Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, what I didn't hear, though, was the resolve of the default crisis. I didn't hear advocacy from the other side about paying our bills. I'm hearing about cutting away at middle class values and middle class needs. I didn't hear about the default crisis and paying our bills. We're saying we need to respond to a default crisis, and we're also talking about a jobs agenda. We haven't seen one jobs bill in the House brought forward. And that is a major concern, because the jobs crisis, when resolved by producing jobs and investing in jobs, resolves the revenue crisis, the spending crisis, the deficit crisis. So we need to go forward.

Mr. TONKO. Yes. I just think that what we have witnessed is a messing with a very precious document, one that governs this democracy, this Republic in a way that was carefully planned by our founding parents. And to take that precious document and to use it in order to promote a political agenda and one that denies access to a health care concept is wrong. When we look at this 1966 threshold, when we take it back to spending opportunities at that vintage, we need to keep in mind that Medicare, assisting grandparents, grandma and grandpa, means that they're denying the fundamental fact that since 1966, grandparents, grandma is living 10 years longer, on average. So it's not real to take us back to this unwarranted threshold of 1996. And also, we've had much progress in technology and research in medicine so that there are new opportunities for which we avail ourselves the funds. So I think that a lot of this is not based on reality. It's not based on the desire to serve. It's rather based on denial. And that's not what this should be about. There is a certain bit of dignity. There is a respect factor shown to the senior population. And I can tell you, when you get messages like this at home, Keep your hands off Medicare, we're getting this in letter format, email format, faxes coming into the office, phone calls. Nine to one, every 10 calls coming in, you'll get nine phone calls of advocacy to not only keep Medicare but to strengthen it. And what we did, as you know, Representative Garamendi, we went through and provided those screenings and those annual checkups and made certain that no copayments or deductibles would hold back the opportunity for our seniors. We made certain that we began the process of filling the doughnut hole, and we found savings in the Medicare situation. And, yes, they're right. They talk about cutting back. We found savings by reducing the profit columns of the insurance industry when it came to Medicare and then transferred--in a very fungible way, we transferred those savings into the development, positive outcome for seniors in the pharmaceutical area because we know that the doughnut hole is a very pricey thing for many people. In just a few months into a calendar year, seniors are dipping into their own pockets to pay for the pharmaceutical costs in order to stay well or to recover from an illness. So there was great compassion shown here, and we moved forward with a way to fill the doughnut hole completely, completely. And we began that process last year. That is denied again in this process. Again, to the fact of being concerned about women, if you are concerned about women, why would you cut Head Start programs? Many working moms require Head Start, not only to maintain a career or perhaps work, because you may be a single parent, or even a double income household still needs that job. Head Start is a good way to develop the social, the educational, and the cognitive skills of youngsters. Why would you deny a quarter of a million of children Head Start? That's that attack on women, working women. Why would you reduce education by 12 percent in title I areas, as they had suggested, as they did with their budget. That's an attack on educators, most of whom are women. It's still a very highly predominant field for women. So when we look at some of the attacks here by gender, by age, by income strata, it's clearly assumed here, and documented, that it's an assault on middle class America, on working families. And it is time to grow the middle class, strengthen the middle class, enhance their purchasing power. In so doing, you develop a stronger America. And so we need to go forward with a laser sharp focus and an honesty that's built by truth, not fiction, and do what is best as we go forward to invest in infrastructure, education, and certainly the improvements that we need to make in innovation.

Mr. TONKO. We've had three votes to end Medicare.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I think it's important for us to share with the American public what's happening on this floor in the House of Representatives. So many suggest that the history that drove Medicare to be developed, the dynamics that were so impacting on the senior community across this country coast-to-coast, could be revisited if their proposal to end Medicare--the Republican proposal to end Medicare--were to take hold. And I know Representative Courtney, Joe Courtney from Connecticut, understands that. He has shared those concerns over and over again, that we could go back and revisit history of 45 years ago, 46 years ago, when people literally were impacted by cherry-picking going on, where they couldn't afford policies even if they were offered to them, and many times they couldn't get policies written to cover them. Representative Courtney, thank you for joining us this evening on what is an important bit of information exchange for America. They need to know that the seniors are at risk.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Courtney, I think what we're talking about here is legitimate reform in a way that bends that cost curve and takes a sound economic program like Medicare for our Nation's seniors and allows for that benefit and pulls the resources from coast to coast to serve our Nation's seniors well. The concern here is, Representative Garamendi, they want to give their friends with deep pockets more opportunity for business. End Medicare to provide more business for the private sector insurance industry. Privatize Social Security, right?

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, earlier you had talked about the impact on the 55-year-old or 54-year-old. If you look at a 54-year-old today, that individual is advised to save some $182,000 to $190,000 so as to have that available cash to cover the deficiency that's going to come with this end to Medicare, where you shop with this voucher, and it's only going to cover 32 cents on the dollar. So that 54-year-old is already impacted, but there is more to the picture than that. When you draw the line in the sand and say, ``look, we end Medicare, and so those under 55 today will have to fend for themselves,'' they'll shop out in the private sector market, but when you don't have the newly entering senior community as they turn 65 enter into the mix, there is a correlation of age with the drawdown of the health care system. As you take the younger senior population, they provide for that ebb and flow within the pooling that Representative Courtney talked about earlier. The beauty of the program is that you pool seniors from the very youngest of seniors to ``senior'' seniors, and as that need for health care grows with age, the newly entering help provide that balance. So the stability of the program and the durability of that program is at risk, I believe, because we're changing the dynamics. Representative Courtney, you have talked about the security of that program, of the stability that we can provide, and how we in this House, as Democrats, have been working to strengthen the Medicare program: to build the trust fund so that there is this underpinning of support that will enable the program to continue to meet the needs of the upcoming population of baby boomers.

Mr. TONKO. I think you have a chart there that talks about another special interest.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is our pleasure during the next 40-or-so minutes to express concerns about a Medicare program that has served this Nation's seniors so very well for 45 years and is at risk of being ended. Tonight, we witnessed on this floor the third such vote to end Medicare by the Republican majority. We know that our seniors would be forced to shop in a private market. The certainty of a guaranteed program that has been available to our Nation's seniors since 1966 is at risk. The money that the government would kick in for coverage would not keep pace with the costs for those health care policies, and so our seniors would be forced to dig into their pockets, reach into those pockets and perhaps have their costs, their contributions, more than doubled. This is an unnecessary step that is being taken against our Nation's seniors that is irresponsible. We believe that what we have seen since that threshold in time in 1965 when we approved such a measure, the impact from the private sector health care industry has witnessed a growth of over 5,000 percent in the cost of premiums in that time since 1965. The impact on seniors has been certainly far less than that. We have seen the containing of administrative costs, we avoid marketing requirements with the Medicare program, and we have been able to share benefits with our Nation's seniors in a way that protected their health care coverage, that enabled them to enjoy a quality of life. It can easily be documented that when our Nation's seniors retired back in the sixties, they would see their economic durability challenged. Their strength, their economic opportunity to grow forward into retirement was oftentimes impacted by the cost of medical needs. There was cherry-picking going on, there were opportunities that were denied our Nation's seniors, and they were asked to absorb an inordinate amount of pressure in order to continue forward in soundness, in wellness and certainly to have the coverage that was required to meet their health care needs. All of this now is at risk with several proposals. We've seen a Ryan plan, a budget that Republicans produced. The Ryan Road to Ruin, as we've designated it, would cause severe hardship on our Nation's seniors. We saw the Republican Study Committee come up with a vote that again ended Medicare. And today, when we witnessed this attempt to play with the United States Constitution, to make it very easy to end Medicare while making it even more difficult to address those deep pockets that get favorable treatment by some go continuing on because it would be more difficult to end that opportunity. So what we have here tonight is an opportunity to discuss the assault on America's working families, the assault on her seniors, the Nation's seniors, by ending Medicare, ending Medicare that puts the private sector insurance industry in control. They put them in the driver's seat, they require our seniors to shop with a voucher that won't nearly cover the cost of those premiums, and, again, require them to pay double as we go forward. We are joined by Representative Garamendi from California here this evening and Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut. The three of us will share thoughts about how to better address the economic pressures on this Nation today without ending Medicare. It has been a lifesaver for so many of our Nation's seniors and has provided a sense of security, of predictability in their budgeting as they go forward in retirement years. Representative John Garamendi from California, thank you for joining us this evening. You witnessed it here tonight, as Mr. Courtney and I both did, Representative Courtney from Connecticut and I, witnessed yet another vote that would mean the end for Medicare, because it's an attempt to play with the Constitution, mess with our Constitution in a way that would really focus on hardship for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. TONKO. At least nine of every 10 comments we get either through the mail or on the phone are: Save Medicare. Don't let them mess with it. We're fighting the good fight here. America needs to know there is a risk of losing Medicare. There are those who want to end it. We saw another vote here tonight. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. And, Representative Courtney, when you talk about all of those costs, they were never put in the budget. They were off-budget. So that meant that those two wars, the pharmaceutical deal for Medicare part D, and the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires all had to be borrowed money, and so we borrowed from China, Saudi Arabia, all to make it happen. This was dishonest budgeting, and it was favoring deep pockets over, evidently, seniors. And now the solution? End Medicare, block grant Medicaid, privatize Social Security. This is an assault on middle class values on our Nation's seniors. Representative Garamendi, we'll move to you.

Mr. TONKO. Thirty-three seniors paying $6,000 more per year. So we're making happy one millionaire and we're economically distressing 33 seniors who are going to pay at least $6,000 more to have the health care coverage if they, in fact, can get it.

Mr. TONKO. And that's equaling 33 seniors.

Mr. TONKO. It's very obvious from the polls being taken by many, many organizations out there that the American public said it's about jobs. We need jobs in the economy in order to make things work. It will reduce the deficit. It will put people to work. It will start growing the economic engine of neighborhoods and States and the entire country. But what we're seeing is that there's this Republican assault on the middle class. They're cutting programs that serve the middle class. They're cutting programs that create jobs and invest in a new economy. But they're leaving alone these groups that are actually not--they're earning record profits, and we're still giving them hard-earned taxpayer dollars in the form of handouts and subsidies to the oil industry, to various industries that are just befriended by those in the House that want to play off the middle class and end Medicare, which is a very dangerous precedent that will be set. Representative Garamendi, you wanted to make a point.

Mr. TONKO. Very well said, Representative Courtney. What I think upsets all three of us is the fact that, with the Affordable Care Act, where we found savings by reining in some of the profit margins of insurance companies that were used--those savings were used to fill the doughnut hole that you just talked about--they're now taking those savings and sharing them in a way that's not going to benefit seniors, and they're not going to fill that doughnut hole. So when seniors come to us and say, Look, what is this talk about Medicare? they're saying, You destroyed Medicare. No. We were working to make it stronger. We're working to fill the doughnut hole so that prescription costs that are impacting seniors--my gosh, with the passage of time, we have seen advancements in pharmaceutical research that provides more opportunity for wellness or for cure. That has stretched opportunities galore for our seniors. But they would raid those savings and pull them away again from our senior community and use those in other ways, which we find very offensive. This ending of Medicare with this third vote tonight, how much more do we need to challenge the security of seniors out there? They're disturbed every time they hear of this effort to end Medicare. We want to make it stronger. We're talking about all sorts of efforts to bulk purchase pharmaceuticals for the Medicare program, which would make it stronger. They forecast $156 billion or $157 billion of savings to the Federal Government that would provide correspondingly some $27 billion in savings for individual seniors just by doing that. So there's an all-out effort here to strengthen Medicare, not to end it. And it's sad that tonight we witnessed the third vote cast here, with the majority's support so that it passed in the House, to move forward and include in that packaging the ending of Medicare. Representative Garamendi, you have a chart up there.

Mr. TONKO. I believe it's $157 billion, right. It's a benefit that ought to be shared on behalf of our Nation's seniors. To the points made earlier in this discussion as to the efforts for prevention, for screenings, that do not require co-payments or deductibles--the annual checkups--these are all elements that were introduced and imbedded into our reform package to contain costs, to bend that cost curve. The real concern that so many have raised from the Democratic membership in this House is that we're not providing the sorts of savings for our seniors, that we're not bending that cost curve. When you send them out to shop and don't even give them adequate coverage-- 32 cents--and then the indexing into the future is not keeping pace with the projected inflation of health care costs, we're putting them at risk. We're targeting them for defeat. They're saying, Well, you're going to have 13 or 15 plans from which to choose as you shop in the open market.--That isn't bending the cost curve. So the economic consequences here are, first and foremost, the hardship that seniors will have to embrace, that they'll have to endure. Then also, when we look back at 1966 and 1965, the available cash--the economic vitality of a senior household--was drained. It went south because medical costs were usurping their retirement funds. Think of it. Those dollars not only help provide stability and security for our Nation's seniors, but that's available cash that they can use to perhaps have a meal out at a restaurant in their local community. There are dollars that are made available that get spun into the regional economy that allow for the comeback. So this is very interesting. The programs, the cuts that they're suggesting, are all in areas that can help create jobs and improve economic viability.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding. Madam Speaker, there is not a single person in this Chamber who doesn't want to balance the budget, but the legislation before us today is not about that. It is about enshrining a particularly radical interpretation of the Republican agenda into the foundational document, a precious document, our Constitution, that guides our system of government. If successful, it would put in place a cap on Federal spending at 18 percent of GDP, turning back the clock more than half a century to the glory days of 1966. Though it makes for a great press release, why didn't anyone else think of this solution? Even President Reagan never once requested a Federal budget that spent nearly this low. Well, to begin with, our population is much larger and much older on average than it was in 1966. Some see that as a problem. Seniors are expensive, they say. I suppose that's one way of looking at it. And if all you're worried about is how much Grandma's nursing home care costs, then this is the bill for you. But since 1966, Grandma is living, on average, nearly 10 years longer. There is no price you can place on that, and there is no question that it's because she's getting a guaranteed level of health care. This bill, according to their own leaders, enshrines the Republican plan to end Medicare in the United States Constitution. Right there, after the freedom of religion, the freedom of thought, the freedom of assembly, we can have the freedom from health care after age 65. This is nothing more than a political stunt, a gimmick that would change the fundamental rules of our democratic system so our Republican colleagues can make it easier to end Medicare and more difficult to cut tax giveaways to millionaires, to billionaires and their friends in Big Oil. Let's stop this nonsense and get back to work. Let's stop the nonsense that is playing games with America's working families. They promote this as a way to fiscal sanity, but, rather, it's a lack of investment in sanity. It's an assault on our children, our families, our veterans, our seniors. Let's put America back to work. Let's invest in those opportunities and reduce the deficit as we move forward. Enough with the foolish gimmicks.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this, the 27th week of this session of Congress, and continue to ask the leadership in our House to move legislation that will create jobs. Over the course of the last few weeks and months, this body has been so obsessed with the debt ceiling that it seems to have forgotten the plain and simple truth that the American people acknowledged last November and repeat over and over again: the best way to grow our economy and drive down the deficit is to put people back to work. There are plenty of people looking for work. With unemployment around 9 percent, this body must make jobs and the economy our top priority. In fact, a Quinnipiac poll released yesterday found that by a 30-point margin, Americans say it is more important to reduce unemployment than to reduce the budget deficit. But the biggest threat to jobs today: failure to increase the debt ceiling and playing politics with our economy. Holding the economy hostage in order to protect Big Oil, tax cuts for the wealthy, and tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas is not only un- American, it's immoral. Leadership requires difficult decisions and compromise. I hope we'll see more of these traits in the coming days, not less.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, we must fund the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damage caused by recent storms and floods and to prepare for future disaster events, there is no question about it. But doing so by cutting long-term investments in high-speed rail makes absolutely no sense, and I rise in strong opposition to this offset. This reckless recision will eliminate thousands of jobs, halt a large number of rail projects across the country, and hurt local and State economies. The program is critical to our country's competitiveness by putting Americans back to work, revitalizing our construction and manufacturing sectors, boosting the domestic economy, and ending the United States' dependence on foreign oil. And it flies in the face of President Obama's stated goal of connecting 80 percent of America by high-speed rail in the next 25 years. Should this recision pass in this House, the Capital Region of New York State alone stands to lose three critical projects, thousands of jobs, and millions in investments. Specifically, the bill, as written, would eliminate over $150 million intended for the Empire Corridor Capacity Improvements project, the Empire Corridor South: Albany to Schenectady Second Track project, and the Empire Corridor South: Grade Crossing Improvements project. This would lead to the loss of some 4,223 jobs. Plain and simple, Madam Chair, we cannot afford these cuts at this time. Just a few weeks ago, the local chambers of commerce from the capital region of upstate New York flew down to Washington, DC, to meet with Members of Congress to discuss their areas of interest and attention. It turns out that one of their top priorities was high-speed rail. Why is that? It's plain as day. High-speed rail investments create jobs. Jobs are the building block of our recovering economy, and a strong economy leads to a reduced Federal deficit. Madam Chair, why is it that Europe, Japan, China and other countries can invest in 200-plus-mile-per-hour trains, but when the United States wants to simply lay additional track, upgrade some crossings, and guarantee timely, affordable, relatively average speed trains, we are left out in the cold? Let's not let shortsighted politics trump our long-term economic viability. These are commonsense investments that have already been committed to, have already increased reliability in our rail system, and have already created jobs. Let's not pull the rug out from the feet of our job creators, not now. We simply cannot afford it. We cannot afford to deny the hope for jobs. We cannot afford to deny the American pioneer spirit. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Slaughter from New York, for her tireless advocacy on this issue and for having the vision and determination to make high-speed rail in upstate New York and across this State and country a reality. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about jobs. My home district, the capital region of New York, is a leader in clean energy jobs. But don't take my word for it. The Brookings Institution recently completed a study that found that the capital region has the largest share of green jobs in the country. That's over 6 percent. That's over 28,000 green jobs. And not only is the region growing now, it is poised for growth in the future. Whether at Albany NanoTech, GE, Plug Power, AWS Truepower, or GlobalFoundries, the capital region is producing the high-tech manufacturing jobs of today and tomorrow. This doesn't just impact our domestic economy. Along with L.A., New York, and San Francisco, Albany is the only other metro area contributing $1 billion annually to the clean export economy. We can ``make it in America.'' We can manufacture the best products in the world here and do so in a way that grows jobs and rebuilds our economy. The real question is: Does this Congress believe we are worthy of that investment? I think we are. Let's invest in jobs for America, and in so doing, let's cut the deficit. This report from the Brookings Institution proves it.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Representative Edwards, when you talk about this debt, I think we need to state too very clearly that these were off-budget. All of these tax cuts, the wars during those Bush years were paid for by borrowing, and we borrowed from China and other nations totally to pay for this because they were totally off-budget. So people need to know, this debt ceiling limit authorization is to pay for bills that have accrued from decisions made in administrations prior to this and perhaps sessions of Congress that came far before the 112th session of Congress. So it is an authorization to pay bills. And in order to get that approval, there are many who are suggesting we have to cut spending, including ending Medicare.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Chu, you raised an interesting fact with the end to Medicare proposed by the Republicans in the House. The cost shifting that takes hold, it's about a two-thirds/one-third split today. And the out-of-pocket expenses to a senior at times--as you pointed out, $19,000 as an average income--even those out-of-pockets for the one-third today can be rather demanding. But to shift that now to flip it to one-third/two-thirds, where 32 cents on the dollar would be what you're provided with your voucher--as you suggested, through the course of time, it will not reflect accurately well enough the growth in health care costs because they don't index it correctly. So you start with a one-third burden of what government will contribute. That means 68 cents out of pocket for seniors. I don't know how they would afford it. I represent a disproportionately high number of senior citizens in the 21st Congressional District in New York State. This would be a drain on many households. And when we see the costs that some of them would have to absorb, with pharmaceutical costs that enable them to either recover or at least live in some sort of dignified manner, it is really a strong concern. And for the groups who are proposing this to have the audacity to suggest that it's what Congress gets--when Congress is getting 72 cents, I believe, on the dollar for their health care coverage, so for every dollar of premium that they pay, 72 cents is covered, as opposed to the 32 cents they would have go the way of senior citizens--nothing could be farther from factual than what they portray here. So this is a cost shifting that is a very painful measure. We've had a program that's worked so well that seniors in my district say, Hands off my Medicare. Hands off the Medicare. If you want to do anything, make it even stronger. Protect that Medicare program. But that, for 45 years, has worked so well and has worked in a way that has addressed the dignity of seniors in their retirement years. So Representative Chu, we thank you for your participation here this evening. We've been joined by another colleague, from the State of Maryland, Donna Edwards. I believe it's Maryland's Fourth District, Representative Edwards?

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this evening it is my pleasure to initiate discussion as to the events here in Washington as they affect our debt ceiling limit. There is much attention being paid to the efforts for America to pay her bills, and obviously America's working families understand what it's all about. They understand that you work hard, you roll up your sleeves, you make ends meet, and you pay your bills on time. Well, the concern we have today is that as we attempt to get that phenomenon done--as we have many times over the last several years--the bills have been rung up, perhaps by those Members of Congress before us and by administrations before us; but nonetheless, they are bills that need to be paid. And as we go forward, I think it's important for us to recognize that the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge that we need to pay those bills so as not to accrue additional interest charges, pay them as soon as we can, and make certain that we don't draw all sorts of havoc and damage to the American economy and perhaps the international economy as we move forward with the saga of being able to pay our bills with a debt ceiling limit being addressed. Now, many Presidents have asked for this opportunity so as to be responsible in their administrative role, in their executive role. This President has now been addressing this issue. And we have brought in discussion to enable to authorize that debt ceiling limit being adjusted, that it should be accompanied by spending cuts. And so it has created a certain give and take, a tug of war, so to speak, here in Washington to enable us to pay those bills and have the ceiling limit addressed. An agenda is being attached that would include spending cuts, spending cuts that in some ways can devastate the working families of this Nation, an assault on many of the needs that they have. There is, with the Ryan plan--that now has become the ``Republican plan,'' as it has been passed by this House--would address Medicare as we know it. It would end Medicare, a program that was initiated back in 1965, took hold about 45 years ago in 1966, and has addressed the economic vitality of many senior households since that time. Prior to that legislation for Medicare, many of the seniors were victimized, not being able to access that sort of care, not having the health care plans they required. The industry would cherry pick; they would take certain elements of a senior population that were a safer risk, an easier risk. And when it came to affordability, again, a drain on the economic vitality of retirees. Those who would retire at a certain level of economic viability would have that situation dip southward as their medical costs would drain those retirement savings. And so history has shown that that economic vitality of our senior community has stayed more constant, more durable since the time of Medicare. It has enabled a cushion, a security to be there for our senior population so as they advanced into their golden years, they would have that coverage that was so essential. There is this correlation of the need for health care with growing older. That's easily understood. And so what we needed was a plan that would provide security and stability, and we found it, and the Nation celebrated in bipartisan fashion. And for decades we have improved the system and addressed it so as to meet the needs of our Nation's seniors. And now, as we look to address a debt ceiling limit, discussions have brought in a cutting services agenda where we are going to deny certain programs, amongst them Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid being reduced, programs that speak to core needs--Pell Grants for higher education, education aid and Head Start for our youngsters, the workforce of the future. A number of issues under attack, an assault on the middle class, programs that are required for working families, for their children, for seniors, for veterans, for establishment of jobs. To create a jobs agenda, we need oftentimes to invest. Also at a time when we're asked to invest in a clean energy and innovation economy because there is a global sweepstakes going on amongst the world nations to compete for clean energy with investments that are required for R&D, and you name it, so as to develop that soundness of an agenda and create jobs here, utilizing and embracing the American intellect. So all of that is put at risk by this frenzy to have spending cuts while we authorize this debt ceiling limit, which allows us, authorizes us to pay our bills, has the executive branch pay its bills, has this country pay its bills, as the President has suggested time and time again. But the outcome is that many are thinking this is giving us new authorization to spend when in fact it covers the bills of the past. And to accompany their vote here, they would want spending cuts. And so Medicare has been on that block; it has been on that chopping block, and many of my colleagues are concerned about that. We're joined tonight by my colleague from California, who represents, I believe, the 32nd District of the State of California, Representative Judy Chu, who has been outspoken in her defense of maintaining the Medicare program, improving it, strengthening it, providing greater opportunity for generations of seniors yet to come, and not ending it. Ending Medicare would be a torturous thought for many out there. And there are those who defend the program here in the House, amongst them Representative Judy Chu. Representative Chu, thank you for joining us this evening, and I welcome your thoughts on where we're at as we address these debt ceiling limit negotiations and now having these demands of spending cuts put upon us that could impact the senior population via the end to Medicare.

Mr. TONKO. Very well said, Representative Edwards, and I just want to attach my comments to yours about the impact of Medicare, an investment that has produced a lucrative dividend. We have kept the dignity factor alive for seniors, we have kept our seniors well, we have enabled them to recover, we have enabled to them to live because of an attachment to our health care plan. On the other side, we have allowed for spending for a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, spending on a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires time and time again, knowing that the result is no real lucrative dividend, negligible. We look at not only the spending that people acknowledge was okay for something not returning a dividend, we lost 8.2 million jobs in the Bush recession, but then we borrowed all the money to spend, needed to spend, for that tax cut. What a contrast. And the Democrats in this House have said, no, let's do programs that have a return. Let's invest in our senior community and let's not spend on these tax cuts that have no dividend, no lucrative dividend. And if we didn't have the money to spend for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, why then did we go and borrow from China and Saudi Arabia? So it makes very little sense to follow that road to ruin which the Republican plan, once the Ryan plan, now speaks to. We have been joined by Representative Jackson Lee from the State of Texas. Welcome, Representative, and thank you for joining in the discussion on the attempts here to end Medicare and to allow for those savings to go toward spending on tax cuts that get somehow attached to a discussion on the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling being raised so that America can pay her bills. It's convoluted at best.

Mr. TONKO. The Representative from Texas talked about strengthening and improving Medicare, not ending it. Some have suggested as much as $156 billion could be saved by bulk purchasing for our pharmaceutical needs for the program, for Medicare. That also is a savings of probably, I think I've heard, $27 billion as the number for seniors, themselves, because there is a fraction that they assume in those costs. If we do that, we send over not only the savings for government but we send it over to the senior community, also. And so there are ways to address fraud and inefficiency. The New York Times reported just a short while ago that there were double chest CT scans being done, CT chest scans being done and that the Federal Government was overbilled by some $25 million. That's one small example of accountability, or lack thereof, and the need to continually stay vigilant in our efforts to search out fraud and inefficiency. But take it, make it work, strengthen it and provide for that continuation, just the stability that we can provide to enable seniors to breathe more easily, to know that a basic core need for them that's correlated as they grow older, as any of us grows older, it's correlated that you're going to require that health care attachment. And how dare we--I say ``we''--how dare they, how dare a Republican majority in this House suggest it's worked well, it's been there for seniors for 46 years, but we're ending it, because we're going to box the situation: if you want your debt ceiling limit to be raised so America can pay her bills, you're going to do it with spending cuts and we're starting with Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid. Well, isn't that nice? That's a take-it-and-weep scenario, and that is terrible because the people that would weep deserve our voice to be heard resoundingly on the floor, to say we step in and we defend the program and, more importantly, we defend the recipients of the program. Representative Edwards, Maryland's Fourth District Rep.