Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to wish Gerald W. Fogelson a very happy 75th birthday today.

Mr. Fogelson is the founder and CEO of the Fogelson Group and has been involved in real estate since 1955. In 2003, he was inducted into the Chicago Association of Realtors Hall of Fame for his leadership in the industry and in the community.

Mr. Fogelson's long career has been filled with many accomplishments, including being an early pioneer of planned unit development in the United States, as well as other mixed-use developments. Furthermore, Mr. Fogelson's portfolio encompasses large, diverse, and high quality ventures in several states.

Throughout his career, Mr. Fogelson worked with municipal governments for more than just real estate interests; he was committed to working to improve his community. Mr. Fogelson is an active member of numerous charitable and philanthropic organizations, and was a cofounder of the renowned Chicago School of Real Estate at Roosevelt University.

Madam Speaker, Gerald Fogelson has been a leader in real estate and a great Chicagoan. I am proud to recognize Mr. Fogelson for his accomplishments and wish him a very happy 75th birthday with many more to come.

When I was campaigning, I met a firefighter, Pat Kehoe, who told me about the night before he and his wife were trying to fill out the form for their only child to go to college. He talked about it was 108 questions, how complicated it was.

So I went and personally checked it. Go to page 8 and complete the columns on the left of worksheets A, B, and C. Enter the student, and spouse, totals in questions 44, 45, and 46 respectively.

Worksheet B, first of 12 items: Payments to tax-deferred pension and savings plans, including, but not limited to, amounts reported on the W-2 form in boxes 12a through 12d, codes D, E, F, G, H, and S.

If you can fill this out, forget college; go to graduate school. This is the most complicated form out there, for kids just trying to go to college.

This new legislation is going to take that 108 questions, those eight pages, take it down to two pages, 44 questions, and take it from bureaucratize language down to consumer-friendly language.

It's high time that parents who were trying to make sure that their kids had a shot at the American Dream don't have the government stepping in the way and preventing that.

I want to thank the chairman.

This legislation goes from protecting colleges to empowering college students, and this Congress will be remembered because of the chairman being the most friendly to college students and those families, for going to $20 billion in additional aid to kids to go to college, for the GI Bill which is new, and now this legislation.

And I thank the chairman for his work, as well as the ranking member, for making sure that families across America who are trying to send their kids to college no longer have to jump through hoops every year filling out a form that was more friendly to the bureaucracy than it was to their family and their children.

I would like to thank the chairman as well as the ranking member for this legislation, but particularly I want to thank my colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, the subcommittee chairman who worked on this legislation who is back today from his illness. As my colleague Jan Schakowsky said, it is a special warmness to all of us to have you back.

This legislation puts consumer safety back in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You have heard from a number of speakers prior to me--and there is no reason to go through it--all the new powers and capabilities of this commission. And while we have talked about last year the 231 recalls of 45 million toys, Fisher-Price alone recalled 1 million toys, 1 million cribs were recalled, we should not lose sight also that we had a commissioner who was not doing her job.

When all of this was breaking out in the news, the commissioner, the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, was taking trips paid for by the very industry they were responsible for regulating. When this broke and all of the recalls were occurring, the commissioner who not only was taking these trips said, ``I don't need any more staff for this. I don't need any more money for this,'' and yet the American people knew at that time we had a commissioner who was head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who was not on the job doing the police work that she was responsible for doing.

So the good news is not only do we have new laws, not only will we empower this commission in a new way, after November, we're going to have a new commissioner with a new agency and a new mission and new resources to do exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

So today, for all of us who wanted to see this legislation, who read with horror the stories that came out about what was happening to toys, to cribs, and how parents and their children were being put at risk and their government wasn't doing their job, I am proud of this bipartisan accomplishment. I'm most proud of the work that our colleagues did together putting aside their differences.

The best news is after November, we will have a new commissioner who doesn't say ``yes'' to the status quo but says ``yes'' to the new powers to make sure that we are protecting our children and their families.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that the richest 1 percent are doing better than ever under President Bush. According to the Wall Street Journal, the income of the richest 1 percent, people who earn above $1 million, are at a 19-year high. At the same time, their average income tax rate is at an 18-year low. And if they're doing so well, simple question, how are the other 99 percent doing?

Median household income has dropped $1,200 under George Bush and the Republican Congress. Household expenses are up $4,600. College costs have doubled. Health care costs have doubled. Gas prices have more than doubled, and yet median income has

dropped by $1,200. These are sobering statistics. The middle class is simply getting squeezed in this country.

After 7\1/2\ years of the administration policies, it's not a surprise 99 percent are getting hurt and the top 1 percent are doing better than ever. And now John McCain is offering an economic plan to cut taxes to this top 1 percent by $127,000.

It is time for a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, July 28, 2005, the Republican Congress, the Republican Senate, President Bush, had an energy policy that they voted on 3 years ago.

At that time the minority leader said it will lower prices, it will lower dependency on foreign oil. President Bush, when he signed the Republican energy plan, said it would lower prices, lower America's dependency on foreign oil and lead to a great economic boom when we look back at it.

Well, in 3 short years, gas has gone from about $2.29 a gallon to a little over $4. By any measurement, dependence on foreign oil, the cost of energy, by any measurement or economic activity, it has been an absolute failure.

They got their way. They wrote the bill they wanted. July 28, 2005, on this floor, they passed their energy bill, and they promised you what it was going to do, and you now see the results.

Now, there is enough blame to go around from all sides. Not everybody has been perfect. We have missed many an opportunity here to deal with energy, Democratic and Republican alike.

But what is interesting now is their new line. The Republican line, as it relates to energy policy, is we are for everything. Except for you are for everything except when you can be for something.

When it came to voting for fuel efficiency standards, raising them for the first time in 30 years, 163 Republicans voted ``no.'' You weren't for all of the above then.

When it came to renewable electricity standards, 159 Republicans voted ``no.'' You weren't for all of the above then.

When it came to alternative technologies, solar, wind, geothermal, other technologies, the DRILL Act, opening up Alaska, you voted ``no'' then. You weren't for all of the above then.

The Republicans support all of the above, except they don't have any problem voting ``no'' when it counts.

Today we have a bill on the floor that takes immediate action in helping us reduce prices. It is not a long-term policy. Reducing and increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars is a long-term policy. Making sure that the oil companies who are getting subsidies from taxpayers drill on the 80 million acres that are open for drilling, and not stockpiling permits when we could be stockpiling energy sources here in the United States, that is an energy policy for the future.

I say vote ``yes'' and vote for a new strategy that has worked time and again in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this is, as the tax rebate earlier this year, a bipartisan effort to help stabilize the mortgage industry and homeownership. What started as a small crisis in the sub-prime market has now spread to other credit markets and other areas.

This is the right thing to do, and literally, the whole world is watching whether we will get this done and stand up for our obligations. This is essential for the mortgage industry, as I said, and also for homeownership in America.

In addition to those efforts, this legislation provides up to a $1,000 tax deduction for those who have a standard deduction for property taxes, something we've never done before, and is a landmark as it relates to property tax relief for homeowners, mainly senior citizens.

And finally, why I think this legislation is so important, as somebody who worked in affordable housing, in the area of affordable housing, both in Chicago and in prior times in the executive branch, this extends the low-income affordable housing tax credit for States, as well as makes it a wealthier tax credit, which is so important for first time homeowners.

This legislation, which could have been done earlier but others didn't want to do it earlier, comes at a critical time to sending messages around the world literally about America's willingness to step forward and meet its obligations to important institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and make sure that America's mortgage industry but, most importantly, its homeownership continues on a steady course and a steady footing.

I think this is the right legislation and at an essential time, and I compliment those on a bipartisan effort for accomplishing what is essential for America's economy, at this time, I think a critical juncture as those around the world in the credit markets are watching to see if we will stand by our obligation, and in addition to that, achieves other objectives, property tax relief, as well as affordable housing relief, and make sure that we continue to grow and making accessible affordable housing initiatives.

Thank you very much for the time.

Three years ago this summer, President Bush signed into law in 2005, in August--July 28, we passed it here in the House--an energy bill which the President said at that time, ``I'm confident that one day the Americans will look back on this bill as a vital step towards a more secure and prosperous Nation that is less dependent on foreign sources of energy.''

At that time, gas was $2.29 a gallon. By any measurement, that legislation has failed. Today, it's $4.11 a gallon, and our dependence on foreign oil is greater now than it was then.

What has happened here is we have provided the oil and gas companies $15 billion in subsidies of taxpayer money to drill. They're not drilling on the 68 million acres. We have provided them 68 million acres on the Lower 48 to drill. They are not drilling.

So we have a simple thing: use-it-or-lose-it. Get drilling. We agree that supply is part of it. We also agree that efficiency is part of it.

There are three parts to this: supply, efficiency, and alternatives.

When we increased the fuel efficiency of cars, we moved on one of those pieces. Here, we're moving on supply. We're asking you to join us to make sure that we have adequate supplies out there. There are 68 million acres to be drilled, and as the majority leader said earlier, it's ironic on the day that we have the bill on the floor, finally we're going to have 2 million acres opened up in Alaska.

This requires that there's an annual offering of more property up to be drilling. It does not have to only occur when the Congress puts a bill on the floor to threaten an administration that you finally move more supply to market.

This is a comprehensive approach to solving the energy crisis that the country faces.

Madam Speaker, this isn't the cure-all for everything, but it is a step in the right direction, and we should take note.

It cracks down on fraud in Medicare which is one of the ways we make payments to doctors and seniors. It ensures that we don't overpay health insurance companies for the care you get for less money. It begins us on a process to make sure that we have an e-prescribe system. And most importantly, what this does is preserve the doctor and senior patient relationship. This is the right step to do.

Not only are we taking this step in helping Medicare and preserving the relationship between doctors and patients, it builds on the progress we have made by restoring $14 billion to veterans' health care.

Also, just the other day we reversed six of the President's rules and regulations as it relates to Medicaid. Unfortunately, we haven't taken that step as it relates to 10 million children and their health care program.

But this Congress, from Medicare to Medicaid to our veterans, has begun to take the steps that are necessary, that are important to health care reform, to ensure that people have access to the doctors that they need and the system that we have that once again preserves the relationship between doctors and patients.

So on a host of fronts, whether you want to crack down on fraud, whether we want to make sure that we are not overpaying insurance companies, whether we want to make sure we are preserving the relationship between doctors and their patients, this is the right step in the right direction, and I am proud that it is done in a bipartisan fashion, once again putting the American people first.

Mr. Speaker, July 28, 2005. The House of Representatives, one month from now will be the 3-year anniversary of the House Republican Congress passing their energy bill. The minority leader, who was just here, said at that time when gas was $2.29 a gallon, ``It will ultimately lead to lower energy prices for the consumer and will spur our economy.''

President Bush when it was signed: ``I am confident that one day Americans will look back on this bill as a vital step toward a more secure and more prosperous Nation that is less dependent on foreign sources of energy.''

We have had 3 years of your energy policy, 3 years where you promised lower prices and a spur to the economy. By any standard of the imagination, it is a failure. Not because you want it to be. You thought it was the right policy. But it was a failure.

We have today a policy, because we do not believe this is an either- or choice, between more drilling or more conservation. We think it takes both. That is why we passed the standards, which you did not after 12 years in control, to increase the fuel efficiency standards for our cars. The first time in 30 years that was done. You all voted against that in your leadership.

Second, when it comes to drilling, we do believe as it relates to the oil and gas companies who are having record profits, use it or lose it. We gave you 68 million acres of public land. I have 3 children, 11, 9 and 8. My middle one, she loves chocolate, really loves chocolate. But we have a rule in the house: You don't get your desert until you finish everything on your plate. And to the oil and gas companies that want those leases in other areas, you don't get those leases until you finish what is on your plate.

So see what we have done here. Not only have we given them 68 million acres with record supplies of oil and gas, you, the taxpayers, because they refused to agree to this, give them $14 billion, that is the oil companies, to drill, out of your money. $14 billion. They all vote against rescinding that and putting it towards alternatives. You give them $14 billion. You give them 68 million of acres of public land. And what is the policy? $4.08 a gallon for gas.

I say it is time for a new direction: More conservation, more drilling, use it or lose it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Chicago-area veterans of World War II who have arrived today on Honor Flight Chicago to visit the memorial that is dedicated to them, and to celebrate the country that they helped define.

These are the men who proudly wore the uniform of this country, endured the rigors of the war, and fought for our liberty and the freedom of future generations of Americans. While their wartime experiences are as varied as the paths they took following the war, they all remain united in defense of the values that shape our identity as a Nation: love of freedom and respect for human dignity.

Few members of the ``greatest generation'' spoke about their wartime experiences without evoking painful and emotional recollections of their experiences in World War II, and fewer still asked for recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming these veterans to our Nation's Capital on this day. It is my privilege to honor each one.

Charles S. Affolter, Fredric S. Appelman, Francis Bailey, Edward Bednarczyk, Larry Black, Delmar Bond, Kenneth J. Chelmowski, John J., Sr. Cooney, Gilbert R. Dumdie, Bernard Edelman, Stanley Ewasiuk, Tom Flanagan, Henry W. Flora, Alfred Galvan, Robert E. Georgen, Melvin R. Gerberding, Lloyd Getz, Joseph Virgil Gray, Donald Harner.

Mark Hashimoto, Loyde A. Henry, Jesse Hidalgo, John Howard, Richard P. Hyland, Raymond Janus, Alvin S. Johnson, Phillip J. Joseph, Harold E. Kalbas, Merritt A. King, Kyrl (Carl) Kirk, Norman F. Kosman, Robert P. Krautstrunk, Joseph K. Kulinski, Keith F. Lawler, Sr., John S. Manasse, Dominic Martinucci, Elroy E. Meyer, Robert W. Mitchler, Samuel Mizra.

Nicholas Moorad, Amos Nicholson, Joseph A. Oruzco, Robert L. Palis, James W. Reilly, Melvin Rosenfeld, Gordon R. Schnulle, John I. Shumaker, James R. Taff, Lincoln S. Tamraz, Donald L. Thompson, Peter C. Urbane, Merrill S. Urbane, Sr., Raymond C. Wagner, Edward G. Wagner, John A. Weber, Ernest Westman, Stanley R. Williams, Jr., Armand E. Wormley, John H. Zeilstra.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Earned Income Tax Credit Information Act of 2008, legislation that will make it easier for millions of Americans to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit, (EITC).

Every year I host tax clinics in my district in order to help my constituents get a fair deal when they file their taxes. Hundreds of my constituents come to these clinics and with the help of volunteers receive thousands of dollars in tax refunds.

But millions of Americans and thousands in my district still don't get the tax credits they deserve, like the EITC. The EITC is the single most important tool we have to encourage work and reduce poverty in our country.

Nationally, over 22 million working Americans benefit from this program and receive

$43 billion in Federal assistance. That's an average amount of over $1900 per taxpayer. At $4 a gallon, an average EITC check can now pay for 32 trips to the gas station to fill your tank.

In my district, over 38,000 taxpayers received $64 million through the EITC. But because one-quarter of those eligible to receive EITC don't claim it, there are also nearly 13,000 of my constituents who should receive EITC but don't and they're losing out on $25 million in benefits.

Nationally, there are 7 million Americans who are eligible to receive this benefit but don't. This amounts to a loss of $14 billion to eligible working Americans.

American families are struggling to get by. The cost of gas, food, education, and health care are skyrocketing. How can we stand by and let the American people leave $14 billion on the table?

A Republican Governor working with a Democratic legislature has given us a model for addressing this problem. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 650, the Earned Income Tax Credit Information Act. The bill was simple and straightforward. The law requires that California employers notify employees of their potential eligibility for the EITC when they send employees their W-2 forms.

Employers are uniquely positioned to help because they are already providing their employees with their W-2 forms that tell them their earnings for this year. This law simply piggy-backs on that requirement to help employees understand that they may be eligible to receive the

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and to express my support for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

As a member of the 110th Congress, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act and to continue the fight to ensure equal rights for all disabled citizens. This vital legislation amends the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to restore the original intent of the ADA by clarifying that anyone with impairment, regardless of his or her successful use of treatments to manage the impairment, has the right to seek reasonable accommodation in their place of work.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 amends the definition of disability so that those who were originally intended to be protected from discrimination are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This prevents courts from considering the use of treatment, or other accommodations, when deciding whether an individual qualifies for protection under the ADA and focuses on whether individuals can demonstrate that they were treated less favorably on the basis of disability.

I am proud of the continuing work that is being done for Americans with Disabilities and of the strong support that Chicagoans have shown for this issue. On July 26, the eighteenth anniversary of its passage, the Americans with Disabilities Act is being commemorated by Chicago's fifth annual Disability Pride Parade. This display of support demonstrates that Chicagoans recognize that passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, will allow Americans with disabilities to enjoy the freedom and equality that they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to commemorate the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health care reform, my colleagues on the other side say the most important priority is the relationship between a patient and a doctor. Why isn't that true for seniors?

Today, our Republican friends are once again confronted with a simple choice: Stand with seniors and their physicians, or stand with the big insurance companies and tax cheats.

Seniors on Medicare are at risk of losing access to the doctor they know and trust. We have a plan to ensure that doesn't happen, and strengthen Medicare while doing it. Our plan stops overpayments to big insurance companies. We tell providers that owe billions in taxes that they cannot continue to cheat the taxpayers and go unpunished.

I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this bill. Under their plan, seniors would go without care, tax cheats go unpunished, and insurance companies go to the bank. That is a tough argument to make here in Congress, and it is an even tougher argument to make to the American people.

I hope my Republican colleagues reconsider and lend their support to this legislation, which continues the relationship between seniors and their physician of choice.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to you for a second about Specialist Sean Walsh. Sean served for two tours of duty in Iraq in the 933rd Military Police Company in the 16th Airborne Brigade of the United States Army. He protected main supply routes. He and his unit were inundated with sniper fire and IEDs.

Today, Sean Walsh is a plumber in the City of Chicago. He wants to go to college. Sean cannot afford to go to college. His dream is to become an engineer.

This GI Bill, this GI Bill is for Sean Walsh and his unit, so Sean Walsh can do for Sean Walsh what Sean Walsh did for Iraq. He gave them a chance. He gave them a chance to build a better country. That is what we said when we sent Sean there. And now it is time America invests in Sean Walsh. We have spent $50 billion of U.S. taxpayer money rebuilding roads and bridges and streets and schools in Iraq, and this is about $50 billion to rebuild Sean Walsh and his unit.

The American people are the most generous people in the world, but they will not continue to be generous if you foreclose their future. I think this is what we owe Sean Walsh, because we asked him to do something, not once, but twice.

Sean wants to be an engineer, and I am for Sean being an engineer. I want to make sure Sean can get to college, and this is going to invest in his future. He earned it the old-fashioned way; he gave something for his country. And when America was asked to help rebuild Iraq, we did it. It is time we do that for Sean.

In addition, one of the things I am most proud about in this legislation is that from now on, in all the rebuilding of Iraq, the Iraqis must put in 50 percent of the dollars.

In addition, this legislation requires that for all future rebuilding of Iraq, the Iraqis must put in 50 percent of the dollars. For too long we have asked the American people to foot the bill for Iraq's future. Finally we have turned the page and require the Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. This is the first step in that process.

So for Sean Walsh and for the future of this country, at the height of the GI Bill we were once spending 2 percent of our GDP on our GI Bill, this is the first real investment in America for our kids.

Mr. Speaker, what I find most intriguing about this discussion is that those who are unemployed, to get this benefit, paid for this insurance policy. This is their money. When times were good, they put money away to unemployment insurance. And when times are bad, they get their insurance premiums back, known as unemployment benefits. It is as simple as that. This is their money, those who are unemployed.

Second, as my colleagues on the other side have forced through and agreed to spend $48 billion of U.S. taxpayer money to rebuild Iraq-- their roads, their bridges, their schools, their hospitals--but when it comes to Americans, to give them their unemployment insurance, there isn't any money in the system; you're breaking the bank; you can't afford it.

To those who want to advocate spending 13 years, 10 years, a decade, as long as it takes in Iraq, I find it ironic they find 13 weeks of additional unemployment insurance to help a family get through a bump economically as too much and too long.

Mr. Speaker, 8 years is too long for George Bush's economic policies. It's right to give these people the economic security they've earned and put away.