Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman yielding me this time.

I am glad we have the opportunity to vote on this legislation today which is critical to protecting doctors from receiving the 10 percent Medicare cut and providing certainty to the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance.

But let's not kid ourselves. This is the bare minimum and we are capable of much more. It is disappointing that the majority would not work in a bipartisan fashion to craft at least a 1-year reprieve from the Medicare cuts for physicians, as Republicans were able to do in previous years. This 6-month extension is simply putting the problem off and not solving it. The majority knew this 10 percent cut was coming. So what did they do? They passed a CHAMP bill that was fraught with problems that cut home health, skilled nursing facilities, devastated Medicare Advantage and the individual care, and would have left 22 States without one senior receiving Medicare Advantage. That was nearly 6 months ago. And what has happened since then? Nothing.

It is unfortunate that we could not come to a bipartisan compromise on SCHIP, which was and is within reach. A simple extension, while better than what the majority offered, and their offer was transforming a program to assist low-income children to an entitlement for families earning $80,000 a year, is much worse than what was possible.

As I said before on this floor, I stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to address the looming cuts faced by physicians in Medicare. I hope we can see this legislation for the Band-Aid that it is and return next year with a commitment from leaders in both parties to enact real long-term Medicare payment reform.

Madam Speaker, they say it's better to be a day late than a dollar short. In this case, however, the majority party is over a month late, costing taxpayers $75 billion.

As I listened to some of the previous speakers on the other side, just because they can't deliver on their promises, somehow it's our fault. But by postponing action on legislation to exempt 23 million Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, the majority party has caused taxpayers, both those affected by the AMT and those who are not, to have their refund checks significantly delayed.

When Republicans were the majority party during the last Congress, we got our work done and fixed the AMT exemption amounts in May. As a result, no taxpayer funds were delayed. No additional taxpayers were forced to pay the AMT last year.

This year, under their majority, 23 million Americans will be subject to the AMT. Last year under a Republican

majority, 4 million Americans would have paid the tax.

The sad part is 23 million Americans should not have to pay the AMT.

They could have been shielded if the Democratic-controlled Congress was able to finish its work on time.

The Senate has already passed a 1-year AMT fix that did not include tax increases. They passed this legislation almost 2 weeks ago, and instead of immediately taking up this bill, the House Democrats have insisted the legislation include billions of dollars of permanent tax increases just to maintain current tax law and tax rates.

I'm glad the majority party in the House has finally seen the light of day.

And despite being much more than a day late and far worse than a dollar short, I'm pleased the House is finally getting around to passing this critical legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today appears to be an exercise in futility. Not only has the President said he will veto it, but it has virtually no chance of passing the Senate. So why has a bill been brought to the floor that virtually is going nowhere?

Instead of this bill, the House should be voting on the bill the Senate passed last week. I wouldn't call it Senate blockage. It passed 88-5. The Senate prevents 23 million Americans from being hit by the onerous alternative minimum tax and does it without permanently increasing taxes. The bill before us includes $50 billion in tax increases. That is $50 billion in taxes the American public was never intended to pay and should never pay.

Last May when the Republicans were in the majority, we passed legislation to prevent the AMT from hitting middle-income taxpayers. We finished our work early and responsibly so the IRS had time to reprogram its computers and print accurate tax forms which prevented unnecessary confusion for taxpayers.

But here we are in December and the Democrats still have not finished their work on the temporary AMT patch. Unfortunately, because of their inaction, millions of taxpayer refunds will be delayed for months. Unfortunately, because of their actions here today, those refunds will be further delayed.

The IRS has warned the majority party that failure to act will result in $75 billion in refunds being delayed for taxpayers who file their returns before March 31 of next year. Millions more will be delayed to taxpayers filing after that date. Rather than take up the Senate bill which the President has signaled his intent to sign, the majority party in the House is wasting time by bringing up a bill that includes unacceptable tax increases. People are already paying high enough taxes. They are already paying enough in taxes. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4351.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a failure on the most basic points: It fails to drive down prices at the gas pumps; it fails to lower home heating bills; and it fails to reduce our reliance on foreign crude oil. Worse yet, this bill actually increases our reliance on oil from the Middle East and increases taxes by $20 billion on American manufacturers.

Had this bill been crafted in a bipartisan fashion, instead of in a secret marathon session that produced a bill only this morning, we might have a bill that actually helps families and businesses dealing with record energy costs, and we might have a bill that actually helps us transition to more environmentally friendly fuels.

Unfortunately, what we do have--in addition to a new $20 billion tax bill--are Federal mandates that States cannot possibly comply with, a slush fund worth billions of dollars that lacks any oversight, and more advisory committees and task forces.

I am particularly concerned about this $3 billion in new government spending to subsidize projects that have nothing to do with lowering energy prices. Instead of lowering prices for consumers, this bill allows the Beverly Hills police department to buy hybrid Lexuses and a fake rainforest to be built in Iowa. In my view, this $3 billion should be spent on helping Americans better afford their high home heating costs.

As a Member from Michigan, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the CAFE standards in this bill. To suggest this bill is the best America's automakers could get says much about this Congress. If President Coolidge's quote that ``The business of America is business'' expressed overconfidence in the American economy, this bill expresses at best a disdain for American automobile manufacturers and at worst an outright hostility to the work we do in Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called Tax Relief Act before us today gives us little to celebrate. In addition to the normal extension of Republican tax cuts, this bill includes an unprecedented amount of Democrat tax increases on the American public. Worse yet, this bill permanently raises taxes to the tune of $70 billion, all to collect taxes the Federal Government was never intended to get.

Let me repeat that point: this bill raises taxes to generate revenues the Federal Government was never intended to get.

The differences between our parties couldn't be clearer than on this bill. Republicans cut taxes while Democrats raise taxes. Facts are facts; and with this bill, the majority is permanently increasing taxes on Americans and setting the stage for the largest tax increase in history.

I support extending tax provisions like the R & D tax credit, the teacher tax deduction for classroom supplies, and incentives for conservation easements. After all, those are bills I have long supported. I also support shielding over 20 million middle-income Americans from the alternative minimum tax, better described as the mandatory minimum tax. But this is simply the wrong way to do it. Fortunately, the Senate knows and the President knows that. This bill will not pass the Senate and the President will not sign it. I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will realize this bill is a flawed bill and should be rejected.

This is not the time to be raising taxes. Reject this legislation, and let us vote on a bill that really protects taxpayers from higher taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, program continues to be an important program to American workers who are left out of a job because of increased imports or jobs moving overseas. When workers need assistance getting back on their feet, the TAA program is there to help them get a new job or new career. It is important for Congress to reauthorize this critical program that right now is helping 15,000 workers in Michigan.

I support the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act. This bill provides more funds for training programs, increases the size of the health care tax credit, and assists workers who are in training programs with additional income support. I wish, however, that Chairman Rangel would have made the health care tax credit permanent instead of eliminating it after 2 years. That being said, I believe it is important that the bill raises the amount of health insurance assistance from 65 percent to 85 percent. Now, out of work individuals will be better able to afford health insurance while they look for a new job.

In my district, where unemployment rates are higher than the national figures, the TAA program has been an invaluable tool in getting people into the classroom and into new, better paying jobs. The community colleges in my district have done a good job of expanding their curriculum to include new courses tailored to high-paying, expanding industries in Michigan. I remain committed to doing whatever it takes to maximize the Federal assistance available to help these workers and their families. In so doing, I will vote for the bill before us this afternoon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield myself 2 minutes.

This bill, both in terms of its scope, expanding a low-income children's program to cover adults and middle-class families, and cost, $35 billion in new taxes and spending, remains unacceptable. And it's truly unfortunate.

This House, this Congress, and this President support SCHIP. The failure to form a bipartisan compromise to provide low-income American children with health insurance is nothing short of a failure of the majority's leadership. The minor changes, tinkering, clarifications we see today do not a compromise make.

Compromise, by definition, is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The previous bill doubled the cost of this program, and this bill costs a half billion more beyond that than the last one. The majority has not made one concession in this cosmetic re- draft. It's the same

bill with the same objections, and we should not compromise our principles to satisfy their political aims.

What we have before us is a bill that continues to allow Federal resources, 10 percent or more, to be diverted away from low-income children and given to adults, a bill that provides a back door to illegal immigrants to get Federal benefits to the tune of $3.7 billion, and a bill that continues to force at least 2 million families out of their current plan and into a government program.

While Southern California has burned, the Speaker has this House fiddling and posturing. Worse yet, the majority is manipulating that tragedy and is tying this vote to ensure our votes are reduced. It's as crass a tactic as I have seen in my time in Congress.

It is past time for the game to end, and it is past time for the majority to engage in a serious negotiation with us on how to renew and improve this program.

I urge my colleagues to again vote ``no'' and again send a message that low-income children's health insurance is not an issue to be politicized. We can do better than this.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) control the remainder of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, I would like to make one point perfectly clear: Republicans support health care for low-income children.

Second, I want to address something that was said on the floor the last time we considered this issue. It was said that failing to cast a ``yea'' vote would give new meaning to the phrase ``suffer the little children.'' However, it's the failure of this legislation to refocus benefits on low-income children that gives new meaning to the phrase ``suffer the little children.''

If, as the verse continues, it is to these children ``that the Kingdom of God belongs,'' then why is this children's program failing to serve so many children? How is it that in my home State of Michigan 87,000 eligible children don't have health care while 39,000 adults are in the program?

How is it that in Minnesota 87 percent of the enrollees in this children's program are adults?

How is it that this low-income program is covering families in New Jersey making more than $70,000 a year? No wonder New York wanted to go over $80,000.

Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to these questions is clear. The majority does not want a low-income children's plan. They want what Hillary Clinton called for in 1994, the first step towards nationalized, government-run, controlled health care.

We should not be diluting this children's program, and we should not be diverting money away from these low-income kids.

I am proud to have offered yesterday the Kids First Act, a bill that would return this program to its roots, insuring low-income children, covering an additional 1.3 million American children, does not raise taxes, and is fully funded. This is the kind of legislation we should be debating instead of continuing this senseless stalemate that uses children as political pawns.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override, and more importantly, I urge my colleagues to quickly compromise on this important issue and ensure that low-income American children have health care coverage.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Chad Schieber.

Chad was a dedicated police officer, an active member of the Midland, Michigan, community, and a loving husband and father. Chad was born in Midland, but he spent much of his early life in Traverse City, Michigan, where he grew up and attended the police academy. In 1994, Chad returned to Midland and joined the Midland Police Department.

As an officer, he consistently went above and beyond the call of duty. His accomplishments include being a mountain bike instructor within the department, helping organize the Midland Youth Law Enforcement Academy, serving as coordinator for the Midland County Crime Stoppers, implementing the department's child DNA identification program, and helping to establish the Midland Law Enforcement Memorial. For his efforts, Chad was honored with the 2006 Carl and Esther Gerstacker Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award by the Midland Police Department.

Chad was a devoted Christian and member of the Midland Christian Celebration Center. Chad served on the church's board, and he and his wife Sarah touched many lives through the marriage ministries they conducted.

Chad's biggest joy in life was his family. He leaves behind his wife, Sarah, of 12 years, his daughter Abigayle, and sons Noah and Micah.

Madam Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Chad Schieber for his life of service and extend my sincerest sympathies to his family, friends and loved ones.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 949 on H. Res. 32 I am not recorded because of flight delays from Michigan to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 32.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, House Republicans strongly support the SCHIP program, and, as many speakers have said, this program was created on a bipartisan basis 10 years ago. We are advocating that the program remain what it was intended to be, and that was a program that helps low-income children who cannot otherwise get health insurance.

Had we been able to sit down on a bipartisan basis anytime over the past 9 months, I am convinced that we could have come to an agreement that reauthorizes this important program without turning it into a massive expansion of government-controlled health care. Instead, the majority first produced a massive expansion of SCHIP, partially paid for by cuts to Medicare.

Madam Speaker, fundamentally, the majority chose to shortchange the most vulnerable members of our society, seniors and the disabled, in order to force middle and upper middle-class families out of private health insurance and into a government program.

Then the majority was confronted with the reality that Members of the

other body would not cut Medicare, so they passed the Senate's version of SCHIP. That bill, instead of cutting government funds for seniors and the disabled to expand SCHIP as a middle-class entitlement, raised taxes on the working poor to expand SCHIP.

Now the majority is again forced to face reality. In order for a bill to become law, it must be signed by the President of the United States, and this President's position is clear: SCHIP should help low-income kids first. Before you expand coverage to families earning $62,000 or $83,000 a year, 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level, you need to cover children in families earning less than 200 percent a year. That is about $42,000 a year. That is just common sense, and is true to the original bipartisan spirit of the SCHIP program.

I hope we will be able to come to an agreement and not have the majority just simply roll over our legitimate concerns about this legislation. We need to sit down together to help low-income children, to fix the loophole that makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get government benefits, and to ensure that the SCHIP program is funded on a sound and honest basis. I look forward to that discussion.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, we're not quite ready to close yet on my time. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I've no further time to yield, Madam Speaker. We're prepared to close. I would ask my colleagues on the other side, are we prepared to close as a group?

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no further speakers.

parliamentary inquiry

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a disappointing day. Instead of sending the President a bill he could sign, the majority chose to ignore calls for bipartisanship and chose to ignore the kids they proclaim to champion.

And what is their reaction to this forewarned veto? Did the majority immediately reach out to build consensus? No. Compromise? No.

Instead, the majority decided to stall, to put off dealing with the veto and put off finding a solution.

I ask one simple question: How does stalling a renewal of SCHIP for partisan gain meet the needs of low-income kids? SCHIP can be renewed without extending benefits to people making $82,000, without extending benefits to adults, without going down the path of government- controlled health care.

We can renew SCHIP without raising taxes, without cutting Medicare, without assuming there will be 22 million new smokers, and without cutting funds in year 6 by 80 percent and pushing the program off a budgetary cliff.

It's time for this Congress to get its priorities right to determine if we are results or rhetoric, if we are for kids or campaign tricks.

Let's pass a new SCHIP program, and let's send the President a bill he will sign.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill clearly isn't about helping low-income children. If it were, it would have support from both parties and the President would be eagerly waiting to sign it into law. This is a missed opportunity. Virtually everyone supports providing health insurance to low-income children. But when a Federal health program for children starts covering not only families, but childless adults making three and four times the poverty level, it has clearly lost its focus.

It is clear that Democrats want taxpayers to fund, and the Federal Government to directly provide, health care benefits to millions of more Americans, even for those families making over $80,000 a year. They are using SCHIP as a vehicle and the children it is intended to cover as a shield to get one step closer to total Government control over our health care system. The current plan to expand SCHIP is in dire need of a second opinion. Instead of moving further and further away from the core mission, we should be reforming the program to ensure it is truly helping America's uninsured children.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stipulates that the proposed expansion would cover an additional 5.8 million Americans at a cost of $35 billion. Alarmingly, more than one out of every three individuals already has private insurance. The bill before us does little more than move children and upper-income families from private insurance plans to taxpayer-funded

plans. That is a prescription for the type of government largess that stifles economies and unduly burdens taxpayers. It is not a prescription for reducing the number of uninsured Americans.

State's and children's advocates should take a second look at this bill. Because of shoddy funding sources, this bill is likely to harm more States and health care programs than it helps. A Heritage Foundation study showed that as many as 28 States, including Michigan, stand to have a net loss of $10 to $700 million in revenue.

This bill is designed poorly, funded poorly, and will do little to help lower-income Americans obtain health coverage. The President should veto this bill. Congress should work in a bipartisan fashion, as we did nearly 10 years ago when the program was created, to make certain that children in America have access to a health care system.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Lt. Col. Raimund Winzer for his long and faithful military service to the United States of America. Lt. Col. Winzer honorably retired from service in the United States Army Reserve. After federal military retirement, Lt. Col. Winzer volunteered for the Governor of Michigan's National Security Task Force where his continuing contributions to national security and military administration earned him promotion to the rank of colonel. Col. Winzer retired from the Midland Public Schools where he was a teacher of the German language. He won the accolades of his students and their progeny for his unique, self- developed, German-language teaching methodology. Col. Winzer is the epitome of the citizen-soldier that has made major contributions to the defense of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is sustained by men and women who so willingly risk their lives to defend our liberty and our way of life. Private First Class Charles T. Heinlein was one such soldier, and he gave the last full measure in service to his country and to his fellow citizens.

Today, I want to recognize on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the life of Charles T. Heinlein. In saluting heroes like Charlie, we remember him with undying gratitude. And we resolve, though we cannot repay the debt we owe him or his family, to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of their sacrifice.

Charlie joined the United States Army to become ``a better person,'' but it is his heroism in battling back tyranny and terror halfway around the globe that has helped build a better America and a better world. His actions on the field of duty will forever stand as a reminder that America remains the land of the free and the home of the brave.

May God keep Charlie; may God watch and comfort his family; and, may God continue to grant this Nation with the courage to defend life and liberty.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is sustained by men and women who so willingly risk their lives to defend our liberty and our way of life. PFC Charles T. Heinlein was one such soldier, and he gave the last full measure in service to his country and to his fellow citizens.

Today, I want to recognize on the floor of the United States House of Representatives the life of Charles T. Heinlein. In saluting heroes like Charlie, we remember him with undying gratitude. And we resolve, though we cannot repay the debt we owe him or his family, to live our lives in such a way as to be worthy of their sacrifice.

Charlie joined the United States Army to become ``a better person,'' but it is his heroism in battling back tyranny and terror halfway around the globe that has helped build a better America and a better world. His actions on the field of duty will forever stand as a reminder that America remains the land of the free and the home of the brave.

May God keep Charlie, may God watch and comfort his family, and may God continue to grant this Nation the courage to defend life and liberty.