Allyson Schwartz

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield back my time.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to be not only supportive, but enthusiastic about this legislation. It does very much what we have all been talking about really actually for hours today, about the fact that it embraces our ingenuity, our innovation and our deep interest in energy efficiency and conservation and in new technologies. In fact, this legislation provides for tax credit bond financing, to make sure that our cities and our States can move forward in helping our people be able to do this. There are special provisions to make sure that people can make sure their homes or residences are more energy efficient. It uses tax credits to do that. And there is a provision I have worked on particularly to make sure that our largest commercial buildings can be the most energy efficient that we know they can be. We know that giving them some tax incentives to make sure that our commercial buildings are as energy efficient will help us not only today, but for 50 and 75 years in the future. So I support this legislation. I am proud of it. I think we have used our public dollars in a very creative and important way. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act. This bill redirects $16 billion in oil industry tax giveaways into the development of renewable energy and energy conservation--setting a new direction for U.S. energy policy and putting the Nation on a path to energy independence. This new direction provides tax incentives for alternative sources of energy--renewable, American-made sources, including wind, geothermal, solar, fuel cells, and bio-diesel; This new direction invests seriously in energy conservation, providing tax incentives for energy efficient vehicles, energy efficient buildings and energy efficient appliances; And, this new direction empowers local and State governments, through new tax credit bonds, to invest in local initiatives that reduce energy use such as public transit, green buildings, and renewable energy production; We are serious about putting America's innovation and talents to work to develop and distribute new sources of American-made energy for American businesses and American families. I am particularly proud that this bill contains a 5-year extension of the energy efficient commercial building tax deduction, which I proposed in my Buildings for the 21st Century Act. The building industry can play an important role in enabling America to meet its future energy needs by being models of energy efficiency. Buildings account for 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption and 71 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption. We must take advantage of this moment to ensure that the next generation of buildings are constructed to the highest efficiency standards, and my proposal, contained in this legislation, which is supported by the American Institute of Architects, the U.S. Green Building Council, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, will ensure that happens. I urge a yes vote because this legislation recognizes our ingenuity, innovation and technology as a Nation and moves the Nation forward towards energy efficiency, conservation, and energy independence.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the American Life Sciences Competitiveness Act of 2007. This legislation aims to modernize the Internal Revenue Code so that the U.S. life sciences industry--both biotech and medical device companies--can effectively raise the capital they need to fund the next generation of medicines and medical devices that will lead to longer and healthier lives for Americans and people around the world. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my distinguished colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, Representatives Kevin Brady, Richard Neal and Wally Herger. This legislation remedies obstacles to future growth and development faced by the American biotechnology and medical device industries. I want to thank the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA), Pennsylvania BIO, the Texas Healthcare and Bioscience Institute and the California Healthcare Institute for their strong support of our efforts to modernize the tax code for the 21st Century. The life sciences industry promises to be a key growth sector for the American economy. The biotech industry alone comprises nearly 1,500 companies, located in all 50 states, and employs nearly 200,000 workers. The more than 6,000 medical device companies in the U.S. employ over 350,000 Americans at wages 49 percent greater than the average for private industry. In my own State of Pennsylvania, the bio-pharmaceutical industry has roughly 30,000 high-wage employees. Additionally, there are more than 120 medical device companies in Pennsylvania, the majority of which are small companies working on clinical trials prior to seeking marketing approval for their products. These companies offer great employment opportunities, providing good wages and benefits to talented, skilled workers. They are important contributors to Pennsylvania's expanding health care sector and often conduct clinical trials in partnership with academic medical facilities such as the University of Pennsylvania, Penn State, and the University of Pittsburgh as well as Drexel, Temple, Thomas Jefferson and the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. America's life sciences sector is one of the most research-intensive industries in the world. U.S. biotech companies alone spent roughly $27 billion on research and development in 2006. There are more than 400 biotech products in clinical trials targeting more than 200 diseases, including various cancers, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS. Small medical device companies are also a leading source of innovation that is providing technologies that address previously unmet medical needs. These companies are transforming health care by providing physicians and their patients with the tools that allow early disease detection, less invasive procedures and more effective treatments. For all its bright opportunities, America's life sciences industry faces daunting challenges. First is access to capital for development of biotech therapies. Most biotech firms are small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Because the development of new technologies that can often take 10 years or more and hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new product to market, these small companies experience years of large cash outlays before they have the opportunity to realize any profit. In fact, in 2006 the biotech industry generated a total net loss of $5.6 billion. Despite this, R&D expenditures increased by 30 percent in 2005. For every $1 of sales in 2006, there was roughly 60 cents spent on R&D by biotech companies. Without question, capital investment for R&D is essential if these new therapies are to be developed and made available to the market. Much like the biotech industry, the medical device sector is also overwhelmingly composed of smaller manufacturers, with 90 percent of firms having fewer than 100 employees. Most of these small engines of growth focus on niche products with revenues of less than $100 million, yet they generate 28 percent of the industry's R&D spending. This commitment to R&D often means that these companies are the source of some of the most cutting-edge innovations, which can radically improve treatment options for patients. To continue to develop and improve the medical devices available to patients, the medical technology industry invests heavily in R&D. Today, the device industry leads global medical technology R&D, both in terms of innovation as well as investment. In absolute terms, R&D spending has increased 20 percent on a cumulative annual basis since 1990. The industry's level of spending on R&D is more than three times the overall U.S. average. Encouraging new investment in the life sciences industry will enable this key sector of the American economy to grow and flourish in the years ahead. The American Life Sciences Competitiveness Act of 2007 contains both corporate and investor oriented provisions to ensure access to capital and continued vigorous research and development in biotechnology and medical devices. This comprehensive legislation includes a number of provisions that would remove barriers to capital formation currently in our tax code. Specifically, the legislation modifies the Net Operating Loss (NOL) rules of Section 382, with the goal of enhancing the capacity of life sciences firms to leverage capital for use in high-tech, high-risk cutting-edge research. The legislation ensures that neither the raising of new research capital by biotech companies nor a business-driven merger of two biotech loss companies will trigger the 382 Net Operating Loss (NOL) limitations. In addition, the legislation contains two important modifications to the existing R&D tax credit. The legislation increases, from 65 percent to 100 percent, the amount of contract research expenses by life sciences firms eligible for the R&D credit. The legislation also increases the amount of basic research payments to universities from life sciences companies that qualifies for the full R&D credit. Importantly, the legislation recognizes the grave threat the country faces from bio-terrorist attacks and a potential avian flu epidemic and contains tax incentives designed to spur the industry to develop effective countermeasures. This provision provides a 20 percent credit on qualified pre-clinical and clinical trial expenses associated with the development of a countermeasure to combat pandemic flu or bioterrorist attacks. The bill also makes an important change to the orphan drug tax credit, allowing clinical trial expenses incurred after an application is made to the FDA, but before the orphan designation is received, to qualify for the credit. This change removes the current incentive to delay research and will help speed new orphan drug therapies to the market. In addition to the corporate-sector incentives, the American Life Sciences Competitiveness Act of 2007 contains two important provisions targeted towards the life sciences investor. One provision allows capital gains on the sale of stock in a life sciences company held for longer than 6 months to be deferred as long as the proceeds are reinvested in another life sciences company within 60 days. The second provision provides a 20 percent credit for investors in biotech firms engaged in incubational research. ``Incubational research'' refers to early, cutting-edge research that often occurs shortly after university laboratory research and prior to large-scale clinical trials. This stage of research is often termed the ``Valley of Death'' because the dearth of investment results in promising investigational therapies and products withering on the vine for lack of adequate capital. America's life sciences industry is strategically and economically vital. We must take every action we can to keep our Nation at the forefront of this emerging technology sector. Countries with significant government investments in their biotech industries, such as India and China, pose a serious long-term challenge to America's biotechnology and medical device industries. The American Life Sciences Competitiveness Act of 2007 will give American companies important tools to answer this challenge and ensure that our scientists have the opportunities to research, develop and bring to market life-saving treatments. Biotechnology and medical device products will be in demand from billions of people worldwide, creating a tremendous boon to the economies that create these products. Keeping the United States at the forefront of global life sciences innovation will translate into more and better-paying jobs here at home. The actions we take today will determine the winners and losers in the 21st century global economy. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and better ensure that our economy continues to compete--and win.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly in strong support of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. As someone who helped to create one of the first CHIP programs in the country in Pennsylvania in 1992, I know what a difference it has made in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of children in Pennsylvania. And since 1997, it has made a difference in the lives of 6 million children across this country. Today, we build on the success of CHIP. It is a public-private, Federal-State partnership and secures access to coverage for 11 million children of hardworking American families. At a time of rising health care costs for working families and increasing numbers of uninsured children, today we have an answer for American families. The action we take today will sustain health coverage for 6 million children currently enrolled, and will make available affordable coverage for an additional 5 million American children. This is an extraordinary step forward in ensuring access to health coverage for American children. It is simply not good enough to say you support improving access to health coverage for children and then vote ``no.'' Rather, vote with children of this country and their parents. I urge passage of this legislation.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, early this morning the Children's Health Insurance and Medicare Protection Act, which extends access to quality care for both our Nation's children and our Nation's seniors, was passed out of committee. With this important legislation, we are wisely investing in the Children's Health Insurance Program to protect and extend access to health coverage for millions of America's uninsured children. In its 10-year history, CHIP has had strong bipartisan support not only because of what it accomplishes but how it meets its goal, with a flexible, cost-effective market approach to access to health insurance. Yet it has become the object of scorn by this President and with Republican leaders in Congress forcefully opposing this successful public-private partnership which enables literally millions of hardworking American families to buy private health insurance for their children. And this legislation strengthens and sustains Medicare for American seniors by securing payments for physicians and quality, innovative health care options for seniors. Protecting Medicare and extending CHIP is the best opportunity this Congress has to address the need for affordable quality health insurance for Americans.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome Reverend Martin Lavengood and to thank him for the prayer he just delivered, and to welcome his family and many residents of the Evangelical Manor who are here today. Reverend Lavengood has a long and honorable history of service to the community. Prior to being ordained in 1991, Reverend Lavengood taught high school English in New York. Shortly after his ordination, he studied in Jerusalem as the first Roberta Rudin Scholar for Jewish- Christian Studies. After his experience in Israel, the reverend returned to the United States and became active in prison ministry while serving in parishes in New York and Indiana. In 2003, Reverend Lavengood moved to Philadelphia where he became a chaplain at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital. While working there, he developed an interest in ministering to people of all ages, especially the elderly. This interest led him to his current position as chaplain of the Wesley Enhanced Living at Evangelical Manor in Philadelphia, where he's honored, he says, to serve members of the World War II generation. I commend Reverend Lavengood for his service to seniors and for taking time to come to Washington and offering this prayer before the House of Representatives.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I think we should continue this discussion about what is the smartest and most efficient way to do this. Again, what is interesting about the way SCHIP, the children's health insurance initiative, was set up is it said to each State, one, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, if you don't have a problem, or you don't think this is an issue. We were not even sure how it would all work out. They also said, then you can create whatever initiative works for you, what really works for you. It turns out every State has chosen to do it. Actually, we already had SCHIP in Pennsylvania for 5 years when the Federal Government came in. Our governor was very nervous about taking it. He wasn't sure he wanted to do this. He was concerned it would be a new entitlement program and that he would be stuck with the bill at the end of the day. I know States had legitimate worries about that, that we actually tell them to do things and then don't give them any help in doing it. But this is one case where we said, no, you have to do it. You have to structure the program. Here are some guidelines. Here is how we think you should do it. Then we are going to pay a part of it, a good part of it, but we are not paying all of it. You have to buy into it. You have to want to do it, also. You have to structure this. So every State did this. We learned from each other. That also was a good thing, to look around and see what worked for other States and what didn't. When our governor was saying, should we do it? He really was very torn about it. Actually, he didn't decide to do it until September 30, and that was the deadline that year. I was very anxious. I was on the floor of the State senate many nights saying we ought to do this. I was pushing him to do that. Of course, we were able then to triple the number of children who were covered because of the partnership we had with the Federal Government. That is what this is about. It really is. This is a great example of a very innovative way to create a partnership between the Federal Government and the States, between insurers in some ways and the States as well, in many cases, and between parents and families and health care providers, and say, we are all going to help make this happen.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. And I think this is where we can get a chance to have a little bit of a conversation. There is a lot of feeling about it. I think all of us feel that we should be working as hard as we possible can to be getting this done, not be sort of saying, okay, I'm not interested, we'll do something else. There are a lot of priorities here. We stand up on the floor frequently and say, okay, one of the most important things we can do is this, one of the most important things we can do is that. But the fact is if we aren't all parents, and many of us are, then we certainly have nieces or nephews we love, or neighborhood children. All of us know someone who has struggled through a moment when they couldn't provide the essentials. This is not a frill. And I think that's what you were saying, Mr. Allen, is this is not an, okay, if you can get to do it, go do it. This is something that's really essential for every child in America. And we're helping parents to be able to meet that essential requirement for their children. Some of you may know, my husband is a physician. And I was joking with my staff that he cuts out articles from the New England Journal of Medicine all the time for me to read. And mostly they're not so readable for me, I have to admit, you know, they sort of need some interpretation. But just in the last week's journal there is a wonderful article talking about the imperative to continue the SCHIP program. And I'll share it with my colleagues, I'll send it around to everyone tomorrow, but really it made it very, very clear that this is something that we need to do because of the medical imperative, the health care imperative. And we know it is something that we can do. So, it's something we're proud of and we should be and we want to do. Mr. Pallone, you look like you're ready to jump in here.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Again, our hour is concluding, but I think, in other words, we certainly are very interested, I certainly am, in making sure that the marketplace, the insurance marketplace, you are from Connecticut, so I am sure you have an interest in this, that it works; that in fact it is affordable, that we can figure out a way for businesses to work together, to be able to get a market share, to be able to maybe do some things on the individual marketplace so that in fact it can be more affordable. Some of the ideas that the President has about tax deductions, not as substitutes, but for individual coverage, that's fine. We should be doing that. But not say, okay, which are going to make sure that 6 million children who have had access to health care, and another 6 million who could, who are now eligible but are not signed up, we are going to continue to deny them care, and we are going to do that by scaring you into thinking somehow we are creating some new expanded government program that is somehow just going to be evil. That is sort of kind of what the President is saying, instead of saying wait a minute, this is an initiative that works. It works in every State. People are proud of it. Republicans and Democrats stand up and praise it, doctors are happy about it, hospitals are happy about it, parents are happy about it. I don't know how the kids feel when they get their immunizations, how happy they are about it. But the fact is we are doing the right thing and we are meeting a priority that American families talk to us about all the time. And it is not instead of doing something else. It is really just because it is a high priority for us. It is always a question of priority, but we really I think, certainly what I want to say, we are determined to get this done, and we want to work in a bipartisan way to do it. We want to do it in a fiscally responsible way. We want to continue to build on the success of the Children's Health Insurance Program, and that is why we are going to keep talking about it until we get it done and hopefully be joined by not only our colleagues on the the other side, but the President as well.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. And just on that note, if the gentleman would yield, we do know that the number of uninsured for the first time in a long time is going up again. So we're talking about 45 million Americans. And the fact that, of those, 9 million are children who, again, through no fault of their own, don't have access to health insurance. And one of the reasons is that health insurance is expensive. And even for businesses that want to provide health insurance for their employees, sometimes they're faced, particularly small businesses, with how do I actually pay that whole amount for family coverage? And they just cover the employee. And so even here, where you're talking about employers trying to do the responsible thing, but just looking at their bottom line and saying I can't do anything about this, when the parent is covered and the child is not is one situation where certainly CHIP comes in and really can be very, very helpful. There has been some discussion obviously about adults. And I think this is intended for children. Some States have brought along the parents because it does help with enrollment, and we think that's true in Pennsylvania as well. But we also know that when the parents don't have health insurance, and if they can't get timely health care, then they don't have an ongoing relationship with a physician or a medical group. And the children also learn from their parents. Their parents are their models. And so if the parents are going for regular checkups and their kids are going for regular checkups and it's part of what you learn to do as a responsible person, that's a good package. It's what we want adults do be doing as well. So I know that there is some discussion about that, too, whether States, now they're not allowed anymore to be able to sign up adults alone, but they're usually signed up with their children as a family coverage. And that's the way most people who buy insurance do it, too. They buy insurance for their family. That's the way it's sold mostly. So I think it's making sure that we actually allow people to sort of use the marketplace the way it really works and not punish them for that.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to introduce the subject of children's health insurance and what has really been a remarkably successful Federal-State, public-private initiative that has really helped to make sure that middle class working families across this country have been able to get health insurance for 6 million of their children. So it has really been helping families all across this country be able to do what they want to do as responsible parents, and that is to be able to help pay for health insurance. Every State does it a little bit differently. That is what we are going to talk about this evening; we are going to talk about how important it has been for 10 years in this country to help children in America get the health care they need and they deserve, and it helps them get off to the right kind of start. So I want to talk more about that and I will be joined by some of my colleagues. But because one of my colleagues is going to be taking over in the chair, I am going to give him a few minutes just to talk about the subject. He is a colleague of mine from Pennsylvania. And I will say in Pennsylvania we are very, very proud of having been one of the first States well before the Federal level to start a children's health insurance program. In fact, we called it CHIP, then the SCHIP program started. In 1992 is when we started it in Pennsylvania, and I was instrumental in creating the Children's Health Insurance Program in Pennsylvania. It has been incredibly successful. 130,000 children have health insurance in Pennsylvania. So a colleague of mine, who has also worked in health care for a good long time and knows about the experience of the Children's Health Insurance Program from the other part of Pennsylvania, in the western part of the State, my colleague, a freshman who's done a wonderful job already, Jason Altmire, Congressman Altmire is going to say a few words, and then we'll continue for the hour.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank the Congressman, and I appreciate that he has other duties to contend with, so he'll be a part of this conversation in a way. But thank you for taking the time to come to the floor and for your help on this. And I think for many of us, and I know you've just come off the campaign trail this last year, and even those of us who were not campaigning every minute but certainly out and about talking to people, we do hear from everyday families about how hard it is to be able to buy health insurance for kids. I mean, I remember a story, and maybe my colleagues I'm hoping will share some as well. When I was actually out and about once, and it was actually a church group. And afterwards a woman came up to me and said, you know, I haven't always shared this, but my husband, it was actually a fairly well-to-do area. But she said, my husband was laid off last year and it was a really, really tough time for us as a family. And one of the things that affected us is that we didn't have health insurance. But because of the CHIP program in Pennsylvania, SCHIP as we know it federally, she said, I was able to make sure that my kids had health insurance and they got the health care that I know that they needed and deserved and that we wanted to help make sure they got. And as someone who, and Congressman Altmire referred to this, in Pennsylvania I'm known as the mother of CHIP. People do come up to me and say, well, we don't always get thanked as elected officials, but do thank me, whether it's stories where someone came up and said my granddaughter who had some health issues, daughter was working hard trying to get a degree and just didn't have health coverage. She said, my granddaughter would not have health coverage without CHIP. So these are the stories we hear all the time. And I think probably my colleagues will share it. We're going to talk tonight about some of the numbers they already referred to, the 6 million children who have had access to health care, private health care in a lot of situations across the States, the money that we've been able to work with the States where they've put in their own dollars that have made a difference in helping a lot of American families who didn't think that we'd be there to help them who have been able to get health insurance for the kids. But this is a place where we are making a difference in people's lives. One last story, and then I am going to turn it over to my colleagues. I was talking to a group of school counselors, and some of them, one of them said, stood up and said that she had a child come to her, a teacher came to her and said they had a child in the class who never raised his hand. He's in third grade. Never raised his hand. Never participated in discussions. And she finally broke through to found out what was going on. Turns out he had never had any dental care, and he literally was afraid to open his mouth. It hurt. He had some discomfort. He was embarrassed about the way his teeth looked. And when he got children's health insurance coverage, he got to a dentist, she said he was a different kid. And that would have been a child who would have been a dropout, would have been a troublemaker in school because he just wasn't going to be able to participate. So she said, health care's important because of health care, but it's also important because of education. If kids are not well, if they don't get the preventative care they need, if they don't get the eyeglasses, if they don't get treated when they're sick, I know it makes a difference to the teachers in my school to be able to teach those kids. So on every level, and again we're going to talk about big numbers here. The President wants to do $5 billion which will barely be enough to sustain this program. It sounds like big numbers to families listening, but the fact is that we need to make that commitment. And I think we, as Democrats, have said we are going to make a commitment to make sure that the Children's Health Insurance Program continues, that it continues in the dynamic way that it has working with the States. But we're going to even do more. We're going to be a little bold, even in these tough budget times, and we're going to make sure that more children who are now on waiting lists in some States are able to get the health coverage that they deserve. And this is something we can do, we should do. It's about having the political will to make it happen. We're going to protect health care for seniors; we're going to do it for kids. And that's what our discussion is about tonight. And I'm going to close, and I know you mentioned this as well, the previous speaker talked about the fact that the President, and I'm a little, I have to say, this is very disturbing to many of us because our Republican colleagues helped make this program happen. It was a bipartisan effort. This wasn't something that one side or the other sort of pushed without anyone else caring about it. But the fact is that 193 House Republicans, 10 years ago, voted to make this happen. It was a bipartisan effort; 153 House Democrats. This was a joint effort. We said we wanted to make this happen. We all stand up from time to time and we are really, really proud of this. So when the President last week said, you know, he just doesn't think this is important, that, in fact, we ought to be doing something else. We ought to be helping families buy private health insurance by getting them some tax deductions. They can't afford it? Well, I don't know what he means. He actually went on to say that kids can get health care in this country. They can go to the emergency room. That's really just stunning, given what we know about the high cost of going to emergency rooms, the fact that that is not the best place for primary care. It certainly is not the best place for children who might just need a well-child checkup. So it's absolutely going in the wrong direction on the health care. It's why we wanted to stand up tonight and talk about this. That's why we will continue to until we actually get it done. And I think that the commitment that we have made is to make it happen. And I'm joined tonight by two colleagues, one, Mr. Pallone from New Jersey, who has not only been a leader on upgrading the Children's Health Insurance Program, but continues to work out all the details of how to make this happen. And I'm sure he's one of the people who thought we were going to have bipartisan cooperation, and we still hope we will, but is really working on some of the details of how we can and we should do this. One of the reasons we reauthorize programs is that we want to see what worked best and what didn't; we want to see what changes have to be made given our experience. He is going to talk about some of that work. And my colleague from Connecticut, who as a State legislator was involved in working on the State level to make this happen and to work in a special way to make Connecticut, make it work for children in Connecticut, and feels a special connection to the Children's Health Insurance Program there. So gentlemen, I would ask you to share your stories and your help on this. Maybe we'll start with Mr. Pallone, and if you would help us just sort of by giving us maybe some of the facts and figures or some of the stories that you hear from your colleagues as well.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to let my colleagues share their stories too so maybe we could have a little conversation about it. But I just want to say that certainly one of the points that have been criticized by the other side is that families that make as much as $40,000 for a family of four might be eligible or are eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Now, in Pennsylvania it is a subsidy to buy private health insurance. So you either get a complete subsidy or you might just get half of it or you can buy it at cost. In fact, many parents are contributing. But as you point out, for a family of four making $40,000 a year and both parents might be working, by the time they pay their mortgage and pay the baby-sitter and pay their utility costs and maybe fill up their car with gasoline and pay the loan on the car and they pay their taxes, there is not a lot of money left over to find the $12,000 that they might have to find to purchase private health insurance. So you can say, fine, go to the marketplace, but you need a little help to go to the marketplace. And that is what this is about. And it has made such an enormous difference, thinking you can put a smile on a parent's face for doing the right thing. And good for you to go back and actually say to a person we really did do something for you, and it made such a huge difference. I think the other point, and this is a lead in to our colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) that the States have always done these programs in different ways. They have written these programs in ways that they think work best. In 1992, 5 years before the Federal level when we were running it in Pennsylvania, we knew that a lot of these working families wanted a private health insurance card. Some States got very creative and expanded Medicaid and called it cute names, and that made it friendlier, and it is an issue just to tell people it exists. But we actually worked very hard with the private sector to get the benefits package right, to make sure that the cost was right. There were a lot of rules and regulations about it. But the fact is at the end of the day, people could walk in, families could walk into their physicians' offices with a private health insurance card, and that made them feel really proud that they were able to get some help so they could get that private health insurance. But it has made an enormous difference in Pennsylvania. And we have, as I say, about 130,000 children covered on the number of uninsured. It just goes to show it can work. When we work together, we can really make it work. Mr. Murphy, if you want to add a bit about the experience in Connecticut. We have been joined by another colleague of ours, Mr. Allen from Maine, who also has a long history in being an advocate for children's health insurance and making it happen. So thank you for joining us. I yield to Mr. Murphy.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. If I may, I was very well aware of the fact that so many different organizations were supportive and, again, outside some of their own realm a little bit. So I asked my staff to produce a list. And I have four pages of a closely typewritten list of all the groups. It is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable and it is also the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and SEIU. But it is groups that you would think who are advocates for children: the March of Dimes and Families USA and the Children's Defense Fund. But it also is all the senior organizations: the AARP and the Center for Medicare Advocacy and the Alliance for Retired Americans. And so many of the provider groups: AMA and the Academy of Family Physicians and the Academy of Pediatricians. But also America's Health Insurance Plans and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, PhRMA, who are saying this is an important thing to do as well, and the American Hospital Association. These are groups where you might say, well, why do they care? Now, hospitals, maybe they could get reimbursed for some of the uncompensated care that they provide, but the fact is that all these groups recognize how important it is. And we have the faith-based organizations: the National Council of the Churches of Christ and the Catholic Health Insurance Association. I mean all of them, all of them, have come together. For the Record I will submit these four pages of the list of all of the different folks who have actually said this is so important. It works. It matters to people. It is helping Americans be healthier and stronger and more productive. And what more important thing can we do than that? I think that was said earlier. But it is also doable. And we are taking a lot of fiscal responsibility in this new Congress among the Budget Committee. And the gentleman who is going to speak in just a minute is on the Budget Committee, and we have argued in the Budget Committee about how important it is to be smart about how we spend our money, to only spend money we can account for. So we are working very hard in this Congress to say we will not only maintain this program but we will expand it and we will find the money to do that because it is important. And when we are committed to doing something, we will find the money to do it, and that is what we are going to do in this. I was going to ask my colleague, and I know you have some remarks you would like to make, but if you think about what happens if we don't continue the SCHIP program, I mean that is one of the things that people presume will, of course, continue. But, in fact, the President just said today said that he might veto a reauthorization continuation, just the maintenance of the Children's Health Insurance Program if it is not constructed the way he likes, which is really shocking that 6 million children on October 1 may be without health coverage because of his unwillingness to do this. So knowing your history and your commitment to health care in general but particularly to children's health care and the good work that your State has done, if you would speak to that as well, I think it would be very helpful for Americans to understand that we are at risk here, that our children are at risk. And I yield to my colleague Mr. Allen from Maine.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Again, the debate here is how much can we do? What can we afford to do? What is the best way to do it? Mr. Pallone is working on all those details. I know we bug him and give our him suggestions about how to make this easier and streamline the bureaucracy and make it work for both providers and for children and for the States. So we are learning from that. I think that is pretty exciting. But that is not the discussion that some are in. We were in that discussion since January, actually. This is certainly something that the President proposed. We wanted to push much further. But I just say that is unfortunate. I think that is why we are so deeply disturbed. I will say that the President is consistent here. I will add just a note that when he was Governor, he was very reluctant to participate in the Children's Health Insurance Program and actually worked quite actively not to be engaged, not to have his State do it, and then tried to keep the level of the family to be as poor as possible. He did not want to go to 200 percent of poverty. He wanted to keep it lower. He did not want to reach into the sort of the really working folks in Texas who were struggling. You may want to comment on that. But I think for so many of my constituents, and again I think, Mr. Pallone, you pointed this out earlier, for very poor people in this country, we do have health care coverage. But for the people who are above that level, who say I don't know that there is anyone there to help me, this is actually one way to say, that is right, we are going to help you be able to get health insurance for your kids. You are working. You are trying to do the right thing, and this is the way we can help you do it. So for the very people who are playing by the rules, trying to do it right, struggling to make ends meet, to be able to help them get health insurance for their kids makes such a world of difference to their peace of mind and, of course, to the actual health of their kids.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. We have an enormous opportunity here. We want to meet that challenge and we want to do it right. So that is the challenge over the next few months. My guess is we are going to continue to talk about this for the weeks ahead, and certainly if we are lucky enough to take some vacation this summer and see those cute kids on the beach on the Jersey shore, and Connecticut has some nice beaches too, to look at them and think which ones of those, because there are, who don't have health insurance, whose parents may delay care that they should get, not get an immunization, should not get care, maybe not even treat some simple illness that ends up running through school or camp and everybody gets sick. But this is about giving kids the right healthy start. It is about doing it in a cost-effective way, about being creative and innovative, and meeting that challenge that American families have every day. So I thank my colleagues for joining me this evening, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Pallone, as well. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the list of all groups who support the SCHIP package. All Groups Who Support SCHIP Package seniors groups

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, I was proud to spearhead one of the first State initiatives to enable working families to purchase private health insurance for their children; 5 years later Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, enabling every State to implement its own plan. Today 6 million American children have health coverage thanks to SCHIP. We in Congress are building upon the extraordinary success of SCHIP to extend it to almost 9 million American children who are now uninsured. The goal of insuring all American children is within our reach. Yet, instead of working with Congress to reach this goal, the President this week made it clear that health insurance for children is not important to him. Does the President really believe that America's children do not deserve quality ongoing health care? Does the President really believe that emergency rooms are the best place for primary care for children? It is clear to just about every American that health insurance is expensive, and for too many American families, it is simply too expensive. Congress recognizes the urgency of the situation, and we move ahead, unlike the President, to take this opportunity to cover every American child.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, today President Bush, as required by Congress, has reported on progress made by the Iraqi Government on political and military benchmarks. He reported that the Iraqis have not accomplished any of these goals. It is time, in fact past time, for the Iraqis to take control of their own future. It is time for the Iraqis to move forward, resolve their internal conflicts and begin the process of national reconciliation. More than 3,600 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. Our military has performed exceptionally; for that and for their sacrifices, our Nation will be internally grateful. But without progress by the Iraqis themselves, there is little more that our military can do. And despite the stubbornness of our President to stay the course, it is time for us to bring our troops home. I am proud to be with the majority in Congress and across America in supporting this responsible plan to redeploy our troops, set a new course in Iraq, and lead our Nation towards greater security here at home and across the world. I rise in support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act and I stand in support of a change in strategy for U.S. involvement in Iraq: one that sets a timetable for prompt and safe withdrawal of our armed forces. For many of us on the House Floor today this is not the first time we have voted for such a change, or demanded a new plan from the President. In March, we voted to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, improve troop readiness, and demand accountability from the administration. The President vetoed our plan. In May, Congress enacted specific political and military benchmarks for the Iraqi government. By tying the goals to funds for military action in Iraq, we made it clear that progress is a prerequisite for continued assistance by the United States. Today, President Bush, as required by Congress, reported on progress made by the Iraqi government towards those benchmarks. He reported that the Iraqis have not accomplished any of these goals. More than 3,600 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. Our military has performed exceptionally. They removed a government hostile to the United States and took responsibility for providing enough stability to enable the Iraqi people to establish their own free and independent government. For that and for their sacrifices, our Nation will be eternally grateful. Yet, as the war enters its fifth year, sectarian violence and failure of political progress has put our troops in a more and more threatening and dangerous situation. This volatility and the President's surge strategy have increased U.S. and Iraqi casualties and injuries. It is time --well past time--for the Iraqis to take control of their own future. It is time for the Iraqis to move forward to establish an effective system of government, to resolve their internal conflicts, and to begin the process of national reconciliation. Without these actions by the Iraqis themselves, there is little more our military can do. It is time--well past time--for us to bring them home. On behalf of the American people, we are seeking to do just that. Today we will vote once again to end our military involvement on the frontlines in Iraq and bring our troops home despite the stubbornness of our President to stay the course. It is my hope that that Republicans will join us in supporting this responsible plan to redeploy our troops and to press the President for a new course in Iraq. As Democrats, we will lead this country towards a more responsible--more strategic path--to end our military involvement in Iraq. In so doing, we remain committed to protect our nation, our people and our strategic interests at home and around the world.

Ms. SCHWARTZ

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for working with me to raise this important issue. It is my hope that we will continue to work together to encourage Americans to save for retirement. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 513) supporting the goals and ideals of National Save for Retirement Week.

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports the goals and ideals of National Save for Retirement Week which will soon be designated by the Senate as October 21 through October 27, 2007. I want to thank Senators Conrad and Smith for working with me and my esteemed colleague, Mr. Johnson of Texas, to bring attention to the importance of retirement planning for American families. We are living in a time when workers are being asked to shoulder an increasing share of the cost of savings for retirement. Even with an employee-sponsored retirement plan and the promise of Social Security benefits, American families need to put additional money aside to ensure a financially secure retirement. For many American families, saving is becoming an increasingly difficult task as they struggle to meet their everyday obligations. Even in solidly middle income families, financial resources are stretched thin as parents work to meet other pressing needs, whether it is purchasing health care coverage, paying for college, meeting energy costs, or simply paying monthly bills on time. Over the past several years, we have seen a dramatic shift in our retirement system. Most workers are no longer eligible for traditional pensions which provide a predictable monthly benefit throughout retirement. Instead, workers are now bearing more of the costs and investment risks of saving adequately for their retirement under defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s. As a result, the value of most workers' retirement benefits and the security of their retirement is now directly linked to their investment decisions and the balance held in their account when they retire rather than their years of service. The dramatic shift towards individual defined contribution plans is clear. In 1980, there were over 148,000 defined benefit plans that provided guaranteed benefits to workers, and there were approximately 341,000 defined contribution plans that relied on the returns on investments made by workers. By 2003, just over 20 years later, the number of defined benefit plans had fallen to just about 47,000, while the number of defined contribution plans had risen to nearly 653,000. While this shift is empowering American workers to make more of their own financial decisions, many families are finding it difficult to save significantly to meet all of their retirement needs. A study conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that average 401(k) balances range from approximately $4,500 for participants in their 20s with less than 3 years of service to just under $200,000 for participants in their 60s with at least 30 years of service. Unfortunately, a balance of less than $200,000 may not be enough to finance an individual's retirement years. For example, a worker in my own State of Pennsylvania with a $200,000 balance who makes the financially prudent decision of purchasing an annuity could expect a maximum monthly benefit of about $1,300. $1,300 can go just so far in meeting monthly household expenses. Retirees have to ask can $1,300 pay their mortgage, health costs, car payments, gas and leisure activities, and will it be sufficient in 5, 10 or 15 years given the increasing cost of living to meet their expenses and their expectations for retirement? These concerns become more alarming as recent data show a decline in actual worker participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans. In 2004, only 40 percent of families had an individual who participated in either form of employer-based plan. This means that a majority of American working families are not currently participating in any retirement plan at work. As our country shifts towards an increasing reliance on individual savings, workers are facing increased difficulty as they prepare for retirement. And it heightens the importance of educating our workers about the pressing need to save. In my district, I have partnered with banks, credit unions and other financial institutions to host seminars to help provide families with the information they need to make educated, financially responsible decisions about their family budgets and to help them establish a habit of saving for the future. I have also worked with schools in my district to help reach out to children, even at young ages, in order to emphasize the importance of saving for the future. It is never too early to learn that every little bit we save now will help in the long run. Whether you're a 16-year-old receiving your first paycheck or a 25-year-old getting your first real increase, or a 45-year-old with a mortgage and two kids who need braces, a habit of putting a little bit away each month in regular savings can, with the help of compound interest, add up to a secure retirement. The resolution before us today supports and encourages educational opportunities on a national scale and creates a collaborative effort to emphasize the importance of making saving for retirement a priority for all American families. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that we can help make American workers more financially secure in their retirement years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.