Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. The 21st Congressional District of New York, in the capital region, Mohawk Valley of upstate New York, hosts the original infrastructure of the Erie and Barge Canals, the route that gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns that became the epicenters of invention and innovation that inspired a westward movement, that inspired an industrial revolution. That pioneer spirit is the DNA of America. Give us the opportunity to invest in ideas, and we turn that into manufacturing and we go forward. But it begins and ends with a quality workforce. And the cuts proposed in Head Start, with a quarter of a million children being denied Head Start opportunities, the huge cuts to title I funding to get resources to our schools, especially those in most difficult situations, would destroy the workforce of the future. Without investment in education, there is not a strong and vibrant workforce that can continue to carry our strength as a Nation in this global economy. So that is a start. And then also, I have witnessed in my region, where we're the third- fastest growing hub in this Nation for science and tech jobs, high tech jobs, that when you start cutting away at R&D, you're going to destroy the opportunity that we have as we continue to cluster with these science and tech-related jobs.

Mr. TONKO. So you're saying that--to quote your dollar figure from earlier--if you're 54, 55 years old, save another $182,000 to cover your health care costs with the end to Medicare because the system has to pay oil subsidies to the historically profit-rich oil industry. So they're saying, okay, garner up those dollars, save somehow the $182,000 additionally that you will require for your health care coverage because we have to give this mindless handout to the oil companies. Or guess what, $6,000 more out of your pocket per year for your health care coverage because we won't have the dollars if you don't do that to pay the oil companies or to give the millionaires and billionaires their tax cut. These are the priorities that need to be addressed thoughtfully at a negotiating table. And the ridiculousness of the empowerment of the most powerful at the expense of the masses of those who have received quality of care and dignity addressing their golden years, that has to be sacrificed just so that this stubbornness of negotiation can continue where you're going to have this Darwinistic outcome.

Mr. TONKO. And the annual checkups. Don't forget those. And just undoing the requirement for copayment or deductibles for those screenings and annual checkups. There was this compassionate, reasonable, thoughtful approach to contain costs, provide for the continuation of a program that has grown immensely valuable in the lives and the fabric of our senior community. And you know what's interesting too? This ``hands off my Medicare'' is not just resonating with today's seniors. In the recent poll that I just cited, 61 percent of those age 35, Representative Garamendi, and older and 63 percent of those age 55 and older said they would be worse off under this GOP plan. Worse off. So the more people check this out, all age groups--under 55, under 35, over 65--are all saying, Hands off my Medicare. It's no wonder that the message has been resoundingly delivered throughout this country, no matter what region. You're on the west coast. I'm on the east coast. We're hearing it from coast to coast.

Mr. TONKO. In situations where we found recently--and there was an article in a major paper, The New York Times, that reported that there were CT chest scans done two times over at many locations where they were recovering those dollars through Medicare and found that to cost some $25 million worth of waste, of fraud in the system. Now, that's just one small example of one small bit of opportunity and activity in the health care field. Think of it. If you have the agents, as you suggested, and if they are funded in a way that produces dollars of savings simply by having the infrastructure, the human infrastructure, to go out and chase this fraud down, we can then benefit. There are systems here that we developed that have the checks and balances, that have the bells and whistles, that have the preventative element. Even the efforts that we made in the Affordable Care Act to not require copayments or deductibles for any of the screenings and the annual checkups for our seniors--wonderful concepts to, again, contain the costs of health care within the Medicare model, which we thought was a wonderful thing to do. And you're right, there's no move here. When you end Medicare and make no adjustments and just hand it over to the private sector and say, Keep on your trend of being much more expensive than Medicare and go out there and sharpen the pencil, without changes that they want to induce into the program, nothing changes; but the cost increases for the seniors.

Mr. TONKO. Just to get the concept up and running.

Mr. TONKO. And I think it's probably what underlies the thinking of Americans out there, because when they were polled just recently with the poll that was shared with people today, there is overwhelming opposition to the GOP plan to end Medicare. So much so that in that effort by the GOP to convert Medicare to a voucher system, 57-plus percent said ``no'' to that idea. And when you look at independent voters out there as a separate bloc of measurement, it closes into 60 percent, at 58-point-some percent. So people are saying overwhelmingly, We do not want to convert this into a voucher system, where you get 32 cents on every dollar that you need. And they're saying very clearly: Hands off my Medicare. The message couldn't be clearer: Hands off my Medicare.

Mr. TONKO. What does grow jobs is strengthening purchasing power so that as the middle class of America, which is the engine that drives the economy, has the available cash to purchase things, to be out there and allow for the upper strata to have their products sold, purchased, you're going to destroy purchasing power of many households, senior households, those who have to save $182,000 before they qualify as seniors. That's going to drain this economy.

Mr. TONKO. Exactly. And it's not just a savings to the government, but it's also a savings of $27 billion to individual seniors. So right there is an opportunity to provide for stability and to rein in costs within the Medicare program. But it takes the sort of compassion and the determination and the outright leadership to make certain that we make it stronger. What they've said today--I was in a hearing on the Budget Committee--is that, well, look, the way we're going to do this is sharpen the pencil. There is going to be this competition, and everyone's going to fight to serve the senior citizen for her or his health care needs. With the market taking over, they're going to drive down the costs and provide the benefits. Since Medicare was initiated, the private sector premium costs have risen by 5,000 percent. Medicare is far below that curve. There isn't that marketing program. There isn't that administrative overcharge that really has driven these prices to go out of sight. And what we have here is an attempt to put the insurance company into the driver's seat.

Mr. TONKO. And if someone could at least rationalize the benefit of that program, if they could at least quantify good, societal good that comes with that sort of thinking. In recent history, twice over in recent history we've witnessed that relief, that that top income strata has not caused and inspired a trickle down that produced jobs, that enabled people to see investments made in an economic recovery. In fact, the reverse was true. We saw what happened. They reduced these taxes for millionaires and billionaires, 8.2 million jobs lost, and the American economy brought to its knees, when in fact, now, the people have said, look, our top priority is jobs. We heard it. All of us that serve in this wonderful Chamber heard it in the last election of November of 2010. It couldn't have resonated more boldly, more clearly. It's about jobs. It's about growing the economy. Stop shrinking the middle class. Start growing the economy. That was the directive, and so what they wanted was to make certain that we would allow for dignity to continue, that health care costs would be contained. As we did the reforms to health care, we included improvements for Medicare. They wanted that Medicare program to continue. And when you listen to the American public out there--and we'll talk about this in a minute--the polling, most recent, today that was released indicates there is strong support for continuing Medicare. They support strengthening Medicare, and they have denounced this attempt to bring an end to Medicare. They are angry about it, not just for their generation. And I'm saying ``they'' as seniors. They are concerned because they want their children and grandchildren to enjoy that same order of security that has served them so well with their health care needs.

Mr. TONKO. Not only do they talk about these choices over and above the senior community, but they've made it clear that their negotiations at the table begin and end with this destruction of Medicare while protecting subsidies for Big Oil and to include the tax breaks for millionaires. That, you know, is very clear. That is the directive. That is part of a line drawn in the sand on negotiations, which makes it very difficult, because what it tells us is that they're willing to put at risk the full faith and credit of these United States on the line. And we know we have just struggled to crawl out of a situation, a recession that's found 8.2 million jobs lost in America. We're just climbing that hill to recovery, and they're willing to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk and perhaps, most likely, cause a new economic calamity.

Mr. TONKO. Yes. Contrasted with the $165 billion that are yearly cuts to Medicare. So it's almost an equal swap. And we see that you need to end Medicare in order to provide for the wealthy tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and handouts, mindless handouts to oil companies sitting on historic record profits. This year alone, in the first quarter, we're at about $36 billion in profits. So why, if we'd done just this mindlessly for nearly a century's worth, why would we continue that and put at risk a program that will be celebrating its 45th anniversary in a few days? Why would we do that when the quality of life for the many, many, the many in the masses of Medicare eligibility are being put at risk for the far fewer who are going to get the millionaire, billionaire tax cuts and the oil handouts?

Mr. TONKO. $131 billion.

Mr. TONKO. You know, you talk about choices, and the choices are do we continue Medicare--and obviously the Democrats in the House want to improve, they want to strengthen Medicare, not deny it, not end it-- make it more stable, make it an even stronger program. There's a choice. Their choice would be to have tax earmarks for what sort of things? For corporate jets, for golf bags, for snow globes. These are the choices. And beyond choice, there are contrasts. Now, this chart here somewhat incorporates what you're talking about there with Big Oil. We have $131 billion that is given away yearly to Big Oil and millionaires, handouts, tax cuts.

Mr. TONKO. Exactly. We're saying as Democrats in the House and as Democrats on the Hill what must be on the table. We need to have on the table discussions about oil breaks, which trace their roots over a hundred years' worth of policy decisions. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans must be on the table. These are the important things. Big Oil profits, which are historically the largest, are the reason, in order to afford those sorts of handouts and wealthy tax cuts, they need to carve into a program like Medicare. It's in order to make it all balance. So we're saying no, no, no, that these things must be on the table.

Mr. TONKO. Right. If you'll suffer an interruption here and allow me to just share what, I think, both of us have talked about, people at home, because this is such a drastic proposal, can't believe that it's a real proposal. We have to remind people it is very much alive and it has legs, so much so today that the majority leader of the House, who was at the Vice President Biden table for negotiations on the debt ceiling bill today, walked, along with a Republican Senator spokesperson for that House, for their conference, the Republican Conference. They dropped out of the talks today simply because they want certain revenues at that negotiating table to be exempt, or certain proposals. So we're saying, look, this has to be a bipartisan approach that has a tender balance here: that you cannot drop out of that balance certain impacts to the economy, like $800 billion worth, which is the price tag for the wealthy in this country, where they want that dollar amount to be absolutely cast in stone.

Mr. TONKO. Right. And where we saw overpayment for services provided, where there was unnecessary profit accrued in certain areas, we said enough is enough. The taxpayers shouldn't pay for adding to the profit column beyond reason for those private sector types that said they can do it cheaper, which was the claim. We can do it cheaper. Let us have this Medicare Advantage model, and we will show you how we can provide benefits. It didn't require such vast overpayment.

Mr. TONKO. A community for whom we have not done insurance writing. The actuarial science has not been applied. We've had 45 years of reprieve.

Mr. TONKO. Right.

Mr. TONKO. With no younger seniors coming in.

Mr. TONKO. You point out the line in the sand drawn for 55 and over and 55 and under and that there is a different treatment. People would try to suggest, if you're 65, say, and you're qualifying for Medicare, if you go forward, the folks below 55 will never join the system, and that will cause fluctuations in the crowd that's 65 and over today. As that happens, as they grow older and as the life expectancy keeps strengthening and going north, not south, there is no replenishing of the younger eligible Medicare community. As you climb the age chart, the correlation with health care and your need for services rises. So the younger element within the Medicare eligible community was, I think, providing stability in the fund. I think it disrupts even the actuarial outcome of that universe as you no longer allow the entry of new populations with time.

Mr. TONKO. This evening I will be joined by my colleague from California, Representative Garamendi. He and I will discuss for this next hour the issue that deals with a program that is tremendously popular in this country, that deals with our senior population as they have the resources through a program dubbed ``Medicare'' that enables them to enjoy with dignity their senior years and to be able to have the security of knowing that there is affordability and accessibility for their health care needs. Obviously, as our senior population continues to grow and the longevity curve continues to climb upward, our senior population has reminded us that their dignity and their quality of life has been addressed in a very strong way as the calculated curve for life expectancy continues to mount, which is a positive force in the lives of all Americans. The efforts that we see afloat in this House at this Capitol range across a number of cuts and reforms that people are proposing for the future budget for this country. There is this Ryan Roadmap which has been developed and dubbed the ``path to prosperity'' by the author and by the Republican majority in the House. However, many of us have seen it for its true value and its attempts to end Medicare, so much so that we have dubbed it the ``road to ruin,'' a situation that would undo a Medicare program, and it is why signs such as this next to me here would greet many of us when we arrive in our district for district work period or on weekends as we break from session here in the House of Representatives: ``Hands off my Medicare.'' It's very bold, it's very straightforward, and it's very understood. The message is real, and it has reached us because it talks about an attempt here to end Medicare in this House. It would force seniors to find their own insurance in the private market. They would be asked to shop with a coupon in hand. The money that the government would kick in for coverage, part of that coupon would not nearly keep pace with the actual costs--the costs that seniors would be forced to pay. Of course, as 32 cents--which has been the on-average expectation of the coupon--for every $1 of premium costs would be the outcome, that means that the risk would shift from our senior population to have them dig into their pockets, and the risk would be removed from government and placed in the hands of seniors. It would take away what is a stable, dependable system and put a profit-driven insurance arena of companies in charge of rationing care for our seniors. This is a very unacceptable outcome, Representative Garamendi, and I'm glad that you have joined us this evening in this Special Order, where we'll focus on the Ryan Roadmap and what it really means, what it calculates to do, and the impact it has on so many elements of the population out there. And thank you, Representative Garamendi, for joining us this evening as we talk about this attempt to end Medicare and shift the risk from government to seniors.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on this historic day in the 112th Congress. Six months. That's it. Six months. It took less than 6 months for the Republican majority to come to the floor of this House and break their most treasured promise to the American people, a promise made in writing to the rules of the House of Representatives. Today, by waiving the House CutGo rule, my colleagues across the aisle are giving up on their foundational principle of deficit reduction--no new spending without offsets. Don't take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office clearly states that the manager's amendment, as we just heard, to the base bill, H.R. 1249, breaks the rules of the House. So the majority has written a new one-time rule that breaks their most fundamental promise to America, that this Congress will not enact a dime of new spending without cutting spending from another area of our Federal budget. This bill is going to increase discretionary spending by nearly half a billion dollars with no offset to cover that new spending. From my seat on the Budget Committee, I have watched how fiercely they have clung to this promise; and though I disagree with many of their choices and cuts, this is truly a new low. It is a historic breakdown that only took 6 months to arrive. Though America is watching and waiting for a solution, a jobs bill, for instance, to our Nation's fiscal and economic crisis, Republicans began the year by saying that half the budget question was off the table. For instance, questions like $800 billion were spent on tax breaks for the wealthy, or like tens of billions in subsidies and deliberate loopholes for some of the wealthiest corporations on Earth. CutGo doesn't lay down any rules about tax expenditures. We could entirely stop collecting taxes and let the budget and the economy collapse tomorrow, and that would abide by CutGo. Again, this rule only deals with spending without finding the roughly half a billion dollars' worth of offsets to pay for the bill. Not surprisingly, this rule has lasted us only 6 months. I would ask my Republican colleagues, what will the next 6 months bring and the next 6 months after that?

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we are some 3 years into the worst recession since the Great Depression. I have heard repeated claims that these are times that call for courageous leadership and bold decisions. Well, there certainly has been no lack of audacity during recent talks on the budget. I'm joining my colleagues on the Budget Committee here today to ask, on behalf of my constituents in New York's 21st Congressional District, for less hubris and more humility from some of our Nation's leaders as we attempt to solve a problem that impacts the lives and livelihoods of our families, our friends, our neighbors, and our constituents. I have but two requests: first, that any budget agreement must not hurt our economy further. In 2008, the financial crisis brought this Nation to its knees. It was a crisis of our own making; and though we must not dwell on blame, we must learn from this experience to avoid the mistakes of the past. Is there no way to encourage business growth, small and large, without wasting $130 billion a year on tax giveaways and without gutting programs that educate our workforce? I refuse to believe that there is no smart solution to this problem. My constituents refuse to believe it. We have learned our lesson, and we know better. Second, any budget agreement must take a balanced approach. It is the height of arrogance to sit down at a negotiating table to solve a fiscal crisis and declare an $800 billion question off limits. Federal Government subsidies for some of the most profitable corporations on Earth, oil tax breaks that trace their roots to policy decisions made nearly 100 years ago must be on the table. Tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of America must be on the table. Tax earmarks for corporate jets, for snow globes, for golf bags, these must be on the table. America is watching. America is waiting for us to wake up, eat our Wheaties, and flex the powerful muscle of human reason to get this country on a sustainable path. Sustainability means cutting spending where it is not needed and where it offers no common good. It means cutting tax kickbacks where they are not needed. It means protecting the present and the future of Medicare in a form that provides more than a coupon to our seniors and more than an unsympathetic ``so be it'' to proud men and women who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It means knowing that the Big Five oil companies can stand on their own two feet. It means playing for the same team, putting everything on the table and winning this one not for our campaigns, but for our constituents. If I might refer to this chart using data from OMB and the Ways and Means Committee, my Republican colleagues have shown the so-called ``courage'' to ask America's seniors to make yet another great sacrifice for their country--giving up their hard-earned, guaranteed Medicare benefits in favor of a voucher. This will lead to thousands of dollars in new out-of-pocket expenses each year. Certainly the $165 billion in cuts is rivaled by the $131 billion yearly giveaways, that $165-billion-a-year question from the Republican budget that is on the table in these talks. I do not like it. I will not vote for it. I will fight it every time it comes to this floor for a vote, but it is on the table. It is being discussed and debated, fought for and against in a process that makes our democracy run as it was intended to. But again, we will fight any cuts and any end to Medicare. But there's another line on this chart, and that's this $131-billion- per-year question of giving tax breaks to wealthy special interests. Look, the two of them are comparable, giving oil companies more subsidies versus taking away Medicare. This is the question of using taxpayer-subsidized support from the Federal Government to add a few extra billion to the Herculean profits of some of the world's wealthiest corporations. The Big Five oil companies have pocketed almost $1 trillion in profits in the past 10 years. In the midst of our recession, they are doing just fine. They have told us, We don't need the tax breaks. So why would my colleague from Virginia, the Republican majority leader, declare that tax reform--like cutting the $20 billion in subsidies that these companies will receive in the next 10 years--is off the table? Why are tax write- off earmarks for corporate jets off the table? Why are hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires off the table? Why are we talking about cutting programs for nursing homes and preschools, for local cops and firefighters, for retirement security and the future of renewable energy? Why are we talking about cutting these programs without asking the Big Five oil companies to stand on their own two feet? I have watched programs that my constituents rely on end up utterly decimated on the floor of this House this year. And yet I come before you today not asking for less sacrifice, but for more. I'm asking for those at the top to bear their fair share of both the burden and the potential triumph of this historic moment. Again, I must merely ask for a little humility as we attempt to solve a challenge that no one woman or one man among us should attempt to tackle--or scuttle--alone. Nothing is off the table, and nothing is more important than getting every single American who wants to do a hard day's work for a fair wage back on the job site. Any budget agreement must take this balanced approach and must not hurt our economy further.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, the Republican majority seems to be using any route possible to hide the truth about its ``road to ruin'' budget and its plans to end Medicare. The Washington Post, the New York Times, the National Journal, and others recently reported that mass mailings sent from Democratic Members of Congress to their constituents have been heavily edited by majority leadership if they address the Republican plan to end Medicare. But Americans know the truth, Madam Speaker. Every day, I hear from many of my constituents in the Capital Region of upstate New York who tell me how much they rely on Medicare and how worried they are over the majority's plan to end the program. My constituents know that a voucher will not even come close to covering their rising prescription drug costs and doctors' visits. Our senior community is tremendously wise. They know that the risk associated with the Republican plan is shifted from our government to their pockets. No matter how it is spun, Americans are opposed to ending Medicare. Let's instead work together to strengthen the program and ensure it remains on strong financial footing.

Mr. TONKO

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