Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deepest condolences and support to those affected by the earthquake-generated tsunamis that struck numerous countries in South Asia and East Africa on December 26, 2004. This enormous natural disaster, which has so far claimed more than 150,000 lives, including many Americans, requires a robust response from the international community.

I am pleased that the United States is taking a leading role in the relief and recovery efforts. We should continue to partner with the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and other members of the international community to render humanitarian assistance throughout the region. I look forward to working in Congress to increase America's contributions to this effort as additional needs required for long-term rebuilding are identified.

Over the past 10 days, the outpouring of condolences and financial support from the American people has been tremendous. The efforts of the thousands of Americans who are giving of their time, money, and resources are truly reflective of the American spirit, and they exemplify our Nation's values and ideals. I join with my colleagues today in support of the House resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Bob Matsui. As Members of Congress, many factors determine who we form close relationships with. One of those factors is committee assignment. I had the tremendous fortune of serving on the Ways and Means Committee with Bob Matsui for 15 years. As we worked on tax reform, trade, health, and many other issues, I learned many valuable lessons from him. His dedication to the people of his district and to all the people of this Nation shone through at every hearing and markup.

He had a lifelong commitment to public service and the public good. Even though his early years were spent in a Japanese-American internment camp in California, that injustice did not dim his love and devotion to our country. He remained in California, served on the Sacramento City Council, and as vice mayor of Sacramento, and eventually came to this House, which he also loved so very much.

For his entire career, he was devoted to the welfare of children, the promotion of free trade, and the preservation of Social Security for future generations. I know that the committee will miss his expertise and good counsel for many Congresses to come. I want to personally extend my heartfelt condolences to his wonderful wife Doris, his son Brian, daughter in-law Amy, and his granddaughter Anna. We will miss Bob and forever treasure his camaraderie.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is correct when he says that ethics reform must be bipartisan and if the House is to have meaningful bipartisan ethics process, changes of this magnitude can be made, as they were in 1997, only after thoughtful, careful consideration on a bipartisan basis. There has been no effort to look at the rules changes on ethics in a bipartisan manner.

In 1997 when I co-chaired the Committee on Ethics Reform along with Bob Livingston, the changes that we made were done after deliberation, and after Democrats and Republicans, working together, came before the House and we did make major changes. And we instituted the 45-day rule for assigning a proper complaint for investigation; but we changed the rules in 1997. We made it clear that you can move towards an informal investigation without a finding that it merits further inquiry or a resolution of preliminary inquiry because we did not want any matter of guilt or wrongdoing for the committee to be able to get the facts necessary to decide whether to go to formal investigation.

Yet this rules change which would allow after 45 days inaction to dismiss a complaint makes inaction action, and it can be done on a very partisan basis. Now, that is wrong. That is not how it should be.

The rules as they are currently configured in order to move a complaint past the committee, you have to have the bipartisan agreement of the committee because you have to have a vote in the committee. It guarantees a process will move forward in a bipartisan manner and, in fact, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has operated in a bipartisan manner because of the way the rules are configured.

If this rule is changed, you are making it much more likely that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will act in a very partisan matter because they will be able to delay for 45 days, which does not take a lot of effort to figure out how to delay for 45 days. We have enough lawyers on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that will be able to figure out that one. And it will be done on a partisan basis that will leave a cloud on the Member and a cloud on this institution. You should not have that in this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicare PPO Fairness Act. This bill addresses an urgent problem facing 98,000 Medicare beneficiaries whose legal rights to health care services have been denied. Today may be the last day of the 108th Congress, and so I will reintroduce this measure in January in the hope that members will consider it early next year.

In 2003, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, began a Medicare PPO Demonstration to test the efficiency of different types of private health plans in the Medicare program. Preferred provider organizations, PPOs, are forms of managed care that are somewhat less restrictive than health maintenance organizations, HMOs. Generally speaking, in an HMO model, patients are covered only for services rendered by doctors, hospitals and other providers who are ``in- network,'' meaning on the plan's approved list. By contrast, in a PPO, patients are covered not only for services rendered by providers on the approved list, but also for other providers, but they must usually pay additional out-of-pocket costs. For purposes of this demonstration program, Congress gave CMS flexibility with respect to payments to these private plans but not with respect to the benefits that they must provide to seniors.

We have recently learned from the General Accountability Office, GAO, that CMS exceeded its authority. According to a report issued in late September, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, improperly gave private health plans permission to limit beneficiaries' access to care from providers who were not in the plans' networks. GAO found that 29 of the 33 PPO plans in the demonstration told seniors that if they sought covered services from providers not in their network they would be liable for all charges. As of this year, more than 98,000 seniors were enrolled in demonstration PPO plans, including 3,000 seniors in my home state of Maryland, so thousands of seniors have been affected by these restrictions.

In the GAO report, CMS Administrator Mark McClellan concurred with GAO's findings and said his agency would instruct all participating plans that they must cover out-of-network as well as in-network care. That is the right thing for Dr. McClellan to do, but it is not sufficient. I remain concerned about the thousands of seniors who for the past two years were told in error that they had no right to see their provider of choice. There are also countless providers who were improperly denied the opportunity to treat beneficiaries--and therefore lost income--simply because they were not on the PPG's provider panel. Finally, I remain concerned about those seniors who paid out-of-pocket for medical care--including routine physical examinations, home health services and skilled nursing care--that Medicare should have covered. It is Medicare's responsibility to reimburse for those services.

The bill that I am filing today would accomplish two things: first, it would ensure that seniors in Medicare PPOs are aware of their rights. It would require the Secretary of HHS to immediately notify each of the approximately 98,000 PPO enrollees that they are entitled to receive services from both in-network and out-of-network providers. I learned about the GAO's findings from the newspapers. Our seniors should not have to rely on the press to learn what benefits they are entitled to from Medicare.

Second, my bill would require the Medicare program to reimburse those beneficiaries in PPOs who erroneously paid out-of-pocket for care from out-of-network providers. Those seniors who enrolled in the Medicare PPO demonstration program deserve to receive all the benefits they are legally entitled to, and they should be made whole. This bill is budget neutral. It provides for all payments for reimbursable services rendered in 2003 and 2004 to be deducted from planned 2005 payments to Medicare PPOs, money that has already been allocated for next year.

Mr. Speaker, I think all members would agree that our seniors should have access to a full range of choices within the Medicare program, and that Congress should ensure that seniors receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. My bill will help guarantee that in the demonstration program now in operation at CMS, seniors get the benefits that Congress intended. I hope this bill will be enacted quickly when the 109th Congress convenes next year, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Professor David E. Vocke, Ph.D. of Towson University for his dedication and commitment to training future teachers. Professor Vocke has been selected for his work by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement of Support Education as one of this year's U.S. Professors of the Year.

Professor Vocke has been a full professor at Towson University since 1997. Towson University is nationally recognized for its rigorous and demanding education program. As a professor of secondary education at Towson, he has dedicated himself to developing several successful precollegiate intervention programs with the Baltimore City Public School system. These programs bring middle and high school students from diverse, low-income schools to the Towson University campus for experiences that are designed to inspire them to attend college. At the same time, these programs have provided his students majoring in education with unique and valuable experiences.

Professor Vocke has spent his professional career preparing undergraduates for careers in education. Since 1981, the U.S. Professors of the Year Program has rewarded outstanding professors for their dedication to teaching and commitment to students. The program seeks to increase awareness of the importance of excellent undergraduate instruction at all colleges and universities.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in saluting Professor David E. Vocke for his dedication to undergraduate education and his desire to instill a love of teaching in all his students.

Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for bringing forth this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the adoption of this amendment is very much consistent with the 9/11 Commission's report. They talk about the United States winning the battle of ideas. The United States has stood against persecution of individuals because of race, nationality, or religion. If we do not adopt this amendment, the underlying bill will make it much more difficult for people who are legitimately being persecuted to be able to claim asylum in the United States.

That is not what this Nation is about. Our Nation is about helping people and individuals who are being persecuted. This amendment is very important. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, the national capital region was established in 1952 during the 82nd Congress. It includes not only the District of Columbia; it includes in Maryland, Prince George's and Montgomery counties. In Virginia, it is Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties.

In the south, Mr. Chairman, the region goes about 30 miles. In the north, it goes about 10 miles. If it went 30 miles to the north, it would include Baltimore, where I happen to live.

When we adopted the Homeland Security Act in 2002, we made reference to the national capital region. What we are asking, and I applaud my friend from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is to let the Department of Homeland Security study the security issues of this region.

If we have a problem in the Nation's capital and people try to leave this region, they are going to want to be able to get to Crofton and Annapolis and to Frederick, and there is going to be gridlock if we do not have a plan that includes beyond that short distance in Maryland. All this does is ask for a study. It does not diminish resources at all. In fact, it will allow us to provide a more reasonable plan for the Nation's capital.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, the fact that we have a retaliatory tariff that has been imposed against us because of our sales corporation fix. We need to take care of that.

The Foreign Sales Corporation Act has caused us a retaliatory tariff. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, we have an easy way to do it. There was a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), bipartisan, that would have fixed it. It would have done it in a true revenue-neutral way.

Instead, we have a bill that is going to cost tens of billions of dollars in unrelated provisions. Let me just mention one of those provisions.

It would authorize private tax collection on a contingency fee to harass our taxpayers, giving these private collectors government immunity. We tried that before and it did not work. That is wrong. It should not be in this bill, and yet it is.

When we take away the sunsets and all the other provisions, we really have $80 billion that is not funded in this legislation, adding to the deficit of this country.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is another provision that was left out of this bill. There was a tobacco buyout that was put in, even though we had no hearings in our committee on it or any hearings at all, but the other body at least had the good sense to subject the tobacco to the FDA, using taxpayer money. That seems to make sense, and yet the final report leaves that out.

There are more people who die every year from tobacco than from alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders collectively. We had a chance to do something about that in this legislation. Instead, we are spending taxpayer money and not taking care of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous provisions unrelated that should be in this bill, and for those reasons I regret that I will not be able to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, when a child in foster care is waiting for a loving home, they should not have to wait an extra year to be placed in that home solely because it exists in another State.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in many cases today. The interstate placement of foster children is too often delayed by bureaucratic red tape, the lack of communication, differing standards among States, insufficient resources, and sometimes just plain indifference. The truth is that when one is dealing with an out-of- state placement, a particular State does not give it the same attention it does to a placement within its own State. I therefore support this legislation to encourage States to expedite the appropriate placement of children across State lines.

The bill before us calls upon States to update a compact that dictates the process for interstate placement, and it requires States to expeditiously conduct home studies for children coming from other States.

Concluding these home studies, which evaluate whether prospective foster or adoptive parents can provide a safe and caring home for a child, has been one of the primary barriers to placing children across State lines.

The legislation attempts to focus States' attention on this problem by requiring the completion of home studies within 60 days and by offering financial bonuses for every study that is completed within 30 days.

I want to congratulate and thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, for bringing this legislation forward and for working with both sides of the aisle to try to perfect this bill and to make it one that we hope can be enacted this year.

As a result of those discussions, some important changes have been made, and let me just point them out. First, the revised legislation now exempts the training of the foster and adoptive parents from both the 60- and 30-day home study timetables. Many States help prepare prospective adoptive and foster parents, and sometimes this training can take up to 3 months. We want to encourage such efforts; and, therefore, the new bill does not count training against a home study requirement and bonus.

Second, we recognize that factors beyond a State's control, such as waiting for an FBI background check or medical records, can sometimes prolong the home study process. The revised bill therefore gives States an additional 15 days, for a total of 75 days, to complete the home study in such circumstances.

And, finally, the new bill increases the bonuses for home studies completed within 30 days to $1,500 and clarifies that the $10 million a year will be authorized for these bonuses for the next 4 years. So the States can really plan on these new roles.

I should point out that one controversial provision remains in the bill that is not directly related to the goal of expediting interstate placements. The bill would eliminate the ability of States to determine their own standards for placing children with relatives of adoptive parents who have committed criminal offenses in the past. Mr. Speaker, my own State already complies with Federal standards in this area; and, therefore, I am not opposed to that provision in the bill. However, I understand that New York, California, and seven other States want the flexibility to make placement decisions on past offenses that may have happened many years ago. Those nine States now opt out of the Federal standards, an option that would be eliminated by this legislation. However, the revised bill does delay the effect of this change for 2 years, giving the States more time to modify those procedures.

Mr. Speaker, we have 500,000 children in foster care of which over 100,000 are ready for adoption. We need to remove barriers between these children and loving homes, and this bill takes a modest, but meaningful, step in that direction.

In closing, once again let me compliment the majority leader for allowing this Congress to focus on the issues of foster children. We have been able to do that in a bipartisan manner, and we have made some very constructive changes that have helped our most vulnerable children, and I congratulate him on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), one of the cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just urge my colleagues to support this very important bill, and I compliment the manner in which it was handled in this body, improving the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Kristen Adelman who was a member of the Tour of Hope bike ride across America. On Oct. 1, 2004, Kristen joined six-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong in a relay bike ride from Los Angeles, CA to Washington, D.C. to help inform the public about the importance of cancer clinical trials.

Kristen is a cancer survivor who has survived three recurrences of an aggressive form of lymphoma. In remission for more than 18 months, Kristen was selected to join 20 other cyclists, including Lance Armstrong, in the eight-day, life-affirming journey across America. Other participants included cancer survivors, physicians, nurses, researchers and advocates who all share one mission--to find a cure for cancer.

Kristen is from Elkridge, MD where she teaches algebra and physical education at the St. Augustine School. She was an active triathlete and marathon runner before her diagnoses of cancer. In fact, while going through treatment, she continued to run and ride her bike.

To prepare for the Tour of Hope, Kristen went through a rigorous 16- week training program. She undertook this ride because she wanted to draw attention to the importance of cancer research. Kristen understands that the only way to find a cure for cancer is through clinical trials, which will help identify safe and effective drugs.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in offering our gratitude and appreciation to Kristen for her generosity of spirit and fortitude. It is precisely this type of commitment that will allow us to conquer cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, a constitutional amendment regarding marriage.

I personally believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In 1996, I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which became law with President Clinton's signature. The Act defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman. The bill also protected states from being compelled to honor another state's law or judicial proceeding that recognizes marriage between persons of the same sex. DOMA is current federal law.

I am therefore puzzled as to why the House leadership has chosen to schedule this matter for a vote in such a hasty manner, without the benefit of a markup in the Judiciary Committee, just one month before Election Day. In July of this year, the Senate rejected this amendment by a vote of 48-50, short of even a majority vote, and much less than the two-thirds vote required to send the amendment to the states for ratification.

This amendment is unnecessary. DOMA is the law of the land which both defines marriage at the federal level and protects states from having to change their own definitions of marriage by recognizing other states' same-sex marriage licenses. DOMA has never been invalidated by any court, and many states have properly used DOMA to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The decision of the citizens of Massachusetts to authorize same-sex marriages in their state in no way requires the citizens of the state of Maryland to do so.

I am also concerned about the unnecessarily broad scope of the amendment, which states that Federal or State constitutions shall not be construed ``to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and woman.'' (emphasis supplied). Many State, county and local governments currently provide either domestic partner benefits or civil union benefits to gays and lesbians in their jurisdictions. Such benefits include visiting each other in the hospital, sharing health insurance plans, and rights of inheritance. These benefits--again, decided by local governments and citizens--could be called into question by this Federal constitutional amendment if they are considered ``legal incidents'' of marriage. As compared to a Federal statute, a constitutional amendment limits the ability of Congress to make future changes.

The first sentence of the amendment does not even require State action, which means that private parties--such as religious institutions and private businesses--could be bound by the Federal Government's definition of ``marriage.'' The amendment could therefore call into question the benefits that many companies provide to same-sex partners. I note that a broad array of both civil rights, religious, and business organizations are opposed to the amendment.

Finally, Congress should only adopt a constitutional amendment as a matter of last resort when a statutory approach is ineffective. In this case, that standard has not been met. We have only amended our Constitution seventeen times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

I have consistently supported legislation to protect the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. For example, I believe that Congress should make it illegal to terminate an employee solely on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe this amendment is inconsistent with the civil rights currently enjoyed by many gays and lesbians as a result of State and local laws. This constitutional amendment could inadvertently sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation beyond the legal status of marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to two leaders in the Baltimore Jewish Community. Arnold Cohen and Marty Resnick have been life-long friends who together and separately have worked to make our community and our world a better place.

Childhood friends since first grade, Arnold and Marty have a remarkable friendship that has lasted more than sixty years. As successful businessmen, they turned their attention to the benefit of others in Baltimore and Israel. They became leaders in the Mercantile Club, Israel Bond and The Cohen/Resnick Institute of the Diaspora Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Separately, Arnold devoted his efforts to Ner Tamid and Beth Tfiloh congregations, and Marty became active with Morgan State University.

On October 20, both will be honored by the Friends of Lubavitch as its 2004 Lamplighter Award recipients. In recent years, Arnold and Marty have turned their attention to the Lubavitch movement, helping Jews of all backgrounds learn more about their heritage. Both Arnold and Marty understand the importance of connections and of keeping Judaism alive for future generations.

I hope my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives will join me in thanking Arnold Cohen and Marty Resnick for their commitment and dedication to helping others. They understand that the world can be a better place through learning, knowledge and understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a real question as to whether the legislation that has moved through this body would encourage the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and exporting of jobs or correct a problem in the Tax Code that needs to be corrected.

This is a very serious issue. The Foreign Sales Corporation Act that was enacted was an effort to level the playing field for U.S. producers versus our trading partners, particularly in Europe. For, you see, we have a different corporate tax structure than the Europeans have and the Foreign Sales Corporation Act was an effort to level the playing field.

The problem is that the World Trade Organization that we belong to declared that to be unlawful and opposed imposed retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports. That tariff is now 11 percent. It will grow to 14 percent by the end of the year and 17 percent by next March.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that we have not corrected this situation prior to this time. We had a bipartisan proposal that would have fixed the problem. As my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, it was a relatively simple matter to fix the problem and to level the playing field for U.S. producers so that we can compete fairly internationally. But, instead, this legislation has become a Christmas tree for every conceivable tax provision, and it has been delayed and delayed and delayed, and our producers that manufacture products right here in America have paid a heavy price because of that delay.

The motion to instruct deals with the underlying issue. First, it asks for us to immediately resolve this issue, rather than further delays. Read the motion, paragraph 4.

It also says that the relief should be targeted to U.S. producers. That is the problem. The Foreign Sales Corporation Act was for U.S. producers who produce their products here in America. It is not for those who produce their products overseas. It should be targeted, because that is what the problem is.

That is what we are trying to do, is level the playing field. We are trying to respond to the World Trade Organization. It is right for us to target this relief to those who produce their products right here in America. That is the problem we are trying to deal with, and that is spelled out in the motion.

Then lastly, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that we should not be adding to the deficit of this country. We had a bipartisan solution that did not increase the national debt, but the legislation that passed this body certainly did that.

Again, it was another opportunity to show that we can be fiscally irresponsible.

We should pay for our tax cuts, and we can so that we do not add to the deficit; and this motion urges us to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, only in this body with Republican leadership can they blame everyone but themselves. Even though they control this body, the other body, and the White House, they seem to blame everybody else for the failure to enact the reauthorization of welfare. Only in this body.

And then my distinguished chairman says that our States want us to pass a long-term reauthorization. And the chairman is absolutely right, but they do not want us to pass the bill that passed this body because it would take us backwards in welfare rather than forward in reform.

I do appreciate the fact that the distinguished chairman at least had the title of the bill accurately reflect what we are doing here, and that is Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII. Eight times in the last 2\1/2\ years we have had short-term extensions because of the failure of the Republican leadership to work for a bill that would build on the work that was done in 1996 to give our States the flexibility they need in order to implement welfare reform and give them the resources they need. Instead, we have a bill that passed this body that was anything but bipartisan. In fact, we never even had hearings in our committee. We had a markup, but no hearings in this Congress because of the failure to really reach out and try to do something that could be enacted into law.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am terribly disappointed that we are again looking at an extension. I support this bill, so my distinguished chairman and I are in agreement, we do not want to see this program lapse. It is an important program. It extends not only the TANF program but several related programs, including child care and development block grants and transitional Medicaid assistance for people leaving welfare to work.

I agree with those who say we should be doing more, much more. After all, over the last 3 years, the number of Americans in poverty has grown by 4.3 million. Last year alone, another 700,000 children fell into poverty.

Meanwhile, funding for several antipoverty programs, including TANF, child care and social services block grant and job training through the Workforce Investment Act have declined by $1.7 billion in real terms over the last 3 years. In short, we are responding to rising poverty with declining assistance.

Regrettably, the long-term welfare authorization plan put forward by my Republican colleagues largely ignores this problem. Instead, they have suggested poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not working hard enough. However, this suggestion falls flat when we consider one basic fact: The welfare rolls have continued to decline even though our poverty rates have grown.

The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to work; the problem is that too many of these people leaving welfare are not finding employment, or they are finding jobs which do not lift them out of poverty.

We could help by providing more child assistance and job training, but so far the majority and President Bush have resisted such reforms.

While obviously an imperfect response, temporarily extending TANF funds is certainly better than fundamentally dismantling the successful parts of the 1996 welfare reform law such as providing our States and communities with the flexibility to determine how to best move welfare recipients into the work force. Therefore, I support this legislation to maintain necessary funding for several poverty programs over the next 6 months in the hopes that we can pass a more comprehensive improvement next year.

One area that Congress must focus on next year is providing access to affordable child care, which is undoubtedly one of the biggest problems confronting low-income working families.

Mr. Speaker, the price of child care can easily range between $4,000 and $10,000 per year per child. It is no wonder that the Urban Institute found that families in poverty with day-care expenses spent almost a quarter of their earnings on child care. Unfortunately, many States have cut back on child care assistance because of recent budget shortfalls. This problem has been documented by the General Accounting Office and more recently in a report by the National Women's Law Center.

Their study found that between 2001 and 2004, three-fifths of our States made child care eligibility more restrictive. Half the States raised their copayments on low-income families, waiting lists for those eligible for aid but not receiving it grew in more than a dozen States.

My own State of Maryland has frozen enrollment in child care for working families. In other words, the only way in Maryland that families can get child care assistance is to go on welfare. What a message.

Instead of helping to address this problem, the Federal Government has not even allowed child care funding to maintain the pace with inflation over the last 2 years. The long-term TANF reauthorization bill passed by this body earlier this session will simply continue this disturbing trend by reducing the real value of child care assistance. We can and should do better for America's struggling families.

Mr. Speaker, there is much work to be done, but in the meantime I urge support for this temporary extension of funding for several poverty-related programs for the eighth time in the last 2.5 years. Like the past seven extensions, this bill simply continues current law without including any new controversial policy changes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I agree with almost everything he said. In 1996 we were able to pass a bill by working together as Democrats and Republicans, and I am amazed that the bill that the Republican leadership has been advancing in this Congress would take us backwards, take away the discretion of our States to deal with the welfare programs. That presumes that some of our States are not capable of dealing with it. In 1996 we trusted our States, and it worked.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a Member who has worked on welfare reform since he has been in Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I use that 1\1/2\ minutes first to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) in recognizing the outstanding work that Vee Burke has provided for more than 30 years at the Congressional Research Service.

Vee has helped our committee conduct its work on poverty and public assistance issues by providing detailed and meticulously accurate information on program rules, participation and trends. Since 1981, she has been a regular and valued contributor to the Ways and Means Green Book, which is the key resource on poverty programs for Members of Congress and their staff.

Vee's expertise on welfare issues started during the Nixon administration and has continued through all major developments thereafter, including the 1996 welfare reform law and our current efforts to reauthorize that law. Her work has provided a foundation of understanding needed to improve our Nation's safety net programs.

We wish Vee well in her pending retirement, and we thank her for her contributions to improving social programs in our great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Members that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and I are in complete agreement in regards to Vee Burke's contributions to this body and to this Nation and also urging our colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary process that we use when we consider a bill the same day it is reported out. One of the concerns I have about the process is that I want to make sure the Members understand exactly what is in the bill that they are asking to be considered and the process that it went through.

I think it is important to point out that the underlying bill that we are talking about contains many important changes in the Tax Code that are supported on both sides of the aisle. There is no question that Democrats support an extension of the 10 percent bracket provision, child credits and marriage penalty relief, and certainly Alternative Minimum Tax relief, where more and more of our constituents are falling within the Alternative Minimum Tax, and extension of the so-called extenders, the research and others that would otherwise expire. That is without question. And there has been bipartisan efforts to try to make sure that those provisions in the Code are extended or made permanent.

But this is where the bipartisanship ends, because there has not been an effort made to do this in a way that is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country.

Our only opportunity to raise these issues will be on the rules that are going to be presented today. My friend from New York will explain later the previous question votes we are going to ask to be taken, because that is going to be our only opportunity to raise the faults that are in the underlying bill, because, as I said, the substantive provisions are provisions that are supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

The first problem is that these are just temporary changes. We do not make them permanent. As my friend from New York pointed out, we have until the end of this year on most of these provisions. Some of the provisions are extended for a year, some for 2 years, some for a little bit longer, but none of them are made permanent. So, once again, we are not really confronting the issue of making this predictable for the taxpayers of this country.

But the more serious faults that will be raised by the previous questions deal with the fact that despite the efforts that we have made in a bipartisan opportunity to pay for these tax cuts so we do not add to the $400 billion annual deficit, we have offered ways to pay for these tax changes. The underlying bill is scored to add another $150 billion to the deficit of this country. Where does this end?

Give us an opportunity to give proposals to offset the cost so that we are not adding to the red ink of the Nation. We should have that opportunity, and I think we could do that with a strong bipartisan vote in this body.

The second problem, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, is that we did not correct a major problem with the Earned Income Tax Credit and to a certain degree with the refundable child credit, and that is we are not treating our military fairly.

We all talk in our districts and here on the floor about the tremendous sacrifices being made by the men and women who are in harm's way serving our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives on the line for us every day, and we are thankful. But we should show it by deeds. We have pointed out that because of the tax treatment of military pay, our men and women who are in harm's way will not get the full relief provided under this bill. That is wrong.

The conferees from the other body made a suggestion that would have fixed this, one which is supported by the Democrats in this body. It is hard to believe that you get a more favorable tax treatment in the military if you serve in the United States than if you serve in Iraq. That is just wrong, and we should fix it.

But instead of accepting the reasonable offer made by the Members from the other body, because of the House position of the Republicans, we have a very small, temporary fix for 1 year that will not provide the full relief to our military, which is kind of complicated, quite frankly, adding to the complexity of the Code without fixing the problem.

That is wrong, and we should take care of that now. If there is an urgency, the urgency should be with our military and to make sure we do not discriminate against them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues, yes, we will not have a lot of time to consider this bill. It was just reported out today. There are a lot of good provisions in this bill. But, once again, it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity for fiscal responsibility, it is a missed opportunity to correct a problem with our military pay, and I hope that you will support the request made by the gentlewoman from New York in regards to the previous questions so we can fix these errors.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my distinguished chairman comparing the records of the Democrats and Republicans on major issues. Let me try to complete that a little bit more, if I might. It was the Democratic administration under President Clinton that brought our budget into balance, and it was the Republican administration that undid all of that good work.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats support responsible tax legislation. The tax provisions in this legislation are well-targeted to extend important tax provisions that help most Americans and help our economy.

But there are two glaring flaws in the bill before us. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) have already talked about the limited impact on low-wage families, particularly on military families. We did not do what was right as it related to the child credit for those groups of people. It certainly was not treated with equity as to what we did with the other provisions on extensions.

The second major flaw is that bill adds $150 billion to our national debt, on top of the $422 billion deficit we have in this one year.

I listened to my distinguished chairman talk about what happened in conference, the efforts made by some of my democratic colleagues to increase the extent of this bill and increase the cost of this bill. But what my distinguished chairman did not say is that the Democrats also offered in conference ways to offset some of the costs, and that was rejected by our Republican friends.

We believe that this bill should be paid for. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has already given us one example of how we could pay for this bill. The Wall Street Journal today reported 82 companies, all which have benefited from these tax cuts, pay no taxes at all. We could have them pay some of these taxes.

Mr. Speaker, if we could just revisit the tax changes for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, we could not only pay for the entire cost of this bill, we could also help reduce our national debt and deficit.

So, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that we should be fiscally responsible. We should have paid for this bill. The underlying provisions are good and should be enacted.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) offered in conference to revisit the tax breaks on the upper 1 percent, and it is my understanding that that would pay for the entire cost of the bill. That is the reason why I stated that.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield for further clarification, I appreciate that statement, and the point is that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would have covered all of those costs. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.