Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7005, legislation that will provide critical tax relief to 25 million middle class families and provide a solution to the looming Alternative Minimum Tax crisis. Had Congress failed to act, tens of thousands of my constituents in Michigan's 15th Congressional District would have been required to pay the AMT when filing their 2008 tax return. At a time when middle class families are already finding their budgets stretched thin because of rising costs for things like gasoline, groceries, and health care expenses, imposing an increased tax burden would be unconscionable.

The Democratic majority has shown a continuing commitment to responsible fiscal policies, and made numerous efforts to offset the cost of the AMT fix by closing tax loopholes that allow corporate CEOs to receive deferred compensation from offshore companies. Unfortunately, President Bush and the Republican minority have opposed our efforts to find a way to pay for the AMT fix, and have chosen to pass the cost of this bill onto our children and grandchildren rather than require the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

This is especially disappointing because the expansion of the AMT was an accounting gimmick designed to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy more affordable. Since the enactment of those tax cuts, the President has committed us to a war that costs hundreds of billions of dollars every year and the budget deficit has exploded. Despite inheriting balanced budgets, President Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies have caused the national debt to rise to nearly $9 trillion; three times the size of our debt when President Clinton left office. Clearly, it is time for a change. I look forward to working with a new President next year to find a way to enact a permanent AMT fix, and rewrite our tax laws and put an end to irresponsible Bush fiscal policies.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, which will ban some of the worst credit card industry practices, provide important protections for consumers, and implement important reforms that will benefit working families.

The events of the past week have highlighted the problems caused by a lack of transparency and regulatory oversight in the financial industry. The same problems that have caused the current crisis on Wall Street also plague the credit card industry. Millions of Americans are struggling with the increased costs of groceries, gasoline, healthcare expenses, and other essential goods and services, while at the same time the average American worker has actually experienced a decline in real wages since President Bush took office. Many of these families are stretched thin, and have had to use credit cards to finance unforeseen expenses such as car repairs, or emergency room bills. Far too often these families are being forced to pay unfair late fees and arbitrary rate increases, or are being taken advantage of by high-fee subprime lenders.

The legislation before us today requires nothing more from the credit card companies than to treat customers who pay their bills on time fairly. Sadly, the credit card industry has increasingly resorted to unfair practices to exact late fees and higher interest charges from credit cardholders. In fact penalties have increased by more than 50 percent during the Bush Administration, and now make up more than half of the industry's $40 billion profits.

For example, this legislation will end the practice known as ``universal default,'' where a credit card company uses information about a cardholder's financial status, such as a change in his or her credit rating, to raise the cardholder's interest rate even though the cardholder has not defaulted or made any late payments to the credit card company. The bill will also ban what is known as ``double cycle billing,'' which is the collection of interest on amounts already paid. H.R. 5244 will also offer cardholders the right to cancel a card when faced with a rate increase so long as he or she agrees to pay off the existing balance at the rate they agreed to when they borrowed it.

This legislation is an important step towards reining in some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's hands-off approach to the financial industry. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5244, and protect consumers from further abuse against the most unscrupulous credit card industry practices.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 6983, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which will permanently reauthorize and improve the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. This legislation will put mental health and mental illness and substance-related disorders on the same footing as other medical and surgical disorders for health insurance benefits.

I would observe that we have much to thank our colleagues for. I particularly want to commend my colleagues, Representatives Kennedy and Ramstad and Senators Kennedy and Domenici, for their tireless efforts in crafting this important piece of legislation. They have been unwavering in their commitment to end the discrimination against those with mental health and substance abuse disorder.

I also want to congratulate and thank my friends, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Pallone of New Jersey; and Mr. Barton of Texas and Mr. Deal, the ranking members of the Commerce Committee and of our Health Subcommittee and a superb staff on both the side of the majority and minority of the Commerce Committee.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill as it will create true parity of coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorders. I speak as one who has had to deal with the problem of mental health within the family of which I am a part, and I know the terrifying and awful consequences that exist not only to the person involved but to the whole family. So I hope that this legislation will go a long way to addressing the concerns millions of Americans have with regard to this terrifying disease.

I want to urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and note that in accordance with PAYGO rules, the bill is paid for with a worldwide interest allocation tax provision that delays a tax break for American companies that operate overseas. It is a good bill. I urge passage by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 6908, a bill introduced by Representatives Bart Stupak and Michael Burgess. H.R. 6908 represents a compromise that achieves everyone's goals and is acceptable to all. As a result, the Committee on Energy and Commerce favorably reported the bill last week.

H.R. 6908 requires transparency in healthcare benefits. An insurer is required to explicitly and clearly state any restrictions and limitations on benefits.

You would not buy a car without knowing if it was new or used. Why should you buy health insurance without knowing whether the benefits you may need are included?

This bill does not change what benefits an insurer provides. It merely requires that restrictions be transparent to the consumer. Specifically, this bill requires: (1) that any limitations on benefits be explicit and clear; (2) that they be disclosed to plan sponsors in advance of

the point of sale; and (3) that they be disclosed to participants and beneficiaries in a manner that is easily understandable in advance of enrollment and after enrollment.

This is a commonsense bill, and it is surprising we have not required such transparency before. I urge my fellow colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6908.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6604, the ``Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act'' will help restore integrity to commodity futures markets. Lax regulation has allowed prices to become divorced from fundamental supply and demand. Lax regulation has allowed speculative bubbles to form in food and energy prices. And lax regulation has caused billions of dollars in damage to businesses and consumers.

Oil prices doubled from $72 per barrel on July 11, 2007, to $145 on July 11, 2008, even though supply and demand was fundamentally unchanged. While excess capacity was reduced and the dollar had dropped, there were no oil shortages, and inventories were ample. Fundamentals alone do not explain a 100 percent price increase.

What has changed over the past few years is that oil has been transformed from a basic commodity into a financial asset, and traded for its speculative value by institutional investors who want to diversify portfolios, hedge the dollar, or make a fast buck. The Washington Post reports that speculators control as much as 81 percent of the futures market, up from an estimated 37 percent in 2000.

Investment banks and futures exchanges claim that institutional investors are providing badly needed liquidity to the futures market, that futures prices reflect supply and demand, and Congress should not turn them into a scapegoat.

Wall Street's commodity brokers told their investors privately, however, that supply and demand did not explain the doubling of oil prices.

Just yesterday, Michael Cembalest, J.P. Morgan's global chief investment officer, wrote:

the Peak Oil crowd promoting crude oil . . . at $200 should

concede what we've been saying: there was an enormous amount

of speculation pent up in energy markets (e.g., an 8-fold

increase in bank OTC oil derivative exposure in the last 3

years), and it wasn't just the supply-demand equation. Oil

will rise again, and we need solutions to energy supplies,

but $140 in July 2008 was ridiculous.

Yet on the same day, Blythe Masters, Managing Director and Head of Global Commodities for J.P. Morgan submitted testimony before the Senate Energy Committee stating:

we fundamentally believe that high energy prices are a

result of supply and demand, not excessive speculation.

Lehman Brothers told its investors in May that it is seeing ``the classic ingredients of an asset bubble'' in oil. It linked it to an inflow of $90 billion in commodity index investments.

The cost to our economy from excessive speculation is destructive.

For every penny increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline, consumer costs jump by $1 billion a year, according to Moody'sEconomy.com. The run-up since last September has added nearly $1 per gallon, costing consumers $100 billion absorbing the

economic stimulus package enacted earlier this year.

The Industrial Energy Consumers indicate that natural gas consumers paid an extra $40.4 billion this year already. They support this bill.

The airlines have lost 36,000 jobs and retired 746 planes this year, while eliminating 635 routes, due to jet fuel prices. They support this bill.

Petroleum marketers have seen oil prices come unhinged from supply and demand. They support this bill.

Some institutional investors are now starting to unwind their massive positions. Nearly 127 million barrels of oil futures valued at $40 billion were liquidated by institutional investors between July 15, 2008, and September 2, 2008, according to a recent analysis of the CFTC's public data. Oil futures prices plunged $53 per barrel to $92 in only two months, yet fundamental supply and demand was not changed materially in the past 60 days.

What did change in mid July is that Congress in both Houses took up legislation to rein in excessive speculation--particularly in the unregulated dark markets--which may have spurred some speculators to get out early.

The central issue is whether pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds should be allowed to hijack commodity markets and set oil and food prices, or whether consumers and producers should set prices based on supply and demand. If speculators can drive prices back up to $140, they can really turn the lights out on the U.S. economy.

Some may argue that given the crisis in financial markets, this is not the time to start regulating Wall Street. Beginning with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, however, deregulation has allowed recklessness to compromise our entire financial system.

The recent collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman Brothers are a product of lax regulation which has led to systemic risk for the entire financial system.

This legislation puts a cop on the beat and codifies some of the transparency measures recently recommended by the CFTC. I commend Chairman Peterson and Etheridge, as well as Representatives Stupak, Van Hollen, DeLauro, and Larson for their leadership on forging this bill and urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act. I want to thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Vern Ehlers, for sponsoring this bill as well as Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on the bill.

The Great Lakes Legacy Act has been an incredibly successful program. In fact, the first success story from the Legacy Act is in Trenton, Michigan. Black Lagoon, as it had been named in the 1980s because of the oil and grease that had accumulated between the 1940s and the 1970s, was renamed Ellias Cove just 1 year ago after the area was remediated. Without the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the $9.3 million cleanup would not have been possible.

Madam Speaker, the Great Lakes are a national treasure. However, to date, they have

not been treated as such. The Lakes have seen deterioration of water quality, the introduction of aquatic invasive species, and the contamination of toxic sediment, among other things. While the Great Lakes region has worked diligently over the past several decades to help clean up the Lakes, it is clear more must be done on the Federal level to implement the streamlined strategy already in place.

All of us representing Great Lakes' States were hopeful when in 2004 President Bush signed an executive order creating the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The task force spawned a coalition of Great Lakes' stakeholders, including local, State, and Federal Government groups, to implement a strategy over 5 years to protect and restore the Lakes. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, as the group is known, which consists of over 1500 stakeholders, called for $20 billion in funding to implement its recommendations. Unfortunately, the administration's Interagency Task Force, in its annual report, recommended that the strategy be funded from existing programs. Madam Speaker, such a recommendation demonstrates how out of touch the Bush administration is when it comes to the resources and major efforts needed to restore the Great Lakes.

So far, the Bush administration has paid quite a bit of lip service to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes, but that is where its commitment to the Lakes has ended. I am reminded of that commercial from the 1980s--``Where's the beef?'' We all know what it is going to restore and protect the Lakes--money. Unfortunately, the President has not put his money where his mouth is and made the Great Lakes a real priority. The Great Lakes continue to be plagued by toxic pollutants that contaminate the sediment which can cause health problems for both wildlife and humans. That is why the House must act to reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act by passing H.R. 6460. This legislation triples authorized funding from $50 million to $150 million per year for the next 5 years for cleanup of the nearly 40 degraded sites within the Great Lakes basin identified as Areas of Concern. In addition, this bill reauthorizes a non-Federal 35 percent match of Federal dollars invested into restoration efforts as well as $5 billion over 5 years for development of more effective clean up technologies, saving money in the long-run.

The past 8 years brought the Great Lakes little but empty promises from the Bush administration. Not only must we pass H.R. 6460 today, but we must also implement more of the recommendations of the Regional Strategy. I look forward to working with a new President--hopefully one from the Great Lakes region--who understands the importance of the Lakes and will do more than pay them just lip service.

Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 6460.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule that will allow us to debate and vote on Congressman Childers' amendment to H.R. 6842: legislation that will implement the Supreme Court's historic Heller decision, and restore and protect the Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia.

This legislation does four things: First, it overturns existing DC laws banning semiautomatic firearms, including the types of guns most commonly used for self defense. Second, it overturns DC laws requiring residents to keep their firearms locked and inoperable until the very moment they are attacked. Third, it gives DC residents the ability to purchase a firearm in Virginia or Maryland, a necessity because there is only one federally licensed firearms dealer in Washington, DC, and he operates without a facility that is open to the public. Fourth, this legislation removes the lengthy and burdensome registration procedures put in place by the DC Council.

What this legislation does not do is preclude the DC Council in any way from passing sensible firearms regulations that comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. The DC Council will retain the authority to restrict firearms so long as those restrictions do not overly burden the Second Amendment rights of DC residents.

It should also be noted that this legislation does not in any way harm our efforts to stop criminals or terrorists that pose a threat to DC residents. Indeed, those criminals and terrorists already have access to illegal firearms. This legislation will, however, give law abiding residents of Washington, DC, with the opportunity to purchase a legal firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer and keep it in their home or place of business in order to defend themselves.

I am happy to hear that the DC Council and the Mayor have proposed changes to DC's gun laws that will begin to bring the District into compliance with the Supreme Court's decision. However, those efforts do not preclude us from acting to pass Congressman Childers' amendment. Rather, the DC Council's proposals will complement our efforts here today.

In short, I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule today and to support Mr. Childers' amendment, which will for the first time in over 30 years give the residents of Washington, DC, the rights afforded to them under the Second Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. I rise to commend and express my great respect for the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, and also to my colleague Mr. Green, a valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

They, working with the Speaker, have come forward with a good bill,

one which is going to move this country forward in terms of reducing our dependency on foreign oil and increasing our utilization and development of more of our own domestic natural resources.

This bill achieves the delicate balance between the need for increased production, aggressive conservation, and a greater use of renewable energy, a path that this Congress has established in last year's energy bill, and as I would note for my colleagues, we will be in business again next year. Last year, we did something. The year before, in the prior Congress under the leadership of my Republican colleagues, we passed legislation which also increased production. Next year, I assure you that when we confront the business of this Congress in the new Congress, we will again move forward on legislation. This is not a static matter. It is something which goes forward in an intelligent process, thoughtfully led by people like my good friend from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Again, I commend my colleagues who have worked on this legislation. I recognize that it has more to be done, but there's always business to be done around this place.

I urge the adoption, and again, I commend my friend Mr. Rahall and his colleagues on the committee for the superb job they have done on this legislation working with our distinguished Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to salute the offerer of the amendment. The gentleman from Mississippi has shown extraordinary leadership, courage, and ability, and the body owes him a thanks for his efforts in this matter.

I also rise to thank the leadership for putting this legislation on the floor. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that will implement the historic Heller decision enacted by the Supreme Court, and it will restore and protect second amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia and elsewhere.

The Congress acts tonight under its plenary power over the District of Columbia, and one of its actions tonight are to assure the protections of the second amendment of the Constitution.

We've heard much falsehood and misunderstanding pronounced in the press and tonight in the discussion about what it is going to do. The Supreme Court found that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns was a violation of the second amendment, and it based that finding on a decision that the second amendment grants each individual the right to own a firearm for self-defense.

Like a majority of the Members of this body, I supported the decision, and I pointed out that the Court's ruling provided important guidance that would allow local governments to craft sensible, responsible measures designed to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and those who pose a threat to the public safety.

That remains the truth today and tonight. The D.C. council reacted to this historical ruling not by enacting sensible regulations but, instead, passed emergency legislation that continues to bar law-abiding citizens, residents of the District of Columbia, from meaningful access to the firearms within the second amendment.

I'm happy to hear that the D.C. council and the mayor have now proposed changes to D.C. gun laws that will begin to bring the District into compliance with the Supreme Court decision. I commend them for it. It came, regrettably, too late. These efforts do not, however, preclude us from acting upon the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, and again, I commend him for his leadership in this matter.

When the D.C. council's proposals, if they are carried forward as they say they intend to, are there, they, together with the legislation that we are enacting tonight with the Childers amendment, will protect the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia under the second amendment, but they also will assure that the District of Columbia has the reasonable power to control improper use of firearms.

The legislation only does four things. First, it overturns existing D.C. gun laws banning semi-automatic weapons, including the types of guns most commonly used for self-defense, something which the Supreme Court said was protected by the second amendment.

Secondly, it overturns D.C. law requiring residents to keep their firearms locked and inoperable until the very moment that they are attacked. What a silly proposal, a proposal that requires a person to rush to the cabinet to unlock it, to get a firearm, to load it, so that they can protect themselves against thugs, bandits, murderers or rapists.

Third, it gives the D.C. residents a reasonable ability to purchase a firearm in Maryland or Virginia, a necessity because only one federally licensed firearms dealer exists in Washington, D.C.

And he operates without a facility that is open to the public.

Fourth, the legislation removes lengthy and burdensome registration procedures malevolently put in place by the D.C. City Council to ensure that citizens would not be able to access firearms in a lawful, legal, and proper fashion.

This legislation does not preclude the Council from in any way enacting sensible firearms regulations that comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Heller. The D.C. Council will retain authority to restrict firearms so long as those restrictions do not improperly burden the second amendment rights of D.C. residents.

Some of the opponents of Congressman Childers' amendment have claimed that this legislation will lead to more guns ending up in the hands of criminals or even terrorists. What hooey. The only people in D.C. that can own a firearm for almost all intents and purposes are criminals. Law-abiding citizens have enormous burdens in achieving ownership of a firearm. And so we have, in the District of Columbia, a well-armed group of thugs armed to the teeth, preying upon law-abiding citizens at their whim with firearms which they may have.

I thank the gentleman.

The legislation is simply going to put D.C. residents in a position where they have their rights under the second amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a sensible, proper amendment. It is a sensible, proper exercise of the power of the Congress under the Constitution. And it is a sensible and proper protection of the rights of American citizens.

I urge the adoption of the amendment. And I commend the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi for his important leadership in this very important constitutional question.

Madam Speaker, during floor debate on the legislation to regulate tobacco yesterday, I made some remarks that unfairly, and inaccurately, personalized the issue, and I am here today to apologize to my friend and colleague John Boehner.

I have the utmost respect for his professional abilities, as well as great affection for him personally. I did not intend for my remarks to be taken in any way as personal criticism. As a friend, I just did not want to see anything bad happen to him or for his family to be burdened unnecessarily in any way. Those are matters that are distinct from any legitimate disagreement over matters of public policy, and while we have indeed had disagreements, we have also been able to work together on many matters of importance. I hope that we will continue to do so.

Again, I hope Mr. Boehner will accept my apology.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on the conference report for H.R. 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I want to thank my dear friend Senator Kennedy for all of his hard work on this bill.

Like our fuel and food, college tuition prices continue to rise, making a college degree unaffordable for many of our constituents. If Congress is serious about helping our country through this economic downturn, we must provide our young people with the tools and resources to be successful now and in an increasingly global economy.

Back home in Michigan, we are facing higher and higher unemployment rates. Many are forced to look to a new career field after a plant closes, and others are simply having a hard time transferring the skills they learned from their previous career to a new one. I want to do everything I can to help the citizens of Michigan's 15th Congressional District through this tough time and I believe that access to a college education is one way to do so.

Many of you have probably heard from constituents who have had trouble navigating the federal student aid program or difficulty filling out the extensive application forms. The last thing we want is to discourage anyone from attending college merely because they find the

federal aid process confusing or overwhelming.

H.R. 4137 proposes to streamline the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in order to make it easier for students and their families to navigate. This will be done by cutting the number of questions of the FAFSA form in half and allowing applicants to save their information rather than re-filing a new form each year. It will also allow students and their families to determine their Expected Family Contribution and their federal student aid package prior to college so that families can plan accordingly.

For those of us with children and grandchildren, we all know how expensive a college education can be. Back home in Michigan, over 143,000 students take out need-based loans each year. While this bill will not cover the cost of a college education, it will help to make the costs a little more manageable by increasing the value of the Pell grant. H.R. 4137 will increase the maximum Pell grant increase from the current level of $5,800 to $8,000 by the 2014 school year. More importantly, this bill will allow students access to Pell grants year round, ensuring that students who are going to school part-time will have access to this aid.

For those many students who do rely on student loans to pay for school, this legislation will ensure that lenders are serving the best interests of our students. This will be done by requiring higher education institutions and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct and ban all gifts and revenue sharing agreements between institutions and lenders. Lenders will now also be required to provide students with full and fair information about their loans before they sign on the dotted line, as well as be informed by the lenders of all borrowing options available to them when taking out and repaying loans.

This legislation will increase aid to our veterans and military personnel. The veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have served our country honorably and it is our duty to ensure that they have access to a college education should they desire to return to school. I know colleges across the country have seen increases in the enrollment of veterans; however, many do not have the resources to give the veterans the support they need. This is frankly unacceptable and this legislation will help correct this problem.

H.R. 4137 will create a scholarship program that could award up to $5,000 for veterans, their spouses, or their children enrolled in college. It will also create support centers on college campuses designed to coordinate services and assist veterans with enrollment and completion of their degrees. More importantly, H.R. 4137 will ensure that veterans are not penalized by their financial contributions to their GI benefits in the financial aid process.

This bill will reward students who enter public service fields in areas of high-need by establishing a $10,000 loan forgiveness program for individuals who study to become nurses; early childhood educators; librarians; teachers; school counselors; public sector employees; medical specialists; among other career fields.

Madam Speaker, as the federal representative of a number of great universities and colleges in my district, I want to ensure that my constituents are able to take advantage of the education these fine institutions provide. However, with Michigan's economy struggling, many students are forced to forego college altogether in favor of working to support their families and pay their bills. Over the August district work period I look forward to going home to these constituents and telling them that a college education can still be an option. I want to tell them that Congress is willing to increase federal aid for students. I want to tell them that Congress is going to make the federal aid application process simpler and easier for them. And at the end of the day, I want to tell my constituents that H.R. 4137 was signed into law. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation, let us all show our constituents that access to a college education is a top priority for Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. My dear friend and colleague, Representative Rosa DeLauro, has worked for more than ten years on this legislation to close the disparate pay gap between men and women. I thank her for her tireless efforts.

President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act 45 years ago. I, like many others, am left scratching my head, wondering why the wage gap has narrowed by less than half a cent a year. Today, women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, compared with 59 cents on the dollar in 1963. At this rate, it would take another 50 years to reach parity between men and women. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1338, which builds on the progress of the Equal Pay Act by improving legal recourses for women who are being discriminated against in the workplace, providing more effective remedies for claiming punitive and compensatory damages--bringing them in line with those for race or national origin discrimination, demanding from employers a business justification for a gender-based pay difference, and prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers.

As a husband, father of daughters and grandfather of granddaughters, closing the pay gap is an issue I care deeply about. After cosponsoring the Paycheck Fairness Act for nearly a decade, I am pleased to be finally able to vote in favor of it here on the House Floor.

Over the years, I have studied the pay gap in depth. Representative Carolyn Maloney and I have commissioned two Government Accountability Office studies on the matter. The conclusion we have come to is sad and disappointing, that even when controlling for all factors, women simply lag behind men. This is most certainly not because women work less hard than men--we know nothing could be further from the truth. Yet, something is keeping women behind. This is why I am also a cosponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment, which is a long overdue amendment to the Constitution to finally give women the standing necessary to address their grievances.

The pay gap is too often seen as a ``women's issue.'' In fact, this is not a women's issue, it is a family issue. The simple fact of the matter is that it often takes two incomes to make it in this country. This is especially true during an economic downturn like we face today. When women are not paid fairly, our families suffer.

I am proud to be here today voting in favor of the Paycheck Fairness Act and sincerely hope this critically important legislation is signed into law this year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Michigan's Solar Car Team on their recent victory in the North American Solar Challenge.

The team finished the 2,400-mile course in just over 50 hours, and beat 15 other universities, including the second-place team by an astonishing 10 hours. The victory marks the University's fifth in the nine races since the North American Solar Challenge began in 1990.

The University of Michigan Solar Car Team is an entirely student-run organization whose purpose is to design, finance, build, and race a solar-powered vehicle in competitions around North America and the world. With more than 100 members, Solar Car is one of the largest student organizations on campus, including students from the College of Engineering, the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, the Ross School of Business, the School of Art and Design, and the School of Education.

This victory is a testament to the team's hard work, creativity, and determination. Many of the students have worked on their car for two years. They raised money, created new systems, tested their designs, and made the necessary tweaks to ensure the car was ready for competition. All of this hard work paid off on Tuesday, when they captured their fifth title.

As University President Mary Sue Coleman said, ``These students have demonstrated the promise of alternative energy and new technologies with the championship run of their car, Continuum. The campus community applauds such an impressive performance in this year's race.''

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating the students and faculty supervisors of the University of Michigan's Solar Car Team.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6604, the ``Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008.''

This legislation will ratchet back the excessive speculation which has undermined the ability of the commodity markets to enable price discovery, while ensuring a means for legitimate hedgers, such as airlines, to lock in future prices as a way to protect their business from price volatility.

Experts testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce that commodity index speculators, such as pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, have poured more than a quarter trillion dollars into purchases of a basket of essential commodities such as oil, natural gas, corn, and wheat. Investments tied to the two most popular commodity indexes have skyrocketed 1,900 percent in the past 5 years.

This is the one factor that has turbocharged oil prices far above their underlying supply and demand. This bill works to plug three loopholes that have allowed speculation to get out of hand, in markets immune largely from public disclosure, regulation, and transparency.

First, the ``London loophole,'' allows foreign boards of trade such as the London-based ICE-Futures, to offer futures contracts in this country for U.S.-delivered energy commodities, such as the West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Contract, but operate free from equivalent U.S. regulatory oversight.

This legislation requires electronic exchanges in London or Dubai to comply with key market integrity requirements as a condition of doing business in the U.S. I will be watching closely to see if this approach works or if stronger medicine is needed.

Second, the swaps loophole, allows large investment banks to exceed speculative trading limits on the futures markets. This loophole has been plugged.

Third is the Enron loophole that has enabled massive trading on over- the-counter (OTC) markets which are completely dark to regulators. It also involves another loophole for swaps transactions on the OTC.

These dark markets have grown so rapidly that the Bank of International Settlements estimates they now involve about $9 trillion in commodities. This is estimated to be about nine times what is traded on the regulated markets. This bill shines light on these dark markets for the first time.

It takes a large and important first step towards putting a cop back on the beat. My hope is that this bill will bring prices back in line with underlying supply and demand. Further, I am comforted by Chairman Peterson's commitment to consider additional measures in the dark markets as more data is available from the CFTC.

I want to commend Representatives Stupak, Van Hollen, DeLauro, and Larson, for their excellent work and want to recognize Chairman Collin Peterson, Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte, and their staffs for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I look forward to working with them in conference.