Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to call attention to our economy and the fiscal discipline we

need to implement to get our country back on the right path.

Right now, the American people are hurting; and Republicans want to work with the President to get the American people back to work. We want to get the economy going again. But we do know, and the American people know, we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way back to a healthy economy. So we really want to be included in the opportunity to solve our problems, and this is a huge problem.

Just a couple of days ago, there was a summit held at the White House on health care, and they had Members of Congress, they had experts in the health field come together to look at how we are going to solve this problem.

The economy right now is the hugest problem that we have. Why aren't we working together and really coming together to solve this problem? We have so much expertise in this Congress. We have economists, we have people in the industry. We really should be sitting down to solve the problem, rather than going back and forth and arguing on the House floor, because our country and the international economy is suffering. And it is not the first time nor the last. We have seen crisis like this before and we have pulled through. So I am optimistic that we can get together and really work to solve the problem.

And look what happened on 9/11. We came together. We came together as a Congress, united to face that problem and to face that challenge, and to find the solutions and how we were going to deal with it. This is another problem. Not maybe as quite the magnitude; maybe it is, but we need to get together and really work together.

We face the largest economic decline since World War II, along with unprecedented domestic unemployment. February's numbers show that there was 8.1 percent unemployment. And we face unprecedented foreclosures, facing about one in nine families right now. It is time for us to unite again as leaders and pull through once more.

I wish that the administration would convene this bipartisan, bicameral summit to focus all of our energy on solving economic problems. We want to solve health care, we want to solve energy, we want to solve climate change. We want to do all of these things. We want to solve education. But I think all of that energy really needs to be brought to one force to come back and address the economic situation. We should be focusing on saving and spending plans that put America on a path to responsibility and long-term success.

With TARP money of $700 billion, a housing bill that was $300 billion, with the recent passage of the $825 stimulus package, and with the Federal Reserve putting so much money into some areas, and a pending $410 billion appropriation bill, I have to say that my constituents are upset. They are upset because the spending appears to be recklessly out of control, with no accountability or direction. And, unfortunately, with the recent release of the administration's budget for fiscal year 2010, we continue down this heavy spending path. And while we only know the basics of the budget proposal, it certainly has been a mixed bag.

So tonight we are here, and we want to address the concerns in the budget. There are the good, the bad, and what we call the ugly. I have a little chart here that addresses the President's 2010 budget. As I said, we have got the good, the bad, and the ugly.

We acknowledge that there is an entitlement crisis, that there is a budget fix for the AMT. We are looking at the Medicaid part D. With the bad, there is an increase in spending of $3.9 trillion in 2009. It increases nondefense appropriations by 9.3 percent. The war funding is a gimmick. The ugly, a $1.4 trillion tax increase in a recession, $1 trillion entitlement expansion, in the 2009 deficit, $1.8 trillion. And we double the debt.

These are the things that we are going to be discussing tonight, and I am glad to have my colleagues here to participate. I would like to call on the gentlelady from Tennessee for her comments right now, Marsha Blackburn.

I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. You have done so much in bringing out all of this to our attention. And I really appreciate it.

I would like to just read a paragraph from one of my constituents, a woman in the district named April. And she said, ``First, thank you for voting against the stimulus package at the beginning of February. As an independent, I am disturbed by what has happened in Washington these past few weeks. I am urging you and Members of Congress to exercise restraint when examining the President's budget and any other stimulus packages. Eliminate wasteful spending. The American people are mindful these days of their own budgets at home, and so should the Federal Government.

``In addition, what happened to the President's and other Members' promise that they would eliminate earmarks? It seems like Washington needs some management. Thank you for your time.''

And with that, I would like to call on my good friend from Florida, Ginny Brown-Waite.

I thank the gentlelady for bringing up the tax issue. I am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin: ``In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes.''

We certainly have to think that the President's recent budget proposals essentially, and unfortunately for American families and small businesses, can bring a certainty to the latter, and that is taxes, and increased taxes to be specific. I appreciate you bringing that up.

I have another letter from one of my constituents, Rich. He says, ``The current budget proposal is a path to nowhere, in my opinion. It will lead to a tax increase for all Americans. There should not be a carbon tax on businesses. All that will do is raise prices and cut jobs. Instead, put an incentive for businesses to lower energy. Also, why increase capital gains taxes at this time, or at any time. All that does is force businesses to go elsewhere. We need to keep the taxes where they are or lower for businesses. We need to encourage companies and people to invest in the U.S. The net effect is more profit which leads to more tax revenue for the country. Just taxing the rich doesn't work.'' And I thank Rich for that letter.

Let me talk about a couple of other taxes because I think the important financial task before Congress right now is fostering economic growth. Number one is keeping taxes on families down; and number two is helping American business stay competitive; and three, eliminate wasteful spending in Washington.

In one of my former lives I was a probate lawyer and estate lawyer. I frequently witnessed the devastating effect that the estate tax or death tax had on family-owned farms and businesses. I think that we did put a limit on that. We changed it. Since 2001, Congress passed a 10- year tax cut package that included a provision that would slowly phase out the death tax and eliminate it all together in 2010.

However, the administration budget proposes that we continue to tax, to use the estate tax at 2009 levels instead of what we should be doing and permanently zeroing out this onerous tax, this double tax. So instead of 2010 when it would have been eliminated permanently, if this passes, and you have to remember the President proposes and the Congress disposes. But if it were to happen, we would continue with a tax that taxes about 3.5 million at a 45 percent rate. That's a little lower than it has been in the past sometimes. The only good thing about it is it does bring back the step up. During these uncertain times and turbulent times, I don't think that it is time to place another tax burden on families and small businesses. It is certainly time to cut taxes and encourage businesses and families so they will be able to create jobs.

One other tax that really concerns me is the budget proposes to limit deductions for charitable contributions, and we know how much contributions have meant for this country from the time of early on in the country with all of the things that so many of these famous families did, like the Rockefellers or the Carnegies. Each year many people give contributions to charities and nonprofits. Why should we discourage this in any way, especially right now. So many people benefit from so many charities like, Catholic Charities or the Jewish Federation and all of the small charities. So I strongly believe in charitable giving and have supported many bills to encourage it instead of asking the Federal Government to do it, and that is like bringing back much more big government. So I will continue to support tax policies that encourage charitable giving.

Regarding homeownership, here we have been dealing with families and foreclosure rates and what is happening. And now the budget proposal is to limit the mortgage interest deduction. This is a direct hit to family budgets and discourages homeownership at a time when we need to encourage homeownership. It is limited. Again, it is to the higher rate taxpayer. But this again is going to trickle-down with what it does with homeownership. We need to make homeownership more affordable. Homeowners may currently deduct the interest paid on mortgages from their interest tax liability. So millions of homeowners enjoy the benefits of this deduction which does encourage homeownership through an annual tax savings. Although general support for this tax remains strong, I think it is irresponsible to slash this benefit. I support tax policies and now will yield to another one of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) who is here to address some of the women's issues and how we approach the budget that we are looking at.

I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I know that this is what we're hearing from I think all of our constituents about having their life savings, their retirement accounts decline. I've got a letter here from another one of my constituents saying, ``My life savings, including retirement accounts, have declined to the point where I am unsure I will ever be able to retire or make another major purchase of any kind. How many more negative Wall Street stock market losses will it take before the new administration realizes that their reckless spending without a true plan to correct the economy will destroy all of us to a point that retirees and us close to retirement may never recover from their continuous blunders?'' So I thank the gentlelady for bringing that to our attention. I appreciate it.

And now I would like to ask the gentlelady from--Wyoming. I'm sorry I messed up on a new Member's State, but the gentlelady from Wyoming, Cynthia Lummis. I'm happy that you're here.

I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. Thank you for your expertise on this issue. I think that you've really been able to bring new thoughts on this and really put it very succinctly in what's happening in this. And next we have to deal with nuclear energy, too, and really continue to build that up. So I thank you for doing that.

And next we have the gentlelady from North Carolina, who you see on the floor a lot. She provides us with so much knowledge, the gentlelady from North Carolina, Virginia Foxx.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, who has been such an outstanding spokesman for, I think, the women on our side of the aisle, and I appreciate all that she has had to say.

Let me just kind of return to kind of the thought that I had when we started this Special Order. I think that we really do still have to recognize that the American people are hurting. It doesn't matter if they are low income,

middle income, or high income. We have to call attention to our economy and the fiscal discipline that we need to implement to get this country back on the right track. Not only are our people suffering but our country is suffering and so is the international economy, and I think that we really need to work together.

As I said before, we want the President and the administration to succeed. We need to find the solution to the problems that we face in this country and our economy, and I think that we stand here ready and willing to help. But we have to do it right. We have to make it happen. And I think that's when we'll all work together, and I would hope that there would be some sort of a summit where we really focus. I think that we are spread out in this first 6 weeks, 7 weeks of an administration in what has been happening in health care and the economy and education and energy and sciences and all the things that we are trying to do at once. I think we need to focus that energy on solving the problems of the economy.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill and to express my sincere disappointment in the way it has come to the floor.

Yesterday, I brought to the Rules Committee two simple, straightforward amendments that would have made this a much better bill. They would have ensured that taxpayers are protected from others making unfair profits on their dime. They would also prevent flippers, speculators, illegals and criminals from taking advantage of a program that should be aimed at worthy borrowers who are struggling to keep their homes.

The first amendment I offered required that taxpayer-funded mortgage assistance not go to those who misstated their income to get a mortgage, aren't even living in the residence, were convicted of financial fraud, or aren't in the country legally and permanently.

The second amendment is that taxpayers get paid back first. It required that those who profit from selling a property that benefited from taxpayer support pay back some of the money through an added capital gains tax.

Why should the 93 to 95 percent of Americans who are paying their mortgages on time have to foot the bill for others to make a profit on their real estate? It's not fair to my constituents who acted responsibly, have worked hard, saved, and took loans they knew that they could afford.

Mr. Chair, these sound to me like principles that we can all agree on, and yet the majority in the Rules Committee has refused to allow Members of the full House to vote on these commonsense amendments. I don't think that's what the American people want, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the lead Republican cosponsor of the America Saves Week resolution, and urge my colleagues to support it.

I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow Chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Congressman Hinojosa, for sponsoring this important resolution and for all the work that he has done on financial literacy.

In addition, I'd like to join Congressman Hinojosa in honoring and thanking the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who previously sponsored the resolution in the House and was a strong advocate for financial literacy throughout her career. She was a dear friend and will be remembered always.

Mr. Speaker, in our current economic climate, the need to improve the financial literacy and the financial security of Americans is greater than ever. Now more than ever, it is clear that promoting savings is critical to ensuring that families have the economic buffer they need to weather periods of economic hardship. And efforts to stimulate the economy cannot succeed unless we equip Americans with the knowledge and resources they need to thrive in today's sophisticated market.

This resolution emphasizes the importance of savings and achieving financial security. Less than half the

population has a savings account, 1 month of savings or liquid assets, let alone the recommended 6 to 12 months of savings to have on hand in case of unforeseen events such as a medical issue or job loss. There are no rainy day things that people have today.

In conjunction with America Saves Week, this resolution encourages Americans to plan ahead for such unexpected events and grow wealth, not debt. Controlling expenses and increasing savings each month will prove to be invaluable in improving the financial security of Americans.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution and encourage savings during America Saves Week and throughout the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would also like to thank Greg Davis of Mr. Hinojosa's staff and Andrea Pivarundas from my staff, as well as Nicole Austin, for their work on this resolution. I would also like to thank Dallas Salisbury of EBRI and all of the other individuals and groups promoting savings in America. Particularly, I would like to thank Chairman Hinojosa for all the work that he has done on this issue. I have enjoyed working with him. Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to H.R. 1, the so-called economic stimulus package.

Congressional Democrats crafted this bill behind closed doors and only released all the details to us at midnight last night.

Their plan makes a bad bill worse by reducing tax relief for working families in order to fund more wasteful spending.

Our economy needs a shot of adrenaline, not a load of long-term pet projects.

I believe we need to act now; but we must get it right.

Much of this spending is for worthy projects, but they're not stimulative and should go through the regular appropriations process.

I joined my Republican colleagues and proposed a plan that focuses on letting individuals, families, and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned money through tax relief. It would create 6.2 million jobs at half the cost, and that's using the Obama Administration's own statistical models.

Only 18 percent of conference report is dedicated to lowering federal income taxes. In fact, it provides for even less tax relief than the original House-passed bill. Infrastructure spending, similarly comprises only 17 percent of the discretionary spending in this package--down from $1 billion in the original House bill.

Shovel-ready infrastructure projects and individual tax relief for small businesses should be part of our efforts to boost the economy. But that doesn't mean Congress should use this crisis as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars on 33 new programs that won't have any economic impact in the near-term.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to mourn the passing of a dear friend, Raymond M. Fitzgerald.

Although he lived in my congressional district in Naperville, Illinois, I got to know him best during his time here in Washington. He began his career as a legislative aid for our former Governor. He went on to work on the staff of the House Science and Technology Committee and as a legislative director to my good friend from Illinois, John Shimkus. I know that today there are many still working here in Congress who knew him well and miss him as I do.

Just a few years ago, Ray moved to Naperville with his wife Kristen to raise their three beautiful daughters, Nora, Maggie, and Lucy. But having taken a job in government relations for a major company in my district, he made regular trips back here to see all his good friends and colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, Ray was a wonderful human being with a positive attitude and great talent for public service and science policy. He was always full of life and cheer.

And in the short 37 years that he was with us before succumbing to cancer, he built a lasting legacy of friends, family, and professional success.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record the Chicago Tribune article about Ray's life.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 26, 2009]

Raymond M. Fitzgerald, 1971-2009: Navistar Lobbyist

(By Joan Giangrasse Kates)

You could take a South Sider and move him to Washington,

but in the case of Raymond M. Fitzgerald, you couldn't take

the South Side out of the man.

The youngest of six children and only son of a Chicago

fireman, Mr. Fitzgerald carried with him the values of faith,

family and friends when he moved in 1994 to Capitol Hill to

serve as a legislative aide for five years to then-Illinois

Gov. Jim Edgar. He later worked for a year as a member of the

staff on the House Science and Technology Committee.

From 2000 to 2005, Mr. Fitzgerald served as the legislative

director to U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who quickly took

note of the quintessential South Sider's authenticity and

unflappability.

``From the start, Ray was as honest and straightforward as

they come,'' said Shimkus, from Downstate Collinsville. ``He

never lost his cool, and in our business, people respect

that.''

For four years, Mr. Fitzgerald worked in the Warrenville

offices of commercial trucks and engines giant Navistar Inc.,

using his vast knowledge in the field of energy issues and

technologies and making frequent trips to Washington.

Mr. Fitzgerald, 37, of Naperville, a former director of

legislative affairs and government relations for Navistar,

died Wednesday, Jan. 21, in Northwestern Memorial Hospital in

Chicago, after a nine-month battle with stomach cancer.

``He had the respect of so many in Washington,'' said Tim

Touhy, Navistar's director of corporate communications. ``He

knew a great deal about energy, and he knew his way around

policymaking.''

But perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald's biggest coup in Washington

wasn't a piece of legislation, but scoring a visit to the

White House when his beloved White Sox met President George

Bush after winning the 2005 World Series.

``He was all smiles that day standing there next to his

team,'' said longtime friend Paul Doucette.

Born in Evergreen Park and raised on the South Side, Mr.

Fitzgerald was a graduate of Brother Rice High School in

Chicago. He received a bachelor's degree in economics and

political science from Northern Illinois University.

In 2001, Mr. Fitzgerald married his wife, Kristin. He moved

with his family to Naperville in 2005 after accepting a job

with Navistar.

In addition to his wife, other survivors include three

daughters, Nora, Maggie and Lucy; his mother, Kaye; and five

sisters, Colleen Zientek, Mary O'Donnell, Debbie Noll, Linda

Trinley and Maureen Harkala.

Mass will be said at 10 a.m. Monday in St. Thomas More

Catholic Church, 2825 W. 81st St., Chicago.

Mr. Speaker, finally I'd like to offer my sincerest sympathies to Ray Fitzgerald's family, especially his wife, Kristen, his daughters, mother, and five loving sisters who grew up with him in Chicago's south side. They will all remain in our thoughts and prayers.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1, the so-called ``economic stimulus package.''

At a time of record unemployment, deficits and foreclosures, I believe that we can't do nothing. I believe it is our duty to act swiftly and responsibly to jump-start our ailing economy, and that is why we should be enabling families, entrepreneurs, small businesses and job seekers to keep more of what they earn through fast-acting tax relief, not new wasteful government spending on numerous programs that hold little potential for economic stimulus.

Today, Congress should be considering increased deductions for individuals and small businesses, and tax-free unemployment benefits to help individuals get back on their feet and provide for their families.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the bill before us today misses the mark. It contains at least $132 billion in new programs and spending that will not create jobs in the immediate future. In fact, a report issued on Monday by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that enacting H.R. 1 would increase budget deficits by $816 billion.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the talented young men and women of the Carl Sandburg High School Marching Eagles who recently traveled from Orland Park, Illinois, to play in President Barack Obama's inaugural parade.

I have seen these talented performers entertain the crowds back home, and I knew that they would make us proud. And they did. With expert precision and harmony borne of tireless practice, the Eagles marched down Pennsylvania Avenue, putting on an impressive show for the whole world to see. I was especially entertained to learn that when they passed before our new President and First Lady, they played a song to remind the two of home, ``Chicago.''

Over 150 students came down from Illinois for this historic event, along with many school faculty, volunteer chaperones, family members and friends. In reality, though, the whole community was with them in spirit, having come together throughout the past months for bake sales and donation drives in support of the band's trip to Washington. This was an extra-special event for all of Orland and the surrounding communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the band members from Carl Sandburg High my sincere congratulations on a job well done. And I would like to thank all the volunteers and staff who worked so hard to make this event a reality. This was one performance that will certainly have a place in the history books.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me the time, and I also thank her for introducing this resolution of disapproval.

This resolution reflects the sentiments of my constituents in Illinois regarding TARP. Simply put, they don't believe that their money has been spent wisely and neither do I.

When Congress passed the financial rescue package, it was to stave off an immediate and dire threat to our entire economy. But before the taxpayers are asked to spend another $350 billion, shouldn't we examine where the money has gone? Shouldn't we be satisfied that the funds are being used as intended, to get credit flowing again, not just to financial institutions but to consumers and small businesses?

Now the money is being used to bail out auto companies, but it's still not getting to the homeowners in my district struggling with foreclosure.

Treasury needs to provide much greater transparency and show us where the American taxpayers' money is going before requesting more. I don't believe that's too much to ask.

In recent remarks Interim Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Neel Kashkari said, ``Treasury has been working with banking regulators to design a program to measure the lending activities of banks that have received TARP capital.'' He also said they ``plan'' to study changes in how TARP recipients are altering their bank balance sheets and refinancing activities.

Unfortunately, we have yet to see this plan executed. Why would the American taxpayer choose to write another check when the Treasury Department has yet to establish any kind of tracking mechanism to determine where the last $350 billion has gone? In addition, neither Treasury nor Wall Street has demonstrated an immediate need for the second round of funds.

I will continue to support the amendments of my colleague Mr. LaTourette of Ohio to bring more transparency and accountability to the TARP program. And I commend Chairman Frank for his efforts on that front as well. Unfortunately, for the American taxpayer, the Senate has given no indication that it will pass such legislation.

I would also like to add that our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, needs to hold more oversight hearings regarding this program. Why have the financial executives never been asked to testify before our committee about their use of TARP funds? Many House Republicans have asked for this hearing, and it has yet to happen. Where is the oversight?

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that taxpayers aren't simply throwing good money after bad.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the chairman, I know that there have been a couple of oversight hearings. The problem is that even in those hearings, we never got any answers. We still don't know where the money has gone. We haven't had any answers. And I think that not being able to have the executives come

and testify, then I think we should have postponed TARP until we really got those answers.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule.

Madam Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of SCHIP and worked for many months during the previous Congress to bring Republicans and Democrats, both House and Senate Members, together to work out a compromise, bipartisan bill that would expand the program of SCHIP responsibly while ensuring that poor American children remain a top priority in all States.

I know that I am not alone in supporting a renewal and expansion of this important program to serve more low-income children, and I know that Members on both sides of the aisle believe that SCHIP should cover our most vulnerable children first. These children are in families 200 percent or lower of the poverty level.

So last night I went to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would do just that, put poor children first, cosponsored by a number of my colleagues, and would do three things.

First, it would require States to collect data on their success in covering these low-income children.

Second, it requires that all States draft and implement a plan that works towards reducing the uninsured rate among low-income children. I would ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve these plans if they are reasonable.

Finally, I would ask States to reduce to 10 percent or less the uninsured rate among children and families, 200 percent and below the poverty level.

Until States have met this 90 percent coverage goal, they would be prohibited from using SCHIP funds to provide benefits to newer populations at higher level incomes. This is a commonsense way that we can ensure that States are using taxpayer dollars wisely and getting health care to the kids that need it most.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday it was with reluctance that I voted to oppose the earlier version of this bill. I did so not because I believed there was no urgent need to act. On the contrary, I believed we had to act quickly, but we had to do it right.

I've fought hard to present alternatives and add taxpayer protections. Working with some great colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we offered options that ranged from insuring instead of buying mortgage-backed securities, to tightening the language on possible losses to the Treasury, to injecting capital through tax cuts for repatriation of foreign earnings and more. Working with Mr. LaTourette, we even attempted to limit the initial outlay to $250 billion so that Congress

could come back in a month and reassess the need for the remainder of the $700 billion.

Over the last few days, we've made more progress. The FDIC is raising its insurance limit to protect people's savings. The SEC is revising its mark-to-market accounting guidelines, and we have included middle class tax relief. But there still are many changes I would like to see. Unfortunately, the volatility in the market is threatening the financial security of my constituents and millions of American families, small businesses, and retirees.

Make no mistake: the latest compromise is not the best package. It's the package that can move through Congress in time to protect the economy from lasting damage. With the clock ticking, credit markets seizing up, and the market swinging wildly, it is clear that the time for seeking better options has run out. I'm glad we held out for the taxpayer protections that we got. But if we don't act now, those who are least to blame for this mess will suffer the most.

So it is with reluctance that I support this bill today and urge my colleagues to do the same. Our work is by no means complete. I look forward to revisiting the issue as Congress monitors the program to ensure that we minimize risks and that the taxpayers see a return on this investment.

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this bill, I rise in support of the Homeless Emergency Act and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2008, or the HEARTH Act. I would also like to thank Congressman Geoff Davis of Kentucky and, if she were here today, the original House version sponsor, the late Congresswoman Julia Carson for introducing this bill, H.R. 840. In addition, I would like to thank Chairman Frank, subcommittee Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking Members Bachus and Capito for working together with Congressman Davis and me to give homeless children a fighting chance in this country.

I would also like to thank all of the staff on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work: Scott Olson, Jonathan Harwitz, Cindy Chetti, Tallman Johnson, Lauren O'Brien, Aaron Spurck, Andre Stevens, Kathleen Taylor, Clinton Jones, Nicole Austin. A tremendous thanks for all they have done.

Mr. Speaker, for inclusion in the Congressional Record, I would like to submit additional views authored by Congressman Geoff Davis, Congresswoman Capito, and me. These views were filed as part of our committee report to accompany H.R. 840, but they apply to this bill, H.R. 7221, as amended, as well.

Additional Views

Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mrs. Capito, and I acknowledge the

significant work that the Chairman, Ranking Member, and other

Members and staff have done to address many of the concerns

we raised about addressing the needs of homeless

unaccompanied youth, children, and their families in H.R.

840, a bill introduced by the late Rep. Julia Carson as well

as Rep. Geoff Davis.

There are inconsistencies in the definition of homeless for

programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) as compared to those administered by the

Departments of Education, Justice, and Human Services. In the

education section of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance

Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

and the Head Start Act, the same homeless definition is used.

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act program uses a similar

definition. However, the housing component of the McKinney-

Vento Homeless Assistance Act uses a different definition,

which excludes a majority of the unaccompanied youth,

children, and families recognized as homeless by non-HUD

federal homeless programs.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of homeless students,

homeless and disabled children, homeless infants, and

homeless children running away from domestic violence, unsafe

housing, or unstable living conditions are denied HUD

homeless housing and services.

Several witnesses, including Dr. Ellen Bassuk, an Associate

Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, testified

before our Committee that many homeless children who are

currently excluded from HUD's homeless definition are prone

to health and developmental problems. Dr. Bassuk said that

there is documented evidence that almost 90 percent of

homeless families end up doubled-up, which results in severe

overcrowding and dangerous situations. The homeless children

in these families are at significant risk of physical and

sexual abuse, have seen people shot and killed, or have had

their own lives threatened. Highly mobile homeless students

suffer academically, are less likely to graduate, are sick

more than the average child, and are more likely to have

behavior problems.

Homelessness among children is only becoming more

pervasive. A study conducted by First Focus and the Brookings

Institute determined that almost 2 million children will be

affected by the foreclosure crises. Many of these children

will become homeless, but, tragically, they will not qualify

for HUD homeless housing assistance or services.

H.R. 840, as introduced, would reconcile the definitions of

homeless used among HUD and the other federal programs that

serve homeless unaccompanied youth, children, and families.

In addition, as introduced, the bill would recognize as

homeless many individuals and families that are not

recognized as homeless by these other federal programs.

For many months, we have worked with Members of the

Committee, staff, and government and non-government

organizations representing various homeless constituencies to

craft a new HUD definition of homeless that would allow

homeless unaccompanied youth, children, and their families

served by other federal programs to also be recognized by

HUD as homeless and therefore qualify for HUD homeless

housing and services.

On July, 31, 2008, during the Committee's consideration of

H.R. 840, Rep. Biggert and Rep. Davis offered an amendment to

allow all children and youth considered homeless by four

other federal programs to be considered homeless by HUD. They

withdrew the amendment because of an agreement with the

Chairman that they would: (1) continue to work on language to

amend HUD's definition of homeless as the bill moved out of

Committee toward full House consideration; and (2) send a

joint letter requesting that GAO examine the issue of

homeless definition discrepancies and related matters.

Between July 31, 2008 and today, we and our staff have

worked with the Chairman and Housing and Community

Opportunity Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters, Education and

Labor Committee Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon,

and their staff on a letter to GAO and new language to expand

HUD's definition of homeless to include more homeless

unaccompanied youth, children, and their families.

On September 23, 2008, we joined the above-mentioned

Members and sent a letter to GAO. In recent days, we offered

language to Senate and House Members and staff negotiating

the final language of H.R. 840 and S. 1518 to include

homeless children, unaccompanied youth, and their families in

HUD's definition of homeless. We are pleased that Senate and

House Members have agreed to include the following language

as part of HUD's definition of homeless:

Unaccompanied youth and homeless families with children and

youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes who--

(A) have experienced a long term period without living

independently in permanent housing,

(B) have experienced persistent instability as measured by

frequent moves over such period, and

(C) can be expected to continue in such status for an

extended period of time because of chronic disabilities,

chronic physical health or mental health conditions,

substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or

childhood abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a

disability, or multiple barriers to employment.

It is our hope that by expanding HUD's definition of

homeless in this way, local, homeless service providers will

have the flexibility to provide homeless housing and services

to unaccompanied youth and children in involuntary and

unstable shared living arrangements, such as those living

temporarily in motels or hotels or ``couch surfing'' from

house to house. The ultimate goal is to break the cycle of

poverty, violence, and homelessness in our country by

providing homeless unaccompanied youth and children with the

opportunity to qualify for safe and stable housing so that

they have a better chance of being healthy, performing better

in school, and having a chance for a brighter future.

In addition, I would like to submit a New York Times article from September 16, 2008, entitled ``Capitol Strives to Define `Homeless.' ''

[From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 2008]

Capitol Strives to Define ``Homeless''

(By Rachel L. Swarns)

Washington--With unemployment and foreclosures rising and

growing numbers of families struggling to find affordable

housing, lawmakers in Congress are debating who should be

considered homeless.

For more than 20 years, federal housing law has counted as

homeless only people living on the streets or in shelters.

But now the House and the Senate are considering an expansion

of the definition to include people precariously housed:

those doubled up with friends or relatives or living day to

day in motels, with money and options running out.

In the House, which is expected to vote on the issue this

month, lawmakers are discussing whether to expand the

definition to include about a million additional people--a

subset within the group of children and their families in

desperate need of stable housing--or to add a much smaller

group that would include only people fleeing their homes

because of domestic violence and those who can prove they

will lose their housing within 14 days.

The Senate is considering a still narrower expansion that

would include only those forced to move three times in one

year or twice in 21 days. Congressional aides say senators

are willing to expand the definition

further in consultations with the House that are now under

way, but the Senate legislation is not expected to pass

before lawmakers recess this month.

The outcome of the discussions will most likely broaden the

categories of people eligible for emergency shelter, housing

and other services provided by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development's $1.7 billion budget for the homeless,

which accounts for most federal spending on homelessness.

Bush administration officials support the narrow expansion

under consideration in the House.

But none of the bills come with any additional financing.

And with too few shelter beds and services available to help

the homeless who are already living on the streets, the

debate over whether to expand significantly the pool of

people eligible for such limited aid has sharply divided

advocates for the homeless and upended political alliances.

In the House, Democratic leaders who pride themselves on

their commitment to the poor find themselves arguing that

there is simply too little money available to accommodate a

broad expansion of the definition, and too little time left

in the current Congress to accommodate any realistic

expectation that new money can be added.

Some House Republicans, meanwhile, accuse the Democrats of

turning their backs on hundreds of thousands of struggling

families who are forced to move from couch to couch and from

house to house to keep a roof over their heads.

Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who

heads the House Financial Services Committee, said, ``It's

one of the saddest things that we deal with, and it's

entirely the result of inadequate funding.''

``When there's not enough money to cover `all of the

above', you have to do priorities,'' Mr. Frank said. ``The

question is, Which category of people are you going to leave

unhelped?''

He and other Democrats blame President Bush and Republicans

in Congress, saying they have directed critical resources

toward tax cuts and the war in Iraq instead of making

programs for the poor a priority.

Still, Mr. Frank has promised to keep negotiating with

Republicans to reach agreement on a definition before the

bill goes to a vote. And to help ease the strain where strict

definition intersects with limited federal money, the bill

would also give communities some flexibility in spending

those dollars on people who do not meet the definition.

The issue is particularly complicated because HUD's narrow

definition of homelessness is not the only one used by the

government. The Education Department, for instance, which

assists homeless students, counts as homeless those children

who live doubled up with other families or in motels.

In the 2006-07 school year, the Education Department

categorized 688,174 children as homeless. But only 32 percent

of those children lived in shelters or outdoors. The rest

failed to meet HUD's criteria for homelessness and so were

ineligible to receive emergency shelter or priority on

waiting lists for public or subsidized housing.

Several advocacy groups, including the National Coalition

for the Homeless, argue that the HUD definition should more

closely mirror the Education Department's. Their efforts have

been championed by two House Republicans, Representatives

Judy Biggert of Illinois and Geoff Davis of Kentucky, who

would like those children identified as homeless by the

Education Department or other federal agencies to be eligible

for HUD's homelessness services.

These advocates note that many families live in communities

where shelters are full or nonexistent. In other places, some

say, shelters sometimes bar large families, families with two

parents or those with boys older than 10.

``I think we have to take care of our most vulnerable,''

Ms. Biggert said. ``Shouldn't children as well as the others

be a priority?''

Barbara Duffield, policy director at the National

Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth,

echoed those concerns. ``This is really about our nation

acknowledging the extent of the housing crisis and the

devastation it wreaks on children, youth and family,'' she

said. ``The housing crisis is bigger than the emergency

system put in place to address it 20 years ago.''

Opponents of a broad expansion of the definition counter

that demand for shelter beds already exceeds supply. About

700,000 people live in shelters or on the streets on any

given day, housing officials say. But federal dollars finance

only 170,000 beds.

Some advocates also fear that communities would shift

resources from single, mentally ill or addicted people to

doubled-up families who were newly classified as homeless.

Such families are typically easier to serve and politically

more appealing.

``Nobody thinks that these families are having an easy time

of it,'' said Steve Berg, vice president for programs and

policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. ``But

when push comes to shove, when you've got people in

apartments and people in shelters and on the streets, the

people in the latter group need the help more.''

No one knows precisely how many additional families would

be helped by the modest expansion proposals under

consideration in Congress, particularly since in practice,

HUD already allows for a bit more than the current

definition: it permits families who are doubled up to be

considered homeless if they can show that they will be losing

their housing within seven days.

Whatever the number, ``we need to deal with the most

desperate the best that we can and keep working'' toward

greater expansion, said Representative Maxine Waters, the

California Democrat who heads the House Financial Services

Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. ``We don't

want to create competition and have people at each other's

throats for limited space.''

Mr. Speaker, homelessness among children has become more and more pervasive as we face increasing economic challenges. A study conducted by First Focus and the Brookings Institute determined that 2 million children will be unfairly affected by the foreclosure crisis. Many of these children will become homeless. But without this compromise bill, HUD's very narrow definition of ``homeless'' will prevent many of these children from qualifying for housing assistance or services.

It's hard to believe that anyone would argue the issue of ``who is homeless'' when it comes to homeless children, but believe it or not, that for the past 15 years has been the crux of the debate on this bill.

As it stands today, HUD's definition includes those individuals on the street or in a shelter, but it excludes hundreds of thousands of children living in involuntary and unstable conditions, shared living arrangements such as those living temporarily in motels or hotels or ``couch surfing'' from house to house.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that these children are homeless. When you hear them describe their lives, you can't help but understand why local homeless providers desperately want the flexibility to offer them services. Here's one story from Kentucky:

``I have lived in many homes and shelters. Just this past year, I have lived in 12 different homes. I have lived with classmates, teachers, friends, and strangers. Anyone who would accept me was better than the street . . . I have always dreamed of being free. I want the freedom to know where I am going to sleep, the freedom to know where my belongings are, and the freedom to know that I won't be asked to leave in the morning or the end of the week.''

Mr. Speaker, it's because of a story like this that last fall we began working with members of the Financial Services Committee, staff, and government and nongovernment organizations representing various homeless constituencies to craft a new definition that includes homeless unaccompanied youth, children, and their families.

These are families that are already considered homeless by all other Federal programs, but not recognized by HUD as homeless, and therefore do not qualify for aid.

I am pleased to report that the legislation we are considering today contains a compromise definition that will allow many more homeless unaccompanied youth, children, and their families, to access HUD services. There's still some things to work out with this bill, which is why I support a 2-year reauthorization of the program. During that time, we can work towards fixing provisions in this bill that don't seem to line up.

For example, there is a provision that explicitly excludes from HUD's official count of the U.S. homeless population all the homeless children and their families that fall under the bill's new definition. That doesn't make much sense.

In addition, the bill directs HUD to issue new regulations relating to the newly defined homeless children and families. I had hoped that this provision would include a negotiated rulemaking process so that all of the stakeholders involved could reach a consensus before a new rule is proposed. However, HUD is not required to do so, and could dismiss one side, the children's side, during the rulemaking process. It is my hope that our committee will continue to review this matter.

Finally, the bill sets funding restrictions on homeless children and families. It sets up a 10 percent cap on the funds that local homeless providers can use to serve these newly included populations. Were a local homeless provider to reach the limit, they would be forced to arbitrarily turn away homeless children and families. Clearly, this is an issue worth revisiting.

Mr. Speaker, despite these flaws, the legislation before us today will allow HUD to far more effectively complement the efforts of educators, service providers, and people like my friend and constituent, Diane Nilan, of Naperville, Illinois, who has worked so hard on this issue, as well as Barbara Duffield and Jeremy Rosen.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has supported increased housing availability and affordability for many low-income individuals, families facing foreclosure, and disaster victims. I ask Members to continue that trend, and at least allow homeless children to qualify for safe and stable housing by voting for H.R. 7221.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Geoff Davis, who has worked so hard on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

I would like to thank the chairwoman and express my appreciation for all she has done for this, and to express my appreciation to my other chairman, Mr. George Miller, for his outstanding work on behalf of homeless people, and for working with our Financial Services Committee to recognize the educational and housing needs of homeless children and youth. I would also like to thank Representative McCarthy and Representative Geoff Davis for their work as well.

As you know, the Education and Labor Committee has jurisdiction for the McKinney-Vento Education For Homeless Children Act, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and Head Start. H.R. 7221 will broaden HUD's definition of homelessness to include a subset of children and youth who meet the definition of homelessness used by other Federal statutes. We appreciate the inclusion of these children, and believe it is a step in the right direction. In particular, it covers those children and youth who, either on their own or as part of a family, have experienced a long-term period without living stably or independently in permanent housing.

Madam Chairwoman, as this term ``long-term period'' is open to interpretation, is it the committee's intention that any regulation that interprets this provision would acknowledge that ``long-term period'' should be viewed from the perspective of children and recognize their unique developmental needs?

Madam Chairman, it is also our committee's understanding that the legislation before us allows families and youth who meet other Federal programs' definitions of homelessness and have experienced instability as experienced by frequent moves to be considered homeless for HUD's purposes.

Am I correct in understanding that the intent of this provision is to ensure that the full measures of challenges facing homeless families and unaccompanied youth are addressed, including programs related to changes of school and educational progress that can be caused by frequent moves?

Madam Chairman, by including language that acknowledges the various definitions of homelessness in other Federal statutes, is it the committee's intention that HUD's homeless assistance programs should consider information provided by these Federal programs in determining eligibility under this section and that HUD-funded homeless providers should be encouraged to engage with homeless providers receiving funds from other Federal agencies to utilize their assessments and counsel in making eligibility requirements?

Madam Chairman, lastly, we want to thank you for expanding the definition of homeless to include youth who are unaccompanied and who are experiencing several barriers simultaneously.

Am I correct in understanding that the many problems experienced by youth because they lack a parent, legal guardian or consistent caregiver should be considered barriers for employment that are described in paragraph 6(c) of the definition?

Again, Madam Chairman, thank you for all your work, and Representative Geoff Davis and Representative McCarthy. I look forward to working with you moving forward on this issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no other speakers, but I would yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

I spoke earlier a little bit about my friend and constituent Diane Nilan of Naperville, Illinois, who has done so much for the homeless. She has worked tirelessly for 20 years to provide a home for homeless children and families across the country, and I think she has seen firsthand the mental, physical and emotional degradation that children and families experience with homelessness.

In her testimony before the Financial Services Committee last October she said, ``Homeless service providers in communities of all sizes await the day that HUD provides the opportunity for people in all homeless situations to receive the assistance they need. They long to be free to focus on easing homelessness as it appears in their communities, on the street, doubled up or in motels, instead of having their hands tied with arbitrary rules and restrictions. They desire Federal resources to supplement local efforts to house and assist the growing number of families without a place to call home.''

I would also like to thank Carol Simler of DuPage PADS and all the wonderful people in my district who help with homelessness. I know we all have so many stories in all of our districts.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this massive bailout of Wall Street. I understand why many of my colleagues are inclined to support it; the urge to act now and do something-- anything--to restore investor confidence is very compelling.

Our economy faces great risks, and I agree wholeheartedly that the government must intervene in some way to restore stability. But the plan that we are considering today is not what my constituents want, it's not what's best for the average American taxpayer, and it's not what's best for this economy.

As a member of the working group assigned by GOP Leader Boehner to explore alternatives to a massive taxpayer-funded bailout, I was very pleased this weekend when we were able to develop a very realistic, workable alternative option to shore up these mortgage-backed securities. We took a long, hard look at the market and saw that a government-backed insurance plan could go a long way toward returning market value to many of these assets. It would address the market's aversion to these investments, and it would be entirely funded by risk- based premiums leveled on the holders of the assets, not taxpayers.

Our premise for this plan was and remains that Wall Street should pay for Wall Street's mistake.

In addition, we outlined a tax proposal that would have injected billions into the private market, restoring liquidity and credit available on Main Street America. By temporarily removing the disincentive to repatriate, or bring back to America, profits made by American companies overseas, we could open the floodgates of capital into our marketplace.

These are ideas that can work. But instead leaders have only agreed to attach a watered-down version of the insurance proposal to the same $700 billion bailout that the administration originally proposed. It creates an insurance purchase option for financial firms but then offers them the alternative of free taxpayer money. I wonder which one they will take?

I'm very pleased that this plan has been improved over the past few days, especially the provisions limiting golden parachutes and allowing the public to share in the profits that may be made. But I am not convinced that we have taken the time to really come up with a strategy that truly protects the taxpayers.

Let's take another look. Maybe we should start over. We discussed looking at the S and L crisis. The administration discounted that. Let's go back and look at the FDIC and doing away with mark to marketing. Instead of banks using fair value accounting, the SEC should use true value, giving immediate positive impact on the financial industry.

Madam Speaker, we can and should do better. Main Street Americans deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 4120, the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act. I am very pleased to be the lead Republican cosponsor, and I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for all of her hard work on this legislation that will close an unacceptable loophole in the Federal criminal code.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit overturned a lower court's decision in U.S. v. Schaefer and freed a defendant who had been convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography. The case was not overturned for lack of evidence, but rather because the prosecution failed to prove that images downloaded from the Internet moved across State lines in ``interstate commerce.''

The judges who decided this case pointed out that the use of the phrase ``in commerce'' instead of ``affecting commerce'' in the law signaled Congress' intent to limit Federal jurisdiction in the prosecution of child pornographers. As co-chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We in Congress know the horrible consequences that result from the sexual exploitation of children used to create these images. We also take very seriously our duty to do everything in our power to protect children, punish predators and deter future acts of abuse.

That is why the bill we are considering today deserves our full support. It will close the loophole in current law by replacing the phrase ``in commerce'' with the phrase ``affecting commerce'' in the child pornography statute.

I also was pleased that the Senate chose to include additional provisions making it easier to prosecute those who willfully access child pornography on the Internet. These changes will give prosecutors the tools they need to ensure that predators who use the Internet to transmit or access child pornography end up behind bars, where they belong.

I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the gentlewoman from Kansas, my good friend, Nancy Boyda, for introducing this legislation. I also would like to thank the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children for their assistance and counsel in drafting the bill. Mr. Speaker, as a mother of four and grandmother of seven, I know there is nothing more important than safeguarding our children from predators. We must not allow those who sexually exploit children to avoid prosecution because of a technicality.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4120 and send this important bill to the White House for the President's signature.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the TRACS Act legislation being presented here.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, for all of the work that he has done on this bill, and I'm really very proud to be an original cosponsor on it.

I really believe in the rail system. I believe in our transportation system, and I think that we have always put our railroads in a very high context as far as being able to move our goods across this country and being able to ship at a reasonable rate. A situation has come up, something that, I think, is very unfair, and I think it is what this legislation will address.

In considering a merger, the STB is required to look at how it affects Congress. If there is just one major rail, just one--a class A--then they don't have the same requirements that other mergers have. If it's a class 1 and more than a class 1, then the STB, the Surface Transportation Board, is required to consider the safety and environmental effect of the proposed transaction, including the effects on local communities: the traffic congestion, the grade crossing, the public safety, the socioeconomic impact, and the traffic congestion-- commuter rail and Amtrak.

The clarification that we want to make is, if there is just one of the class 1 rails, then they need to take these same things into consideration.

Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky talked about the rural area. I think we're really looking at congested areas, when a merger is to take place that will affect an area of densely populated areas such as the suburbs of our great cities. It's not just one area that's going to be affected. Mark my words that these types of merger requirements will affect so many more than just the Chicago area, as was suggested by the chairman of the subcommittee.

I don't think that our purpose here today is to kill any merger. It is to clarify and to make sure that there is fairness in what the Surface Transportation Board will look at. Will they look at just the commerce and competitiveness of two rail lines and how it will affect all of the competition between all of the rails or will they also take into account the effect on the public interest and on the communities that are involved?

Now, in the area that we've been talking about in Chicago, I have to say that this is an area that has grown up around the railroads. It has increased to such a dense population that socioeconomic issues are affected, that public safety is affected and that traffic congestion is affected. All we want is to clarify that the Surface Transportation Board can take that into account.

I have just one other clarification about mitigation. I didn't want to get into specifics, but in this issue, the mitigation would be $30 million. Now, I have in my community a rail crossing that is being put underground, and it has nothing to do with this other line. The cost of that is $53 million to have a separate grade crossing. So, when we talk about $30 million that would affect at least 40 communities and at least 141 rail crossings, I think this is something to consider.

So it's just a clarification, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for it.

I thank the chairman so much for bringing this up and for having a hearing which, I think, was very open.