Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today to oppose this rule. It is, after all, a closed rule. There were no hearings, no committee work, no markups, no amendments allowed, no due process.

Mr. Speaker, we have 54 new Members of Congress. That is 12 percent of this body who haven't benefited from any of this legislative work or hearings. Now, I happen to be the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee. And before the last election, I was the chairman of this subcommittee. So, luckily, I happen to know these issues cold, and I can tell you there is a lot to know.

With regard to student loans, there are Perkins loans, Plus loans, Stafford loans, direct loans, private loans, subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, and consolidated loans. With regard to Pell Grants, there are regular Pell Grants, academic and competitiveness grants, and there are SMART Grants.

The new Members would have benefited from some hearings and legislative work on this matter. But the other side said, well, these are smart people. Well, let us assume that every single freshman is a genius and they know these issues cold; and I am willing to make that assumption. I would have loved to have listened to their ideas in the hearings. I would have loved to have considered their suggestions. I would have loved to have accepted their positive amendments to make this bill better. But we were denied the whole process because of a closed rule.

I showed up to the Rules Committee, and I had two amendments that would make it better for kids to go to college. One dealt with the high cost of tuition that has gone up 35 percent in the last 5 years at public colleges. Another dealt with Pell Grants, to actually help people go to college. Before I even opened my mouth as the ranking member of Higher Education, the chairwoman on the Rules Committee said, there will be no amendments accepted whatsoever. This is a closed rule.

Now, the American public is pretty smart. They recall that Speaker Pelosi, sitting in your chair on January 4, said she is going to lead with partnership, not partisanship. Yet when you show up, if you have an amendment from the other side, it is not even considered, not even heard. The American people are smart, and they know actions speak louder than words.

I am told by the gentlewoman from California that 88 percent of the people support this bill and they do not need any more open process.

Well, if you ask someone would you rather have a 6.8 percent rate or a 3.4 percent rate, of course they are going to say 3.4. But if you ask them would you rather have a student loan at 3.4 percent or a Pell Grant that you never have to pay back, 100 percent would prefer the Pell Grant. We should have helped people with this $6 billion on the front end with increased Pell Grants to go to college rather than helping college graduates on the back end.

Mr. Speaker, by ignoring our suggestions to increase Pell Grants and address the skyrocketing costs of tuition, the Democrats have managed to hit a single for themselves, when they could have hit a home run for America's college students.

The American people want us to work together, and they realize that education is not a partisan issue.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee. I believe in higher Pell grants, lower interest rates, and a leveling off of college tuition. I come to this belief through my own life experiences. I grew up in relatively humble circumstances. My mom was a single parent who raised three kids on the modest salary of a secretary. If it wasn't for Pell grants and student loans, I wouldn't have been able to go to college and, ultimately, law school. I believe every child, rich or poor, deserves the chance to go to college.

Let us turn to student loans and how that impacts that. When I graduated from college in 1986, the student loan interest rate I had on my loans was 9.5 percent. In 2002, during my first term here in Congress, we decided to do something about that and we joined together, Republicans, Democrats, and student groups, and approved legislation in January of 2002 fixing the student loan interest rate at 6.8 percent. On January 24 of 2002, Chairman George Miller supported the 6.8 percent rate. He voted for the 6.8 percent rate, and he said on this floor that we should be commended for passing the 6.8 percent rate.

Last year, in March of 2006, when we were passing the higher education bill on the House floor, Chairman Miller said that he wanted to now cut the interest rates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. It had a big price tag of $18 billion. He didn't offer any ways to pay for it.

Today, he comes before us with another proposal to cut the rate from 6.8 percent, down to 3.4 percent, phased in over a 5-year period, so you hit the 3.4 percent in the final year only. This price tag is smaller, at $6 billion. And to their credit, the Democrats have come forward with a way to pay for it, and that is mainly by taking money out of the student lenders' pockets.

The question before us is one of access. What is the best way to expand college access? Should we help college students on the front end afford to go to school by increasing their Pell grants, or do we help college graduates on the back end by phasing down their loan interest rates?

I think a better approach would have been to take some of this $6 billion in savings and invest it in the Pell grant program. This is a program we Republicans have been pretty serious about during my 6 years in Congress, and I would like to show you a chart reflecting that.

This is the 20-year history of the Pell grant program. As you can see, in yellow, this is the 10 years the Democrats were in control of Congress. The red represents when the Republicans took control of Congress. You see a steep increase. If they had adopted the proposal we set forth, these charts would be literally off the charts in terms of such a dramatic increase in Pell grants.

Now, someone said earlier, well, we haven't done enough to increase Pell grant funding during our time in the majority over the past 6 years. Let us take a look at that claim. Overall, Pell grant funding from 2000 to today has gone up 71 percent, from $7.6 billion to $13 billion a year. And we have increased by 36 percent the number of children eligible for Pell grants from 3.9 million to 5.3 million. We have a pretty good record on Pell grants, one to be proud of.

If they had taken the $6 billion and invested it in the Pell grant program, what a dramatic difference it would make when you consider the Pell grant program along with the Pell-eligible programs of competitiveness grants and SMART grants.

This is the difference: First-year students would get up to $5,300 a year; second-year students would get up to $5,850; third-year students would get $8,050; and fourth-year students, up to $8,050. We made this proposal, went before the Rules Committee, and it was a

closed rule. They didn't want to hear anything about it.

We also had some ideas about the skyrocketing cost of tuition. It has gone up 35 percent in the past 5 years at public colleges. We had some pretty good ideas to help, mainly Chairman McKeon, now Ranking Member McKeon's, bill. He went before the Rules Committee. Closed rule. Didn't want to hear about it.

Now, what did Chairman Miller and others say about this problem with not investing enough in Pell grants and the skyrocketing costs of tuition? We will come back to those issues. We will deal with that a later day.

Now, here is the problem. Whatever we do on a later day with Pell grants will be $6 billion less than it could have been because this $6 billion is gone. It is gone, based on this approach here.

In summary, by ignoring our ideas about increasing Pell grants and addressing the rising tuition costs, the Democrats have managed to hit a single for themselves when they could have hit a home run for America's college students.

Education should not be a partisan issue. No one party has all the answers. Today, I will show a little bit of good faith and vote ``yes'' on this bill. Tomorrow, I hope the Democrats will show a little bit of good faith by listening to what people like me have to say about Pell grants and the skyrocketing costs of tuition.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. I am back. Like gum under a bus seat, you can't get rid of me here. Let me just address a couple of issues to clarify some things.

First, you keep hearing about a $12 billion raid on student aid. We didn't take a single penny away from a single student. Not one Pell Grant went down, not one student paid a higher interest rate on their student loans. What we did was take money away from lender subsidies.

Now, when we took $12 billion away from lender subsidies, it is called a raid on student aid. When the Democrats today took $6 billion away from lender subsidies, it is called the College Student Relief Act.

Now, they say, ``well, we poured that money back into helping students with lower interest rates, $6 billion of it.'' We poured $9 billion back into helping college students. $4.5 billion went to Pell- eligible students in something called Academic Competitiveness Grants and SMART Grants, giving high achieving Pell Grant students the opportunity to get an extra $4,050 their final 2 years. We also lowered the amount of origination fees students would pay for loans and increased their loan limits.

So we poured $9 billion back, 33 percent more than they did. So don't be fooled by the funny little names characterizing things, because it is not a lot of straight talk.

The second thing you hear is ``would have, could have, should have.'' They had been in power for 6 years. Why didn't they do more to increase Pell Grants? Pell Grants in 2000 were $7.6 billion. This past year, they were $13 billion. That is a 71 percent increase. We did increase it. In addition, we paid down the shortfall of $4.3 billion.

Second, if you look over here, in 2000, the maximum award was $3,300. In the final year, it was $4,050. This is an increase, not as much as many of us would like, but it is an increase.

Finally, the reason this $4,050 did not go up to $5,100, as President Bush and I and others had hoped, is because we had a dramatic increase in the amount of students who were eligible for Pell Grants from 3.9 million to 5.3 million. So the pie got a lot bigger, and rather than cut their grants, we still continued to fund them and had an extra 36 percent enrollment of people who got Pell Grants.

Now, what should we have done more? The Higher Education Act, we had language that I put in there that increased the Pell Grant authorization to $6,000. We made Pell Grants year round. I sent letters to the appropriators asking them to fund that

amount. We had the funding up 71 percent. We have SMART grants and academic competitive grants. What more could we have done?

At some point, we have to realize as the authorizing committee, we are kind of dependent on what appropriators are going to spend. We have a pretty good record on the Pell Grant issue, one we can be proud of.

To see it visually a little easier, you can see the yellow marks the 10 years when Democrats were last in control of Congress. The red is when the Republicans took over. You can see a dramatic spike in Pell Grants. And what is interesting, in the final 2 years when Democrats were in control, 1993 and 1994, they actually cut Pell Grants.

So we have got a good record to be proud of, and that is one of the reasons we wanted some of this money to go to Pell Grants today so it would help people to actually go to college rather than just helping people on the back end.

With that, I am not here to make fun of the proposal the Democrats have come forward with. I am going to vote for it. The thing I am most impressed with is, this time they have offered a way to pay for it. That is something they did not do last year. They should be commended in doing that.

I just hope that, moving forward, they will work together with us in a bipartisan manner to address this skyrocketing increase in tuition costs and to help increase Pell Grants so that every child in this country, rich or poor, will have the opportunity to go to college.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to reserve the time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 39, recognizing the achievements of the University of Florida Gators. Last week, the University of Florida won the Division I-A college football national championship with a decisive 41-14 victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes.

As a Floridian, I am very honored to be recognizing the Gators' accomplishments, and I would be remiss if I did not offer my condolences to our distinguished minority leader, Mr. Boehner, and to my former colleague on the Education Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

The University of Florida's victory in the BCS championship game capped a remarkable 13-1 season and win of the Southeastern Conference Championship. This national championship is the Gators' second, with their first occurring a decade ago in 1996. The University of Florida also won the 2006 NCAA Division I men's college basketball national championship. Florida is the first university to hold both of these titles at the same time.

I hold up the cover of Sports Illustrated this week showing our MVP, Chris Leak, quarterback of the Florida Gators with the title ``Gator Raid.'' It points out that there was history in Gainesville with the first simultaneously men's basketball and football titles in 1 year. There is a lot of pride all of us have from the State of Florida, understandably.

In addition to these athletic achievements, the University of Florida is consistently recognized as one of the country's best public universities. I would like to extend recognition to Dr. Bernard Machen, president of the University of Florida; Mr. Jeremy Foley, the athletic director; head football coach Urban Meyer; and the many other members of the university community that contribute to the institution's academic and athletic excellence.

I also extend my congratulations to the University of Florida, in particular its football team, for this latest national championship, and also to the University of Florida fans worldwide who have supported the Gators, the good times and bad.

I thank my colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for bringing this resolution forward. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who represents the University of Florida.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in recognizing this achievement and supporting House Resolution 39.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who represents the University of Florida.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will close by saying that after the winning the national championship in football and basketball, the baseball team has to be feeling some pressure right now down in Gainesville.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 39.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 43. This resolution recognizes the stellar undefeated season of the Boise State Broncos, as well as their dazzling 43-42 win over the University of Oklahoma Sooners at the 2007 Bowl Championship Series' Fiesta Bowl.

Boise State was wisely considered the underdog going into the game and walked away with an impressive victory. Many considered it to be the best college football game ever played. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As a congressman from Florida, the State with the largest percentage of seniors, I very much want low cost for prescription drugs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says this proposal will not lower prescription drug costs at all. Seniors are already getting volume discounts through pharmacy benefit managers and private sector competition.

Now the Democrats say: It works at the VA, it will work here. So I looked into that. I happen to take Lipitor for lower cholesterol. It is the number one selling drug in the world. Even Lipitor is not available on the VA formulary. That is because the VA only have a limited number of drugs, and that is why it is cheaper there. It is also why more than 1 million veterans are already getting their drug coverage through Medicare part D.

Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the seniors in this country are happy with their drug plans under Medicare part D, and 75 percent of the seniors in central Florida have signed up for it and like it. If it ain't broke, why are we fixing it?

Let us give seniors both choices and low prices. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the troop surge in Iraq. I believe the motives of President Bush and other prominent leaders, such as Senator John McCain, who are pushing for more troops, are pure and well meaning. I believe they sincerely think this is the best way forward. Three years ago, I would have agreed with them. However, at this late stage, interjecting more young American troops into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach. We are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution.

Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq or the proposed surge in troops, as long as our American troops are in harm's way, it is our duty and responsibility to support these troops one hundred percent.

May God bless our troops and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the war in Iraq. I oppose the surge. We don't need more American troops caught in the cross-hairs of a civil war. After nearly 4 years, it is high time for the Iraqis to send in their own troops to take out the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgents.

In short, the problem in Iraq is that we are losing nearly 100 American lives every month, and we are spending $2 billion a week. The solution is not to lose even more lives and to spend even more money.

I approach this subject with a great deal of humility, and it is not my intention to micro-manage this war. I am merely a Member of Congress and not a four-star general. But I have listened to what the most well- respected four-star generals in the United States have to say about this matter, and Generals Abizaid, Casey and Colin Powell have all said that sending another surge of troops into Iraq is not the answer.

I am terribly concerned about interjecting American troops into the middle of civil war violence. Who do they shoot at? The Sunni? The Shia? One thing we know is that 61 percent of Iraqis approve of violent attacks against our own U.S. troops. Does that sound like a grateful country to you?

Thanks to our brave American troops, Saddam Hussein and al-Zarqawi are dead, the Iraqi people have had three Democratic elections and three-fourths of the senior al Qaeda operatives have been killed or captured. And yet 61 percent of Iraqis want to kill American troops, and 79 percent of Iraqis have a mostly negative view of the United States.

The American people have paid the ultimate price for this war, and now is not the time to escalate the tragedy even further. The Iraq war has lasted longer than World War II. It has claimed more American lives than the attacks of 9/11, and it has cost more money than the Vietnam War.

The military action this Congress authorized in 2002 was for a far different purpose than the war we face today. I voted to authorize the use of force because I did not want Saddam Hussein to give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda. Now Saddam Hussein is dead, and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Why did we stay in Iraq? Because we wanted the Iraqi people to have a unified and secure government so that Iraq would not become a haven for terrorists, like what happened to Afghanistan after Russia pulled out.

Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has provided neither unity nor security. After nearly 4 years, the Iraqis still have not achieved reconciliation, still have not decided how to share oil revenues and still have not dealt with the militias and the insurgents.

For example, 80 percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq is within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad, yet despite the fact that the Iraqi security forces outnumber the al-Sadr militia by a ratio of 5-1, that is 300,000 versus 60,000, the Maliki government has still not taken action to take out Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia.

In his speech, President Bush tells us that he emphasized the importance of benchmarks with Prime Minister Maliki. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has a pattern of not fulfilling its promises with regard to benchmarks.

For example, when I was in Iraq in May of last year, the Iraqi government officials told me they would be able to provide security for themselves by December of 2006. Now they are saying they hope to have their own security in place by December of 2007.

Similarly, the U.S. surged the number of troops in Baghdad last summer from 7,500 to 15,000 to take out the insurgents. But the Iraqi government reneged on its promise to provide Iraqi troops, and, as a result, the insurgents came right back after we left.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the motives of President Bush and other prominent leaders, such as John McCain, who are pushing for more troops are pure and well meaning. I believe they sincerely think this is the best way forward. Three years ago, I would have agreed with them. However, at this late stage, interjecting more young American troops into the crossfire of an Iraqi civil war is simply not the right approach. We are not going to solve an Iraqi political problem with an American military solution.

In closing, regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq or the proposed surge in troops, as long as our American troops are in harm's way, it is our duty and responsibility to support these troops 100 percent.

May God bless our troops and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act. This vital legislation will benefit employees by increasing the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour, while also helping employers provide affordable, quality health insurance through small business health plans.

During my 6 years serving the people of Central Florida, I have met with literally hundreds of small business owners. Their number one concern has consistently been the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, 60 percent are small business employees and their families. By allowing small businesses to join together and purchase health insurance through national associations at group rates, it will lower insurance premiums by up to 30 percent.

Small business health plans, or association health plans, as they are also known, are not a new idea. Since first being introduced in the 104th Congress, a variation of small business health plan legislation has passed the full House on six different occasions, including during the 109th Congress when 36 Democrats voted for it.

An increase to the minimum wage does not come without a cost, and that cost is going to be borne by our Nation's small businesses. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that Congress should offset the cost of the wage increase with a decrease in the cost of providing health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote ``yes'' on increasing the minimum wage no matter what. But I am also going to vote ``yes'' to increase workers' job security by lowering the health insurance costs for small businesses through AHPs, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome today's guest chaplain, Pastor Anthony George of Aloma Baptist Church in Winter Park, Florida. Thanks to Pastor George's leadership, Aloma Baptist is making a difference in central Florida and beyond. Let me give you some examples.

When Hurricane Katrina hit a little more than a year ago, Aloma Baptist Church acted, immediately dispatching teams to the gulf coast to provide humanitarian relief. Today, 1 year later, teams from Aloma Baptist have stayed the course and are still helping our gulf coast neighbors rebuild. And in central Florida, through Aloma Baptist Great Days of Service campaign, church members have gone into my community and poured countless hours into efforts like feeding the homeless, volunteering at the Ronald McDonald House, and mentoring children at summer camps.

Mr. Speaker, my community and this country are better places today because this humble country preacher from Mississippi came to central Florida to serve God and serve people. Pastors from across the country could learn a thing or two from Anthony George about how to build a difference-making church.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 491, I voted ``aye'' and I was here. Apparently, there was a card malfunction and it did not record my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6138) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6138.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 6138, the Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006.

Some of the most important programs in the Higher Education Act, such as Pell Grants and Perkins student loans, are set to expire on September 30, 2006. Pell Grants and Perkins loans are the passports out of poverty for millions of worthy young people, and they deserve to be reauthorized. H.R. 6138 ensures that these provisions will not expire at the end of this fiscal year by extending them for another 9 months, through June 30, 2007.

While the House acted on permanent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act by passing H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, in March of this year, the Senate has not yet acted. The Senate should soon act to pass their reauthorization bill so we can negotiate a final bill and have these important higher education reforms signed into law. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, this extension will allow the important programs of the Higher Education Act to continue past their current September 30, 2006, expiration date.

In addition to extending the programs under the Higher Education Act, H.R. 6138 includes additional provisions to benefit students and institutions. Specifically, it reduces red tape for Hispanic-serving institutions by eliminating the 2-year wait-out period between grant applications. The extension repeals an outdated and burdensome requirement that Hispanic-serving institutions document the percentage of low-income students enrolled at the institution.

H.R. 6138 also eliminates the ability of schools to circumvent the new school-as-lender restrictions by forming an eligible lender-trustee relationship. And, finally, it provides loan forgiveness to spouses and parents of those who died or became disabled in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6138 because we must not break our commitment to America's students.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the full Education and Workforce Committee and author of the higher education reauthorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me address a couple of things. First let me address some of the comments by the gentlewoman from Florida, my friend and colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I appreciate the fact that she is going to vote for the ultimate bill here. Just to address some of the School as Lender issues.

All schools in the School as Lender program may continue to operate as they have been. All schools that have an Eligible Lender Trustee agreement in place may continue to operate, but they must comply with the School as Lender program requirements. It is only fair that schools that make loans to their students under the Federal student loan programs comply with the same rules, whether they provide the loans directly or through a trustee.

No student's loan is in jeopardy, every eligible student will get a loan, and it will now be a low-cost loan because of the fierce competition in the student loan market. In fact, because all schools must use the funds earned on these loans for need-based grants, students are the big winners under these rules. Indeed, Senator Ted Kennedy has written a letter to Secretary Spellings on August 1 demanding that this loophole under the School as Lender provision for those Eligible Lender Trustee agreements be eliminated.

Shame on those schools who don't want to use these funds for need- based grants for their students, but instead on their inflated administrative budgets.

Finally, let me just comment on the work that we have done on Pell Grants. Since I was elected in 2000, I can tell you, I am pretty proud of the record of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, in terms of increasing Pell Grant funding.

Since 2000, we have increased Pell Grants by 71 percent, from $7.6 billion a year to $13 billion a year. The maximum award since 2000 has gone up from $3,300 per student to $4,050 per student. Since 2000, we have had an increase in enrollment of 36 percent, from 3.9 million students to 5.3 million students. And under the underlying Higher Education Act, we have even strengthened the Pell Grant program further. We have provided for year-round Pell Grants for the first time. We increased the authorization level to $6,000, the highest amount in history. We have also had Pell-Plus initiatives, to say if you are a high achieving low-income student, you will get an extra $1,000 your first 2 years; and in your third and fourth year, if you are a high achieving student who is Pell-eligible and you have a 3.0 GPA and you agree to major in math, science or foreign languages, you will get an additional $4,000 per year. So we have the strongest, most vibrant Pell Grant program in history. It is one that we can all be proud of.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this extension because truly Pell Grants and Perkins loans are the passport out of poverty for young people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have remained in Orlando, Florida, with my wife as she prepares to give birth to our new baby daughter. If I had been present today, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall 441: ``No''; rollcall 442: ``No''; rollcall 443; ``Yea''; rollcall 444: ``Yea''; rollcall 445: ``Nay''; rollcall 446: ``Aye''; rollcall 447: ``Yea''; rollcall 448: ``Yea''; rollcall 449: ``Aye''; rollcall 450: ``Yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the underlying tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, if I was listening to this debate at home, I would think that we were discussing something super controversial. I would wonder if we were putting a nuclear waste site on a school playground or something to that effect. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of the criticism we are hearing today is election-year demagoguery. Here is some straight talk.

This legislation increases the minimum wage, expands the deductions for college tuition and repeals the death tax for most family-owned small businesses. That is it. That is the heart of this legislation, and let me be real specific.

The minimum wage will go from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. College tuition will be expanded, and you can deduct up to $4,000 per year. The death tax will be repealed for those people with estates of $5 million or less. After that, it will be taxed at 15 percent.

Now, most of the controversy, supposed controversy, is addressed towards this minimum wage increase being linked to the death tax repeal for most people. Now, why do we do that? Seventy percent of all new jobs in this country are created by small business people. If we are going to increase the minimum wage, we do not want these employees to be laid off. We do not want the small businessman to be forced with an increased payroll to have no choice but to lay folks off.

We want, on the other hand, these small businesses to be successful and continue to operate. It always mystifies me why some people on the other side pretend to love jobs, yet they hate the employers who provide these jobs.

Now, how does this help? One-third of family-owned small businesses are forced to liquidate because of the death tax. We want, on the other hand, these businesses to continue to operate from one generation to the next. This is the current law if we do nothing.

In the year 2010, the death tax will be zero. In the year 2011, it will go back up to a 55 percent tax rate, 55 percent, even though the money has been taxed once at the income level. Unfortunately, the only family-owned business in America that knows for sure that their patriarch will die in 2010 is the Sopranos.

Now, I have been listening to some other comments the other side has made. They said that we are fooling our constituents; that these are just tax cuts for the wealthy like Paris Hilton; that we must be in the hip pocket of the special interests. Well, let me tell you what they did not say. Forty-three Democrats voted for this same exact death tax repeal. Are those Democrats fooling their constituents? Are they only caring about tax cuts for Paris Hilton? Are they in the hip pocket of special interests? Or are they a few people that decided to stand up to the liberal leadership and say I am an American first and I want to do what is best for small businesspeople?

We need less demagoguery, less political shenanigans, less pessimism, and what we need is more straight talk, more commonsense and more optimism.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the rule and ``yes'' for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give the American people some straight talk about our economy.

In 1992 Bill Clinton ran for President with the slogan: ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Yesterday his wife, Hillary, reminded us of that slogan in her speech to the Democratic Leadership Council.

Well, our economy is very strong and growing. We have created 5.4 million new jobs in the last 3 years. Our unemployment rate is better than the average unemployment rate of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. We have had 18 straight quarters of economic growth. Homeownership is now at 69 percent, the largest in history. And our revenues are coming in so high that we will be able to meet our goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2008, a full year ahead of schedule.

This time let's take the Clintons at their word. If it is ``the economy, stupid,'' then let's be smart and reelect those Congressmen who gave us this strong economy in the first place by lowering the taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give the American people some straight talk about our economy. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for president with the slogan ``It's is the economy, stupid.''

Today, his wife, Hillary, reminded us of that slogan in her speech to the Democratic Leadership Council. Well, our economy is very strong and growing. We have created 5.4 million new jobs in the last 3 years. Our unemployment rate is better than the average of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. We have had 18 straight quarters of economic growth.

Homeownership is now at 69 percent, the largest in history. And our revenues are coming in so high we will be able to meet our goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2008, a year ahead of schedule. This time, let's take the Clintons at their word. If it is the economy, stupid, then let's be smart and reelect those Congressmen who gave us this strong economy by lowering the taxes in the first place.