[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 39 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2272-H2279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE UNITED STATES OF THE 21ST CENTURY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, as we take up the agenda of the new Congress 
in the 110th iteration, we should look to new issues which address the 
needs of the American people in this century, in this time.
  When we look at what that new agenda should include, it should 
reflect the values and lifestyles and locations of Americans where they 
actually live today, and not the way that we think they lived 50 years 
ago.
  When we look at the America of the 21st century, we see a country 
that has changed radically from an old vision of our Nation as one-
third rural, one-third urban, and one-third suburban. If you hold that 
idea, you are about 40 years out of date. The new United States of the 
21st century is a majority part suburban. In fact, in the last 
Presidential election, for the first time in our country's history, 
over half of all voters were living in suburban communities. When you 
ask these voters, ``What do you think the Congress should work on to 
make sure that it is addressing key needs of your family and your 
community,'' they overwhelmingly put forward a list of priorities that 
have been consistent for the last decade and that is: action on public 
education, on health care, on conservation, and on economic growth.
  Responding to these needs, in the last Congress we formed the 
Suburban Agenda Caucus to then develop a political program here in the 
Congress to address those needs; and in this Special Order that we are 
going to have tonight, we are going talk about the next chapter, the 
suburban agenda for 2007. By talking about what these key pieces of 
legislation are, we have gone beyond platitudes or general policy 
descriptions to describe actual pieces of legislation that should be 
adopted in this Congress addressing the education, health care, 
conservation, and economic needs of the American people.
  The suburban agenda is presented here in its new 2007 form. It 
includes the Gang Elimination Act of 2007, legislation by Congressman 
Dave Reichert that would seek to identify the top three major 
international drug gangs in the United States that represent a threat 
to our country's security. In fact, if you added up all of the 
documented gang members in the United States, it would amount to the 
fifth-largest army on the earth and one that represents a clear and 
present danger to the safety and security of many kids throughout 
America.

                              {time}  1820

  I will just say that in my own congressional district the average 
gangland shooter in North Chicago or Waukegan, Illinois, is in the 
eighth grade;

[[Page H2273]]

and this legislation is critical to provide Federal backup to suburban 
law enforcement to take on the new threat of gangs moving into the 
suburbs.
  A second piece of the Suburban Agenda is the Teacher and Student 
Safety Act, legislation by Congressman Geoff Davis. This legislation 
seeks to make sure that every classroom in America is as safe as 
possibly can be maintained, using the judgment of full-time registered 
teachers who know their classrooms and their kids best.
  Under this legislation, a full-time registered teacher would be 
allowed to search a book bag or a locker if they have any colorable 
suspicion that a weapon has come into the classroom.
  In my own congressional district, in the Winnetka school system, and 
certainly we all remember the Columbine school attacks, we saw troubled 
kids bring weapons into the classroom with tragic results.
  As a former teacher, I know that I knew my kids best; and, using that 
judgment, we can make sure that classrooms are safer in America.
  One of the critical opportunities that we have in our country is 
improving health care, especially using new technology and expanding 
health insurance for Americans; and there we have the Health Insurance 
for Life Act by Representative Charlie Dent.
  The Health Insurance for Life Act addresses a critical problem in 
America, which is that the average suburban family will have five 
different jobs over their life, and they may worry that in between jobs 
they would lose coverage or be dropped or develop a pre-existing 
condition which would interfere with the continuation of health care 
insurance for their family.
  The Health Insurance for Life Act of 2007 simply says that for every 
American already in an insurance pool, who already enjoys COBRA health 
reinsurance rights for 18 months, that you can continue those, that 
insurance, for as long as you need to.
  Almost every suburban family in America has a problem that they have 
heard about, either in their own family or in their neighborhood, 
regarding predators on-line, people that would be using, for example, 
the number one Web site on the planet, myspace.com, to reach out to 
kids and to attack them in a way that was simply alien or impossible in 
the previous century.
  The Deleting On-Line Predators Act, which passed in last Congress by 
a vote of 400-15, says that our first line of defense are parents, moms 
and dads who know about this danger and are upgrading the protections 
of their kids on-line. For example, in the 21st century, how the 
computer should be really in the living room and not the bedroom, where 
parents can have routine and casual contact with their on-line habits 
of their kids; or that every 21st century parent should demand the 
rights of the passwords of their children to make sure that they know 
where their kids have been.
  The Deleting On-Line Predators Act also says to schools and libraries 
that, as we upgrade protections for kids on-line in the home, that we 
also do them in public spaces to, consistently and across the board, 
deny opportunities to the estimated 50,000 sexual predators on-line who 
are on-line at any one time.
  Congressman Jim Gerlach has also introduced another key piece of the 
Suburban Agenda. That is the Open Space and Farm Land Preservation Act 
to make sure that we improve the tax treatment and grant programs to 
preserve suburban open space, so that we do not enter a state of drift 
in which suburban open space disappears across the country, and we have 
an unending series of strip malls.
  And the final piece of the Suburban Agenda for 2007 is the Senior 
Safety and Dignity Act by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite. That Act 
lays out a set of protections for seniors as America ages to make sure 
that their health care standards, especially in senior and life-long 
care, are maintained.
  When we look at this all, there is one bill that stands above all 
others in the concern of suburban families, and that is how to pay for 
college to make sure that a child has a guaranteed road map into the 
middle class. And to talk about that legislation, let me yield to the 
author of that bill, my colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Judy 
Biggert.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you so much, Mr. Kirk, for organizing this 
opportunity to discuss the Suburban Agenda. As a Member who represents 
part of Cook County, the most populous county in Illinois, DuPage 
County, the second most populous county in Illinois, and Will County, 
the fastest growing county in Illinois, I certainly share your strong 
interest in suburban issues.
  So I am delighted to be able to talk a little about the 401(k) kids. 
I want to just take a few minutes to explain what I think is one of the 
most important issues facing my constituents and constituents all over, 
particularly in the suburbs, the rising cost of college education.
  Other than buying a home, the cost of a college education is probably 
one of the first major expenses that families need to start saving for. 
The average cost of tuition at an in-state public school is now at 
least $13,000; for an out-of-state public school, it is $19,000; and an 
average tuition at a private school is $28,000 and rising. These 
numbers have risen and continue to rise far faster than the rate of 
inflation.
  Adding to this problem, let me put on my financial literacy hat just 
a little bit, is that personal savings rates in this country have 
dropped to a negative 1 percent, one of the lowest savings rates since 
the Great Depression. So what I fear here is we have a financial storm 
waiting to strike families across the country.
  With students already carrying 45 percent more debt than they did 10 
years ago, I simply don't think increasing loan amounts and reducing 
loan rates is enough. We have to provide more tools for parents and 
students to save for college. That is why we have introduced H.R. 87, 
the 401 Kids Family Savings Act of 2007.
  This legislation would put American children on the path to an 
affordable education and a firm financial future. It allows an 
individual, including a parent, a grandparent, an aunt or an uncle, to 
set aside a total of $2,000 annually in 401 Kids Savings Accounts for 
each child.
  Like that Roth IRA, the money is contributed to the account after 
taxes, but interest accumulates tax free, and the balance can be used 
tax free for the approved purposes in the bill. In the case of 401 Kids 
Savings Accounts, the money could be withdrawn tax free, first of all, 
for the college education.
  The legislation would extend through 2015, the Coverdell Education 
Savings Account tax benefits, and rename these accounts 401 Kids 
Savings Accounts.
  Second, for housing. 401 Kids Savings Accounts also can be used when 
the child grows up and they haven't used the amount, all of the amount, 
for the purchase of a first home.
  And third, retirement. When the child grows up, he can roll over his 
401 Kids Savings Account into a Roth IRA for use much later during 
retirement.
  By enacting these reforms, we really can supply families with a 
single vehicle to set aside money for their children's futures. Money 
contributed at birth could grow tax free for 18 years until needed for 
college.
  Parents and relatives also would have the peace of mind of knowing 
that if the child chooses not to go to college, even though they put 
away the money, or chooses a more affordable school, any money left 
over in the accounts can be used for the child's first home or 
retirement.
  I would be remiss, as we talk about financial literacy and talk about 
savings, if I didn't mention that even Chairman Bernanke of the Federal 
Reserve has said that creating savings accounts for children at the 
time they are born is a great idea. So I am really pleased to be with 
you.
  Mr. KIRK. If the gentlelady will yield.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield.
  Mr. KIRK. When we look at this problem, we see that the Congress has 
taken critical action in the past to change our culture in favor of 
more savings and investment. The 401(k) program was relatively new to 
our society and our culture.

                              {time}  1830

  And yet millions of Americans now, when they get their first real 
job, establish a 401(k) program, saving on their own for retirement.
  Last Congress you were leading the effort on behalf of extending 529 
college

[[Page H2274]]

savings accounts that are chartered under each State. We already have 
$80 billion saved under investment. That is why I want to applaud you 
with the potential that this 401 Kids account bill could do.
  I yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Yes, there are several States that have 
started this process, too. The more that we can entice people to start 
that saving, to know what is available, the more that it is publicized, 
whether it is a State account or a Federal account, it is very 
important that this starts.
  I know that in all the work that we do in the financial literacy and 
financial education that still we have kids that don't understand the 
difference between checks, cash or credit cards. Nor do people 
understand compound interest. Adults don't understand that.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that may be the biggest 
benefit from this legislation. Not only will we save tens of billions 
of dollars for college education, and I think everybody in this Chamber 
knows George Washington University just crossed the $50,000 a year 
tuition mark for kids, but more importantly, these accounts are going 
to have the names of each child on them. And so it is an education tool 
for parents. And I don't know if you want to talk about that. When the 
statement comes into the home that for a young teenage son or daughter, 
you might be able to talk about how the investment has gone.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Not even a teenager, but let's say a pre-teen, when the 
statement comes in and they look at it every month, they see how much 
interest, what interest means and what compound interest means, that 
they are getting more money every month, every year on this account. It 
isn't just sitting there static.
  We have so many people in this country that are what we call 
``unbanked,'' that don't even have a bank account or anything. They 
don't get these statements. So this is a tool, you are right, that kids 
learn about how to manage money. And part of that is having the 
opportunity that will be gained, being able to go to college because 
they had their parents and their family that put money aside for them. 
And you could put aside $2,000 a year, but you can start with $50, 
$100. Maybe families can't afford to put that much money in, but every 
dollar saved is a dollar towards education with the interest that is 
gained and reaped over the years in this account.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentlewoman. I think the Congress needs to pass 
the 401 Kids Family Savings Account Act. We know that the average 
college graduate in America earns a million dollars more than someone 
who only graduated from high school.
  One of the other members of the Suburban Agenda Caucus and an author 
of one of the key pieces of legislation is my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Congressman Charlie Dent, and I yield to him.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his strong leadership on this suburban agenda. 
I also want to thank him, too, for arranging this opportunity for 
members of the Suburban Agenda Caucus to come to the floor this evening 
to discuss issues that are important to all Americans and not simply 
just people who live in the suburbs.
  Every congressman or woman has a unique district with distinct 
interests, but we can all support an agenda that defends our children's 
safety, improves educational opportunities and expands access to 
affordable health care.
  When I am at home in my district, one of the issues that I discuss 
with my constituents is our mutual concern for the safety of our 
children, both in school and on the Internet. Parents have a right to 
send their children to safe, drug-free schools, and we took an 
important step last Congress when the House passed legislation, the 
Student and Teacher Safety Act, that would allow States and school 
districts to conduct reasonable searches to ensure that our schools 
remain free of all weapons, dangerous materials and illegal narcotics. 
Parents need to know that their children are safe when they are at 
school.
  As a father of three young children, I am particularly concerned 
about the threat of online predators. The National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children reports that over 50,000 predators are online at 
any given time and one in five children has received an unwanted online 
solicitation of a sexual nature. We need to be vigilant as parents by 
supervising our children while they are browsing the Web at home. We 
also must do all we can to protect our children when they are outside 
our supervision by preventing them from accessing social networking Web 
sites and chat rooms like MySpace.com at schools and in libraries 
unless they are under adult supervision. The Deleting Online Predators 
Act will give parents peace of mind by ensuring that a responsible 
adult is monitoring their children's Internet use at all times.

  Parents in my district know that a college education will double 
their child's earning potential, as you just mentioned, but they worry 
about how they will afford to send their children to a higher education 
institution. It is critical that we help families start saving early to 
send their children to college. By passing H.R. 87 and permanently 
extending the 401 Kids Family Savings Accounts, or college savings 
accounts, parents will be able to put money aside to invest in their 
children's future. And I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert) for her strong leadership on this issue.
  Finally, one meaningful step we can take to ensure that individuals 
and families maintain access to affordable health care is to provide 
greater portability of health care coverage. Most Americans with 
private group health insurance are covered through an employer, 
coverage that is generally provided to active employees and their 
families. A change in an individual's work or family status can result 
in loss of coverage. Americans are changing jobs more than ever before, 
averaging nearly seven different careers over the course of their 
working lives.
  In 1985, Congress enacted legislation we refer to as COBRA to give 
workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to 
choose to continue coverage provided under their group health plan. 
Under COBRA, an employer with 20 or more employees must provide 
individuals and their families the option of continuing their coverage 
under the employer's group health insurance plan in the case of certain 
events such as a voluntary or involuntary job loss, reduction in the 
hours worked, transition between jobs, death, divorce and other life 
events. But in most circumstances, the coverage under COBRA is limited 
to 18 or 36 months. And because of this 18-month limitation, during a 
prolonged job search, individuals and families have to purchase 
expensive policies in order to maintain their quality of care or they 
take the risk of becoming uninsured. During times of transition, 
families need the certainty of knowing that they will not lose their 
health coverage.
  Later this week I will be introducing a bill, the Health Insurance 
for Life Act, which will remove the 18- or 36-month limitation on COBRA 
coverage, giving employees the option to continue their health 
insurance coverage indefinitely. Knowing that they can rely on 
continued coverage will provide individuals and families with 
consistency and security as they face change and uncertainty in their 
lives. And I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to 
advance this important agenda that has been outlined by my friend and 
colleague, Representative Kirk of Illinois.
  And, again, I do want to compliment you and applaud you on your 
leadership.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have seen that several 
hundred thousand Americans each year exercise their COBRA rights to 
continue health care insurance for their families after they are laid 
off or leave employment. But, each year, over 200,000 Americans will 
reach the end of their 18-month COBRA period and then be unable to 
continue their health care insurance. If they have a preexisting 
condition in their family, they could then be left out of a coverage 
pool later.
  I think that is why it is so important that, at the discretion of the 
family, at their own cost, they can continue that health care insurance 
to have peace of mind.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DENT. Yes. The gentleman is absolutely on point. The portability 
aspect of this legislation is absolutely

[[Page H2275]]

critical. When I served in my State legislature, in both the State 
house and the State senate, this was a common complaint I would hear 
from people who suffered a job loss and were at the end of their COBRA 
eligibility.

                              {time}  1840

  They were very frustrated, just for the reasons you identified, that 
there was a member of the family who had a particular illness and that 
they could not get coverage elsewhere. So COBRA was absolutely critical 
to them being able to provide for their families.
  Remember, too, when you pay for COBRA insurance, you are basically 
paying the full premium. So the portability aspect and dealing with the 
preexisting condition is absolutely I think one of the best selling 
points and the most salient points of this legislation.
  Mr. KIRK. We also hear from job experts that in America generally it 
takes one month or $10,000 to find a new job, on average, but many 
families will hit that 18-month limit before they find new employment.
  Mr. DENT. That is absolutely true. And particularly I would also urge 
anybody watching us this evening to not only look at their COBRA 
options, and certainly endorse this legislation, but also be aware of 
the fact that we have programs in this country called SCHIP for 
children who are uninsured, that if their children need health 
insurance, they may be eligible for that.
  When I was in my State legislature, we passed an Adult Basic Program 
providing a low-cost health insurance program for adults of working age 
who, for whatever reasons, were out of work.
  So, again, the gentleman is on point, that when people are 
unemployed, there are options for them in health care in many States, 
either through SCHIP or, like my State, Adult Basic; and I would 
certainly encourage people to contact my office or even their State 
legislator's office to seek some assistance.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman.
  For suburban families, health care issues are second only to safety 
and security and improvement of public education in their priority 
list. One of the key issues is access to care, especially at community 
health centers, and making sure we have enough doctors. No one knows 
this issue better than the author of the Family Health Care 
Accessibility Act, part of the Suburban Agenda, my colleague, 
Congressman Tim Murphy.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from 
Illinois for yielding.
  As you said, few things are as important as the health of our 
families.
  A lot of times in this Congress we talk about issues of health care 
accessibility, and a lot of times that becomes a discussion of health 
insurance. But the bottom line is, for families, they want to know that 
when their child or they are sick, can they get to see a doctor that 
they can afford, or even having their well-child visits or other 
checkups and how do they do that.
  Health care issues, being a top priority for the Suburban Caucus, 
includes my legislation, the Family Health Care Accessibility Act, 
which is an updated version of a bill I introduced last year to ensure 
that every family has a neighborhood doctor. Regardless of their 
income, regardless of whether or not they have insurance, families will 
have health care.
  We oftentimes hear it quoted here, and sometimes misquoted, that 
there are millions of Americans without health insurance, and indeed 
there are, and we do not want Americans to do without that health care. 
But, in fact, many of these folks are covered, perhaps through their 
employer; and, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania was describing, when 
they are between jobs and they have that gap there, that is something 
that Mr. Dent's bill would help cover them.
  But there are some who are also covered by Medicare and Medicaid and 
don't know it. We need to work with them to make sure they are aware of 
that. The census data simply asks who is covered.
  But the other issue becomes what about those Americans, 12, 13, 14 
million or so, who do not have anything, and those are the ones we need 
to recognize that there are some things we can do, and we need to act 
now. It is not a matter really of concern about spending vast amounts 
of money, but we have a solution at hand, a simple solution, a direct 
solution, and one that we should embrace quickly to help these 
families.
  Understand that health care costs for families in the United States 
are rising. From 2004 to 2005, the medical costs for a four-person 
household increased by over 9 percent, to $12,200-plus. This is a 
growing burden on all families and often many look at this as they 
can't afford health care.
  But, fortunately, there are community health centers out there. These 
are nonprofit, community supported health care facilities that provide 
affordable primary and preventative health care on a sliding fee scale 
so that every patient who walks through the door can receive access to 
health care services. This is low-cost, affordable quality.
  So instead of a family saying that they look at a health insurance 
bill of several hundred dollars a month, that would not be the issue, 
because what they could spend was a small, small fraction of that on a 
sliding fee scale to help them cover a doctor's visit, a dentist's 
visit or something else.
  In fact, community health centers provide this high-quality care to 
over 15 million families who are the low-income, underinsured and 
uninsured. They provide a medical home for these folks and save even 30 
percent for those who are on Medicaid, which is about a $17 billion 
annual savings to the American taxpayer.
  Community health centers provide a wide array of health care, such as 
prenatal, dental, podiatry, mental health, substance abuse counseling, 
hearing screening, vision screening, discount prescription drugs, case 
management, smoking cessation, blood pressure monitoring, blood 
cholesterol monitoring, weight reduction programs, a wide array of 
programs that are available there. But the issue is, are there enough 
of these centers around and are there enough doctors to staff them?
  About 70 percent of those who use these community health centers have 
incomes below or at the poverty level, but there are also many other 
families who find themselves in a situation where they are working but 
are not insured and they can go to these, recognizing they can hold 
their heads high, because they are getting good quality health care and 
they have a health care home.

  For many folks, these are the only health care services available, 
and while the number of uninsured patients at community health centers 
is growing, the number of physicians available to them is decreasing. 
There is a critical shortage of physicians available at community 
health centers to meet the health care needs of the uninsured and 
underinsured.
  The Journal of the American Medical Association reports a 13 percent 
vacancy rate for family physicians, a 9 percent vacancy rate for 
internists, a 20 percent vacancy rate for OB-GYNs, and over 20 percent 
for psychiatrists. So what can we do to get more doctors at the 
community health centers?
  Well, interestingly enough, physicians and other specialists hired by 
community health centers are covered by the Federal Torts Claim Act for 
medical liability costs. However, those who want to volunteer are not 
covered. They would then have to get their own insurance.
  We have heard it spoken many times in this Chamber and other places 
where the cost of medical liability insurance is so high that many 
doctors retire early, they limit their practice or they leave the 
States where those prices are so high, in the tens of thousands, many 
times over, dollars per year. For example, many OB-GYNs will stop 
delivering babies in order to reduce their costs. In Pennsylvania 
alone, there are about only 4 percent of physicians who are under the 
age of 35, and we are looking for more shortages in the future.
  Well, community health centers have limited resources to meet the 
current needs of the uninsured and underinsured, but there are many 
physicians and psychologists and dentists and others who want to 
volunteer at community health centers, but the current laws are a 
barrier to them. So when they do approach community health centers and 
say they would like to offer some time every month, the centers 
oftentimes find themselves in a position of turning them down.

[[Page H2276]]

  This bill simply does this: Whether you are working in a community 
health center or you want to give your time at no charge to help those 
in need, you can be covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 
something that this Congress has done for those who are employed by 
those centers.
  Let's extend that to those who want to volunteer. There is then no 
cost to those centers to hire those folks, and it is very limited cost 
to provide that health insurance for them. So there is a huge savings.
  But the main thing is we provide more coverage for families, families 
have more doctors that they can go to, we don't have these shortages, 
we don't have long lines at these centers, and people have a health 
care home.
  It is such a simple task for Congress to pass this. This bill is one 
I hope my colleagues will help me in co-sponsoring and help support as 
it moves through the process. We simply cannot afford to continue to 
address health care by talking about health insurance only. That is an 
important part, but it isn't just financing this system. It is a matter 
of fixing this system in a compassionate, quality way. Community health 
care centers provide that, if we only open the door for more doctors 
and others to provide that care on a volunteer basis.
  What could be more humanitarian, what could be more compassionate, 
than to remove this government barrier that stands in the way of people 
reaching out their hearts and providing this care at this very low 
cost?
  I would hope that all of my colleagues would join me in co-sponsoring 
this bill and helping to move it through. But it is, as part of the 
Suburban Agenda, one where we recognize that working families have 
tremendous needs.
  We have in this country, reaching out of compassion, have helped 
those with very little income through Medicaid. We have helped those 
who are veterans through the VA system. We have helped the elderly 
through Medicare. Let's also help those who are in different 
thresholds, in different categories, who cannot afford health care, and 
let's do this very low cost, perhaps even a cost offset plan, that can 
provide this care to them.
  Mr. KIRK. Reclaiming my time, I applaud the gentleman. I am a co-
sponsor of the Family Health Care Accessibility Act. It is part of the 
Suburban Agenda, so many Members are backing it.
  But my understanding on this legislation is that several trial lawyer 
associations are against this legislation because they want to preserve 
the right to be able to sue any doctor volunteering in a community 
health center out of that ability, which then would mean that there is 
no doctor present or the community health center closes down.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Well, what happens is, right now, 
those doctors who are paid are covered under the Federal Torts Claim 
Act.
  What happens, if they can't see the patient, it is one of those 
things that medical care delayed is medical care denied. What they end 
up doing is sometimes going to emergency rooms, where the cost is many 
times over, and hospitals by law have to provide that care. They cannot 
turn them away. Again, we are taking children and families who should 
be seeing their physician for primary care, their immunizations, their 
flus and colds and earaches, and seeing a physician at a health center, 
and to have legal barriers are something that does not make sense to 
any family, let alone suburban families.
  Mr. KIRK. You are an expert on health care in this Congress. When we 
look at the delivery of health care, in a hospital emergency room, we 
have the most expensive setting to care for a family. Generally they 
have waited until a very late moment, and now we are in an acute 
emergency situation.
  Had that family gone to a community health center early in the 
process, we would have dealt with the problem without the drama and 
without a potential catastrophic result, and at much lower cost to the 
public and the family. That is why this legislation is essential, 
because it expands these centers and expands care at this level instead 
of the very expensive place we do it now, in the hospital emergency 
room.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Yes, indeed. Hospital emergency rooms 
should be for emergencies and traumas. Those who have flus and other 
illnesses can be seen by other doctors that don't overburden the 
emergency room at a very high cost.
  Those, however, who do not have those illnesses yet, by a checkup 
with their doctor, adults and children alike, we can reduce costs 
because they can get to see the doctor early, or the nurse or the nurse 
practitioner or the dentist.
  Our focus should be on providing quality care, accessible care at low 
cost. Community health centers are a tremendous asset for our Nation 
and something that we should all be supporting. It is perhaps the most 
compassionate thing we can be doing for the underinsured and the 
uninsured.
  We will continue the battles in other areas, and we will continue to 
work to provide all the care that families need. But this is such an 
important answer that is in communities now and something I think we 
need to pass now.
  Mr. KIRK. If we don't pass this legislation, we will have fewer 
doctors and fewer examining rooms open in community health centers.
  Ironically, because we did not provide this liability protection for 
community health centers, we don't have any issue of malpractice 
because there was no practice of medicine whatsoever in that setting 
which I think defies common sense. A greater access to care and 
expanded capabilities for community health centers ought to be what 
this Congress is about.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for pointing 
that out. I am not clear whether there are any associations that oppose 
this part; maybe there are. But I would hope that they would reach out 
and say, these doctors are covered by some liability insurance. It is a 
lower cost to them. But the main thing is, let's get these families and 
these children to see doctors now and get the care that they need.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman.
  When we look at the suburban agenda, you can see, last year, we had 
quite a lot of progress made.
  The School Safety Acquiring Excellence Act not only passed this House 
as part of the suburban agenda, but it was enacted into law, allowing 
full national criminal background checks for anyone coming in contact 
with kids in a school, especially recognizing the Jessica Lunsford 
problem.
  We also passed the Charitable Donations for Open Space Act, enacted 
into law, and that was with the leadership of my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, Jim Gerlach, who is now, as part of this year's suburban 
agenda, is moving the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act, and I 
yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his terrific leadership in 
pulling us together for this terrific suburban agenda that we have been 
putting forward in Congress now for the last couple of years.
  We made progress in the 109th Congress, but we want to see a lot more 
happen here in this 110th Congress. It is through this caucus that we 
have where I think we are bringing vital issues to improve the quality 
of life for our constituents across this country to the forefront of 
the national debate.
  In the 109th Congress, we made great progress on considering measures 
to benefit all Americans; and in particular, addressing the challenges 
facing working families in fast-growing suburban areas.
  In my congressional district, which is in the suburbs and exburbs of 
Philadelphia, tremendous growth is leading to the dramatic loss of 
prime open space and farmland. This pressure has led the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania, many counties, and even local municipalities to enact 
laws to protect farmland from development through the purchase of 
conservation easements.
  These voluntary efforts allow farmers to stay on their land and 
preserve it for future generations, as well as improve the quality of 
life environmentally in our local communities.
  To promote and encourage the efforts of municipalities and private 
entities that wish to participate in that effort, we have introduced 
H.R. 1152, which is the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act. This 
bill, which is virtually

[[Page H2277]]

identical to H.R. 5313, which was agreed to unanimously by the House in 
the 109th Congress, is designed to promote the protection of the most 
threatened farmland and open space, land that a State, county, 
municipality or even a private entity, have all agreed is worthy of 
preservation.
  To do so, the bill reserves a small portion of the current Federal 
Farmland Protection Program to provide matching Federal dollars for 
preservation efforts that are already receiving a county, State and 
local or private dollar in preservation effort.
  The bill creates a challenge grant that encourages States and 
counties and local municipalities or those private entities, such as 
local conservancies, to work together to obtain a Federal 25 percent 
match.
  I believe this bill will go a long way towards using existing Federal 
dollars to encourage more States, counties, municipalities and private 
groups to take action to protect their vital open space and farmland.
  It is important to note that the bill is also fiscally responsible. 
And in that, it does not authorize any new spending; it simply reserves 
a portion of existing program dollars. It is my hope that if this new 
program is enacted, it will lead to better and more effective Federal 
efforts to help our local municipalities, counties and States to 
preserve farmland and open space.
  I hope the Democrat majority here in the House truly understands the 
challenges facing suburban communities, and realizes that enacting the 
suburban agenda legislation is vital to our communities.
  Again, I want to express my thanks to Mr. Kirk for his great efforts 
and his staff to pull together this very important Suburban Agenda 
Caucus again in the 110th Congress, and I am glad we are focusing more 
attention on issues that will benefit families in suburban areas and 
remain hopeful that we can build on our success from the last session 
and have great achievement again this session.
  Mr. KIRK. We look back on the tradition of great environmentalists, 
like Theodore Roosevelt, who started the National Park Service and 
expanded key habitats like Yellowstone National Park, and we are all 
for strengthening and expanding the park system out west.
  But for my constituents outside the Chicago suburbs, or yours in the 
Philadelphia suburbs, that might be only part of a summer vacation.
  We need to pass this legislation so there is green and open space 
near home so we don't have an unending set of suburban sprawl, but we 
don't have the Federal Government take over this role; this is a 
decision made by landowners and communities throughout our local areas 
making local decisions. But in some, create more green and open space, 
new greenways, to preserve a quality of life and an ecological ambience 
that has become part of suburban living.
  Mr. GERLACH. Absolutely. We have seen a lot of growth in southeastern 
Pennsylvania in the last 20 years, and it is good-paying jobs and 
family-sustaining jobs. As that continues to happen, people at the same 
time, while that is where they go to work and earn their livelihood, 
they also want to see the environmental quality of life also preserved, 
so they have in their communities not only the good-paying jobs but 
also the green space, the open space to preserve for their generation 
and beyond.
  At the same time, that growth is also coming up against the rural 
communities, those communities that for generations and hundreds and 
hundreds of years have been agrarian. They were founded on agricultural 
activity, and now, as that growth pushes up against that, the farmers 
want to be able to stay and keep the family farm going for future 
generations.
  We found in Pennsylvania that the Farmland Preservation Program is an 
excellent way to do two things: keep the family farm going by 
providing, through payment of dollars for conservation easements to the 
families, the ability for them to sustain themselves economically and, 
at the same time, sustain that environmental quality of life that is 
important to what makes a good community.
  We have been very successful using county dollars, some local 
dollars, some very important State dollars, and even Federal dollars to 
have that effort go forward. But there still needs to be encouragement 
for local municipalities to participate in that process. That is what 
this legislation is about and why it is important for us federally to 
look at the issue.
  Mr. KIRK. Why I think this legislation is so important, too, is we 
have seen in the development of the environmental law and movement a 
trend away from our roots protecting green and open space and habitat 
to more regulation, more lawsuits and potentially ineffective policies.
  I will just note, the Federal Superfund program, designated to 
cleaning up the most toxic places in America, has spent over half its 
funds on litigation and lawsuit costs, not on environmental cleanup.
  Your legislation takes us back to the original core of what the 
environmental movement was first founded to do, which was to protect 
green and open space and key habitats for all time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. GERLACH. Again, I thank the gentleman, because really this effort 
is about really allowing it to be locally based, based on two very 
important factors.
  Number one, it is voluntary. No one forces a farmer to participate in 
the program. It is not like an eminent domain action where a taking of 
land occurs and that farmer or that landowner is paid just compensation 
for the fair market value of the land, with or without his approval. No 
farmer enters into a land preservation program or transaction without 
his approval, in that he volunteers for it.
  It does recognize very important private property rights, that 
everyone is entitled to realize the economic value of his land, and so 
what this program tries to do is pay the economic value of that land to 
the farm owner who wishes to participate on a voluntary basis. So it is 
locally oriented, and it is oriented to those that want to participate 
on a voluntary basis, realizing the economic value of their land based 
upon the conservation easement they are giving up. That, to me, is the 
best way to preserve local and environmental conditions, local folks 
making local decisions on a voluntary basis and having the financial 
resources to make those good decisions.
  Mr. KIRK. It also seems to me we are not empowering a large 
bureaucracy. There is no overhead in administration. The vast 
percentage of resources dedicated for this purpose actually goes to the 
environmental preservation.
  Mr. GERLACH. Absolutely. We have in our local counties county 
preservation boards that administer the program. They obtain dollars, 
both locally as well as from the State, and, where appropriate, the 
Federal Government, and they administer that program.
  This legislation that is on our agenda does not add to bureaucracy. 
It will not add another person at the Federal level or the State level, 
does not add to our county preservation board staff-wise.
  So it is just additional resources on a voluntary basis that would be 
available to those that realize that the quality of life in a community 
is based not only on economics but also the environmental aspects of 
that community, and that is why it is an important initiative.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman for being a leading part of our 
Suburban Agenda Caucus and moving this critical environmental piece of 
legislation.
  To recap, last year when we put this together, we passed legislation, 
enacted it, for safer schools, charitable space, for open space. We led 
the way in at least the House passing legislation promoting fully 
electronic medical records by passing the Deleting On-Line Predators 
Act, setting the example on student and teacher safety.
  This suburban trend in America is not an Eastern trend, and it is not 
a Midwestern trend. It is not a Western. It is throughout the country. 
One of our suburban leaders is from Texas, my colleague from the Texas 
delegation, Pete Sessions, and a leader on suburban issues.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time.
  Being from Dallas, Texas, does offer me the opportunity to come in 
and join the Suburban Caucus members here tonight from Illinois and 
Pennsylvania; and tonight I would like to speak about

[[Page H2278]]

something that I think is very, very important and that is our economy.
  Just yesterday, there was a brand new study that was released in 
Europe that mostly you will see in Europe, you probably will not see in 
the United States, but talks about how the United States economy, as it 
was 20 years ago, is now the size, or said another way, Europe is now 
the size of, their economy, in 2007, what the United States economy was 
20 years ago. It comes as a shock to many people in Europe, even though 
they have already seen incrementally where their countries fall out.
  But what has happened in Europe is they have seen a continuation of 
high taxes, of overregulation, of requirements on single payer or what 
we might call single payer system in health care, as well as rules and 
regulations that are given to unions to not only organize but to put 
additional restrictions upon employers.
  So, tonight, what I would like to say is, thank goodness we live in 
America. Thank goodness we live in an America where the free enterprise 
system is alive and well.
  Tonight, the Suburban Agenda that is being talked about by the 
Republican party is a part of trying to make sure that we grow our 
economy, to where America has the very best not only economy in the 
world but also a leading-edge and moving-forward economy.
  What I would like to talk about tonight is also a part of our 
Suburban Agenda of growing the economy, and that relates to making sure 
that we have the opportunity to have lower tax rates that allow 
investment in opportunity.
  As we know, in just a few short years, I think it is about some 1,381 
days from now, the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican majority 
over the past few years will be going away unless the Democrats were to 
allow a vote and we reauthorize those. What would be gone away is the 
marriage penalty, depreciation, capital gains; and our tax rates would 
rise, also.
  Mr. KIRK. You are telling me that the marriage penalty will be 
reimposed by the American Tax Code unless this Congress acts?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly right. What happened was, when 
Republicans came into office 12 years ago, we talked about how 
important it was to make sure that every worker in a family, in this 
case a husband or a wife, would have an opportunity to only be taxed 
upon their own income. What happened is, after 40 years of Democrat 
control, we had taxes at this high, high level, and what happened is 
that a married person would be taxed at the highest rate of the person 
in that household, whoever made the most money. That meant that if a 
wife worked full time and a husband worked part time, he would be taxed 
at her high tax rate.
  So what Republicans did with President Bush is we came and passed 
something that was known as the marriage penalty, and that is that 
every single person would be taxed only at their own rate, based upon 
what their own earnings were.
  Mr. KIRK. What we did is we made sure married couples did not pay a 
higher tax than two single people living together.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly right.
  Once again, said another way, a person would be taxed only at their 
own income, as opposed to combining that rate, which then would 
increase the amount of taxes that a person would pay.
  What I am telling the gentleman is that in around 1,300 days, if the 
Democrat majority does not reextend these tax cuts, that all four of 
these taxes and more that I have talked about will go back to the rate 
that they were before the Republicans lowered those taxes.
  Mr. KIRK. If we look at the suburban agenda about safe schools, 
extending health care, green and open space, et cetera, one of the 
things that is not part of the Suburban Agenda is a tax increase, 
especially a tax increase on working families.
  One of the things that we have instituted as part of our general tax 
policy is to make sure that married families are not paying a higher 
tax, because a key part of the Suburban Agenda is a family together, 
raising kids under one household.
  I am worried, though, that if there is inaction on tax policy by this 
Congress, many of the inequities in the Tax Code get reimposed and we 
start taxing families at a higher rate than people who are single.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly correct. The gentleman from Illinois is 
correct, that as a result of what Republicans have done, by cutting 
taxes, is that we have not only given people back more of their own 
money, we have allowed for America to be in a position to where we are 
more competitive with the world.
  Is it not interesting that just a few short years ago all the talk 
was about outsourcing and these jobs that were going to other 
countries. Ever since we passed these tax cuts, the debate and 
discussion now is how do we get enough workers to do the work that we 
need done here in America.
  The greatest threat against that would be that we do not have enough 
work that can be done here, and so companies go offshore to have work 
done on behalf of corporations and people here in this country.
  Mr. KIRK. We talk about the Suburban Agenda, what is in it, which is 
pro-school, pro-health care, pro-environment legislation, and what is 
not, which is a tax increase on the American people. There is the 
argument that is made very often here in Washington that the only way 
to cure our financial woes is a tax increase. But if I remember, 
looking back at the record of the 1970s, even when Congress did raise 
taxes, for every dollar in taxes that it raised against the American 
people, it spent another $1.08 in new spending. So the record of those 
years was that, even though we were raising taxes, spending here in the 
Congress went up even faster, and so our deficit woes became worse.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly the point. The political debate in 
Washington has been that Republicans cut taxes and deficits go up. 
Well, the fact of the matter is, since 2001, exactly on 9/11/01, when 
we had a balanced budget at that point, we have seen the deficit go up, 
and that is because we lost 1 million jobs on or about that day in the 
months forward.
  So what Republicans did is they said, we have got to spur our 
economy. We have got to do the things that will bring America back to 
work.
  I am pleased to tell you that the budget is virtually balanced and is 
expected to be balanced by next year as a result of a strong, strong 
economy. Just 1\1/2\ years ago, we had a deficit of about $500 billion. 
This year, it is down to $140 billion. That comes from strong economic 
growth. That comes from the opportunity for people to go to work. That 
comes from investment and opportunity, but, most of all, we are 
competitive with the world, and these are the things that Republicans 
talk about that is a part of the Suburban Agenda but that is good for 
everybody.
  Mr. KIRK. If I am not mistaken, last year was the largest increase in 
tax receipts coming into our Treasury, even though there was no tax 
increase by the Federal Government, simply because of economic growth, 
that since September 11, 2001, we have added over 2 million jobs. Maybe 
that is one of the key lessons of the Suburban Agenda: There is no 
Federal program or no social welfare act that is more powerful in 
improving the life of a suburban family than a job and a growing 
economy for small business.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman is correct, and if I could have the 
gentleman also continue to keep focusing on how we have done this, what 
has been done is we have turned to the free market, the free enterprise 
system, to Americans, and said, we need you to go work as hard as you 
can work and bring this country back. That is exactly what has 
happened. It was not because of a government program.
  What we did is, we gave people back more of their own money, allowed 
them to invest that money in places like Dallas, Texas, where I live, 
Chicago, Illinois. And we have this robust economy that, since 2001, 5 
million new jobs have been added. Tax receipts are up, 3 years ago, 
plus 8 percent over the year before; then plus 13 percent in this last 
year, plus 15 percent more than we had received the year before.
  We have more people at work today. More people own their own homes. 
There is more money being made, and

[[Page H2279]]

the government has more money at its disposal. I hope and believe that 
next year this budget is going to be balanced.
  Mr. KIRK. As the gentleman points out, many people here in Washington 
will point to the European Union as the economic model, an example that 
we should follow, but the record is relentlessly negative towards their 
example of creating new jobs or economic growth, where we have seen a 
reactive decline of the European Union as against China and the United 
States. We also recall in the last decade how we all thought that we 
would all end up working for the Japanese and that Japan, Incorporated, 
was the big threat.
  Now we see an old axiom of politics said by one great politician, 
never bet against the United States, and also never bet against 
freedom. What we have seen here is an unbelievable economic performance 
by our country, record tax receipts coming into the Treasury without a 
tax increase, and the ability then to focus on the future of the United 
States, which is largely being written in the suburbs, with safe 
schools, extending health care and making sure that we are planning for 
the long term in what will be aging America, with the baby boomers 
entering retirement, but hopefully, with these policies entering 
retirement with some safety and security based on private savings and 
investment, encourage through first the 401(k) program and then we hope 
through the 401 Kids Family Tax Savings Accounts.
  Mr. SESSIONS. As we close down our time here with Republicans being 
on the floor, I would like to remind the gentleman of something that is 
heard over and over and over again, and that is how great America is. 
But I would like to ask a rhetorical question. Have you ever heard of 
the China dream, the Brazilian dream, the French dream, the German 
dream? Probably not, but every single person in the United States and 
billions around the world have heard of the American dream, and the 
American dream is tied directly to not only the dream that they have 
about themselves, but a dream about their future.
  This is where Republicans, working together on the suburban caucus, 
making sure we have a healthy and strong economy, where investment and 
opportunity and reduction in taxes happens directly in front of us, and 
then we can support this agenda that is so important for every one of 
us.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank my colleague. I will close out by simply saying 
that we now present to the American people and the Congress the 
suburban agenda for 2007, Action Against International Drug Gangs, 
moving into the suburbs where the Federal Government can help; Safe 
Schools, relying on the judgment of teachers, full time, using all of 
their abilities; 401 Kids Tax Deferred Savings Accounts, to make sure 
that families have more resources, more flexibility, to save for their 
child's college education and first time home purchase. Health 
Insurance for Life, to make sure that we continue the COBRA insurance 
for Americans, for more than 18 months, the Deleting Online Predators 
Act to make sure we are empowering parents to control this 21st Century 
danger to their children; the Open Space and Farm Land Preservation Act 
to make sure that we have more preserved green and open space in the 
green and open suburbs, and finally, the Senior Safety and Dignity Act 
to make sure that as the baby boomers age, we are preserving our long-
term health care for our Americans.
  This is the suburban agenda, a vision for the future and a work plan 
for the Congress. We are looking forward to working with both sides of 
the aisle on this to make sure that we are representing and advancing 
the needs of America as it actually is, living in the suburbs and 
needing action on all of these items to realize the full potential of 
this Congress and the work ahead.

                          ____________________