Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a new cellulosic ethanol plant recently began production in my district, which will use high-energy sugar cane to yield ethanol. It is yet another reminder of the importance of domestic energy production not only for southwest Louisiana but for our entire Nation.

But we must recognize that we have a strategic dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil. The farm bill currently working its way through Congress should not pick winners or losers but encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. It is a critical piece to our national energy plan with renewable agri-based energy solutions.

Home-grown energy as a part of our national energy strategy reduces our dependence on foreign energy supplies, helps the environment, and will promote our rural communities and keep them strong.

This Democratic Congress has failed to produce a viable energy policy. I challenge the Democratic leadership to work with us in Congress to produce such a viable energy policy.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As a physician who's treated many uninsured patients, I have to say that there's a profound difference between coverage and access to care. Yes, you need coverage, but it doesn't necessarily equate to access.

Clearly, we've got a number of uninsured children in Louisiana. We have 107,000 on SCHIP but 91,000 who currently qualify who are not on

Madam Speaker as a former cardiovascular surgeon, I rise to celebrate the contributions of Dr. Michael DeBakey to not only the medical community but to humanity. Honoring him with the Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting tribute for a modern leader and one of medicine's great pioneers.

The son of Lebanese immigrants, Dr. DeBakey grew up in my district, in Lake Charles, Louisiana. He attended medical school at Tulane University and served our country during World War II where he developed the concept of Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals. These M.A.S.H. units became famous during the Korean War, but today, modern M.A.S.H. units with the latest equipment and some of the best trained medical personnel in the world assist our service men and women in some of the most dangerous places in the world.

Following his military service, Dr. DeBakey began his work at Baylor University in 1948. There, he forged new surgical techniques, assisted with the first artificial heart, and operated on more than 60,000 patients. His success and contributions extend in each and every patient and the lives they lead after encountering Dr. DeBakey.

His model of determination, innovation, and perseverance serve as inspiration to our Nation's best and brightest who enter the medical profession to improve the condition of life for their fellow citizens. Dr. DeBakey has impacted our world for the better, and he is highly deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. Lake Charles is both fortunate and proud to call him a native son.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of House Resolution 548. This resolution expresses support for Lebanon's democratic institutions and the need to bring those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures to justice.

Lebanon is a key ally of the United States and deserves our unwavering support as they continue to recover from last year's war.

Lebanon is a diverse country with over 17 religious groups, nevertheless, there is a strong sense of national unity within this country and its citizens often identify themselves as Lebanese before identifying with their own religious factions.

Lebanon is the example of what a democracy can and should be in the Middle East and I encourage all party leaders in the parliament to remain committed to finding a compromise presidential candidate. It is important that the process is followed and that a unified government remains in place.

Political assassinations over the past several years have continued to plague Lebanon and have derailed the country's efforts to enact real reform measures. The individuals responsible for these murders must be brought to justice.

Lebanon is at a crossroad and the United States must remain committed to helping this nascent democracy.

Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, on September 24, Hurricane Rita smashed into Louisiana and Texas, making landfall first in my district at Johnson Bayou in Cameron Parish, a small town in southwest Louisiana. The storm was one of the worst ever to enter into the Gulf of Mexico, causing $11 billion of damage to the area.

Hard-working individuals at the community level have had the greatest impact on our recovery and reconstruction, and that's despite fits and starts with government health and so forth. It's the individuals, local officials, families on the ground that made the difference.

This storm also caused unprecedented damage to the oil and gas industry. Again, individuals working in those companies got our oil and gas infrastructure back up and running in record time, so that we could fuel America's energy needs.

At the Federal level, funds have been appropriated for assistance, but they have been clearly slow to arrive, because of bureaucracy. This has been an ongoing battle that we in Congress have had to fight with and local officials have had to fight with as well.

Two weeks ago, I was down there at Johnson Bayou, that little town where they struggled to get their school back. Actually, private funding allowed the school to come back before we could even get Federal funds down there, because of the bureaucracy. That took 2 years, but private funds allowed for the school to be rebuilt. It was one of the first schools to be rebuilt back in Louisiana.

I was down there 2 weeks ago for a very special time. We had a ribbon-cutting for a new health clinic in Johnson Bayou down in Cameron Parish. This little town did not have a health care clinic. It never had one. In fact, families had to drive many, many miles on small roads or oftentimes had to rely on a ferry to cross a body of water to receive health care, and if that ferry was down, they were stranded.

But with the opening of this health clinic, for the first time, families at Johnson Bayou now have access to health care. This was very special, because a family donated the land for the clinic. A company actually put up money, $2 million to build the clinic, and an additional $1 million to fund its ongoing operations for the next 3 years. For the first time what we have now seen is a health care clinic in Johnson Bayou, where the community came together to put this in place to create access for health care.

You know, we all talk about how all politics is local, but I would submit that all health care is local. If we don't have access to health care, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what's available in Boston, Massachusetts, or in San Francisco and New York, because if the folks down in Johnson Bayou don't have access to health care, then what good is it? What good is the great advance in Boston or the wonderful hospitals around the country if folks can't even enter into the health care system in their own community?

Access is critically important, and there are many, many things, many factors that affect access. I know this firsthand, as a cardiovascular surgeon before coming to Congress, that many rural communities don't have access because there aren't doctors in these rural communities, or there are no clinics in these rural communities.

We have a severe shortage of physicians nationwide right now, and there are many reasons we have shortages. I have asked for a GAO study in the past on this and tried to pass an amendment in the higher education bill last year to look at why we have these shortages. Clearly there are a number of factors, and we need to correct those deficiencies to get a sufficient physician workforce to fill our rural communities and provide access.

There are cost issues that limit access, cost for families, where they can't afford health insurance. There are costs, actually, reimbursement factors for physicians which do not provide adequate incentives for physicians and nurses to be in rural communities. We have a severe shortage of nurses. All health care is local, and we have to remember that if we are going to reform the health care system.

The United States has one of the best health care systems in the world, and

we spend significantly more on health care than any other nation. Health care costs have doubled between 1993 and 2004, growing to nearly $2 trillion annually.

In addition to this, malpractice premiums have continued to skyrocket. Physicians premiums rose 15 percent between 2000 and 2002, and as much as 33 percent for some specialties. Many physicians are basically retiring early from their practices because of the severe costs imposed by malpractice premiums.

Some of my Democratic colleagues and some of the presidential hopefuls have lately been advocating a government-run universal health care program, saying that this is the only way we can have universal coverage. But I will tell you this, and I know this as a physician, that universal coverage does not equate to access. Coverage is one thing, but if you don't have the facilities, you don't have the physicians, you don't have the nurses, you don't have the clinic or you can't afford insurance, or you can't find access, it doesn't matter about the coverage. It's access that's important.

Now, one of the things that Congress is looking at is the SCHIP bill. One of the things that SCHIP fails to recognize is that the measure fails to take into account that children's health, separated from the parents' health coverage, is not going to be good enough. Again, it's access.

I think we have to have three principles, information, choice and control in health care. In a subsequent speech, I will get into more of those things.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a very special group from South Louisiana.

On September 22, 2007 a group of 97 veterans and their guardians will fly to Washington with a very special program. Louisiana HonorAir is providing the opportunity for these veterans from my home state of Louisiana to visit Washington, DC on a chartered flight free of charge. During their visit, they will visit Arlington National Cemetery and the World War II Memorial. For many, this will be their first and only opportunity to see these sights dedicated to the great service they have provided for our nation.

Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their unselfish service.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding time.

Let me start by saying, first, I want to thank our troops, our embassy personnel, State Department personnel and all their families for the sacrifices that they've dealt with as we've dealt with this problem in Iraq, this challenge that we're faced with.

I've come away from a trip just this past week and recognize that I truly believe that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are going to come forward with a very independent, unvarnished report about what's going on in Iraq. We're going to see what's working and what's not working, and I appreciate that. And I think that's going to be the most important report that this Congress will look at to determine how do we move forward; what steps should we take as a Congress with this situation in Iraq.

With that having been said, this past year was very difficult. We saw a lot of

violence. I know at the beginning of 2006, Iraq was really threatening to spiral out of control with violence. Some described it as anarchic fragmentation, which was really a very visual term for what was potentially going to happen in Iraq.

And when the President announced his surge strategy back in I think it was late December, I have to say I was very skeptical because I kept thinking, what's next? A surge is fine. We can get more troops in. The Iraq Study Group actually agrees that this could be a temporary measure to gain security. But what do we do following that to get political gains in Iraq? What can be done to help develop the economy in Iraq? These were the key issues to me.

Then it became clear, subsequently, that our State Department was working on a plan to deal with this. And it was unclear as to what exactly the steps were; but as things have unfolded, we have seen significant success over the past year.

And this was highlighted by my recent trip when I walked through the streets of Fallujah with three other Members of Congress. And I would have never thought that just even a month ago or two months ago a platoon of marines could even walk through the streets of Fallujah, much less four Members of Congress.

So as we walked through the streets, we saw shops that were open. Shop keepers were smiling, children were playing in the streets. There was a volleyball game going on on one block. Another block I saw some children playing soccer. There were families strolling through the streets and talking. And this clearly was a major change, a major departure from what we had seen just months ago in Fallujah.

And what we found out was that an Iraqi solution was being brought to bear in Fallujah, an Iraqi solution for security, which has allowed for security to grow throughout the city of Fallujah, creating an environment that's now allowing economic activity in that city.

Children are now back in school. We're seeing shops that are open, microlending programs are ongoing, and this is just tremendous success. And the hallmark of the plan that has been implemented by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker is that you look at the circumstances in a particular local in Iraq, like Fallujah, or perhaps Ramadi or Tikrit, and work with the circumstances on the ground and make those institutions that are available work for the positive.

And what I mean by that is, what we have is a situation where, after getting security and working with the Iraqis to set up these joint security stations throughout the city of Fallujah, now we've got a provincial reconstruction team working in Fallujah. This is a team of civilians and military who are working on the political side of things, working to help build the political infrastructure from the ground up.

And now what we're seeing is tremendous success with this, with a sort of a grass roots movement. And I've said over and over, the most difficult thing is going to be to get the Iraqi central government to come to reconcile and to come to terms, because it's been a country that's been fraught with division. But it's going to be an Iraqi solution that will bring that together. And as this grass-root development happens in Fallujah, in Ramadi, in Tikrit and Mosul and other cities throughout Iraq and our communities throughout Iraq, we will see a coalescence of political activity which will put pressure on those central politicians to come forward. And that's part of the whole political process.

The Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, the Sunni Deputy Prime Minister, his name is Salaam as Zobadaei, told us that you can look at the fruit, but the fruit will not come until you grow the tree. And that was a very, very, precise and visual way of describing what needs to happen. We need to see Iraqi institutions growing from the ground up, because then you'll have a sustainable government. To have an Iraqi Government impose from the top and to try to force it down is not sustainable. So I'm encouraged that this plan is working. We're seeing positive signs, and we need to give it further time.

These provincial reconstruction teams are doing an outstanding job. There are some 10 or 14, I believe, just in the Baghdad and Anbar area, and then one in each other province. And I think our State Department deserves tremendous credit for working under very difficult circumstances and putting these provincial reconstruction teams together to make this sort of political grass-roots movement occur.

And on the broader diplomatic front, we now know that the Saudis are looking at putting an embassy into Baghdad. Recently, the French Foreign Minister was in Baghdad and they expressed that the French want to play a bigger role. We need to have continued vigorous diplomacy to move forward to get debt relief on the Iraqi Government. And I believe if we move along on the diplomatic front, as I mentioned, on continuing to build this grass-roots political development internally in Iraq, economic development with microlending programs, all because we managed to get security, we're going to see a successful outcome in Iraq. And I think in short order we should be able to draw back down on our combat troops and offer more of a supportive role.

I'd be happy to yield to my friend.

I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. And if you look at Iraq, there were 27 ethnic groups in Iraq, hundreds of tribes, and this was all held together artificially under Saddam Hussein's reign of terror, so to speak. And now that is gone and they are trying to figure out how to reconcile all of this.

And there are signs that there is Iraqi nationalism. Look at what happened recently with their soccer team, which was a phenomenal event where everyone was celebrating in the streets. It truly showed that they have that sense of nationalism and pride in their country.

That is absolutely true. They are a proud civilization.

And I am not at a point now where I am ready to preemptively declare defeat in this, and I do believe we need to give it time. I believe the plan is working. And for the first time since I have been in Congress, I have got a level of comfort that I believe we are on the right track. So I would urge patience in this. I do believe we will draw down some of our combat troops in the short term, and I am guardedly optimistic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill with its tax provisions. I think it's time that we level with the American public about this and be truthful about what we are trying to accomplish here. This bill has some good things in it, but it's not really addressing what we really need to be focused on right now. That is, the strategic management of our dependence over fossil fuels for the next 10 to 15 years as we transition.

We need to manage our strategic dependence on fossil fuels, a strategic dependence that we are going to have for the next 10, 15, maybe 20 years as these new technologies develop. Now, what does this bill do? It taxes U.S. companies working on production of oil, and making these companies less productive and less competitive, therefore, shifting more oil and gas activity into the hands of national oil companies that are not our friends. This will not bring down the price of oil and gas and not alleviate our energy concerns.

Secondly, it abrogates leases, very important leases in the Gulf of Mexico, with the stroke of a pen. Now, that's not the American way. That's not something that we would be proud of in this country, not something the American people would be proud of. It's certainly something that Hugo Chavez would be proud of.

Finally, I will say this bill is not technology neutral. It seeks to pick winners and losers and eliminates some very promising technology for alternatives fuels.

For that reason and many other reasons, I oppose this bill. I oppose the underlying bill with its tax provisions and urge all Members to think twice about this. We have to level with the American people about the energy situation and manage our strategic dependence and not deal with fantasy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3162. Last night, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would require states to report their plan to target the lowest income families for enrollment first and to report their plan to avoid displacing private insurance coverage that families already enjoy. Unfortunately, the Majority does not want to encourage states to work to cover the neediest children first.

Many low income families in hurricane damaged areas of my own district remain eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP. According to the State of Louisiana, more than 68,000 children in families that make less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level remained eligible but unenrolled in SCHIP as of May 2007.

Instead of targeting sufficient outreach to low income families, the bill wastes scarce outreach dollars by encouraging states like New York to enroll families making more than $82,000 who already have insurance. Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that half of the children in families making 300 percent above the federal poverty level who currently have private insurance could be pushed out of that coverage and onto new government programs.

The bill also harms rural seniors who will be harmed by cuts to Medicare Advantage. Don't forget that more than 2,000 seniors in Calcasieu Parish lost coverage after Washington's last cuts to that program, and now Washington is poised to do it again.

Scarce federal tax dollars should be used to target the neediest children first. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, according to Medicare trustees, that program requires an immediate 51 percent cut, a payroll tax increase of 122 percent, or a blend of both to keep the program running during the next 75 years.

Worse yet, the trustees assume that a separate 41 percent cut in payments for Medicare physician services will happen during the next 9 years. The American Academy of Actuaries reports, without congressional action, Medicare and Social Security will consume up to 80 percent of the Federal budget by 2040.

How, then, does a key member of Ways and Means Committee contend that Medicare is already ``solvent and sustainable''?

Washington needs to pull its head out of the sand. Ignoring Medicare's financial problems will only make the solutions more painful for generations of taxpayers and retirees.

And now, the Democrats want to expand SCHIP with questionable means to pay for it. Short of comprehensive reform, Congress should at least make it easier for our shrinking workforce to save for future health care needs, including the rising cost of Medicare premiums.

I urge my colleagues to support the Promoting Health for Future Generations Act of 2007, H.R. 2639. Doing so will help the middle class to build a nest egg, while protecting access to affordable health care.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I also rise in support of the McHenry amendment. Clearly, we have to get some control over spending, and this Agriculture bill is no exception to this.

As we look at this spending bill, as we've looked at the rest of them, we're continuing to spend more money, and it's a recipe for further tax increases. Furthermore, it's going to be at the expense of seniors. Here we are, we're looking at an SCHIP bill which, in my opinion, after looking at this to the extent I've been able to look at it, appears to be very irresponsibly crafted. In fact, I believe it to be a cruel hoax.

Point of Order

I thank the Chair.

As I was saying, this bill continues to spend far too much money, as did all the previous appropriations bills we've voted upon, and it is going to put further pressure on the work that we desperately need to do.

Looking at what we're going to go forward with as we look at health care, how are we going to pay for health care if we're putting all this money into overspending in these other bills? We have to get our priorities straight.

If we're going to raise cigarette taxes, a diminishing source of revenue, to pay for a program that's expanding, and then we're also going to take one-time money from Medicare Advantage to pay for an expanded program, how is it that we're going to deal with our entire Federal budget? Again, this bill before us today is a big part of the problem.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, I just want to say that we're talking about an Agriculture bill, a spending bill, and we're talking about money that is going to be spent. We're talking about money that is going to be spent in this that will not be available to spend on health care issues, particularly on a number of issues affecting rural seniors.

Now, I have a rural district, it depends on agriculture, and as we go forward, we're going to hurt these seniors in these rural communities. If we cut over $200 billion in Medicare spending, I have 3,246 seniors in the Seventh Congressional District who are currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage who are going to suffer. So I think we have to get our priorities straight as we go forward.

Furthermore, as we look at payments for hospitals are being cut $2.7 billion; in-patient rehabilitative services, $6.6 billion in cuts; payments for skilled nursing facilities, $6.5 billion in cuts; payments for certain drugs, $1.9 billion; in-State renal disease, $3.6 billion. These are seniors who are poor in my Seventh Congressional District, and because of the spending in this Agriculture bill, they can't take care of these problems.

Point of Order

I thank the Chairwoman.

Again, I state that I am supporting the McHenry amendment because I think it's an important step forward as we get some control over spending so we can set our priorities straight so we don't hurt rural seniors.

I pointed out the numerous cuts that are going to be made to the 3,246 seniors in the Seventh Congressional District alone.

Madam Chair, when is the spending spree going to stop? When are we going to get control over this spending so that we can set our priorities straight?

Point of Order

I thank the Chair.

Again, Agriculture spending is what we're talking about. But if we're spending excessive money in this Ag appropriations bill, it's going to hurt what we can do to take care of our seniors.

Again, 3,246 seniors in the Louisiana Seventh Congressional District are going to be hurt by this situation. If we look at the SCHIP situation that we're faced with, we're going to have problems with cuts because we don't have money available because of the Agriculture bill.

Point of Order

I thank the Chair.

Furthermore, as we go forward with a bill that is increasing spending in Agriculture, I have seniors in my district who need motorized wheelchairs, and they may be forced to wait a month or more.

Again, because of the spending in this bill----

No.

Furthermore, with the spending in this bill, it is going to reduce the amount of time that the government will rent oxygen equipment for seniors to up to 36 months. This is going to be a problem for my seniors. We have got to get control over this spending. The first step here is with the McHenry amendment.

Furthermore, I think if we look at what has happened with agriculture spending, typically, much of the money that has been spent on agriculture doesn't even go to agriculture. It has gone to all kinds of other pet programs.

Madam Chairman, we have to set our priorities straight here.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte, the Democratic staff of the committee and the Republican staff of the committee for working with my staffer, Michael Hare, on this amendment. I think it's a very important amendment.

I am pleased to offer this with my colleague and good friend, Mr. Alexander, from Louisiana as well.

Sweet potato farmers throughout the Nation are involved in an insurance pilot program being administered by the Risk Management Agency. This is a multi-year process which involves many adjustments along the way. The biggest problem was a change made by RMA that defines what qualifies as a marketable sweet potato.

The new definition of the term ``marketable'' includes all sweet potatoes over 1\1/2\ inches in diameter. Unfortunately, this definition does not allow for any sweet potato that has been ruined and is considered unmarketable from being deducted from the total yield calculation.

Sweet potato farmers in Louisiana, as well as in many other parts of the country, suffered heavy rains in September and October of 2005. While these heavy rains led to significant yield losses, sweet potatoes that were over 1\1/2\ inches in diameter were counted as a part of the total yield. By counting the sweet potatoes ruined by heavy rains, farmers were unable to qualify for disaster payments.

Our amendment would simply use the data collected by the local FSA offices instead of the RMA to be used for the purposes of determining crop losses.

These local offices already have the production yield information for the 2005-2006 crop year and will be able to certify if a sweet potato farmer is eligible, indeed, for disaster payment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear: this amendment will only apply to farmers who purchased crop insurance and had a 35 percent crop loss. This amendment simply corrects a technical error made by RMA.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that we support our sweet potato farmers and adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Peterson for his work and his support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say, again, the Agriculture Committee worked in good faith and in a bipartisan way to come up with a good product, a good bill. We all patted ourselves on the back. We thought we had accomplished that.

Now we see a tax provision that has been put into this at the last moment, a tax provision that has never been vetted. It is a complex tax provision that abrogates treaties. Furthermore, it is a tax provision that is going to hurt the very companies that produce pesticides and fertilizers that are helping our farmers.

My farmers are trying to recover from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This provision is going to hurt them. This provision threatens this bill. Frankly, I am offended that we are here at this point in time.

Furthermore, I had an amendment that would have addressed a problem in the bill with the Food Stamp Program. The States need adequate flexibility to create efficiency so that we can take care of our neediest citizens. That amendment was not allowed to go forward in this debate. It certainly deserves a full and open debate, as the previous speaker said.

Our States need this flexibility. It is going to cost the State of Indiana over $100 million. Other States need this flexibility as well.

I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Madam Chairman, we started off in a very bipartisan way to put this together. We worked in good faith. We worked long hours to come up with a really good farm bill. And when it was all done, we all felt very good about it. We had a great night. We patted ourselves on the back, very pleased with the commodities program, pleased with conservation. It was a good bill.

And where are we today? We've had this tax provision put in at a late hour. We have a tax provision that was not properly vetted by the Ways and Means Committee. It was placed in this by the Democratic leadership, using the Rules Committee to legislate. And this has threatened a very good farm bill.

There are problems with this. First of all, I don't think we really know

what the real impact is going to be with this tax provision on the cost of feed, fertilizer and pesticides. Many of the companies that are going to be taxed with this new tax will be forced to raise prices on this. And our farmers are already suffering from the high cost of inputs, particularly in my State of Louisiana, which is suffering from the aftermath of two hurricanes.

Furthermore, this bill has Davis-Bacon provisions in this which are going to hurt a nascent industry, the nascent cellulosic ethanol industry. I spoke to the CEO of a company today, and this is going to raise the cost of building these new facilities by 10 to 20 percent. This is an industry that we want to see grow. We don't want to tax it.

Finally, the bill places unfunded mandates on the States. I tried in committee with an amendment and tried to get this to a full floor debate to help our States continue to modernize the Food Stamp program, to have the flexibility to do the right thing. This bill, the underlying bill, has provisions in it that take away the flexibility that our States currently have. It puts the State of Indiana in real jeopardy, at risk of losing $100 million.

This bill is less and less about farmers and it's more and more about pure raw politics.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for giving me time to speak on this.

I rise in support of the McKeon substitute amendment, and I'm opposed to the underlying bill as it's written. Historically, our Federal Government has limited entitlement spending to programs like Medicare and Social Security, and we're still trying to work out or trying to figure out how to make those programs solvent and sustainable.

The underlying bill creates nine new entitlement programs. And knowing that entitlement programs never die, we need to admit to the taxpayers that if this passes they will be expected to kick in another 15 to $30 billion to cover the cost of these new entitlement programs starting in 2013.

It also starts the precedent of creating entitlement programs for institutions and organizations. This act does little to reduce college costs and shortchanges those students who need help the most to pay for college. The bill spends less than one-third of the total savings on investing in low income students struggling to achieve their dreams of a college education.

Rather than addressing the needs of our Nation's low income students, this bill spends billions of dollars on providing additional subsidies to institutions of higher education.

I urge my colleagues to instead support the McKeon amendment, which would increase Pell Grants for our neediest students.

The amendment, in addition, makes two significant improvements to the Pell Grant program. It provides funds for year-round Pell Grants to help those students who wish to pursue their education, not only in the fall and spring, but in summer as well.

For too long, the student aid programs have only addressed the needs of traditional dependent students who attend fall and spring semester and then go home for summer. It's time that we do more to meet the needs of working adults and nontraditional students who need greater flexibility in pursuing their educational goals.

The amendment reduces interest rates for parents and graduate students in the Pell program who now pay 8.5 percent instead of 7.9 percent, which is paid by their peers in the direct loan program. There's simply no reason at all to charge parents and students different interest rates, and this problem needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I'm disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not see the need to help these parents and students who are being unfairly penalized under current law.

Furthermore, this amendment also helps our military, as was mentioned earlier, by providing extended deferment options for our returning soldiers who may need extra time to get settled before repaying any outstanding student loans. This provision was included in the committee mark, and for that I'm grateful, and I think it's certainly a provision I support.

And finally, the McKeon amendment addresses a concern that Mr. McKeon has been voicing for the last three or four years, and that concern has to do with rising costs of college. I'm happy to see that this amendment includes the text of Mr. McKeon's bill, H.R. 472, which brings much needed transparency to the college cost issue.

As we all know, rising college costs are a major concern of parents across the country who find it more and more difficult to pay their tuition bills; yet no one can or will explain why costs continue to increase at rates far exceeding the rate of inflation. It's time to arm parents and students with information that can be used to make these wise choices in selecting an institution of higher learning.

And for these reasons, I wholeheartedly support the McKeon amendment as a substitute to this bill, and urge passage of this very important amendment.