Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 112, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague. And as an alumni of the Education and Labor Committee, I appreciate the time today.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and oppose the substitute. I applaud the chairman and members of the Education and Labor Committee for their work on this bill.

We have a problem in our country. When I was growing up, we always heard the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, but we know now that we have a disparity between the richest and the poorest in our country that is getting bigger every day.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives employees the protections they need to form unions and provide mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes. This is the first step to try and lower that disparity, where people can organize together and actually improve their living standard.

I am pleased, also, that section 3 of this bill includes language that I have worked on for many years by incorporating language from our bill, H.R. 142, the Labor Relations First Contract Negotiation Act. The bill requires an employer and a union to go to Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, FMCS, for mediation for agreements not reached within 90 days or either party wishes to do so.

So we don't have these year-long discussions about trying to get a contract. If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration, and the results of the arbitration will be binding on both parties for 2 years.

So we will see contracts, after we have the elections, where there are elections or card checks. We have seen numerous examples in the Houston area of elections taking place, and then there is a long delay in the negotiation process.

As a whole, this legislation is a huge victory for workers and employees across the country and can help us with the wage gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid in our country. Joining together in a union to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions is the best opportunity for working people to get ahead and is a part of the true free enterprise system that we say we are for.

Today, good jobs are vanishing and health care coverage and retirement security are slipping out of reach. Employees who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers. They are 60 percent more likely to have employer-based insurance and four times more likely to have pensions.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and oppose the substitute. I applaud the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee for his work on this bill. We have a problem in our country--as a child I heard the rich get richer and poor get poorer. This bill helps correct that problem. The Employees Free Choice Act gives employees the protections they need to form unions and provides mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.

I am pleased Section 3 of this bill includes language I have worked on for many years.

By incorporating language from H.R. 142, the Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations Act, the bill requires an employer and a union to go to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation if an agreement is not reached in 90 days and either party wishes to do so.

If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration, and the results of the arbitration will be binding on the parties for two years.

We have seen numerous examples in the Houston area of elections taking place and then there is a long delay in the negotiation process.

As a whole this legislation is a huge victory for workers across the country and can help with the wage gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid in our country.

Joining together in a union to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions is the best opportunity working people have to get ahead and is a part of true free enterprise.

Today, good jobs are vanishing and health care coverage and retirement security are slipping out of reach.

Employees who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers.

They are 60 percent more likely to have employer-provided health coverage and four times more likely to have pensions.

We need to ensure protections are in place to allow employees to form unions without harassment so that they can negotiate for the well being of themselves and their families.

Madam Chairman, this legislation will provide workers with these protections and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 42, recognizing Ann. Richards extraordinary contributions to Texas and American public life.

Ann Richards and I worked together when I served in Texas State Senate in 1991 and 1992 before I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1993. At that time, she was serving as the Governor of Texas. During our tenure in the state house we worked together to support stronger environmental laws for our district and Texas.

Governor Richards was a teacher who started out in politics as a volunteer on the campaigns of Sarah Weddington, Henry B. Gonzalez, and Ralph Yarborough. She began her own political career in 1976 when she was elected to serve as a County Commissioner in Travis County.

Six years later in 1982, she was elected Texas State Treasurer and served two terms. Ann made history by becoming the first woman elected to statewide office in Texas in fifty years.

In 1990, Ann ran for governor and promised to increase the role of minorities and women in state government as part of her plan for a ``New Texas.'' When Governor Richards was elected she made it a priority as governor to appoint more women and minorities to state boards and commissions and followed through on her promise.

During her tenure, Governor Richards had many accomplishments including revitalizing the Texas economy, reforming the prison system, and instituting the state lottery. Once she left public office, Ann continued to be an inspiration to us all when she bravely battled osteoporosis and esophageal cancer.

Ann wasn't only the governor of one of the greatest states in America, but she was one of America's greatest governors in terms of her personality, sense of humor, and trailblazing accomplishments. Governor Richards was the First Lady of Texas politics and her extraordinary accomplishments make her not only a Texas hero, but also an American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for H.R. 990, the Pell Grant Equity Act.

This important piece of legislation would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Pell grant by eliminating the tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell grant program.

Current law prohibits maximum Pell grant awards to students attending low-tuition higher education institutions even if their income is low enough to otherwise qualify for the maximum award.

As the husband of a retired high-school teacher, I have always been a strong advocate for education.

Unfortunately, the high costs of a college education prohibit many low-income students from receiving a higher degree.

Pell grants provide low-income students with their best opportunity to attend college, and we must support financial aid programs like this in order to help as many students as possible succeed and receive a college degree.

Higher education is the best way to ensure our children and grandchildren have a promising future regardless of socio-economic status.

I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcalls No. 100, Previous Question the Rule on H.R. 976, No. 101, the Rule on H.R. 976, and No. 102, Final passage of H.R. 976, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia.

I rise in support of the resolution and to pay tribute to my friend and fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. Charlie Norwood.

Charlie came to Congress after my first term as part of the class of 1994, and it seems a year did not go by that we did not serve on a committee together.

I honorably served with him at first on the Education and Workforce Committee and then later on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Charlie and I shared a passion for health care issues, and I particularly enjoyed our work together on the Health Subcommittee.

A dentist by training, Charlie was devoted to improving the health care system, not only for providers like himself but also for the patients that rely on our health care system to keep them well.

The phrase Patients' Bill of Rights would not have been coined if Charlie and our chairman, John Dingell, had not teamed up to give patients an ability to fight back against the HMOs that too often make health care decisions based on the bottom line, rather than a physician's recommendation.

I note Charlie's last legislative act before leaving Washington and returning to Georgia was to reintroduce the Patients' Bill of Rights in this Congress as H.R. 979.

There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation will be Charlie's legacy and will honor him and his work in this esteemed Chamber by finally making his vision of patients' rights a reality.

Last July 4 recess, Charlie and I joined two other members of the Health Subcommittee as we visited the impressive trauma facilities utilized by our brave military doctors to treat our wounded service personnel in Balad and Baghdad, Iraq and Kabul, Afghanistan.

I knew there was a good reason Charlie and I got along, despite being different parties, but I also realized that

trip that Charlie and I shared a lot of interests, and one of them in firearms. I met few people with more enthusiasm for firearms than Charlie Norwood.

In fact, I will mention that how he cared about people, and Chairman Deal understands that, he presented a book to those of us who went. It has a picture of Charlie Norwood with a .50-caliber machine gun in a helicopter we were flying in, but Charlie was not really happy because he was not sitting behind that .50-caliber machine gun.

Charlie was a good doctor and honorable Member of Congress and a great friend. He always thought of others, and I will always remember him for his friendship for these years. Our thoughts are with his family, and his wife Gloria has become a good friend of my wife Helen through the Congressional Spouses, and I will miss Charlie, and we all will. We honor his memory and his contributions to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak.

I rise today in support of this resolution. The President's escalation, or surge, as he calls it, is not a strategy that will quell the violence in Iraq.

We have heard for too long that change in Iraq is just around the corner, and we continue to spend billions of dollars and have taken thousands of U.S. casualties.

I supported our goals to bring democracy to Iraq, voted for the Iraq resolution, and voted for the billions of dollars to support that effort. And I will not vote to cut funding for our troops while they are in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are doing their best with a very flawed plan, and that doesn't come from just Gene Green saying it. I heard it less than a year after we went there, from e-mails that parents forwarded me.

Our goals were great in Iraq. The plan was not. The administration's plan has not worked since the first year. It is time we send a strong message to the President that we no longer support the administration's strategy.

President Bush addressed the Nation on January 10 of this year to announce his plans to send an additional 21,500 soldiers and marines to Iraq. This move ignores advice from the military and has been tried before without success.

General John Abizaid, former commander of the Central Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15, 2006, that he and General George Casey, the Corps Commander, and Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey all agreed that more troops were not needed. The White House is continuing with the same flawed strategy to pacify the country that has not worked, and adding another 20,000 troops will not make it work.

March 19 of this year will mark 4 years since we went into Iraq. May 1 will mark 4 years since the President declared ``mission accomplished.'' But we turn on the news today and still see headlines, ``Car Bombers Kill 60 in Baghdad,'' ``Four More American Soldiers Killed in Gunfight With Militia.''

We have made great strides in Iraq, but we are now trying to police a war between sectarian armies. Our troops have performed all that has been asked of them, and according to the National Security Council's analysis, we have achieved many of our initial objectives: removing Saddam Hussein from power, assisting Iraq with a constitution and free elections, and helping establish democratic institutions.

It is time for the Iraqis to take control of their own country and that we begin bringing our troops home. This is in the best interests of our military, the Iraqis and our national security.

Our forces cannot indefinitely sustain the demands we currently are placing on them. Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace acknowledged last week when testifying before the House Armed Services Committee that nondeployed U.S. forces are not sufficiently equipped, echoing similar concerns expressed recently by Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker and Lieutenant General Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau.

The Guard, nationwide, is only equipped to about 30 percent of their needs. Units are taking equipment with them into theatre and being forced to leave much of it for other units to use when they come home. It will cost about $25 billion to reequip the National Guard and Reserves to pre-Iraqi war levels.

We cannot continue to send troops to Iraq for 12-month deployments every other year and expect to maintain a well-equipped and experienced fighting force with high morale.

This resolution expresses the beliefs of many Members of this House that sending an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq is not in our Nation's interests and not a solution for the violence in Iraq. The solution is for the Iraqi Government, the elected government, to do what they need to do. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, isn't it customary that after a minority speaker speaks, then you go to the majority side?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members, I have sat in my office and got caught up on a lot of work and I was listening to the debate, and I guess I am concerned about the tenor of the debate because I am serving in this Congress and I am in my eighth term, one term in the majority, the last 12 years in the minority, and I have never seen a display of what we are seeing on the floor today.

Because I served with Speaker Hastert and many speakers, and it is frustrating to see this activity. My concern is what we are portraying to the American people. And I think the chairman of the Science Committee pointed out the White House statement on the use of the plane.

I was here on the floor after 9/11, and I know that not one Member on the Democratic side questioned whether Speaker Hastert needed the security, needed a nonstop to his district. And I think that is far beyond anything we should be considering.

I want to save energy, although I have to admit, I have a district where we produce a lot, and I am glad people use it. But I also know that we have more important things in this House to do than to pick at one person who happens to be the Speaker of the House. I could go back and find lots of things from former Speakers of the minority party and talk about it, but again, we didn't do that. I didn't, and I don't remember any of my colleagues doing it. But I also know that if we are going to seriously be legislators, then we need to pass this bill.

I was concerned with some of the amendments that were brought up earlier literally by members of my Energy and Commerce Committee that were not germane because their amendments would have been germane if this had been an Energy and Commerce bill, but it is not. It is a Science bill. That is why I think if we are serious about dealing with global warming, more efficiency in fuel, there are lots of ways we can do it. I know the Science Committee is doing their job, and I know the Energy and Commerce Committee will; and if there are tax issues that need to be dealt with, I know the Ways and Means Committee will deal with it.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would hope we would realize that the actions today do not reflect good on the House itself.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to attend two votes last night due to official business, hosting a paying for college workshop in my district.

I obtained an excused absence for this event, and I ask unanimous consent to include this personal explanation in the Record.

On February 5, 2007, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes No. 74 and No. 75.

On rollcall vote No. 74 to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution regarding National Consumer Protection Week, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 75 to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, today in Lebanon, protesters are rioting, burning tires and cars, and crippling Beirut to oppose the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

The majority of the opposition comes from Hezbollah and its supporters seeking more influence in Lebanon's government.

At the same time, one of our close allies is forced to watch these riots as a recurring threat is building on its borders.

Last summer we watched as the terrorist group Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others and began firing missiles into Israeli cities intentionally targeting civilian populations and infrastructure.

This group was supplied by Syria and Iran for years, and built up stockpiles of weapons after Israel completely withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425.

Israel responded in self-defense and launched an offensive in southern Lebanon to destroy the weapons caches and Hezbollah's bunkers. Fortunately, the Israeli Air Force was able to destroy many of the longer range rockets Hezbollah possessed, but thousands of shorter- range rockets were indiscriminately fired at Israeli towns and villages.

After 2 months of fighting, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 was passed. Among other things, 1701 called for a U.N. peacekeeping force of up to 50,000 troops to assist the Lebanese military to prevent Hezbollah's resurgence and rearmament in southern Lebanon.

Unfortunately, these troops have not stopped Syria and Iran from rearming Hezbollah, and Israel must watch as this threat is re-emerging just miles from its border.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record this recent article that appeared in Jane's Defence Weekly. It details some of the problems Lebanese and U.N. forces are having stopping the movement of weapons across the Syrian-Lebanese border. What is clear from this article, and numerous other reports, is that Hezbollah is rearming and gaining autonomy again in southern Lebanon.

Just last week in an interview, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, promised that Hezbollah would intensify its campaign to bring down the Lebanese Government in the coming days and weeks. Israel and the United States cannot let this happen, and we must support Israel's right to defend itself before its civilians are indiscriminately attacked once again.

Over the years, we have watched as Israel has made unilateral concessions, withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000 and withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, and each concession has resulted in growing threats on its borders and attacks on its soldiers and citizens.

After entering southern Lebanon to battle Hezbollah militants last summer, Israel again withdrew under United Nations Resolution 1701, passed sending international troops to southern Lebanon with the promise that the international troops would assist Lebanon's military to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.

Again, the promises of security made to Israel by the international community have not been fulfilled and Hezbollah is getting stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and the international community to join me in looking for a solution to this situation. As a close ally, we should ensure Israel's hands are not tied while this threat builds on its border, and we should address this growing problem before Hezbollah again decides to attack Israeli soldiers and civilians.

[From Jane's Defence Weekly, Jan. 3, 2007]

Iran Replenishes Hizbullah's Arms Inventory

(By Robin Hughes)

Some five months after UN Resolution 1701 halted the

conflict in south Lebanon between Israel and the Islamic

Resistance--the armed wing of Shi'ite Party of God

(Hizbullah), Iran has replenished Hizbullah's depleted stocks

of surface-to-surface rockets and anti-tank guided weapons

(ATGWs).

Prior to the onset of the conflict on 12 July, Western

intelligence agencies estimated that Hizbullah had amassed an

inventory of some 12,000 rockets of various calibres. During

the conflict the Islamic Resistance expended about 4,000

rockets, while its longer-range systems, namely the Iranian-

supplied 50 km range Fajr-3, the 70 km range Fajr-S, the 125

km-range Zelzal 1 and 210 km-range Zelzal 2 rocket systems

were not employed, having sustained considerable damage as a

result of Israel Air Force (IAF) strikes.

Hizbullah emerged from the conflict strategically weaker,

and, with the implementation of Resolution 1701, lost its

autonomy in south Lebanon.

A Western defence source told Jane's that Iran, with Syrian

compliance, has now ramped up deliveries of rockets, ATGWs

and other advanced systems in ``an effort to rehabilitate

Hizbullah's military strength and status''.

The underlying message here is one of ``unfinished

business'' or preparation for a second stage of operations.

Ali Akbar Mohtashemi Pour, Iran's former ambassador to

Syria and one of the main forces behind the foundation of

Hizbullah, confirmed on 1 November in an interview with the

AKI news agency that Tehran had begun restocking Hizbullah

with weapons. Later, on 6 November, Mohtashemi Pour noted

that Tehran had ``started to re-arm Hizbullah for all its

needs''.

The extent of this commitment was borne out in a speech by

Hizbullah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah at the

Divine Victory Rally in Beirut on 22 September.

``The resistance today has more than 20,000 rockets. The

resistance is today stronger than on July 12 and stronger

than ever before,'' he said.

While these numbers have yet to be independently confirmed,

the source noted that the Iranian unit charged with liaising

with Hizbullah, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards

Corps (IRGC) ``Qods Force''--currently headed by IRGC

Brigadier General Kazem Soleimani--has, since the end of the

conflict, significantly stepped up the transfer of war

materiel, along with funding, training and intelligence on

Israel, to the Islamic Resistance.

Much of this weapons supply has been facilitated by the

compliance of Damascus in smuggling weapons across its

borders, the source claimed. ``While Iran is the key weapon

supplier, Syria was, and still is, the dominant if not

exclusive channel for weapons transfer to Hizbullah. This

operation is led by Syrian military officers in co-operation

with senior IRGC officials in Iran and Syria,'' the source

added.

However, most of the rockets fired on Israel during the

conflict were Syrian made and the majority of ATGW deployed

by Hizbullah were Russian made, acquired and supplied by

Syria.

Terje Roed-Larsen, the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy

for the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559,

announced on 31 October that he had received reports from

Lebanese government officials of ``extensive weapons

smuggling into Lebanon''.

In an unprecedented step, the Lebanese armed forces have

deployed over 8,000 troops along the 265 km Lebanon-Syria

border to counter these activities.

While they have managed limited successes, ``the length of

the border and the forces allocated for the mission by the

government are insufficient'', the sources said.

``Moreover, because of the sensitivity of the issue and the

considerable concern over Hizbullah's military strength--

where the Lebanese forces do not want to openly confront

Hizbullah--the general trend is to turn a blind eye toward

the border activity and to detect and cover up exposed weapon

smuggling incidents as quickly as possible,'' the source

said.

At the same time, 19 vessels of the reinforced UN Interim

Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL-2) are patrolling Lebanese waters

and inspecting ships approaching the country to prevent

maritime smuggling.

A Western diplomatic source told Jane's that the Islamic

Resistance--citing lessons learned in the early stages of the

conflict where it lacked the means to contend with IAF

operations--has specifically pressured Iran for ``an array of

more advanced weaponry, including surface-to-air missile

[SAM] systems.''

The source said that ``following the supply of an

undisclosed quantity of Iranian-made Noor [reverse-engineered

Chinese C802/YJ-2] radar-guided anti-ship cruise missiles and

Chinese QW-1 [Vanguard] shoulder-launched SAMs'', Iran has

agreed to supply advanced Russian-made SAM systems to

Hizbullah as part of its strategy to transform Hizbullah

``into a coherent fighting force and a regional strategic

arm''.

The source added that Tehran will supply Hizbullah with

Russian-produced SAMs, including the Strela-2/2M (SA-7

``Grail''), Strela-3 (SA-14 ``Gremlin'') and Ilgla-lE (SA-16

``Gimlet'') man-portable SAMs. Iran is also understood to

have agreed to deliver its own version of the Chinese QW-l

man-portable low- to very-low-altitude SAM system--the

Mithaq-l--developed by the Iranian Defence Ministry's Shahid

Kazemi Industrial Complex in Tehran.

Iran has, in the interim, set out to restock Hizbullah's

inventory of 122 mm Grad-series Katyusha rockets, 240 mm

Fajr-3 and 333 mm Fajr-5 rockets, truck-mounted Falaq-l and

Falaq-2 truck-mounted multiple-launch rockets systems, RAAD-T

and Toophan ATGWs and Nader improved rocket-propelled

grenades (RPGs), the source said. However, to date there is

no evidence that Tehran is replenishing Hizbullah's Zelzal-

series longer-range rockets, although sources suggest these

could still be smuggled in separate component packages.

Syria, the source said, continues to resupply Hizbullah

with 220 mm and 302 mm rockets (dubbed Raad and Khaibar-l

(M302 by the IDF) respectively); Kornet-E, Metis-M and

Konkurs ATGWs; and RPG-29 tandem-warhead RPGs.

These moves come despite offers to Israel from Syrian

President Bashar al-Assad on 19 December to crack down on

Hizbullah and the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement,

Hamas, in exchange for a return to negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans believe that dependence on foreign oil is a problem and alternative energy sources deserve our support, particularly after 9/11. The recent election season saw such high consumer gas prices and high anxiety about energy security.

But let us look at another industry. Very cold weather in southern California is causing loss of fruits and vegetables, and ranchers in the Midwest are losing cattle because of the cold weather. The farmers and ranchers who still have crops and livestock stand to make a lot of money from the price spikes that we are seeing literally as we stand here on the floor today.

Are we blaming those farmers and ranchers for the high prices? Are we going to cut farm benefits and raise taxes on the farmers? No.

But for some reason when we have cold winters and hot summers and hurricanes in the gulf that raise gas prices, we all get mad at energy suppliers. It is the easy way out to get mad at the industry, since most of our country just uses energy and does not produce it.

We have a budget deficit, and funds for new alternative energy programs are in short supply. So industry is being targeted for this purpose.

I understand why my colleagues are choosing to do this, but this plan carries a significant risk of being counterproductive, especially in the near future.

H.R. 6 exempts the oil and gas industry from a recent manufacturing tax benefit, cuts geological expense to major energy producers and requires new payments on 1998-1999 offshore leases to make up for serious government errors in the original contracts.

These provisions raise $14 billion over 10 years for clean alternative energy programs that Congress will establish through regular order. That is why I support this bill. That $14 billion will be used for alternatives through the regular order of this Congress, through our committee process.

These tax provisions reduce incentives for domestic production and could increase dependence on foreign oil and LNG which hurt national security.

With current high oil prices, we may not miss these incentives as much if prices were low, but the effects could be very real in the long term.

However, the 100 hours energy bill is a compromise within the Democratic Caucus to promote alternative energy. For the first time in my years in Congress, the Democratic leadership included the Members from energy producing States in the process.

The section 199 tax provision is most unfair because it singles out oil and gas as ineligible, as compared to other manufacturing operations.

The main royalty provision is based on the Jindal-Pombo bill that House Republicans overwhelmingly supported a few months ago in June.

I am also very concerned about the effects of the provision on contract certainty in U.S. oil and gas leasing, but for better or worse, there is a consensus among both parties to address this 1998- 1999 lease issue.

While this bill is a far cry from my preferred energy policies, the Democratic leadership has been narrow and targeted.

After extensive discussions between our office and other Members' offices

from oil and gas producing States, this bill does not include more punitive measures that seek to alter long-standing oil and gas tax or accounting treatment that could destabilize our Nation's gasoline supply even more.

We do not repeal the refinery tax provision or the deductions for intangible drilling costs. We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting, impose a windfall profits tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.

Mr. Speaker, as a result and the good faith we have had in this 100 hours agenda, I am voting for the bill.

Before I close, I have two messages. First, you cannot hit an industry for $14 billion and go back time and time again.

And my second message is to the oil and gas industry. With the recent November elections, this bill should be a wake-up call to explain energy issues to Democratic Members who may have been ignored in recent years.

We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting, impose a windfall profits tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.

As a result, and as a show of good faith during this critical 100 hours period for our new majority, I am voting for this bill.

Before I close I have two messages, and the first is for the Democratic Caucus--when you hit one industry for $14 billion, you cannot go back for more later and expect enough gasoline in your cars and fuel to heat and cool our homes.

My second message for the oil and gas industry--the recent November election and this bill should be a wake-up call to explain energy issues to Democratic members that they may have ignored in recent years. We are going to need those members to prevent additional legislation of this type.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5.

This bill cuts student loan interest rates to a fixed 3.4 percent over 5 years.

Right now, the average student loan debt is around $13,800. By passing this bill, we are saving a student with average debt $4,400 over the life of their loan.

Also, this legislation targets middle-class America. Half of the students that take on federally subsidized loans have incomes between $26,000 and $68,000 a year.

This benefits millions of lower income families, but also hardworking middle-class Americans that are trying to give their children a leg up in living the American dream.

College tuition has risen 41 percent since 2001. Just this year, the percentage of students relying on loans to get through school hit 52 percent.

This is a direct result of rising tuition costs in both public and private institutions.

These families need help and we should give it to them. Twice a year, our office holds a Paying for College workshop.

We bring in lenders and experts on filling out the FAFSA to help our students navigate through the application process and to come to terms with the amount of debt they may take on.

The most important consideration for families in our Congressional District is what the cost of going to college will be.

Financial barriers inhibit the ability of high school graduates to go to college.

By reducing student loan interest rates, we are encouraging families and students to get a college education.

When we pass this legislation, we are investing in the future of our economy because we will have more college graduates with a lower debt burden.

This will enable graduates to do things like buy homes, invest and fuel our economy.

To offset the costs of reducing interest rates, we are reducing the amount the Federal Government guarantees lenders.

While this is not a popular idea with large lenders, smaller lenders will not be impacted by this legislation.

Student loans are not the bread and butter of large financial institutions, but smaller local banks and credit unions often provide student loans in smaller communities.

This is why lower volume lenders will not be impacted.

Madam Speaker, this is a win for middle class America, future generations of college students and our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the chairman of my committee for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit over 3 years ago, it failed to put seniors first. Our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, sat through the all-night markup in our own committee to see this bill come out of committee.

The whole House sat in this Chamber, an all-night vote, to pass that bill by such a narrow margin after the vote was held open. Today is the day we get a chance to correct the problems that were created 3 years ago.

This bill, the law, put the pharmaceutical industry ahead of our seniors. It put the health insurance industry ahead of our seniors. The bill will correct those mistakes. Opponents of this bill raise the charges of big government saying, let the market work. That is exactly what this bill will do. It will leverage the buying power of 42 million American seniors that negotiate costs of prescription drugs under Medicare.

Negotiation of drug prices is alive and well in every sector of the health care industry. States negotiate for lower prices on their Medicare programs. Pharmacy chains do the same thing for the drugs they purchase. They don't have formularies. They purchase drugs for their customers, so pharmacy chains can do the same thing.

All this bill does is allow the Medicare program to use a tool for free market bargaining best prices for its beneficiaries. Rarely will you see overwhelming support for an issue like we have seen on this one. Ninety-two percent of Americans agree that we should take off the handcuffs that have been restraining the Medicare program and give it a chance to achieve greater discounts.

The alternative is increasing drug costs and increasing premiums that make the benefit harder for our seniors to afford. The numbers don't lie. Under the current structure, 77 percent of seniors saw their premium part D increase in 2006 and 2007, and more than one-quarter of them saw their premiums rise more than 25 percent.

Drug prices under part D are increasing too with costs for the top 20 drugs increasing 3.7 percent in the last 6 months.

When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit over three years ago, it failed to put our seniors first. It put the pharmaceutical industry ahead of our seniors. And it put the health insurance industry ahead of our seniors. This bill will correct those mistakes.

Opponents of this bill raise charges of big government, saying to let the market work. That's exactly what this bill does by leveraging the buying power of 42 million American seniors to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare.

Negotiation for drug prices is alive and well in every other sector of the health care industry. States negotiate for lower prices under their Medicaid programs. Pharmacy chains do the same for the drugs they purchase.

All this bill does is allow the Medicare program to use a tool of the free market--bargaining--to obtain the best prices for its beneficiaries. Rarely do we see overwhelming support for an issue like we've seen for this one. 92 percent of Americans agree that we should take off the handcuffs that have restrained the Medicare program and give it a chance to achieve greater discounts.

The alternative is increasing drug costs and increasing premiums that make the benefit harder for seniors to afford. The numbers don't lie. Under the current structure, 77 percent of seniors saw their Part D premiums increase from 2006-2007. And more than one-quarter of them saw their premiums rise more than 25 percent.

Drug prices under Part D are increasing too, with costs for the top 20 drugs increasing 3.7 percent over six months. That's 7.4 percent over a year--an increase twice the rate of inflation and one that will cause our seniors to hit the doughnut hole even sooner.

We have a chance today to do better by our seniors. It's about time we put our seniors first and let Medicare work for them.

Mr. Speaker, today, we will vote on a bill to provide changes to a merciless Federal stem cell policy, changes that are still relevant and still necessary despite the recent discovery of stem cells derived from amniotic fluid cells.

To be sure, this is an important discovery, but the same scientists championing this research have stressed the amniotic cells are not a substitute for embryonic stem cells. While they hold the great promise of turning into some cell types, only embryonic stem cells can divide indefinitely and evolve into any cell type in the body.

If anything, the recent amniotic stem cell study proves that it is critical to explore all kinds of stem cell research, since advancements in one area of stem cell research could lead to lifesaving discoveries in others. By prohibiting Federal funds of more embryonic stem cell research, the current policy shuts the door on this collaborative research and slams it in the face of millions of Americans suffering from incurable diseases.

We have the opportunity today to advance this promising research that could offer cures for the scourges of our times. To purposefully keep the doors to a cure closed is a patent failure of our responsibility to ease human suffering from scores of incurable diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I gave a 1-minute earlier that compared the hope for embryonic research with the new research that is being done on other stem cells. But, in all honesty, we need to be looking at everything to deal with the illnesses that we have.

Embryonic stem cell research is the hope for millions of Americans. Embryonic stem cell research is now supported by educational and religious affiliated institutions, but they need Federal Government help to find the cures for spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's and many other illnesses.

Let me talk about two personal examples of the imperative need for this Federal assistance to find these cures. I know of a young lady named Monica who had her spinal cord severed in an auto accident. She is young enough to benefit from aggressive research on a cure. We need all the research dollars we can get into embryonic stem cell, adult stem cells and others to be able to deal with this young lady who has the possibility that her spinal cord could be regenerated. It may be next year. It may be 10 years or 20 years. But let's don't take that hope away.

Another example is my mother-in-law. She was diagnosed in 1996 with Alzheimer's. And my wife and I have lived for the last 10 years watching my mother-in-law die. She died the day after Christmas. She hasn't known either of us for over 2 years. She was in a research facility in Houston, at Baylor College of Medicine, that could just monitor her progress on a yearly basis. For the last 2 years, we couldn't take her to the hospital or to the doctor's office. And we watched Alzheimers make that happen.

It is too late for my mother-in-law's generation. But it is not too late to change it for the next generation, Mr. Speaker, and Members. And to stand up here today and say it is a sin to do this research, it is a sin not to do the research. It is not a sin to try and use embryonic cells. It is a sin not to do this research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this extremely important legislation for America's workers. The last 10 years we have seen these tired old Republican arguments against increasing the minimum wage while the huge wealth of the highest paid in our country increases. We have not raised the minimum wage since 1997. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it has been in 50 years. That is 10 years of wasted opportunity on this floor that is being corrected today.

A minimum wage worker full-time makes $10,700 a year. That is well below the poverty level. We need to provide a lift for these hardworking Americans. I agree with the late U.S. Senator from Texas, Ralph Yarborough, when he said, ``Let's put the jam on the lower shelf for the people.''

This increase will provide much needed help to the lowest wage earners in our country. Their needs and dreams are no different from anyone else's. These wage earners want to earn a decent wage to be able to put dinner on the table for their families. It is not too much to ask that we raise the minimum wage after a decade of taking no action on this important part of the American economy.

Passing this bill today is the right step, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I rise today to support his extremely important legislation for America's workers. The last ten years we have seen these tired old Republican arguments against increasing the minimum wage while the huge wealth increases of the highest paid in our country.

We have not raised the minimum wage since 1997. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it's been in 50 years. That's 10 years of wasted opportunity.

A minimum wage earner working full-time makes only $10,700 a year. This is well below the poverty threshold for a family of three.

We need to provide a lift for these hard working Americans. I agree with our late U.S. Senator from Texas Ralph Yarbrough when he said ``Let's put the jam on the lower shelf for the people.''

This increase will provide much needed help to the lowest wage earners of our country. Their needs and dreams are not different than anyone else's.

These wage-earners want to earn a decent wage and be able to put dinner on the table and provide for their families.

It is not too much to ask that we raise the minimum wage after a decade of taking no action on this important part of the American economy.

Passing this bill today is a step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and put the jam on the lower shelf.