through the Mitzvah food project, volunteers deliver food and other necessities to those in the community who are in need, reaching out to help regardless of religion, race, gender, or age. Madam Speaker, I am so proud to represent in congress an institution that has so faithfully and ably served the Jewish community for so many years. I am honored that the Raymond and Miriam Klein JCC has always welcomed me with open arms. I ask that my colleagues join me in wishing a heartfelt Mazel Tov to the Raymond and Miriam Klein JCC Board of Directors both past and present, supporters, clients and friends on an impressive 35 year history and for continued success in a new century.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate All Saints Roman Catholic Church on its momentous 150th Anniversary. The history of All Saint, located in Bridesburg, in Northeast Philadelphia, is the chronicle of a dedicated group of faithful parishioners determined to establish a spiritual home. The founding families were immigrants seeking to build a congregation where language was not a barrier. In 1860, a shortage of priests and a scarcity of money to buy land to build a church challenged the founders' efforts. These adversities were overcome with the help of His Grace, Father James F. Wood, Archbishop of Philadelphia, who requested that the existing Holy Trinity Church establish a parish for German- speaking people in their community. On August 15, 1860 the original cornerstone was laid at Holy Trinity church. Immediately, Bridesburg's dedicated founding families and settlers raised the needed funds culminating in the building and dedication of the first church building located at the corner of Edgemont and Buckius Streets on February 3, 1861. It was not long before the parish established a school and celebrated its' first baptisms, weddings, and spiritual and social events. Through the years, All Saints embraced immigrants who worked on area farms and as the neighborhood became industrialized, welcomed employees of the Rohm and Haas plant. The history of the church is rich in efforts to foster dedication to religious heritage and community. The parish plans a Mass of Celebration and Thanks on November 7, 2010. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating this milestone anniversary of All Saints Parish and wishing the congregation many more years as a source of spiritual and community strength.