Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1591, a pork-laden $124.3 billion war supplemental that would force U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq.

I strongly support benchmarks and high accountability for military and political progress in Iraq, but not in a manner that hurts our chances of accomplishing those goals. Under this legislation, U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq unless the President's benchmarks for progress are met by July. This unreasonable requirement would not give General Petraeus enough time to show if the new ``troop surge'' is effective.

In addition, this bill would force U.S. troops to withdraw by August 2008 regardless of whether the benchmarks are met. Members of Congress should not be dictating strategy to our generals in the field.

The authors of this bill are talking out of both sides of their mouths. In attempting to reach a compromise, they would fund the troop surge while dooming it to failure by not allowing enough time to see if it works. It is clear that a forthright and honest vote on withdrawing U.S. troops would fail. The Majority Party's Leadership has instead chosen to entice Members of Congress with pork-barrel spending in exchange for their vote on this bill.

The Washington Post reported: ``House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers'' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.''

This so-called ``emergency'' war supplemental includes non-defense spending such as $283 million in milk subsidies, $474 million in peanut subsidies, and $25 million in spinach subsidies.

This legislation abandons the Majority Party's supposed leadership on fiscal discipline. It is a hypocritical and blatant attempt to gain votes from Members of Congress through special interest spending. The bill includes non-military items such as an increase in the minimum wage, tax relief for small businesses, drought aid, hurricane relief, agricultural subsidies and funds for child health insurance. Each of these items should be debated under regular order in the House.

I strongly support the defense-related spending items in this legislation, including critical equipment for our troops and health care improvements for our veterans such as funding for Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I was also proud to sign the discharge petition to vote on Congressman Sam Johnson's legislation to ensure full funding of our troops.

We must demand meaningful progress in Iraq to curb sectarian violence, disarm militias, train security forces and strengthen the arm of the new Iraqi government until Iraq can govern itself. However, H.R. 1591 is clearly not the answer. Immediately withdrawing U.S. troops would be an irresponsible display of politics that would endanger future generations of Americans.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this legislation, and to demand a ``clean'' war supplemental that meets the needs of our troops without pork-barrel politics.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Married Student Debt Relief Act of 2007 to end the marriage penalty contained in the portion of the tax code allowing for the deduction of student loan interest.

Current tax law discriminates against married couples trying to pay down their educational debt while starting careers and families. Individual taxpayers are allowed to deduct up to $2,500 in student loan interest from their taxes each year. However, once a taxpayer marries, they are only allowed to deduct the same amount--$2,500--as a married couple, regardless of whether both spouses are paying back individual student loans.

Because the existing tax law limits married couples to the $2,500 deduction even when both spouses carry student debt and could have each taken a $2,500 deduction while single, I am introducing the Married Student Debt Relief Act of 2007 to correct this inequity. This legislation would double the student loan interest tax deduction to $5,000 for married couples who file a joint tax return when both spouses hold student debt, ensuring tax law treats students fairly, whether they are single or married.

The average U.S. student graduates with $19,000 in educational debt. The government should not make it more difficult for young married couples to payoff their debts as quickly as possible to increase their quality of life and begin making their dreams come true. I am joined by more than 25 bipartisan Members of Congress in introducing this legislation today. It is important to help married couples pay down their student loans as quickly as possible to support their families and futures.

This problem in the tax code was first brought to my attention by my constituent, Michael Currans of Omaha. He wrote to me about the inequity, and I drafted legislation shortly thereafter to correct it. After learning of the effort, he wrote:

First off, I'm very pleased that my simple email to

Congressman Terry has resulted in such an enthusiastic

response. This is the first time I've ever written to my

representatives in Congress, and it has definitely helped me

see the value of getting involved. I really wish that I had

written about this years ago.

Ever since we were married in 2000 and began filing our

joint tax return, my wife and I have struggled to understand

the rationale for not allowing married couples to each take

advantage of the student loan interest deduction to the same

extent as two unmarried individuals. Between us, we had over

$70,000 of student loan debt, and while we diligently make

all our payments on time, it is frustrating that the

principal balances are reduced so slowly. We often discuss

how we'd like to make additional payments to try to pay the

loans down faster, but now that we've got kids in the

picture, daycare expenses, and a house to maintain, extra

cash to put toward the student loans seems hard to come

by. We find some solace in knowing that we can at least

deduct a portion of the interest we pay.

We are not complaining. The federal student loan programs

have been good to us. We've both earned valuable

undergraduate degrees, my wife at the University of Northern

Iowa, and myself at Loras College in Dubuque, Iowa. Further,

student loans allowed us both to attend the excellent law

school at the University of Iowa where we met. Without

student loans, we would not be where we are today, so even

without the benefit of the full student loan interest

deduction, our student loans are a positive investment.

Some might ask why a two-income family with both spouses

being attorneys should have any grounds to seek additional

relief from income taxes. However, my wife is a public

defender representing juvenile delinquents in Douglas County,

Nebraska. She is most definitely using her law degree for the

public good, earning much less than she might if she chose to

pursue private practice. I'm sure for many married lawyer

couples, the student loan interest deduction is a nonissue

due to the phase-out at higher incomes, but for us, it is

still an important deduction. I'm certain the deduction is

important to the great many married couples of lesser means

paying on student loans for both spouses, especially in cases

where one spouse chooses to stay at home with children.

We've joked on occasion about how we'd have been better off

from a tax perspective if we'd just remained unmarried, lived

together, and filed separate tax returns until our student

loans were paid off. I doubt most couples would actually

choose to live that way just for the additional student loan

interest deduction. Nonetheless, why should a married couple

be treated differently than two individual taxpayers? There

is no good reason for this inequity, so I really hope this

legislation goes through.

If I can be of help, please let me know. Thanks to

Congressman Terry and his staff for taking up this issue.--

Mike Currans.

I am grateful to Mike for bringing this inequity to my

attention so we can work in this Congress to correct it. I

urge more of my constituents to bring their concerns to my

attention, and I encourage every American to communicate

their views to their Congressional Representative. Your voice

does make a difference.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope all of my colleagues will

join my efforts by cosponsoring this legislation and working

to bring it to a vote in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 to strengthen families and empower parents in providing the best possible care for their preschool children. Senator Sam Brownback is introducing similar legislation in the Senate today.

This comprehensive legislation will enact family-friendly tax policies to provide parents with more child care options. It will end the long-standing inequity in the tax code that encourages daycare above stay-at-home parenting. It will also help parents spend more time with their children by encouraging flexible employment opportunities such as home-based businesses and telecommuting jobs, while ensuring that parents who take time out of the workforce to care for their children will not be penalized under the Social Security system.

Congress should recognize and support the incredible sacrifices parents make to raise their children. I have heard from Nebraska families who struggle to make ends meet so one parent can stay at home and provide the love, care and attention that every child deserves. The high Federal tax burden, which falls most heavily on the middle-class, has unfortunately made this option extremely difficult, if not unreachable, for many families. Congress has helped this situation with common-sense measures such as the child tax credit, but more should be done.

In addition, many parents need to remain in the workforce for financial or other reasons. Flexible work opportunities such as operating a home-based business or full-time or part-time telecommuting would empower working parents to spend more quality time with their children.

Parents perform a tremendous balancing act between work and family responsibilities. It can be difficult for families to survive without a second income. While the second earner's income in a family can go toward daycare costs and work-related expenses such as dry-cleaning bills and gasoline, it can also support necessities such as grocery bills, medical expenses and savings for a child's future education. Parents should be empowered with greater options for raising a family on a limited income, whether one or both parents are in the workforce.

The legislation that I am introducing today addresses the needs of modern families while empowering parents with greater choices. Greater tax relief will make it a more realistic option for parents to stay at home with their little ones in the early formative years that are so crucial to children's physical, mental and emotional development. In addition, parents would have greater opportunities for ``split-shift'' parenting and other options to ensure their children have the best possible care and time together as a family.

It is clear that parents want these options. A comprehensive study on balancing work and family, which was conducted by four major charitable foundations, found that 70 percent of parents believe the best arrangement for the care of young children is to have one parent at home. In a parenting survey done for Warner Books, 87 percent of mothers said they would stay at home to raise their children if they could afford it. The Family and Work Institute reported that 70 percent of working parents feel they lack enough time with their children, and nearly two-thirds of all workers would reduce their work hours by an average 11 hours a week if they could.

In addition, 62 percent of parents with preschoolers want policymakers to concentrate on making it more affordable for a parent to stay at home during a child's first few years than on improving the quality and affordability of day care. In fact, 53 percent of parents preferred direct tax cuts to stay-at-home-parents, while only 1 in 3 (33 percent) would cut costs for families using day care. Members of Congress should trust in the judgment of parents, especially regarding the care of preschool children. The Parents' Tax Relief Act, which I am introducing today with more than a dozen original cosponsors, contains seven major tax improvements to empower parents and strengthen families in America:

First, this legislation extends the Dependent Care Tax Credit to parents who choose to be at home with their children. Established in 1954, this credit currently allows families to claim up to 35 percent of $3,000 in documented, non-parental child care costs, and 35 percent of $6,000 in day care expenses for two children. Families who make the financial sacrifice to have one parent stay at home for their children should also benefit from this tax credit.

Second, the Parents' Tax Relief Act will make the $1,000 child tax credit permanent and index it to inflation to retain its long-term value. This tax relief is critical for Nebraska families with dependent children.

Third, this legislation doubles the personal income tax exemption to half of its original 1948 value, from $3,300 to $5,000. From 1948 to 1963 when this exemption was equivalent to $10,000 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars, America witnessed a ``marriage boom,'' a ``baby boom,'' and a decline in the divorce rate. There is evidence suggesting these outcomes were significantly advanced by Federal tax policy to strengthen families. Doubling the personal income tax exemption provides critical support to families with children, as well as elderly or disabled dependents.

Fourth, the Parents' Tax Relief Act eliminates the marriage tax penalty once and for all. This penalty discourages the sacred institution of marriage by unfairly taxing married couples filing jointly at a higher rate than two single individuals earning the same income. The 2001 tax cut law reduced this penalty by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers, and doubling the size of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples. Unfortunately, these reforms will expire by 2010, along with the rest of the tax cuts enacted by Congress. The Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 will extend marriage tax relief to all tax brackets to prevent the government from discouraging marriage or forcing both parents into the workforce. It will also end the marriage penalty in the tax deduction for student loan interest, which currently limits married couples filing joint returns to a $2,500 deduction, even though $2,500 is the amount each spouse holding student debt could have claimed while single.

Fifth, this legislation will support parents who operate a home-based business. The bill establishes a standard home-office tax deduction to replace complicated IRS regulations that prevent many small business owners from deducting legitimate expenses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nine million of the 17.3 million small business in the United States are home-based, and 55 percent are operated by women. Many home businesses are started to provide a secondary income, which is very helpful to families with children.

Sixth, the Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 encourages telecommuting. It will create a Telecommuting Tax Credit allowing employers to deduct a portion of a telecommuting employee's wage for income tax purposes. It will also allow individuals to exclude from income the value of employer-provided computers and related equipment necessary for work from home, including critical related services such as broadband Internet connection. Telecommuting is one way mothers or fathers can stay at home with their children while still contributing to family income.

Finally, the Parents' Tax Relief Act protects the Social Security benefits of women or men who choose to stay at home with preschool children. When a parent leaves the workforce to be at home with a child, the family's finances may not only suffer, but career opportunities and future earnings potential may be diminished. Parents who stay at home to care for children during prime working years may also jeopardize their future Social Security benefits.

The Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 recognizes the realities parents face by allowing up to ten years of flexible Social Security employment credits for parents who stay at home to raise children age six and under. Public policy should safeguard stay-at-home parenting as valuable work that contributes to the character and security of our Nation.

These seven tax improvements will empower parents and strengthen families. The Federal Government must expand choices for parents with children. The Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 will address the needs of modern families, including those who want to stay at home with their children without decimating their family finances, and those who want to continue working and contributing to family income while spending more time with their children.

I urge my colleagues to support choices for families by cosponsoring the Parents' Tax Relief Act of 2007 today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res 63. Our troops have made tremendous sacrifices in waging war against Islamic extremists who not only want to deny freedom to their fellow countrymen but remain committed to attacking America and our way of life.

We have lost some of the bravest, most dedicated and committed Americans we have been honored to know, love, and mourn. They deserve the highest honor and respect from this Congress and the American people for their service. Those brave men and women still in harm's way have earned the right to come home as quickly as possible.

This does not mean, however, that we should abandon this mission and leave Iraq to certain failure by prematurely pulling out our troops, nor should we cut military funding or adopt nonbinding resolutions that embolden our enemies and undermine our troop morale.

Now, that last statement has been accused by many speakers on the Democrat side as being a red herring to chase the American public away from the attention of this addition of 20,000 troops. But I read their authored resolution. And the words are that you support and protect members of the Armed Services who are serving, are serving or have served, which means that they will not support our troops, any uniformed member that is newly sent to Iraq, whether it is for training the Iraqi troops, whether to be embedded and help them, or any capacity. So the next logical step from their own wording of this resolution is to cut funding. That is the only way to stop supporting any new military member that goes to Iraq.

So we have to ask, how will they do that? Now, I believe the Iraqi Government needs our assistance to restore security and prevent a descent into anarchy and civil war, or, worse yet, a heightened foreign insurgency that results in terrorist control of that nation.

The situation in the Middle East is a powder keg that will explode if the United States abandons it. The resolution under debate today offers no military or diplomatic solutions apart from expressing disapproval over the plan to increase troops that will help train the Iraqis to go to the front and take more responsibilities to securing Iraq.

The U.S. military personnel will be working closely with and training Iraqi soldiers. Pentagon leaders tell us that embedding these highly trained U.S. troops have been highly effective in making the Iraqi military better.

In anticipation of the American withdrawal, 23 Sunni clerics in Saudi Arabia have already expressed support for sending their Sunni fighters to Iraq as have Shiite clerics from other areas of the Middle East in anticipation of the U.S. leaving Iraq.

The Jordanian ambassador has described it well, saying that it is like the U.S. has stepped on a land mine, only that this is the other type of a land mine that will explode when you take your foot off of it. We will see an explosion if we do as this Democrat resolution sets up and stop supporting our troops and begin withdrawing them.

This Congress must not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. War should not be conducted by 535 self-proclaimed generals. Politicians should not be dictating troop levels or planning missions. Our duty is to conduct effective and responsible oversight while giving our soldiers and military commanders the resources that they need to get the job done. This resolution specifically says you will not do that.

Premature withdrawal or a forced gradual withdrawal, which this resolution seems to endorse, from Iraq, through cutting funds, may appease those who oppose the war, the base of the authors who wrote this resolution, but it surely will produce more bloodshed and sectarian violence far exceeding the level currently reported by newspapers today.

I am not willing to gamble with those lives of future Americans of our generations to come. This resolution runs away from the best option we have been presented to provide security in Iraq. I am open to alternatives, better plans, including those from our colleagues on the other side. It is just that we are not able to engage in that discussion today.

I will vote ``no'' on this resolution, and hope that the majority of my colleagues will join me.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the House are authorized under rule XX of the House rules?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Are we allowed to ask parliamentary inquiries in the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that the organization of the standing committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted statutory laws?

I understand. Then, Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct that the organization of the standing committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted statutory laws?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as a representative of a farm State, one of the leading ethanol producers in the United States and proud to be part of this new movement of using renewable fuels to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and I think it is important that we broaden our portfolio of fuels so that we can meet our ultimate goals of energy independence.

Now, there has always been, particularly with two States, California and New York, a traditional, and I have to admit I do not understand the depth or the reason behind those States' bias toward biofuels, but I find it odd as we stand here today trying to promote biofuels to lessen our dependence that we now have a secondary amendment that puts some restrictions on the use of biofuels that will actually slow the promotion of biofuels. I think it is odd the contradictory nature of let us have a biofuels bill, but then let us put in amendments that will eventually slow it.

Make no bones about this, this secondary amendment is an attempt to slow down the process of rolling out biofuels. It is a poison pill to a reasonable approach to the issue, the base bill from Burgess and Ferguson.

If you represent a State that is a major player or a player in biofuels production, you will want to vote against this poison pill amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

So as I understand this secondary amendment on the infrastructure, would it also apply, then, to tanker trucks that would haul the biofuel to determine if there are any emissions from the evaporation? That is what I understand.

My fear is that because now the secondary amendment will jeopardize the ability to transport ethanol and biofuels from the Midwest because it may evaporate along the way, taking it to a refinery to be blended. That is the danger here.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from Massachusetts is really one of my heroes on the floor, and I really appreciate and respect his sense of humor.

With that, the silliness in this that I see is the silliness when about a year ago, during the height of the energy crunch, a member of the Kennedy clan, who was not a Member of Congress, flew to New York on his private jet to talk about conservation of energy and global warming. It reminds me of the silliness of those who ride in limousines to and from their dinner engagements while whining about mothers using SUVs to drive. That is the type of silliness that I see in this debate. It isn't just about having a plane for security, it is the opulence of the plane that is at discussion.

But I have got to tell you, I see something deeper in this than the type of plane, and that is comments published in the San Francisco Chronicle, made by the subcommittee chairman of Appropriations on Defense such as: ``Don't need to put pressure on them, just tell them what they need to do.'' This gentleman is the one that has been bidding for our Speaker on what type of plane.

Then when this became a story, mentioned also, I guess, with some sort of pride that was also quoted in many newspapers, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, reminding the Defense Department that it is them that will make the decisions on appropriations, leaving the insinuation that if the correct plane is not given to the Speaker, that they will cut the Defense Department.

Now, I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in our Chamber, and I would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain which part of the defense budget he intends to cut or not appropriate if she does not get this specific plane that she wants.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Announcement By The Chairman

I am sorry. I yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. My remarks are to the Chair. I am yielding to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to answer the colloquy that I put forward to him.

I see the gentleman is not moving.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry in that regard.

A question was posed by a parliamentary inquiry during the Committee of the Whole earlier asking specifically if secondary amendments could also be revoted, and the answer from the Chair was all amendments. It appears that the ruling from the Chair or the answer to the whip's parliamentary inquiry is different from an answer previously given to a similar question.

Could the Chair please clarify?

So the clarification from the earlier ruling is not all amendments, but all first-degree amendments, even though the question earlier was posed on second-degree amendments. I thank the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the House are authorized under rule X of the rules of the House?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

And is it also correct that the organization of the standing committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted statutory laws?

I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I could not hear you.

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Is it also correct that the Committee of the Whole House is provided for under rule XVIII of the standing rules of the House?

And, Madam Speaker, is it true that the Committee of the Whole is not a standing committee of the House?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

And is it correct that under rule XVIII, the Committee of the Whole House was not created by statute, but instead comes from previous rules of the House adopted in 1789, modified in 1794, and later adopted by the House in 1880?

One last parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

So under the rule adopted by the House last week giving Delegates and Commissioners voting rights, the standing committees of the House and the Committee of the Whole House have the same legal standing under the rules of the House?

Mr. Speaker, yes, we enjoy, ranking member, former chairman, Michigan Stater, having that 1997 national championship trophy prominently displayed when you walk into the athletic facilities. It is too bad that we weren't able to leave that game on the field back then, but I am sure that Nebraska would have won by 30 or 40 points.

Now, I have to defend the football team, Mr. Speaker, when challenged like that.

But I am so proud of our women's volleyball team and to be a cosponsor with Adrian Smith of this resolution. What an incredible achievement. Our volleyball team started the season ranked number one with high expectations and ended the season number one in a hard-fought duel with Stanford, the number two rated team in the Nation. And some even had the audacity to think that Stanford was a better team. But, boy, it was the match of a century, two titans battling it out. And the University of Nebraska in the fifth game prevailed for the national championship.

Not only are we proud of the University of Nebraska women's volleyball team for their play on the court but also those in attendance. My hometown of Omaha hosted the national championship tournament, and we now hold the record for attendance for a women's volleyball match in America; 17,200 fans attended each session. I think that speaks well of the sports enthusiasm in Nebraska.

I also want to acknowledge one of the players on that team, Sarah Pavan, a junior, who has become the second player in NCAA history to be named the American Volleyball Coaches Association Player of the Year and Academic All-American of the year from ESPN Magazine. That is truly a student athlete.

I urge all of my colleagues to join the Nebraska delegation today in recognizing the outstanding play of our volleyball team, the coaching and the support that this volleyball team has from its fans in Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the process used by the majority party to write and debate the bill under consideration today.

Ranking minority members were not consulted on this legislation or provided an opportunity for input. In fact, most of the majority party's own members had no input in this process. Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey instead directed his staff members to write major budget legislation behind closed doors without involving elected Members of Congress. It appears staff members of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Byrd conducted negotiations on behalf of the Senate.

As reported in CongressDaily AM today, ``most of the negotiations were conducted by staff.'' This information came from Chairman Obey, who also said that Members of Congress only became involved in the negotiations ``when matters became difficult.'' Let me repeat that: Unelected congressional staff for Chairmen Obey and Byrd conducted negotiations on 9 of 11 major spending bills that make up the annual budget of the United States Government.

Why do we have an Appropriations Committee if the committee members have no input in the appropriations process? I propose the next legislation this Congress should debate is a bill to dissolve the House Appropriations Committee. It is clearly unnecessary since major budget negotiations can be conducted by staff instead of elected Members. Apparently, the Appropriations Committee consists entirely of Chairman Obey, who can single-handedly dictate the legislative process and assign his staff to take the place of elected Members of Congress.

Handing responsibilities for major budget negotiations to congressional staff for Chairmen Obey and Byrd is an abdication of responsibility. It also sets the stage for corruption on many levels. These staff-level negotiations were unknown to the public and the majority of elected Members. I am deeply concerned that damage and corruption to our laws will occur if Members of Congress are not thoroughly involved in the creation of legislation and knowledgable about the contents of bills brought to a vote.

In addition, allowing only 1 hour of debate and no opportunity for amendments on major $463.5 billion legislation that Members had only 1 day to review is further evidence of the majority party's lack of consideration for our system of government and the responsibilities of elected Members. I also wish Congress had completed the budget process last year, but this fact does not excuse the closed process used to write H.J. Res. 20 this week.

I sincerely hope the majority party will begin including elected Members of Congress in the process of lawmaking, as the Constitution intended, and as the American people rightly expect. Our system of government of the people, for the people, and by the people depends upon our ability to work together to accomplish the business of the American people. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in calling for a return to the regular committee process and more fair and open debate of legislation with opportunities to offer amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today that we are going to take up a bill to deny a Member who has been convicted of bribery their pension.

Over a year ago, I introduced the first bill to deny a Member a pension when they have been convicted of a felony such as bribery. Two of my other Republican colleagues stood with me at that press conference and also submitted their own bills. It was actually brought up for a vote last May, and amazingly the Democratic leadership in total voted against denying pensions to Members of the House of Representatives convicted of bribery, but yet we stand here today with a new Member introducing a bill that falls substantially short.

And, by the way, I am happy that this bill is coming to the floor. I really believe it has been the unified pressure of Mark Steven Kirk, John Shadegg, and myself for the last year, including the first day of the session this year, in coming to the House floor and saying we need this bill. That is the reason that it is here today, even though we are being denied our participation in that process.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand, this suspension rule was just amended or written and changed in the last 45 minutes. It is my understanding from the votes that we took on the first day of the House that the rules were amended. A civility section was added to the rules that said that we would be provided 48 hours' notice.

It is my thought that this last-minute change violates the rules that were adopted in the House our first day in session for the 110th Congress, and I object to the bill's going forward.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the ruling from the Chair, in respect to my objection, was based on the rules that were adopted by the House, the civility section, where we were supposed to be provided 48 hours of notice of any legislation brought to the floor.

Are you stating that there is no rule saying that the majority has to supply 48 hours' notice?

I thank the gentleman.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I will help answer the gentlewoman from California; in the sense that this is a decent bill, but it could be much better if it was brought through a regular order where we were allowed to participate and offer improvements by way of amendments. But the process has been shut down to us, and that is why we are upset. We can make a decent bill better if given the chance. It was brought up on suspension with the intended purpose of forbidding us from offering any amendments to make it better.

And I just want to say that Mark Steven Kirk, John Shadegg, and myself, we have been very concerned about people who have violated the people's trust, accepted bribes, broken the law, and getting their pension. That is why all three of us joined together over a year ago and offered bills; but yet the bill that has been brought up today isn't one of the Republican bills. Is that civility? I doubt it.

Now, the interesting part is, after working with the Speaker a year ago, it was brought up for a vote, and almost all of the Democrat leadership and 173 other Members of the Democrat Party voted against the bill that they are now saying, well, geez, it is your bill that you brought up a long time ago.

But there is one area I have amendments prepared, because I thought when we were going to get here that we would go through regular order. And one of them was solicitation of a bribe, which is not part of this.

Mr. Speaker, can I enter into a colloquy with the author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Kansas? My inquiry to her would be, why did you not offer solicitation of the bribe when you authored this piece of legislation? Solicitation is not in there.

So if you want to solicit bribes, this is not a part. And there is a glaring gap here that needs to be filled, and we have not been allowed to fill it.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Just because the Chair wasn't listening to the gentleman doesn't mean he wasn't making it in a timely manner.

In all due respect, the Speaker's microphone was not on, and we could not hear your ruling.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of this bill. I am committed to reducing drug prices for seniors, but this bill does not do it. I have worked as hard as anyone in this Chamber to help seniors enroll in prescription part D.

It has been in place for a little over a year now. I think it is time that we kind of look at how effective it is in ways that we can ensure that we are getting the lowest prices for our seniors. Now, let us look at how we do this.

I want to stress one difference. We have been tagged as somehow part of a big conspiracy because of barring government from price setting.

By the way, if you look at this week and its agenda, it is the week of wage and price controls by big government. That is what this is about. It is a philosophical battle of whether you trust the private sector to use their power of bulk purchases to receive the lowest prices, or you put government at the table to quote-unquote, negotiate.

Every time I say that in quotations, I really mean that in a satirical way because government doesn't really negotiate; they price set. That is the heavy hand of big government at work today.

Frankly, even using that heavy hand of government, the CBO reports that any negotiation, in quotations, by big government for lower drug prices would be negligible, because it would at least, in its best day, equate what the market has already done.

There has been no ban on negotiations; it has just simply been who does it, private sector or government? I am a private sector guy. I trust the private sector. Part of the problem here is that the government lacks the leverage in any type of negotiations. That is why they can only use the heavy hand as the leverage in negotiations, for example, ultimately price setting. That is why I voted to ban the government from setting prices, and I will not start down that slippery slope today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4. I am committed to reducing drug prices for seniors, but this bill does not do it.

I have worked as hard as anyone on this floor on behalf of seniors in the implementation of Part D. Now that we have had the program in place for over 1 year, opportunity to evaluate the effect of the program on seniors' drug prices.

Much to the dismay of the members of the majority who have done nothing to assist seniors with this program, the program is working well. Costs are down and seniors are satisfied. Requiring the government to negotiate drug prices is not going to save the program any money, according to both CBO and CMS actuaries. CBO states that, ``H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on federal spending.'' And the claims by the majority that savings would close the so-called donut hole are simply untrue. The size of the donut hole is estimated at almost $500 billion. Even if this provision

created major savings, it wouldn't come close to closing the donut hole.

Dr. Mark McClellan, the former CMS Administrator, has said that competition among private companies and their negotiations with drug companies have lowered the estimated cost of the program over the next 10 years by nearly 20 percent and may reduce it by another 10 percent next year. The average premium, originally estimated to be $37 per month, has fallen to an average of $22 per month. I am encouraged that competition in the private sector has done what the free market does best--lower costs.

The key here is leverage. Negotiation means nothing if you don't have something to leverage. Part D private plans already have natural leverage built in. As CBO has stated, the private plans have a huge financial stake and formulary limitations which give them the ability to negotiate drug prices.

The requirement for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into pricing negotiations as contained in H.R. 4 simply cannot work. The bill prohibits a single national formulary from being established. If the government is not allowed to limit or restrict the number of drugs covered, it will have absolutely no leverage to negotiate with drug manufacturers. Such a mandate, I believe, would be extremely unattractive to our Nation's seniors. They would not have the flexibility to choose a plan that best meets their drug needs, as is the case right now.

I do not support H.R. 4 because I oppose turning a program over to the government that is working efficiently and effectively in the private sector. Congress created the Part D program to allow market forces to drive costs down and that is exactly what is happening. It would be disastrous to our seniors to make such a draconian change when the cost savings have been so great.

When the private sector can perform more efficiently and achieve better results than the Federal Government, the private sector should do so. Adoption of this bill will put us on the way to socialized healthcare, a result I don't believe any American really wants. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of lifting people out of poverty by giving them the means to succeed. I rise today to speak against the Democrat's raise in the minimum wage.

No American wants to see their fellow person live in poverty. There are ways to continue to help Americans have all the means necessary to not only survive, but to thrive. However, the Democrat's bill to raise the minimum wage is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a broken little toe. While their intentions may be good, and I believe they are, their philosophical approach is economically and socially flawed. In reality, this plan will create an economic hardship for the employers who provide millions of Americans the opportunity to participate in our economy.

Some of my colleagues would have you believe that the right thing to do is mandate unto all businesses, small, family-owned, and corporate alike, that the business cannot determine the wage worth of an employee. They would have you believe it is the job of the government to do so. I believe in a market system without an intrusive, dictating government that will likely minimize potential employment opportunities for lower skilled workers.

I and many of my fellow free-market thinking colleagues believe that the correct action to take to help these individuals is two-fold.

First, on the macro-level, we must have a strong, growing economy from which highpaying jobs are available and competition for employees. Facts show that lowering taxes is an economic motivator. In the past 5 years, Congress has passed and or extended the following tax cuts: marriage penalty relief, accelerated the increase in the child credit, accelerated the expansion of the 15 percent rate bracket for married couples, reduction in individual income tax rates, reduction of other regular tax rates, increased the alternative minimum tax exemption, reduce individual capital gains rates, and accelerated depreciation.

These tax cuts have helped grow our economy here in the U.S. to the point where we are now in a time of economic prosperity with Americans enjoying the benefits. Since August 2003, when the 2001 tax extensions were passed, the American economy has added over 7 million new jobs-- this is more than all other major industrialized nations combined--and posted job gains for 39 straight months. We have also attained an impressive 4.5 percent unemployment rate. This economy is most conducive to producing higher paying jobs.

Secondly, on the micro-level, these individuals who are making minimum wage most importantly need advancement in skills and education. I have had many conversations with a gentleman named Fernando ``Butch'' Lecuona III. Butch is the commissioner of Labor for the Nebraska Department of Labor and is the head of the Department of Labor in Nebraska. Butch also adheres to the philosophy and will be the first one to say that education is the key to lifting people from poverty.

In December of 2006, we in the House passed a tax credit for businesses who hired individuals in the Welfare to Work program, which provided a tax credit to employers when they hire individuals who have received public assistance for 18 months or who have exhausted their benefits. In addition to the Welfare to Work program I also supported the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, when employers hire individuals from eight ``target'' groups--such as families receiving public assistance, high-risk youths, ex-felons, qualified veterans, and food stamp recipients under the age of 35. This is an example of the proper roll of government to help individuals succeed.

While doing my research for this vote, I attempted to find the number of people that are the bread-winners for their families working at or below minimum wage. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Nebraska has roughly 1 million people in our workforce pool. Nearly 60 percent of our workers work for an hourly wage. In the United States, 1.5 percent of hourly workers aged 25 and above make at or below minimum wage; 1.5 percent of our hourly workers in Nebraska equals about 8,000 people. Of the total 17,000 minimum wage workers in Nebraska, more than half of those are aged 16-24. These are not typically the breadwinners of the family.

The best tool to battle poverty is a free market with an educated workforce. We have the tools in this Nation to continue to provide Americans with the opportunities for which we are known. Increasing the minimum wage does nothing to help an individual better themselves, their family, or their community.

This is why I will not be supporting the minimum wage increase and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, legislation to expand taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research and give a ``stamp of approval'' from the Federal government for scientists to destroy human embryos to harvest stem cells for medical experiments.

The pain and suffering of citizens afflicted with debilitating diseases concerns me greatly. I served for 7 years on the board of directors for the Great Plains Region of the American Diabetes Association because I am committed to finding a cure for people afflicted with this disease.

I strongly support scientific research to find cures and effective treatments to relieve human suffering. I voted to double the Federal investment in biomedical research from $13.6 billion in fiscal year 1998 to $27.1 billion in fiscal year 2003. The National Institutes of Health received $28.5 billion from Congress last year to do research on new cures for diseases.

Embryonic stem cell research is not the ``silver bullet'' for every disease. The potential benefits of this research have been blown out of proportion by eager scientists and some in the news media. The fact is that 25 years of human embryonic stem cell research have not produced even one treatment for suffering Americans.

Adult stem cell research, on the other hand, is producing real and tangible results with no ethical concerns. In fact, adult stem cells have produced treatments for 72 serious diseases and conditions in humans, and shown strong potential for permanent reversal of severe diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's.

Research has consistently shown that human embryonic stem cells grow tumors once implanted in an animal, became uncontrollable, or form various and wrong types of tissues. Some studies have shown moderate improvement in rats with spinal cord injuries, but some of those rats were not kept alive long enough to see if tumors formed. Many scientists argue this is a new medical field and limitations such as cancerous tendencies can be overcome through additional Federal funding and more time in the lab.

These arguments callously gloss over the fact that embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of human embryos--and 48 percent of Americans surveyed last year opposed this type of research after being informed of that fact. We have a responsibility as public officials to direct limited Federal dollars toward the most promising and ethical research possible.

The strongest potential for cures at this time is not in embryonic stem cells, but in ethical research using adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood stem cells, and most recently, amniotic fluid stem cells, all of which uphold and support human life. These ethical approaches show promise that rivals the potential of embryonic stem cells without forcing many American taxpayers to fund research that threatens the dignity of human life.

Amid all the scientific jargon in today's debate, let us not forget the fact that each one of us started life as a human embryo. There is no way around that basic fact, no matter how many scientific terms are used to conceal or confuse it. Embryos are the tiniest of human lives, but they are nevertheless human lives, and we must defend the defenseless.

If embryos are not fundamentally human lives, how can you explain the fact that frozen embryos from in vitro fertility clinics grow into children once they are implanted in a woman's womb? Does an embryo somehow become less of a human being if we choose to donate it to a scientist to be experimented upon and ultimately destroyed? Those same human embryonic stem cells lying in a cold Petri dish will undeniably grow into a human child if given a chance at life. We must not allow scientific terminology to desensitize us to the miracle and sanctity of human life.

Here are some published examples of the differences between embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research:

Numerous attempts over the last 5 years to use human embryonic stem cells to cure diabetes repeatedly produced tumors or failed to generate insulin to reverse the disease. In the most successful experiment, human embryonic stem cells produced only one-fiftieth the amount of insulin needed to sustain life, and the mice died.

For Parkinson's disease, researchers found that human embryonic stem cells grew uncontrollably in 100 percent of rats with the condition. All the animals showed indications of early tumor formation. These findings were duplicated by scientists in Sweden and Japan.

Adult stem cells, on the other hand, have treated multiple types of cancers, including breast cancer and Leukemia, as well as autoimmune diseases, heart defects, heart disease, osteoporosis and spinal cord injuries, and demonstrated excellent potential to treat diabetes and to reverse Parkinson's.

In 2003, researchers used adult stem cells to help regenerate pancreatic islet cells that produce insulin, permanently reversing diabetes in mice. The lead researcher stated that: ``Patients with fully established diabetes possibly could have their diabetes reversed.'' The FDA has approved a human clinical trial for diabetes based on this successful research. In 2005, a mother donated live stem cells for her diabetic daughter, alleviating the diabetic symptoms. Human umbilical cord blood stem cells can also generate insulin to reverse diabetes.

Just last year, scientists used adult umbilical cord stem cells to treat rats with Parkinson's, and found significant recovery in motion and behavior. In 2002, a Parkinson's patient testified that his symptoms were 80 percent reversed after being treated with his own adult neural stem cells. British researchers in 2003 injected a natural protein into the brains of five Parkinson's patients and found that it stimulated existing adult neural stem cell growth, yielding a 61 percent improvement in motor function. University of Kentucky researchers treated 10 Parkinson's patients with similar results.

And just this week, researchers at Harvard University and Wake Forest University reported a breakthrough discovery that stem cells found in amniotic fluid show incredible promise for cures without concerns for tumor growth or immune system rejection.

Amniotic stem cells can be safely and easily extracted from pregnant women, and are ``pluripotent'' like human embryonic stem cells, meaning they have the ability to transform into each of the three major types of tissue found in the body. The researchers stated: ``We conclude that amniotic fluid stem cells are pluripotent stem cells capable of giving rise to multiple lineages including representatives of all three embryonic germ layers.''

Using amniotic stem cells, the research team created nerve cells, liver cells, endothelial cells that line blood vessels, and cells involved in the creation of bone, muscle and fat. In fact, the nerve cells successfully generated a neurotransmitter crucial to forming dopamine, which is lacking in Parkinson's patients. In testing on mice, amniotic stem cells were shown to re-grow and repair damaged areas of the brain.

The incredible promise of such ethical stem cell research is worthy of taxpayer funding. It holds real promise and real hope for citizens needing cures and tangible relief from pain and disease.

This debate today is not about whether we should fund stem cell research with tax dollars. The National Institutes of Health spends about $600 million every year on stem cell research, and almost $40 million of those funds are unfortunately being spent on research involving human embryonic stem cells.

The real debate today is about whether scientists will be able to create more embryonic stem cell lines by destroying more embryos. The next thing these scientists will be asking for is the ability to clone embryos because they cannot get enough stem cells from frozen human embryos at in vitro fertility clinics. This is no ``slippery slope,'' it is the ethical equivalent of jumping off a cliff.

As public officeholders sworn to uphold the United States Constitution, we will have failed in our duty if we fail today to protect the right to life of the youngest homo sapiens--human embryos. We cannot fail in defending the defenseless, and we must keep faith with American taxpayers by funding the most ethical research to relief the suffering of ailing Americans.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting against this unethical bill that would exploit human life while preying on the emotions of suffering American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late President Gerald R. Ford, who was born in my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska. President Ford will forever be remembered for his great service to the people of the United States of America. He served the people at a complicated and divisive time in our history with honor and distinction. By helping our Nation heal from the political turmoil of Watergate, he helped move us forward.

President Ford was a man of selfless actions based in modest, Midwestern values. As a public servant, I am proud of his efforts; as a Nebraskan, I am proud of our President.

President Ford was a man who gave up a National Football League career in order to study law and ultimately serve the people in the highest office of public service. His love for our Nation and our American freedoms will live on through our work in Congress and his immortal words, spoken during his 1977 State of the Union Address when he said ``The Constitution is the bedrock of all our freedoms. Guard and cherish it, keep honor and order in your own house, and the republic will endure.''

He was a scholar, an athlete, an honorable President, and an even more honorable American. Our nation will truly miss his leadership, honestly and integrity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a looming judicial crisis in my state of Nebraska. Today, with my Nebraska colleagues Congressman Jeff Fortenberry and Congressman Adrian Smith, I am introducing legislation to create an additional federal judgeship for the United States District Court, District of Nebraska.

Nebraska has three permanent judgeships and three senior judges. An additional temporary judgeship was created in 1990 and lapsed in May 2004 when a judge took senior status, despite recommendations by the Judicial Conference of the United States to convert the temporary status to a permanent position. After the lapse, the Judicial Conference has continued to recommend an additional permanent judgeship. To further burden the district, two of the court's three senior judges are in their early eighties and do not take full caseloads. The third senior judge also cannot handle a full caseload due to health reasons, and as a result, the senior judges provided the equivalent of less than one active judge in 2005.

Our delegation has introduced this important legislation on the very first day of the 110th Congress because the need for immediate Congressional action has never been greater. Nebraska's federal district courts handle a heavy caseload, not unlike many federal district courts nationwide. However, the number of Nebraska federal district court judges' criminal felony filings ranks them 5th nationwide and is more than twice the national average. Furthermore, the Nebraska judges have increased their overall number of completed trials by 41 percent since 2001 and now rank 2nd nationwide on a per- judgeship basis.

Weighted filings currently total 590 per judgeship, the 7th highest total in the Nation. Based on the current total of three authorized judgeships, the court's weighted filings are well above the standards of 500 per judgeship for small courts.

These numbers mean nothing unless they are put into a real life context. Nebraska is a rural state and the judges must travel long distances in order to try cases. For example, judges in Omaha must travel almost 600 miles four times per year to conduct two-week jury sessions. Additionally, magistrates are sent out one month prior to the judge's arrival to conduct pretrial conferences on all cases pending trial. All this travel takes its toll on these judges and forces them at times to use the services of judges from other districts.

The strain on assistance from senior judges, the high number of felony criminal cases and the heavy weighted caseload demonstrate clearly that the district of Nebraska requires four permanent judgeships. I call on all of my colleagues to recognize the pressing need for immediate Congressional action to create an additional federal judgeship in Nebraska.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Calling for 2-1-1 Act of 2007. I am proud to lend my support as an original cosponsor of this bill, which was introduced today by my colleague, Ms. Eshoo of California. I would also like to note a concern I have with the bill as introduced, which I hope will be resolved prior to a vote in the full House of Representatives.

2-1-1 is the number designated by the Federal Communications Commission to provide citizens with information and referral about important community services and volunteer opportunities. United Way and its affiliates operate more than 200 call centers in 41 states nationwide, including my home state of Nebraska. About two-thirds of American citizens currently have access to 2-1-1 referrals. The Calling for 2-1-1 Act will help achieve nationwide coverage for all citizens.

More than 50 percent of the calls made to 2-1-1 call centers are placed to meet basic needs such as food, heat, clothing and shelter for citizens facing difficulty. 2-1-1 helps to keep citizens off long-term government financial aid such as welfare and food stamps by meeting immediate needs before they become crises. 2-1-1 also enhances homeland security by serving as an emergency backup to 9-1-1 during natural disasters and other crises.

In my Congressional District alone, almost 40,000 Nebraskans sought information through 2-1-1 between November 2005 and October 2006. The top needs were for assistance with utilities, rent, food, housing, health and dental care, furniture and tax preparation. Thousands of Nebraskans were able to obtain assistance from federal and non-profit community service agencies because of the existence of 2-1-1.

2-1-1 was crucial during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. When 9- 1-1 emergency lines were inoperational, 2-1-1 stepped up to link citizens in dire need with critical services, including emergency medical care, food and housing, and crisis recovery and relocation services nationwide. Volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross also benefit from people who call 2-1-1 seeking opportunities to give back to their communities. 2-1-1 meets critical needs and merits federal aid, provided that additional protections are put in place before this legislation is brought to a vote.

It was my privilege to work last year with Ms. Eshoo and Mrs. Clinton in the Senate, as well as Mr. Pickering and Mr. Bilirakis in the House of Representatives, to address important concerns for ``socially sensitive'' referrals before bringing the Calling for 2-1-1 Act to a vote. As Members of Congress with deep convictions for the protection of human life, we drafted language to refer callers seeking pregnancy- related services to public health departments.

This reasonable compromise was designed to ensure the 2-1-1 legislation does not become a vehicle for taxpayer funding of controversial referrals such as abortion. Unfortunately, this important language, which had been agreed upon by all parties, was not included in the legislation introduced today. I look forward to working with my Ms. Eshoo and my other colleagues to correct this situation.

If my concerns are not addressed, I would be forced to vote against and actively fight against the legislation I have cosponsored and worked to enact into law, despite my strong support for increasing access to 2-1-1 for more American citizens. The fact that I have again cosponsored this legislation despite my concern is testament to the good working relationship I have enjoyed with Ms. Eshoo and Ms. Clinton, and which I trust will continue during this new Congress.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to help this legislation become law while ensuring it protects and upholds the sanctity of human life.