Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my strong support for S.J. Res. 45, the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. As a Member who represents two critical natural resources, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, both part of the Great Lakes Basin, I believe this legislation is extremely timely and worthwhile to the long-term future of the Great Lakes. This bill will help address the needs of my community, as well as the many challenges that the Great Lakes Basin faces. It will have an impact on millions of gallons of freshwater, millions of people who use the Great Lakes for rest and relaxation, as well as thousands of jobs supported by the Great Lakes.

By passing this resolution today, and ratifying the Great Lakes Compact, we have the power and ability to ensure this precious resource is protected for generations to come. The Compact, which has already been ratified by all eight states affected, outlines a concrete plan of action to provide for protection of the Great Lakes now, and in the future. This Compact is imperative in helping protect this national treasure for the millions of Americans who enjoy the Great Lakes. I am pleased that Congress chose not to run the risk of leaving the Great Lakes unprotected and at risk for our children and grandchildren.

I would like to thank the Speaker for answering our call and moving this essential resolution right away. With the Senate having already passed this landmark legislation and the President indicating his support and willingness to sign it as soon as it gets to his desk, this is a historic day for the Members of the Great Lakes states from both sides of the aisle. It has been a pleasure working with a broad coalition of Members to ensure the long-term protection of the Great Lakes.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee of Ways and Means. Mr. Neal has been a true leader in the goal of trying to get permanent repeal of AMT, and while it is something that we share, we have not yet reached a solution.

So I find myself rising today on behalf of middle class families all across America in strong support of this bill. As my colleagues well know, I have fought year in and year out for the AMT patch, and I am disappointed that Congress has not addressed a permanent solution. Absent a long-term proposal, I think we have no choice but to once again pass a temporary 1-year fix.

Without patch legislation, more than 25 million families will be hit by this stealth tax. This includes more than 21 million taxpayers who didn't owe AMT in 2007. If Congress does not act, each American affected by AMT will, on average, face a tax increase of almost $2,500. We delayed action for so long last year that 13.5 million taxpayers were forced to delay filing their returns. Because we did not act earlier this year, millions more have been hanging in the balance.

We have an opportunity to end the uncertainty of the middle class that they have been facing all year long. Each Member of this House has the opportunity to live up to their responsibility and truly help the middle class trapped in this stealth tax that was so unintended for the middle class.

Yesterday the other body passed their bipartisan tax extenders package. The Senate majority leader was as candid as I have ever heard him when he bluntly told the House, ``Don't send us back something else. We can't get it passed.'' He went on to make it clear that if we do, the important extenders we have all been working so hard to accomplish will die and we will have ``snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.''

In these difficult and uncertain economic times, we have an obligation to pass a bill that can be signed into law as quickly as possible to protect middle class Americans. While I believe our time today would be better spent moving a comprehensive tax extenders package, I am nonetheless pleased to see the majority put up a clean AMT bill before this House.

I thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this legislation and Chairman Neal for his additional leadership as the Chair of the Subcommittee of Select Revenues.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who has long been an expert on trade as well as tax issues that affect this body and the country, the gentleman from California, David Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, today is solution day. There have been times where I have come to the floor and indicated I was sad over the circumstances we were in. Today I am not sad. We are moving the result of legislation I have introduced since probably 2005, a 1-year patch that protects anyone else from getting trapped in the middle class of AMT and make sure that we do this patch.

I don't believe, and most of the Members on my side of the aisle don't believe you need to raise taxes in order to pay for a tax cut on middle class Americans here.

But I am bringing concern, not sadness, but concern, because Chairman Rangel and Chairman Neal have moved this legislation to the floor and that we, I hope, will pass this legislation, as we have in the past, with very strong bipartisan measure. But I don't take lightly a message from the leader of the other body on the closing days of this session that we make sure that we don't fall through the cracks, our

version versus the Senate--the other body--version that could cause this to fall through the cracks and 25 million middle class Americans are trapped.

So while we are looking to move this in the spirit of strong bipartisan support, it's indicative that the leadership of this body make sure that they full well know how we can get the mechanics with the other body to make this law as the President gets it to his desk.

So the caution is we are not quite there yet because we have taken action today. While I like the version of the bill, we have taken our legislative prerogative and advanced it to have just this free-standing AMT bill.

I support however we get the law signed, but I bring the caution that leadership in this House will have to work very closely with the Senate leadership of the other body to match a solution that's law so we don't put our 25 million Americans in the same harm's way of inaction that we have seen in other years past.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I might inquire to the chairman if he has any other speakers, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, it's interesting in the debate, and many of us who spoke today and so many others that have come forward in years past have presented the history or the finger pointing or the direction of how we got to where we are.

The important thing is that we know that we must produce a result, even if it's a 1-year patch. It has been admirable, as Chairman Rangel took over Ways and Means, a goal he had was to rid the AMT tax from the books. We need to work in a bipartisan fashion, I suspect, to reach that permanent goal.

But as we banter some on PAYGO or pay not, or whether they are in or they are not, it reminds me to think as a Member who will not be going home to campaign, maybe I should spend a little time to see how many times we have waived PAYGO on this bill after we beat up the fact that we should do it, it's the right thing, it must happen. And then at the end of the day, we take the Republican version of not raising taxes. Quite frankly, I don't think we are borrowing money for the bill, we are just not raising taxes in order to prevent a tax increase, particularly one to the middle class which both parties so dearly want to preserve.

So as we look to the reality of this year, I remind my colleagues, we have caution to get this bill matched with the other body so that we make law in order to send it to the President's desk to protect our middle class taxpayers.

Last year 352 bipartisan Members of the House voted for the AMT extension that was not offset by devastating tax increases, just like this bill coming before us today.

I urge my colleagues to do the same today by supporting this bill so it may be included in a comprehensive tax extenders package equal to the Senate version, or that the other body relinquishes their very clear, strong warning from their leader. Ignoring the other body's warning will not get this across the finish line. So I urge adoption of the resolution, and I thank Chairman Rangel and Chairman Neal for their efforts and work to get this before us today as we are in the final days of this legislative session.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 615 I was inadvertently absent. As a representative of a Great Lakes State, a cosponsor of H.R. 6460, and a strong supporter of the Great Lakes Basin, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1275 honoring the life of Timothy John Russert, Jr.

It has been just days since one of Buffalo's favorite sons was taken from us tragically, and suddenly. We have been touched by the makeshift memorial outside the NBC News bureau in Washington, DC, the flags flying at half-staff outside City Hall in Buffalo and Rockefeller Center in New York City, and the thousands who have come from all walks of life to visit the park right outside South Buffalo that bears the name of this giant of broadcast journalism.

Tim and I walked similar beats, cutting our teeth in New York politics--the tricks of the trade Tim picked up working for the late great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and former Gov. Mario Cuomo, he took with him to NBC, where he ended up the sparring partner of many a public official, including me. Every time we got together, Tim was tough, but fair--and at the end of the day, we were still two Buffalo guys who could talk shop about the Bills and the Sabres.

Though we cannot begin to comprehend the reach of Tim Russert's legacy--we are still a community in mourning--we can say with great certainty that he has left an indelible mark on all of us.

Thank you, Tim. Go Bills!

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor a truly respected and dedicated public servant. Recently retired Justice William Waible has spent over 25 years serving as a town justice for the Town of Clarence. Justice Waible is a man of exemplary character who has given the people of Western New York gracious service not only in the courtroom, but in the community, as well.

A graduate of the University of Rochester and Albany Law School, Justice Waible has been a town justice since 1982. He practiced law for over 40 years and has served as a Professor at Erie Community College for 21 years.

Justice Waible has worked as a criminal and civil lawyer, an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, an Administration Hearing Officer for the Erie County Health Department, and as counsel to the Erie County Legislature.

In the community, Justice Waible has been a member of many community organizations including the Clarence Lions Club, the Clarence Historical Society, the Clarence Concert Association, the Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital Liaison Committee, the Board of Directors of the Community Action Organization, the Friends of the Clarence Library, and the Council of Advisors at Villa Maria College.

In addition to his involvement in various community organizations, Justice Waible has also coached children's soccer, softball and baseball.

Justice Waible is, without a doubt, an asset to Western New York. The kind of commitment Justice Waible has made to his community is something rarely seen, and should be applauded.

Madam Speaker, in recognition of Justice William Waible's remarkable contributions to the community, I ask this Honorable Body to join me in honoring him, in grateful appreciation for his extraordinary service to the people of Western New York.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor a truly respected and dedicated public servant. Father Michael Zuffoletto who recently decided to retire, has not only served as a teacher and coach, but he has also served as a chaplain for our brave men and women of the United States Navy. Father Zuffoletto a native of Buffalo, New York has been, and will continue to be, an embodiment of compassion and virtue.

Father Zuffoletto was ordained into the priesthood for the Diocese of Buffalo in 1972, and received his Masters in Educational Administration from Canisius College in 1979. He would go on to teach religious studies at local Catholic schools, and coach various sports teams.

In 1984, Father Zuffoletto reported to Navy Chaplain School. Father Zuffoletto quickly began serving on tours of duty; in fact, Father Zuffoletto has served on over ten different tours throughout the world, including to the coast of Japan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Arabian Gulf. Father Zuffoletto even served as chaplain for President George H.W. Bush during the 50th anniversary memorial of the attack on Pearl Harbor. As a chaplain, Father Zuffoletto oversaw the religious and spiritual formation of thousands of service men and women as well as provided Mass and the sacraments all over the world.

Of his many service awards, Father Zuffoletto is the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy/Marine Corps Commendation Medal, and the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal. Recently, Father Zuffoletto has also served as Chaplain General of the Navy Order of the United States, chaplain for the Knights of Columbus Council 9486, the Italian Federation, and the John Paul II Foundation of Monterey.

In his free time, Father Zuffoletto has served as an off-ice official for the National Hockey League, the American Hockey League, the East Coast Hockey League and the Atlantic Coast Hockey League.

Father Zuffoletto is remarkable, in every sense of the word, and has shown all of us the importance of true compassion, loyalty, and faith.

Madam Speaker, in recognition of Father Michael Zuffoletto's tremendous contributions to our great nation, I ask this Honorable Body to join me in honoring him, in grateful appreciation for his extraordinary service to the people of Western New York and to the people of this country.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor a respected and rising school, which is setting the standard for education in western New York.

Pioneer Middle School, a member of the Pioneer Central School District in Yorkshire, NY, has recently been recognized as one of the ``Essential Elements: Schools to Watch''. Pioneer Middle School is 1 of only 2 schools in the State of New York to be recognized with this prestigious honor and 1 of only 47 schools recognized nationwide.

The ``Essential Elements: Schools to Watch'' program was established to recognize and publicize effective schools that are committed to academic excellence, social equity, developmental responsiveness, and strong organization, structure, and process.

Pioneer Middle School's achievement should be applauded and is especially significant since the school was once identified as a ``School in Need of Improvement'' by the New York State Department of Education in 2004. The school's quick turnaround and its vast improvement are a result of strong administrative leadership and the diligent work faculty and staff. Also the parents and most importantly, the students of Pioneer Middle School, deserve to be recognized for this outstanding accomplishment.

Pioneer Middle School is not only a model for schools around western New York; it is a model for schools across the country, as well.

Madam Speaker, in recognition of this school's tremendous improvement and its

great recognition, I ask this honorable body to join me in honoring Pioneer Middle School, in grateful appreciation for its remarkable improvement and success as a top school in western New York.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor a respected and dedicated legislator, a valued educator and community leader, and close confidante and dear friend who, for more than three decades, has dedicated her life and service to her neighbors in Western New York.

State Senator Mary Lou Rath is one of the most respected legislators in our area--proof that elected service is a noble calling. Mary Lou has always been the voice of reason, and proved time and time again that her only agenda was to serve and fight for the people of Western New York.

After spending 30 years in public service, Mary Lou announced recently that she will retire from the New York State Senate. She surely be missed, leaving behind a legacy of fighting for quality health care, serving as a champion for women across New York State, and taking on issues big and small that made a real difference in the lives of those she represented.

Mary Lou was first elected to public office in 1977 as an Erie County Legislator and earned both the support of her constituents and the trust of her colleagues, who elevated her to the post of Republican Leader. In 1994, she became the first woman ever to serve the 61 st District in the New York State Senate. In the State Senate, Mary Lou earned a reputation as a hard working and compassionate representative.

Mary Lou also earned a statewide reputation for her efforts to reform Medicaid and curtail the sky-rocketing costs of health care. Additionally, she worked hard to advance her smart growth initiatives, end domestic violence and ensure that all children have a quality education.

In 1997, Mary Lou was inducted in the Western New York Women's Hall of Fame, a fitting tribute for a woman who has been such a positive role model and inspiration to women across New York. Not only did Mary Lou have a distinguished professional career, but along with her husband, the late Supreme Court Justice Edward A. Rath, Jr., raised a wonderful family in whom she instilled the values of public service.

The name Rath not only invokes the best in public service, it is, in a word, iconic in our community. The County Office building bears the name of her father-in-law, Edward A. Rath, Erie County's first-ever chief executive. Her son, Edward A. Rath III, is the third generation of family public servants, a member of the Erie County Legislature, elected to a seat once held by his mother.

Despite all her achievements in public life, I know from my long friendship with the Rath family that Mary Lou's greatest accomplishment is her loving family, her children Allison, Melinda, and Ed, and her eight grandchildren.

She is very deserving of the honor she will receive from the YWCA on May 10th, 2008 for her contributions to Batavia and Genesee County.

Madam Speaker, in recognition of her tremendous service of more than 30 years, for her leadership, dedication and lasting legacy she leaves, I ask this Honorable Body to join me in honoring my friend and colleague, New York State Senator Mary Lou Rath, in grateful appreciation for her distinguished career and devoted service to the people of Western New York.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished senior member of the Republican side of Ways and Means, Wally Herger of California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the debate continues from the Ways and Means portion of the housing bill, I believe the ranking member has set very clear remarks on where many of us find ourselves with this debate today.

Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery have a superb working relationship, and they have set the tenor of what has been hard work on both sides of the aisle and bipartisan compromise and consensus to craft some good legislation that has passed this body and has become law. And as I manage this portion for the minority and look across to my colleague from Massachusetts, he and I also share in commonsense solutions to strengthen America and to resolve some of the problems and challenges that are there. And this bill is not an exception to that. We worked at the spirit of request of both the Chair and ranking member to reach compromise and consensus to improve the Ways and Means jurisdiction on housing.

And I look at it with sadness in two parts. One, as a realtor who looks at the industry, knowing across the country that we face challenges, and the statistics that Ranking Member McCrery outlined, 680,000 fewer starts, a reduction in high percentages of what the industry is about, seeing what the drag has been on our country's growth. And we need to work through good, solid solutions that need a hearing process that involve the Congress, particularly this body, in a debate of solution.

And when we look at the entire complexity of this bill, not only as a Ways and Means member, not only as someone who understands the housing world, but also as a former member of the Rules Committee, I know that the Members of this body were trampled on based on the decision of taking an energy bill and making the housing provisions, one of the challenges of the country today, short-circuited as an amendment to circumvent debate, amendments, recommittals, and substitutes that would be afforded the minority in any other instance.

And as I look at this and the frustration I heard in the ranking member's message of what is being trampled on on rights of the minority to make presentations, quite frankly, maybe some majority Members on amendments, recommittal, and substitute, I find it disturbing that this is the beginning of strong trends of kind of a less than reasonable approach to advance legislation through this body.

And in the final thoughts, as we look at the predicament we're in on procedural processes here and maybe the fact that we could have made this bill even better, I must share with my colleagues that there is a clear veto message on this legislation as it leaves the House and it will unlikely be the solution of the land.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and a leading expert on this issue.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, first, I guess I will ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers. I am prepared to close and yield back the balance of my time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think, again, for our colleagues it is important to understand some of what has happened that the minority feels that their rights have been trampled in what has been a very unusual decision on a major piece of legislation, housing. It is certainly a significant piece of legislation because the Rules Committee granted 3 hours of debate by various jurisdictions. So it certainly sends a signal to all observers that this is serious. It warrants debate. And it is now before the House.

But I want to remind my colleagues that this is not a bill that has gone regular order. There is a Senate bill that is energy that has come over to the House. And we have now amended it entirely with a housing amendment. And so this is an amendment to an existing Senate bill to circumvent all of the regular order process that the House enjoys and has had speakers of both parties affirm this should be the action of how we debate great issues of the day.

This body is really infamous for acronyms. So today I call this the SSAD Amendment, or the Sorry Sick Amendment Decision. It is sad because the bipartisan work that was done in the Ways and Means Committee outlined by many from the Ways and Means Committee is not being worked through a process so that bipartisanship and the ability to have the entire body debate its work that came from committee.

It is sad that the bipartisan work was trampled in the Rules Committee by this decision to slickly move around the mechanism of regular order in our House. It is sad that there is no substitute. It is sad that there is no recommittal. It is sad that what makes it a procedure so unusual and so frustrating is the House never had a chance to work its will on housing legislation. In fact, as I said, the housing bill sent back to the House by the Senate was an energy bill. When it first passed the House, it had nothing to do with housing. And it is sad that a procedural straitjacket has been used in order to garner the type of votes that the majority wants to put before the House today.

Finally, it is just plain sad that the bipartisan work of the Ways and Means Committee is joined up by the Rules Committee with the Frank housing bill, because it has been clear that senior advisers to the White House will recommend the President veto the work of the Ways and Means Committee.

So as we debate one of the significant issues that many feel should be debated in the House, it is a sad day how we have approached to do it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Today is Tax Day, Madam Speaker, and all across the country, millions of Americans will wait patiently, or not so patiently, in line at the local post office, making sure that their taxes are postmarked by the midnight deadline.

Having recently struggled through the process of filling out my own tax forms, I share the frustrations of millions of American taxpayers, not just with the amount of taxes that we have to pay, but with the dizzying maze of forms, worksheets and calculations required by the IRS as well.

But instead of working together in a bipartisan way to simplify the process and enhance taxpayers rights, the majority has chosen to bring forward a partisan, political bill that has already drawn a veto threat from the administration, and is almost certainly ``dead on arrival'' in the other body.

To be sure, this legislation does contain a number of positive, pro- taxpayer provisions, most of which have already passed the House last year in an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis as part of H.R. 1677. Unfortunately for this House, and for taxpayers across the country, the majority has now abandoned that commonsense bipartisan approach that we brought to last year's bill.

Instead the majority has included a pair of highly controversial proposals that kill any hope of bipartisan cooperation, one imposing a new substantiation requirements on withdrawals from health savings accounts, and another cutting off the ability of carefully selected private businesses to assist the IRS in collecting delinquent tax debt.

Over the course of today's debate, we'll hear much more about the concerns that many Members have about the HSA provision, a provision that was not subject to a single hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, and was inserted into the bill just prior to mark-up without any real understanding of the potential consequences.

So let me take a moment to focus on the other provision of concern, the proposal to repeal the IRS's authority to work with private collection agencies to ensure that acknowledged tax debt is actually paid.

For some Members of this body on both sides of the debate, this particular issue is simple and is simply about policy. For them, it's an abstract question about whether these private collection agencies, so called PCAs, should be able to play a limited supplementary role in ensuring that undisputed tax debts are, in fact, paid.

As we debate this particular issue yet again this afternoon, we'll hear again persuasive evidence making clear just how successful the PCA program has already been in narrowing the tax gap, and while carefully protecting taxpayers rights. And we will also hear how much additional promise this program holds for the future if it's allowed to continue.

But for me and the area I represent, Western New York, the issue is much more than an abstract policy debate. It's also about jobs. As the Member of Congress who represents rural Wyoming County in Western New York, I'm actually more familiar than most Members with the work that PCAs do. After all, the largest single private employer in Wyoming County, Pioneer Credit Recovery, is one of the only two companies nationwide that the IRS has selected to help get this important program underway.

Madam Speaker, Pioneer Credit is a highly respected local business that has created more than 1,400 high-paying jobs for families living in either my district or neighboring districts around Buffalo and Rochester. And as my fellow Members of Western New York's Congressional Delegation know, these jobs have been created in a region that has faced serious economic challenges.

This IRS contract has allowed Pioneer Credit to turn an empty warehouse in Perry, New York into a thriving job center for newly hired employees. In short, it's been a great economic success story in part of Western New York that has desperately needed it.

As someone who fought to give the IRS the authority to partner with these private companies in the first place, I am deeply troubled that the new majority is once again threatening to deauthorize this important program just as it's getting underway.

If this program is allowed to continue, Pioneer Credit will have the opportunity to compete for future IRS contracts that could create many additional jobs in the area of Western New York that I represent. Killing this program, on the other hand, would cost my constituents real jobs at a time when Congress should be working to expand employment opportunities, particularly in hard-hit areas that are struggling economically.

I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that under the Democrats convoluted PAYGO rules, proposals that reduce anticipated Federal revenues must be offset by other provisions that raise revenue. As a result, today's

proposal to eliminate the PCA program, a program that is currently expected to bring in more than a half billion dollars to the Federal Treasury, over the next decade, also requires them to raise Federal revenue or taxes by the same amount somewhere else. That's right. The majority is raising taxes by a half a billion dollars today in order to eliminate the very program that's helping us to collect undisputed tax debts, more effectively. Only in Washington, Madam Speaker, only in Washington.

This bill is wrong on policy, it's wrong on job creation and it's on the way to mark April 15 for America's hard-working taxpayers.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague on the Ways and Mean Committee from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), an expert on HSAs and other matters for consideration today.

Madam Speaker, I've been listening to some of my colleagues, and I'm sure we'll have more on the Democratic side of the aisle that have been such proponents of doing away with the collection. I just want to remind some of them of a couple of things that we should look at.

First, this is money that the IRS will not go after. It is part of the goal that Congress said we will pursue to get this money, and it was going to show a $1 billion over 10-year revenue.

Now, we have seen the start-up of PCAs, one in Iowa and one in New York, after a very clear scrutiny by the IRS and by strong oversight of the Congress. And there are start-up costs of the $50 million, as we're beginning to see the program come under way, to pursue money that the IRS either hasn't collected, can't collect, will not collect as the PCAs are pursuing it.

And I have listened to a lot of people describe what they think they understand of a PCA, but they have never really been in tune with it. It kind of reminds me of somebody debating ATM legislation and never actually used an ATM.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished senior member of the Ways and Means Committee from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Health Committee of Ways and Means from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Well, I just want to make sure at least the taxpayers from the countryside I come from realize that H.R. 5719, which we're considering, the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008, really sounds good. It sounds real good on Tax Day, as I open my remarks by saying that taxpayers are in line now or will be until midnight tonight to have a postmarked April 15 date. But we know that this legislation will face a steep consideration of some saying ``dead on arrival'' in the other body. We've seen the administration have its advisers threaten veto. And yet, while there were so many things that we agreed upon in the Ways and Means Committee, Republicans and Democrats, we have a bill that brings controversy, that brings another one-House bill. It gets tough, as we move towards November of an election year, to explain that we didn't get much done, but boy did we have a lot of action on one-House bills.

I want to just share for the record here on this body what I did in the Ways and Means hearing. Because I think there's two important documents that my colleagues, as this debate goes today, and some of the consideration of what will be difficult on seeing PCAs, as the legislation may come to pass from this body, we will see difficult sledding in the other body, as well as the administration, are two reports.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration wrote one on March 26, only weeks ago, that had inadequate security controls over routers and switches that jeopardize sensitive taxpayer information. It was done by the Inspector General. And I want to just report, because we had it confirmed by representatives of the administration under our examination that this, in fact, has occurred and it's in the report which was submitted to the Ways and Means Committee. And it says, ``Impact to the Taxpayer: Because the IRS sends sensitive taxpayer and administrative information across its networks, routers on the networks must have sufficient security controls to deter and detect unauthorized use. Access controls for IRS routers were not adequate, and reviews to monitor security configuration changes were not conducted to identify inappropriate use. A disgruntled employee, contractor or a hacker could reconfigure routers and switches to disrupt computer operations and steal taxpayer information in a number of ways, including diverting information to unauthorized systems.''

Madam Speaker, that same very day, on March 26, the same Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued a second report called, ``The Private Collection Agencies Adequately Protected Taxpayer Data.'' And this information also was confirmed under examination as we made inquiries to the administration that confirmed that the reports exist, and they were well aware of these findings as well. And on page 2 of the Inspector General's report it said, ``We reviewed the computer security controls over taxpayer data provided to the two current PCAs,'' or private collection agencies for those maybe not following the debate, ``and determined that the controls were adequate. In particular, files were securely transmitted from the IRS to the contractors and adequately secured on the contractor systems. In addition work stations used by contractor collection personnel were adequately controlled to prevent unauthorized copying of taxpayer information to removable media or transfer via e-mail. The contractors also maintained adequate audit trails and performed periodic reviews, including reviews to identify unauthorized access to taxpayer data.''

Now, the response from the IRS, contained also on page two of the Treasury Inspector General said, ``The key IRS management officials reviewed the report prior to issuance and agreed to the results of the review.''

We know that in the operation of PCAs, we are going to see the collection pursuit of $500 million over that over the next 10 years. And we know that if this legislation prevails, there is going to be a tax increase of $500 million to pay for this under the majority's PAYGO rules. And so as we continue the debate, make it clearly understood that the pursuit of these PCAs was on proceeds that were not collected, could not be collected, needed to be collected in order to put into the Treasury this money owed by taxpayers to the government. And that as

we look at this legislation, what has brought the controversy to uncontroversial legislation, legislation that both parties could agree to, was the adding of HSA changes and dealing with the PCAs. My colleagues need to consider the type of consequences we're seeing in what will be a misguided change on PCA legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have listened very carefully to my friend and colleague from New York as he sees his views.

I thought maybe I might for the record just outline that I have a copy of a letter that numerous groups sent in opposition to this legislation, primarily due to HSAs, to both Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery. And it leads off with the NFIB and goes down to the National Taxpayers Union, and it has the U.S. Chamber and it has the Retail Industry

Leaders Association, the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and so many others. And I will make it available in case some of my colleagues haven't seen it.

This isn't something Republicans on this side of the aisle just kind of dreamed up that there are problems that make this legislation controversial with HSA legislation or with the PCAs. It's well documented by the experts that are using the program.

I also think, rather than some of my colleagues interpreting what the administration may have for support or rejection of the legislation, maybe I should read into the Record exactly what the Statement of Administration Policy is on H.R. 5719 so that we all know what the administration's concerns are.

And for the record: ``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719, the so-called `Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008.' The bill includes provisions that would impose new administrative burdens on the trustees of health savings accounts. These new burdens on HSA administrators are unnecessary for efficient tax administration, inconsistent with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their inception, and could undermine efforts by employers, individuals, and insurers to reduce health care costs and improve health outcomes by empowering consumers to take greater control of health care decision making. If H.R. 5719 were presented to the President with these provisions, his senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

``Also, the administration strongly opposes provisions of the bill that would repeal the current statutory authorization for the Internal Revenue Service private debt collection program. As of February 2008, over 98,000 cases have been referred to contractors, representing over $910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program would result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the next 10 years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the government and are otherwise very unlikely to be collected by the IRS due to workload demands. As noted in previous Statements of Administration Policy, the administration strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not consistent with the administration's commitment to a balanced approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to the President with these provisions, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.''

That is a Statement of Administration Policy on the record relative to this.

I now would yield to my colleague from New York for a question.

Well, I will ask you to look that up, and at a later time I will yield and you can point it out in my record.

One more time.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I just think it's important we look at this. First, I heard the debate coming from the majority, from the gentleman, that outlined his interpretation of why the administration was opposed to the bill. I listened carefully. I made a decision to read into the Record exactly what the administration's policy position was on this so that it was no longer an interpretation from a Member of Congress but exactly in written word what the administration said relative to this bill.

And I think while we're looking at other aspects of this legislation, we do know the following: That the administration is going to veto this legislation, that we also know it has difficult sledding in the other body. And it has in the past because there's a track record, that it appears just with PCA alone, let alone some of the concerns that have been put forth in the letter that I read from earlier on HSAs, that we now have another one-House bill being trumped up and laid out on Tax Day.

And I will say the majority is superb in showmanship. We seem to be able to move legislation to the floor on significant days. Today is tax legislation on Tax Day, April 15.

But I also know that the public is not going to be confused by the fact that while we trump up an extravaganza of legislation on special days, today tax legislation on April 15, that the voters are going to take a real hard look at what really got done, what has gotten through, what was made better for America. And, again, we have another one-House bill that just, sadly, had too much partisanship in it and fell away.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think I heard my colleague when he said that Democrats are in the majority in this body, Democrats are in the majority in the other body, but it's the Republicans' fault that this legislation isn't going to happen.

Now, I have explained a lot of tough, challenging things to my constituents, but I don't think they're going to buy that. It's just another one-House bill that is going to the other body and going to see death. It isn't going to see the light of day.

Now, moving to my colleague from New York who asked me the question. I didn't think I could provide the answer to his question quite as soon as I could, and saving him looking it up, because I assume as he went off the floor, he might be looking up this. I want to go back again to the statement of administration policy. The bill includes provisions that would impose new administrative burdens on the trustees of health savings accounts. That is what the administration said in their veto threat.

Now on the bill as reported out of committee by the majority, page 22, line 7, 8 and 9 to my colleagues, says the trustee of the health savings account shall make a report regarding such account to the Secretary and account beneficiary setting forth. So I want everyone to know, including my colleague who asked the question, it is clear in your bill that you set forth that the HSA trustees would have new administrative burdens.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire on the amount of time left, please.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is. I would proceed and then have you close if you are ready.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia who has done a magnificent job of managing his time, and I've enjoyed working with him.

Madam Speaker, today represents yet another missed opportunity on the floor of this House. We could have approached the issues of taxpayer rights and tax simplification in a bipartisan way just as we did last year. But with the election season now in full swing, the majority seems more interested in staging political theater than in actually getting something done for hardworking, middle-class taxpayers. This House and this country deserve more, especially on April 15, Tax Day. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, with great appreciation I rise today to honor a dedicated and highly respected firefighter, Ed

Lavery, who for more than 50 years steadfastly served and protected the people of Williamsville, New York.

Even as a young boy growing up in Williamsville, Ed was drawn to fire engines. Often Ed would jump on his bike as soon as he heard the sound of fire engines to watch the firefighters battle the blaze. Due to his determination and perseverance Ed was forced to part with his bike after he joined the Fire Department when he crashed into a wall after his bikes brakes failed.

With his straight talk and hard work ethic, Ed quickly became captain of the Williamsville Fire Department. He served five years as assistant chief, and in 1974, was elected chief. He also served as president in 1985. Along with serving the Fire Department, Ed worked for the Amherst Engineering Department where he was the general foreman until he retired in 1999. Ed was also a part-time dispatcher at the Amherst Central Fire Alarm Office, which handles emergency calls for all companies protecting Amherst, Clarence and Newstead.

Known for his candor and dry wit, Ed continues to be involved with the department. He often will join the firefighters in responding to Fires and check to make sure the pumpers are operating correctly. None of his family and friends foresee him quitting any time soon.

Thus, Madam Speaker, in recognition of his tremendous service for more than 50 years to the people of Williamsville, NY, for his leadership, his dedication and the lasting legacy he leaves, I ask this honorable body to join me in honoring Ed Lavery.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, as one of the chief sponsors of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, I rise today in strong support of Senate 1858 and urge its passage. I would like to extend my thanks to Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton for working together to get this bill to the floor today.

This bill is a tribute to children and their parents who have had to face the pain of experiencing a disease that wasn't caught by newborn screening. Each year, over 4 million children are routinely tested at birth for genetic disorders. But what so many parents don't realize is that the actual number of conditions that their child is screened for depends on the State they live in. A child's life in one State should never mean more or less than a child's life in another.

Every child born with a disease, whether it is common or rare, should receive early diagnosis and treatment. That is why we need the Newborn Screening Laws Saves Lives Act signed into law and adequately funded. Through this legislation, we cannot only educate parents about lifesaving tests available for their newborn child, but greatly expand the screening programs at the State level.

Left untreated, many disorders are life-threatening or can cause serious mental and physical disabilities. Early detection through screening can lessen effects or even completely prevent progression of many disorders by providing for immediate medical intervention.

My State of New York has long been a national leader in newborn screening, starting in 1960 when Dr. Robert Guthrie developed the first newborn screening tests in Buffalo, New York. New York now tests each child for 44 different conditions.

In 2004, the American College of Medical Genetics completed a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which recommended at a minimum every baby born in the United States be screened for a core set of 29 treatable disorders. Currently, only 19 States and the District of Columbia require infants to be screened for all 29 of the recommended disorders. It is my sincere hope through grants and research funding provided for in the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act, every State will be able to coordinate their newborn screening tests in order to bring consistency across the country.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the strong bipartisan efforts of my colleagues Lucille Roybal-Allard, Mike Simpson, and Henry Waxman. They have long fought for life saving changes to newborn screening it, and it has been a pleasure working with them to achieve its consideration today.

I would like to thank Jill and Jim Kelly and Jacque Waggoner from Western New York for their tireless advocacy on behalf of enhanced newborn screening and for the tremendous efforts to raise public awareness about this vital issue.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, May 14 marks the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence. On behalf of the House Republican Israel Caucus, I rise today to honor the Jewish state for its significant achievements over the past six decades.

Israel has shared an important strategic relationship with our Nation. And today, our countries are working more closely than ever before to defeat the common threat of terrorism.

Research and development collaborations between our countries have produced security technologies that are now used to protect the lives of Americans, Israelis, and of people all over the world. In fact, Israeli equipment has saved the lives of hundreds of U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And because of Israel's desert location, farmers and agricultural experts there have been forced to adapt their irrigation methods. This research now benefits dry weather areas around the world, all because Israel discovered a way to make the desert bloom.

Over the years, I have had the great fortune to travel to Israel four times, and each trip has been marked by emotional and spiritual moments. Anyone who has traveled to Israel feels a connection to the people and places there. This is because America shares a special bond with Israel. This bond will only become stronger in the next 60 years, and I am very humbled to begin this celebration.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride and delight that I rise today to recognize and celebrate Niagara County on its 200th anniversary.

From the locks of the Erie Canal to the roar of Niagara Falls, and from its rich history to its wonderful and generous people, Niagara County has much to celebrate on its bicentennial.

The first settlers of this area were amazed and continually challenged by the geographic surprises that awaited them. The most well-known surprise is the 12,000-year-old Niagara Falls, which the early settlers looked upon as an unexplained phenomenon of nature. While the breathtaking, yet hazardous, Niagara Falls rushes 6 million cubic feet of water over its edges every minute during its daytime peak, the falls did stand still on March 29, 1848. An ice blockade on Lake Erie stopped the flow of water into the falls, allowing for an opportunity for people to explore the cliffs of Niagara Falls. The falls remains the largest attraction in Niagara County, attracting millions of tourists every year.

Niagara County was one of the pioneers in aviation with its ``Grand Balloon Ascension'' in July 1858. This display of aeronautical ingenuity brought crowds from all over Niagara County, and also many of the surrounding counties. While the balloon remained in the air for just over 30 seconds, this display was seen as a huge accomplishment to the crowds that witnessed the event. The manufacturing and research center Bell Aerospace in the town of Wheatfield was instrumental in creating jobs in Niagara County. This plant is well-known around the world for its helicopters, rocket belts, and lunar modules. The rocket powered Bell X-1 supersonic aircraft that broke the sound barrier was piloted in 1947, by the renowned Chuck Yeager. This historic craft is now displayed in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

Not only was Niagara County a leader in aviation, it was instrumental in the development and expansion of the telegraph machine and the telephone in western New York. Niagara County was the location of the second telegraph line in the United States. The line was constructed in 1845 and stretched all the way from Lockport to Buffalo. The telegraph line provided a service experienced by few up to this time in history. The first major message sent on this telegraph line was the results of the 1845 elections. The first telephone arrived in Niagara County in 1878, just 2 years after Alexander Graham Bell patented this invention. This telephone connected Cataract Bank with the home of the bank officer. People came from all over the county to view this life- altering invention.

This bicentennial should be a celebration of the residents of Niagara County past and present. The traditions of hard work and dedication have been instilled in this community. You can tell when you meet the people of Niagara County that they are all willing to lend a hand and help a neighbor.

Thus, Madam Speaker, in recognition of its rich history, innovation, and its wonderful residents, I ask that this honorable body join me in celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Niagara county.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2008 recipients of the outstanding award for the Springville Area Chamber of Commerce in New York State. Grace Gentner, the Johnson Family of Dealerships, and Meals on Wheels. Their dedication and commitment to the community should be applauded. The awards are presented to individuals, businesses, and non- profits that exemplify outstanding service and involvement in the Springville area.

As one of western New York's outstanding citizens, Grace Gentner is a role model for Americans. Grace's kind spirit and dedication to helping others has made her community a better place. Grace has spent countless hours volunteering at several organizations in the Springville area as well as serving as a leader in the community. Due to her commitment to community service Grace was honored with this year's Citizen of the Year award by the Springville Chamber of Commerce. Among the many service organizations Grace spends most of her time contributing to the Historical Society, Bertrand Chaffee Hospital, Springville Food Pantry, Meals on Wheels and she served as an Extraordinary Minister at St. Aloysius Catholic Church. In addition, Grace has been an elected leader by serving many years as Town Clerk and tax collector for the Town of Concord as well as president of the Senior Citizens. As someone who has blessed me with her friendship I am fortunate to have been a beneficiary of Grace's wisdom, counsel and guidance. I am pleased that her hard work helping people has been recognized by the Springville Area Chamber of Commerce.

Springville's Johnson Family of Dealerships takes great pride in its tradition of contributing to the community. The family dealership was founded by Bob and Bernice Johnson in 1951, and continues to be run and operated by Mike and Tom Johnson along with General Managers Darin and Derek Johnson. The Johnson Family of Dealerships has been a cornerstone of the Springville business community. This family owned and operated business and its employees have contributed countless hours of community service from helping with the Dairy Festival, to the Annual Golf Tournament which benefits Chaffee Hospital. A true neighborhood business, they host annual Christmas and Halloween parties, events that all members of the community look forward to. It is because of their long standing tradition of service to the community that they have been awarded Business of the Year by the Springville Chamber of Commerce.

Meals on Wheels is a non-profit organization whose volunteers are the unsung heroes of the Village of Springville and the Town of Concord. This organization specializes in bringing warm meals to the citizens of Springville and the Town of Concord who are unable to leave their homes. The Meals on Wheels volunteers also provide much needed companionship and deserve the recognition of Not-for-Profit Organization of the Year awarded by the Springville Chamber of Commerce.

Thus, Madam Speaker in recognition of their service to the Springville Area, I ask that this honorable body join me in honoring Grace Gentner, the Johnson Family Dealership, and Meals on Wheels.