Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, albeit with very mixed feelings.

This bill includes a number of very important programs for our military personnel and their families. Of particular importance is the change in law that allows our men and women in uniform to provide health care benefits to their adult children up to age 26, like the rest of the country can currently do. I'm also pleased that the bill provides a 1.4 percent pay raise for our troops to make sure that their pay raise rates match the private sector, and that it funds a school modernization program for the children of our servicemembers. Unfortunately, one critical provision is missing from this bill.

In May when the House passed this bill, it contained a suicide prevention provision that I authored, named in honor of Sergeant Coleman S. Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey. Coleman did two combat tours in Iraq. In between and after those tours, he sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. Because Sergeant Bean was a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, IRR--a pool of Reserve soldiers not assigned to any unit but available for mobilization if needed--he could not get treatment for his condition because the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs refused to take ownership of Sergeant Bean and the thousands like him.

The provision I authored sought to prevent future tragedies like the one experienced by Coleman and his family. Simply stated, the provision would require the Defense Department to make quarterly counseling phone calls to reservists like Coleman. Personnel conducting this call would be required to determine the emotional, psychological, medical, and career needs and concerns of the IRR member. Any IRR member identified as being at risk of harming his or her self would be immediately referred to the nearest emergency room for immediate evaluation and treatment by a qualified mental health care provider, and in those cases the Secretary would be required to confirm that the at-risk IRR member has in fact received the evaluation, and if necessary, treatment.

To my amazement and outrage, Senate negotiators demanded that this provision be removed from the conference report, claiming it was unnecessary. Nothing in this world could possibly be more necessary than doing whatever it takes to prevent our veterans from taking their own lives. As I've said on many occasions, if we can find the money to send our troops off to war, we can find the money to care for them when they return. I look forward to working with incoming Chairman Buck McKeon and our new Ranking Member, Republican Smith of Washington, next year to finally get this provision into law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Reverend Bruce Henning Davidson, Director of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry of New Jersey, who is retiring January 1, 2011. The Office of Governmental Ministry is an advocacy ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and communicates the official policies and actions of the church to leaders in state government, particularly on issues of hunger and poverty, and more recently, immigration reform, detention practices, refugee issues and marriage equality.

Reverend Davidson is recognized statewide as an inspiring pastor, an energetic community activist, and as an advocate for justice for all people. Since becoming Director of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry of New Jersey, Reverend Davidson has been a tireless laborer in the vineyard of social service. He founded the New Jersey Advocacy Network to End Homelessness and the Anti-Poverty Network of New Jersey and a number of other community service organizations.

Heeding the biblical command to feed, clothe and shelter the poor and needy, Bruce Davidson made it his business to search out ways for people in need to have an opportunity for a better life. He recognized that the homeless are often people with bad luck--lack of a job, a sick child and no health insurance, a lack of education, or a traumatizing war experience can cause a person to become homeless and this can happen to any of us. He believes that no one should be homeless in America and inspires us to join in the fight against the poverty and indifference that allows this to happen.

Bruce Davidson was born on March 10, 1948 to David E. and Anne H. Davidson. He is a graduate of the Philadelphia school system and Temple University and was ordained following his graduation from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in 1974. He has spent his entire career in New Jersey, ministering to congregations from Cape May in Southern New Jersey to Bergen County in the north.

Wherever he has lived and preached, Bruce Davidson has made an impact, as evidenced by the many organizations that have honored him for his leadership in the community. He received the Equal Justice Award from Legal Services of New Jersey and was recognized by New Jersey Citizen Action and the Bergen County Chapter of NAACP. He was chosen a Distinguished Alumnus by the Community College of Philadelphia.

I have known Bruce Davidson for many years and my admiration for his life's work has no bounds. He is an unselfish and humble man who inspires the best in all of us. He deserves a happy and healthy retirement, with much time to spend with his long-time partner, Donald Barb, and a bit of leisure. But it is hard to think that he will not continue his advocacy for the unfortunate. Please join with me in recognizing Pastor Bruce Davidson and thanking him for a life of service.

I rise in opposition.

I am most concerned that this bill will undermine the very idea of Social Security by taking money out of Social Security and promising to make it whole with general revenues.

When FDR and others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political master stroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of ownership for the program. FDR said Social Security should not use general tax revenues.

This bill puts Social Security on the table with tax breaks for the top 2 percent, with estate tax, alternative minimum tax, accelerated depreciation, making it essentially another bargaining chip. If we allow Social Security to become another bargaining chip for dealing politicians, then it will not be long for this world.

In good economic times and bad, this sense of ownership that Americans will get their due from Social Security has allowed it to survive despite determined efforts by determined enemies.

We can find better ways to boost our economy that do not add billions of dollars of debt to pay for tax cuts for the privileged few and do not jeopardize Social Security.

It is with regret that I rise in opposition to this legislation. Less than two weeks ago, I

joined a majority of this House in passing middle class tax relief that balanced the needs of working families with our Nation's need to get its fiscal house in order. Unfortunately the Senate failed to pass this bill.

The legislation we are considering today is deeply flawed. We should try to put money in the pockets of working families, and I do not fault President Obama and many of my colleagues who want to get something done on behalf of the millions of Americans who need help. But, this is the wrong way to do it.

Yet, at a time when income inequality in the United States has risen to its highest level in decades, the bill under consideration would shift the burden of funding the Federal government further onto middle- class and working-class families. The bill would give away tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of households at a cost of more than $120 billion charged to the national debt.

I am most concerned, however, that the bill undermines the very idea of Social Security. Social Security has been a pillar of our society for generations. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, and others created Social Security in 1935, it was a political masterstroke. Social Security was created as an insurance program and has remained intact for 75 years because Americans have a real sense of ownership for the program.

In good economic times and in bad, regardless of which political party is in power, this sense of ownership--that Americans will get out that which they put into the Social Security--has allowed it to survive despite the efforts of determined enemies.

A provision in the bill would reduce an employee's contribution to Social Security from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of salary. This could have a beneficial stimulative economic effect. The $112 billion cost to the Social Security trust fund of this payroll tax holiday is supposed to be replaced with money from the general treasury fund. But that is just the problem. In Social Security's history such a commingling of payroll taxes and money from the Treasury at this scale is unprecedented.

This is not just about the financial health of Social Security, rather it is about Social Security's rationale that has worked well for generations. This bill places Social Security on the table with tax breaks for business expenses and tax breaks for the top two percent of Americans--essentially making it just another bargaining chip. If we allow Social Security to become a bargaining chip for dealing politicians, then it will not be long for this world. As much as we need economic stimulus now, we will need Social security for decades to come. Rather than taking money from Social Security, I would support a tax credit--similar to President Obama's Making Work Pay tax credit-- that would give working families a sizeable tax break with money from general revenues.

In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR insisted that Social Security should be self sustaining and that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the process of general taxation. FDR's message is as correct today as it was 75 years ago.

To be sure, the legislation before us today contains many good provisions that I would support on their own. The bill contains a one year extension of emergency unemployment benefits. According to the Labor Department, there are five job-seekers for every job opening in the U.S. Extending unemployment is the right thing to do morally and for the economy. The legislation would extend middle class tax relief for two years along with many family-friendly tax breaks such as the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, Alternative Minimum Tax relief, and marriage penalty relief. The bill also would extend expanded transportation benefits for commuters and tax credits like the research and development tax credit to help businesses grow and create jobs.

Congress needs to provide unemployment insurance for Americans searching for work, extend tax relief for working families, and find solutions to our budget crisis. Yet these must not come at the expense of Social Security. It is too important to lose.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. There is no reason to keep this misguided policy in place. It has the support of a majority of Americans, military leaders, and members of the military. You can only believe that allowing gays to serve in the military will damage morale if you discount the fact that gays have served in our military since the American Revolution. The supposed 'damaged morale' didn't lead to our losing to the Redcoats or surrendering to the Germans in two World Wars.

Allowing gay Americans to serve openly won't weaken morale in our armed forces. Rather, overturning the misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy will strengthen our military and prevent the hemorrhage of critical talent from an already-overstretched American military engaged in two wars. President Truman was right to desegregate the Armed Forces more than half a century ago and we are right to ensure that LGBT soldiers finally can serve openly. I hope the Senate will soon pass this legislation so the President can end Don't Ask, Don't Tell by year's end.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Seniors Protection Act of 2010, I rise to express support for this important bill.

Last week, the House had the opportunity to provide relief for millions of seniors, veterans, and disabled individuals.

For 75 years, and through numerous recessions, Social Security has been a steady source of income. Since 1975, Congress has implemented automatic cost-of-living-adjustments for Social Security to guarantee that Social Security benefits are protected against the effects of inflation.

The cost-of-living-adjustment for Social Security is calculated automatically using data on inflation published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is not a deliberate decision by Congress. I support a fairer cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in order to keep pace with the actual increases in the true costs of living for seniors. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2365, the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers Act of 2009, which would change the calculation of the cost-of-living-adjustment for Social Security to reflect consumption patterns which are typical for seniors.

For the first time ever, there will be no automatic cost-of-living- adjustment for Social Security for the second consecutive year. Since there was no cost-of-living-adjustment increase for 2010, the formula used to calculate the adjustment required a comparison with 2008 costs, a year when prices were historically high. Even through the average costs of health care, food, and other essentials did increase this year compared to 2009 that was not considered by the formula. Unfortunately, this resulted in no increase in monthly benefits for millions of Americans who depend on Social Security, SSI, VA Pension and Compensation, and Railroad Retirement for the second year in a row while their real costs of living have gone up.

American seniors, disabled workers, and survivors or spouses and children of retired or disabled workers rely on Social Security benefits. For example, 60 percent of American seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income and 30 percent of seniors rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income. With Social Security benefits being modest, only $14,000 for the average retiree, the lack of a cost-of-living-adjustment is troubling.

The Seniors Protection Act of 2010 would provide Social Security beneficiaries with a one-time payment of $250 to offset the lack of a cost-of-living-adjustment. This bill would provide relief for 54 million seniors, veterans, and disabled individuals. In my state of New Jersey, this bill will provide assistance to over 1.5 million individuals.

Since its inception in 1935, Social Security has provided a guaranteed benefit to hundreds of millions of retired and disabled workers and their families. For seniors, Social Security has provided financial security, independence, and dignity in their retirement years. I believe that Congress has a duty to ensure that their benefits are protected.

Congress had a chance to provide relief to millions of Social Security beneficiaries with a one-time $250 payment. Unfortunately, Republicans blocked this measure that would have provided much needed relief to our seniors, veterans, and disabled Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act, which would provide a one year extension for Medicare reimbursement rates for physician services.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a new way to determine Medicare physician payments: the Sustainable Growth Rate, SGR, formula. Since 2002, this formula has called for an automatic decrease in Medicare physician payments each year, potentially limiting physician access for Medicare patients. The formula goes beyond Medicare and also affects TRICARE, the insurance plan for active and retired military personnel and their families, and its reimbursements for civilian physicians.

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, there is a broad consensus that this physician payment formula is flawed. These parts of the Balanced Budget Act should not have been passed in the first place and should be repealed and rewritten anew. The health reform legislation passed by the House of Representatives last year, which I supported, included a provision that would have repealed and replaced the SGR formula with a new Medicare physician payment plan. Unfortunately, the final health reform bill that was signed into law did not include this provision, which would have been a permanent solution to the SGR formula.

Unless Congress acts, this formula would lead to a 25 percent cut in doctor's payments in 2011, discouraging many doctors from continuing to accept Medicare patients.

The Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act would freeze the current rates for physician services through December 31, 2011, giving Congress time to work on a permanent solution. Further, this piece of legislation would extend the 5 percent increase in Medicare payments for mental health providers that is set to expire at the end of 2010. This provision would expand access to mental health care for millions of Medicare patients.

Additionally, this bill would extend funding for the special diabetes program through 2013. Without this bill, the special diabetes program, which funds 35 percent of all Federal research on Type I diabetes and supports research and prevention diabetes programs for Native Americans and Alaska Natives would expire at the end of 2011.

This bill is completely paid for by making small changes to the health reform law.

I am frustrated by these continuing short-term extensions. This is unfair to physicians who must plan their office budgets and unfair to patients who face unnecessary anxiety about the availability of the doctors on whom they depend. I will continue to advocate for legislation that eliminates the broken SGR formula and replaces it with a system that fairly compensates physicians for treating Medicare patients. Until we have a new system, we must pass this one-year fix to ensure that American seniors and military families have the access to their physicians.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the designation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On December 6, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Arctic National Wildlife Range ``for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values'' of North East Alaska. The reserve was further expanded by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to further recognize the breathtaking landscape and stunning diversity of wildlife that inhabit the area.

The Arctic Refuge is the only completely protected Arctic ecosystem in the U.S. and one of our country's environmental crown jewels. Stretching from the plains of the Arctic Sea to the soaring mountains of the Brooks Range and lush boreal forests of the Alaskan lowlands, ANWR protects critical breeding and migratory habitat for over 200 species. The very essence of ANWR is that it is pristine and untouched.

Throughout my career in Congress I have fought to protect ANWR from the scourge of oil and gas drilling. A few extra tablespoons of oil for our gas tanks are not worth irreparably damaging this pristine environment which is truly a national treasure.

Some would argue that most Americans will not visit ANWR in their lifetimes and therefore it does not warrant the strongest protections that Congress can give it. Hundreds of my Central New Jersey constituents have written me opposing oil and gas drilling in this area. While they may not have visited the reserve, they understand the value that our public lands have to all Americans and I will continue to fight to protect ANWR on behalf of my constituents, their children and their children's children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act, H.R. 6495.

As a scientist, I have paid some attention to mine safety technology and overall safety standards. I also feel strongly about the concerns of the mining industry because I was born and raised in West Virginia, where my father many years ago as a U.S. Senator, was known as one of the best friends a miner ever had.

Today, coal mining is rated among the most dangerous jobs in America. It does not have to be that way. In the wake of the Sago, Darby, Crandall Canyon, and the recent Big Branch mine tragedy, I was pleased to work with Chairman Miller on the Committee on Education and Labor to write legislation that will hold negligent mine operators accountable and help the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, avoid future tragedies.

The Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act would help make underground mines with long histories of serious and repeat violations safer. This bill would increase the maximum penalties for those who tamper with or disable safety equipment and replace the flawed ``pattern or violations'' sanction system with a rehabilitation program that is supported by mine workers and mine owners. Importantly, this bill protects miner's rights to blow the whistle when they know unsafe conditions exist.

My good friend Cecil Roberts, the International President of the United Mine Workers of America, wrote to us in support of this bill and to remind us that 48 coal miners have died this year. Further, 600 mine workers have lost their lives in the last decade ``and thousands more have died from the crippling consequence of exposure to respirable coal dust--exposure resulting from chronic violation of existing standards.''

Today we are updating our nation's laws to protect mine workers, make mines safer, and strengthen penalties for mine owners who put their workers in needless danger. We are doing this in memory of the coal miners who have lost their lives, to keep faith with their families, and to protect the lives of miners who still go to work every day.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the funding bill before us today but not without deep reservations. Each of the appropriations subcommittees considered bills for Fiscal Year 2011, but only two were brought to the floor for a vote. All twelve appropriations bills deserved a vote by the full House. Instead, we are freezing spending levels across the board and carrying forward most of the spending decisions made last year without a full and fair debate on the consequences for today's economy and today's needs. Surely this action does not live up to the responsibility that our constituents have entrusted to us.

The results of our failure to fully weigh the tradeoffs of our spending choices are not inconsequential. Even though serious questions remain about the effectiveness and safety of full body imaging devices, this bill increases funding for the Transportation Security Administration to procure, deploy, and staff new full body scanners in America's airports. To keep spending levels constant, the bill unilaterally ends funding for certain election reform programs, reduces funding for high speed rail, and forces the Department of Energy to raid funding for renewable energy and basic science programs in order to pay for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy. This one-year funding bill freezes the pay of our dedicated public servants for two years even though non-military federal worker salaries did not create our deficit and a freeze will not solve our budget problems. While I'm pleased that this bill includes funds for a 1.4 percent military pay raise and additional funding to help our troops and their families, I regret that the bill includes tens of billions of dollars for ongoing combat operations in Afghanistan. Our continued military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not making us safer, and the billions we are wasting on these wars is money that could be far better spent at home--to hire more police for our communities, build new schools, and replace our aging and increasingly dangerous road and rail bridges.

Yet even with these and many other significant problems, this bill will keep our government operating and uphold many of our important commitments. Low-income working families will receive badly needed childcare and housing assistance. Our military personnel will receive the benefits and care they need, and our veterans will have their benefits claims processed in a more timely manner. We will fully fund our aid agreement with Israel and maintain assistance programs for other countries, including Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Students will continue to receive Pell grants, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will have the resources necessary to respond to natural disasters.

The choice presented to us in the form of this bill should not be. We are putting off the tough decisions that deserve careful consideration and reasoned compromise. We can and should make that effort. Yet on balance, I believe this bill is necessary, even if the process and the product are clearly insufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, S. 510, and to commend the Senate for its hard work in crafting and amending the bill to ensure that it would not adversely impact small and family-owned farms.

According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, each year 76 million people (25 percent of the population) become sick, 325,000 are hospitalized and 5,000 die from foodborne illnesses in the United States. In recent years, the United States has experienced many incidents of food contamination, caused by biological and man-made toxins, from spinach contaminated with E. coli bacteria, to imported wheat gluten from China contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine, to the largest beef recall in United States history--more than 143 million pounds of beef products--due to downer cattle having entered the food supply, to another of the largest food recalls in the nation's history when Georgia-based Peanut Corporation of America recalled all of its peanut products due to salmonella contamination.

These clear instances of food contamination highlight that we are long overdue in passing comprehensive food safety legislation. I was pleased to support a strong House version of this legislation when it was considered in July 2009. While I am sorry we cannot win final approval for our stronger legislation, the bill before us today includes many of those important reforms, and represents the most comprehensive set of food safety reforms put forth since the 1930s.

The bill would provide the FDA with direct mandatory recall authority, replacing the current system which depends on individual producers to issue recalls. It would also require food producers to develop food safety plans, including identifying potential risks of contamination or other hazards, and identifying the mechanisms through which those risks would be controlled. Hazards required to be identified and controlled are very broadly defined, including biological and chemical hazards, natural and man-made toxins, pesticides, drug residues, parasites, allergens and other contaminants, whether intentionally or unintentionally introduced. The bill would increase the number of FDA inspections at all food facilities. In addition, the bill establishes a food tracing system through which consumers could rapidly be identified and deaths and illnesses could be minimized in the event of a contamination outbreak. Finally, importers would be required to verify that all imported foods comply with United States food safety requirements, and the FDA would be allowed to deny entry to a food that lacks FDA certification for high-risk foods, or that is from a foreign facility that has refused U.S. inspectors.

In particular, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for responding to many of the concerns raised by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, NSAC, and constituents from my district that the bill would negatively impact small and family-owned farms, and value- added producers. As stated by the NSAC, ``[a]s a result of grassroots mobilization and much negotiation this bill now provides scale- appropriate food safety rules for small farms and mid-sized farms and local processors that sell to restaurants, food coops, groceries, wholesalers and at farm stands and farmers markets.''

The bill before us today includes several key Senate amendments that addressed the NSAC's concerns. For example, the Tester-Hagen amendment clarifies existing law exempting from FDA registration requirements farms that market more than 50 percent of their product directly from the farm or from farm stands or farmer's markets. In addition, it provides less costly alternatives to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Plans, HACCP, to farms that directly market more than 50 percent of their product to consumers, stores or restaurants within their state or within 400 miles of the farm, and have gross sales of less than $500,000. The HACCP is a system through which food safety hazards at producers are identified, evaluated, and controlled, and the Tester-Hagen amendment allows qualifying farms to satisfy HACCP requirements by documenting that they comply with state laws or by providing the FDA with documentation identifying potential hazards, controls implemented to address those hazards, and monitoring mechanisms.

The Stabenow amendment establishes a competitive grant program for food safety training, giving priority to small and mid-sized farms, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, and small food processors. The Bennet amendment alleviates paperwork requirements applicable to all small farms, and requires the FDA to allow on-farm processing and other flexible mechanisms through which small farms may comply with the preventative control plan and produce standards requirements of the bill. Other important amendments that protect small and mid-sized farms would allow the FDA to exempt farms that engage in low-risk or no-risk value-added processing from regulatory requirements, exempt small farms from traceability and recordkeeping requirements if they sell directly to consumers or grocery stores, and remove requirements that negatively impact wildlife and wildlife habitat on farms.

I thank my supportive colleagues again for their leadership and comprehensive action on this matter, and I urge my undecided colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill.

There is no indication that we are closer to resolving the various interconnected problems of immigration that is roiling our country. I am disappointed that Congress has failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It is doubtful that Congress will pass such a bill this year, which is why I am glad the House is at least moving this very important and compassionate legislation.

As I have said on many occasions, I oppose illegal immigration and I am concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants into America. I am also concerned about the lack of effective border enforcement. We need to ensure that our first priority is securing our borders by providing additional tools and resources to those who patrol the border, and the 111th Congress has provided more funding for the Customs and Border Patrol than any other Congress in history. I believe we need to fully and effectively enforce our immigration laws, and I oppose blanket amnesty for those who have illegally come into the United States.

Unlike an earlier version of this legislation, the bill before us today does not automatically grant lawful permanent resident (LPR) status to anyone covered by the bill. Under the new House bill, conditional nonimmigrants must meet the bill's college or military service requirement after 5 years, at which point they must file a new application to extend their status for 5 additional years. Only after 10 years as a conditional nonimmigrant may a DREAM Act beneficiary apply for legal permanent resident status.

The bill also charges DREAM Act participants a significant surcharge of $525 upon filing an initial application for conditional nonimmigrant status and an additional surcharge of $2,000 when they apply to extend their status at year 5. Previous versions of the DREAM Act--including the most recent Senate bill--had no such surcharges. Additionally, the bill does not change the current federal restriction on in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. Finally, only individuals who were brought to this country by their parents before they were 15 years old and who have been here at least five years and are age 29 or younger at the time of enactment are even eligible to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status under the legislation. Thus, this bill provides no amnesty and is most definitely not a ``free ride'' for illegal immigrants.

H.R. 6497 would provide an opportunity for students who grew up in the United States a chance to contribute to our country's well-being by serving in the U.S. Armed Forces or pursuing a higher education. Passing this bill is the right thing to do--morally and economically. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that the bill will reduce deficits by approximately $1.4 billion over the next ten years. But that figure alone underestimates the enormous benefits to taxpayers because the CBO and JCT do not take into account the increased income that DREAM Act participants will earn due to their legal status and educational attainment. It is estimated that the average DREAM Act participant will make $1 million over his or her lifetime simply by obtaining legal status, which will bring hundreds of thousands of additional dollars per individual for federal, state, and local treasuries.

Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal editorialized last month,

``The Dream Act would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrant children who attend college or join the military. . . . Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and rewarded ``

I agree, which is why I will support this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of House Resolution 1717. For over two decades, Liu Xiaobo has been a tireless advocate for human rights and democratic self-government for the people of China. In 1989, he left a temporary appointment in the United States to participate in the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests. After the army crackdown, he was instrumental in negotiating a non-violent resolution to the standoff. Liu continued to promote reforms in China during periods of imprisonment that followed Tiananmen Square. He was one of the primary authors of Charter 08, a declaration of human and civil rights for the Chinese people that was published on December 10, 2008. In 2009, the Chinese government sentenced Liu to eleven years in prison for ``inciting subversion of state power.''

I applaud the Norwegian Nobel Committee for recognizing Liu Xiaobo with the 2010 Nobel Prize for Peace. Liu is a brave spokesman for the billions of Chinese citizens who are denied their individual liberties in favor of ``state power.'' His nonviolent struggle and sacrifice follows in the venerable tradition of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., and he richly deserves this honor. Liu is the first Chinese citizen to receive a Nobel Prize. Sadly, however, his continued imprisonment by the Chinese government will prevent him from accepting his prize in person. I hope that the Government of China soon will realize that Liu Xiaobo and others who engage in nonviolent activism on behalf of universal human rights are not dissidents to be swept under the rug. They are noble and constructive members of society whose goal is a more just world. I join with my colleagues in congratulating Liu Xiaobo and calling for his immediate release, along with all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in China and around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my deepest condolences to all those who lost loved ones to the Carmel wildfires in Israel. Over 40 people died in these devastating fires and approximately 17,000 Israelis were driven from their homes. In addition to the human tragedy, over 12,000 acres of forestland were scorched and nearly 5 million trees were burned in the last six days. I am grateful that the forest fires are now under control and the immediate danger has passed.

I appreciate the Obama Administration's swift response to our ally's call for firefighting assistance. After U.S. Ambassador James Cunningham declared a disaster, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense mobilized over 40 metric tons of fire retardant and 3,800 gallons of concentrated fire retardant for immediate transport to the affected areas. To date, the U.S. has contributed more than $1.3 million to the relief efforts in Israel, and I am committed to ensuring that our friend and ally has the necessary resources to recover over the days and weeks ahead. I also want to commend the generous contributions of personnel and firefighting resources from so many of Israel's neighbors, including Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. It is heartening to know that even in a region fraught with conflict and tension, the human desire to assist one another in times of great need transcends political differences.

The celebration of perseverance and hope during this Hanukkah season is a comforting reminder of our ability to overcome great hardship and to look toward the future. I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution of solidarity with the Israeli people, who are foremost in my thoughts and prayers at this very difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 323, and I thank Representatives Wasserman Schultz and Wolf for introducing this important measure. I have long advocated for providing resources to help our senior citizens age in their own homes with dignity, comfort, and security. That is why I worked hard to create and fund the Community Innovations for Aging in Place program at the Department of Health and Human Services. This initiative assists millions of older adults throughout the country get the services they need to live at home.

H. Con. Res. 323 brings attention to a special population of older Americans to whom aging in place is especially important. All of the approximately 127,000 Holocaust survivors living in the United States are at least 65 years old, and they are five times more likely than other older Americans to live below the poverty line. These individuals often have experienced unimaginable violence, torture, and systematic extermination in concentration camps. For them, the prospect of living in an institutional setting may be particularly frightening. We have a moral obligation to help the remaining Holocaust survivors live out their lives safely and comfortably in their own homes and local communities. I urge support for this resolution, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Holocaust survivors have the social services they need and deserve.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Society for Training and Development and to commend them for its annual Employee Learning Week.

The ASTD is the world's largest association dedicated to the training and development field. Each year the ASTD sponsors Employee Learning Week to recognize the value of employee learning and the important link between a knowledgeable, highly skilled workforce and organizational success. This year Employee Learning Week will be celebrated December 6th through the 10th.

The ASTD has been committed to creating a highly skilled workforce that is critical to growing and sustaining a competitive advantage. There are 130 U.S. Chapters and 30 international partners including the Mid New Jersey Chapter with 140 members across Central New Jersey. Led by Peter J. Rizza, ASTD's Mid New Jersey Chapter members consist of training directors and human resource managers from a broad range of business and government agencies.

I applaud ASTD for its positive role in recruiting, training and developing the workers of today and the leaders of tomorrow. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating ASTD and recognizing Employee Learning Week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 to ensure that working and middle class families receive tax relief as we emerge from the worst recession in three- quarters of a century.

Some history about this issue is needed as some on the other side of this debate seem to have a short memory. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted sweeping tax cuts that largely benefited the wealthiest in America without corresponding cuts in federal spending. I opposed these tax cuts. These tax rates were passed on the erroneous argument that they would stimulate the economy and that they would generate more revenue than they cost. The evidence is clear that cutting tax rates resulted in a net loss of revenue to the government, and there is scant evidence that they provided much economic stimulus.

I support extending tax policies that help working families in New Jersey and across the nation. Two years ago, I was proud to support President Obama's Making Work Pay tax cuts, which cut taxes by $400 for individuals making $75,000 or less and $800 for households making less than $150,000. As we debate whether or not to continue Bush-era tax rates that shift the tax burden from wealthier Americans to the middle class, I should remind my colleagues that extending the Obama tax cut for working Americans would cost less and stimulate the economy more.

With the current income tax rates expiring at the end of this month, I am pleased to support the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This measure would extend permanently current tax rates for all Americans on taxable income under $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for joint- filers. For households that earn more, the marginal tax rate on that additional income would return to its level during the 1990s.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, maintaining the Bush- era tax cuts for income over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for joint-filers would provide the top one percent of wage earners with an average tax break of $53,674. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the top wage earners would add nearly $700 billion to the national debt over the next ten years.

While much of the debate has focused on marginal income tax rates, this measure extends other forms of tax relief that are of critical importance to my constituents in central New Jersey.

This legislation contains a two-year patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax. Because this tax, which was intended for a few hundred of the wealthiest Americans, has never been adjusted to account for inflation it threatens middle-class families. The 12th congressional district of New Jersey in particular is hard hit by the AMT. This bill would prevent an additional 88,000 of my constituents from being subject to this unfair part of the tax code.

The bill before us today would make permanent the maximum Child Tax Credit of $1,000 while expanding eligibility for the credit and making it refundable. This bill would provide permanent relief for the so called marriage penalty that unfairly penalizes couples who jointly file their taxes. The legislation also would continue Earned Income Tax Credit rules that simplify and expand its eligibility requirements.

Additionally, today's bill would extend a host of family friendly tax breaks that allow taxpayers to deduct student loan interest, save for their children's college education, and defray the costs of adoption.

With the country facing growing long-term deficits and with the expiration of current tax rates looming, my constituents and all Americans are demanding that policymakers act quickly and prudently. The tax policies in the bill before us today are the ones my constituents and the American people support. These cuts balance the needs of working families with the nation's need to get its fiscal house in order. I am pleased to support this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act.