Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act

Madam Speaker, I too support the goal of ensuring that the brave men and women that acted as first responders at the World Trade Center attack are fairly treated and compensated. But I rise today to oppose the troubling provisions the majority has attached to pay for this bill.

This measure would impose a 2 percent tax on goods and services that are produced or provided in certain foreign countries from firms that are based in foreign countries that are not parties to certain treaties or international agreements. It sounds complicated. But some analysis suggests that a significant majority of this tax, at least two-thirds, if not more, would be raised by taxing contracts that support American troops stationed in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters. Even more incredible, this tax could apply to American companies that are providing goods and services to our troops through local subsidiaries. Levying additional taxes on companies that support American troops is both illogical and dangerous.

In addition, there is no reason that other countries wouldn't copy this tax and impose it on our U.S. companies that are competing to sell goods and services overseas. This would hurt our U.S. economic recovery efforts and efforts to boost U.S. sales abroad and create American jobs here at home. Moreover, I have real concerns that this excise tax could be subject to legal challenge at the World Trade Organization and may be inconsistent with our G-20 commitments to avoid imposing new protectionist measures.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote because of these provisions. Strangely, the proposed procurement tax doesn't include any of the exceptions included in our standard Buy America legislation, such as non-availability, unreasonable cost and inconsistency with the public interest. As a result, the bill would mandate a tax on the procurement of goods from a foreign producer even when U.S. goods aren't available.

In addition to this new tax, the bill would extend a tax on companies that have more than half their employees on certain specialized visas to work here in the United States. This tax raises independent concerns under our international obligations.

Finally, I would like to have printed in the Record a letter from 10 key business associations, including the Emergency Committee for American Trade and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that also oppose the use of these pay-for provisions.

December 21, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leaders Reid, Boehner, and

McConnell: We are writing to urge you to remove from the

proposed amended version of H.R. 847 the Title III revenue

raisers related to international government procurement.

First, its purported revenue raising benefits are highly

questionable. Second, there is a high risk that it will

undermine the international competitiveness of American

companies and American workers.

Title III would impose an excise tax on companies that are

from foreign countries which are not members of the World

Trade Organization (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement

(GPA) or similar procurement arrangements ostensibly for the

purpose of helping finance health benefits for the valiant 9/

11 first responders. In reality, the U.S. federal government

is already prohibited from procuring from such countries,

except under very limited conditions--when the good or

service is not available in the United States or would cost

an unreasonable amount or if the procurement is required for

the national interest. Moreover, the amount of such

procurement is generally regarded as relatively small

compared to U.S. sales into the procurement markets of these

countries.

The procurement portions of this legislation would

undermine U.S. efforts to succeed in the international

economy by both inviting non-GPA countries to take reciprocal

action against U.S. companies seeking to participate in their

procurement markets and by opening the United States to

retaliation for violating its WTO obligations. While U.S.

companies certainly face significant and discriminatory

procurement barriers in China, India, Brazil and other

countries that are not part of the WTO procurement agreement,

U.S. companies are still selling more into those government

procurement markets than the United States is purchasing from

those countries. As a result, there would more than likely be

net loss for U.S. exports, U.S. companies and U.S. jobs if

this provision became a model for foreign governments.

Furthermore, the imposition of this discriminatory tax on

foreign companies may also violate U.S. international

commitments if implemented. If found to be contrary to U.S.

WTO commitments, other countries could end up being

authorized to retaliate directly against U.S. exports,

further undermining U.S. opportunities overseas.

For all of these reasons, we strongly urge you to remove

the Title III procurement provisions from this legislation.

Respectfully,

American Association of Exporters and Importers (AAEI);

Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM);

Business Roundtable;

Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT);

National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC);

National Retail Federation (NRF);

Organization for International Investment (OFII);

TechAmerica;

United States Council for International Business (USCIB);

U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

U.S.-China Business Council.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I hesitate to speak of course, lest we get off message, but I am going to take that chance in any event.

I have had the opportunity of serving for a long period of time with Mr. Lewis, Mr. Rogers, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Dicks on the Appropriations Committee. I am not sure I see anybody else who served on that Appropriations Committee with us. And I served on the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. And I went on in January of 1983. I won't go all through every year from 1983 to today. That would take too long and would bore you stiff.

But I had the great privilege of sitting just a couple of chairs from the gentleman from Wisconsin, who had been in the Congress some 12 years before I came, having been elected in 1969. Served over four decades in this body. I will adopt all the words that were ascribed to him by the gentlewoman from New York, but three words that I would use are ``tough,'' ``courageous,'' and ``effective.''

I think the gentleman from Kentucky caught it as well. He is a difference maker. I think, Congressman Rogers, your words were very appropriate, not because you agreed or others agreed necessarily with the difference he wanted to make, but you knew if David Obey was engaged in an issue, he would make a difference on that issue.

From my perspective, the good news is David Obey was almost invariably engaged on the issues he thought affected average people, who were not so average at all. Whether it was their education, their health, their housing, making sure the NIH was trying to find cures for diseases that afflicted them,

whether he was standing up to make sure that people in the cold of winter had heat or in the scorching heat of summer had air conditioning to keep them healthy, David Obey could always be counted on as a strong, unwavering, uncowering voice on behalf of people who needed a voice. They had a special interest, but they did not have money to hire voices. They needed voices in this body that we know as the people's House.

The people on some 20 occasions returned David Obey to the Congress of the United States. Maybe it was one more than that, 21 occasions. They returned David Obey to the Congress of the United States because they saw in David Obey that voice that they needed and wanted and respected.

David Obey, in addition to the three attributes I ascribed to him, is honest. One of the things I most admire in David Obey and one of the things I most cherished was his slaying of the dragon of hypocrisy. I don't think anything angered David Obey more than seeing hypocrisy. There is too much hypocrisy, where we say, Oh, we are for this, and then we vote for that, or vice versa. We could always count on David saying, Hey, you want to be honest? Stop posing for holy pictures.

I am sure that has been mentioned during the course of this, because there is a famous phrase that we all remember by David Obey. By that, he meant, of course, be real. Don't try to flim-flam the public. Stand up for what you believe in, not what you think people want to hear. And we had no better example and no more faithful example of that performance than David Obey.

I want to thank David Obey. I want to thank him for being my friend. I want to thank him for being an example of what Members of Congress ought to be. I want to thank him for being a steadfast, faithful voice for the people who needed a voice, a leader on behalf of the principles that I think this country was speaking about when it said that we establish a government to protect the general welfare. David Obey believed that to his very core, and every day of his service his belief was manifest in his actions.

I also want to thank my friend Jerry Lewis. Every day that I served on the Appropriations Committee, I served with Jerry Lewis, and almost every day with Hal Rogers. Hal came a little after Jerry and I came to the committee.

One of the things that I recall to people about this committee is that for most of my service, not all of my service, unfortunately, but for most of my service it was arguably the most bipartisan committee in the Congress of the United States, where we worked together, made determinations together. And, yes, there were differences, but we did so in a civil, collegiate way that the American public I think would have appreciated.

Jerry Lewis has been someone who has focused on our institution. For many of the years that I served, Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio from California were chairs of the Legislative appropriations committee, and they worked together as a team to make this institution more effective, better serving its Members and better enabling its Members to serve the Nation.

Jerry, I want to thank you for your service as chairman of the committee, but as a member of the committee and certainly as chair of the committee that didn't get much publicity and sometimes was a thankless job, but was a job that you and Vic did in the best traditions of what the American public says it wants--bipartisan cooperation, positive partnership--and I thank you for that.

Hal, I wish you the best of luck as you undertake these responsibilities. We are losing a giant as David Obey retires. David Obey chose to retire. There is no doubt in my mind if he had chosen to run again, his people would have sent him back.

So, David Obey, you have been a great Member of this Congress. You have served your country, your State, and our people well. We are, all of us, in your debt. Godspeed.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts in this regard. I would like to take a few moments and clear up some of the mischaracterizations that have occurred, unfortunately, around the debate of this bill as it has worked its way through both Houses.

There have been some who have claimed that my side, the Republicans, do not support providing treatment for 9/11 first responders, and that these first responders are currently going without treatment for the illnesses and injuries they suffered as a result of serving at the World Trade Center. Both of those claims are simply not true.

According to President Obama's administration's own Centers for Disease Control, the agency said, ``We will continue to provide monitoring and treatment services for mental and physical health conditions related to World Trade Center exposures for both responders and for eligible non-responders. The World Trade Center program is critical in meeting the ongoing and long-term specialty needs of individuals that were exposed to dust, smoke, debris, and psychological trauma from the World Trade Center attacks.''

As of September 30, 2009, the World Trade Center program had enrolled over 55,000 responders in its monitoring and treatment programs. This is in the CDC's budget justification for 2011.

At the Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of this legislation, Republicans offered an amendment that would authorize the program that is already providing treatment and monitoring benefits and authorized funding for the program at exactly the level that was requested by the President of the United States. That same amendment asked for real accountability to ensure that we knew how the tax dollars were being spent. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated.

I am pleased that work in the Senate has yielded an amendment that will provide for increased accountability and increased transparency in how these funds are spent. H.R. 847 caps the number of people that can be enrolled in the program but it does not require those enrolled to verify their citizenship.

We offered an amendment that would require this program so that people in the country without benefit of Social Security numbers would not get benefits while Americans were being stuck on the waiting list. This amendment was defeated.

As with any government spending program, there should be limitations on who can participate. The government has limited resources, so the principal beneficiaries of the 9/11 health program should be the first responders. However, H.R. 847 provides more than just benefits to first responders; it also provides benefits to anyone who lives and works in New York City. Under this bill, even Wall Street millionaires could receive benefits with no cost to them, all done at the taxpayers' expense.

In fact, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce I offered an amendment that was rejected by the committee. I attempted to offer the amendment at Rules when this legislation was brought before the House before our adjournment in September, but I was thwarted in that. But it remains that we ought to ensure that Federal taxpayers would not have to pay for the health care of millionaires.

The bill passed by the Senate is an improvement over what passed in the House. There could have been further improvements to ensure our limited resources are being spent in the most efficient manner possible. But all in all, the improvements that have been accomplished over the last 24 hours are all to the good. This is an important piece of legislation. This is something that this Congress or some Congress should have passed in the last 8 years. And it is unconscionable that we are here today at the last hour of the 111th Congress with still this work pending. It's important to get this work done.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

May I inquire as to how much time remains?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, Congressman Brady articulated very well some of the concerns he has with the pay-for that is in this bill, raising new revenues through tariffs, and the possibility of retaliatory efforts by other countries.

I would just point out, in section 4002 of the recently passed health care law last March, there is a section that calls for a Public Health and Wellness Trust Fund. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has $15 billion in a slush fund in ObamaCare. This money could have been easily used to pay for this legislation. It could have been done last April, and we wouldn't be here at the last minute trying to scrounge for capital to pay these funds.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is an important bill. It's something that should have been done a long time ago. I credit a former New York fireman, Richard Lasky, who is now my fire chief in Lewisville, Texas, for helping me understand the importance of this bill as it has gone forward. It has been difficult. In my opinion, there were better ways to do this bill, but it's before us today.

I yield back the balance of my time and urge support of the bill.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I rise to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 847, to be able to thank Carolyn Maloney for the enormous work and to also cite those who I saw dying that they might live.

Madam Speaker I rise today in strong support of H.R. 847, the ``James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.'' This bill has been a long time coming, and I am glad that it is finally here for us to provide medical monitoring and treatment benefits to eligible emergency responders and recovery and cleanup workers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This legislation also allows for initial health evaluation, monitoring, and treatment benefits to residents and other building occupants and area workers in New York City who were directly impacted and adversely affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I have met firsthand many of these first responders and workers, and I know the patriotic sacrifices they have made for their fellow Americans. These brave, selfless individuals who put aside their own needs and fears to come to the aid of their fellow Americans put their lives at risk. They ventured into the wreckage and dust of the World Trade Center, not worrying about their own well being, but rather, hoping that they could save the lives of strangers. As a result of their fearless acts, many of these emergency workers and first responders were exposed to airborne toxins and other hazards. Providing medical services, including clinical examinations, long-term health monitoring, mental health care and necessary prescription drug coverage, is the least we can do to repay them for their efforts.

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act will provide both initial and follow-up medical services for World Trade Center responders and workers whose physical and mental health were impacted by the 9/11 attacks. H.R. 847 will also establish an outreach program to potentially eligible individuals.

September 11, 2001, is a day that is indelibly etched in the psyche of every American and most of the world. Much like the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, September 11 is a day that will live in infamy. And as much as Pearl Harbor changed the course of world history by precipitating the global struggle between totalitarian fascism and representative democracy, the transformative impact of September 11 in the course of American and human history is indelible. September 11 was not only the beginning of the Global War on Terror, but moreover, it was the day of innocence lost for a new generation of Americans.

Just like my fellow Americans, I remember September 11 as vividly as if it was yesterday. In my mind's eye, I can still remember being mesmerized by the television as the two airliners crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and I remember the sense of terror we experienced when we realized that this was no accident, that we had been attacked, and that the world as we know it had changed forever. The moment in which the Twin Towers collapsed and the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans died haunts me until this day.

At this moment, I decided that the protection of our homeland would be at the forefront of my legislative agenda. I knew that all of our

collective efforts as Americans would all be in vain if we did not achieve our most important priority: the security of our nation. Accordingly, I became then and continue to this day to be an active and engaged Member of the Committee on Homeland Security who considers our national security paramount.

Our nation's collective response to the tragedy of September 11 exemplified what has been true of the American people since the inception of our Republic--in times of crisis, we come together and always persevere. Despite the depths of our anguish on the preceding day, on September 12, the American people demonstrated their compassion and solidarity for one another as we began the process of response, recovery, and rebuilding. We transcended our differences and came together to honor the sacrifices and losses sustained by the countless victims of September 11. Let us honor those who served and sacrificed by passing H.R. 847.

Madam Speaker, as I stand here today, my heart still grieves for those who perished on flights United Airlines 93, American Airlines 77, American Airlines 11, and United Airlines 175. When the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. How I wish we could have hugged and kissed and held each of the victims one last time.

I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms. And down here on the ground, their memory will never die so long as any of the many of us who loved them lives.

Again, I would like to reiterate my strong support for H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, for it is important that we take care of those who take care of us in our time of need.

I, too, will be brief.

Madam Speaker, Christmas is almost here, and we are no closer to having a budget for this fiscal year--that began in October--we are no closer than we were last Christmas regarding that work. As Mr. Obey would say, I have minimum high regard for the process that has led us to this moment.

The House managed to pass just two appropriations bills this year. I understand the Senate passed none, I heard earlier. The remaining 10 bills never even received full committee consideration. The House has dithered away the year on insignificant suspension bills. We have named hundreds of post offices and praised every sports team in America. But the House has failed in completing its essential work, the work we were elected to do, that is, passing a budget for the new fiscal year.

This isn't exactly how any of us envisioned we would be wrapping up our legislative business this year; but with

the hour growing late, it appears that we are limping into the new year with another short-term CR. And that is the best that we can do under these circumstances.

I do want to commend our colleagues in the Senate for making the right decision and resisting the temptation to vote for a legislative Christmas tree, widely known as the 12-bill omnibus. This holiday turkey which had grown to nearly 2,000 pages, with a price tag of $1.1 trillion, simply collapsed under its own weight. The last thing the American people wanted for Christmas was yet another trillion dollars of government spending. So today we are passing a CR that allows the essential operations of government to continue into the new year when the real work of writing fiscally prudent spending bills can begin.

That work will be guided by our new committee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, who will be my only speaker this evening, besides myself, and Hal's full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, Norman Dicks. I want to wish them both well as they take on their new responsibilities.

While David Obey and I have not agreed on very much this year, let me also pause for a second to express my appreciation to David and wish him and his wife, Joan, good health and happiness as they pursue new opportunities outside of the Congress.

And in the most direct and sincere way, let me say that David Obey is passionate about the things that he's passionate about. I don't agree with him on many policy issues, but I do want you to know this, David, the country and both of our great parties need an awful lot more people with the kind of passion display. And if we had that we'd get our work done in an entirely different fashion.

Before closing, let me make two other brief comments. As frustrating as this year has been for me, I know it's been an even more frustrating year for the highly professional House Appropriations Committee. Our committee is blessed with hardworking, dedicated people who receive very little credit for the fine work they do. They are asked to sacrifice time away from family and friends, and do so willingly, working day and night and weekends and even holidays. For that, and for so much more, I want to express my personal thanks to both the majority and the minority staff of our committee. They are deserving of the appreciation of the entire House. And I wish the entire House was here to express that to them by way of their applause.

But let me also take just a moment to thank my own staff director sitting beside me, Jeff Shockey, who will be leaving the committee to pursue other opportunities after assisting Chairman Rogers and his staff with transition. Jeff is well known and highly respected by every member of the Appropriations Committee, our leadership, and the Members of the House. The committee's loss is indeed a loss for the entire House. Jeff is one of the finest individuals with whom I've worked for over 15 years, and I ask the House to join me in wishing him well. Many don't realize that some 15 years ago Jeff actually began with us as an intern and has worked his way pretty close to the top, and he hasn't broken too many bones on the way.

Madam Speaker, let me close by wishing our colleagues and staff on both sides of the aisle a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have only one speaker, but I am very happy to yield all the time he might consume to Hal Rogers, the chairman-elect of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I had indicated I had no additional speakers, but with this display of love and affection this evening, my colleague, Tom Cole from Oklahoma, just had to come down for a couple of minutes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to express my deep appreciation for the service of David Obey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the bill (H.R. 847) to amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and improve protections and services to individuals directly impacted by the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2019. Today, this body, for the third time, will vote on legislation to finally keep our promise and take care of the heroes of 9/11.

I would like to thank the bill's sponsors, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler, as well as my colleagues from New York on the committee, Eliot Engel and Anthony Weiner, also, for their tireless work on behalf of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, this bill would establish the World Trade Center Health Program, a program to screen, monitor and treat eligible responders and survivors who are suffering from World Trade Center related diseases. It also reopens the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.

H.R. 847, as amended, costs $4.2 billion over 10 years. Of that amount, $1.5 billion will go to the health program, while $2.7 billion will go the VCF. Both programs are now limited to 5 years.

The amended bill before us today also changes how the two programs are paid for by a 2 percent fee on government procurement from foreign companies located in nongovernmental procurement, and a 1-year extension of H1-B and L-1 visa fees for outsourcing companies.

Madam Speaker, this bill has long been a huge priority for me and many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate. I urge my colleagues to pass the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of the sponsors of the bill who has worked tirelessly on this, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, who has done so much to make this bill possible.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who is the prime sponsor of the legislation and has worked so hard on this bill.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. McMAHON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. SCOTT of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would urge passage of this bill and send it to the President.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6547) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees.

Madam Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6547 into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all children in our country. I rise for all parents who send their children to school with the understanding that their children will be safe.

Last week, the Committee on Education and Labor released a disturbing, outrageous report from the Government Accountability Office highlighting cases where convicted sexual offenders were working at schools. In 11 of the 15 cases, sexual offenders who were hired or retained by schools had previously targeted children, and in six of those cases, the sex offenders used their job to target and abuse more children, and this is unacceptable.

This report is frightening insight into what happens when rules aren't followed or simply aren't in place. It showed that in many cases comprehensive background checks could have easily prevented these crimes from occurring. It also showed that some school districts knowingly passed on a potential predator to another school district, allowing the offender to resign instead of reporting him or her. It is outrageous that a sexual or violent predator of children can be passed from school to school.

The Government Accountability Office found that school systems either did not have complete information or, perhaps worse, chose to ignore the problem or to make it worse by providing positive recommendations about the employee, knowing that they had abused children in their care. In many places, the current system of ensuring our students' safety is broken. It has huge gaps that are allowing our children to be vulnerable to sexual predators.

Madam Speaker, this Congress can do more to protect our children. The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act will help keep our

children safe in school by requiring States to take commonsense steps. First, schools will be required to comprehensively conduct background checks for any employees using State criminal and child abuse registries and the FBI's fingerprint database.

Second, schools will be prohibited from hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault, and child pornography.

This bill will prevent more children from being put in unsafe environments because the adults who are responsible for their well- being failed to do their jobs.

A 2004 Department of Education report estimated that millions of students are subjected to sexual misconduct by school employees at some time between kindergarten and the 12th grade. Coupled with the findings of last week's GAO report, it is very clear that this legislation is absolutely critical. Parents have a right to believe that their children are safe in schools, and schools have an obligation to fulfill that promise.

This bill is only part of the solution, but it is an important step forward. The GAO report sent shock waves through households across the country. We owe it to parents and to the children and to the honorable school officials who follow the rules to pass this legislation. We also owe it to them to send a strong message that people who abuse children or do not do their jobs to keep children safe will face serious consequences.

I hope that the next Congress will be able to take an even more comprehensive approach to protect children in our schools, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would quickly say that I would like to thank the gentlelady from Illinois for her cooperation on this. I know this isn't the best process, but at the end of the session, having the Government Accountability Office report land on our desk on our watch, I felt it was important that we pass this legislation today to clearly send a very strong message to school districts across the country that they have to meet their responsibility to keep our children safe during school hours. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank all of my colleagues, especially the New York delegation and the Speaker and Leader Hoyer.

Today, Congress repays a long overdue debt and answers the emergency calls of our ailing 9/11 first responders and survivors. This bill will save lives. It has taken too long, but help finally is here for the thousands of Americans who are suffering because of 9/11.

Our bill will give support and hope to more than 36,000 Americans who are ailing because of the attacks on our Nation. It also says to future generations that if you are harmed in the service of our country, you will be taken care of.

I couldn't be more proud of everyone who fought like hell to pass this bill, our Senators Gillibrand and Schumer, my good friends and coauthors Nadler and King, the 9/11 responders and survivors who are here with us, and the thousands of their brothers and sisters who could not be. John Feal, you have been a warrior for this bill. Thank you.

Just after the attacks, this body came together. With this bill, we put in law that we will never forget and do whatever it takes.

Madam Speaker, today, I proudly rise to support the James Zadroga 9/ 11 Health and Compensation Act. Passing this bill and getting it to the President's desk will truly be a Christmas miracle.

When Jerry Nadler and I first introduced a 9/11 bill, we never would have thought it could take 7 years or that it could be the last legislative item out the door. It should never have taken so long.

A TV commentator recently made a good point when he said that Pearl Harbor was not just a Hawaii issue and neither should caring for the victims of 9/11 be a New York issue. The Twin Towers were attacked as a symbol of our Nation and the sick and injured are not just from New York. After the attacks, at least 10,000 brave men and women came from all 50 states and 428 of 435 Congressional districts.

I thank my colleagues from across the country for staying to complete the last remaining gap in America's response to 9/11. Our bill will give support and hope to the more than 36,000 Americans who are ailing because of the attacks on our Nation, and it also says to future generations that if you are harmed in the service of America, you will be taken care of.

I especially thank my good friends and co-authors Jerry Nadler and Peter King, the entire New York Delegation, and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, who all helped pass this bill in September and are working on it today. I thank Senators Gillibrand and Schumer for tireless efforts to get this bill done.

This long-overdue legislation will provide health care and financial compensation to the responders and survivors who are sick from exposure to toxins at Ground Zero. The cost of the bill has been cut almost in half to $4.3 billion from $7.4 billion. The Victim Compensation Fund will be funded for 5 years at $2.8 billion and the health programs will be fully funded for 5 years at $1.5 billion. I thank Members of the other body for coming to this bipartisan compromise.

The offset has been entirely replaced with two other offsets and in addition to fully funding this bill, the procurement payfor will put an estimated $450 million in extra revenue toward the deficit.

We are reminded this holiday season of the importance of giving. But today I ask my colleagues to remember all that the heroes of 9/11 have already given. These individuals rushed to the site of immeasurable danger and first gave their time, and later are giving up their health, and in some cases their lives.

Nine long years have passed since the attacks. It was never the intention of the bill's authors to make this a partisan issue and I regret that it has become wrapped in party politics.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come together, just as we stood together on the steps of the Capitol the evening of September 11, 2001, to show our gratitude to the responders and survivors who have given so much to our country.

There could be no better gift to America this holiday season than helping save the lives of those who came to the aid of our Nation in a time of war.