Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Medicare bills should be bipartisan and should be fully debated, not on some shortened suspension calendar. My question is just what about this bill worries the majority that they won't fully debate it?

Today we are discussing a serious issue, how to prevent Medicare from cutting physicians' payments by over 10 percent by next Tuesday. Make no mistake. That will happen if Congress does not act, and despite virtually every Member of this House being opposed to such a cut to doctors, here we are only a week away from that happening.

And, sadly, this shouldn't surprise any of us. Shortly after Congress passed the last short-term extension in December, the chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee noted that he was inclined to do nothing to stop the cut from taking place. And that's exactly what this majority has done for the past 6 months: nothing.

In the last couple of days, this bill has been drafted in secret, and a recent version just appeared at 10 o'clock this morning, 278 new pages of bill. But this bill has been drafted in secret without committee hearings, without committee markups, without committee amendments, and without any chance for public review.

This is the most restrictive Congress in our Nation's history. Neither the minority or majority should find this way of doing the people's business acceptable. It is certainly not what the Speaker promised us or promised the American people.

Maybe that's why when you break the public's trust in this way, your approval numbers plummet. This is the most unpopular Congress ever, and that's saying a lot. The American people want an open, accessible, and accountable government, and they are not getting it from this majority.

So today here we are rushing to pass a bill that couldn't muster enough support in the Senate to even be debated and one that is sure to be vetoed by the President, if it ever got that far. It's the first time I have ever seen this House in such a rush to take up the scraps of the Senate, and, frankly, we would be equally wise to reject this so-called fix. I know I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle when I say we want to prevent this cut and, in fact, we want to provide physicians with a payment increase. Yet with this bill, we are cutting seniors' access to affordable health care under Medicare some $47 billion, causing 2 million seniors to lose access to health care through Medicare Advantage. What we give some providers we directly take away from beneficiaries. This is no way to manage Medicare.

It is my sincere hope that we can ultimately pass a bipartisan compromise this week. A compromise is imminent in the Senate as we speak. Physicians deserve no less, and certainly beneficiaries, America's seniors, and the disabled deserve no less.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to demand a Medicare doctor fix that is workable for all parties involved.

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

I yield 1 minute to a respected physician, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

I yield 2 minutes to a physician and respected Member of this House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

(Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. Is this coming out of the gentleman's time?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes?

I am sorry, could you repeat that?

I would certainly urge the Chair to charge time, because you have repeated extended oratories during this debate, and we would like the rules to be followed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say, if we are really worried about cuts to physicians, why bring up a bill that has already failed in the Senate?

And frankly, I would say to my good friend that every person or group that supports this bill will also support the bipartisan Senate bill that is going to come over from the Senate later this week.

And let me just say, if anyone actually believes still that this bill is a serious effort to fix these problems, they need only look to page 253 of the bill. As my friend from Texas pointed out, this is the group that left a whole section out of the farm bill so we had to revote on it a second time. But here we will find a ``Sense of the Senate provision.'' And, Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, this is the House of Representatives. And this really raises the question of whether in the rush to bring this bill up for a vote the majority even read their own 278 page bill because they introduced it at about 10:00, 2 hours ago, or if they just simply copied the Senate bill word for word.

So, frankly, I think if we could look at the Senate bill that I just got an e-mail that their bipartisan issue is imminent, that they are working and they are close to a deal. This could have happened in the House as well if the majority had decided to honestly debate this issue.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill that is dead before it even arrived, as it has already failed in the Senate.

At this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to Chris Rice upon receiving the title of Northwestern Michigan Spelling Bee Champion, and for his valiant representation of Michigan's fourth district in the Scripps National Spelling Bee Championship this spring.

Achieving previous high marks in the state level competition, it is not only Chris' exemplary study habits but his determination and focus that led him to the national competition in Washington, DC, this year. Chris' natural ability to spell became evident as a 4-year-old child when he began reading the news ticker displayed across the bottom of the television. After continuing to develop his love for spelling at school, Chris enlisted the help of his dedicated parents to begin practicing for spelling bee competitions.

As his Representative, I am proud of the great wealth of knowledge displayed by Chris while competing against 288 students from across the United States during the spelling bee. Chris' focus on spelling and reading makes him a true example and role model to his fellow students across Michigan.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I would like to extend my congratulations and thanks to Chris Rice for his educational achievements and leadership within Northwestern Michigan. I wish him the best in all of his future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it's surprising how well the Democrat majority can turn good ideas like the extension of tax relief into bad legislation. Now, we have seen it before and it usually ends in gridlock. And, frankly, the American people are tired of the majority party's record of stalemate and zero accomplishment. But here we go again with another bill that is headed nowhere.

This bill could have easily passed the Ways and Means Committee and passed on the floor with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of votes. It failed to get a majority of Republican votes in committee and will likely fail to get a Republican majority here today on the floor.

Interestingly, a lot of what is in this package was written when Republicans were in the majority. The Republican bill was devoted to tax incentives; the

Democrat bill focuses on tax increase. This is a fundamental difference between our two parties.

It is a real missed opportunity not to deal with the alternative minimum tax, which means higher taxes for more and more Americans. That's why you're seeing key groups oppose this bill like the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, Alliance for Worker Freedom, Americans for Prosperity, and Club for Growth.

So what the Democrats give with one hand they take with the other. They'll use words like ``PAYGO'' and ``revenue raisers,'' but the fact of the matter is those innocent-sounding words really mean tax increases. Permanently increasing taxes to pay for temporary tax incentives is a losing deal for the American people.

Congress will be confronted with many more expiring tax provisions in the coming years, and if the Democrats continue with this flawed logic, taxpayers will be hit with more than $3.5 trillion in tax increases between now and 2018 simply to maintain current law. With $3 and possibly $4 of gas and higher grocery bills, a sluggish economy, and a downturn in the housing market, the American public cannot afford higher taxes.

We don't need a fortune teller to tell us that, just like many of the other bills House Democrats have passed that included tax increases, this bill again is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. So we will be back here again at some point debating this bill again. So after we get through with today's exercise, hopefully we can get down to business and write a bill that will gain a majority of bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to reject increasing taxes and vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As many of my colleagues have stated, passing this bill is an important step forward in protecting the health of every American. We should be proud of our efforts to work on a bipartisan basis to craft this legislation, and I want to recognize the efforts of the gentlewoman from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert. This bill should be a model for our efforts to reform health care.

We all agree that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of their genetic information. Employers and insurers should not be allowed to use genetic markers to deny employment or health coverage simply because they possess a particular gene. But genetic information can also be used to help patients. Health plans have an ability to interact with both patients and providers to highlight recommended tests and courses of action.

For example, a person that has a gene for a certain type of cancer would be recommended to receive more frequent cancer screenings. Knowing this, the health insurer would know to approve coverage for these additional screenings because they would be at a higher risk of developing that type of cancer.

We all preach about transforming medicine to provide more preventative care. Now, we are finally at a point where medical technology can be effectively used to deliver the preventative care that we envision.

I am certain that the use of genetic information is just the tip of the iceberg. As medicine develops, so must our laws and regulations; yet, we must be careful not to stifle these promising medical advances. I am confident that we can both protect patient privacy and improve the delivery of health care as this legislation does.

With that, I yield the remaining time from my committee to the gentlewoman from Illinois to control.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, House Resolution 49, which honors the dedication and contributions made by letter carriers across the country.

Being a representative of one of the largest congressional districts land-wise east of the Mississippi, I am well aware of the necessity of timely and efficient postal service.

Most of us rely on letter carriers of the United States Postal Service to deliver our monthly bills, drop off our favorite magazine, or ship an important package.

Amazingly, letter carriers delivered over 212 billion pieces of mail in 2005. That's 1.4 million pieces a day for every Congressional District.

Their dedication is accurately reflected in the unofficial USPS motto: ``Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.''

This bill is a straight-forward resolution that expresses the sense of Congress that America's letter carriers make a vital contribution to the well-being and economic prosperity of our Nation and calls for a national day of appreciation to honor their service.

It is also important to recognize the contribution that letter carriers make to their communities through their community service efforts and charitable donations. These contributions are undoubtedly recognized by the American public as the USPS was voted ``The Most Trusted Government Agency'' earlier this month, for the fourth year in a row.

My fellow Members, we seem to spend a significant amount of time dedicating Post Offices; it is about time we honor those that work within them. I hope you will join me in saluting their efforts.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, here we are on Tax Day, April 15, talking about a bill called the Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act. A great title, but this bill falls remarkably short.

What this Congress should be debating today is legislation to simplify and reform the tax code. The tax code is over 67,000 pages long. It takes taxpayers 6 billion hours and over $260 billion to comply with current tax laws. That's unacceptable.

Instead of this bill, Congress needs to pass legislation to make filing tax returns simpler and fairer. While more and more Americans are demanding Congress make our tax laws easier to comply with, the Ways and Means Committee has held only one hearing on tax reform since the beginning of last year.

And just as the economy struggles in the face of problems in the housing and the credit markets, rising gas and food prices and an up- take on employment, the House Democrat budget proposes to hit families with the largest tax increase in history.

Instead of reforming the Tax Code and lowering the tax burden, the bill before us ignores both those questions. And while there are some good provisions in it, like I support the provision that no longer requires employees to keep track of the cell phone calls they make on their office cell phones, other measures in the bill make it objectionable.

I reject the majority's attempts to impose new administrative burdens on the use of health savings accounts. Millions of Americans are enrolled in HSAs because they provide consumers with the ability to affordably manage their own health care costs. H.R. 5719 will make it harder for people to save for their own health care.

HSAs already have a built-in enforcement mechanism that seeks to ensure HSA funds are spent on qualified medical expenses. If a person spends those dollars on a nonqualified expense, they're subject to individual income taxes and a 10 percent penalty. The IRS also has the right to audit HSA withdrawals.

Americans are concerned about the cost of health care. Before Congress rushes to impose new burdens on HSAs, the one innovation that helps patient-centered, individual health care, helps individuals take control of their health care, we should find out first if there really is a problem, and then, how we can fix it without restricting the ability of consumers to take greater control of their health care decision making.

I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Under the budget resolution put forth by the majority, every American should be aware that their wallets are going to get a lot lighter. As the economy softens and we lose jobs, the Democrat budget resolution prescribes an overpowering combination of tax hikes and wasteful spending that will have our economy reeling.

The one positive thing I will say about this budget resolution is that it provides Americans with an excellent glimpse into the future under a Democrat majority; more spending, more taxes, and more of Washington telling you what to do.

The majority has written a budget blueprint that imposes a massive, unheard of $3.9 trillion tax hike that will cause the average American household to pay $3,000 extra in Federal taxes next year. Washington doesn't need this money. Washington doesn't need to spend an extra $3.9 trillion of the American people's money on redundant wasteful government programs.

The bureaucracy is far from being starved of revenue. Especially under these economic circumstances, it is wrong for this House, for this Congress, for this government to raise taxes.

Under the Democrats' budget resolution Washington spending will increase because 44 million children will no longer qualify for the $1,000 child tax credit. It will increase because American couples will be hit by the marriage penalty.

Don't believe these taxes will just be on the rich. Under this budget, low-income Americans will be forced into a higher tax bracket. Worse yet, Federal spending will increase because Americans will no longer be able to pass on a lifetime of dedication, devotion and hard work to the next generation. Instead, Uncle Sam will reap a whopping 55 percent death tax. Taxing the living isn't enough for the Democrats; under this budget resolution, they even go after the dearly departed.

We should be cutting spending to balance our budget, not raising taxes. With rising food prices, energy costs, health care spending and other everyday bills going up, this is no time for Congress to ask Americans to pay more and make do with less.

I urge my colleagues to reject this massive tax hike and vote ``no'' on the budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Democrats' flawed ethics proposal. This bill would actually weaken ethics enforcement in the House by adding an unnecessary and even unconstitutional layer of bureaucracy to an already failing ethics process.

During our work on the special task force on ethics enforcement, Republican Members consistently voiced our opposition to creating an ineffective, redundant, and duplicative committee. The Constitution explicitly states that the House is solely responsible for punishing its Members for disorderly behavior. Creating an Office of Congressional Ethics calls into question our constitutional duties to discipline our own Members.

Let me take a minute to point out some of the absurd provisions in the Democrat proposals.

First, board members of the so-called Office of Congressional Ethics would be appointed to 4-year terms, yet the House reassembles itself every 2 years and must renew its internal rules on a biennial basis.

Second, reviews by the board would advance on tie votes. This is undemocratic and runs contrary to our entire system of majority government.

Third, when board reviews are concluded, the findings are referred to the Ethics Committee for further action. This puts us right back to the failed system in which we find ourselves today.

Quite frankly, the most glaring failure of the Democrats' proposal is that it does nothing to address the problems inherent to the Ethics Committee. Rather than adding a layer of bureaucracy, ethics reform should address the problems plaguing the Ethics Committee. I support measures that reform the Ethics Committee by creating greater bipartisanship, transparency, and accountability in the investigations process.

We should require that all Members appointed to the Ethics Committee be chosen jointly by the Speaker and minority leader to end partisan gridlock. We should also mandate monthly status reports by the committee on pending investigations. The Republican proposal would implement these and other important changes, but the Rules Committee blocked consideration of our proposals.

My fellow Members, we must reform the House ethics process and restore a sense of public confidence and accountability in this institution. The Democrats' bill does neither. I hope you will join me in voting down this flawed partisan proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We all support the goal of improving patients' access to treatment for mental illnesses. However, this bill represents a flawed approach that will ultimately do more harm for these patients by driving up costs and resulting in few employers actually offering any health care coverage to their employees.

This bill will place an unprecedented number of mandates on insurers and employers, which will increase the costs of health insurance for working Americans. Whether large or small, these costs get passed along to the purchasers of health insurance, employers and employees alike.

Dramatic increases in health care costs have already forced many employers to drop or limit health care coverage. This in turn makes it more difficult for their employees to obtain any health insurance, let alone mental health and substance abuse benefits. The mandates in this bill will only make the situation worse, making health insurance unaffordable for increasing numbers of Americans. This is why employer groups like the Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation are all strongly opposed to the bill before us today.

There is a better way to achieve the goals of protecting patients and ensuring they get access to the mental health care they need. Senators Domenici and Kennedy have crafted a bipartisan bill that is supported by mental health advocates, employers and insurers, and if that bill were on the floor today, I would vote for it. The Senate bill adopts a more targeted approach to defining covered conditions.

The bill also allows plans to determine the network of providers while maintaining parity for treatment limits and cost sharing. The Senate approach may significantly reduce the potential cost that could be imposed upon employers while still achieving the goal of mental health parity.

The Senate has worked with the mental health community to balance the needs of patients with the ability to provide quality, affordable and accessible health insurance. These compromises led the Senate to unanimously pass their legislation last September. Unfortunately, in order to pay for the costs associated with this bill the majority has also decided to shift costs to every American by increasing Medicaid rebates from pharmaceutical companies and limiting physician ownership in hospitals. Both of these proposals represent the view that bureaucrats, rather than markets, can better govern health care. At the end of the day, price controls and more government regulation increase health care spending and deny patients access to high-quality care.

Whether they want to admit it or not, the majority is increasing health care on every American twice under this bill. As more and more Americans are having difficulty affording health care, we should be looking to expand affordable health care options, not placing more mandates on employers.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a distinguished member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and the Health Subcommittee.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

At this time we have no further speakers, so I reserve my time, except to close.

I continue to reserve.

I will be our final speaker on this side, Mr. Speaker.

This debate is not really about who's for or against mental health parity, it's about doing mental health parity in the right way. The Senate unanimously passed a mental health parity bill last year, and there, Senators Kennedy, Domenici and Enzi worked in a bipartisan way and brought all affected parties together to reach a compromise that mental health groups, employers and health plans fully support.

What has really not been answered in the debate today, and I don't fully understand, is why put the entire DSM-IV manual in statute. It's a diagnostic code. It's not for coverage decisions on health benefits. That question has never really been fully answered.

Let's do the sensible thing. Let's vote this bill down and adopt the Senate bill. We can have a mental health parity bill on the President's desk by the end of the month if we followed this procedure. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are increasingly concerned about the U.S. economy, and in Michigan economy is the number one issue families worry about. It's critical for Congress to address this issue and enact legislation that will encourage job growth, renew consumer confidence, and spur new business investment today. We can't afford to wait and waste time loading up a bill with extra spending measures.

The bill before us is a positive step and one we should take. I want to thank Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery and the leadership on both sides for bringing this bill forward today. However, I don't know a single American who prefers a tax rebate, even a rebate as generous as this one, to a good-paying job. So by no means is this the only step we should take if we are to become truly competitive and create long-term job growth in this country. The Tax Code continues to be a drag on families and businesses. If we're serious about putting America on a growth track, we must tackle substantive tax reform sooner rather than later.

In 1960 America was home to 18 of the world's 20 largest corporations and their employees. By 1996, however, only eight of the world's largest companies and their employees were based in America. This shouldn't surprise us. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. While the average rate is 31 percent, the U.S. rate is a whopping 39 percent, exceeded only by Japan at 40 percent.

So before we congratulate ourselves on this economic stimulus package, we ought to address this jarring trend that is far more dangerous to American prosperity than next quarter's economic forecast.

I urge my colleagues to send this bill to the President as quickly as possible and to begin to address long-term strategies such as regulatory relief, tax reform, and expiring tax relief measures for sustained job creation and economic growth.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As Yogi Berra once said, this is like deja vu all over again. I think it is important to highlight that this is simply a political exercise, that the Congress has already acted to extend the children's health program through 2009. So instead of debating real reform on this program, we have a political statement being made on the floor today.

I lost track at seven times we have debated this issue. As the gentleman from Texas said, it's somewhere between nine and 13. But it doesn't change the fact that expanding SCHIP beyond its original mission of covering low-income children is a nonstarter with the Congress. Yet the bill the President vetoed would do just that, and it would allow illegal immigrants to receive SCHIP, maintains coverage of adults in this children's health care program and continues to erode private coverage.

How is it that in my home State of Michigan 87,000 eligible children don't have health care while 39,000 adults are in the program. How is it that in Minnesota, 87 percent of the enrollees in this children's program are adults?

How is it that this low-income program is covering families in New York and families in New Jersey making more than $70,000 a year? No wonder New York wanted to go to over $80,000.

The answer to all of these questions is clear: The majority does not want a low-income children's plan. They want what Hillary Clinton called for in 1994, the first step toward nationalized, government-run, government-controlled health care.

We should not be diluting this children's program, and we should not be diverting money away from these low-income kids.

I am proud to have introduced the Kids First Act, a bill that would return this program to its root in insuring low-income children. It covers an additional 1.3 million American children, does not raise taxes and is fully funded. That is the kind of legislation we should be debating instead of continuing this stalemate time and time again that uses children's health as a political pawn.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override. Now that we have extended the children's health program, I hope that we can truly reach a compromise on this important issue and ensure that low-income American children have health care coverage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it's important to note that this bill allows States to document citizenship, and the Social Security Administrator has said that changing the law will make it easier for illegal immigrants to get SCHIP funds as well as other taxpayer-funded benefits.

And despite this being a program for low-income children, under this bill three-quarters of a million adults will still be on the program in 2012. Under this bill more than 1.6 million children will lose their private coverage.

And let's talk about the funding. The majority has created a funding cliff that dramatically increases Federal funding to enroll new children for the next 5 years; then cuts funding for the bill by 80 percent. This will force future Congresses to make a very difficult choice: to dramatically increase funding or let American children lose their health coverage.

The other problem with this bill is that it is estimated that the bill, because it relies on tobacco taxes for funding, would require more than 22 million new smokers. Now, if there is any consistent policy the government has had administration to administration it's the discouragement of smoking. Yet this bill relies on a false funding mechanism that would require 22 million new smokers.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, I reserve my time. I have no further speakers and will reserve my time for closing statements.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time and am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This Congress has already passed an 18-month extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program to March of 2009, and in that bipartisan extension an additional $800 million was provided to States to make sure that they could continue to provide health insurance to those already enrolled.

We have debated this many, many times on the floor, this flawed proposal. This so-called compromise bill did not have one hearing. I have great respect for this House as an institution, and part of that respect is the regular order of bringing bills to subcommittee, having hearings and giving people an opportunity to be heard on them so the public is aware of what is happening. This bill didn't have one hearing. It was given to the minority the night before the vote.

I think that kind of partisanship and politics, combined with the overreaching included in this compromise, it doesn't address the problem of illegals receiving SCHIP funds, it doesn't address the issue of adults in the program and focusing the program on children, it causes almost 2 million children to lose private coverage, and, not only that, has unstable funding by assuming that 22 million new smokers are going to be found over the next few years.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this veto override, and let's get to work on going through the regular process of having a hearing, bringing forward witnesses and fashioning a compromise that not just has House and Senate support, but under our system of government, before a bill becomes law, it has House, Senate and presidential support. So let's work together in the coming year and start off this year differently than last year, which, unfortunately, this was supposed to be the easy issue we were all going to be able to come together on. But I think a lack of process and really a bill that is flawed in many ways, as the debate here has shown today, makes it impossible to support.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against the veto override.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to the Midland High School football team for reaching the Michigan High School Athletic Association 2007 Division Two State Championship game. This was the team's third trip to the state finals since 1990.

The Midland Chemics led most of the hard-fought final game against Detroit Martin Luther King High School. However, King took the lead in the fourth quarter and held off Midland. The game marked the end of a successful season, in which the Chemics finished with an 11-3 record.

A week earlier it was Midland who pulled off the impressive come- from-behind victory, defeating Lowell High School. They scored 24 unanswered points in the second half to win 31-27 and earn their spot in the title game. In the playoffs they also defeated Davison, Bay City Central, and Arthur Hill en route to the finals.

The accomplishments of these student athletes are a testament to the years of hard work and dedication leading up to their playoff run. I commend them on a successful season.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I congratulate the Midland High School Football team on their achievements and wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to the Fulton-Middleton High School football team for reaching the Michigan High School Athletic Association 2007 Division Eight State Championship Game. It was the team's first finals appearance since winning the 1998 State championship.

The Fulton-Middleton Pirates lost a hard-fought final game to Crystal Falls Forrest Park High School. In the defensive battle, they pulled within one score of the Crystal Falls Trojans late in the fourth quarter, but were unable to get back the ball to attempt a game-tying drive. It was the Pirates only loss of the season. On the road to the final game, the Pirates defeated Fowler, New Lothrop, Our Lady of the Lakes, and Climax-Scotts in the playoffs.

The Pirates accomplishments pay testament to the years of hard work and dedication of these student athletes. I commend them on a successful season.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I congratulate the Fulton-Middleton High School football team on their achievements and wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate and pay tribute to the St. Francis High School football team for reaching the Michigan High School Athletic Association 2007 Division Seven State Championship game. It was their fifth State finals appearance in 10 years.

The St. Francis Gladiators lost a hard-fought state championship game to Mendon High School. It was the end to an impressive playoff run in which they outscored their opponents 188-8 in the four games leading up to the finals. They finished their season with a 12-2 record.

The Gladiators accomplishments are a testament to the years of hard work and dedication of these student athletes. They have proudly carried on their school's tradition of excellence. I commend them on a successful season.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I congratulate the St. Francis High School football team on their achievements and wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to congratulate and pay tribute to Nouvel Catholic Central High School for winning the Michigan High School Athletic Association 2007 Division Six Football State Championship. It is the team's second consecutive state title.

The Nouvel Panthers Defeated Blissfield 12-7 in the state final game on November 23. The win was a fitting cap to a successful season. The Panthers finished with an impressive 10-3 record. The ability of the Panther players to regroup after these losses and ability to win the close games down the stretch is a clear indication of the dedication these young men have for their sport.

This tremendous group of student athletes has proudly carried on their school's tradition of excellence.

On behalf of the 4th Congressional District of Michigan, I congratulate the Nouvel Catholic Central football team on this milestone achievement and wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.