[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idea, you are about 40 years out of date.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.
____________________