Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentioned health care, cap-and- trade, and card check are strangling the country. Fortunately, none of those are included in this rule. I hope my colleague will join me in support of this rule which simply brings to the floor two very important issues: the Castle Nugent designation as well as the settlement of access to wilderness area with regard to water rights in the State of Idaho. Mr. Speaker, my district in Colorado is very lucky to have in it protected places, places that are important not only for the economic well-being of our State, but important for the very foundation of our civic pride and our identity. In many cases, these protections are also part of the fundamental basis of the economy in many of our tourist areas. We know the benefits to local communities from the National Park System. Recreation and tourism provide a long-term and sustainable economic base. Gateway communities thrive from recreationists basing their adventures and their experiences from these nearby communities. Both the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 and the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act share the story that land preservation done right is a winning local policy, and yes, a job creator and winning economic policy. For the Castle Nugent area, this bill represents the preservation of historic habitat that will lead to future tourism and future small businesses and local sustainable jobs. The park proposal would preserve nearly 2,900 acres of former ranch lands as well as 8,600 acres just off the coast which is owned by the Virgin Islands, respecting the wishes of the local and current landowners that their land go towards preservation instead of development, landowners who have fought for years to fend off aggressive development. For the communities that surround the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness areas, this means that the land that is protected will continue to draw backpackers, fishermen, hunters, climbers, and adventurers from all around to Idaho, and would ensure that the preservation of these valuable local assets would not mean the loss of others. This bill includes a well-thought-out approach to this challenging set of circumstances, and ensures a number of safeguards that protect the wilderness and the wilderness act while protecting individual rights as well. The permits that this bill creates would only be issued if the owner could prove that the facility existed prior to the designated wilderness area designation, the facility had been used to deliver water to the owner's land since the designation, and the owner had a valid water right, and it would not be practical to move the facility outside the wilderness area. Again, I would encourage any colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have constructive ideas to improve this bill, it would have been nice if they had offered amendments before, and I hope to hear any additional ideas in the motion to recommit. It is estimated that several dozen different individuals or businesses have water diversions in the aforementioned wilderness areas. And this bill is a commonsense solution that balances the protection of wilderness areas with the important ability to maintain and access water rights for those who have historically used that water. Mr. Speaker, passage of both these bills today will be a quick step forward that will benefit local economies at the same time as providing recreational users and tourists seeking exploration and discovery a great experience with history and nature. I do share with my colleague from Texas, I agree that there is the opportunity to reduce capital gains tax to promote growth. I have two bills in that regard, H.R. 1783 and H.R. 1784, and I encourage my colleague to join me in cosponsoring these efforts. However, much to my chagrin, neither are scheduled for floor consideration in this rule either. Again, this rule simply schedules for floor consideration the designation of the Castle Nugent Wilderness National Historic Site Act of 2009 and the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act. Both have the opportunity to have a strong bipartisanship majority to settle the access to water rights in Idaho. And again, with regard to St. Croix, there is zero taxpayer money being spent at this juncture. It is a very legitimate discussion when and if that time needs to arise do we want to spend money on this. That is a totally separate question, and I look forward to a debate regarding that matter. But the authorization is the first step. And I am hopeful that we can preserve the historic legacy and attract good jobs to the U.S. Virgin Islands. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to reiterate that this bill does not cost $50 million, does not cost $40 million, does not cost $30 million, and does not cost one penny. It's simply an authorization. And as my colleague knows in the scene he has gone through, it is just simply part of the process. If there ever is an appropriation--and there are a number of avenues under which there might not even be an appropriation. There could be a donation of the property. There could be other involvement from other sources. If there is an appropriation, that's when this would be debated. That would be part of a bill, and somebody could offer an amendment that would come before the Rules Committee. And I would certainly support ruling that in order to make sure that that is a topic that this body has the time to discuss. But now is not the debate with regard to the expenditure of any Federal dollars with regard to this matter. The procedure that has been used, again, when bills come up on suspension, as these bills did, there was no opportunity for the minority party or the majority party to amend the bills or offer alternatives. When the bill then did not get the requisite two-thirds, it came before our Rules Committee. There were no other amendments that were offered by members of the minority party or the majority party. We are very open, along with my colleagues on the Rules Committee, and I know the House, as a whole, to ideas from both sides of the aisle regardless of where they come from. If somebody had an improvement to the settlement of the water rights in Idaho or adjustments to the borders of the proposed designation in St. Croix, I'm sure that they would have been likely referred to the House for full consideration. In fact, the minority party has, under both this rule, the opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions with regard to each of the bills. So there is ample opportunity, and we are hearing a deafening silence from the other side with regard to how to improve these bills. The door is more than open. The first step, again, in finding that they were unable to reach a two-thirds majority was that they would be open for input. There were no amendments, not one, that was presented to the Rules Committee for either of these bills. And I look forward to seeing what the motions to recommit may entail. Again, if they are constructive and improve these bills in any substantial way, I'm confident that my colleagues will join me in supporting them. I am the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas has closed for his side and yielded back the balance of his time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take some degree of offense coming from Colorado if people were to call our wilderness area kind of denigrated as mountain-front property. It so happens that our State is a mountainous State so property happens to be mountainous. Likewise, when you're talking about an island, you can call it beachfront property, but it's an island. It's by the beach. That is what an island is. We're a mountainous State; St. Croix is an island. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter.) MR. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend, Mr. Polis, and Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend from Texas talk about our Rules Committee meeting last night, and what he forgot to mention to you and to this body was that this bill that is before us concerning the Virgin Islands is an authorization bill. Now, to the world, what does that mean? It means it only gives the authority for the National Park System to decide whether they want to accept a donation of the property, they want to pay for the property, or make an exchange for the property. There is no appropriation. There is no money spent. And I appreciate my friend's comment about the need for the study. Well, the study will be there before any money is spent by the United States of America. But according to the testimony, this is property that has cultural value as well as scenic value, something that is important to the preservation of these islands and that is important to the United States of America. So this bill just authorizes it; doesn't pay anything for it. Now, my friend from Texas talked about jobs. What he forgot to tell you, tell all of us, was that when George Bush left office last year, we lost 785,000 jobs in that month. Last month in December, we lost 85,000. Still not good enough, and we all know that. Still not good enough. But 785,000 at the end of the Bush administration and in 1 year we reduced that to 85,000 a month. Now, we've got a lot of work to do, and we need to do it in a bipartisan way. So my friend is right: we need to work together. And I intend to work with him and with others to reverse this system and get people back to work. We've got to roll up our sleeves. We've got a big job ahead of us to get people back to work and to create jobs in this country.

Mr. POLIS. I find little objectionable in what my colleague from California said. Certainly there is great opportunity for trade with South Korea and Panama and Colombia to create jobs, but none of those agreements are the topic of the rule before us today. And I want to give a little background on this and talk about how we can move forward. First of all, we could have moved forward in a more bipartisan way had these passed on suspension. What does suspension mean? A suspension requires a two-thirds vote of the House. The bills are nonamendable in that form. Both bills passed with a majority instead of two-thirds. H.R. 3726 passed 241-173 and H.R. 3538, which was the version identical to H.R. 4474, passed by 225-191. So since they both passed by majorities but not two-thirds, they came before us in the Rules Committee. And we would have loved ideas. My colleague, Mr. Sessions, talked about how can we work better together. Well, there weren't any amendments that were submitted. This would have been the time, whether the ideas came from Republicans or Democrats, and our Rules Committee has an excellent record of allowing amendments from Members in the minority party as well as the majority party. And I know we take our role very conscientiously in terms of making sure that both parties are represented. There simply weren't any better ideas represented. The fact is that both of these bills deal with important local issues. They have important buy-in from the stakeholders. I have personally more familiarity with the wilderness designation aspects because we're working in Colorado in wilderness designation. It's a very real issue when you're dealing with legacy water installations, how can they be maintained if they're on wilderness, how do you grandfather them. And this affects real people. And it took both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Minnick working across the aisle in Idaho coming together and coming before Congress and saying this is our local solution and asking for us to approve it. It would have been nice if we had been able to get that done on suspension. If there weren't any other ideas to improve it, well, now is a good chance to have a good bipartisan vote to pass the bill. Same with the other bill, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act. One key thing about this bill is it doesn't spend any money, doesn't spend one dime. You've heard the figure tossed around, oh, it might be worth $40 million, might be worth $25 million. This is merely an authorization bill, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fully aware. The bill simply designates this area as a new unit. But the bill contains no direct spending. And any land acquisition, if it occurs, would be subject to appropriations or to fund-raising or donations. Enactment of this legislation is just the beginning of a very important process that we've been through with many other national monuments to preserve a unique and stunning area for inclusion in our national park system. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1038 is a single rule that provides for separate consideration of two measures. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act, and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act. Each bill has 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule also allows a motion to recommit with or without instructions for each of the two bills. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010, and H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act, are 2 pieces of legislation that represent years of hard work by their sponsors and the local communities that are at the heart of both bills. H.R. 3726, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010, introduced by Congresswoman Donna Christensen, will add a new treasure to our Nation's National Park System. From the early times of Yosemite and Yellowstone to the national monuments right here in Washington, D.C., our country has had the foresight to preserve the tangible places which house our Nation's character, identity and history. Today, the Castle Nugent National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2010 does the same for the history and identity of a unique place in our country, the U.S. Virgin Islands. This area of St. Croix holds a great number of historical remnants, not only from the colonial age, when the West Indies played a prominent role in shaping world history, but also pre-Columbian archeological sites, continuing a proud and long tradition of preserving the remnants and artifacts of our first nations in this hemisphere begun by the Park Service in my State of Colorado with Mesa Verde National Park. Largely of Danish origin, the colonial history of St. Croix preserved at Castle Nugent is among the oldest in the West Indies. This national historic site preserves much more than history. It also preserves a great deal of natural habitat. The site includes sensitive sea turtle nesting areas and habitat, healthy and increasingly scarce coral reefs, and a lagoon that provides habitat to a wealth of wildlife and plants. For any proposed National Park System addition, the first step is to have the Park Service complete a study of the proposed addition, and to ensure that the proposed addition does, in fact, deserve to be included among the treasures of our Nation that the Park System includes. The National Park Service concurred, and found that Castle Nugent area does in fact deserve to be included as a part of our Nation's national parks. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4474, the Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act, a bill that has undoubtedly been the focus of a great deal of work by its key sponsors, Congressman Minnick of Idaho and Congressman Simpson. The Wilderness Act of 1964 provided our Nation with a tool to preserve its last remaining wild places untrammeled by man. Like my home State of Colorado, Idaho's sweeping beauty, rugged mountains, wildlife, and waterways form the foundation of our country's cultural identity and our civic pride. The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area was created in 1946 as one of our country's first wilderness areas and has preserved the wild nature of a truly breathtaking landscape. Adjoining the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness area is the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness area designated in 1980. Predating the existence of these two wilderness areas, private land owners had received permits to maintain and repair water diversions that existed on National Forest Service lands. Many of these permits have since expired, leaving those who own the water diversions unable to mechanically maintain their water systems since they're within designated wilderness areas. H.R. 4474 would give the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to issue special use authorization to owners of these water storage transport or diversion facilities to allow for their continued maintenance of their water facilities, allowing local water rights and ensuring that they continue to access their water. Mr. Speaker, this rule and both these bills are straightforward and provide a great deal of benefit, not only to our country, but also to the communities and residents who are most directly involved and impacted. I urge passage of the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1038.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1038 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, with the last administration, President Bush came to Congress during the financial meltdown, along with Secretary Paulson, and asked for hundreds of billions of dollars. They said they were going to use it to buy bad debt from the banks. It was threatening to bring down our financial system. Did they use it for that? No. Instead, they started to use it to nationalize American companies. They bought automobile companies; they bought banks. They used the government to take over the means of production. It now falls to us to break this socialist stranglehold on our country. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is one of the first steps. We ban future TARP bailouts. We require the companies pay into a fund. No longer will companies be bailed out by taxpayer dollars. I call upon the United States Senate to pass the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and for us to take additional steps to privatize these companies that the Federal Government now owns.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Following on the gentleman from Vermont, as well as the gentleman from Ohio, taking us back to where we were before I was in this body, my colleague from Vermont was here, when President Bush, Secretary Paulson said we need a blank check for a whole lot of money, $700 billion. Well, what are you going to do with it? Well, we are going to buy toxic assets. We are going to take some of the bad debt off the books of banks and we are going to then relieve them of that, and that will improve their balance sheets, and they will be able to loan again. Well, okay. At that point the Congress said, well, not one dollar of that TARP money has gone to buying bad debt. Instead, the Bush administration started nationalizing companies left and right. They bought up banks. They are now owned by the government. They bought up automobile companies now owned by the government. They bought insurance companies. They went on a shopping spree and nationalized the means of production in this country. Now we are at a place where you have Big Government in league with Big Business, the worst of both worlds for the people of this country. This is made worse by a recent Supreme Court decision that opened the channels for unregulated use of corporate funds to influence political elections. That is right. Congress, in its wisdom, had previously established regulations around this that they advertised, they could say call so and so to lobby them but not vote for, vote against, not within 30 days of an election. The Supreme Court threw that all out. What you now have is a very, very dangerous situation where, let's say that the Bush administration nationalized a big bank, and let's say there was a Member of Congress didn't think they should. Well, now you have that bank can spend an enormous amount of money trying to stop the reelection of people they don't like and trying to elect people they like. You have Big Government and Big Business working together in the Bush socialist economy to the detriment of the American people. We will be looking at solutions of campaign finance reform in Congress. A lot of it needs to start with that, for Congress to take action and be willing to take on this nexus where Big Business and Big Government operated in unholy alliance. We need to make sure that the system is influenced by the people of the country, rather than the corporations with their dollars, using them to confuse and trick people with their massive and misleading public relations attacks. I am hopeful. I am a sponsor of the fair elections bill, a campaign finance reform bill; many of my colleagues are as well. We also need to look at disclosure requirements, shareholder approval requirements. We need to make it more difficult, not easier, for corporations to influence the United States Congress. I yield back to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield for a procedural motion?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, our constituents across the ideological spectrum have told us that our immigration system is broken and it is our responsibility to fix it. Well, we in the United States Congress have taken the first step today with the introduction of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. This bill would strengthen American families. This bill would stop the undermining of our laws by the presence of 12 million undocumented immigrants. This law will protect our borders. Immigration reform is good for business and good for workers. Our constituents have made their opinions clear. They are tired of the lack of action in Washington, D.C. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring comprehensive immigration reform to help make America stronger and maintain the integrity of our laws and our Constitution within our borders.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to bring H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, to the floor of the House. I'd like to thank Chairman Frank and my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee as well as their staffs for the hard work in crafting this legislation. I'd also like to thank the other committees who worked on this bill, including the Agriculture Committee; the Energy and Commerce Committee; the Judiciary Committee; the Budget Committee; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; the Committee on Ways and Means; and, of course, my Chair, Chairwoman Slaughter, on the Committee on Rules, as well as my colleague Representative Perlmutter for managing the rule. The crafting of this legislation has truly been an all-hands-on effort. The rule is a fair one. I would like to thank Chairman Frank for including two amendments which I offered into his manager's amendment. Our economy is driven by private investment. In order to encourage investment, we need to give investors peace of mind that at the end of a fraud, they have some recourse. Due to limited protections available, many investors realized significant losses as a result of investment fraud, the most infamous of which was the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In my district in Colorado, the dreams of a comfortable retirement from a lifetime of work or a college education for their kids were stolen from many of my constituents, most of whom had no idea that they were investing in Madoff. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation, or SIPC, is a wise insurance program that is simply outdated and insufficient. Investor protection must evolve. My first amendment is an important step in this evolution. My amendment directs the Comptroller General to study the feasibility of optional, premium-based additional coverage for investors. While there is private insurance available, SIPC plus will give investors at once choice and peace of mind to know that should they become a victim of a fraud, they're protected and will be able to realize a cash settlement in the event of a fraud to begin rebuilding. My second amendment relates to student loans. As a representative of the district that's home to one of our Nation's premier public institutions of higher learning, the University of Colorado at Boulder, I'm keenly aware of the importance of college affordability. Families have had less income to pay for students' education, and State governments have had fewer dollars to fund higher education, resulting in higher tuition for students and families. We have a healthy Federal student loan program because we recognize that subsidizing investment in education yields positive economic results. Unfortunately, high interest private industry loans disguised as equal alternatives to Federal loans have condemned graduates to debts so outrageous as to destroy the very opportunity for prosperity that college offers. An alarming number of students are taking out high-cost debt, frequently with interest rates as high as 18 percent, and debt that doesn't offer the same favorable deferment or repayment options as Federal loans. Even more troubling, one out of four private loan borrowers took out no Federal Stafford loans and more than half of them didn't even apply for student aid. My amendment addresses this by requiring that before a private loan is funded, financial aid advisers inform students about the Federal loan options that are available to them. In 2007, two out of three students with private loans hadn't exhausted their lower-cost Federal financial aid. Students and their families should apply for and exhaust all of their available less-expensive Federal financial aid options before turning to risky and expensive student loans. I am also grateful to Chairman Frank and the Rules Committee for eliminating troubling language regarding liability of Internet access providers and also for the study of how best to fund dissolution authority and hopefully find alternatives to the current language.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight a report just released by the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, regarding the contributions of immigrants in the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. The report makes official what we have known all along: Immigration and economic growth go hand-in-hand. That's right. Immigrants boost economic productivity and create jobs. This has been true throughout our Nation's history. It's been true during boom times and during tough times. It's true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Immigrants help our economy. Cities with a growing proportion of foreign-born workers have ``well above average economic growth.'' Immigrants expand the labor and consumer markets and fuel growth. In my home State of Colorado, immigrant workers and business owners have added billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. The usual suspects will cry we lie with these facts. But their prejudices will no longer prey on our uncertainties. Thanks to this report, we can all say we know better. Together we can embrace comprehensive immigration reform, help our Nation recover, and create jobs for Americans. Immigrants and the Economy [From the Fiscal Policy Institute] Executive Summary This report examines the economic role of immigrants in the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the United States. The results are clear: immigrants contribute to the economy in direct relation to their share of the population. The economy of metro areas grows in tandem with immigrant share of the labor force. And, immigrants work across the occupational spectrum, from high-paying professional jobs to low-wage service employment. Immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. In the 25 largest metropolitan areas combined, immigrants make up 20 percent of the population and are responsible for 20 percent of economic output. Together, these metro areas comprise 42 percent of the total population of the country, 66 percent of all immigrants, and half of the country's total Gross Domestic Product. This report looks at all U.S. residents who were born in another country, regardless of immigration status or year of arrival in the United States. 1. Immigration and economic growth of metro areas go hand in hand An analysis of data from the past decade and a half show that in the 25 largest metropolitan areas, immigration and economic growth go hand in hand. That's easily understandable: Economic growth and labor force growth are closely connected, and immigrants are likely to move to areas where there are jobs, and not to areas where there are not. Between 1990 and 2006, the metropolitan areas with the fastest economic growth were also the areas with the greatest increase in immigrant share of the labor force. The economies of Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston saw the fastest growth in immigrant share of labor force, while all showed well above average economic growth in these years and Phoenix experienced the fastest growth of all metro areas. By contrast, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit metro areas experienced the slowest economic growth and among the smallest increases in immigrant share of labor force. Economic growth does not guarantee, however, that pay and other conditions of employment improve significantly for all workers. The challenge is to make sure that immigrants and U.S.-born workers struggling in low-wage jobs share in the benefits of economic growth. 2. Immigrants contribute to the economy in proportion to their share of the population The most striking finding in the analysis of 25 metro areas is how closely immigrant share of economic output matches immigrant share of the population. From the Pittsburgh metro area, where immigrants make up 3 percent of the population and 4 percent of economic output, to the Miami metro area, where immigrants represent 37 percent of all residents and 38 percent of economic output, immigrants are playing a consistently proportionate role in local economies. The Immigrant Economic Contribution Ratio (IECR) captures this relationship, measuring the ratio of immigrant share of economic output to immigrant share of population. An IECR of 1.00 would show that immigrants contribute to the economy in exact proportion to their share of the population; above 1.00 indicates a higher contribution than share of population and below indicates lower. In over half of the largest 25 metro areas, the IECR hovers very close to parity, measuring between 0.90 and 1.10. In only three metro areas--Phoenix, Minneapolis, and Denver-- does the IECR go below 0.90; in eight metro areas it is above 1.10. Two main factors explain this close relationship. First, immigrants are more likely than their U.S.-born counterparts to be of working age. A higher share of the population in the labor force offsets cases where immigrants have lower wages. Second, immigrants work in jobs across the economic spectrum, and are business owners as well. Although immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born workers to be in lower-wage service or blue-collar occupations, 24 percent of immigrants in the 25 metro areas work in managerial and professional occupations. Another 25 percent work in technical, sales, and administrative support occupations. In fact, in 15 of the 25 metro areas, there are more immigrants in these two higher-pay job categories taken together than there are in service and blue-collar jobs combined. And, immigrants are also entrepreneurs. Immigrants account for 22 percent of all proprietors' earnings in the 25 largest metro areas--slightly higher than their share of the population. 3. Favorable earnings at the top of the labor market; difficulties at the bottom At the high end of the economic ladder, immigrants earn wages that are broadly comparable to their U.S.-born counterparts in the same occupations. Immigrants working in the professions--doctors, engineers, lawyers, and others-- earn about the same as U.S.-born professionals in almost all metro areas. The same is true for registered nurses, pharmacists, and health therapists, and for technicians. At the low-end of the labor market, wages can also be roughly similar for foreign- and U.S.-born workers. However, in service occupations, most workers have a hard time making ends meet. Both U.S.- and foreign-born workers earn well below the median in almost every service occupation examined in this report--including guards, cleaning, and building services; food preparation; and dental, health, and nursing aides. The clear challenge for service jobs is to raise pay for all workers, U.S.- and foreign-born alike. Some blue-collar workers are in a similar position, with both immigrants and U.S-born workers showing low annual earnings. In certain blue-collar occupations, however, immigrant workers earn considerably less than their U.S.-born counterparts. In the 25 metro areas combined, for example, the median earnings for U.S.-born workers in construction trades is $45,000, while the median for immigrants is just $27,000. Although wages in blue-collar jobs have eroded in recent decades, in the early years of the post-World War II period several blue-collar occupations paid workers, primarily men without college degrees, family-sustaining wages. The discrepancy today between U.S.- and foreign-born earnings in these occupations thus presents a challenge: to raise all workers to the standard that has been set by some, as a means to improve pay for low-wage workers in the occupation and to protect higher-wage earners. Unions have played an important role in raising pay in many areas, including some blue-collar jobs. By contrast, the relatively low unionization rate in service jobs helps explain the consistently low pay. Unions continue to play an important role in raising wages and equalizing differences in pay for all workers, documented or otherwise. Although undocumented immigrants are legally permitted to join unions, in practice unscrupulous employers have frequently found ways to take advantage of the status of undocumented workers to thwart their efforts. In the 25 largest metro areas, the average unionization rate is lower for immigrants than for U.S.-born workers--10 percent compared to 14 percent. With immigrants playing a major role in the labor force, they are also playing a significant role in unions, making up 20 percent of all union members in the 25 largest metro areas. A closer look at the five largest metro areas in the East-- New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, and Miami-- reveals that the same experience applies to them. Economic growth and immigration generally go hand in hand; immigrants work in all occupations; those in managerial, professional, and technical occupations fare relatively well, those in service and blue-collar jobs less so. Atlanta experienced the biggest growth in immigrant share of the labor force and the fastest growth in its overall economy. The policy context The current recession has pushed up unemployment, prompting some to feel that sharp restrictions on immigration would help the economy. But, creating a climate that is hostile to immigrants would risk damaging a significant part of the country's economic fabric. Immigrants are an important part of the economies of the 25 largest metro areas, working in jobs up and down the economic ladder. Immigration is highly responsive to demand--the immigrant share of the labor force increases with economic growth. Immigrants are part of the same economy as other workers, getting paid well in jobs at the top of the ladder and struggling in jobs in the economy's lower rungs. While the immigrant labor force brings many benefits to the U.S. economy, it also presents political, economic and social challenges. This is especially true in the context of an extremely polarized economy, relatively low unionization rates, weak enforcement of labor standards, and a broken immigration system. Immigration has always been an important part of America's history, and it will continue to be a part of our future. Addressing these complex problems would be a better path for policymakers than wishing away immigration. This report presents an empirical look at the role of immigrants in the U.S. economy, in the hopes of informing a constructive public debate that will result in much-needed policy reform.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing some of the misconceptions and inaccuracies in the arguments that have been made on the other side of the aisle. First, I'd like to address some made by the gentleman from Texas that this is a tax on those who have paid the highest tax rates throughout their lives. I'd like to dispute this notion. Many of the people who have accumulated great wealth in this country have, throughout their lives, paid the capital gains tax rather than the income tax rate. I, for one, and I'm, I think, the fourth- or fifth-wealthiest Member of this body--I've accumulated some degree of wealth with my success in the Internet sector, starting companies, selling them. I've paid the capital gains tax. That is a 15 percent tax, not a 39.6 or a 35 percent tax. In a moment we will hear some quotes from Mr. Buffett, Mr. Gates and Mr. Soros, three wealthy Americans, all supporters of the estate tax. They have also accumulated their wealth and have paid the capital gains rate. In the case of, for instance, Bill Gates, the wealthiest American, he has paid a rate substantially below 15 percent, due to his charitable contributions. The rate that Mr. Gates has paid is probably somewhere in the 10-12 percent tax range. So again, I have paid less percentage tax than members of my staff here in Congress that earn $50,000, $60,000 a year. They pay a higher tax rate. So it's inaccurate to say that those who are hit with the estate tax have paid the highest tax rate throughout their lives. There might be some movie stars, sports stars, high-wage earners that have been paying the high-income margins, highest marginal income tax rate throughout their lives. But the majority of wealth is accumulated on the capital side and has been subject to the capital gains rate, which had been 20 percent, more recently, 15 percent, and scheduled to return to 20 percent; regardless, well below the highest marginal rate. I'd also like to address a remark made by my colleague from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. She called this the biggest increase ever in the inheritance tax rate. Again, this is a decrease, a decrease in the inheritance tax. Yes, there is a 1-year effect. For the year 2010 alone, it's an increase. For every other year it's a decrease. Instead of 55 percent and $1 million, every dollar above $1 million would be taxed at 55 percent if we don't pass this in the year 2011 and beyond. We are reducing that. This is a substantial decrease one of the largest decreases in the inheritance tax rate, to 45 percent from 55 percent in 2011 and beyond. And we're increasing the deduction. We're starting that at a $3.5 million estate--that's a $7 million estate for a couple that passes away, instead of a $1 million deduction, to be clear. I'd further like to make it clear that repealing the estate tax and replacing it with a capital gains tax on the increase in basis would be a tax increase, as proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This would be a tax increase for upper middle class families and would actually result in many families losing their family businesses. If you have a $3 million family business, family farm, under the Democratic proposal they pay zero tax. Under the Republican proposal, a $3 million family estate or farm with a very low basis, they started it maybe with $100,000 in the 1950s, so that's a $3 million gain, that would be subject to $450,000 capital gains tax. At 20 percent it would be over $600,000 in taxes. That could result in the family losing the farm or losing the small business. Under the Democratic proposal we allow families to keep family farms and small businesses in the family. Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of many steps that Congress must take towards an equitable Tax Code. The bill highlights Democratic commitments to fairness by making permanent the current estate tax exemption of $3.5 million, $7 million total, at a maximum tax rate of 45 percent. Opponents of this bill may say the estate tax should be repealed. Well, that's supporting a debt finance tax cut of $1.3 trillion. Yes, repealing the estate tax in its entirety would result in an increase in the deficit of $1.3 trillion. That's $1 trillion in lost revenue and $277 billion in increased interest payments on our growing national debt. Does that sound like fiscal responsibility? The only result of repealing the estate tax would be that the .25 percent, quarter of 1 percent, of the wealthiest American families will pay a small estate tax, while other Americans won't have to suffer from increased debt. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest with the American people. The estates of those 99.75 percent of Americans will continue to be tax free. As for those .25 percent that are subject to the tax, such as Bill Gates' estate, such as my own, we understand that ``the government that protects our business activities, the traditions that enable us to rely on certain things happening, that's what creates capital and enables net worth to increase.'' Those are Bill Gates' words, not mine. But I strongly agree. In Warren Buffett's opposition to the repeal of the estate tax, he said that the repeal of the estate tax would be akin to ``choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold medal winners in the 2000 Olympics'' because ``without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.'' America is, and should be, a meritocracy. Estate tax helps prevent a permanent aristocracy of the wealthy from arising in this country. Some opponents of the estate tax claim that it forces families to hand over half of their wealth to the government. But the facts simply don't support this claim. The truth is that few estates pay any estate tax whatsoever, and those that do, pay less than 20 percent of the value of their estate. We also know that the claims of rampant liquidation of farms is completely untrue. In fact, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to The New York Times that it couldn't find a single example of a farm to substantiate the claim, even when the estate tax was higher, 55 percent rather than the 45 percent it is today. I'd like to give a quote from the president of the National Farmers Union, who says, ``Family farmers and ranchers are insulted by those who use farmers as the reason for eliminating estate taxes.'' I'd also like to give a quote from George Soros. George Soros said, ``The estate tax is the least damaging of all our taxation because it does not interfere with wealth creation. It increases social equality. It is so obvious estate taxation is a valuable taxation, and we should keep it.'' Again, on a revenue neutral basis, I would much rather pay $1,000 in tax after I die than before, when I'm using that capital to create value and jobs, or at least I was before I got to Congress. Mr. Speaker, our choice here is clear. We can pass this bill which will remove the impact of the estate tax from 99.75 percent of Americans and give those who will pay this tax a substantially larger deductible. We can make sure that family businesses and family farms won't be subject to onerous taxation. Or we can increase the deficit by over $1 trillion and increase taxes for estates of $2 million, $3 million, $4 million with sizable capital gains within those estates. Once again, I thank Chairman Rangel, the members of the Committee on Ways and Means and their staffs, as well as Representative Pomeroy, for bringing this important legislation to the floor. In America, it's not a sin to be rich, nor is it a crime to die rich. This bill gives our Nation's wealthiest families the ability to know exactly what their obligation to the Nation that fostered their wealth will be. And it is fair, and it is just. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask my colleagues to join me on the side of facts, equity, and the 99 percent of Americans who will never pay this tax and who wish that they were lucky enough to be successful enough to pay this tax, and remind them that a ``no'' vote is a vote against these principles. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 941 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, insert the following new section: Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. POLIS. I am our final speaker, so I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear with what happens if the House does not pass this bill: The estate tax would go away for 1 year in the year 2010, and then it would return at 55 percent and a deduction of only $1 million, so every estate above $1 million would be taxed at a rate of 55 percent. Many families would lose their family businesses, their family farms, if we fail to act and pass this bill to preserve the ability of Americans to pass along their assets to the next generation. It would also create a very bizarre circumstance in the year 2010 where there would be an incentive to die. I had a friend with a good sense of humor who stated that his wealthy family, his father, had joked with him that he planned not to stand near the top of a staircase in the year 2010 if that was the case. Mr. Speaker, the estate tax is paid by very few Americans. Historically, fewer than 2 percent of Americans have paid the estate tax, and under this bill it will be even less. And only 3.5 percent of those who pay the estate tax pay it on small business assets, and only 5 percent on farms. When looking at specifically family-owned businesses, the number goes down to one-half of 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the options for wealthy families. The estate tax does two important things. First, it provides revenue to government to provide services in the context in which wealth can grow, provides the landscaping in our country that allows entrepreneurs and businesses to succeed. Programs paid for from this revenue fund our social safety net, our legal structure, our public safety programs, and our regulatory framework that allows businesses to prosper. It is the protection of the law that allows those who have gained wealth to be able to keep it and transfer it to the next generation. The second and, arguably, also more important function of the estate tax is to provide an incentive for charitable giving. By supporting charities and nonprofit organizations of their choice, the wealthy can simultaneously give back to the community directly and protect the assets that they leave to their heirs. The estate tax is an important incentive to leverage the work of government with the efforts of nonprofits to create broad opportunities and assistance throughout society. By making the rules of the estate tax stable and permanent, we give families the ability to plan for their future as well as invest in the future of their communities. We know that planned giving is an important part of the fundraising strategy for the nonprofits that do the good work that government and industry cannot, and there is no denying the link between the estate tax rate and the amount of planned giving. A 2004 Congressional Budget Office analysis of charitable giving in the year 2000 indicated that estate tax not only provided an incentive for charitable giving at death, but also played a role in philanthropic decisions made during people's lives. The same report estimated that the repeal of the estate tax would result in a decrease in bequests of anywhere from 16 to 28 percent or $13 billion to $25 billion, more than total corporate donations in a year. I ask my colleagues, which universities do you know could take a 16 to 28 percent hit to their endowment, coupled with the decreases in the market of the last year, and yet continue to prepare our students to be competitive in the global marketplace? This is the real-world impact of what would actually occur were the estate tax to be abolished in the year 2010, not to mention what would happen when it came back at 55 percent and only a $1 million deduction the following year. Now imagine in the worst case scenario devised by opponents of the estate tax. Imagine that came true for a family, that in order to pay the tax, the heirs had to liquidate the assets of a business that had been in the family for some time. Do opponents of this bill truly believe that somehow making the family pay capital gains tax on these assets if they had purchased them in 1959 would be better? I know in my district, due to the growth and economic success Colorado has enjoyed, taxation on real estate assets, as an example, from a 1959 basis would be devastating. It would capture a much larger portion of middle class families. Many middle class families and, indeed, wealthy families worth $1 million, $2 million, $3 million would be stuck with large tax bills forcing liquidation if they were forced to pay capital gains tax on a 1950 basis or a 1959 basis. I can't tell my constituents that I am against a permanent reduction in the estate tax and yet support a dramatic increase in capital gains taxation for them, which would bring the estate tax to upper middle class families. I hope the majority of my colleagues agree and will support the rule and the underlying bill. I would like to thank Chairman Rangel, the members of the Ways and Means Committee and their staffs for their efforts in bringing this bill, and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to consider that 99.75 percent of Americans will never pay this tax; and those who do should be thankful that they have had the opportunity to succeed in this great country and the privilege, the honor of being in a position where they are subject to this tax because their estates are worth more than $3.5 million. I would like to remind my colleagues who stand by the old adage ``you can't take it with you,'' and I ask my friends and colleagues to consider the far-reaching benefits of charity and a sense of duty to country, and I ask for the passage of this rule and the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI and against the bill itself. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. In the engrossment of H.R. 4154, the Clerk is directed to add at the end the text of H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2009, as passed by the House. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in honor of the Thanksgiving holidays, NBC's ``Meet the Press'' hosted the Reverend Rick Warren in a discussion on giving and civic duty. During the dialogue, Rev. Warren stated his belief that it isn't a sin to be rich, but it is a sin to die rich. While I don't agree with Rev. Warren on many issues, I ask my colleagues to now reflect on the meaning of those words. The Reverend was speaking, of course, of the importance of charity and our moral obligation to improve the condition of our fellow man whenever and wherever we can. Today I speak to you with the same sense of duty--duty to our country that has allowed me personally to achieve personal wealth, and in turn, to help others. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us under this rule is a significant tax cut. Without this bill, the estate tax will return in the year 2011 at a much lower exemption amount, an exemption of $1 million instead of an exemption at a rate of $3.5 million and at a much higher tax rate, a tax rate of 55 percent rather than a tax rate of 45 percent, which we have under this bill. We all know that the occasion of the death of a loved one is a very difficult time for family and friends. The price of love is unfortunately loss, and that's a price that we all must pay at some point in our lives. While no act of government can ease this emotional pain, today we have the opportunity to at least give families who have achieved great success some surety in their ability to ensure that the next generation will receive the benefit of their works. An estate tax distorts a free market less than an income tax. Instead of taxing productive capital, it takes taxes from a random heir. On a revenue-neutral basis, I for one would much rather pay taxes after dying than before dying. And however much an income tax may distort the market, an estate tax distorts it less on a revenue-neutral basis. Mr. Speaker, allow me to be clear. Individuals like myself, who through hard work have been able to start businesses, create jobs, and, as a result, have been rewarded with the financial resources to provide a high standard of living for our families, have a duty to our fellow Americans to pay our fair share. And an estate tax, the existence of an estate tax, is critical to prevent a permanent aristocracy from arising in this country. When I think of the everyday tax burden for my constituents or, for that matter, for my staff and associates as a proportion of their income as a result of sales taxes, property taxes, let alone income taxes, I can think of no credible argument for suggesting that an estate tax is unreasonable. I also take comfort in knowing that, with the passage of this bill, we are locking in that 99 percent of my constituents will never pay the estate tax. According to The Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center, under this proposal only .25 percent, that's \1/4\ of 1 percent, of debts would be subject to an estate tax. We ask those who labor to build the roads to also shoulder the cost. We ask those who educate our Nation's children to also help pay for the schools. Shouldn't we ask those who die with wealth to help give back a little to those around them? I say to my colleagues this is fair, this is right. When factoring the full costs of being a member of a society, it's very clear that all too often we ask the most of those who have the least. For our country to continue to prosper, we can't just rely on the middle class to support our Nation's public safety and welfare and to cushion the success of families who are successful in this country. I can personally tell you, as one of those Americans that's in the .25 percent, I would gladly pay an estate tax to give back to the 99.75 percent of families who do the heavy lifting in this country every day and ensure that they never have to pay this tax and that family farms can be passed down to the next generation and small operating family businesses will be subject to no estate tax. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with Rev. Warren that it's no sin to be rich, but I disagree that it is a sin to die rich. A life's work should rightly be a benefit to one's heirs and one's causes. My belief that a family farm, a family business, or simply accumulated wealth should be passed from one generation to the next is consistent with the fact that those who benefited the most from the freedom and security that this country offers should pay their fair share for the benefits and the landscape that allowed them to reach the level of success that they did. What all Americans deserve, rich or poor, is the knowledge that at a time of great personal pain for families, the stress will not be exacerbated by a complex or uncertain tax policy. That's one of the many reasons I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying bill. Throughout our history, transfer taxes have been used to fund critical operations of the Federal Government. The modern estate tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1916 to offset declining import tariff revenues as a result of and to finance the United States' participation in World War I. Since World War I, the estate tax has continued to provide Federal revenues that have financed World War II and the New Deal, and have helped end the Great Depression. The estate tax includes, importantly, an unlimited deduction for charitable giving. In 2006 nearly two-thirds of charitable requests came from estates valued over $10 million. What a way for Americans to leave a legacy for the next generation. Universities, hospitals, and arts organizations have come to rely on these contributions from our Nation's most wealthy. One need only tour a college campus to see the direct impact of the philanthropy on our students and its effect on our future displayed prominently on plaques outside many campus buildings like those at the University of Colorado in Boulder, which I represent. H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act, does exactly what it says. The bill will make permanent the lowest estate tax rate our Nation has seen in a decade, making the current rate permanent and giving families the ability to plan ahead for an orderly transfer of assets. Business owners will be able to plan ahead to ensure that their employees will still have a job and their company will be able to continue to provide for their families after they're gone. Farmers will be able to keep their land in their family. I remind my colleagues that the $3.5 million exemption means that no family will pay any estate tax unless the estate is valued at at least $3.5 million. It is substantially higher than it has been in this decade, and without our action today, we put families in a situation of unnecessary financial uncertainty at a time when their head and their hearts can least afford it. Without this bill the estate tax will return in the year 2011 at a much lower exemption amount of $1 million and a much higher tax rate of 55 percent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 941 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my strong opposition to the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, which unfortunately passed the House by a vote of 240-194. This amendment places a woman's right to choose at risk, for it would place new obstacles in the way of women seeking reproductive health care services. The Stupak Amendment goes further than existing laws. This amendment dictates which medical procedures are offered in the private market. Health care reform is supposed to increase coverage. This amendment singles out women and reduces their coverage. Women's access to comprehensive reproductive health services is not just about equality between men and women but also equality along economic lines. This amendment sets up a system where only wealthier women could afford a safe abortion. It would prohibit low-income women who receive affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that over 80 percent of health insurance plans currently cover abortion. In other words, a woman who happens to be low-income will be denied the right to purchase a health care plan with abortion coverage simply because she qualifies for affordability tax credits. This is discriminatory, plain and simple. Besides purchasing insurance in the exchange, the primary alternative for low-income individuals is the public option. Not only does this amendment prohibit access to abortion coverage if a low-income woman receives affordability tax credits in the exchange, but this amendment also prohibits the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars. Under the Stupak Amendment, low-income women who either receive affordability tax credits or purchase insurance through the public option have to purchase a separate, single-service ``abortion rider'' policy. Not only does this idea discriminate against low-income women but it makes no sense either. Women who end up in the tough position of having to seek an abortion never planned on being in that situation. The vast majority of women will not choose to purchase an ``abortion rider'' policy because they do not plan on ever having an abortion, and when the day arises when they may need abortion coverage, unfortunately it will not be there for them. The women of America should have access to their fundamental right to choose, regardless of their income level. I urge my colleagues to join me today in defense of that fundamental right.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today we make history. After months of hard work, my colleagues and I can make good on our promise to deliver meaningful health care reform. Like most Members of Congress, I held over 50 town halls, tele-town halls, roundtables, and ``Congress on Your Corners,'' and listened to my constituents about health care reform. Every town hall in America from Virginia to Vail and Northglenn to North Dakota shed light on our broken health care system. And many Members of this body heard the same thing: We need health care reform now and No government takeover of health care. We took their concerns back with us to Washington. We echoed their voices in these Halls, and we created the bill we have before us today: a stronger bill, a better bill, a bill that avoids a government takeover of health care, a bill that costs less and reduces the budget deficit by $100 billion. A bill that we can be proud of. We fought to protect Medicare, and we're giving our seniors a bill that immediately closes the Medicare part D doughnut hole and strengthens Medicare. We heard stories from honest, hardworking Americans who were denied or lost coverage because of preexisting conditions when they needed it the most. Our bill ends that discriminatory process. The Republican bill, by their own admission, leaves more uninsured people in 10 years than we have today. I personally took on the cause of small businesses, the economic engine of the American economy and job growth, many of which can't afford to provide coverage today. These businesses are the entrepreneurs and innovators on which the future of our economy depends. I'm happy to say this new bill raises the threshold for the surcharge to a million dollars in income for most small businesses, significantly reducing any impact while giving small businesses access to the exchange which provides them the same buying power previously only enjoyed by large corporations. I remain hopeful that through the conference process, we can further reduce or eliminate the small business surcharge while preserving the savings for individuals and small businesses. My constituents said to include tort reform and interstate competition, and their voices have been heard. And I'm proud to say this bill provides for insurance companies competing across State lines through interstate compacts and includes reforms to reduce defensive medicine. This summer Americans in every district in this country spoke out about health care. We listened. We took their ideas to heart and brought them to Washington. This bill was written by patriots across our great Nation, and I urge my fellow Members to join me in proud support of this bill.