Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act. Since 1965, Head Start has provided 22 million American children with the education and health and social services to lead productive lives. It is the most successful school readiness program in the Nation and has always enjoyed bipartisan support.

Today, we are continuing this tradition by passing strong bipartisan legislation to reauthorize this vital program. In fact, this legislation marks the first time in almost a decade that Congress has reauthorized Head Start.

The Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act will invest in America's future by providing children and their teachers with the resources they need to take advantage of the opportunities that the Head Start program has offered America's youth for over 40 years.

In addition to providing additional resources for increasing teachers' salaries and State Advisory Councils, this reauthorization will expand the reach of both Head Start and Early Head Start by providing greater funding and flexibility. The increases in funding will enable tens of thousands more children to have access to the program. H.R. 1429 will also improve Head Start by providing the Secretary of Health and Human Services and local teams

with tools to hold teachers and programs accountable and requires the implementation of best practices for family service workers. Head Start has served America's children well since 1965, and this legislation will expand the reach and ability of this program to positively impact lives across the country.

I want to thank Chairman Miller for his dedication to Head Start and to education in general. Head Start is an investment in America's future. Thanks to Head Start, we can give our children the best start possible so they can lead productive lives and grow up to be outstanding citizens. I am proud to support these efforts to continue the legacy of Head Start, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1429.

Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy once said, ``to govern is to choose.'' Both parties are presenting different choices: Republicans, another decade of debt and tax breaks for the well off; Democrats, an end to the red ink and middle-class tax cuts.

The Republican Congress and President Bush ran up $4 trillion of new debt in the shortest period of time in American history. All the while, economic insecurity is at an all-time high for the middle class, incomes are stagnating, and homes are losing their value. Since 2000, the cost of health insurance has risen 80 percent, college costs up 44 percent, prices at the pump up 89 percent.

Democrats promised to bring tax fairness to the Tax Code, and we promised to help every American secure the pillars of a middle-class life, raising a family, buying a home, paying for college, and saving for retirement. Today we have a chance to make good on our promises.

This bill protects 23 million families from the AMT, gives 30 million homeowners the ability to deduct property taxes, helps 12 million children with a larger tax credit, and provides 4.5 million families help to pay for rising college costs, all without adding a penny to President Bush's $9 trillion debt.

The choice is clear and the choice is simple.

Madam Chairman, more than 40 years ago, this House stood up in the name of America and did the right thing and passed sweeping civil rights legislation to protect men and women of all races from discrimination. By widening the circle of freedom to include those who stood outside its embrace, America strengthened the character of its democracy.

And that is exactly what we are doing today with this vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has had a profound impact on our Nation. But the work to create a more just, equal Nation that began decades ago is unfinished. This morning, in 30 States across this country, millions of gay and lesbian Americans went to work knowing full well that they could be fired simply because of their sexual orientation. Their job performance would have nothing to do with their being fired. In too many places simply being gay can cost you your job.

We should all be able to agree that this type of discrimination is inconsistent with American values. But for too many gay and lesbian Americans, it is a reality. This Congress has a duty to make this form of discrimination a thing of the past. We should be gratified by the fact that many American employers already do the right thing and protect the rights of their workers. Many Fortune 500 companies take these type of policies. For those who say the private sector should be a guiding light for government, well, here is your chance to prove it.

Some employers have failed to protect their workers, though, so this Congress has been left with the duty to make sure our values are represented in our laws. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act offers basic protections that everyone enjoys and takes for granted, except gays and lesbians, and this law allows it to be true for them. But more importantly, this bill is yet another important step forward in ensuring that justice and genuine equality for every American is the law of the land.

Today, I hope my colleagues will join us to pass this critical legislation and continue this country's long-running commitment to eliminate discrimination in all its forms.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank both the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, also Congressman Levin, as well as the minority leader, Congressman McCrery, for their leadership on this issue.

This bill picks up exactly where the last trade agreement with Singapore and Jordan was, where we were putting a human face on globalization; that is, having labor environmental standards inside those trade agreements. The last 6 years we walked away from that bipartisan agreement. This restores that bipartisan agreement and again returns America to where, when it comes to opening markets around the world to American products, we stand together for that opportunity.

But make no mistake about it. While that is one piece of an overall economic strategy, this is a good piece, it's an important piece, opening markets to American-made products.

But, in addition to this, we must have an economic strategy that deals with people's retirement insecurities, their health care insecurities as it relates to their costs and opportunities, as well as educational opportunities for their children. If you don't have that as part of this strategy, we only have one piece of that economic strategy. This is an important piece, and it continues, I think, the responsibility we have to open markets across the world to American- made products.

But we must finish our effort on dealing with globalization as it relates to the opportunity, not just the opportunities abroad, but the challenges here at home to make sure people and more and more Americans have an opportunity to be winners in this globalization rather than see globalization as a threat to their own economic security.

So, although I do support this, and I support this aggressively because this is a good deal, it returns us to the bipartisanship, and most importantly, in my view, this begins to once again put a human face on globalization and allows the American employees and workers who are struggling every day to see this as globalization, not as a threat to their economic security, but as an opportunity. If we do that, globalization and more people will be winners.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the Chamber for rollcall votes 1034, 1035, and 1036 on November 5, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three rollcall votes.

Madam Speaker, President Bush is continuing to oppose a bipartisan plan to give 10 million children the health care they need. This morning, the Associated Press reported that President Bush will veto any plan that raises the resources necessary to fund children's health care.

An overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats in Congress disagree with the President on this issue. But the President is content to continue to stand between 10 million children and their health care. The President's refusal to move forward could have serious consequences for middle-class families.

The New York Times reported today that 21 States will run out of money for children's health care this year if the spending for the SCHIP program continues only at current levels. The parents of these children earn a paycheck, not a welfare check. Millions of children and their parents are counting on this President and Republicans in Congress to offer more than an emergency room as health care.

The same children who are counting on the President to act will celebrate Halloween this evening and President Bush won't miss out on the fun. At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush is having what he calls an SCHIP Halloween. It's all trick, no treat. He's preventing health care coverage for millions of kids.

Madam Speaker, I was absent from the Chamber for rollcall votes 1003 and 1005 on October 25, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 1003 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 1005.

Madam Speaker, I helped negotiate the original SCHIP when I worked for President Clinton. It was President Clinton who proposed the SCHIP bill, not the Republicans; in fact, they opposed it. Then they agreed, after the Balanced Budget Agreement, that we would have pediatric care, eye and dental; but it was President Clinton that demanded it and made it a precondition before any agreement on the Balanced Budget Agreement.

Now, I believe the sincerity that my colleagues support this, and I believe the sincerity of what they said in their letter, which is why we answered every one of those questions, both the sincerity in supporting it, and the sincerity of those remarks. At some point, you have to understand that you can take yes for an answer, and that is, we have provided that answer.

Second is, Dolores Sweeney lives in my district. She works for an insurance company. Dolores Sweeney has three kids. Her insurance company does not provide her or her kids health care. She does right by her kids; she earns a paycheck, not a welfare check. If her kids got sick, she would go to Medicaid and go to welfare, but she's doing right by her children because she's working and teaching them right from wrong. Her kids are in SCHIP. And without this program, her kids will live one illness away from Medicaid. Medicaid is for them, for the poor. SCHIP is for parents who work full time earning a paycheck, not a welfare check. They're doing right by their children.

Now, I believe in the sincerity of your position, which is why we answered that in the last two weeks. This vote is to say whether 10 million children will get the health care they deserve, whose parents work full-time. These are parents who are doing right.

Now, the President at one time referred to SCHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, as excessive spending; yet this week he submitted a request for $200 billion more for Iraq. These kids are our future. Iraq is stealing our future from America.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. As our soldiers continue to defend our country's freedom overseas, it is imperative that we at home continue to recognize their sacrifice by providing them with the support and services that they have earned.

H.R. 327 is named after an Iraq veteran Joshua Omvig, a 22-year-old Army Reservist who served honorably in Iraq, but returned home unable to cope with his memories of the war. Only months after his return from Iraq, he committed suicide.

The story of Joshua Omvig is not an isolated occurrence. In 2004, a study conducted by the New England Study of Medicine concluded that over 15 percent of veterans returning from a year in Iraq met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or post traumatic stress disorder. Today, our soldiers are serving much longer than a single year and are returning from combat with severe psychological trauma.

H.R. 327 implements a comprehensive program that takes into consideration the special needs of veterans who are at high risk of depression and experience high rates of suicide. By directing and training the staff of Veterans Affairs in the proper screening, monitoring, and tracking of veterans, this legislation will lead to earlier diagnosis for those who may be prone to suicide.

Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to support our Nation's veterans. I stand in strong support of H.R. 327, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007, which would put an end to the practice of allowing unlimited amounts of income to be deferred offshore. Middle-class taxpayers that are saving for college or their retirement can't avoid paying taxes by deferring millions offshore. Congress needs to reform the tax code to assure all Americans that, regardless of their income, they are on a level playing field. This legislation takes an important step toward achieving that goal.

Either through ``qualified'' or ``non-qualified'' deferral arrangements, taxpayers can defer paying taxes on their compensation. Most taxpayers make qualified deferrals, such as contributions to 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements are usually used by senior executives or other high-income taxpayers who want to defer amounts in excess of the qualified plan or IRA limits. In contrast to the contribution limitations that apply to 401(k) and IRA accounts, there are no limits on the amount that U.S. taxpayers can contribute to non- qualified deferred compensation arrangements.

U.S. companies that offer non-qualified deferred compensation plans to their employees

are unable to receive a tax deduction equal to the amount deferred until the compensation is received by the employee. This is a major financial drawback to these arrangements and constitutes a significant safeguard against their abuse. By contrast, foreign companies can locate in no-tax jurisdictions, provide deferred compensation to their U.S. employees, and suffer no economic loss, since the tax deduction is not relevant when the employer does not have any tax liability. Accordingly, there is a preference in the Code for U.S. taxpayers to defer compensation in certain offshore jurisdictions since it provides a significant tax benefit to the employee without any tax disincentive to their offshore employer.

There is a fundamental inequity between middle-class Americans who can defer up to $15,500 of income into qualified plans, like a 401(k), and $4,000 into their IRAs, and higher-income taxpayers who can defer unlimited amounts offshore. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 seeks to rectify the inequity by eliminating the ability of U.S. taxpayers to defer non-qualified deferred compensation in offshore tax havens. Under this legislation, individuals who currently take advantage of such tax planning and who wish to make offshore deferrals would be limited to making deferrals under qualified arrangements which are subject to annual limitations. In this way, the legislation creates a level playing field for all U.S. taxpayers.

The legislation specifies that offshore non-qualified deferred compensation paid by a foreign corporation will be taxable income when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture to the compensation by the employee. A substantial risk of forfeiture exists where the receipt of compensation is conditioned upon the future performance of substantial services in order to receive that compensation. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 is not intended to prohibit a foreign deferred compensation arrangement if the foreign corporation entering into the arrangement is subject to tax on substantially all of its income and denied an immediate deduction for compensation that is deferred. For purposes of the legislation, a foreign corporation would be any foreign corporation unless substantially all of its income is effectively connected to a trade or business in the United States or is subject to an income tax imposed by a foreign country that has a comprehensive tax treaty with the United States, and a deduction is allowed for compensation under rules that are substantially similar to the way in which the United States provides deductions for compensation. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is given authority to determine whether a foreign corporation that operates in a country without a formal tax treaty with the United States can qualify for the exemption.

There are many different ways to structure an offshore deferral arrangement. A prototypical structure would be an executive who elects to defer his or her year-end bonus in an offshore investment fund for a period of time--typically, five to ten years. Assuming it complies with the Code Section 409A requirements, the bonus and any associated earnings would not be taxable until the end of the term of the arrangement. These types of deferral arrangements comply with current law. But while they may be legal, they are not fair, and for this reason my legislation would change current law to make the offshore deferred compensation taxable immediately when the deferral arrangement is granted. However, because taxpayers should not be penalized for complying with current law, my legislation includes an effective date that only affects compensation earned, vested, and deferred after 2007.

Finally, the New York Times published a story on April 17, 2007, entitled ``Managers Use Hedge Funds as Big I.R.A.'s.'' The story described the ability of hedge fund managers to defer unlimited amounts offshore, and contrasted this with the ability of middle-class taxpayers to defer up to $20,000 in a qualified plan, like a 401(k), and an IRA. While the New York Times article focused on the ability of hedge fund managers to use offshore deferral arrangements, other types of industries could use foreign corporations based in no or low-tax countries as vehicles for offshore deferred compensation. For this reason, my legislation does not single out investment firms, and applies broadly to any industry that might use this type of arrangement.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, and specifically Senator Kerry who introduced the Senate version of this legislation, to address this issue.

Madam Speaker, Dolores Sweeney, from my district, works for an insurance company that doesn't provide health care for her or her children. She earns a paycheck, not a welfare check. She has three children and would like to buy private health care, but can't afford to do so.

Dolores Sweeney's children are on SCHIP, and without the SCHIP program they would go without health care, or she would have to go without a job.

Our bill does right by Dolores Sweeney and the other 10 million children from working families.

I believe that you care about the poor, but I wonder why you voted to cut $8 billion from Medicaid.

I believe that you think this is excessive cost, but you never said that about the $680 billion for Iraq, no questions asked.

And I believe that you say that this is a taxpayer-funded government- run health care, just like the health care your kids get in the Federal Government program. This is exactly that.

I believe the sincerity of your positions; but time and again, when it came to standing up for poor kids, you cut Medicaid. When it came to excessive cost, you provided $680 billion for the war in Iraq. And when it comes to government-funded health care, if it's good enough for your kids, it's good enough for Dolores Sweeney's children.

Madam Speaker, this morning, The Washington Post reports that States across this country are forced to start preparing to cut hundreds of thousands of children off of children's health care because Republicans in this House and President Bush have put children's health care on the bottom of their priority list. Unfortunately, we've seen this movie before. When States faced shortfalls and health care for children was threatened earlier this year, States were forced to take steps that would have denied hundreds of thousands of children health care. And once again, the administration failed to lead, and only Democratic efforts to fund the State children's health care in the supplemental appropriations saved us from that catastrophe.

From day one, the administration has adopted a policy of benign neglect when it comes to children's health care. In fact, the President's current plan would cut 1 million children from health care.

Now Republicans in this House have a chance to change that policy. On Thursday, Republicans can join Democrats and Republicans and give 10 million children the care that they need for the future. In fact, I always find it amazing that Republicans will give $480 million to the war in Iraq, no questions asked, but when it comes to 10 million kids' health care, they have a lot of questions.

The choice is simple, 10 million children in States across the country are counting on the House Republicans to make the right choice for their future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 725, to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. This landmark legislation established the basic structure for our national commitment to restoring and maintaining the environmental integrity of our Nation's waters.

When the Cuyahoga River caught fire and Lake Erie was declared ``dead'', Congress finally took action and passed the Clean Water Act, which is now the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.

Even as the population of the United States has increased by close to 50 percent, the Clean Water Act has enabled our waterways to show dramatic improvement in water quality. In 1972, only one-third of the country's waters met water quality goals--today two-thirds do.

And for those of us who live in the Great Lakes region, the success of the Clean Water Act is even more personal and poignant. As a kid, my brothers and I used to have to hold our breath to swim past the dead fish in Lake Michigan before we could pop up and play in the cleaner water. Today, my children are able to enjoy a much cleaner Lake Michigan.

This success deserves our praise, but at the same time, we must recognize that there is still much work to be done. We have the opportunity to recommit ourselves to the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act by dedicating ourselves to working toward a sustainable, long-term solution to the Nation's decaying water infrastructure. Recent events involving BP and U.S. Steel looking to expand the pollutants they discharge into Lake Michigan heighten concern for those of us who are committed to protecting and restoring the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water and recreation for over 30 million people, and they are the economic engine that drives the Midwest. The Clean Water Act has helped preserve this national treasure, but we have more work to do to restore it and invest in the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes region.

Mr. Speaker, clean water is not a partisan issue. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fight to clean up our Lakes, and I will continue to do so. The Clean Water Act has been a fundamental tool in the protection of our Nation's environment, and I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating this important legislation and its accomplishments by supporting H. Res. 725.

Madam Speaker, when the House tried to reauthorize the children's health care bill, the President of the United States called SCHIP ``a welfare benefit'' for ``middle-class households.''

Maybe there is some confusion at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Our bill provides health care for 10 million children whose parents work every day but can't afford to buy health care. They earn a paycheck, not a welfare check. They are parents like Dolores Sweeney.

Dolores lives in my district. She works for an insurance company that doesn't provide health care. She has three children, and they would like to buy private health care for their children but can't afford it. Her children were on SCHIP, and without the SCHIP program, they would have gone without health care.

Our bill does right by the Sweeney children and 10 million other children from working families. But the President says it's too expensive and calls it welfare for the middle class. At the same time, the President is eager to spend $680 billion in Iraq. We have spent $400 billion in 4 years in the war in Iraq, and for 40 days for the cost of the war, 10 million children in America will get health care for a year.

So the President can call the children's health insurance ``excessive spending'' and he can call SCHIP ``welfare,'' but for Dolores Sweeney, it is peace of mind.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the distinguished service and history of Engine Company No. 112 of the Chicago Fire Department. October marks Engine Co. 112's 100th anniversary. Over the past century, the men and women of Engine Company No. 112 have selflessly served their community.

The local firehouse is an important, traditional and valuable resource in the neighborhood. The members of Engine Company No. 112 strive for perfection in service of their community.

Engine Company No. 112 serves my neighborhood and I have had the opportunity to spend time there on a number of occasions; these men and women personify honor, courage, and the virtues of the Maltese Cross.

On October 31, 1907, Engine Company No. 112 was organized under the direction of its first captain, Henry C. Schroeder. Over the years, the firehouse evolved and expanded. Today, under the direction of Captain John M. Byrne, Engine Company No. 112 includes: Tower Ladder 21, Ambulance 80, the Field Officers of 452, and Communications Van 272.

Engine Company No. 112 has endured the tragic loss of three of its own in service to the community. William Butler, William Huerta and Lawrence Kelly all made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty and in service to Engine Company No. 112.

Engine Company No. 112's 100th anniversary celebration will occur October 6, 2007 at Company Quarters, 3801 North Damen. This will be a wonderful event memorializing this important anniversary.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the North Side of Chicago and Fifth Congressional District community, I wish to recognize the past and current firefighters of Engine Company No. 112 for their dedication and commitment to service. Moreover I wish all the best for the future firefighters of Engine Company 112 and their families.