Jerry Weller

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, today I introduced a resolution to recognize the importance of improving the high school graduation rate of foster youth. I was accompanied by my colleagues Jim McDermott, the Chairman of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee on which I serve as ranking Republican, Phil English, and John Lewis. A recent series of hearings in the subcommittee reflected on the fact that school stability and high school completion are strongly associated with better outcomes for young people making the transition to adulthood. We know that connecting kids with their schools means strengthening the circle of friends, teachers, coaches, and other mentors that can help them become more independent and develop the habits and skills needed to succeed for life on their own. Over 20,000 youth ``age out'' of the Nation's foster care system each year. Among many serious challenges, these young people have lower high school graduation rates, higher rates of homelessness, and a greater chance of becoming incarcerated than other youth their age. Too many youth who age out of foster care stumble and fall on their way to adulthood. Some never recover. Others find their way only through extraordinary personal effort, the involvement of dedicated relatives and other adults, a little luck, or all of the above. We should be doing everything we can to increase high school completion rates in general. And for kids in foster care, it is especially important for them to stay connected to their school and complete high school. Such action will give former foster youth a solid start on their way to a successful adulthood. That is in everyone's interest.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Jerry Costello, for yielding and join in honoring the life and service of someone who was a friend to many in this Chamber. My friend and predecessor, George Sangmeister, served in this body for 6 years, representing the district I currently represent, the 11th Congressional District, which was previously numbered as the 4th District of Illinois. George Sangmeister was born in Frankfurt, Illinois, 76 years ago. He attended Joliet Junior College before entering the military and serving in the Korean War. After returning to private life, he attended Elmhurst College and then earned a law degree from John Marshall Law School. George Sangmeister had a distinguished service career of 34 years of public service. He began his practice in private law before becoming a magistrate and justice of the peace for Will County in 1961; in 1964, became Will County State's Attorney. In 1972, George Sangmeister was elected as a Democrat to the Illinois House of Representatives; 1976, after two terms in the State house, he was elected to the State senate. George Sangmeister became a respected Democratic leader in the State legislature, and, in 1986, Democratic nominee for Governor, Adlai Stevenson, chose George Sangmeister as his running mate. In 1988, George Sangmeister was elected to Congress, served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee where he helped to bring the veterans outpatient clinic to Joliet and worked tirelessly to expand health care benefits for veterans. After three terms in the House, he declined to seek reelection in 1994. He chose to return to private law practice. George Sangmeister is survived by his wife, Doris; a son, Kurt; a daughter, Kimberly; and four grandchildren. I join my friend Jerry Costello and members of the Illinois delegation in asking this House to honor and remember the late Congressman George Sangmeister for his 34 years of public service to Illinois and our Nation.

Mr. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 946 and 947 on the motion to recommit H.R. 3648 and final passage of H.R. 3648, I was unable to vote due to a prior family commitment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for both votes.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American war hero whom I had the pleasure to meet recently. Retired Air Force COL James Kasler of Momence, Illinois, represents the uncommon courage that is found in our military men and women. His distinguished record of service includes 76 awards for valor and service, and Colonel Kasler has the distinction of being the only person in our country's history, dead or alive, to receive the Air Force Cross three times. His career as a decorated combat pilot began as a B-29 tail gunner over Japan in World War II. He went on to become a jet ace in Korea, and showed remarkable bravery volunteering for bombing runs in Vietnam. On his 91st mission, in Vietnam, Colonel Kasler was shot down while covering for his downed wingman. He would go on to endure 6\1/2\ years in a Vietnamese prison camp, and would become a role model for his fellow prisoners, including Senator John McCain of Arizona and a member of this House, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas. James Kasler is the face of the valor that all our veterans demonstrated when they put on the uniform of our armed forces. Recently I had the honor of delivering the keynote address at the dedication of the Kasler-Momence Veterans Park in my district, where I met the colonel. This park will serve to honor all those veterans who served and those future veterans who are currently serving. Hundreds of thousands of military personnel go about their task every day without complaint, often far from their families and in hostile conditions--and too many don't make it home. Their service keeps us free. I am proud to have COL James Kasler as a constituent, and proud to have been associated with the veterans' memorial that bears his name. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring him and all war heroes of the past, present, and future.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3656, a bill to better ensure that taxpayer funds for welfare go to help low-income parents go to work, not to support drug habits. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Phil English of Pennsylvania, for sponsoring this legislation and I am glad to join as his chief co-sponsor. In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed welfare reforms that emphasized the necessity of work to achieving economic self- sufficiency. As a result of that historic reform, millions of families have moved from welfare dependence to greater self-sufficiency, supported by pro-work benefits including child care funds, health coverage, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Poverty has fallen dramatically, for some groups to record lows. But there is still more work to do. We all know that too many American parents remain trapped by drug addiction. H.R. 3656 is designed to ensure that our country sends a clearer message about the support available for low-income parents, and what obligations those parents have to stay clean and off of drugs. So this legislation builds upon the success of the 1996 reforms by attempting to better ensure federal tax dollars are spent efficiently and appropriately. Simply put, taxpayer money intended to provide temporary assistance to needy families should not be spent to subsidize drug abuse. H.R. 3656 expects States to test welfare recipients and applicants for benefits when caseworkers have reason to believe the parent is taking illegal drugs. Not every recipient or applicant, but those for who there is real cause to think that taxpayer funds might wind up furthering a drug habit instead of helping parents find, take and stay in jobs. This common-sense reform will help States identify those in need of substance abuse treatment, and ensure that federal funds are not spent buying illegal drugs. Madam Speaker, recently in my home state of Illinois, I had an opportunity to meet with members of the Marseilles Concerned Citizens Against Drugs, a group of citizens committed to seeing drug abuse removed from my community. They expressed their dismay that federal dollars are being spent to support an addiction which destroys lives, families, and communities. I couldn't agree more. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to better ensure that welfare assistance is spent appropriately, and that those addicted to drugs be identified so they can receive the treatment needed to lead more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3656.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3668 contains temporary extensions of several important programs that affect low-income families with children. I urge its passage. The subcommittee on which I am the ranking Republican, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, oversees the Nation's welfare, child care, and related programs designed to promote and support work by low-income families. It is important to extend the critical supports Congress enacted in recent years to advance those goals, such the Transitional Medical Assistance program continued under this bill. I am all for that. Every Member should support that. This legislation also extends the Abstinence Education program, which supports efforts to prevent teenage pregnancy and premarital sexual activity, with a goal of reducing the childbearing outside marriage. Childbearing outside marriage is directly associated with higher poverty rates and ultimately greater welfare receipt and dependence. All Members should support measures designed to reduce the chances children are raised in poverty. The legislation has other important features, like an extension of the Qualified Individuals program that provides Medicare premium assistance to certain low-income beneficiaries. However, I would like to draw the House's attention to one provision that, as currently drafted, may not achieve the intended effect and thus may not result in the savings suggested by the CBO scoring of this legislation. This provision appears in section 4 of the legislation, titled ``Extension of SSI Web-Based Asset Demonstration Project to the Medicaid Program.'' The Social Security Administration, SSA, currently is operating a project testing ways to improve asset verification under the Supplemental Security Income, SSI, program. The current project seeks to make sure that SSI applicants are accurately reporting all the assets, like personal savings accounts, to which they can and should turn for support before expecting monthly SSI checks from taxpayers. Since SSI is a means-tested benefit program, it only makes sense to focus benefits on those who don't have a large amount of personal savings, for example, on which to depend. In recent years, the SSA project has tested comparing individuals' self-reports of their savings account assets with actual bank records. This effort has already produced significant savings in the few States where it has been applied, including uncovering some individuals with tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed assets. So it makes sense to expand this effort to include other means-tested programs, as the legislation proposes, including the expensive Medicaid program. However, it is my understanding that the legislative language in H.R. 3668 includes a number of drafting flaws that will effectively prevent the proposed expansion of this asset verification project from being achieved. Problems include a lack of reference in the legislative language to the need to obtain written consent from individuals for the purpose of obtaining information for the Medicaid program. This may prevent banks from sharing such information with Medicaid officials as would be required to actually expand the current project as proposed. Such ``consent'' language exists under the current SSI program as required by the Right to Financial Privacy Act, but not in H.R. 3668. Even if this provision were to work as intended, it is noteworthy that nowhere does this legislation provide for reimbursement of Social Security Administration administrative costs that would inevitably result. SSA is already seeking additional administrative funds to address growing disability claims backlogs as well as handle its current duties, which include serving millions of America's seniors, including the rising numbers applying for retirement and disability benefits as the Baby Boom generation heads into retirement in the coming years. It is my understanding that the authors of this legislation consulted with SSA on such technical issues during the drafting process, and opted against implementing any of the SSA suggestions. Because of that, while the current CBO score suggests this legislation is paid for, I am afraid that the real world experience of these provisions will not reflect that optimistic forecast. If that turns out to be correct, the legislation before the House today will not satisfy the pay-as-you-go requirements of this body, which require that increases in spending by fully paid for by such as by offsetting spending cuts. And some individuals will obtain Medicaid benefits for which they should not have qualified. While it may be too late to correct the drafting errors in this particular bill, I urge my colleagues especially on the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Finance Committees, which have jurisdiction over Medicaid law, to revisit this legislative language and make the appropriate changes at the next available opportunity. I do not disagree with their intent, but suggest the legislative text reflected in this bill will not result in the outcome they intend. Related language appears in legislation preauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which as it continues to be acted on in the coming days would serve as a worthy vehicle for making the appropriate changes to ensure the will of the House is carried out, and misspending under the Medicaid program is minimized as the House intends with this legislation.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2825, a bill I introduced that would name the post office in Princeton, Illinois after Owen Lovejoy. Owen Lovejoy is perhaps best known for his role in advocating for the abolition of slavery and his work with the Underground Railroad. Owen Lovejoy was born in Albion, Maine in 1811 to Daniel, a Presbyterian minister, and Elizabeth Lovejoy. While growing up, young Owen came to admire his older brother Elijah, who taught him Latin classics when Elijah came home from college. Owen grew up to follow in his brother's footsteps by attending Bowdoin College. Unfortunately, his father died while Owen was in school, forcing him to leave Bowdoin College after 3 years. After the death of his father, Owen moved to Illinois to live with his brother Elijah, who was the editor of an anti-slavery newspaper. During this time, Owen became a convert to abolitionism. His dedication to abolitionism grew on November 7, 1937 when an anti-abolition mob attempted to destroy Elijah's printing press. In the ensuing struggle, Elijah Lovejoy was killed by the mob. For Owen, abolitionism became ``the cause that has been sprinkled with my brother's blood.'' After his brother's death, Owen Lovejoy moved to Princeton, a village with a population of 200. Rev. Edward Beecher recommended him to Hampshire Colony Congregational Church, the church from which he spoke out against slavery for the next 17 years. Owen used the pulpit to attack slavery. He also operated the ``Lovejoy Line'' of the Underground Railroad. His farmhouse, surrounded by 1300 acres of farmland, was one of the busiest for slaves trying to gain their freedom. In 1854, Owen Lovejoy was elected to the Illinois legislature. Two years later, he was elected to Congress with the help of a fellow Illinoisan, Abraham Lincoln. He served four terms as the Representative to Illinois' Third Congressional District. As a Congressman, Owen continued to work towards the abolition of slavery. Owen worked with members in both chambers in creating legislation to weaken slavery and achieve equality for all people, regardless of race. In 1863, Owen introduced the legislative version of the Emancipation Proclamation. Sadly, he did not get the chance to see his legislation become law. On March 25, 1864, Owen Lovejoy died of Bright's disease, 2 weeks before the introduction of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. When President Lincoln heard of Lovejoy's death, he wrote, It can be truly said of him that while he was personally ambitious he bravely endured the obscurity which the unpopularity of his principles imposed . . . To the day of his death, it would scarcely wrong any other to say, he was my most generous friend. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Owen Lovejoy for his work and determination towards abolishing slavery in America by supporting H.R. 2825.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on legislative days September 4 through September 7, I was absent caring for my one-year-old daughter. If I were present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 847, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 848, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 849, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 850, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 851, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 852, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 853, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 854, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 855, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 856, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 857, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 858, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 859, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 860, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 861, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 862, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 863, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 864.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Udall/Platts amendment that will establish a Federal renewable portfolio standard of 15 percent by the year 2020. By ensuring that 15 percent of the electricity we produce comes from renewable sources by 2020, we take another great step forward, just like we did when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2007, in working towards the goal of energy independence. In addition to the goal of energy independence, this amendment also takes steps toward an issue that we as a country need to ban together to fight . . . and that is global warming. The Federal renewable portfolio standard we are debating here today by 2030 will save consumers an estimated $16.4 billion on their energy bills and an estimated $10 billion on their electricity bills. In addition, the amendment will increase our renewable energy capacity to 91 gigawatts and it's estimated that annual power plant carbon emissions will be reduced by 180 million metric tons. For my rural 11th District of Illinois, renewable sources of energy like wind and biomass are producing new jobs and revitalizing many small towns. There are currently two wind farms in my district, Mendota Hills and Crescent Ridge, with an additional two more, Twin Groves and McLean Wind Energy Center, in the works. The Crescent Ridge project, once completed will be one of the largest wind farms in the country. Since passage of the Energy Bill, we have seen over $100 million invested in Wind energy with a total investment of close to a billion dollars. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that for every new megawatt (MW) of wind energy, 15-19 direct and indirect jobs are created. There are about 826 MWs of planned wind production in various stages in Illinois. That translates into 14,868 jobs in Illinois. By establishing a Federal renewable portfolio standard, we can continue this growth in renewable energy and continue to produce many more new jobs. While I do support the underlying amendment, I believe it lacks one critical component. That is the inclusion of nuclear power as part of the standard. I have the distinct pleasure of representing a district that has the most nuclear power plants of any member of Congress. Accounting for close to 20% of the electricity produced here in the United States, nuclear energy cannot be ignored. With the focus of an RPS to not only drive us towards energy independence but to reduce carbon emissions, you cannot leave out an energy source like nuclear that produces 0 emissions. I am hopeful that when we move forward with this policy that I can work with the sponsors of this amendment to have this clean burning energy source included. In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to commend Congressmen Udall and Platts for offering their amendment today and ask that all of my colleagues support this amendment. Most of our States are moving towards renewable portfolio standards; its time for our country as a whole to become the leader.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this legislation before us today. I generally enjoy working with Chairman Rangel and my subcommittee chairman, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Neal, people I enjoy working with. But it is hard to support policy that fails to include some good ideas. We should have a bipartisan bill before us today, and the issue is this bill fails to build on the successes of the 2005 energy bill. The district that I represent south of Chicago, cities like Joliet, a lot of rural communities, bedroom communities, was a big winner in the 2005 energy bill. Thanks to the incentives for wind and biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, we are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment in wind energy and biofuels in the district that I represent, thanks to the energy bill of 2005. I was hoping we would build on that. I was also hoping that this legislation would include good ideas about energy conservation. We made one of the centerpieces of the 2005 energy bill incentives for homeowners to make their home more energy efficient. It said that about 20 percent of the energy we consume is consumed in our home, and we included a tax credit for homebuilders as well as homeowners to invest in better insulation and better windows and better roofs and better heating and cooling technology, and they could save on that investment and, in the long term, save on energy consumption. It is estimated that today about 65 percent of U.S. homes are not insulated adequately, according to Harvard. That same study said if they were insulated properly, we would reduce the need to import 76 supertankers of crude oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or some other foreign country. So energy efficiency is a key part of our strategy for energy independence. Also, because you are consuming less, you reduce climate change. We should have extended the tax credit for existing homes. We should have extended the tax credit for new homes. Let's give tax incentives to those who want to bring energy efficiency to home.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during the last set of votes last evening, I unintentionally voted against the conference report on H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I ask that it be put into the permanent record that I fully support the passage of the conference report and ask that my vote be changed in the record from a ``nay'' vote to a ``yea'' vote. For the 11th Congressional District that I represent as well as for all of Illinois, passage of this legislation is of the utmost importance. WRDA contains instructions at my request for the Army Corps of Engineers to carry out studies and projects within my district at LaSalle and at Ballard's Island in the Illinois River. The conference report also contains the critical updating of the lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, vital to Illinois farmers and exports. In closing, I want to commend Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for producing a good bipartisan bill again and I am hopeful that this year we can finally get this bill to the President for his signature.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 781, I was stuck in an elevator with several other Members. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act.'' This legislation is designed to improve the way our Nation counts various antipoverty benefits we currently provide low-income families--to better understand both who is poor and how effective those anti-poverty efforts are. The Ways and Means Committee and its Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking member, has recently held a series of hearings on poverty, reviewing the cost of poverty, how U.S. poverty measurement differs from other countries, and possible solutions to poverty. As several Members noted in those hearings, one of the first failings of our current poverty measure is the fact it does not count tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funded assistance provided to reduce poverty for literally millions of families each year. This omission limits the usefulness of today's poverty measure. It also devalues the sacrifices of taxpayers who pay for those benefits with their hard-earned tax dollars. And it increases the apparent number of families in poverty. On August 1 the Income Security Subcommittee will hold another hearing on how poverty is measured in the U.S. Several witnesses will suggest counting the value of more antipoverty benefits to determine whether families are poor or not. That is exactly what the ``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act'' would do. Major assistance not counted today includes food stamps, public housing, earned income tax credits, and health coverage. These also constitute the fastest growing portions of our Nation's safety net designed to help low-income families escape poverty. So unless we act, more and more of our effort to alleviate poverty will be ignored each passing year. Consider what this means for families. Let's say the Jones family of four has an annual income of $30,000-- all from wages. Current rules count wages as income for purposes of judging whether a family is poor. Since the poverty threshold for a family of four is about $20,000, and the income of the Jones family is above that level, the Jones family is officially ``not poor.'' Now let's say their neighbors the Smith family also is a family of four. The Smith family also has a total of $30,000 in annual income. But the Smith's income comes from multiple sources--$18,000 from wages, plus a total of $12,000 in housing, health care, food stamp, and earned income tax credit benefits provided by taxpayers. Under current rules, none of the $12,000 in taxpayer benefits provided the Smith family is counted as income. So since their $18,000 in wages falls short of the $20,000 poverty threshold for a family of four, the Smith family is ``officially'' poor. This makes little sense. The ``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act'' would direct the Census Bureau to report on poverty as measured three ways. First, Census would retitle the current official poverty rate as the ``partial benefits poverty rate,'' which is what it is. The second measure, called the ``full benefits poverty rate'' would include means-tested food, housing and health care benefits as income. The final measure, called the ``full benefits and taxes poverty rate,'' would also add in the value tax credits like the EITC, and subtract taxes paid. This legislation would help us better understand both who is poor and the effectiveness of current antipoverty benefits. And it would put income from earnings and income from government benefits on the same level, so that the Jones and Smith families would be recognized as having the same disposable incomes, regardless of its source. More needs to be done to help families lift themselves out of poverty. That means pressing on with more of what works to reduce poverty. As we saw in the progress against poverty following the 1996 welfare reform law, that starts with promoting more full-time work instead of welfare dependence. And it includes promoting more healthy marriage, which also reduces poverty and welfare dependence for the long run. But we also should do a better job understanding how current antipoverty efforts are working, and the effect of means-tested benefits in improving the incomes and wellbeing of families. The ``Poverty Measurement Improvement Act'' I am introducing today does just that, and I urge all Members to support it.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I voted ``yes'' to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. I was proud a Republican Congress put this plan into place, and I support reauthorization of this program, but I oppose this bill before us. Why? This bill contains big tax increases. What is interesting, when we want to make health insurance more affordable, they put a new $2 billion tax, they call it a per capita tax, on health insurance policies, causing them to be more expensive. Then there are some big Medicare cuts, in fact, almost $200 billion in Medicare cuts, probably the biggest cut in Medicare in the history of the program. They want to expand the program, but they want to pay for it on the backs of senior citizens by cutting Medicare. So you wonder who gets hurt when you cut Medicare to pay for the expansion of this program. If you just take the $7.6 billion in cuts to home health care, you think of that elderly woman that many of us have met. We have been in her home. She is an elderly woman with an easy chair by the window, by the television. She has a tray or table there. It is filled with pill bottles. She is homebound. She watches the world go by. And if she is lucky, she has a cat or a dog for a pet and a companion. But, for her, home health care is important, because not only is it contact with the outside world, but home health care allows her to live in her home in dignity even though she is homebound. This plan today that is going to be voted on includes a $7.6 billion cut in home health care. So if you vote ``yes'' for this legislation, I hope you keep in mind that elderly woman stuck at home, homebound, who is dependent on home health care; and today she will suffer when this House passes this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, trade is important to my home State of Illinois. One in five manufacturing jobs depends on trade; 40 percent of agricultural products are exported from Illinois; and I would note, of the 17,000 Illinois companies that are dependent on trade, the vast majority are small employers. We have a great opportunity with some new trade agreements with Peru, Panama, and Colombia. They are important both for Illinois jobs as well as for democratic security in our hemisphere. I would note today for our friends in Panama, Peru and Colombia, their products come to the United States tax free. But when we sell our products to them, we pay taxes. Our partners have agreed to eliminate those taxes and level the playing field. It is time to honor our commitments with our trading partners. Unfortunately, some in the Democratic leadership have said they would reject a deal with our best friend in Latin America, Colombia, and have told our other trading partners they just are not worthy of a trade agreement. No wonder so many in Latin America think the United States Congress is turning its back on Latin America. Peru, Panama and Colombia represent our best allies. They are good trade agreements. Let's move forward and level the playing field. Pass these trade agreements.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I came to Washington this week with plans to vote for a bipartisan farm bill, a good bill that came out of committee. Lo and behold, I read that the Democrat leadership demanded that the Ways and Means Committee come up with a tax increase to pay for expansions beyond for food stamps and other programs. Well, look what they brought to the floor: a tax increase on foreign- owned U.S. manufacturers, foreign-owned U.S. companies that are creating jobs in our districts. Mitsubishi's North America plant is in my district. BASF, Pinkerton. And you know what is interesting is there are 235,000 jobs in Illinois, my State, that are generated by foreign- owned companies. And you know what? The Ways and Means Committee abdicated its responsibilities on this provision. No hearings were held. No markup was held. No one knows the consequences of this tax increase. That is why this rule needs to be voted down. It is one thing if you say there is a loophole that needs to be changed, but I am amazed that members of my own committee are coming to this floor defending a provision where they don't know the answers on whether or not it is going to cost jobs in our districts. Vote this rule down.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will correct an inequity in our welfare system. Under the current system, married couples enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program face a penalty simply because they are married. My legislation, the TANF Marriage Penalty Elimination Act, would require that all families are treated equally. Madam Speaker, while the welfare reforms enacted in 1996 were by and large a tremendous success, they included an unintended consequence that my legislation seeks to correct. Under current law, States receive block grant funding to help low- income parents train for and find jobs. The States are required to engage 50 percent of single-parent families, but 90 percent of two- parent families. This law unintentionally discourages our society's most basic institution of marriage. My legislation would require that States engage 50 percent of all families on welfare in work preparation programs, eliminating the two-parent work rate that today constitutes a marriage penalty. My legislation follows previous bi-partisan efforts to eliminate the separate and higher two-parent work rate for welfare. In each welfare reform reauthorization bill passed by this House in recent years, language eliminating this marriage penalty was included. Democratic versions of this legislation included the same provision. But for technical reasons, this provision was not included in the welfare reform reauthorization legislation that the President signed into law in 2006 as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. The National Governors' Association and the Administration have expressed support for ending the higher two-parent work rate, as this bill would do. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would allow all States to provide more consistent and effective services to all families on welfare without the unintended penalties imposed on married couples.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. And first let me thank my colleagues, John Lewis, Peter Welch, for the opportunity to join in bipartisan sponsorship of this amendment. This amendment prevents the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from cutting $24 billion in funding for our local hospitals, funding that's used to provide care to seniors disabled under Medicare. In my district alone this would mean a loss of $60 million in reimbursement for my local hospitals, having a devastating effect on the quality of care. A key misstep in the proposed rule is the 2.4 percent so-called behavior offset payment cut. CMS proposed this cut to eliminate what the agency has inaccurately claimed will be the effect of greater use of coding as hospitals move to a new system. These extreme cuts in reimbursements, based on speculation rather than fact, will impose an added burden on all hospitals. Earlier this year my friend and colleague John Lewis and I circulated a letter in opposition to these Draconian cuts. The response was overwhelming, with 269 Members of this House going on the record against this devastating cut to our local hospitals. This is overwhelming bipartisan opposition to this bad policy proposed by CMS. Mr. Chairman, I will include this letter in the Record in support of this amendment. The amendment also prohibits CMS from prospectively applying any behavioral offset in fiscal year 2008, ensuring that any adjustments made for coding changes will be based on the actual experiences of the hospital, not mere conjecture. I ask my colleagues to join us in bipartisan support of this effort to prohibit the use of any funds to implement these Draconian provisions of the IPPS rule that will place hospitals under undue financial burden, compromising the quality of care our constituents deserve. In order to prevent these local hospitals and protect our constituents, I ask my colleagues to vote in a bipartisan ``yes.'' Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, June 12, 2007. Re CMS Proposed Inpatient Prospective Payment Rule Ms. Leslie V. Norwalk, Esquire, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Washington, DC. Dear Ms. Norwalk: We write to express our strong opposition to two provisions in the proposed Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) regulation. We respectfully request that these provisions be excluded from the final regulation. The first provision would impose a 2.4 percent cut to all operating and capital payments for inpatient hospital services for Medicare patients based on the misguided premise of a so-called ``behavioral offset.'' This unwarranted proposal would result in payment reductions for hospital services in both FY08 and FY09, cutting $24 billion dollars in operating and capital payments over the next five years. The second proposal would reduce payments to hospitals in urban areas for capital-related costs for inpatient hospital services, cutting payments by nearly $1 billion over the next five years. We urge you to eliminate both provisions when the final regulation is published. Please allow us to further explain our strong objection to these changes: 1. Cuts due to a ``Behavioral Offset.'' The suggestion to cut hospital operating and capital payments is based on the suggested adoption of a classification system called Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs). This change is grounded on the belief that with the implementation of the MS-DRGs, hospitals would change coding practices, resulting in higher payments. Not even in the initial years of the IPPS was coding change found to be of the magnitude of CMS's proposed FY08 and FY09 cuts. MS-DRGs are simply a refinement of a classification system that hospitals have been using for 23 years. Hospitals are already experts in coding for payment; they have little ability to change their classification and coding practices. The rationale for the reduction is also based on the transition of hospitals in Maryland to a completely new type coding system called All Patient Refined DRGs (APR-DRGs). We have concerns with the methodology of reaching this conclusion. Maryland's hospitals are paid under a state rate- setting system where an incentive to code accurately did not significantly affect what a hospital was paid. The classification system recently adopted by Maryland is much more complicated than what CMS is proposing and changed the coding incentives for Maryland hospitals. Generalizing the Maryland experience to the rest of the nation's hospitals is an ``apples-to-oranges'' comparison. CMS is not mandated by law to impose a behavioral offset in the IPPS regulation, yet has chosen to do so. There is no precedent in other payment systems for making a prospective adjustment of this magnitude--without any empirical evidence of actual and measurable changes in coding. While CMS has, on occasion, made adjustments for coding in implementing new payment systems, these changes generally have been made based on actual experience. When implementing a new physician fee schedule payment system in 1992, CMS (then the Health Care Financing Administration) imposed a behavioral offset on physician services, primarily to offset predicted increases in the volume of services. We later learned that the offset was much higher than was necessary, and the reduction was never returned to the physicians adversely affected by those cuts. 2. Cuts to Capital-Related Payments. For years, the Medicare program has paid for its share of the capital- related costs of inpatient hospital services. The proposed rule would freeze capital payments for all hospitals in urban areas and would eliminate additional capital payments made to large hospitals in urban areas. Taken together, these cuts would amount to nearly $1 billion over the next five years. These changes in capital payments would make it much more difficult for hospitals to purchase advanced technology and equipment and could have the effect of slowing clinical innovation in the hospitals most likely to conduct cutting edge research. Additionally, such a reduction could slow the adoption of much needed health information technology. Hospitals make long-term commitments to capital acquisitions. This proposal amounts to pulling the rug out from under their financial obligations to maintain and improve their physical facilities for patients. Congress recently opposed a component of the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal that would have significantly reduced hospital payments. As you know, both the FY08 House and Senate budget resolutions reinforced this sentiment by rejecting those cuts. The administration's attempt to achieve payment reductions of this magnitude through the regulatory process is equally unacceptable. We believe this action circumvents Congress' intent that hospital services for Medicare patients not be reduced. In closing, we would like to reiterate our belief that CMS's decision could serve to jeopardize hospitals' ability to continue to care for patients. CMS's behavioral offset is unnecessary, and will result in devastating cuts to hospital services for our constituents. CMS's proposal to cut capital-related payments would create significant financial difficulties for many of our most innovative hospitals. We strongly support the elimination of these provisions from your final regulation. Both CMS and Members of Congress share the goal of serving the American public and helping those most in need. We hope that you will give strong consideration to the bipartisan concerns outlined in this letter. Sincerely, Signed by 269 Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. This bipartisan legislation that we are considering today, the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, increases the amount of time that certain low-income disabled and aged immigrants can continue to receive Supplemental Security Income, SSI benefits, from 7 to 9 years. These are individuals legally allowed in the United States for humanitarian reasons after fleeing persecution and suffering in their own countries. The approximately 28,000 individuals assisted by this legislation include refugees, asylees and Cuban/Haitian entrants from around the world. To gain access to permanent eligibility for SSI and all other benefits and freedoms afforded to Americans, legal refugees and asylees are eligible to become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process now administered by the Department of Homeland Security. However, as many Members have heard from constituents, this process does not always move forward in a timely manner for a number of reasons. For instance, a letter I recently received from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law in Illinois outlines a case in which an elderly Jewish refugee couple from the former Soviet Union working to become citizens encountered problems of lost paperwork and the need to have fingerprints retaken time and time again. A recent Washington Post story noted that as of March of 2007, this spring, nearly 1.3 million individuals were in the Department of Homeland Security citizenship application backlog, and 330,000 cases were in the FBI background check backlog. Recognizing the likelihood of ongoing issues in the naturalization process, this legislation provides up to one extra year of eligibility, for a total of up to 10 years, for those refugees and asylees needing more time to complete the naturalization process. This is an important provision as it emphasizes the relative temporary nature of SSI eligibility for newly arrived legal refugees and asylees, while encouraging them to pursue citizenship so that they may fully participate in our Nation's democracy. As with the other features of this legislation that relate to eligibility for SSI benefits, this provision is effective from fiscal year 2008 through 2010. So a future Congress must reexamine whether these provisions are working as intended, including providing refugees and related individuals who are playing by the rules and applying for citizenship, sufficient time to go through that process without losing access to these important benefits. These additional SSI benefits are paid for through a provision that will reduce Federal income tax refunds to better recover unemployment benefit overpayments that resulted from fraud. Tax refund offsets already occur for delinquent child support payments and certain other debts owed to the Federal Government, and this simply allows the current process to work in recovering unemployment benefit overpayments. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this permanent change will more than pay for the additional SSI benefits provided in this bill. This is sound policy and builds on proposals included in recent Bush administration budget proposals. The Ways and Means Committee, and in particular the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking member, has long been active in developing legislation to combat fraud and abuse involving unemployment and other benefits. I'm pleased to see we are continuing that effort with this legislation. For example, in 2004, under the leadership of former chairman Wally Herger, we passed provisions to stop the illegal manipulation of State unemployment taxes. We also allowed State unemployment plans to use information in the National Directory of New Hires to help prevent unemployment benefit overpayments. Today's legislation builds on those efforts, and I am proud to support it. I would also note that this legislation is supported by a long list of faith-based and other community groups, including many who assist refugees in their efforts to become citizens. That list includes the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Lutheran Social Services of America, and Catholic Charities USA, among many, many other groups. I would also note I received a letter of support from the Social Security Administration endorsing this bipartisan bill, and I will include the letters of support in the Record. Finally, I would also like to recognize the efforts of my friend and colleague, Representative Phil English of Pennsylvania who, among many others, has worked diligently to see that these sorts of changes occur, including by introducing bills to this same goal and effect. I encourage all Members to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. June 28, 2007. Dear Representative, Representing a diverse cross-section of organizations from across the country, we write to you today to ask that you support H.R. 2608--the ``SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act.'' This bipartisan bill is a critical lifeline to thousands of elderly and disabled refugees who are about to lose, or have already lost, their Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to the arbitrary seven-year time limit to which their eligibility is limited. This bill, introduced by Representatives Jim McDermott (D- 7th WA) and Jerry Weller (R-11th IL), Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, will provide a two-year extension of SSI eligibility for elderly and disabled refugees, as well as a provision to cover those who lost benefits prior to enactment of the legislation. The bill will also ensure that refugees who are making efforts to become citizens, but are caught up in the processing backlogs through no fault of their own, are given additional time to naturalize. H.R. 2608 will provide vital relief to thousands of refugees who have already fallen into extreme destitution. The number of people who are losing their life-sustaining SSI benefits, in large part due to delays in the immigration system beyond their control, is climbing. The Social Security Administration currently projects that 50,000 elderly and disabled refugees will face extreme hardship and destitution by 2012 due to the suspension of their SSI benefits. These individuals fled persecution or torture in countries such as Iran, Russia, Iraq, Vietnam and Somalia, and now are too elderly or disabled to support themselves. As more and more people begin to reach the end of their seven-year eligibility period, the human impact of this restrictive time limit has become increasingly dire and all the more intolerable. Some will lose health insurance as well, because SSI and Medicaid eligibility are typically linked. Among those who have already lost SSI benefits is a Jewish elderly couple from the former Soviet Union; the husband is deaf and the wife suffers from heart disease. However, this restriction does not affect only the elderly, as illustrated by the case of a 16-year-old Iranian boy with mental retardation, autism, seizures, and severe macrocephaly who lost his SSI benefits and Medicaid health insurance due to the seven-year time limit. These are only but two of the thousands of heartbreaking stories that we will continue to be confronted with unless Congress acts now to lengthen the insufficient eligibility period for this extremely vulnerable population. The crisis is already upon us. Each and every month, elderly and disabled refugees are losing their lifeline of support. With the exception of West Virginia, no state is left untouched by this arbitrary time limit. Some 4,500 people will lose their SSI benefits in fiscal year 2007 alone. This bill enjoys bipartisan support, builds on similar proposals in recent Bush Administration budgets, and contains a savings provision that will cover the modest cost of the extension. Given the urgency of the situation and the life- threatening consequences that these individuals face, we strongly urge you to support the passage of H.R. 2608 this year. We are hopeful that Congress will act quickly and decisively to prevent the unnecessary hardship that this already-victimized population stands to suffer. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, National American Academy of HIV; American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; American Association of Jews from the Former USSR, Inc; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Friends Service Committee; American Jewish Committee; American Network of Community Options and Resources; American Occupational Therapy Association; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc; Asian American Justice Center; Asian Americans for Equality; Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies (AJFCA); Boat People SOS; Break the Chain Campaign; Campaign for Working Families; Catholic Charities USA; Center for Civil Justice; and Disability Navigators Inc. EESA-Eastern European Service Agency; Gay Men's Health Crisis; Hispanic Coalition; HIV Medicine Association; HIVictorious, Inc.; Hmong National Development, Inc.; Immigrant and Refugee Rights Program, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Institute for Peace and Justice; Institute for Social and Economic Development (ISED); International AIDS Empowerment; International District Housing Alliance; International Rescue Committee; International Service Center; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jubilee Campaign USA Inc; Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation Office of the Wheaton Franciscans; Living Room, Inc; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS); Lutheran Services in America; 9to5, National Association of Working Women. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Aging; National Immigration Forum; National Immigration Law Center; National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC); National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty; National Priorities Project; National Senior Citizens Law Center; National Women's Law Center; NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New Sudan Generation; Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project; Progressive Jewish Alliance; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and RESULTS. Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); The AIDS Institute; The Arc of the United States; The Coalition on Human Needs; The Leadership Conference of Women Religious; The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children; The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy; United Jewish Communities; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; USAction; Wider Opportunities for Women; Women of Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism; World Relief; and

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and someone who has led on this issue as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last month, Representative McDermott and I, along with eight of our House colleagues on both sides of the aisle, introduced a resolution to designate November as ``National Homeless Youth Awareness Month.'' This action followed a hearing on ``disconnected youth'' held by the Committee on Ways and Means Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking member. Disconnected young people include young people who often drop out of school, don't work and wind up on the streets. These young people may have family conflict issues, may experience abuse and neglect, or may be or have been in the past involved in the foster care system. Research completed by the University of Chicago suggests there were nearly 25,000 homeless youth in my home State of Illinois in 2004, including 6,353 in the northern Illinois region where the congressional district I represent is located. Despite an infusion of millions of dollars in Federal assistance and dedicated interests of many adults, too many children today are troubled, disconnected from their families and others who would like to help and, unfortunately, wind up on streets. Federal initiatives such as the Runaway and Homeless Youth program, the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants program, and the Chafee Foster Care Independence program have been directed at these problems in recent years. Yet better serving these children and preventing more youth from winding up on the streets will require a better use and coordination of current program funds. We also need to recognize, as one witness at our subcommittee's recent hearing put it, that ``strengthening families is the best way to prevent the suffering and social disconnection among our young people.'' Even as we applaud those young people, including foster youth, who overcome tremendous challenges to succeed in school and beyond, it is hard to overstate the importance of strong families to the raising of young people who grow up to be productive adults. Last year in the Deficit Reduction Act, we included specific funds to support private groups that work to strengthen families and promote healthy marriage, which is the foundation for raising healthy children. I am eager to see how these efforts pay off, including by reducing the turmoil in homes that result in too many children ending up on the streets. We must also acknowledge that kids are connected, and especially as they get older, through their schools. That really means through their circle of friends, teachers, coaches and other mentors they rely on as they become more independent and develop the habits and skills needed for life on their own. Kids in foster care already have suffered the trauma of being removed from their parents. In addition to being bounced from home to home, many foster children suffer too from being bounced from school to school. Studies show high school students who change schools even once are less than half as likely to graduate as those who do not change schools. So it is no wonder that there is ``a 20 percentage point difference between the high school graduation rates of foster youth and their peers,'' according to the Kids Count organization. At our subcommittee hearing, we also heard from Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. She and her husband have helped raised 23 foster children, and she discussed the importance of achieving stability in their lives and especially stability at home and at school. In addressing the issue of youth homelessness, we should start by doing whatever we can to ensure that young people in the foster care system complete at least high school. That will vastly improve their chances of getting a decent job and supporting themselves. One way to do that would be to provide more youth in foster care the opportunity to stay better connected to their schools, including by remaining in a single school whenever possible. That might mean offering scholarships so that those in private schools can stay in that school or so those who might benefit from private school could do so. Or it could involve something as simple as bus vouchers so kids can continue going to their current public or private school even if they are sent to live in a foster home across town. Such efforts will increase the chances for foster youth to graduate and can create the foundation for a productive and happy life that is the American Dream. That will also mean far fewer kids winding up on the streets, as is the goal of this resolution introduced today. We should all support that. And I urge all Members to support this bipartisan resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann), a leader on this issue.

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave