Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman from Georgia's leadership of the Oversight Subcommittee on the Ways and Means Committee.

A couple of things to respond to.

The matter before us involves a pay-for, because unlike much of the work of my friend, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, this majority pays for things that cost the Treasury.

Now, the HSA issue he just raised involves tax-free accounts and savings accounts to be used for health care. We ask that there be some verification to show the money withdrawn was spent for health care. That's all. What drives us to this is a report that we had from one account manager that shows these funds being withdrawn for everything from body shop repair to fast food restaurants.

Sure I will yield.

Reclaiming my time, and I only have 2 minutes, this HSA, I believe the gentleman would agree, in fact I think he said it in his comments, is for the cost of health care. It gives a tax incentive cost, a tax assistance to taxpayers for health care costs, not for body shop costs. We don't tax incent body shop costs. So we would like to shut that abuse down.

The question is legitimately raised. Is this too onerous? Absolutely not. Many of us have flex savings accounts that are used for medical costs. Now,

all we ask is that the same verification any Federal employee uses when they make a withdrawal in their flex savings account would be used to substantiate withdrawal from the health savings account. This isn't inventing something new. We've done it. It works well.

Another feature of the bill that's drawn such objection is this business of putting out of business the whole notion of private bill collectors being loosed on our taxpayers to collect revenues owed the Federal Government.

Madam Speaker, I refer my colleagues to the Washington Post, the front page story today, ``Collectors cost IRS more than they raise.''

We have had, in fact, kind of the bill collection version of the $600 toilet seat for the old Pentagon contract procurements. This was advertised to cost very little, $10 to $14 million, well now up to $70 million and counting, a multiple of what was initially advertised. That's the set-up cost. They said it was going to bring all of this money. Well, the reality is it has brought in only a fraction of the money advertised.

And so on a net basis, this whole initiative to bring in money owed us has cost us money. We've been shipping more money to contractors. This is an administration and this is a minority that loves private contractors. And if it costs the Federal Government on the net balance, it doesn't matter because they just so ideologically love private contractors.

We should pass this bill and end this failed experiment of private debt collection.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to begin my remarks by commending the fine job Mr. Reynolds has done today. He has indicated that this legislation uniquely affects him because many of the people at the Pioneer Call Center, a private debt collector hired to collect this debt, are in his district. And I think we all recognize he has done a fine job in fighting for that business activity in his district today. He has given it everything he has, and I commend him for the job he has done.

But the reality in the policy context is summed up in a simple headline in today's Washington Post, ``Collectors Cost IRS More Than They Raise.'' Why in the world would we want to continue with an arrangement like that? But there are many other parts of this bill that are simplifying the process and are helpful to taxpayers. And that is why we have the support of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Citizens for Tax Justice, National Consumer League, Consumer Federation of America, and a late-breaking one. In fact, this organization has been mentioned on both lists, the NFIB.

Mr. Reynolds has indicated they were opposed to the bill. This is probably a development that broke later than Mr. Reynolds' information. But in fact, they are for the bill and indicate in a ``key vote alert'' that they will be scoring this as a key vote. They indicate that the ``provisions in this legislation seek to enact simpler tax rules and reduce the paperwork burden associated with tax compliance.''

They talk about a few provisions. One of them is that right now we have an onerous paperwork requirement on employers providing cell phones to employees for business purposes. I commend my Republican colleague on Ways and Means, Sam Johnson, for bringing this to our attention. I was pleased to cosponsor legislation with him now included in the bill that

makes this paperwork requirement go away.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And so including the Pomeroy-Johnson or the Johnson-Pomeroy bill in this I think was an important feature to the NFIB deliberation that this is indeed lessening paperwork requirements on small employers, and therefore they support it. They do cite a couple of other provisions, another provision of this legislation amending a recent change to the Tax Code that helps tax preparers better assist their clients by changing an established higher standard of reporting for preparers. That creates a potential conflict of interest between clients and themselves. That is addressed in this legislation.

And they also talk about the legislation including a 1-year delay of the implementation of the 3 percent withholding requirement by Federal, State and local governments on payments for goods and services which puts both an administrative burden on all parties involved and a strain on the daily operating cash flow of small businesses. There are other provisions, as well, but I appreciate the NFIB's laying them out as they have done on this letter.

In balance, this is a bill designed to help taxpayers. That is why we passed it out of the Ways and Means Committee. That is why it is before us on Tax Day. We urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, we have just obtained the motion in terms of trying to sort through the tax provisions, with an eye, among other things, to wondering whether or not people holding bonds of municipalities could suddenly find themselves with taxes they didn't think they were going to have when they bought these bonds.

Trying to work our way through these, one word jumped out on this motion to recommit that really has shut down all further analysis by us, and that is the word ``promptly,'' because this is yet another one of those motions to recommit that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill the bill they are trying to attach it to. That is because this would take the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act that we want to pass than April 15th and pack it off back to the Ways and Means Committee, dispensing any possibility of passing it off the floor today. It is a procedural move by the minority to try and stop us from moving forward with this legislation.

What is unfortunate about that is there are taxpayers that are going to be benefited, benefited substantially, by this legislation, small businesses that right now are subject to IRS audit exposure if they are not keeping detailed call records on cell phones that they give their employees. We want to take this relief away through this motion to recommit? I don't think so.

We go through so many positive, taxpayer-friendly provisions in this bill, provisions that have received the support of so many diverse organizations, from the League of Cities, Association of Mayors, NFIB and Consumers Federation of America, it would take that and take it off the table today, preventing the House from moving this forward.

Now, you think, why? What is the motive behind a motion like this? Why would they not want this taxpayer bill to move forward? Well, my friends, you can find it on the front page of today's Washington Post. Basically, they are trying everything they can to preserve private bill collectors hired by the IRS to chase after taxpayers.

So here on Tax Day, April 15th, we are trying to stop private bill collectors from going after taxpayers on behalf of the IRS, an endeavor that has cost taxpayers millions and brought in not enough by any measure to cover the cost; a forgone revenue opportunity of $81 million, testified by the Taxpayer Advocate, if we simply took the money we sent to these private contractors and hired employees to go ahead and collect that debt. But they are so completely convinced that they have got to pull every trick out of their hat to try and stop our efforts to rein in these private bill collectors that they brought this motion to recommit.

I would yield such time as I have remaining to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I am also very pleased to speak in favor of H.R. 2464, the Wakefield Act.

I wanted to bring you just a little bit of perspective in terms of the difference this act has made in one young man's life, and I think it's reflective of a number of children who have been saved by having medical appropriate services for traumatic and life-threatening injuries of kids.

The Wakefield Act is called the Wakefield Act in recognition of a living memory of a family, the family of Tom Wakefield, who was involved in a horrible head-on traffic accident as they drove to the airport for a winter's vacation. A vehicle crossed the median and struck this vehicle head on, killing Tom and two of his children, one age three and one age seven. Twelve-year-old Lucas lost his arm in the accident and was almost lost as well.

Emergency responders on the scene and thereafter saved his life and the life of his mother, Loy. I know this family, and I know their survivors, and I care deeply about them. They have certainly impressed upon me, as they would impress upon any of you, just how vitally important it is that we equip our emergency response to deal with any who may be hurt. And the 40 percent improvement in saving lives of children since the act was initially passed in 1984 shows just how critically important this reauthorization is. I'm very pleased that the Commerce Committee has done the work to bring it to the floor today, and I am grateful for the chance to speak on the bill.

I was at an event just this weekend where Lucas, now fully recovering, adapted to his new circumstance. This is a young man that makes me very, very proud. And I believe the Wakefield Act, named in honor of his family, is a very appropriate commendation of the ongoing efforts to keep all our children safe.

Madam Speaker, on March 31, 2008, due to flight delays, I missed rollcall votes No. 147, 148, and 149. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Rollcall No. 147, ``yea;'' rollcall No. 148, ``yea;'' rollcall No. 149, ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3361) to make technical corrections related to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in favor of moving the Pension Technical Corrections Act of 2008 forward in an expedited manner. The bill is most needed by employers who are committed to providing their employees with a financially secure retirement through a defined benefit plan.

Why do we need this bill? Why do we need to act this quickly? Let me just break it down for you.

On August 17, 2006, the President signed into law the Pension Protection Act. This bill imposed sweeping reform affecting how employers fund their defined benefits plans maintained for their employees. In addition, the bill imposed significant reforms for pension plans offered to many union workers who participated in multi- employer plans.

However, many provisions in the PPA became effective on January 1 of this year. The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service cannot implement many of these provisions because they need further clarification of congressional intent. This bill provides the needed clarification for the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, corporations and other businesses who sponsor retirement plans, as well as working families who contribute to and benefit from 401(k) plans or defined contribution plans.

For the employers who have weathered the storm and are persistently committed to providing a secured retirement for their workers, this bill is for you. For the beneficiary of a 401(k) plan who wants to keep money in a retirement plan savings vehicle to finance retirement rather than being forced to spend it currently, this bill is for you. This bill provides clarification for the correct application of the non- spousal rollover provision.

For the construction worker whose plan may be experiencing underfunding and could be subject to a benefit reduction, this bill will make it clear when the plan must provide you with the notice alerting you of the plan's funding status. It would also clarify whether you are subject to such a reduction in pension benefits.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about quality-of-life issues for working families and about helping those employers who want to help their employees provide for a financially secure retirement.

I encourage my colleagues in this body and in the Senate to keep this bill clean and move it quickly. I encourage them to join me in doing what we were sent here by our constituents to do, provide legislation to help improve their lives. Let's pass this bill and get it to the President before the end of the month, because people are waiting. We have kept them waiting long enough.

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

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

As we have just made formally a matter of record, the Pension Protection Act was an imperfect piece of legislation. This technically corrects, not substantively changes, but technically corrects an imperfect bill. It should go forward.

We should be doing more, Mr. Speaker, and this is where I want to spend the balance of my time tonight. I am almost shaking with anger at what we are not doing to correct the Pension Protection Act before it will have a very negative impact on the very working people that we talk so much about trying to help. I will give you a couple of examples.

There is a provision in the bill, never discussed, that inadvertently changes funding requirements for public pension plans. A plan like the State of North Dakota offers for its employees has a rate of 7.5 percent. Well, the Pension Protection Act in its present form requires them to credit interest at no greater than market rate. Without correction, we are going to have State legislatures reducing the interest credited for their public employees under fully funded public plans. It makes no sense. It needs fixing. It is a mistake. But we can't get the critical people in the critical committees to agree to fixing this.

Let's make no mistake about who we are talking about. We are talking about the Education and Labor Committee and we are talking about the Ways and Means Committee. Those are the committees of jurisdiction. We have not been able to get critical an agreement between the leadership of those committees and ranking members on fixing this public provision. And, as a result, for no reason whatsoever, other than an act of Congress that wasn't meant to have this impact, people may have their pensions reduced by Federal requirement.

I want those workers to know, Congress didn't mean to do this. But Congress knows that that is the effect of the law we passed, and this is a Congress that can't fix it in a timely fashion because we haven't had the will, we haven't had the time to think about it. We don't care enough. Because of the inattention of this body, if workers are forced to take lower credited interest in these public plans, these workers get less of a pension, and for no reason whatsoever.

There is another provision we should be fixing. These provisions are a little more than technical, so maybe should have been another bill, maybe not under the technical corrections act, but a bill we could have brought like tonight under the suspension calendar, a bill to address funding in a reasonable way.

You know, a pension is paid over many, many years. Yet the funding balance is determined by things that capture where the stock market is today, what the interest rate is today. Now, that can give you a pretty dire picture if you have got a stock market that is tanking and a low interest rate environment. It may look suddenly like forevermore the plan isn't going to earn much money on its assets.

Now, we know that the interest rate is going to change and we know the stock market valuation is going to change. So if you project 30 years based on today's picture, you are going to be coming up with a wrong number. There is something called asset smoothing that lets you basically average a bit so that a bad picture today doesn't mean a draconian funding requirement upon the employer to meet what looks like a funding requirement that is not in fact reality.

Now, some might think, well, gosh, if the employer has to put in more money than is really needed that just is a good thing for workers because that means there will be a lot of money in there, and in no way will that solve it. There is a hitch to this. Employers do not have to fund pension plans. Employers can freeze pension plans. They can get out of the pension business. In fact, my friends, 43 pensions have frozen since we passed the Pension Protection Act.

I will yield for a minute.

Reclaiming my time, I am not putting this responsibility on the minority.

What the gentleman has alleged, I am not currently informed of. I don't dispute it, but I don't know it, but I do know that others that were needed to address this issue, others on the majority side did not act.

In the end, the majority has responsibility for what we bring in a suspension calendar like this. This majority didn't get the job done.

Reclaiming my time, I welcome that, because when the Pension Protection Act passed in the last Congress when the minority was the majority, I did not find that willingness to work with me. The legislation, I believe, needed correcting. This is a pox on both parties.

Reclaiming my time before I run out of time, this is a pox on both parties. Both parties passed it, and both parties have failed to fix it.

I believe the failure, relative to getting this fixed, is on both parties. But the majority party carries a disproportionate burden because we are the majority party.

I could not be more disappointed.

Getting back to the point I was making about frozen plans, I believe plans will freeze and workers will lose their pensions because asset smoothing is not addressed on the suspension calendar before we go out, before this critical April 15 deadline for pension funding.

This is completely unacceptable. It's incompetent, and I am ashamed of this House in failing to address this before we leave. I hope that I have made some people angry by these comments. I have intended to.

We need to get after this, and we need to get after it when we are back. If we don't get after it, I assure you, I will be having more of these speeches, because those who pretend to protect the world, the world's workers, when what they are doing is protecting these workers out of their very pensions, the very thing they need for retirement, income security. They are not doing anybody any favors. The games have got to end. The posture has got to end. We have got to fix problems and fix them in a timely way and shame on us if we have fallen short.

Let me get back to the bill before us, because it's important. The bill before us is a technical corrections act. This one needs to pass. This is fine.

The problem is, there is so much more that needed to be done, that could have been done on a suspension calendar tonight and tomorrow. We didn't do it, and we need to do it in short order when we get back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3361.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been quite extraordinary for my friends on the other side of the aisle. They create a picture of great concern: poor, poor oil companies. Oil priced globally at over a hundred dollars a barrel. Prices at the pump approaching record levels, certain to hit record levels at the time the North Dakota farmers have to go to plant their crops. Oil companies reporting record profits. Now, not just record profits relative to their earnings and profits of years past. I mean with ExxonMobil, the biggest profit ever posted by a corporation in history.

And yet, when we look at trying to break this stranglehold on imported oil and build renewable sources of energy so that our economy is not so dangerously dependent upon imported oil, we look to using as a pay-for for these renewable energy incentives a tax provision exploited by oil companies beyond what was ever intended by the Ways and Means Committee. You have the White House threatening veto. You have House Republicans screaming tax increase. I'll tell you, that is an energy policy completely out of gas. We need to move, and move now, to renewable sources.

Take, for example, one, wind power. You know, we are now into a period of time where the wind production tax credit expires at the end of this year. The consequence relative to new products put online is already going to be felt. A recent study by the Solar Energy Industry Association, American Wind Energy Association estimates that if this credit expires, it will cost 6,000 megawatts of new wind energy production, nearly 77,000 jobs, 11.5 billion in economic impact, all in 2009.

This is the group on the other side when they were in the majority that allowed the wind production tax credit to expire three times since 1999. They extended it an additional five times. Now, how in the world can we build a renewable energy system when you have got a tax credit that maybe there isn't there, you can never get your financials right, to make the move this country must make to renewables with wind power playing the major role.

We need to pass this bill and break this lock that oil companies have had on policies coming out of this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, on February 25, 2008, due to flight delays, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 69, 70, and 71. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 69, ``yea''; rollcall No. 70, ``yea''; rollcall No. 71, ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 5104. However, I believe that passing a long-term extension of the Protect America Act is not the answer. Instead, we must update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in a way that will enhance our national security while at the same time protecting the privacy of United States citizens. As such, it is my hope that this extension will give us time to responsibly modernize the FISA law, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in ensuring that these dual aims are accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1176, regarding passage of the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act, I was detained by important constituent business and inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been pesent, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on December 18, 2007, I missed Rollcall vote no. 1176 on H.R. 3793. I am a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation that will ensure that our troops receive the enlistment benefit that they have been promised. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall no.: 1776--``yea.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I hold this picture of Major Alan Johnson and his wife Victoria and their daughter Megan. Alan Johnson lost his life last January 26 in service to our country in Iraq. Major Johnson had served in the National Guard and the Army Reserve for 26 years. Additionally, he had a civilian job. He was still in the public sector. He was sergeant of the Corrections Department of Yakima County in the State of Washington, shift supervisor, one of the largest jails in the State of Washington.

You can imagine how awful the surprise for Victoria Johnson, deep in her grief of losing her husband, to learn that his pension in the State of Washington was treated as though, on the day he left on his deployment, he quit work. They offered only return of the amounts he had paid into the pension plan. Now, if he had been an active Washington State employee, she would have received a lifetime annuity benefit. But the law didn't provide for that, and her circumstance has alerted us to a loophole that must be addressed.

Legislation introduced by Congressman Doc Hastings and me, the HEROES Act, addresses this flaw in our law, a law that presently allows for reintegration of pension benefits for our returning soldiers. This will also mean that should they lose their life in service to our country during their deployment, they are treated as though their life was lost while a fully employed participant in the pension plan.

This is desperately necessary. Do it because it is right. Do it for the memory of Major Alan Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This has been a very curious discussion, and statements made have no relation whatsoever to either reality or to history.

We just heard the pay-for in this bill described as a massive tax increase that will affect teachers in Texas. This bill goes after hedge fund managers, parking income in Bermuda bank accounts, exploiting tax loopholes and not paying what they owe.

The alternative is to do what the minority is suggesting, and that is just to borrow the money, borrow the money and let the kids worry about how they're going to pay it back in their day. Well, at least we have agreement we need to address the alternative minimum tax, but let me tell you why we're worried about borrowing the money.

Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has increased nearly $3.5 trillion. At that rate of borrowing, do you know something? We will borrow an additional $57 million in the course of this debate. It is truly astounding the red ink that they've run this country into, and all we hear from them today is more borrowing, please.

You know, they had a chance during their tenure here to fix the alternative minimum tax. They say we shouldn't have to pay for it because it was never intended to act this way. Well, they had 7 years to fix this alternative minimum tax, and instead, you know what they did? They counted the revenue that was projected to come in on the alternative minimum tax to justify those tax cuts, those budget-busting tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 that have put us in this deficit ditch that we find ourselves in.

It's time for fiscal responsibility. Pass this bill. Pay for AMT relief.

I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding.

I want to begin by acknowledging the work Paul Gillmor put into this legislation. He and I were the original cosponsors. He was a colleague with whom I worked on a variety of initiatives trying to keep our children safe against those who would prey upon them through the Internet. We miss Paul, but his efforts and his work continue with this legislation.

I agree with the words of the chairman in the facet of this bill relating to grooming, and I think stiffening the sentences for those convicted of engaging in deceptive behavior relative to lying about their age to incur the trust of minors with whom they're interacting on the Internet, making that an item that would bring them longer prison time when convicted is a positive clarification to this bill, probably better than the original bill.

There is a feature of the bill that was left out, that I'm quite disappointed at, and work is going to need to continue on this one, and that is, helping these Internet sites keep sexual predators off in the first place.

We have a number of provisions in our code dealing with what's required of high-risk sexual predators, and I believe it would be appropriate to have a voluntary registry where their names would be required to be on file, and social networking sites could keep them off of their site.

I want to especially commend the efforts of MySpace, one of the most popular sites out there, for the extraordinary efforts they've gone to to identify sex predators and keep them off the site; 29,000 are blocked from participating on the MySpace domain because of their efforts, and I think the Federal Government ought to do more to help them. That's work in progress. A lot of bills that come to the floor aren't perfect, at least at this iteration in the legislative process, so this is an aspect of this bill I want to continue to work on.

There are a couple of other things that I think are very useful, and that is the authorization of funds to step up the supervision of the Internet activities of high-risk sexual predators, as well as the portion that criminalizes financial facilitation of child pornography. If there is a banker making a buck by basically facilitating the credit card transactions on child pornography over the Internet, that is not an acceptable business practice. It is so not acceptable that we are criminalizing it, and I hope they get that message loud and clear.

We've worked a lot with the Judiciary Committee on this bill. I think the chairman's comments about higher sentences aren't something that he is often willing to put in a code. I think that he has been fair-minded in this, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as we get this legislation where it needs to be.

Thank you. This is a positive bill. I urge Members to vote for it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate absolutely incredible. If you pull it up on the Treasury Department's own Web site, the national debt of our Nation this past week went over $9 trillion.

And the bright dividing line between the parties in the debate today is that our friends on the minority side want to drive that debt even deeper and that our friends on the majority side say enough additional debt for our children.

We either find a way to pay for this AMT fix or 23 million people get a tax increase or we pass the debt on to the children. Now, I am glad about the bipartisan agreement that we should do

something to stop the 23 million from getting the AMT tax hit. But we cannot just run that credit card balance even higher, just lay this debt onto our kids.

It's time we face the music and we begin paying for the costs that we are incurring. We have got to put this budget in order, and we need to start with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this responsible tax relief package.

The bill before us today:

protects 23 million middle-class tax payers from the Alternative Minimum Tax, including nearly 35,000 North Dakotans.

provides tax relief for millions more American families who want a better life for their families by putting more money in their pockets, and

protects future generations from tax increases by not adding to our national debt.

The president and my colleagues across the aisle say we should not have to pay for this package of tax relief. They are still acting as though they're living in a mythical Alice in Wonderland--in an America where borrowing $9 trillion in debt and running record budget deficits for years doesn't matter.

But deficits and debt do matter because every dollar we borrow places a ``debt tax'' on future generations who will have to pay for the decisions we make today. At $9 trillion, each of our children will be responsible for paying $30,000 of that debt, and that is before interest gets added on.

We crossed that 9 trillion dollar mark in the amount of outstanding public debt owed by this Treasury just earlier this week.

We saw that anxiety over that level of debt can have a short-term impact in the markets on Wednesday when a low level Chinese official suggested that the government may slow

purchasing Treasury bonds. In reaction, the dollar fell sharply and the stock market plummeted by 361 points. That is one day.

A huge persistent debt has greater cost for the economy. So, the moral issue today is passing a fiscally responsible bill that protects future generations by not asking them to finance current tax cuts. Each day the average daily interest payment on the debt adds more than $1 billion to the tab we leave behind.

My colleagues across the aisle would rather we pay for today's tax relief--tomorrow. Would that leave the cost to our children, who might just end up having to repay the Chinese holders of U.S. Treasury Notes with EUROs?

I try to teach my two kids important values. Among those values is teaching them that things worth doing are worth paying for.

That same core principle is behind PAYGO. Not paying for this important tax relief signals high disregard for this basic principle that we teach our kids and that motivated Congress to reinstate PAYGO rules.

With the massive fiscal challenges the Nation faces in coming decades, it is irresponsible to foist the cost of tax relief today on future taxpayers. Today, this Congress again should face up to that challenge and pay the cost now.

Reverse years of failed Republican policies that have mortgaged our grandchildren's future with additional foreign-owned debt.

Let's set an example for our kids--we do not let them eat dessert before they eat all their vegetables. Congress should not rush to dessert either.

I urge my colleagues to responsibly pay for middle-class tax relief.

I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Rangel of several important provisions in H.R. 3996 that provide millions of American families tax relief and business in our rural communities.

The bill helps 4.5 million taxpayers to meet the cost of paying for their children to get the ticket to a better future--a college education. We extend the tax deduction for the cost of college tuition for another year.

Also this bill extends for one year the current-law provision that allows taxpayers over age 70 and a half to make tax-free distributions from their individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for gifts to charities. In the few short months when senior citizens could use these Charitable IRA rollovers to donate nearly $112 million to help the work of worthy charities it is important that this tool for giving, mostly in small amounts of a few thousand dollars or less, remains available to taxpayers.

The bill extends for one year an important tax credit that allows: short line railroads that serve many of our rural communities to upgrade the track on these important links that get our products to the marketplace.

Unfortunately, fiscal constraint embodied in H.R. 3996 only allowed us to consider extending these expiring tax provisions generally in their current form. We were not able to make these important tax provisions permanent and make needed improvements.

For example, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act (H.R. 1419), which I introduced and which has 90 cosponsors, would broaden the charitable IRA rollover to allow younger retirees to get a lifetime income and provided for charities and to allow distributions to donor-advised funds and would strengthen other aspects of the present-law provision.

I remain committed to the enactment of these improvements and would urge my colleagues to work with me in that regard.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I would like to thank Chairman Rangel and Subcommittee Chairman Levin for their hard work on the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Through their leadership, for the first time in U.S. trade policy, the trade agreement we are considering today incorporates internationally recognized labor and environmental standards and other key priorities. This was a major achievement and I am pleased that this new Congress has pushed forward a trade policy that will expand and shape trade in ways that spread the benefits of globalization here and abroad by raising standards. Congress is resuming its proper role as an active and full participant in the development of U.S. trade policy.

Under these circumstances, a new approach to trade policy--one that better reflects American values and spreads the benefits of globalization broadly--is especially critical. This is the kind of approach that we have long espoused and will begin to implement with the Peru FTA. Once enacted into law, this FTA will lock in these gains and give us a basis to build on in the future.

Central among the changes to our current trade policy is a new bipartisan commitment to the inclusion of a fully enforceable commitment that countries adopt and enforce the five basic international labor standards in all future trade agreements. This includes the freedom of association; right to collective bargaining; elimination of forced and compulsory labor; abolition of child labor; and elimination of employment discrimination.

I think it is particularly important to note the importance of what we have established with this trade agreement by way of a labor template. The Peru FTA includes basic worker rights, because workers must be a key part of the trade equation. Accordingly, for the first time in any U.S. free trade agreement, the Peru FTA includes protections for the basic rights of workers in its core text. It also prohibits Peru from lowering its labor standards in the future. It also makes these labor obligations subject to the same dispute settlement processes and remedies as all other provisions in the FTA. If Peru fails to enforce fundamental labor rights, or fails to enforce its labor laws, the U.S. Government can sue Peru for not complying with the Agreement. These are the real labor standards that are applied by the International Labor Organization (ILO)--the exact standards we have sought for more than a decade. Notably, Peru has already changed its legal framework to comply with the FTA.

I urge my colleagues in joining me in voting ``yes'' for the U.S.- Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

This is a photograph of Major Alan Johnson, his wife, Tori, and his daughter, Megan. This beautiful family suffered the tragedy of losing Major Johnson in Iraq. Last winter, we buried Major Johnson at Arlington Cemetery. His widow contacted me 2 weeks later to tell me that what had happened in the State of Washington is the pension plan there had simply given the money back that Alan Johnson had paid in as if he had terminated his employment at the time he was called to duty, called to deployment in his status as a Reserve officer.

It brought to light a gap in the law that protects our deployed Reservists and Guardsmen. When they come back, this law seamlessly reintegrates them into the pension plan of their employer, but there was no provision if we tragically lose our soldiers under deployment. Included in this bill is the HEROES Act, introduced by Doc Hastings and myself, that allows for survivor benefits to be paid in this situation. It is a very important addition. It is terribly important that survivors of our soldiers who paid the ultimate price have survivors benefits under the pension. This law will afford that.

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter to this effect from Mrs. Tori Johnson.

November 5, 2007.

Hon. Charles Rangel,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rangel: I am writing to thank you for

introducing the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax

(HEART) Act, H.R. 3997. Your bill makes many important

changes to the tax law that will be of great help to the men

and women who serve in the Reserve and the National Guard and

their families.

My husband, Major Alan R. Johnson, who was killed in Iraq

earlier this year, was a public servant both in the Reserve

and in his full time job. In his civilian life, he worked for

fifteen years with the Yakima County Department of

Corrections. We were a team. He was a strong leader and he

depended on the strength of his family. We needed to be

strong so he did not need to worry about us when he was

serving his county in the Reserves.

Dealing with the problems and technicalities our family had

to face after we learned that Alan was killed has not been

easy. My husband was 44 and we were planning on his

retirement for our future. Because his employer considered

Alan as an employee who had voluntarily terminated when he

left for his deployment, the survivor benefit under his

pension that we would be paid was less than the amount we

would have received if he was still an active employee. When

I asked why, I found out that in order to have his pension

protected under existing law he had to return to work.

The HEART Act corrects the gap in the Uniform Services

Employment and Reemployment Right Act's pension protections

for survivors of National Guard and Reserve soldiers who are

killed in action and can not return to work. Our Guard and

Reservists should know that the families that they leave

behind will be able to rely on the survivor benefits that

they have earned in their civilian employment.

Over 81,000 Reservist and National Guard members have

responded to our Nation's call to duty. They believe in our

country and are willing to make that ultimate sacrifice. When

they cannot return to their former jobs your bill will make

sure that their families will get the full survivor benefits

that they earned from their jobs at home.

Again, I thank you for your leadership and that of

Congressman Pomeroy and Congressman Hastings in making sure

that the country that Reservists, like my husband, have

sacrificed everything for will take care of their families. I

hope that your bill, H.R. 3997, will become law soon.

Sincerely,

Victoria C. Johnson.