Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for yielding me the time for this important proposed rule for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Unlike my colleague, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I would like to quote a colleague whose opinions on these matters I respect to explain why.

On September 15, 2005, my Democrat Rules Committee colleague from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings, correctly stated that the modified open rule under which the Coast Guard was last reauthorized was insufficient in living up to how this House should be run.

While that Republican rule permitted Members who preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record to offer those amendments, he noted his disappointment ``that the preprinting of amendments was even required. Despite the majority's claim, this legislative process which they call open is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.''

Mr. Speaker, as imperfect and insufficient as that rule may have been to Mr. Hastings in 2005 and his minority Democrat colleagues, today's rule pales and fails in comparison--despite the often-repeated Democrat promises to run the most open, honest and ethical House in history.

This rule, which is even more restrictive, makes in order a majority of Democrat amendments and strips every Member with a new, good and germane idea of how to improve this legislation of the ability to come to the floor and even to offer it.

While the Democrats on the Rules Committee may have been following the wishes of their committee chairman by reporting out this rule, they have once again directly contradicted their campaign promises of their own leadership to run an open House of Representatives, instead choosing to become the most closed Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, while this rule and this standard of recurring policy of closing down the legislative process is bad for the House, the effect of this legislation is even worse for American consumers. It continues the same flawed ``no-energy energy policy'' that Democrats have followed blindly for the last 17 months.

A provision included in this legislation would essentially shut down the development of new LNG plants which seem counterintuitive given today's energy crisis. Natural gas is one of the most clean-burning fossil fuels, and passing this provision would only further reduce our energy supply while moving us further from energy independence for which Republicans have consistently advocated.

Time and time again this Democrat leadership has consistently promised to deliver a ``commonsense'' energy plan to reduce the cost of gasoline. However, since my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken control of Congress, the average price of a gallon of gasoline has risen more than a dollar, from $2.33 in January 2007 to just over $3.51 this week.

I have supported a number of this Congress's bipartisan efforts to reduce demand--like legislation to increase CAFE standards. But Americans literally cannot afford for Congress to continue to ignore the supply-side issues and problems associated with this overall issue. Specifically, that this Democrat majority continues to pursue a national energy policy that does absolutely nothing to increase our ability to produce more energy. Without a supply-side response, prices will continue to rise.

It is a fact that enough oil exists in deep waters off America's coasts and in our Federal lands to power 60 million cars for 60 years. Yet these domestic resources remain off-limits to exploration because of the Democrat policies that pervade this House.

In 1995, the Clinton administration vetoed the bill that would have allowed environmentally sound domestic exploration in Alaska. During this debate, opponents of the legislation argued that the benefits would be at least 10 years away and would not be worth it. Well, it is now more than 10 years later and the cost of crude oil has gone from just under $20 a barrel to nearly $120 a barrel and we are no closer to energy independence than we were 13 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I hope for the sake of American consumers, and for the sake of their paychecks, that it does not take this Democrat majority another 10 years to realize that now is the time that we should focus on ways to utilize our own energy resources. It is called energy independence.

For prices to fall, Congress should be considering legislation that increases supply and reduces demand, not legislation like today's, that simply reduces the supply of one of the planet's cleanest fossil fuels.

These are basic commonsense economic principles that should be part of a commonsense plan. I encourage all of my colleagues to recognize that now is the time to stop ignoring our untapped domestic supply. I oppose this rule.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman. I believe that what the gentleman from California is saying is this: Is that we need supply- side answers to a problem when America needs the energy the most right now. And supply-side answers is what we would get if we defeat this rule.

We reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from North Carolina, the gentleman, Mr. Coble.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman made his point: Since the Democrat Party has taken over, prices at the pump have skyrocketed.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from New York does not have any additional speakers at this time. We have no further speakers on our side.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, almost 2 years ago to the day, now Speaker Pelosi released a statement, which I quote, ``Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when President Bush first came into office.''

Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, and I quote again, that ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Mr. Speaker, the Pelosi petroleum price increase continues to rise, with the average price over $3.50, hitting consumers at the pump every time they fill up their car.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high prices and demand to see the secret plan that Speaker Pelosi has to reduce gas prices that Democrats have been hiding from the American people since taking control of Congress 17 months ago. I for one would love to see it, but I am afraid that, much like their promises to run the most honest, open and ethical Congress in history, it simply does not exist.

I submit for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate T.C. Marsh Middle School's Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and Corporal David Bates on their winning the title of National Champions for the second consecutive year.

Led by teacher David Bates, the students competed against units from all over the country on March 29, 2008 at Forrester Field in Dallas, Texas. These students' hard work and dedication was evident in the skill and precision they demonstrated in order to capture the national championship. Under Bates leadership and guidance, the members of the JROTC have developed a strong sense of teamwork and their coordination shows in their drills.

Members of the JROTC include Hayden Adair, Abigail Aguilar, Rocio Aguilera, Maridenia Ambrocio, Yomira Cardenas, Adrian Casados, Madeline Cedilla, Victor Celestino, Manuel Cervantez, Austin Christensen, Truy Duelm, Karen Fonseca, Juliana Garcia, Luis Garcia, Yessica Garcia, Domini Gomez, Juan Guevara, Christopher Hernandez, Jennifer Hernandez, James Herrada, Haley Hubler, Karen Irigoyen, Yoni Luviano, Miles Mcnutt, Marvin Melendez, Lilian Moz, Mayra Moz, Arely Oaxaca, Jesus Otero, Artura Perez, David Perez, Randy Portillo, Antonio Ramirez, Andres Reyes, Jose Reyes, Ruben Rios, Ulysses Rodriguez, Andrew Royalty, Evelyn Sanchez, Brenda Segovia, Ashley Valle, Jose Vallejo, Colin Wagner, and Austin Wortham.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing the well deserved victory of the members of the JROTC and David Bates.

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

I would like to start by thanking my colleague Congresswoman Baldwin for introducing this legislation along with 100-plus additional Members who have signed on as cosponsors to this important resolution. I would also like to praise the extensive grassroots effort made by numerous eye disease and prevention groups to ensure that this bill passes today in the House of Representatives.

It is an honor for me to speak in favor of this legislation today. This bill recognizes March 6, 2008, as the first-ever World Glaucoma Day. This day was established to increase awareness of glaucoma, which is the second leading cause of preventable blindness in the United States and worldwide. I can speak from personal experience regarding the importance of eye health and getting the appropriate screenings throughout a person's lifetime.

Glaucoma is a group of eye diseases that cause progressive damage of the optic nerve at the point where it leaves the eye to carry visual information to the brain. This disease robs individuals of both peripheral and central vision. If left untreated, many types of glaucoma progress towards gradually worsening visual damage and could and may lead to blindness. Once incurred, visual damage is irreversible.

It is estimated that glaucoma affects 2.2 million Americans and 67 million people worldwide, that 4.5 million people globally are blind due to glaucoma, and that number will rise to 11.2 million by 2020.

There are several types of glaucoma. Some may occur as a complication of other visual disorders, but the vast majority occurs without any known cause. Glaucoma affects all age groups, including infants and children. In most cases, however, glaucoma appears later in life, and its frequency increases with age.

There is no cure for glaucoma yet, and vision loss is irreversible. Therefore, early detection is essential to limiting visual impairment and preventing the progression towards severe visual handicap or blindness. With early diagnosis and treatment, 90 percent of cases where blindness occurs can be avoided.

My colleague from New York just said this important fact: This is a preventable disease. Individuals with numerous factors and those over the age of 40 should have a regular comprehensive eye exam. World Glaucoma Day is one of the many efforts to increase awareness of the importance of eye health. There are several ways to detect and treat glaucoma to save sight, and it is essential that the message reaches every single person.

I'm honored to support this legislation and to work for its passage. But today, Mr. Speaker, we have a message that is there for all Americans and the world to hear, and that is glaucoma is preventable. Awareness is something we should all have and be mindful that we can work towards a cure in the very near future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too join my colleague from New York in talking about not only the importance of what we are doing here today, but also to thank the many groups from around the country that have taken time to touch base with their Member of Congress about the importance of not only treatments of glaucoma, but the awareness of glaucoma.

Today, we are on the floor for the first ever opportunity to say we are going to highlight this important effort and battle that we are doing, and we are going to make progress on that. It really comes about through awareness, where people who perhaps are hearing about glaucoma for the first time and understanding about the pressure that is put on the eye that can cause this blindness, but is preventable. I hope that the time that we spend today will find itself in messages to thousands of people who recognize that their time to come to Washington, DC to tell their story about this, really did matter, and paid off.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to notify the gentleman that I do not have any additional speakers, and I will find out if he does. But I would encourage him to run through his speakers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, for taking the time to come in a little bit early today to work on behalf of the gentlewoman, Congresswoman Baldwin, on this important effort. She and I joined together on this effort. We joined together and had the support from some 100 other Members of Congress, who have heard the message, who believe that it is important that we have this resolution on the floor today. We are proud that we have done this. It is a meaningful effort that this entire House of Representatives do this. I will be very proud of what the House does today to pass the bill.

I thank the Speaker for allowing this bill to come to the floor today.

With that, I yield back my time.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida, my good friend on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, today we walk in to the floor to hear question after question after question. And I admire the gentlewoman from Florida for asking these questions that she asks and posing the issues, the issues of our time, energy policy, tax policy, men and women who are hardworking Americans trying to pay their bills. And yet I would say the conclusion that came out, which I agree with, ``And this is why, thank goodness, we have a Democrat majority,'' the Democrat majority has now been in power for some 17 months, and yet we find the Democrat majority is simply coming to the floor asking questions, ``Oh, my gosh, what's happening?'' And the answer that I heard over and over was, we've got to make sure ``we,'' meaning the government, provide these low-cost loans. We've got to make sure that the government has all these things available for people.

The government should not be the answer to the problem. The answer should be that this Democrat majority needs to understand that they've got to accept responsibility that gas prices have gone up 60 percent since they have taken over, that it is their agenda that this country now operates under; that we have seen and we understood now through not just two budgets, but through the policy that is being enunciated all around this country on behalf of the Democrat Party of raising taxes and making sure that we have an economic policy that is not based upon trying to grow more jobs, but rather, about fairness.

We have seen the tax policy from this new Democrat majority of 17 months, raising taxes, going to double the capital gains tax. Well, Madam Speaker, what I would say to you is, no wonder we're in economic problems. Seventeen months ago, the people who planned for jobs in this country--that are called employers--have understood that they're going to pay higher taxes. We already have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, but now we're going to tax investors.

So the tax policy is very plain and simple. The tax policy is that we are going to bleed, soak investors for more money so that the government can get the money so that we can then do more from the government perspective. Well, Madam Speaker, I would have to say to you, this could be the death of the free enterprise system. When you tax people, they make decisions. And when you tax something, you get less of it. In this case, we are now seeing economic downturn. We are now seeing dollars that are investment dollars, rather than coming to the United States, they're going overseas. The tax policy does have an impact on the economic viability of this country.

Secondly, the energy policy. We have seen the answer from the Speaker. Speaker Pelosi put forth an energy bill that was really pretty good, but it had nothing to do with supply side. The supply of energy, of gasoline is what America needs today. And so we passed this big energy bill, and we see prices continuing to rise. We're told we're supposed to make this transition to this green environment, and all the jobs that will come as a result of that. But, in fact, what will happen is we will lose the jobs that we have today and wait for that to come.

Madam Speaker, we're almost to the point where a majority of the gasoline is no longer oil, it's gasoline, because the jobs that produce the oil to gasoline are overseas because we don't want those jobs in this country. Dubai is being built and has flourished as a result of Democratic Party policies. The money from American consumers are building Dubai. Since 1995, the Republican Party, in trying to work with President Clinton, we said, let us supply more energy here. What do we do? We get a veto.

So, Madam Speaker, today we come to the floor now worried about college students and families trying to pay for college expenses, and what we get is question after question after question. This majority is not prepared, in my opinion, to deal with the things that will produce jobs, which will produce the ability for people to have money in their pocket to pay for their education. And that comes from the policies of tax and spend of the Democratic Party, where they are not in favor of a tax policy for investors to invest in America, but rather, for investors to pay an incredible increase in taxes to Uncle Sam. So what happens is that America no longer can look up and say we are the beacon of freedom, we are producing jobs.

The production of new jobs means that the free enterprise system is alive and well, which means that we don't have to come to government for our needs. It is the policy of the Democratic Party and of our Speaker to tax and spend America to the highest level in the history of our country and it is the policy of this House not to have supply side for our energy. And without a supply side, without a tax policy that allows investment dollars to be here, we will continue to see this Democrat majority come and ask questions and lament about all the problems that lie ahead of us, and we will continue to hear ``and government is the answer.''

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that the answer would be: The free enterprise system, lowering taxes, a supply side policy that helps get more energy available to consumers, and one where government is the backstop and not the first answer.

I will end by saying this: Without employers, we will not have employees, and that should be a challenge to the Democrat majority.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for the time that he is yielding me to discuss H.R. 2634, the Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Collection Cancellation Act of 2007. This legislation follows on the heels of legislation passed just 2 weeks ago providing aid to mostly African and Caribbean countries to fight AIDS and promote development programs in underdeveloped countries, including programs to improve food, water, the treatment of other infectious diseases, poverty alleviation programs, microcredit, schools and teachers, legal aid, agricultural assistance and biomedical research.

Today's legislation would follow up on this enormous prior financial commitment by further reducing or eliminating the debt obligations of the world's poorest nations. It attempts to accomplish this goal by creating a framework to having the debts of low-income countries owed to the United States and to international financial institutions eliminated.

To do this, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate the full cancellation of these countries' debts with the Paris Club, the IMF, and the World Bank, and to reach agreements on future creditor transparency and responsible lending.

It improves oversight by ensuring that countries receiving this debt relief have economies that are capable of redirecting their debt services payments, and requires a GAO audit of countries where illegal loans may have been made. Finally, it includes a sense of Congress that the U.S. should pay off $600 million worth of arrears to multilateral development banks.

Madam Speaker, no one in this body disputes the worthiness of this goal that is enshrined within this legislation. The reduction of global poverty and suffering around the world is a laudable goal, and it is certainly in our national interests to combat conditions that may breed the hopelessness and poverty that allows dictators and terrorists to thrive.

So it is doubtlessly important that the most heavily indebted poor countries be relieved of these kinds of crushing debt that prevents their future development, self-sufficiency and the improvement of their citizens' lives.

This policy should be implemented, along with other policies that increase public sector investment and decrease the barriers to trade with these countries, as well as ensuring that the countries eligible for this relief do not encourage terrorist activities or abuse human rights.

I am surprised, however, that Speaker Pelosi didn't see the irony in scheduling this step forward for developing nations on the first legislative week after handing them a serious defeat by turning off the fast track authority for the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In other words, here we're trying to help poor countries and now the decision is made that we won't engage in trade with them that would help their countries also grow economically free.

While giving the most heavily indebted countries relief from crushing and unserviceable debt is necessary to increase their future development, it is simply not sufficient. The economies of these countries must be more integrated with the rest of the globe to provide their citizens with real choices and development alternatives for their future, and increased trade with America is a great way of accomplishing this.

So while I appreciate the Financial Services Committee's efforts on the issue of improving conditions for the world's poorest countries, I remind my colleagues that development does not occur in a vacuum, and that by postponing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have effectively told all of these countries, people who should be our friends and we should be concerned about more than just their debt, but about their economic viability, we've said that Congress is less concerned about promoting trade with them and growing their economies than it is with complying with the demands of labor union bosses in an election year.

I encourage the Democrat leadership to take a long-term and more holistic view of global poverty, recognizing that these cycles of abject poverty cannot be broken without creating the conditions that encourage private sector investment, such as respect for contracts and rule of law and that it also encourages international trade.

Madam Speaker, I believe that a broader policy of understanding poverty and the United States' role in helping to make our world better would include trade and would include encouraging the private markets around the world.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my friend of any remaining speakers that he has.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, I would like to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy from the White House on this bill.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2634--Jubilee Act for

Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008

(Rep. Waters (D) CA and 104 cosponsors.)

The Administration has provided strong international

leadership on debt relief for the world's most heavily-

indebted poor countries. Ongoing debt relief initiatives,

including the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)

Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative

(MDRI), are expected to provide over $100 billion in debt

reduction to 32 countries and another eight countries could

eventually qualify under these initiatives. To ensure that

gains from debt relief are available for the long term, the

Administration led efforts in the multilateral development

banks to use a debt sustainability framework to determine the

appropriate mix of grants and lending. While the

Administration believes the goals of this bill are laudable,

the Administration does not support H.R 2634 for the reasons

stated below.

The countries to be covered by the bill are managing their

debt, and some of the countries that would be covered by this

bill are now actively working towards expanded access to

international capital markets. Providing debt relief to

countries that can service their debt sends the wrong

message, and undermines efforts to assist countries in

developing sound debt management practices that will allow

them to transition gradually toward access to private capital

markets.

Any debt relief should be conditioned on the adoption of

policies that promote sound economic practices. Policy

conditionality is important and often necessary to ensure

that debt relief is used in a manner that will promote

economic growth and provide real benefits to the poor.

The budget impact of such a program would be significant,

and would require trade-offs that could affect key foreign

policy priorities. The Treasury Department estimates that the

budget cost to forgive the $2.5 billion in nominal debt

(including loan guarantees) owed to the United States by

countries that do not currently qualify under the HIPC

Initiative would be approximately $1 billion. This cost

estimate assumes that all potentially eligible International

Development Association countries would qualify for debt

relief in FY 2008 and would change depending on the year that

each country qualifies. These countries also owe the World

Bank and IMF over $32 billion in nominal debt, in addition to

other bilateral and multilateral debts. While the bill calls

for international financial institutions to fund debt relief

from internal resources, the availability of such resources

is very likely to be limited, as recently demonstrated by the

requirements for donor funding of the MDRI. Any additional

debt relief from the international financial institutions is

therefore likely to require substantial additional

contributions from the U.S., in addition to the estimated $1

billion cost of the bilateral debt relief portion of the

proposal. Rather than embarking on expanded debt relief, the

United States must focus on fulfilling its current

commitments.

The Responsible Lending Framework described by the bill

could also hinder access by poor countries to private

capital. The bill calls for the creation of a binding

international legal framework for lending by all

multilateral, bilateral, and private creditors. While we

recognize the goals underlying such a framework--to encourage

sustainable lending and borrowing levels--the prospects for

such an agreement are doubtful. Given the wide range of

international creditors, creation of such a framework would

be very difficult and enforcement would be nearly impossible.

Finally, the threat of sanctions

based on such a framework would likely discourage legitimate

creditors from lending to poor countries, further reducing

these countries' access to financial markets.

Finally, H.R. 2634 contains several provisions raising

constitutional concerns by purporting to limit the

President's ability to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs.

Madam Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, yesterday was Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes without incurring financial penalties. This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until next week on April 23.

In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer's calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a comprehensive bill offered by my friend from Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.

This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted by that act permanent. In other words, instead of increasing taxes, we would like to make these tax cuts permanent for economic growth and development in this country, which will encourage investment and thereby grow jobs in this country.

We have heard today several speakers from the Democrat majority question what is wrong with America today, and even blaming President Bush for the economic woes that exist. But today the Republican Party is saying if we want to do the things that President Bush wants, and I think that the American people want, let's make tax cuts permanent to ensure that we have job growth and development of companies and employers in America.

It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains, because that is how you grow jobs. The reverse is happening, which America understands right now, and that is the new Democratic majority wants to increase taxes, which causes the economy not to stimulate, but to contract, which is exactly what is happening now, which is exactly what we understand the new policies of the Democratic majority have been about for 17 months.

At some point, this Democratic majority is going to have to take responsibility for the things that happen under their watch, instead of just blaming President Bush. President Bush says let's make these tax cuts permanent. That is what has worked up to now, and we need to do it today.

We will also amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent a tax deduction for State and local sales tax. That needs to be done. We have done that each of the last 5 years. Also the tax deductions for tuition. Let me repeat that; the tax deduction for tuition. Here we are on the floor trying to do something for students, to get student loans, but yet we will not have a deduction for tuition and related expenses.

The increased expensing allowed for small businesses. Small business is the engine of our economy. That is why Republicans want to make the tax cuts permanent, so that we make sure that we allow small businesses to grow, not contract.

And the tax credit for increasing research and development. Research and development is how we are going to cure the ills and the problems of the world that we see today.

Instead, the new Democratic majority, now for 17 months, wants to increase taxes. They want to take away the deductions for tuition; they want to increase taxes on small business; they want to make investment very difficult in this country, doubling, if you listen to some of the candidates that are on the trail, doubling the capital gains rate. And certainly they won't be for increasing research and development. They want to tax that.

Finally, this opportunity today would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Committee on Ways and Means should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system.

Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress during this week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day than to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer. That is what we should be about, is good policy that encourages the opportunity to grow our economy and have new jobs.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief, so that we can grow our economy for Americans at the same time that we provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. What a wonderful opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 52nd closed rule of the 110th Congress, a new record for the United States Congress. And I oppose, also, the underlying legislation which would have been passed by this House in a bipartisan fashion without the inclusion of two partisan and controversial measures that have already drawn veto threats from President Bush's senior advisers.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert a Statement of Administrative Policy for H.R. 5719 in the Congressional Record outlining the administration's oppositions to these two provisions.

Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 5719--Taxpayer Assistance and

Simplification Act of 2008

(Rep. Rangel (D) New York and 16 cosponsors.)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5719, the so-

called ``Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of

2008.'' The bill includes provisions that would impose new

administrative burdens on the trustees of Health Savings

Accounts (HSAs). These new burdens on HSA administrators are

unnecessary for efficient tax administration, inconsistent

with the flexibility purposely afforded HSAs at their

inception, and could undermine efforts by employers,

individuals, and insurers to reduce health care costs and

improve health outcomes by empowering consumers to take

greater control of health care decision-making. If H.R. 5719

were presented to the President with these provisions, his

senior advisors would recommend he would veto the bill.

Also, the Administration strongly opposes the provisions of

the bill that would repeal the current statutory

authorization for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) private

debt collection program. As of February 2008, over 98,000

cases have been referred to contractors, representing over

$910 million in delinquent accounts. Terminating this program

would result in a loss of $578 million in revenue over the

next ten years, according to Congress' Joint Committee on

Taxation. These are tax dollars that are legally owed to the

Government and are otherwise very unlikely to be collected by

the IRS due to workload demands. As noted in previous

Statements of Administration Policy, the Administration

strongly opposes elimination of this program, which is not

consistent with the Administration's commitment to a balanced

approach toward improving taxpayer compliance and collecting

outstanding tax liabilities. If H.R. 5719 were presented to

the President with these provisions, his senior advisors

would recommend that he veto the bill.

The first partisan provision unnecessarily included by our friends, the Democrats, in this otherwise noncontroversial measure would require all HSA account holders to verify independently the qualified nature of medical expenses for all withdrawals subject to those transactions not substantiated to income taxes.

In theory, it is extremely important to make sure that health savings accounts are being used for qualified medical expenses and not for everyday use. Unfortunately, this language takes the reporting process way too far and risks discouraging health savings accounts enrollment, limiting patient choice, and further burdening our banks and financial organizations with implementing the substantial requirements.

The current system requires that nonqualified withdrawals from a health savings account are subject to individual income taxes as well as a 10 percent penalty. If the Internal Revenue Service is not enforcing these penalties, it should be, and it would make sense that Congress would take the necessary steps to ensure the appropriate audits take place. Our constituents' health and our Nation's financial institutions should not suffer from the Federal Government's inefficiency.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has said that this provision would save money, though they are unable to determine how much savings would result from the newly captured penalties and taxes that make HSAs, health savings accounts, less attractive to consumers, in turn, giving them less health care choices.

I might add that HSAs are there to provide consumers that do not have the tax advantages that corporate employees have, it gives employees health care on a pretax basis and is very important to families across this country.

But consumers are not the only ones who would suffer. Introducing a new step of independent substantiation would increase costs for banks and account administrators. Should that happen, it is very possible that they will pass on these costs to employees, and ultimately, consumers.

Over the past several weeks, Democrats have loudly complained about the charges that banks and other commercial lending institutions pass on to their customers, yet provisions allow for the possibility of increasing those costs further when it now applies to an HSA. I think Members of this body should be opposed to that.

The other controversial and partisan provisions included in this legislation would revoke the Internal Revenue Service's authority to contract out collection authority for those small accounts that in the private sector would often be referred to as ``old and cold.'' In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these unpaid taxes exist, meaning that every year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover the taxes not paid for by these people who are not paying.

This new practice, which begins as a small pilot program that grows as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in approximately $2.2 billion in the first 10 years alone. And under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every dollar to hire new collections professionals, a provision that will have a positive, compound effect by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue for the government in the future.

The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed, has been hugely

successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes. Mr. Speaker, that means that $30 million worth of taxes that the IRS chose not to collect has been brought in as a result of what these outside collectors have done. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies have filed complaints with the IRS, not one of which has been validated.

Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers who play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention the increased revenues that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other new, big spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work, supposedly to protect the dues of big government union bosses.

They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in America already contract out their services, that this is something that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it to be said that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private collectors . . . and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could learn from their best practices as it works to resolve longstanding problems with its debt collection activities.''

As well, in July of 2007, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 full agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not have otherwise received, which was about one-eighth of what it cost for these nonexisting services to be paid for.

In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will lose his or her job as a result of this highly efficient private contracting. Instead, the IRS will benefit from the opportunity to focus their talent, expertise, and resources on higher priority, more complex cases.

Last night in the most-closed-Congress-in-history Rules Committee, I offered an amendment coauthored by my friend Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas to strike this unfortunate provision, which was unsurprisingly defeated by the Democrat majority along party lines.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule and the underlying legislation that includes these two provisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm starting to get it. The IRS has a lot of work to do, and then as accounts become older because they don't get to those and they become 2, 3, 4, 5 years old but they are still debts that are owed this country, the IRS now, or at least we are led to believe this, would go collect that money when they hadn't done it their first 5 years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not true. They will not go collect these accounts. They are old. And the point is it's still a debt that is owed to the United States Government. And that's where these private collectors come in. Private collectors that collect for at least 40 out of 50 States. Private collectors that have a 100 percent rating.

Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to say is that the IRS probably does do a good job with what it does do. But when it has not handled an account, it is unwise and bad for the taxpayer not to receive that money that is due from its services and from the taxes that took place, and that's what these collectors are all about. To say that they're not as efficient an outside collector as an IRS collector is silly because these cases are ones the IRS didn't want to handle in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Arizona's letting us know about her understanding of what's happening.

What I would like to tell her is that a number of companies, including the National Association for the Self-Employed, National Association of Health Underwriters, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National Taxpayers Union, Principal Financial Group, Retail Industry Leaders Association, Financial Services Roundtable, the HSA Council, the UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, WellPoint, these people that employ people that utilize the HSA, are all saying it will have a negative impact upon the use of HSAs making it easier for individuals to get and have health care on a pretax basis.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman asking. At this time, I do not have any additional speakers other than my close.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, as every American taxpayer is acutely aware, today is Tax Day, or the final day for individuals and families to file taxes without incurring financial penalties.

This is not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined as the day on which the average American has finally earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the Federal, State and local level, which won't arrive this year until next week, April 23.

In recognition of these two important days on every taxpayer calendar, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If this previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Tim Walberg.

This legislation repeals the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and makes the tax reductions enacted by that act permanent. Let me say that again in regular English. That means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make sure that all these hardworking taxpayers that we are talking about won't have to pay an increase of taxes because the new Democrat majority wants tax increases for every single taxpayer in this country.

Today is an opportunity where we can make those tax cuts permanent to

make sure that our Tax Code encourages not only employers, but employees, and to grow our economy. It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, thereby reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, the tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax credit for increasing research activities.

In summary, I would just say this, that what it will do is to maintain in a time of uncertainty the ability for America to continue to grow jobs, which means that America can compete globally. On the other hand, if you are for tax increases, if you want to tax taxpayers more, just simply vote with the Democrat majority.

Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of a no more fitting action for Congress during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay this debt relief legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief to Americans as they provide debt relief the same day to the world's poorest countries. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of taxpayers who want to continue economic growth in America, I say let's vote to make the tax cuts permanent.

Amendment to H. Res. 1102 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the bill (H.R. 2734) to make the Economic

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and certain

other tax benefits permanent law. All points of order against

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2)

an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by

Representative Rangel of New York, which shall be considered

as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize For the Love of the Lake, a local community land and water conservation organization that is very dear to my heart.

White Rock Lake Park resulted from the need for a larger water supply for the growing population in Dallas during the late 1890s. Since it became a city park on December 13, 1929, White Rock Lake Park has always held a special place in the hearts of all Dallasites. Historically, it was known as the ``people's playground'' and is now referred to as the ``Jewel of Dallas.''

What initially began as an interest in keeping White Rock Lake Park clean and beautiful quickly evolved into a conservation organization with hundreds of dedicated and energetic volunteers. Since its founding in 1995, For the Love of the Lake has helped enhance the lake and park with various hands-on activities such as picking up litter and recyclables with their Second Saturday Shoreline Spruce-Up events and Adopt-A-Shoreline groups. Now led by President Steve Tompkins, For the Love of the Lake is reconstructing of a hike and bike trail, building a new bridge reminiscent of one built by the Civilian Conservation Corps, and expanding the Celebration Tree Grove. On April 11, 2008, Good Fulton & Farrell Architects will receive the Volunteer Group of the Year Award as the group leader of an Adopt-A-Shoreline group. In the past year, they have demonstrated their outstanding commitment in community service and financial contributions. Their first month with For the Love of the Lake was January 2007 and despite the bitter cold weather, they showed with a positive attitude and a giving heart. It is individuals like these that keep our communities strong and White Rock Lake Park beautiful. I am proud to be one of the many volunteers associated with this group.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing For the Love of the Lake for their contributions to White Rock Lake Park and the City of Dallas and in congratulating Good Fulton & Farrell on being named the Volunteer Group of the Year.

I understand that the procedure that the Chair just went through is known as Calendar Wednesday. Is it correct that any bill reported by a committee and placed on the Union or House Calendar could have been called up by the chairman as the committee name was read?

A further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

On February 12, a bipartisan majority in the Senate passed S. 2248, a responsible bill to provide long-term authority for our intelligence community to help detect and prevent acts of terrorism. For a month now, it has been sitting at the desk in the House awaiting action. Would it have been in order for the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or the chairman of the Judiciary Committee or their designee to call up S. 2248 at this time?

Further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

H.R. 5440, the House counterpart to this bipartisan Senate legislation, was introduced by Congressman Fossella on February 14. Would it be possible for Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to call up this bill under his committee's jurisdiction or for any of the 21 members of the Democrat majority who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi on January 28 asking her to move this legislation to ``ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorist attacks across the globe and to save American lives here in this country,'' for them to call up this bill?

Further point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it in order for any member of the minority to call up a long-term FISA modernization bill that would strengthen the Nation's intelligence capacities while protecting the civil liberties of Americans during the call of the committees?

I thank the gentleman for letting us know that it's up to the chairman or the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team on winning the title of UIL 4A State Champions.

In his first year coaching at Highland Park, Jess Cole led the girls to their eighth consecutive win in the UIL Texas State Championship on Saturday, February 23, 2008. Those who competed at the state meet include Allison Arnold, Megan Arnold, Hannah Ferrin, Bolton Harris, Delaney Rolfe, Katy Streepey, Katy Tye, and Alex Weber. Their continued success can be attributed to their hard work, dedication, passion for swimming and a strong sense of team spirit. In addition to claiming the title of State Champions, the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team now holds the longest state record in UIL swimming and diving, matching Class A Booker's record in girls golf as the longest in Texas high school sports since record keeping began in 1910.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team for their well-deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team on winning the title of UIL 4A State Champions.

In his first year coaching at Highland Park, Jess Cole led the girls to their eighth consecutive win in the UIL Texas State Championship on Saturday, February 23, 2008. Those who competed at the State meet include Allison Arnold, Megan Arnold, Hannah Ferrin, Bolton Harris, Delaney Rolfe, Katy Streepey, Katy Tye, and Alex Weber. Their continued success can be attributed to their hard work, dedication, passion for swimming, and a strong sense of team spirit. In addition to claiming the title of State Champions, the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team now holds the longest State record in UIL swimming and diving, matching Class A Booker's record in girls golf as the longest in Texas high school sports since recordkeeping began in 1910.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Highland Park Girls Swimming and Diving Team for their well-deserved victory and wish them all the best in future endeavors.

I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.

I am shocked and stunned that we financed overutilization and that is why we are doing this. Yet we understand that utilizing these physician hospitals, these new hospitals, saved the government money and are all about patient choice and are all about making sure that people who utilize these new hospitals don't get infections, don't get sick, don't check into a hospital to have surgery where other sick people are. It is a concept that keeps America not only the leading health care provider in the world; it is done in an efficient and cost-effective way. I am surprised that we find out it is overutilization.

Mr. Speaker, rather than taking this opportunity to bring parity to our health care delivery system, the Democrat leadership today is using this legislation as a vehicle to restrict future health care choices for Medicare patients. That is what this is about. It is to further own the opportunity for Medicare patients to be able to get the choices that they want, and the Democrat leadership is taking that away. Instead of using this opportunity to focus on mental health parity, the Democrats have decided to pay for this bill by pushing patients and limiting their options that they can receive for their own care.

Mr. Speaker, we will be real honest about this. According to HealthGrades, which is a nationwide study to look at hospitals and how efficient they are and how safe they are, three of the Nation's top 10 cardiac programs and three of the Nation's top 10 programs for joint replacement are at physician-owned hospitals. And despite the fact that these physician-owned hospitals make up only 3 percent of the Nation's hospitals, they are among the most efficient and the safest hospitals for people, our seniors, to go in and receive care. What will happen here today is an absolute mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy on this issue and I will quote from that:

``First, the bill would place new restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. This administration opposes this provision, which is unnecessary and could restrict patient choice without decreasing Medicare costs.''

That is right, it is going to be more expensive to argue about overutilization. Incredibly silly.

Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 1424--Paul Wellstone Mental

Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007

The Administration supports passage of mental health parity

legislation that does not significantly increase health

coverage costs. However, the Administration has concerns with

H.R. 1424, which would effectively mandate coverage of a

broad range of diseases and conditions and would have a

negative effect on the accessibility and affordability of

employer-provided health benefits and would undermine the

uniform administration of employee benefit plans. For

example, the bill's confusing preemption provisions could be

read to add a patchwork of remedies that vary from State to

State. Therefore the Administration strongly opposes House

passage of H.R. 1424 or any legislation that expands benefits

and remedies beyond what is included in the Senate-passed S.

558.

H.R. 1424 also includes two provisions to offset the

approximately $3 billion in on-budget costs associated with

the bill. First, the bill would place new restrictions on

physician-owned hospitals. The Administration opposes this

provision, which is unnecessary and could restrict patient

choice without decreasing Medicare costs. HHS already has

administrative policies in place to address concerns about

physician-owned hospitals, including disclosure of physician

ownership, patient safety measures, and revisions to

Medicare's payment systems to better reflect patients'

severity of illness and the resources needed to treat

patients.

Second, the bill also would increase the Medicaid drug

rebate. The Administration objects to any offset that would

legislatively mandate an increase to the rebate percentage.

As CBO has noted in its 2007 analysis of budget options, it

is unknown how this change would impact non-Medicaid

beneficiaries and other payers. The Administration is

concerned that the proposal would have an adverse impact on

private purchasers, including the uninsured, further distort

the market for prescription drugs, and discourage innovation

in the drug development process.

The Administration urges Congress to offer meaningful

protections to American workers and their families by

eliminating the disparities between mental health benefits

and medical and surgical benefits, without broadly mandating

new benefits. The Administration believes the Senate bill

strikes the necessary balance of treating mental illness with

the same urgency as physical illnesses without significantly

increasing health care costs. The Administration would also

urge the House to preserve uniformity in health plan

administration as has been done in S. 558.

Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act

The rule requires that the provisions of H.R. 493 as passed

by the House be added to the Mental Health Parity bill after

the House passes H.R. 1424. While the Administration strongly

supports passage of legislation to prevent the misuse of an

individual's personal genetic information and believes such

legislation is critical to realizing the full potential of

genomic medicine, the Administration has both substantive and

process objections to the rule. The Administration is

strongly opposed to the lack of a clear ``firewall'' between

title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

(GINA), which addresses genetic discrimination in health

benefits provided by health insurers and plans, and title 11

of GINA, which addresses genetic discrimination in

employment. The Administration is concerned that the bill

fails to ensure that health benefits disputes are properly

brought under the appropriate remedies in ERISA, the Public

Health Service Act, or the Internal Revenue Code and that it

could unintentionally permit ``forum shopping.'' The

Administration also is concerned that unless the legislation

is clarified, the bill could be construed to have the

unintended effect of prohibiting health plans and issuers

from using information about the manifested disease of a

dependent covered under an individual's plan for appropriate

and routine insurance purposes. The Administration also

believes it is important that the legislation's relationship

with other provisions of law, such as Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act, be clearly defined.

Finally, the Administration looks forward to working with

Congress to address these concerns and pass Mental Health

Parity and Genetic Nondiscrimination legislation this year.

Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of the House of Representatives we are considering the issue of mental health parity. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have clouded this important issue with extensive and over-burdensome regulations. As a supporter of mental health parity it is regrettable that I can not support the bill at hand. With over 50 million adults suffering from mental disorders it is necessary that there is access to mental health services. The Senate has passed legislation on parity that will allow access to these needed services, and I applaud and support their efforts.

As a long time supporter of the Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act, it is disappointing that this legislation was coupled in with the over regulated mental health parity bill. Congress has taken great strides over the last few years towards adequately protecting an individual's genetic information an encouraging lifesaving genetic testing. Attaching this legislation to the flawed parity bill puts those efforts to shame. Congress should take up the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act on its own and allow those, like myself, to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, my good friends on the other side of the aisle are hiding behind a cloak that I believe is unfair. They're blaming the President of the United States for protecting this country. They're blaming the President of the United States for something that he is doing to protect this country to make sure that we have the flexibility to make sure that we can listen to enemies who are trying to do us harm. The President, as well as intelligence officials, have fought for the last 3 years to make sure that we can hear those things that were intercepts on the battlefield and turn them around to protect our troops.

Make no mistake about it, my good friends the Democrats today are here on the floor of the House of Representatives saying that they don't want to be a rubber stamp for protecting this country. I want to be a person that says that every single person should understand that today the lawful use of the ability to be effective and efficient in protecting not only our troops but this country has been taken away. Yes, we can still listen, but it's got to go through another process, back through FISA, that takes a month's worth of work through a bunch of judges that help protect this country. We need to get this done. Quit hiding behind some bit of blaming George Bush.