Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the default crisis, and unfortunately we are still talking about giving America the green light to pay her bills, because the plan this body passed just last night has since failed in the Senate. Here we are again, my friends. Here we are again wasting another day as the deadline looms even closer. And while the plan passed in this body last night might have been good politics, it's not good government. My constituents are tired of it, I'm tired of it, and, actually, anyone who watched the nightly news for the last 6 months is tired of it. Washington loves to kick the can down the road. That's how we got here in the first place. This is our moment, but will we seize it? We need a plan, not another Republican manifesto. And there are better plans out there, plans that would create jobs, because the biggest crisis America faces right now is a jobs crisis, plans that will protect Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, and plans that rely on a fair approach between spending cuts and asking the most fortunate Americans to pay their fair share. Mr. Speaker, we must compromise and pass that plan. The American people and their economy are counting on us.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, it is a pleasure to join with you, speaking for your base in California, joining with our colleagues from Colorado and Texas and Connecticut and Ohio and Virginia, myself from New York, across this country, we are speaking for the American public. The great populous of this Nation are asking: Where are the solutions? Where is the responsiveness to a job situation, a jobs deficit, a jobs crisis? The solution here, well, last night we saw it. We saw the drama unfold, not here on the House floor, but behind closed doors. We moved into recess. The Republican leadership of the House said we are going to move to recess. We were fully anticipating a vote last night in short order, but we waited for hours and hours. They didn't have the votes. So what happened? Today they moved for a measure that moved further from the center, took us to the extreme edge in order to get just by a vote to amass sufficient support for a very extreme solution that really kicks the can down the road, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) indicated. It means that we don't have this long-term solution that builds confidence in the economy but, rather, a political response, a political solution that bought enough votes, that puts into play measures that we know will not find support as negotiations need to come to conclusion in just a matter of hours. And so this has been a disingenuous approach to a very serious issue. But what they are doing is destroying jobs, because as you kill the confidence within our economy by threatening this economy with credit ratings that could be reduced, that call for greater interest payments, from car loans to mortgages to student loans to savings to pension plans, we're putting the people of this country, every household, regardless of income strata, economic strata, at risk. But an assault certainly on the middle class of this country. And is that the right thing to do when we have this looming dark cloud of a jobs crisis, and how do we solve that? We do it by investing in programs that create jobs and undo the programs that are outmoded, don't create jobs. And we make certain that there is an investment made in innovation, in clean energy, in manufacturing, making things here in America, taking ideas, moving them along, embracing the pioneer spirit of the people of this great land. That's not being done. What they do is move to destroy some 700,000 jobs. They kill the confidence factor for the economy. They move forward with harmful measures that destroy our economic growth and end Medicare, because with their proposal, we see it clearly, they would end Medicare and transition Social Security into a privatized format. These are the things that our phones have been ringing off the hook about. We have heard, through the President's encouragement, from several constituents, routinely through this debate of several weeks and months now but enhanced over the last couple of days, and people are very clear, couldn't be clearer: Why do we become a lesser priority than Big Oil and millionaires and billionaires? People are asking that question, and they have every right to. This is an assault on the values of the middle class of this country. It is a neglectful response to the jobs crisis of this country, and it has moved us further away from the deficit situation with the debt ceiling discussion by moving it to the extreme, because the extreme of their party, in order to get their support, said over the last several hours, the last half day: You want my support, move extreme. Don't move to the moderate zone. Don't build a consensus. And so now the consequences of their action puts this economy at risk and does nothing but reduce jobs rather than promote the investments that will create jobs. Representative Garamendi, it's aggravating. It is ignoring what the public's wishes are, and it's not responding to the challenges of the moment. This is a tipping point moment for the Nation. This is a chance to reengineer the economy after a long and deep and painful recession, and they are risking that by perhaps pushing us back into a recession, if not a full-blown depression.

Mr. TONKO. Our goal here should be to build up a Nation rather than to bring down a President, and it is shameful to even have that acknowledged.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. Let me just say that the challenge for America to pay her bills, many of those bills that were accrued before this administration, is not a Republican challenge; it's not a Democratic challenge. It's an American challenge. The default crisis that is challenging our economy, threatening our economy is not a Republican crisis; it's not a Democratic crisis. It's an American crisis. The jobs crisis is not a Republican crisis or a Democratic crisis. It's an American crisis. You get the message. We need to come together, not pull farther apart. I represent what I'd like to call the original Tech Valley. The Erie Canal/Barge Canal were hosted in the 21st Congressional District. It provided for a westward movement. It embraced the pioneer spirit of America. Mill towns became the epicenters of invention and innovation. That same pioneer spirit is in our DNA at the very present day, today. If we invest as we know we should, we will grow jobs; we'll respond to the jobs crisis; we'll create revenues and they'll grow; we'll cut spending required when unemployment rises; and we will solve many crises. I have seen the region I represent grow per capita, in per capita measurement, to be the number one green-powered job growth region in the country. That happened because of Federal investment and State investment. Let's just make it in America and do sound policy that is bringing us together and not dividing us as the leadership of this House has done with their approach.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding. Here we go again, my friends. Here we go again wasting another day of debate on a proposal that is more of a press release than a plan. News broke this morning that, from the moment Speaker Boehner walked away from the table last Friday to the opening bell this morning, shareholders in United States stocks lost over $400 billion. My colleagues have been unwilling, not unable, to reach compromise in this Chamber. They have been unwilling, not unable, to tell extremists that while they write their press releases and shake their fists, the rest of us must get down to governing. They have been unwilling, not unable, to let us vote on a balanced plan; and that choice, for it was a choice, cost the American economy almost as much in 5 business days as my Republican colleagues are trying to cut from the budget in 5 years. They're using a manufactured crisis to make the problem worse. So here we are again. My Republican colleagues have wasted another 24 hours making a bad plan worse, a plan that is based on the same tired policies that got us into this mess: cut taxes for millionaires; give kickbacks to special interests; pay for it all with cuts to the middle class, including Medicare and Social Security. If they try to tell you that these cuts are not in this bill, ask them to sign a pledge that this legislation will not be used to cut benefits for seniors in the next 12 months. They won't. After my Republican colleagues pulled their bill from the floor last night, they went back to the negotiating table. But with whom? The Senate? No. The President? Surely not. No, they went back behind closed doors to negotiate with themselves to run further to the right at the behest of the most ideologically entrenched members of their caucus. This may be good politics, but it's not good government. I'm tired of it, my constituents are tired of it, anyone who's watched the nightly news for the last 6 months is tired of it. Washington loves to kick the can down the road. That's how we got here in the first place. This is our moment. We need a plan, not another Republican manifesto, and there are better plans out there. So, again, I ask my Republican colleagues, let us vote on a plan that has a chance.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. We're here today, at long last, to vote on the Republican default plan. After 200 days without a jobs agenda, after 200 days of saying that those hardest hit by the recession should bear the burden of unbalanced cuts, after 200 days of rhetoric and walking away, my Republican colleagues have finally brought their top secret default plan to the floor for a public debate and a vote. So, what did they offer up? Courageous leadership? A grand bargain? Sadly, no. When you walk out of negotiations and spend more time talking to the press than to the President, I'm not sure we expected more. We have before us the same tired policies that got us into this mess--cut taxes for millionaires, give kickbacks to special interests, pay for it all with cuts to the middle class. And never forget the central tenets of the conservative agenda: end Medicare and privatize Social Security. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will no doubt come to the floor to say the bill explicitly protects Medicare and Social Security from cuts. That claim is blatantly false. It's a desperate campaign speech to counter the backlash that comes when the American people read the bill, like they read the Ryan budget. So I would ask my colleagues to take another careful look at the bill before us. It is only 57 pages long. There is even a summary online through the Rules Committee Web site. After that careful examination, I would ask you to come before my constituents, before the American people, to myself, and promise us with a straight face that you have no intention of using this legislation to dismantle Medicare and cut Social Security in the next 12 months. You can't. I don't support these policies, and I cannot support a plan that puts us back in the same bitter, vilifying debate in January. It may be good politics, but it's not good government. I'm tired of it, my constituents are tired of it, and anyone who's watched the nightly news for the last 6 months is tired of it. Washington loves to kick the can down the road. That's how we got here in the first place. This is our moment. We need a plan, not another Republican manifesto. There are better plans out there. Let us vote on them. I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill and get back to work.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and celebrate the city of Schenectady on the occasion of its 350th birthday. Originally inhabited by the Mohawk tribe and then the Dutch, Schenectady's rich history has often served as an inspiration and genesis for many of America's accomplishments. In the late 1800s, Thomas Edison moved Edison Machine Works to Schenectady, where advances led to new products, including the manufactured light bulb. Later becoming the headquarters of General Electric, Schenectady also played host to the former home of ALCO, the American Locomotive Company. These two developments prompted the community to be dubbed ``the city that lights and hauls the world'' and the ``electric city.'' Today, Schenectady is an important part of New York's Tech Valley, a nationwide leading region committed to green technology. From steam turbines to advanced batteries, Schenectady continues to lead the country with a focus on ingenuity and innovation, proving we can ``Make it in America.'' I am pleased to applaud the city of Schenectady on the rich history and numerous achievements it has accrued as we celebrate the wonderful 350th birthday of this community. I look forward to many bright and booming days to come.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I agree with the two previous speakers, my colleagues from California. Here we are dealing with a flawed bill that would deny our stewardship of our environment all while we're faced with an economic consequence, with a default that stares us in the face. For the past 200 days, the Republican leadership of this body has set aside America's priority of job creation in order to talk about the debt and to talk about the deficit. My concern is that as we face that looming threat of default, my Republican colleagues aren't doing much but talk. After 200 days with no jobs agenda, after 200 days of voting to destroy millions of jobs, after 200 days of saying that those hardest hit by the recession should bear the burden of unbalanced cuts, after 200 days of rhetoric and walking away, my Republican colleagues have forced this Congress and the American people to wait yet more hours to see and vote on their plan. As we all know, last night the Congressional Budget Office pointed out that some of the cuts in the Speaker's plan weren't real. Meanwhile, the Tea Party base said that Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only plan they will support. We considered that plan last week, and it has failed in the Senate. It is a plan that Bruce Bartlett--who was a Reagan adviser and a Bush Treasury official--said was ``mind-boggling in its insanity.'' Others have called it the ``most ideologically extreme'' budget legislation to come before Congress in decades. Governing is not always easy. There are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, and standing up to them takes strength. But our advantage lies in the fact that however vocal, extremists are a minority, a faction. I have traveled my district extensively in recent weeks. I have held town halls and meetings with local businesses, and here's what I've heard: We have a spending problem in Washington. We have a revenue problem in Washington. But more important than anything else, we have a jobs problem in America. So what are we going to do about it? Well, my constituents had an easy answer there, too. First, cut what doesn't create jobs and stability for the middle class. That includes wasteful government spending. It also includes tax breaks for corporate jet owners, millionaires and billionaires, and a system of kickbacks to the big oil companies that even their CEOs say they don't need. Second, save whatever actually works. That means investment in education so middle class kids have a chance to get good jobs when they finish school. That means boosting innovation so we can get American industry booming again. And it means infrastructure so that we can drive to work on safe roads and bridges and build them with American materials and workers. Finally, my constituents have told me that whatever talking heads on TV say, they know fair when they see it, regardless of partisan divides. We have an aging population. Nobody disputes that. But cutting Social Security and ending Medicare in order to protect corporate tax breaks and long-standing kickbacks for special interests puts us in a position where ideas are replaced in government by ideology. We have been asked in recent weeks to manipulate the United States Constitution in order to enshrine this ideology. Where I'm from, we believe that the only ideology that belongs in the United States Constitution is that of democracy. In our democracy, if you want your ideas to become law, you don't rewrite our history or change our foundational documents. You come down to this floor. You tell your colleagues and your constituents what you think, and you let us debate it, amend it, and vote on it right here in front of the cameras and in front of the people we are sworn to serve. But that's not what's happening today. After 200 days of talking about little else, my Republican colleagues have forced this body and the American people to wait yet hours to see their top secret default plan. Exactly which principled stand was important enough for the Republican House leadership to walk away from the negotiations for the fifth time? More importantly, the clock is ticking. We need to get back to work--and the American people are getting sick and tired of the games. Just based on rhetoric, we know that their call to end Medicare and end Social Security plans would protect 2 percent of our population at the expense of the rest of us, the 98 percent of us. I'm sure that takes a lot of vote wrangling. But we've had a year to get this done. No matter how much Congress cuts their classroom budgets, even our elementary school children know that a due date is a due date. Democrats support a balanced, bipartisan solution to reduce our deficit, to create jobs, to grow our economy, and to expand the middle class. My Republican colleagues say they share those same goals. So I would invite them to come down here, join us, share their plan. Let's get on with business. America is waiting and deserves better. We need to solve this default crisis. It's staring us in the eyes. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2584, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012. The amendment is bipartisan and is supported by the Congressional National Heritage Caucus and the 49 National Heritage Areas across our country. The amendment is straightforward and modest. The amendment restores the National Heritage Area program within the National Park Service to the fiscal year 2010 funding levels. This amount is constant with the amount approved by Congress for the past several years. To pay for this increase, the amendment shifts $8,408,000 away from the Office of the National Parks Service account. From Alaska to Florida, the National Heritage Areas are the most effective public-private partnerships for resource conservation and heritage tourism supported by the Federal Government. While each of the 49 National Heritage Areas currently in existence are authorized to receive $1 million in annual support through the Department of Interior, the National Heritage Area program has only been funded between $15 million and $18 million over the past 5 years by Congress, despite their success in revitalizing communities and conserving naturally significant resources with only modest Federal support. These public-private partnerships are perhaps the most cost-effective and efficient programs within the Department of Interior. Matching every dollar of Federal support with $5.50 of other public and private funding, National Heritage Areas are clearly a high-yield investment of Federal resources. To be clear, that investment results in over $100 million of economic activity. During a time when our economy is so fragile, we must support these programs that have a proven record of economic benefit. National Heritage Areas have such a proven record of fostering job creation and advancing economic, cultural, historic, environmental, and community development. In addition to creating jobs, National Heritage Areas generate valuable revenue for local governments and sustain communities through revitalization and heritage tourism. More specifically, in my district, a recent study released last year by my local heritage area, the Erie Canalway Heritage Corridor, found that visitors to heritage sites in the eastern part of the corridor-- found that nearly 1 million people visit heritage sites each year, generating some $38 million sales in local businesses, supporting 507 local jobs. We must preserve sites that are historically significant. Doing so will increase community spirit as well as generate much-needed tourism dollars. A recent United States Cultural and Heritage Tourism Marketing Council and United States Department of Commerce study revealed that cultural heritage travelers contribute more than $192 billion annually to our United States economy. I would point out also that this tool, this opportunity for heritage areas enables given regions to have a stronger sense of marketing tools. They are able to promote a stronger sense of place and a much more dynamic bit of destination. That is a tool in the economic recovery toolkit that is tremendously valuable and important to these given host regions. I want to thank Representative Dent of Pennsylvania for offering this amendment with me today. He is the cochair of the National Heritage Area Caucus in the House, and he and his staff have been a pleasure to work with on this amendment. I also need to thank the ranking member on the committee, Mr. Dicks, and our ranker of the subcommittee, Representative Moran. They have been invaluable in their support in my effort for this amendment. Understanding today's difficult budgetary climate, I want to remind everyone that this amount is equal to the total appropriation for the program in the previous fiscal year and reflects the minimum level of support National Heritage Areas need to remain successful. I hope my colleagues will consider joining Mr. Dent and myself in supporting this modest funding level for a vitally important program. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, in just a few hours, my Republican colleagues will bring to the floor the Jobs Outsourcers' Bill of Rights. This piece of legislation is an open attack on workforce protections, a union-busting bill that will open loopholes for companies to ship our jobs, American jobs overseas, and will make historic changes to workers' rights, all to serve the well-connected special interests community. This bill will allow companies to fire workers, workers who think that they might have a better shot of supporting their families in these precarious times by banding together to negotiate with their employers. That right, the freedom of association, finds its origins in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether or not you like unions, there is no sense in making it even easier to ship our jobs overseas. If this bill becomes law, a company faced with a few organizing workers trying to form a union could close an entire United States plant and move the work to China, where sweatshop laborers will work for less than even the lowest-paid, nonunion American workers. Actually, that's an assault on America's middle class. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this reactionary and poorly thought out legislation.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Instead of working on a bipartisan solution to address the looming default crisis or to create American jobs, today House Republicans have brought to the floor H.R. 2584, unprecedented legislation that would gut pollution controls and public health protections in order to give bigger profits to Big Oil and other special interest polluters. By attaching more than three dozen policy riders to this bill, the House GOP is attempting to use a spending bill to make backdoor changes to 40 years of Federal laws that protect clean air, water, lands, and wildlife. The legislation would also cripple the budgets of key Federal agencies charged with protecting American citizens and our natural resources. This is a new low for the 112th Congress, which has already seen the new House GOP majority attempt to gut the Clean Air Act, overturn the Clean Water Act, repeal cost-saving energy efficiency standards, and pull the plug on American jobs in clean energy innovation and manufacturing. This legislation would overturn 40 years of bipartisan progress protecting the American people and the environment. One area I choose to focus on is the continued attacks on the Clean Air Act, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and improved the health of Americans in every State. It protects the air we breathe and the water we drink. It protects our children from developing asthma and our seniors from developing emphysema. According to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000 lives. Since 1990, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths. It is clear that the Republican majority is doing all it can to stop EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health and protecting the environment. Many will claim that the EPA is moving at a faster pace than any other administration in history. However, the EPA has proposed fewer Clean Air Act rules under President Obama over the past 24 months than in the first 2 years of either President Bush or President Clinton. That is why in December of 2010, 280 groups, including the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association and others sent a letter urging the Congress to ``reject any measure that would block or delay the United States Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.'' This bill, an appropriation bill, is not the place to legislate these types of changes. These should be policy changes, not made during this process. The Clean Air Act is promoting innovation and breaking Americans' oil dependence, but Republicans would give big polluters a loophole to roll back our clean energy progress and continue our addiction to foreign oil. The Clean Air Act is good for the economy. Many studies have shown that the Clean Air Act's economic benefits far exceed any costs associated with the law by as much as 40-1 ratio. As President Obama so eloquently spoke of during his State of the Union address, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our global competitors and win the future. Rolling back a law that protects the air our children breathe to allow oil companies, companies that are already reaping record profits the ability to spew chemicals, smog, soot and pollution into the air just to please a lobbyist or a big oil corporation is irresponsible and, yes, extreme. The Clean Air Act has been on the books for decades with positive results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. Rolling back these protections will hurt our most vulnerable. We simply cannot afford to go backward. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. To give tax cuts to the job creators.

Mr. TONKO. We're told it's the millionaire-billionaire tax cut that responded to the needs of the job creators.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, I think that the message from the Democrats in the House of Representatives is straightforward and very logical: Don't end Medicare. We saw three votes to end Medicare in the House. We say save Medicare, make it stronger. But then we talk about cutting, cutting programs that don't create jobs; do those cuts where there are not jobs created. Where there are, save those programs, strengthen them; provide for jobs by investing in education, in innovation, and in infrastructure. And it's very easy when you take the education investment, the infrastructure investment, and certainly the education investment, that equals jobs for Americans, for middle class Americans. And that's what it's all about. If we create jobs, it drives down the unemployment factor, drives down the deficit. And there's no stronger form of medicine, bar none, than jobs being created. It solves a revenue crisis, it solves a deficit crisis, it solves a spending crisis. Some of these programs are correlated directly with unemployment. There is a need to address the needs of the unemployed, the poor. If you put people to work, if you invest in retraining programs, education, if you invest in R&D to grow, move ideas along to a manufacturing mode and then you make it in America, these are the values that we embrace as a party in the House. I think it has been a refreshing message, one that really gets to something here. And at the same time we're speaking to the default crisis, we're saying this is how we resolve that default crisis. Don't walk away from the obligation, the responsibility to pay our bills. And as you said, two wars, a pharmaceutical deal for part D for Medicare, and millionaire and billionaire tax cuts were all spent, those were all forms of spending. And all of that, all of that was borrowed in order to spend on tax cuts. And now the bills have come home to be paid. It happened a decade ago--it doesn't matter, they are bills that have to be paid. We cannot put the economic vitality and viability of this Nation at risk or trigger an international economic crisis by not paying our bills. So we address the default crisis, we save Medicare and strengthen Medicare, and we have a formula of innovation, education, and infrastructure that equals jobs for Americans, working families, and middle class Americans. It's straightforward. It's straightforward.

Mr. TONKO. I don't know because it was messing with the Constitution. And The Wall Street Journal advised, don't mess with the Constitution, leave the Constitution out of this. And there were those who were economic advisors to President Reagan who said this is frightening--the exact words were very denouncing. And so no one took that seriously. And we spent hours here debating on a format that adjusts the Constitution, and some of the best minds who have worked in government from very conservative perspectives have said this was a wasteful measure.

Mr. TONKO. They want to work.

Mr. TONKO. The original tech valley. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. I know we don't have much time. I'll do this quickly. The 21st Congressional District that I represent in upstate New York is the host community to the Erie Canal barge canal. It gave birth to a necklace of communities dubbed mill towns that became the epicenters of invention and innovation. That same pioneer spirit is fed today. It's part of our DNA. But you need investments in R&D. It's why my region is now one of the top five in the country for the growth of green collar jobs, innovation that is being advanced simply by investing, as we did in the prior Congress, in job creation. Not cutting programs that provide opportunities for work. Instead, they are going and building up programs like handouts to the oil companies that aren't producing a job, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. They need the dollars for that. They're cutting valuable programs that either speak to the dignity factor for our seniors through Medicare or advancing research and development that grows jobs. That's what we need to do. The Democrats are on message. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Solve the jobs crisis, you'll resolve the deficit situation, the revenue situation, and the spending situation.

Mr. TONKO. Our country is strong. Our economy is one that is bolstered by job creation. And we've said it so many times over and over again: Don't cut valuable programs. Allow our seniors the dignity of Medicare. That enables them to have economic sustainability, vitality. That is important. And we invest from children to seniors in a way that produces jobs, strengthens regional, State, and the national economies, and we go forward. And I think the optimism is there. Our message is one of can do, not denial, cuts, slash, burn.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thank you for bringing us together on some very important discussions and laser-sharp focus which is essential as we face this default crisis, where there are those who are dragging their feet and not resolving the default crisis and refuse to have us pay our bills. And when we default on our debt, it's very problematic because it can disrupt our pensions, it can disrupt our 401(k)s, it can disrupt our mortgages because of the interest rate being somewhat fluctuated by that default crisis and our failure to pay our bills. What I think is important here is that you outline how unfair this process can be, how it can be routed to support easily deep pockets, efforts to give windfall industries a mindless handout, the big oil companies getting a handout. It's much easier to retain that benefit, and it's very difficult to save Medicare. It's a simple majority that can end Medicare. Many of us go home every week, others as frequently as they can because of the distance they have to travel to get to their districts, and we're greeted by signs like this: Hands off my Medicare. And it's no wonder, because what we've seen yesterday was the third attempt in this given few months of the 112th Congress to end Medicare. Three votes. One with the Republican Study Committee, one with the Ryan plan, a Path to Prosperity--which we have redesignated as the Road to Ruin. And then yesterday with this cut, burn and whatever, slash-and- burn attempt. I won't even get into the nomenclature because it's misrepresenting what would really happen. Yesterday, we had a vote on this floor to make it easy to end Medicare and easy to maintain handouts to the oil companies. And when we look at the dollars that are saved by ending Medicare, we see where they somehow are transitioned over to tax cuts that are maintained for the millionaire-billionaire community, mindless handouts, the Big Oil industry. So this is buyer beware week. We've seen this three times over, and it's an assault on the middle class. When you talk about the impact on women, you know, an armchair scientist can take a look at the population of seniors and understand the proportional representation to the greater degree is women in that category. So this is an assault on senior women who require Medicare. We talked about this last night on the floor, that things have changed since 1965 when President Truman and Mrs. Truman were the first to sign up for Medicare with that wonderful legislation. They began a process of dignity for our Nation's seniors where affordable, accessible care, a certainty in their lives, became a much-needed concept because there was cherry-picking going on. There was the unaffordable notion, the inaccessible notion of health care insurance coverage. And to put that now at risk and develop and mess with our Constitution to make that all work, it's no wonder Wall Street, The Wall Street Journal, called it a very foolish approach. They labeled it in just very negative tones. And certainly Bruce Bartlett, who was the economic adviser to President Reagan, said that it was akin to an intern writing a bill on a napkin. Well, I think that's a pretty tough slam for our interns. They would do better. So we need to go forward with sensible strategies. We need to solve the default crisis. And let's face it, it should be about investing in jobs. The jobs crisis is the number one priority of the American public. We see it in public opinion surveys over and over again. And that job crisis when we resolve it addresses any revenue crisis, any spending crisis, any deficit crisis. This is the best solution: Create jobs, invest in innovation, infrastructure, education.

Mr. TONKO. Well, by their own acknowledgement, their own leaders indicated that this would enshrine the Republican agenda to end Medicare in the United States Constitution. So what we end up with is that we have these very bold statements made, that right there after the freedom of religion and the freedom of thought, the freedom of assembly, we can have the freedom from health care for anyone age 65 and older. That's not quite an honorable position to follow or to promote.

Mr. TONKO. Just on the Medicaid/Medicare piece, if I could just say one thing. When we fall short on the Medicaid side, it falls again upon the property taxpayer, and again, if you're on a fixed income, as many seniors are, and again, the disproportionate number of women in households in the senior years are going to be, again, impacted by a property tax that, when levied on that home, doesn't know if you're unemployed, on fixed income, underemployed, so it will be hitting a retiree on fixed income very, very hard. And so we're transferring from a progressive income tax and a progressive series of taxes at the Federal level on over to a State situation where it's going to trickle down into a property tax, which is grossly unfair.