Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield on that?

And this is something that's critical to understanding the tax policies that we're going to be considering in the remaining time that we have in the 110th Congress.

The alternative minimum tax, as the gentleman is pointing out, is something that has to be addressed. We simply cannot afford to ignore this issue any longer. We've been in a position where we have been giving 1-year fixes year after year. For 1 year we hold harmless the folks that should qualify for the AMT as it's currently written with that flawed formula, and we push it off another year, and it gets more expensive to fix every time we do that.

And what the gentleman from Connecticut is talking about is it was a flaw. In 1969, they created the alternative minimum tax to prevent people from escaping their tax obligations. They couldn't use deductions and loopholes and whatnot, and they didn't index it for inflation. So now we're 38 years later, and the income of 1969 that was considered rich at that point, due to 38 years of inflation, we have a different outlook on that.

So we have a situation where the alternative minimum tax is spiraling out of control. And you gave numbers, 4 million people affected by it this year. If we do nothing, it is going to be 23 million next year. So we can't ignore the problem, and our friends on the other side of the aisle can pretend like that's not part of the equation and this is not something that we have to deal with or this isn't going to have a cost. And I know this is something you're going to address later in your remarks and we can discuss that, but to say, well, we should just do nothing about this or we should pretend like this isn't going to have a budget impact is just not consistent with the facts.

So the alternative minimum tax is there. It's the reality. It's existed for 38 years. It's spiraling out of control, and we're very close to being in position where if we were to scrap the entire income tax system, that would cost less than to do away with the alternative minimum tax. We're only a few years away from meeting that threshold.

So what do we do? Well, Chairman Rangel has put forward a plan that is not the only plan that's going to be discussed. It's not the only plan that's going to be offered, but it's the starting point for the discussion, and he has said that this needs to be a permanent fix. And I know in the other body they're having the same discussion, that it needs to be a permanent fix. We can't continue to do this year after year after year, and it just gets more expensive.

So this is the starting point. We have to think about that when we talk about tax policy, that this is unmistakable that we have to deal with the AMT.

Just to clarify, as the gentleman from Ohio understands, this was not the reduction that you see there in that chart. This was not a governmentwide reduction in costs where we were tightening our belts and doing the right thing and being fiscally responsible and we happen to lower the costs in the consumer safety section by reducing some payroll over there. This was the biggest spending administration and the biggest spending Congress in the history of the country.

As the gentleman points out, it's a matter of setting priorities. It's not as though they were lowering the cost of government across the board. They picked and chose what they wanted to lower, and one of the issues they thought wasn't important and we didn't need to deal with was consumer safety.

Now, I think we would all agree that consumer safety is incredibly important and especially what's happening with the Chinese imported toys, and to have dramatically less people working in that department this year than we did last year, than we did 5 and 6 and 7 years ago is outrageous.

But I did want to put it in perspective that we are raising the debt incredibly, $3 trillion and counting in the last 7 years of this administration.

I have two little girls, 8 and 6, Natalie and Grace, and I have in my home some of those toys. I can tell you as a parent these are not toys that are fringe. You talk about Sponge Bob Square Pants and Dora and Thomas the Tank Engine, those are mainstream toys. Those are in families and houses all across this country. And to think that the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't have the resources to adequately monitor these toys coming in with exaggerated levels of lead, dangerous levels of lead from the Chinese, as a parent it makes me very angry, but as an American it makes me angry because I know all across the country there's kids right now that are playing with those very toys.

I wanted to do a couple of things. I wanted to talk about that one lonely toy inspector.

I know the gentleman didn't have the number in front of him when he was talking about it, the number of toys just from China that were recalled last year. This is this year, the number of toys that we imported, this is the number of toys that were recalled, is 20 million, 20 million toys just from China that were recalled this year, and we have one employee at the Consumer Product Safety Commission that's reviewing those toys.

But we may have people out there that are watching us tonight that say, well, I don't have kids, I don't have toys. It doesn't affect me. Let me tell you, it does affect you. Let's talk about food safety and let's talk about what's happening right now with regard to that.

Just with China, recalls this past year ranged from bag spinach and peanut butter to contaminated wheat flour, all from China. That has brought fear to the Nation's kitchen tables. We have tainted food coming in from China as well.

I am not going to test my friends from Ohio and Connecticut, but I will tell you up front, less than 1 percent of our food imports are inspected. That is a shocking number. That surprised me.

I appreciate that. I want to talk about one of those hearings that we are talking about, the oversight hearings the President says is a waste of time.

Well, I would ask the American people if they think that the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats has a hearing to investigate the Federal Government's efforts to protect our food supply chain, and the issue that I talked about where 1 percent of our food imports are inspected, I don't think that's a waste of our time. I don't think the gentleman thinks that's a waste of our time.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut, the New York Giants fan.

I want to put this in perspective. I would like to bring this down to the level of the average family and what they are consuming when we are talking about some of these recalls with regard to food safety, and so people can understand at home what we are talking about.

I have a list in front of me, and I won't read through it all, because it's an incredibly long list, unfortunately, the recalls that have taken place just this year. Just this year. We are at the end of October, the last day of October, today.

But a couple of the big ones that stand out, I am sure everybody remembers back in February the peanut butter recall due to salmonella contamination, huge issue, people were sickened all across the country. The level of that recall, 326 million pounds of peanut butter across the country, and that, primarily, would affect children, children eating their peanut butter.

We had a 55,000 cantaloupe recall. Now, that came from Costa Rica, because of salmonella, just to show you how across the board this is. We had 9.5 million bottles of Listerine that were recalled due to a microbial contamination, and that was in April.

Throughout this list, month after month, there are multiple recalls involving millions of pounds of ground beef for a variety of illnesses that it caused, so ground beef, and from a number of different countries that we are talking about importing.

We have food recalls involving apple juice, 113,000 units of apple juice were recalled in August.

Then, lastly, everything up through pot pies, we just had this month, they were recalling pot pies due to salmonella contamination. So when we talk about 1 percent of the food imports into this country are inspected, it affects our entire food supply. Yes, this is a health issue, but this is also a national security issue. That's why we are having some of these hearings that we are talking about.

And I'm very grateful that we have been joined by the distinguished colleague of ours from Florida, Miami, Mr. Kendrick Meek; and I would, at this time, yield to him.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I have people all the time in my district, Mr. Speaker, that come up to me and talk about that passport issue that Mr. Ryan mentioned. We had hundreds and hundreds of travelers over the summer months that needed the help through our office, and I'm sure you had the same experience because of that 500,000-case backlog at the State Department. They were unable to deal with it. They put forward this regulation. They didn't have the resources to deal with it, very similar to what we're talking about with the Product Safety Commission. These are the types of things that we are holding hearings on. We're trying to get to the bottom of it. And when the President talks about, well, we're wasting our time by holding our hearings, I'm not sure what his inference is. I'm not sure what he would have us be doing, because it's not as though we haven't been doing our work here in this Chamber, because tomorrow, we begin the 11th month of the year, and

through the first 10 months, as the gentleman knows, this Congress, the 110th Congress, compared to any other Congress in the history of the country, the 109 that came before us, through this date and time, this Congress has met more often and taken more votes than any Congress in the history of the country, bar none. So for the President to insinuate that we're holding these hearings and doing nothing else, again, it's inconsistent with the facts.

I know we're very short on time; so we'll turn it over to Mr. Murphy shortly to close out.

But you talked about combining these appropriations bills and the criticism that we received from the other side. I wanted to remind my colleagues of the last time that this happened. It was very recently. We shouldn't need to remind them. It was just in February. And the reason we had to combine nine appropriations bills from last year in this session of Congress was because, after the outcome of the elections in 2006, the Republican Congress said, I'm done, I'm going home. I don't care about these nine appropriations bills. We'll leave it for the next group to fix. And that is what we had to deal with when we came in, nine appropriations bills that were not completed from the previous fiscal year. We were in the current fiscal year doing last year's work. So I couldn't believe what I was hearing today on the floor when we were being criticized for combining three appropriations bills in the current fiscal year when they left us with nine bills incomplete that we had to deal with.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side for their weeks of expressing to us what their concerns were about the SCHIP bills that we've passed. And I'm happy to say that we've heard

those concerns, and in this bill that we're voting on today we address those concerns.

They were concerned, as am I, about coverage for illegal immigrants. And this bill expressly prohibits coverage of illegal immigrants.

They were concerned about the coverage of adults, including adults who are currently covered in the SCHIP program. This bill eliminates coverage for those adults and all childless adults.

And they were concerned about income levels. They wanted to keep this program for low-income children, and this bill today caps at 300 percent of poverty the qualification level for families to get into the SCHIP program. So there should be no reason for any of my colleagues on the other side to vote against this bill.

Let's vote to ensure 10 million children receive the health care that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on a couple of points that the gentleman from Ohio mentioned, one of which was this idea that, well, these kids who don't have insurance can just show up at the emergency room. What I hear people who are of that mindset say is this SCHIP program is too expensive, there's not enough money to cover these kids and, therefore, I don't want to pay for them; somebody else can worry about that, send them to the emergency room.

But here's the problem with that way of thinking. We do pay for it when they show up at the emergency room. They show up there, they get covered, and, as the gentleman indicated, an earache that could have been knocked out with antibiotics turns into something more serious, a cold turns into pneumonia. Other situations that could be easily treatable, they instead turn into bigger health problems. We all pay for that because, in this country, when a hospital has uncompensated care or debt based on the fact that people don't have insurance but still show up for treatment, we are the ones that pay for that.

The reason that when you go to a hospital an aspirin will cost $15 is because of the cost shift that takes place when somebody, one of these children without health insurance shows up at the hospital, usually in the least cost effective way possible in the emergency room. So that is what happens when the President or someone else says, Well, let's just send them to the emergency room and everything will be fine. We are paying for that. That is why health insurance premiums go up, that is why costs are skyrocketing, and that is the cost shift that takes place.

On another point, I wanted to mention, and we are talking about our successes, some of the things that have happened in this Congress, I wanted to relay a story that took place over the weekend. I was holding a town hall meeting in my district and we were taking questions and someone asks the question, Well, when are you guys going to do something about the cost of college? I have got a kid in college. When are you going to lower the cost of higher education?

I said, That is a great question and I want to apologize to you because you should be aware of the fact that we have done something about that. This is not something that is on the drawing board or just passed the House or is awaiting signature. This has been signed and enacted, $20 billion of relief for parents and students for higher education. The largest expansion of higher education funding since the GI bill in 1944 passed this House, passed the Senate, and has been signed into law by the President.

Maybe we haven't done as good a job as we should be doing in getting the message out. This is a major legislative victory for this Congress and for this country. We cut in half the interest rate on student loans, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, which, by itself, if we did nothing else, would save the average student borrower in this country $4,400 by itself.

But that is not all we did. We increased Pell Grant funding to $5,400, the largest increase and the highest amount available in history, in the history of the Pell Grant program. We increased funding for Perkins loans. We increased the availability and the types of students and the types of schools that can qualify for Perkins loans. Just as important, we capped at 15 percent of discretionary income the amount that the student borrower will be required to pay in paying back their loans.

So they will not be forced into debt over their heads, and they will be able to have a more manageable debt burden when they graduate and when they start in the workforce and their income is not that high. These are good achievements. That was all in that bill.

So what I said to the person who asked this question was, this was something you took the time to show up at the town meeting to ask this question. This was the number one issue of concern to you, and that is why you asked me this question. And we did something about it. This Congress has

helped you on the issue that is of the greatest concern to you. It is going to help millions of Americans, parents and students around this country, afford higher education, afford the cost of college.

We have had tremendous legislative success. As you have talked about, more days in session, more rollcall votes, more legislation passed, than any Congress in recent history, maybe in the history of the country to this date. So we have legislative success.

I wanted to not let the time go by without talking about that College Cost Reduction Act, because that is going to affect people's lives.

So I yield back now to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Meek.

365.

I wanted to talk a little bit about what the President said today as well, and he focused his remarks in large part on the SCHIP vote that we're going to take tomorrow in this House. This, as we speak, is the day before we're going to take a vote on whether or not to override the veto that the President put forward on a plan that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support from both Houses. Sixty- seven Members of the United States Senate and 265 Members of the House voted for the SCHIP bill, bipartisan.

And one of the things the President put forward today and has said in the past as well, we need to compromise; we need to come together. Well, I would say to the President, Mr. Speaker, that we have, in fact, made substantial compromise. We have come together as Republicans and Democrats. We put forward a bill in the House. The Senate put forward a bill. We conferenced a bill. We came to an agreement that passed with overwhelming support among both parties. We sent it to the White House, and the President, as he certainly is able to do under the Constitution and is his right to do so, he vetoed the bill, and we're going to have a vote tomorrow on whether or not to override the veto.

But don't pretend that this was not a compromise piece of legislation that took weeks and months to hammer out the details and to work together with Republicans and Democrats alike, voting to support this piece of legislation that enjoys 70 to 80 percent approval in the country according to recent polls.

I wanted to talk a little bit about what the President said were his problems with the SCHIP bill, and one of the things that he continues to throw out there as well: this is socialized medicine; this is a big Federal Government program that's a movement towards Big Government health care. And that just could not be further from the truth.

Let's take a look at what the SCHIP program is. This is a capped block grant. The money is capped from the Federal level. It's sent to the States and the States carry out the program. It's a State- administered program, and almost every State in the country contracts out their SCHIP program in the private health insurance market, in the private market. So this could not be further from the big Federal Government takeover of socialized medicine scheme. It's administered in the private market.

We could spend our entire hour here tonight listening to groups that have endorsed this bill, but for the purposes of refuting what the President says, I would point to the health insurance industry in this country, which is certainly never going to support anything that's remotely close or a movement towards federalized health care, socialized medicine. They support this legislation, as does, as Speaker Pelosi often says, everyone alphabetically from the AARP to the YWCA. This has overwhelming support around the country, overwhelming support among Republicans and overwhelming support among Democrats.

So, again, the President's welcome to veto this bill. He's able to do so, and he exercised that right, but let's be truthful about what's really in this piece of legislation.

He talks about how it affects families making up to $83,000. Well, what are

the facts behind that claim? Where did that number come from? That comes from the fact, as I said, this is administered by the States, and I would welcome my friend from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, as well, who has taken a break from watching the Cleveland Indians tonight.

We have $83,000 as 400 percent of poverty. There was one State in the country, New York State, applied for a waiver. Four hundred percent of poverty they wanted to cover. That waiver was denied. It did not take effect. No other State in the country does it.

It was great to hear from one of the true giants of this House, the distinguished whip from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn. Thank you for joining us tonight.

I was talking about this $83,000 income level that the President continues to throw out there, and it's factually inaccurate. It's just completely false.

As I was saying, the history of it is New York State, one State in this country, applied for a waiver, attempting to reach the 400 percent of poverty level. That waiver was denied, never took effect. Those families were not covered, but the President uses that as his example of what could happen if we put this legislation forward.

Well, the reality is, as under current law, it doesn't change in our bill; it would have to be approved. Any change in income up to that level would have to be approved by the administration. So if the President did not want to see any State move forward, he would say that that is denied, as it was denied when New York State tried to put that forward.

So to say that the $83,000 figure is the reason for his veto is just factually inaccurate, at least using it as an example.

Importantly, the bill that we passed limits the Federal matching percentage and gives States a strong disincentive for going above 300 percent of poverty which would be about $62,000. So the States have a strong incentive to not even attempt to go above 300 percent of poverty; and as I said, it's inaccurate for the President to say that that's the reason for his veto.

So I'll continue a little bit later on that, but we're joined by Mr. Murphy from Connecticut, and I mentioned earlier that Mr. Ryan from Ohio has been watching the baseball playoffs. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Murphy from Connecticut is on the other end of that.

Let me add one quote to build on that, Mr. Ryan. This is from one of our Republican colleagues who seems to get this. David Hobson, a Republican, pretty reasonable.

Talking about the President, he said, ``I don't know who is advising him up there, but the President is really out of touch. It is too little, too late for him to be a fiscal conservative. He should have vetoed the farm bill. Now, he is against the SCHIP bill, and he wants $190 billion more for the war.''

So there are Republicans who get this. The President and a lot of these so-called fiscally conservative Republicans are Johnny-come- latelies on this issue. All of a sudden, after ballooning deficits and skyrocketing spending, now, when it comes to kids' health they are going to all of a sudden be fiscal conservatives. So it is nice; we are talking about this year's Democrats, but there are some Republicans who get that as well.

I want to talk about that very point. The editorial that you held up hits the nail precisely on the head. If you are the President of the United States and you want to veto this bill, at least be factually accurate and honest about why you are vetoing the bill.

We have had many 30-Something sessions on that very topic and a variety of issues. My point on the SCHIP bill and the veto override vote we are taking tomorrow is, if you are going to threaten to veto or you are going to veto the bill and justify the veto, be honest about why you are doing it. Just say, ``Look, I don't agree with expanding the program. I don't think this is a good program. I don't want to do it.'' That is his prerogative

to make that case. Don't say it is too expensive when it doesn't cost one additional penny, it doesn't add one additional penny to the Federal deficit. This bill is paid for. It doesn't add one penny. Don't say it is too expensive.

We talked about the $83,000 in your chart and the USA Today, and everybody who has looked at this knows that is a false statement, to say that this allows you to go up to $83,000 unchecked, and the socialized medicine that we talked about. Don't throw those out there, because they are not only not true, they are blatantly false. So don't say that is why you are vetoing the bill. Just say, ``I don't like this program. I don't want to expand it. I don't want to give health care to 10 million children.'' That is his prerogative to say that. That would be a more accurate statement than the reasons he is giving us to veto this bill.

We have four people who want to speak.

It is expressly prohibited under the bill.

I just have one more myth that I wanted to throw out there that none of us touched on, before our time runs out, and that's this idea of this bill promoting adults being in the SCHIP program. And the President used that as one of his examples. He talked about it today and has talked about it in the past.

Well, what are the facts of adults being in the SCHIP program? It is true that under the current SCHIP program, the plan that is current law and has been for the past 10 years, some States have made the determination to cover the parents of children, thinking that that will entice them to take their entire family to the doctor. And that's debatable. It's something that's certainly under a policy discussion we could have that debate.

But what does our bill do about that? Our bill's a reauthorization of the program. And the President says we're going to encourage adults to get into the program. Well, you know what our bill does? Our bill phases out adults being eligible for the program over a 2-year period. And after that 2-year period, the only adults that would be allowed into the SCHIP program are pregnant women, if it's determined by the State, again, it's a State option that they should be covered, and there's no guarantee that any State in the country would do that. But we phase out the current part of the SCHIP bill that allows adults into the program.

So for the President of the United States to stand up before a camera and say, I'm going to veto this bill because it allows adults to get coverage under SCHIP, is again just factually inaccurate.

So with that, if Mr. Murphy is ready. I will yield some time to him.

Madam Speaker, when we as a Nation talk about our priorities, it is often useful to use numbers to put things in perspective. So today let's think about the number 10. On Thursday, this House will have the opportunity to override a Presidential veto that would allow us to ensure 10 million children have access to quality health care so that they can see the doctor of their choice when they need to. We realize the importance of preventive care. Children shouldn't be forced to let a cold or earache linger until it reaches emergency proportions.

President Bush says our bipartisan compromise is too expensive. But while we are working to ensure 10 million children have access to health care, President Bush has no problem asking us to send $10 billion every month to Iraq.

Madam Speaker, this is a debate about priorities. House Republicans should join us in overriding the President's veto to send a message that children's health care is a priority of this House.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Bernard F. Sliger, Ph.D., who served as Florida State University's President from 1977 to 1991.

Dr. Sliger will be remembered for his outstanding academic service to the university, as well as for his commitment to FSU's students. During his tenure, student enrollment at Florida State increased by nearly one-third. Dr. Sliger was especially proud to establish the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering and to initiate the Panama City Campus.

Dr. Sliger also led the university to its prominent rise in intercollegiate athletics. Under his leadership, Florida State University decided to join the Atlantic Coast Conference. As a 1990 graduate and former student-athlete at Florida State, I am proud and thankful for these achievements.

His colleagues remember Dr. Sliger for his easygoing nature and love for his school and his students. I will always remember the annual ice cream socials at his residence that brought together students, faculty, and administrators. It was considered one of the highlights of the year among students.

Dr. Sliger is survived by his wife, Greta, and four children, and I want to commend Dr. Sliger in their honor for his noble service to Florida State University.

Mr. Speaker, this Democratic Congress has a strong record of delivering on our promise to the American people and providing real and meaningful change. And we have done so in a fiscally responsible way, instituting pay-as-you-go, deficit reduction discipline.

One area where we have made real progress for the American people is by supporting the men and women who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces. Under Democratic control, this House provided substantially more than the President requested for the new M-

RAP vehicles proven to save lives in Iraq. We voted to give our troops a pay raise that the President called ``unnecessary.'' We strengthened military health care with the Wounded Warriors Act to clean up the inadequate care of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and other facilities. And the Democratic House voted to provide the largest increase in funding for VA health care in the history of this country.

Mr. Speaker, these investments that support our veterans and troops overseas are just a few examples of how our Democratic Congress is taking America in a new direction.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, today the President showed that he fails to understand the struggle before Pennsylvania's working families when he vetoed a bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill to provide health care to 10 million children, including 320,000 in Pennsylvania, and in justifying his veto, all he offers is the same tired rhetoric, too expensive.

Well, our bill pays for itself at no additional cost to the taxpayer and doesn't add one penny to the Federal deficit.

Socialized medicine? The SCHIP bill continues a State-administered block grant that's delivered in the private market, and the private insurers and the American Medical Association have endorsed this bill.

A subsidy for wealthy families? Well, most children covered live in families that earn less than $40,000 a year, and these are working families that we're talking about, working families that work hard and play by the rules but can't afford health care for their children.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the majorities in both the House and the Senate, the 43 Governors and 68 Senators, and join us in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Brandon and Spencer Whale, brothers from Ross Township, Pennsylvania. I met these two young men when they visited my office on behalf of the American Heart Association and was impressed to discover that, before the age of 10, they had both created inventions to improve the lives of hospital patients.

At only the age of 8, Brandon developed a medical device that is used to this day. Brandon made improvements to an electrode bracelet used to transmit a patient's vital heart data to the hospital from the patient's home. The standard bracelet was too big for his mother's small wrists, so Brandon discovered a way to modify the bracelet for different wrist sizes and enhance its conductivity.

Brandon's younger brother, Spencer, created a device to secure IV drip strands to children's toy cars. Spencer, at the age of 6, got the idea after watching parents push IV poles behind their kids while they raced through the hospital's play rooms in toy cars. Spencer found a way for the toy cars to bear the weight of the medical equipment and, as a result, all toy cars at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh are now equipped with Spencer's IV holders.

Spencer and Brandon have been inducted into the National Gallery for Young Inventors. At the time of their induction they were the two youngest inventors ever inducted into the National Gallery for Young Inventors. They serve

as examples for children everywhere that anyone, no matter what age, can make a difference. I thank Brandon and Spencer for their contributions to the lives of hospital patients, and I wish them all the best in the years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman, Ms. Velazquez, for her assistance in putting together the Small Business Investment Expansion Act. I appreciate the opportunity I have had to work with Mr. Chabot and Mr. Graves, to work with both of them to produce a bipartisan bill that will benefit small businesses across this country. Their input was invaluable, and I thank each of them for their leadership.

I represent a district that extends north of Pittsburgh which is home to world-class universities. Western Pennsylvania has thousands of small business innovators who are doing cutting-edge research and development in the life sciences. Western Pennsylvania's entrepreneurs have created numerous success stories; however, many of these companies did not become success stories overnight. Each of them had their challenges. Unfortunately, thousands of small businesses are formed each year that are unable to take that next step and overcome the capital expenses necessary to keep their businesses afloat during the early going.

Part of the problem resides within the Small Business Administration's investment programs. The current Small Business Investment Act was written in 1958 and simply did not envision the type of capital environment that exists today in the 21st century. This antiquated law has led to inefficiencies in the SBA that contribute to an annual shortfall of $60 billion in unmet capital needs for American small businesses. Small businesses often require an infusion of private investment to purchase additional assets, such as equipment, office space and personnel. But the private investment can be difficult to acquire.

To address the substantial unmet capital needs of small businesses in western Pennsylvania and across the country, I introduced the bill we are

debating today, the Small Business Investment Expansion act. My bill will improve the environment for small businesses by expanding access to two vital sources of investment: venture capital and angel investments. Not only do small businesses require investment capital, they also require support that will allow them to do research and development. Current regulations prohibit a number of these small firms from qualifying for support offered through Federal initiatives due to their venture ownership. With this legislation, we can create a fix that reflects the reality of today's climate, that there are many small companies entering into industries that depend on this type of investment as their primary financing option.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. It is critical that the Federal Government do more to connect these small firms with the capital investment required for them to succeed. This bill modernizes the SBA's investment programs and creates an environment that facilitates the flow of capital to small businesses. This bill will create jobs, grow the economy, and help thousands of entrepreneurs grow from startups into thriving small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I strongly support this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member. I think the way that we worked together as a committee to resolve this issue is a model for the way this Congress should operate. The ranking member voiced some concerns about the bill and deferred in the process to get it to the floor so he could offer his amendment on the floor.

There are some outside groups, I know, that are concerned about title V. We want to alleviate their concerns on this issue and get the support of the entire small business community on this. Hopefully, with this amendment, that is going to happen.

Mr. Chairman, none of this would have happened without the support of the ranking member and the way that he handled this issue. I really want to thank him for offering this amendment. I think this is going to secure the bill for some of the groups that have concerns. I also accept it and I encourage my colleagues to support the ranking member's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, at long last, after months of debate, negotiation and compromise, the House and the Senate have come to agreement on a children's health reauthorization that's going to extend health care coverage to 10 million children in this country. And last night, I'm proud to be 1 of 265 Members of this House that supported that legislation and voted to send that bill to the President.

This is bipartisan legislation. We have agreement with both the House and the Senate, but unfortunately, the House does not have the votes to override the veto at this time.

I'm asking my Republican colleagues, please consider the 10 million children that are going to lose access to health care coverage if this bill is not passed, if the veto is not overridden. We must override this veto.

These are working families that play hard, that work hard and play by the rules, and we have to find a way to ensure their children.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation about how this is a Federal Government program and how this is a move to expand Government's role in health care, so I thought I would take a moment, a minute, to talk about what is really in this bill.

This is an expansion of an existing program created 10 years ago in a Republican Congress. It is a capped block grant. The amount of money is capped. It flows through the States, and almost every State in the country administers the program through the private health insurance market. Through the private market.

This could not be anything further from a big, government-run program. It is administered by the States and contracted out to the private market.

And yes, these are families that have income. They are families that work hard and play by the rules, and they are families that can't afford health care for their children. Is there any better cause in this country that we can work on in this Congress than that issue? I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 25th anniversary of Sherwood Oaks, a nonprofit continuing care retirement community located in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania.

This Silver Anniversary is not only noteworthy in itself, but the story behind Sherwood Oaks is quite extraordinary. Sherwood Oaks was created by a handful of unpaid ``ordinary'' Pittsburgh-area seniors who, in seeking a community in which they themselves wanted to live, turned a farmers' field into what has since evolved into a vibrant senior living community of some 400 residents.

These determined and ambitious dreamers--Sally Dewees, Martha Leonard, Jane T. Locke and Margaret McCoy--did their homework by researching communities in the area and around the country, and, in order to make their vision a reality, enthusiastically spread their ideas within the community.

On September 1, 1982, the founders and the construction board--Norman and Sally Dewees; Frank and Betty Hess; Jean and Craig Stockdale; Dorothy Van der Vort; and Richard McCoy--realized the fruits of their labor when Sherwood Oaks officially opened its doors to its original 53 residents.

I want to thank Paul Winkler, the president and CEO of Presbyterian SeniorCare for bringing this story to my attention. Paul serves as the board chair of PANPHA, an association of some 360 nonprofit senior service providers throughout Pennsylvania, and I have asked him to convey my best wishes to the Sherwood Oaks community when he represents PANPHA at a celebratory event scheduled for Friday, September 28.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brett Fadgen, the 2007 Pennsylvania Paramedic of the Year. Not only is Mr. Fadgen an EMS Paramedic Rescue Technician for the Ross and West View communities, he also flies with Stat MedEvac, serves as a trained firefighter for his local fire department, and teaches at the Community College of Allegheny County. He is truly a model representative of the thousands of paramedics who serve in Pennsylvania, and I was pleased to learn that the Pennsylvania Emergency Health Services Council awarded him with this great honor on August 18.

Mr. Fadgen became an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) at the age of 17 after volunteering with the local emergency medical service. Upon graduating from Gannon University with a Bachelor of Science degree, he attended school to become a paramedic. In 2002, Mr. Fadgen moved with his family to Ross Township, Pennsylvania and has served the community as a paramedic ever since. Recently, Mr. Fadgen obtained his nursing degree from Duquesne University and accepted a position as a Registered Nurse for UPMC Presbyterian. Although he has taken on a new role in the community, Mr. Fadgen remains committed to continuing his work as a paramedic on a part-time basis.

I am honored to recognize Mr. Fadgen's outstanding accomplishment of becoming the 2007 Pennsylvania Paramedic of the Year. His incredible achievements are just one example of the extraordinary work being accomplished by paramedics across the nation. On behalf of my family and the Fourth District of Pennsylvania, I extend our thanks and eternal gratitude to Mr. Brett Fadgen for his continued commitment to our community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor CPT Erick M. Foster, an Army Ranger who was killed while serving in Iraq on August 29, 2007. As a member of the 1st Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, he was struck by small arms fire while conducting a dismounted patrol in Muqdadiyah, Iraq. This was Captain Foster's second deployment to Iraq.

Captain Foster was born and raised in Pennsylvania and graduated from North Allegheny High School. After graduation, he attended Duquesne University, where he took part in their Reserve Officer Training (ROTC) program while majoring in information technology. In 2000, Captain Foster graduated from Duquesne University and received his commission as an officer in the United States Army.

Captain Foster was awarded the Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, and numerous other military awards for his service to our country. He will forever be remembered as a patriot and a respected combat leader.

On behalf of my family, the Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. House of Representatives, I extend our heartfelt sympathy and eternal gratitude to Captain Foster's family. Our thoughts and prayers are with his parents, Robert and Barbara, and his sisters Elizabeth and Abby.