Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act.

This much-needed legislation will make college more affordable and accessible by cutting the interest rate in half for undergraduates who take out subsidized Stafford loans. Because subsidized loans are need- based loans, the primary beneficiaries of this legislation will be low- and middle-income families.

In Michigan's 15th Congressional District, the average amount borrowed under the subsidized loan program is about $14,000 per student. If this legislation is enacted, students who take out loans this fall will save $2,300 over the life of the loan and students starting in 2011 will save nearly $4,500. This is a significant amount of money, especially for a college student.

I would like to point out that despite all of the arguments I've been hearing about how much this bill will cost, I am proud to say that the Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility and have drafted this bill to fully comply with the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgetary requirements passed earlier this month. The PAYGO rules require any new spending to be offset in other spending areas. The costs of this legislation are entirely offset by six modest reductions in subsidies to lenders and guaranty agencies, five of which were proposed by President Bush in his budget for fiscal year 2006.

Our goal of creating a highly skilled and innovative domestic workforce begins with a college education. This bill is a bold step in the right direction towards advancing America's competitiveness in the global marketplace. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future on additional measures such as increasing the maximum Pell grant, which will contribute to our mutual goal of higher education for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 510 of House Resolution 6 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous matter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 40 minutes

to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), and that they each be permitted to control their own time in their own way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007. This legislation is bipartisan. It is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits for the millions who depend on that section.

The bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition that prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and ensures that our friends in the executive branch take this opportunity seriously. It requires the Secretary to negotiate.

This legislation is simple and common sense. It will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers. The American public subsidizes more than three-quarters of the part D benefit, paying the bulk of premiums and 80 percent of catastrophic costs. They also pay for most or all of part D medicines used by the lowest-income Medicare beneficiaries. These savings add up.

It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. H.R. 4 does not preclude private plans from offering drug coverage under Medicare from getting better or additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. H.R. 4 does not interfere with the ability of doctors to prescribe a particular drug for their patients by establishing a national formulary. In fact, page 2 of the legislation reads: ``Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to establish or require a particular formulary.'' I do not think that there is any clearer way to state these matters than in that fashion.

I have confidence that Secretary Leavitt can cut a good deal with the bargaining power of 43 million beneficiaries of Medicare behind him without restricting access to needed medicine.

H.R. 4 does not require price controls. Quite the contrary, the bill gives the Secretary an additional power and makes him an additional player with whom drug companies must negotiate. And I say with some sympathy for the drug companies that they have been doing so well that I can understand their opposition to this matter.

H.R. 4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. The most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings by the seven largest drug manufacturers based in the U.S. show that, on average, these companies spend more on marketing, advertising and administration than they do on research and development; and those who insist that the sky is falling if the drug companies negotiate lower prescription prices are arguing that those drug companies should continue to skin a fat hog at the expense of the taxpayers and the beneficiaries.

I further note that H.R. 4 does not require HHS's Secretary to use Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule or to adopt a VA-like system. In fact, you will not find the words ``veterans'' and ``affairs'' in this legislation.

Independent studies confirm that Medicare overpays drug companies in purchasing medicines. I will repeat that: Medicare overpays drug companies in purchasing medicines. One study has found that half of the top 20 drugs used by senior citizens fall into that category. Medicare drug plans paid at least 58 percent more than the prescription program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even if the Secretary does not get those same discounts, it is clear that Medicare can do better, and we must see that they do so.

Senior citizens and people with disabilities deserve better, and after the past 6 years of pillaging the Treasury of the United States, our taxpayers deserve better.

While this legislation is an important step forward, H.R. 4 does not address other problems with part D. I anticipate we will be doing so at an early time. The list of wrongs that need righting in connection with this legislation is long, and, as I said, we will introduce legislation and deal with these matters in other ways.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Let the Secretary of Health and Human Services use the power of 43 million beneficiaries to get a better deal for their prescription medicines, for them, and for the taxpayers

[From the New York Times, Jan. 12, 2007]

Negotiating Lower Drug Prices

From all the ruckus raised by the administration and its

patrons in the pharmaceutical industry, you would think that

Congressional Democrats were out to destroy the free market

system when they call for the government to negotiate the

prices of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. Yet

a bill scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives

today is sufficiently flexible to allow older Americans to

benefit from the best efforts of both the government and the

private drug plans.

The secretary of health and human services should be able

to exert his bargaining power with drug companies in those

cases in which the private plans have failed to rein in

unduly high prices--leaving the rest to the drug plans. The

result could be lower costs for consumers and savings for the

taxpayers who support Medicare.

Under current law, written to appease the pharmaceutical

industry, the government is explicitly forbidden from using

its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices for

Medicare beneficiaries. That job is left to the private

health plans that provide drug coverage under Medicare and

compete for customers in part on the basis of cost.

The Democrats' bill would end the prohibition and require--

not just authorize--the secretary of health and human

services to negotiate prices with the manufacturers. That

language is important since the current secretary, Michael

Leavitt, has said he does not want the power to negotiate.

No data is publicly available to indicate what prices the

private health plans actually pay the manufacturers. But

judging from what they charge their beneficiaries, it looks

like they pay significantly more for many drugs than do the

Department of Veterans Affairs--which by law gets big

discounts--the Medicaid programs for the poor, or foreign

countries.

The administration argues, correctly, that the private

plans have held costs down and that there is no guarantee the

government will do any better. The bill, for example,

prohibits the secretary from limiting which drugs are covered

by Medicare, thus depriving him of a tool used by private

plans and the V.A. to win big discounts from companies eager

to get their drugs on the list. The secretary does have the

bully pulpit, which he can use to try to bring down the cost

of overpriced drugs.

The bill also does not require the secretary to negotiate

prices for all 4,400 drugs used by beneficiaries. A smart

secretary could simply determine which prices paid by the

plans seemed most out of line with the prices paid by other

purchasers and then negotiate only on those drugs. The

private plans are explicitly allowed to negotiate even lower

prices if they can. This sort of flexibility should pose no

threat to the free market. It is time for the Medicare drug

program to work harder for its beneficiaries without worrying

so much about the pharmaceutical companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentleman from California, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, a very able Member of this body, 1 minute to our distinguished friend and colleague from Florida, Kathy Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, valuable member of the committee, Ms. Eshoo, 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our able colleague and dear friend, Mr. Gene Green of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member of this body, our colleague from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my friend from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon, a member of the committee, Ms. Hooley, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to Dr. Christensen, the distinguished representative of the Virgin Islands, a leader in health care, 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time over here.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand how my Republican colleagues are distressed about this legislation. But I would remind them, first of all, that we are simply taking steps to correct earlier abuses of the most outrageous sort.

This legislation part D was crafted in the dark of night, and it was done by Republican Members and by lobbyists for the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical houses. That is why it is here. And now I can understand why my Republican colleagues are so distressed, because we are going to take all of those wonderful goodies away, or some of them, from the drug houses that so carefully saw that they got them without a single Democratic Member appointed by our then-Republican Speaker to appear here in the Capitol to address the question of what went into that.

Now, we have been getting a lot of excuses from our Republican colleagues. They tell us the bill is working well. Simple fact of the matter is it is not. One Federal program pays 60 percent more than other Federal programs for procurement of prescription pharmaceuticals, that is, part D pays more than the VA pays for the same prescription pharmaceuticals. But the reason is no one is able to negotiate on behalf of the citizens. You have got a bunch of good-hearted or cold- hearted prescription pharmaceutical people who have written this legislation and who are fixing the prices that are paid by senior citizens.

This says that the Secretary of HHS, a servant of the American people, will negotiate prices on prescription pharmaceuticals so that the senior citizens can get something other than excuses from our dear Republican friends and the insurance companies about why we ought to disregard what our common sense tells us, and that is that 43 million people can have the purchasing power to perhaps encourage these drug houses to give the government and the American retirees a better price.

Now, let's take a look at that. That is a chance to do real good for the people. I would tell you that we are tired of the excuses on these matters. Consumers, and particularly those who are living on disabled or fixed or limited incomes, watch their pennies. They have to. We should watch them too because we owe that to the people.

Now, the Secretary says it isn't going to save money. CBO says it isn't going to save money. But the reason is because they know full well that this Secretary probably won't negotiate on their behalf.

But I will tell you one thing. On this side, we will see that this Secretary does negotiate for better prices for our people. We will have him up before the committees, and we will give him and the others in the administration the oversight which they have lacked for 6 years.

Now, who is in favor of this legislation?

Before I say that, the people opposed are the Republicans, the administration, the drug houses and the insurance

companies, certainly a logical collection of opponents to a proposal of this kind.

Who favors it? AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Medicare Rights Center, the Alliance for Retired Americans. It is also supported by organizations representing people with disabilities. The National Council on Independent Living, AIDS Action, Breast Cancer Action.

Consumer groups support it. Consumers Union, Families USA, U.S. PIRG. No insurance companies support it, but that is no surprise.

Provider organizations support it. The National Community Pharmacists Association, people who work with the recipients of this. The American Nurses Association, the American Medical Association. The doctors say this is the thing that we should be doing. The Association of Community Pharmacists.

And, of course, organizations representing tens of millions of hardworking Americans. The American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, SEIU, United Steelworkers, the AFL-CIO, and the UAW.

Some say part D is working well. And for a few lucky folks, that is true. The insurance companies are cutting the fat hog on this. And the pharmaceutical houses are able to do just what they want on their pricing.

It is time that we correct this. Let's pass this legislation and do what we should have done before to protect our senior citizens.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Stephen E. Ewing, who served the Michigan business community for over 35 years.

Steve retired at the end of 2006 as the Vice Chairman of DTE Energy. He has been an industrious and dedicated leader in Michigan for over 35 years. Steve's career in natural gas began at Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, MichCon, where he held several executive positions and was responsible for corporate planning, personnel, administration and customer service from 1971 to 1985. He became the chief operating officer in 1985 and later the chief executive officer in 1992. Through his leadership, Steve helped MichCon become a founding member of the Heat and Warmth Fund, THAW, an organization that provides energy assistance to low-income families, and the National Fuel Fund Network, NFFN, an organization that promotes privately funded energy assistance.

When MCN Energy Group and DTE Energy merged in 2001, MichCon became a subsidiary and Steve became the head of the DTE Energy Gas Unit. At DTE Energy, Steve worked on creating new business opportunities in natural gas and managed the company's external gas-related business relationships. Steve has been recognized for directing environmentally responsible natural gas exploration and production activities in Northern Michigan, earning DTE Energy praise and trust from northern Michigan's environmental community.

Steve has also devoted his time and knowledge to the energy sector by serving as chairman of American Gas Association and member of the AAA Auto Group Club. He remains deeply involved in the Michigan community by serving on the boards of several economic, education, cultural, and health and human services organizations and businesses; as well as on the executive board of the Boy Scouts of America's Detroit Area Council and the National Petroleum Council. Throughout his career, Steve has been a mentor to his employees, instilling in them the successful leadership qualities that he employed in his executive capacities. Steve is a true pioneer in energy matters and the State of Michigan is grateful for his 35 years of service.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in extending the appreciation of the U.S. House of Representatives to Stephen E. Ewing for his lifelong work in the energy sector, and in wishing him an enjoyable and adventurous retirement.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 509 of House Resolution 6 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 3) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the Record on the pending bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the House passed last year, on May 24, 2005, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 by a vote of 238-194. On July 18, 2006, the Senate followed suit and passed the bill by a vote of 63-37. The President then vetoed this legislation on July 19, the first and only veto of his 6 years in office.

President Bush's veto came in the face of bipartisan and bicameral Congressional backing for the legislation, as well as strong public support for embryonic stem cell research. The language before us today is identical to the language we passed on May 24. It is identical to the language that passed the Senate on July 18. It is identical, regrettably, to the language vetoed by the President.

By considering the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 today, we are reasserting our commitment and dedication and devotion to the passing of this lifesaving legislation. The time has come for it to be in law and for President Bush to join us in signing this legislation into law.

Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue and cell in the body. Embryonic stem cells, unlike adult stem cells, possess a unique ability to develop into any type of cell, and their capacity to do this exceeds any other self which we are aware now.

Embryonic stem cell research holds the potential for developing treatments for many dreaded diseases, including Lou Gehrig's disease, cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis and pulmonary fibrosis.

The unique properties of embryonic stem cells were not lost on everyone, and I will now quote from an individual who has thought rather considerably on this matter. On August 1, this statement was made:

``Scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential. Most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offer the most promise because those cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues of the body.''

The man who said this was our beloved President, Mr. Bush, and I think it is time that the House should listen to his words and disregard his veto.

I urge my colleagues to pass a piece of legislation that the public wants, that the scientific community needs, that will benefit our people and that will move forward scientific research of vast help and importance to our people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), and that she be permitted to control the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, founded 50 years ago by Dr. Algo Henderson at the University of Michigan with a grant from the Carnegie Foundation. Located in my district, the University of Michigan (UM) is a national leader in higher education and in cutting- edge research, equipping young minds with the best tools to confront the world's problems. Among the best at UM, the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education is recognized as an innovator and emulated by higher education institutions across the Nation. Faculty at the Center seek to improve higher and postsecondary education from the perspectives of organizational behavior and management, public policy, academic affairs, student development, assessment, and evaluation. Today, the Center is headed by alumnus Dr. Deborah Faye Carter and staffed by scholars with expertise that spans a wide range of fields in the study.

The Center's faculty members provide valuable leadership to both the graduate students they teach and their colleagues in the field. Thanks to the contributions of the faculty, the Center's research continues to facilitate major initiatives in the field of higher education that respond to the evolving needs of our country.

Graduates of the Center continue into the world providing leadership as administrators and faculty in higher education institutions, as policymakers in governmental and policy agencies, as heads of professional associations, and as researchers in the field.

Current students at the Center are actively engaged in their academic work which is emiched by their many years of experience at liberal arts colleges, State and private universities and community colleges working as admissions directors and professionals in financial aid and faculty and student affairs. Many have served in State and Federal Government agencies and professional higher education associations as institutional researchers, policy analysts and planners. Their experiences at the Center will allow them to contribute to the study of higher education in the same outstanding manner as their faculty and those who have graduated before them.

Madam Speaker, this historic event is a source of pride for the University, the State of Michigan, and the field of higher education study. I ask you and all of my colleagues to rise and congratulate the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education on its 50th anniversary and to commend its faculty and students for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, a bipartisan measure to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 2 years.

I am proud to say that my home State of Michigan is ahead of the game on this issue. Governor Granholm and the State legislature have already passed legislation to increase the State minimum wage. A total of 28 States and the District of Columbia have a State minimum wage above the current Federal level.

I cannot understand why some of my colleagues are opposed to a measure that will directly benefit 5.7 million workers. Moreover, this measure clearly has the support of the American people. It is our job to represent the American people and I am proud that the new Democratic majority is getting the job done. We will succeed in raising the minimum wage during the first hundred hours of the 110th Congress--an accomplishment that the Republican majority could not--or shall I say cared not to--achieve in 10 years.

It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and year- round and still living in poverty. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker brings home $10,712 a year--nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three.

Since 2000, America's families have seen their real income drop by almost $1,300, while the costs of health insurance, gasoline, and attending college have nearly doubled. Passing H.R. 2 would mean an additional $4,400 per year for a full-time worker supporting a family of three--equivalent to 15 months of groceries, or over 2 years of health care--helping them to keep up with rising costs.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an important first step in a new direction for working families and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, seniors, individuals with disabilities and the taxpayers of America were done a disservice in 2003 when the Medicare Prescription Drug legislation passed with a provision that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating with drug manufacturers for lower prescription drug prices. Representatives Emerson, Rangel, Porter and I are introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Act of 2007 today to help seniors get the lowest prices possible on prescription medications under Medicare.

This legislation removes the prohibition of the Secretary from negotiating lower prescription drug prices. Moreover, it requires the Secretary to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices in Medicare without restricting access to any medications.

Drug prices under the Medicare prescription drug plan are more than 80 percent higher than prices negotiated by other agencies in the Federal government and more than 60 percent higher than prices in Canada. And this year the prices for each of the top five most popular drugs taken by seniors have gone up.

Currently, each of the 1200 plus prescription drug plans can use its volume of enrollees as leverage to purchase at bulk and other discount rates from drug companies. The Government, however, cannot do the same on behalf of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries. We are now requiring that the Secretary do just that.

This simple legislation could save billions in prescription drug costs, premiums, and cost sharing for the millions of Medicare beneficiaries. It leaves the details up to the Secretary of HHS, who has the necessary experience and expertise to secure lower prescription drug prices. This bill has the support of the AARP, Consumer's Union and the AFL-CIO.

It is time we put the best interests of Medicare beneficiaries ahead of those of the drug companies. Seniors are clamoring for relief, and Americans overwhelmingly support having the Secretary of HHS negotiate for lower prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare. The Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Act of 2007 is specifically designed to correct the shortfalls of the flawed 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug legislation and to provide affordable prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Artrain USA on being a recipient of the 2006 National Award for Museum and Library Services, a prestigious award presented to a select few libraries and museums for outstanding public service.

The National Award for Museum and Library Services is the nation's highest honor for museums and libraries. Artrain USA was one of three museums selected by the Institute for Museum and Library Sciences to receive this high honor. Three libraries were also selected to be honored.

Located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Artrain USA's unique concept of a traveling museum has visited hundreds of communities, enriching the lives of over 3.2 million people. Many of these communities are rural or underserved and did not have access to this type of world-class art exhibits and educational opportunities. By bringing the art to the communities on vintage railroad cars, Artrain USA provides these communities with a wonderful opportunity for cultural growth and education. This is an indispensable public service and I am especially proud to say that Artrain USA hails from Michigan's 15th Congressional District, which I represent in the House of Representatives.

I would particularly like to congratulate Debra Polich, President & CEO of Artrain USA, for her tireless work and dedication to making Artrain USA a national presence. Madam Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Deb and the rest of the Artrain USA team on winning this esteemed award and in sending our best wishes for success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission released its final report on the 2001 terrorist attacks. That was 2 \1/ 2\ years ago. Since that time, we have had two elections and two Congresses. Yet only today are we beginning to enact most of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

This is a long and complicated bill that is far from perfect. The scope of the bill's language must be addressed before it is finalized into law. This is, however, an important step forward.

The inaction of the previous Congress and the current administration has left America vulnerable, with the American people questioning its leadership. Cargo remains largely unscreened. Not all first responders can communicate effectively. International alliances against terrorism are in shambles. Civil protections have been weakened. Any bill that attempts to hold the administration accountable for this state of affairs is indeed welcome.

The legislation calls for vulnerability assessments of our Nation's infrastructure and seeks to prioritize threats. It establishes grant programs involving the private sector and public safety officials, for communications, intelligence, and border protection, and encourages a common set of criteria for private sector preparedness efforts.

Some of these functions already occur within Federal agencies that regulate sectors of our economy, including energy, public health, telecommunications, information technology, drinking water, chemical and transportation systems, as well as other commercial facilities. We must ensure the bill will not result in wasteful or duplicative efforts that may cause further confusion, or compromise our national security.

H.R. 1 establishes a new grant program at DHS to improve communications among public safety organizations during emergencies. But true interoperability requires more than just spectrum and technology. Stepped-up coordination and planning among public safety personnel, accompanied by greater funding, are critical.

Congress directed the Department of Commerce to use its spectrum and communications expertise to administer a $1 billion interoperable communications grant program, which is currently underway. Recognizing the value of such a grant program, this legislation now seeks to emulate this approach within DHS. I hope that doing so will properly focus DHS on ways to achieve widespread communications interoperability.

In addition, given the Government Accountability Office's cyber security concerns, I fully expect nothing in this bill will distract DHS or other Federal agencies from properly preparing for and reacting to cyber threats.

Additionally, my home State of Michigan has one of the busiest--and most peaceful--border crossings in the world. Businesses on both sides of the border are dependent on smooth and regular transit between the U.S. and Canada. We need to consider the costs to the economy of northern border States as we strike a balance between open borders and security.

In the weeks following 9/11, the delays at the Ambassador Bridge-- Detroit's only crossing with Canada--cost Michigan billions and forced factories to suspend production. Hopefully this legislation can speed the technological enhancements and personnel expansion we desperately need.

I also appreciate the independence this legislation provides to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, whose membership will be confirmed by the Senate. This should go a long way toward ensuring that civil liberties of Americans are truly protected. Without independence, opportunities for chicanery will persist.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon this important first step. As this legislation moves into conference, members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with extensive expertise on these matters including issues as diverse as nuclear energy, the reliability of our communications systems, and the safety of our food supply and drinking water, will enhance these policies for the betterment of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend for his kindness and for his yielding me this time. I express to him my gratitude not only for his managing this time, but for bringing this bill to the floor. You have done a good thing, and I say to you, sir, my thanks.

I also want to congratulate my dear friend from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his part in bringing this matter before us.

We honor here a great American, a real patriot, a distinguished President, a man who served with distinction in the House, where he had no enemies and legions of friends. He was an honorable and decent man. He was a friendly man. He was uncomplicated. He was good. He was a fine family man, and he was a man with whom any Member of this House on either side of the aisle could work with affection and with respect. We will miss him. He was a great American, and he was a man who left a great tradition as a Member of this body and as a member of the Appropriations Committee where he served with distinction.

A curious event associated with him is that he always wanted to be Speaker, but never made the grade. By a curious set of circumstances, he was the only man who probably could have been confirmed as Vice President under the constitutional amendment. And by an even more curious circumstance, he was never elected either Vice President or President, and yet he served in both offices with real distinction.

I will be praying for the repose of his soul. My wife, Deborah, and I knew Gerald Ford and admired him greatly. We extend our condolences to his wonderful wife, Betty, who was his loyal friend, supporter, counselor, and who served his country and him and all of us with distinction and who brought luster not just to her name but also to the name of her distinguished husband.

We will pray to God He be good to Jerry Ford, and I thank my colleagues for bringing this resolution. It is well deserved by a great American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to my dearly departed friend, Gerald R. Ford, the 38th President of the United States.

Gerald R. Ford rose to the Presidency at a time when the Nation was in crisis. Disillusioned by Watergate, nervous about an economy in recession, and anxious to get its soldiers out, of war, the country was yearning for a leader who could reestablish a sense of normalcy. So when Ford took over the White House after a short stint as Vice President, and a quarter century in the House of Representatives--even though we disagreed on some fundamental policy issues--I was relieved. I knew Jerry as an all-American hailing from Grand Rapids, Michigan, a fellow World War II Veteran, and above all, a man of extraordinary character. He was the right man at the right time to restore a divided Nation shaken to its Constitutional roots.

When Ford left for duty he was considered an ``isolationist''. When he came back, he was a committed internationalist. It was this change, which I think marks the type of person that my friend Gerald Ford was. Many of today's pundits will call him a ``throwback'' or a ``dying breed''. I say he simply possessed a remarkable sense of self, strong patriotism and astute common sense. He looked at the world, saw the conflicts, recognized the need for U.S. leadership, and changed his own opinion.

Too often today, men and women in public life who change their opinion are derided. Stubborn consstency in the face of rebutting evidence is now considered leadership. But this narrow definition of leadership was never the Ford model. He was a citizen legislator, a stalwart in a grand tradition that stretches back throughout democracy, from the complexities of the 21st century to the founding of Athens. He never sought leadership, it aways came to him.

During his 25 years in Congress, where we worked side-by-side in the Michigan delegation for 17 years, Ford worked hard for his party but also reached out and made many friends abross the aisle. His party elected him as minority leader in 1965, where he served as an effective leader and consensus builder until 1973, when he took over the Vice Presidency under Richard Nixon, replacing Spiro Agnew.

Not only did Ford take over the Presidency during one of the toughest times in American history, he did so as a leader whose political party differed from the congressional majority. Ford vetoed an unprecedented 66 bills during his Presidency. Nevertheless, the Congress passed some important laws with bipartisan support under the Ford Administrationl including the Community Development Block Grant, the Privacy Act, and the Federal Elections Campaign Act Amendments.

Ford and I worked particularly closely during his presidency on energy matters. Despite our differences, we were able to work together. During the Ford Administration we passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which established the Nation's first fuel economy standards. Because of his self assuredness and his uncanny ability to think for himself, policy disputes did not deter Ford from working across party lines to achieve success. Nor did partisan bickering preclude bipartisan friendships: he played golf with political adversary Tip O'Neill and became good friends with Jimmy Carter after Carter defeated him in the 1976 election.

President Ford was devoted to ensuring that America and the Presidency were in better, shape than when he found it, and above all else, this was his most important accomplishment. His honesty and patriotism should be a model for elected officials today who are often too eager to create a sound bite and too reluctant to find common ground. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my fellow colleagues join me in remembering President Gerald R. Ford, and honoring him by carrying on his legacy of bipartisanship, honesty and integrity in the years to come.

Congratulations, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 4) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. I would point out that, despite the best efforts of some in this Chamber and from various interest groups to masquerade this as a pro-choice or pro-life issue, this is not about choice. This is quite simply an issue of who is qualified to provide medical information to patients: Congress or doctors? Frankly, patients are better served with medical information coming from a qualified medical professional than from a simple Polish lawyer from Southeast Michigan like myself.

Let me be clear: this bill requires that doctors provide women seeking an abortion past the twentieth week of gestation a brochure produced by the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill very clearly requires that the brochure include text written word for word by Congress. The patient would then have to sign a document saying she received the information. That document, again, would contain specific text written by Congress. The very idea that Congress would require that specific text imparting a medical opinion be handed out to patients is ludicrous. We are in the business of writing laws, not of keeping up on the most recent articles published in medical journals. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, where does this game of Congress playing doctor end? Will we next be writing scripts or brochures advocating for one chemotherapy treatment over another for cancer patients? I think not. I believe that most of us recognize that this is well beyond our capability as lawmakers.

Mr. Speaker, let's leave the decisions about medical science to the scholars and professionals who are qualified to make them and focus on our responsibilities as Members of Congress.

I've always wondered why we don't focus more of our attention on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and strive for. Instead of imposing ourselves on private relationships between doctors and patients, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come to the table to discuss how we can further this mutual goal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. I believe this legislation offers a balanced approach to increasing our energy independence, while still ensuring the safety of our environment.

I had opposed H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006, when it was brought before the House because I believed it was the wrong way to approach Outer Continental Shelf drilling. It is my strong belief that if we are going to open Federal waters to leasing and drilling activities, than these revenues should be dedicated to go to the Federal Treasury for the betterment of our Nation. Ideally, I believe that revenues from leasing activities should be dedicated to conservation funding, as legislation like the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which I introduced with Representative Don Young a few years back would have. Unfortunately, the full scope of our legislation was never signed into law.

However, S. 3711 offers just that. Fifty percent of revenues from leasing activities will be designated to the Federal Treasury, and revenues that will be designated to the gulf producing States are authorized solely for conservation efforts. This legislation clearly states that each gulf producing State dedicate their revenues ``only for 1 or more of the following purposes: projects and activities for the purposes of coastal protection; mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resource; implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plane; mitigation of the impact of outer Continental Shelf activities through the funding of onshore infrastructure projects.'' In addition, 12.5 percent of these revenues will be dedicated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

It is clear from the high cost of oil and natural gas today that we need to explore ways to increase our supply of hydrocarbons. Since the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, began in 1981, the portion of winter heating bills that LIHEAP covers has declined to 8 percent. Benefit levels based on the 1981 value have decreased from $209 in 1983 to $132 in 2004, causing many seniors on fixed incomes and low income families to bear the burden of excessive heating bills. If S. 3711 is enacted, the Minerals Management Service estimated that the area proposed for drilling contains at least 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas enough natural gas to heat and cool every home in Michigan for the next for 16 years. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that if S. 3711 is enacted, direct spending of Outer Continental Shelf recipients would be reduced by $900 million over the 2008-2016 period.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 3711 today because it proposes a more limited approach to Outer Continental Shelf drilling plan than the House version, H.R. 4761. I am pleased that this legislation directs revenues towards conservation, ensuring that by increasing our domestic natural gas supply we are not compromising the environmental safety of our coastal lands in the Gulf of Mexico.

We can all agree that we should be looking for alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, but our immediate concern should be reducing the cost of natural gas and oil supplies for those most vulnerable in our society. I anticipate that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will look into alternative fuels and renewable energy sources during the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life of a great friend and wonderful public servant, Dearborn Mayor Michael A. Guido, who passed away December 5, 2006 after losing his battle with cancer.

Mayor Guido was elected the youngest person to ever serve on the Dearborn City Council, and then became the youngest mayor in the City's history in 1986. While Michael's 52 years on this earth were far too short, he did much of which to be proud. He exhibited great passion in a job he considered to be the greatest in the world.

To many, Dearborn is renowned for the great services offered by the City. It is to Michael's credit that these services were provided with great fiscal responsibility. It should be noted that the state of the art $43-million Ford Community & Performing Arts Center, the largest municipally owned recreation center in North America, was the crowning achievement of an impressive career.

Our Nation will also feel the loss of Mayor Guido's leadership as he was the 64th President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I am glad that mayors around the nation had the opportunity to witness the passion he had for the people he served, and the competence he exhibited in carrying out his duties. I know he was very proud to be a member, and serve as President, of this fine organization.

It is with great sadness that we say goodbye to our ``friendly Mayor.'' The prosperous years he stood at the helm of Dearborn will remain his enduring legacy, but he will also always be remembered for his sense of humor, vigor for life, passionate leadership and charismatic demeanor. Michael Guido wasn't a man who bragged about the great things he did, he just went out and did them. Dearborn will miss its Mayor and I will miss a friend and a wonderful partner. I ask that all of my colleagues join me in remembering the life of this wonderful man, and extend our condolences to his wife Kari, and sons Michael and Anthony.