Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1677, the Taxpayer Protection Act.

I would note that its consideration today is particularly timely as millions of hardworking Americans file their tax returns. Those workers and families deserve to know that their government is taking every step to protect the sensitive data contained in those returns and to enhance taxpayer rights.

Identity theft is a large and growing problem in our society, and unfortunately, a lack of vigilance on the part of the IRS has contributed to that problem. One criminal who testified before the Senate Finance Committee last week detailed how he stole $1.1 million from the Treasury by using stolen identities to claim fraudulent refunds. While this individual is rightly serving time in prison, we must act to prevent such crimes in the future.

This legislation contains a number of common sense provisions to accomplish just that, including a requirement that the IRS notify a taxpayer if it discovers that there may have been an unauthorized use of the taxpayer's identity during the course of a tax fraud investigation and the authority for the IRS to notify taxpayers on the Internet about unclaimed tax refunds. It also increases penalties on misleading websites that use government names and symbols to engage in the fraudulent practice known as ``phishing. ``

I am also pleased that it enhances Earned Income Tax Credit outreach so that every taxpayer who is eligible for this credit realizes its benefits.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to make permanent the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Ryan, who sponsored this bill in the last Congress, for working with me in this matter. I would also like to thank Representatives John Lewis, Wally Herger, John Tanner, Dave Camp, Rahm Emanuel, Phil English, Shelley Berkley, Jerry Weller, Joe Crowley, Ron Lewis, Allyson Schwartz and Eric Cantor who are joining Mr. Ryan and myself in introducing this legislation.

Last year, a version of Mr. Ryan's legislation, H.R. 3098, was incorporated into the Tax Relief and Health Care Act. As a result, homeowners who purchase mortgage insurance will be able to deduct the premiums they pay beginning January 1st of this year. Unfortunately, the provision is temporary and expires December 31, 2007. The legislation we are introducing today will make this deduction permanent.

Government and private mortgage insurance programs help first-time, low- and middle-income, minority and veteran borrowers afford to purchase a home. The Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Rural Housing Service and private mortgage insurance programs allow these homebuyers to obtain a mortgage with a significantly reduced down payment of 3 percent or less of the appraised value, addressing one of the key barriers to homeownership.

As a result of our legislation, mortgage insurance will be a more affordable option for families that want to purchase a home. Particularly given the ongoing problems associated with subprime lending, it is important that we continue to make premiums on new mortgage insurance contracts deductible beyond the end of this year.

According to the most recent data, more than 388,000 families in my home state of Michigan held mortgages with either FHA or private mortgage insurance, and insured mortgages comprised 36 percent of home purchase loans originated in Michigan from 2000-2005. Mortgage insurance covered 40 percent of the mortgage loans made to African American or Hispanic borrowers. Borrowers earning less than 120 percent of area median income comprised 80 percent of the insured home purchase loans originated in the state.

Nationwide, 11.5 million families presently use mortgage insurance. The people who use mortgage insurance are our neighbors. They are policemen, firemen, teachers, and veterans who live in every community in everyone of our districts. This House has a longstanding commitment to expanding homeownership and to achieve that goal, we must expand the circle of people that are able to participate in the housing market.

Making the tax deduction for mortgage insurance premium payments permanent will help make the American dream of owning a home come true for many more of our citizens. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and join us in working towards its enactment at the earliest opportunity this year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before the House, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. This measure supports our troops in the field. It provides more resources to ensure that our wounded service members and veterans receive the health care and support they need. And it sets a responsible timeline for the phased redeployment of our troops.

Our Nation continues to pay a high price for the administration's reckless invasion of Iraq and the President's open-ended commitment of U.S. military forces in that country. Our troops are entering their fifth year in Iraq, and there is no end in sight. The situation is deteriorating. Iraq is descending into a civil war.

For the last 4 years, the former Republican majority in the Congress sat on its hands and followed the President's policy like robots. The American people elected a new majority in the House and Senate so that Congress would stand up and stop being a rubber stamp for the President.

The President's open-ended policies of committing U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as it takes is not working. We need a new way forward. The only chance to salvage the situation in Iraq is to put real pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future.

Last January 10, President Bush addressed the Nation and admitted that the situation in Iraq was descending into a vicious cycle of sectarian violence. He laid out a series of actions that the Iraqi Government would have to take; benchmarks that the Iraqis would have to follow through on or lose the support of the American people. The President said that Iraq would approve legislation to share oil revenue among the Iraq people; that Iraq would spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects; that Iraq would reform the laws governing de-Baathification and allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life; that Iraq would establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution; and that Iraq would set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections. The President said, ``America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced.''

Since President Bush made that speech two months ago, 217 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. More than 3,200 American soldiers have died since the war began. More than 23,000 have been wounded. Until the Iraqis step up to the plate and make the difficult political decisions that need to be made, the sectarian violence will continue and American military men and women will continue to be killed and wounded. Either the factions in Iraq are going to come together and make these decisions, or they are not. We should not leave our troops in harm's way indefinitely and just hand the President another blank check to continue an open-ended policy with no end in sight.

The legislation before the House supports the troops, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. It holds the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks for progress that the President outlined in his January 10 speech. Under this bill, if the President cannot certify that Iraq has achieved these benchmarks by October 1 of this year, a redeployment of U.S. troops begins immediately and must be completed within 180 days. Absent this pressure, the Iraqi Government will continue to postpone action on achieving the benchmarks. If the Iraqi Government does, indeed, meet the benchmarks by October 1, redeployment of U.S. forces would begin next March and be completed within 180 days.

After more than 4 years, this legislation would end the open-ended commitment to this war. It would set a clear timeline for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Without this pressure, there is little chance that the Iraqi leaders will make the decisions necessary to end civil war and build one nation. Our country cannot make these decisions for them. I urge passage of this legislation by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill.

Estimates indicate that nearly 1,000 veterans receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) take their own lives each year. This should be a clear sign that more must be done to address the very serious and troubling issue of veterans' suicide. Many veterans continue to return from Iraq and Afghanistan with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental health concerns, and we must equip the VA with the information and resources they need in order to ensure that our veterans receive adequate care.

When this legislation was first brought to my attention earlier this year, I happened to come across an Associated Press news story about a young man from Minnesota who served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq. Upon returning home from Iraq, he experienced nightmares and paranoia, often re-living his combat experiences in his sleep. On January 11, 2007, he told staff at a VA hospital that he felt suicidal. He mentioned this again over the phone the next day to VA staff. Despite these direct pleas for help, no action was taken, and 4 days later, he killed himself in his Minnesota home. He was 25 years old.

H.R. 327 takes a number of important steps towards reducing the incidence of suicide among veterans. This legislation directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive program to regularly screen and monitor all veterans for risk factors of suicide, set up a tracking and counseling referral system to ensure all veterans found to be a suicide risk will receive the appropriate help, and provide education and training for all VA staff, contractors, and medical personnel who have interaction with veterans. The legislation would also provide 24-hour mental health care for veterans who are believed to be at risk for suicide, so that veterans could seek assistance whenever they need it.

Our Nation's veterans fight for us overseas, and deserve proper care when they return home. This includes educating VA staff, veterans and their families about PTSD and suicide prevention in order to encourage service members to seek mental health assistance when necessary. Now more than ever, as service members return home with PTSD and other mental health issues, it is essential that we provide adequate mental health care that can help prevent suicide among our Nation's veterans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 327.

Madam Chairwoman, two points. The revolving fund has meant so much to the district I represent. The 12-town drain system before was an open sewer, and with the revolving fund help, we were able to address and attack the problem.

My second point is this: It is interesting that those who come here complaining about the Davis-Bacon provision have been in a party that has sat on its hands on this issue year after year and have come from a party whose President has suggested cutting the revolving fund by $396 million.

You should have acted long ago to make the revolving fund more meaningful, and so don't use the prevailing wage issue as a reason to oppose this when you have failed to step up to the plate. We are stepping up to the plate here. More money and under circumstances that provide people a chance to have a decent way of life. I urge support of this bill.

I rise in strong support of the Water Quality Financing Act. The bill before the House calls for a significant and needed increase in the annual Federal contribution to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program. This may not be a well known program, but it has been absolutely critical to water quality improvements in my district, and in many other communities around the country.

The Clean Water Revolving Fund is the only major Federal program that helps localities build, repair, and improve their sewer infrastructure. Over the years, the Revolving Fund has provided more than a billion dollars to my home State of Michigan for low-interest loans for water infrastructure projects.

A billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, but it is literally just a drop in the bucket compared to the need. In southeast Michigan alone, maintaining and improving our aging sewer systems will cost between $14 and $26 billion over the next 30 years.

Let me tell you what the Clean Water Revolving Fund has meant to my district. In the early 1990s, the Clinton River that runs through my district in Oakland and Macomb Counties was little more than an open sewer. In particular, there was one, large combined sewer system called 12 Towns that spilled hundreds of millions of gallons of partially treated sewage into the Clinton River each year. This contributed to a nearly dead river and closed beaches downstream in Lake St. Clair. It was a major concern to both Oakland and Macomb counties.

In the late 1990s, the communities undertook an expensive renovation project at 12 Towns that has greatly reduced the sewer overflows. The communities bore the full expense for this project, which cost well over $100 million, but the low interest rates provided by the Revolving Fund saved the communities tens of millions of dollars in interest costs. The result is that the Clinton River is making a comeback. Water quality is improving.

Twelve Towns is not an isolated example. The Revolving Fund has also helped many other communities in my district with critical water quality improvements. We could not have accomplished the progress that has been made to clean up the Clinton River and Lake St. Clair without the Revolving Fund's help.

The Federal Government has to do more--not less--to help communities shoulder the burden of addressing critical water infrastructure needs. We should have increased the funding for the Revolving Fund long before this; instead, in recent years the Bush Administration and Congress has cut the program again and again. Just last month, the President's budget proposed a $396 million cut to the Revolving Fund. This takes the effort to clean up the Great Lakes in exactly the wrong direction.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation. We should vote for the bill today and--just as importantly--provide the funding for the Clean Water Revolving Fund when we take up the EPA appropriations bill later this year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today In support of H.R. 987, the NATO Freedom Consolation Act. In particular, I want to applaud my friend Mr. Tanner, and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for taking care to support Ukraine's progress towards NATO membership and designating that country as eligible for assistance under the NATO Participation Act.

Last week, I participated in a meeting between Members of the Congressional Ukrainian Congress and Members of the Ukrainian Parliament. During that meeting, it was suggested that policymakers here in Washington might be experiencing ``Ukraine fatigue.''

We are not Ukraine fatigued; we are Ukraine concerned. We have seen clearly, both during the Orange Revolution and in last year's parliamentary elections, that democracy works in Ukraine, but we are concerned by what it has produced.

President Yushchenko, and indeed many in Ukraine, have signaled a strong desire to join NATO. While there have been differences of late over the pace at which Ukraine should make progress towards that goal, this legislation takes exactly the right approach in reinforcing our commitment to help Ukraine achieve it.

In particular, we can assist Ukraine in continuing a variety of reforms that not only move the country towards NATO eligibility, but also help the Ukrainian people build a properous and stable country more broadly. Further, it is critical that we help the Ukrainian people understand what NATO membership means, both its benefits and its responsibilities.

Again Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation to facilitate further expansion of NATO, particularly with regard to assistance for Ukraine, and I urge its passage.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act.

Despite the rosy economic forecast provided by the administration, a broad array of indicators shows otherwise--namely that despite record levels of corporate prosperity, the economic pressures exerted on our middle class continue to build.

Middle class families have and continue to lose ground, faced with stagnant incomes and rising costs of essential services like health care, gasoline and a college education.

One of the most important things we can do to relieve this middle class squeeze is to restore workers' freedom to join together to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Indeed, on average, union workers earn 30 percent more on average than nonunion workers and are much more likely to have health care and receive pension benefits.

Yet the current system governing the formation of unions is badly flawed, and permits an unfair process greatly tipped in favor of employer efforts to block unionization drives. At present, organizers can present cards signed by a majority of the workforce in support of union representation, but the employer has absolutely no obligation to recognize this effort. Instead, employers can force a National Labor Relations Board election, which can take months to take place, during which time employers are free to erode union support using company resources through mandated anti-union activities at the workplace. Any pro-union activities are explicitly prohibited at the workplace.

H.R. 800 levels the playing field by requiring employers to recognize the card-checking procedure, ensuring a fair and equitable process that balances the rights of employers with the rights of workers to form a union.

This bill also provides negotiation benchmarks to ensure that initial collective bargaining agreements are negotiated in earnest. These provisions address problems with the current system which relies entirely on both parties engaging in a ``good faith'' effort to reach an agreement. In reality, this system permits employers to indefinitely delay negotiations during which time they can rekindle efforts to disband the newly elected union representatives.

Lastly, the bill includes tougher penalties for violations of workers' rights. Currently, about one in five pro-union employee activists are illegally fired for their union activities, in large part because the remedies for these employer violations are so weak. By strengthening these penalties, we are further ensuring that employers follow the rule of law.

The middle class is the backbone of our society. And the middle class is stronger when workers can join together to bargain for a higher standard of living. Years ago, it was unions that helped pave the way towards employer sponsored health care and pensions benefits. Now more than ever, it is vital that we address the current inequities faced by those who are fighting for workers' rights to bargain collectively. In doing so, we foster a stronger middle class and a more prosperous nation.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 800.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act.

This tax package provides limited, targeted tax relief for small businesses in a fiscally responsible manner. At a little over $1.3 billion it provides a meaningful level of relief, offset by closing a loophole that would allow some upper income tax payers to take advantage of a reduced capital gains tax that was intended to benefit low income Americans.

In addition to being fiscally responsible, it's fully bipartisan. Both Democratic and Republican Members had a chance to provide their input. It was introduced jointly by Chairman Rangel and Mr. McCrery, and it has been co-sponsored by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Ways and Means Committee.

I am particularly supportive of extending the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and expanding the Credit to include veterans who have been disabled since September 11th, which this bill does.

But mostly, I am supportive of going to conference with the other body to pass a minimum wage increase. This legislation will accomplish that. Thirteen million Americans have not had a raise--not even a cost of living adjustment--in 9 years. In a word, a minimum wage increase is overdue.

The current minimum wage is so low that an individual working full time at the minimum wage would make only $10,712--that's 35% below the federal poverty line for a family of three. I urge all of my colleagues to support this responsible tax package so we can move onto conference and providing millions of Americans with the raise they deserve.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution before the House.

We need to send a clear bipartisan message to the White House. There is little support in this Congress for deepening our open-ended military commitment in Iraq by sending an additional 21,000 troops into this conflict.

The debate we are having today is about the future of our Nation's policy in Iraq, so my main focus will not be to catalog the litany of the administration's past grave mistakes and misstatements over the last 4 years. At the same time, as a lesson for the future, it is important to remember that the war in Iraq was the first application of the Bush Doctrine. This policy was unveiled by the President in his commencement speech at West Point in June 2002 and made policy a few months later in the administration's 2002 National Security Strategy.

The administration's doctrine stressed preemptive attack, U.S. military superiority, and U.S. unilateral action. This flawed policy has proven to be disastrous. It has destabilized Iraq, and threatens to undermine the stability of the entire region. It blinded the administration to the Pandora's box it was opening when it invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist and 9/11 terrorists that were not there.

Far from strengthening U.S. security, this misguided doctrine has put our Nation's vital interests at greater risk. The elevation of unilateralism has helped erode our Nation's standing in the world. The released NIE Estimate for Iraq underscores just how flawed the administration's doctrine has been. Among the key judgment, I quote, ``Iraqi society's growing polarization, the persistent weakening of the security forces and of the state in general.'' And again I quote, ``Extremists continue to act as a very effective accelerator for what has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And now I quote again. ``The Intelligence Community judges that the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq.''

The judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate reinforce the view that a military solution in Iraq is not possible. The administration has attempted troop surges in the past. They haven't worked. Adding another 21,000 American troops will not put an end to violence and instability in Iraq. The only chance to do that is for Iraq's leaders and factions to come together and begin the difficult process of political compromise and reconciliation.

I believe that announcing the orderly redeployment of U.S. forces is the best way to put pressure on the factions in Iraq to come together and make these difficult choices.

This resolution is straightforward. It states clearly and unambiguously that Congress does not support the President's plan. It supports our military personnel but not a further military escalation.

Some have said it is not serious because it is nonbinding. Others have said the resolution emboldens our enemies and hurts the troops. How does it embolden our enemies or hurt the troops for this Congress to disapprove continuing a strategy that is not working?

The resolution we are debating today is nonbinding, but is not nonconsequential. I hope the administration will hear the clear bipartisan message we are sending and change course.

The question today before the House is whether or not we agree with the President's plan to send 21,000 additional troops to Iraq to referee a growing civil war. I do not agree with this escalation. I urge all my colleagues to join in calling on the President to change course in Iraq

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to Chief Judge Stephen C. Cooper, who is retiring from the bench of the 46th District Court. Judge Cooper brings closure to a distinguished 33-year career in public service. In addition to his service to the 46th District Court, Judge Cooper also served as City Council President Pro- Tem for the Southfield City Council.

Chief Judge Cooper was elected to the 46th District Court in 1986 and re-elected in 1992, 1998 and 2004. His re-election was unanimously endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican Parties, both defense and plaintiffs lawyers, business and labor and every prominent elected official and community leader in his District. The Bar Association rated his performance ``outstanding.''

Judge Cooper was elected and served as president of the Michigan District Judges Association and currently in his second term as Michigan Governor of the American Judges Association (AJA). Judge Cooper was recognized by Optimist International as ``triple distinguished president'' of the Southfield-Lathrup Optimist Club.

Judge Cooper has received numerous awards including the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award which is given to a local citizen whose life exemplifies the ideals espoused by Dr. King. He was selected as the Honoree-of-the-year of the Women's Bar Association, the Governor's Award for Volunteer Service, and the Southfield Schools' Alumnus of the Year Award.

Judge Stephen Cooper was elected President of the Michigan District Judges Association, the Southfield Bar Association and the B'Nai Brith Association and was Vice President of the Southfield Chamber of Commerce. He also served on numerous boards including the Salvation Army, League of Women Voters, Anti-Defamation League, Southfield- Lathrup PTA Council, MLK Taskforce and the Easter Seals Society.

Upon retirement, Judge Cooper will direct his professional talents to the field of mediation and teaching. He will also have more time for his hobbies, including kayaking, ceramics, welding, roller-blading and, above all, enjoying life with Caroline, his wife of more than 36 years and being a grandparent.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this fine individual and thanking him for his dedication to our community. I extend my heartiest congratulations and warmest wishes as he starts this new chapter in his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before the House.

Few will take any great satisfaction with the manner in which the Congress is at last completing the budget process for 2007. This work was supposed to have been completed 4 months ago. It is important for everyone to understand how we got to this point and why we are forced to take the extraordinary step of approving a continuing resolution to fund nearly every domestic program for the balance of this fiscal year.

We are here today because the Republican majority that controlled the House last year failed to do its work. Last May, they voted for a budget resolution that was so unrealistic that not even they could find a way to live within it. As a direct result after 8 months, the former majority was able to complete action on just 2 of the 11 regular appropriations bills. Then, in early December, the outgoing leaders of the House and Senate decided to punt on the remaining funding bills, pass a stopgap spending bill to keep the Government operating through February 15, adjourn the Congress, and leave town.

So now it is up to the new Congress to clean up this budgetary mess as best we can, and that's what the bill before the House does. It is an imperfect solution. There are any number of programs that deserve a lot more funding than we are able to give them here today. We are still constrained by the overall funding levels adopted in last year's budget resolution, a budget that not a single Democrat voted for. At the same time, I am glad that the measure we are considering today manages to increase funding in a number of priority areas, especially veterans health care, medical care for U.S. troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Federal highway program, medical research at the National Institutes of Health as well as some key education programs. I also applaud the decision to put a moratorium on Members' earmarks until a reformed process is put in place to provide an accountable and transparent process for funding these projects.

Even so, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have gotten up to complain that we should have done better. They want less spending in some areas and more spending in others. After sitting on their hands for 8 months last year, they now object to the procedure we're using to clean up the mess they made. It is unfortunate that the people who are complaining the loudest today were unwilling to convince their own leadership to make these spending decisions last year by passing the individual funding bills on time and getting them to the President for his signature.

The reality is that we are already 4 months into fiscal year 2007. There isn't time to spend another month or two debating spending bills that should have been completed last September. The agencies and the States have waited long enough for Congress to act, and the President is submitting his 2008 budget request to us next week. It's time for Congress to complete this work.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before the House, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.

It's time for Congress to face the facts and begin to break our nation's dangerous addiction to oil. The industry tax breaks and royalty holidays that we seek to eliminate today no doubt serve the interests of the big oil companies, but they do not serve the interests of our nation's long-term energy security, or, for that matter, the interests of taxpayers, consumers and the environment.

We import more than 60 percent of the oil we consume every day in this country. We are increasingly dependent on oil imports from volatile regions of the world and from countries that are not necessarily our friends. If we do nothing, our dependence on imported oil will only grow. Some will say that the answer

is to provide more subsidies and tax breaks to encourage oil drilling in the United States. Well, we've tried that, and it hasn't worked. We're more dependent on foreign oil than ever. All the industry subsidies in the world won't change the fact that the U.S. has just 3 percent of the global oil reserves. We can't drill our way out of this problem.

Rather than continue business as usual, today we are beginning to chart a new course to energy security. The legislation before the House repeals $13 billion in egregious tax subsidies and royalty holidays that have been given to the oil companies in recent years. Instead, we will invest these funds in clean, renewable energy that is made here in the United States, including solar, wind, biomass, and biofuels. We will also invest in new energy technologies and develop policies to stimulate investment and deployment of energy efficient products and services. Investing in alternative fuels and new energy technologies is also an investment in jobs here in America.

I want to make it clear that this legislation eliminates only the most egregious energy industry subsidies. First of all, we target the flawed deepwater oil and gas leases that were awarded in 1998 and 1999. Contrary to longstanding practice, these leases did not provide for royalty payments--no matter how high oil prices rise. In this legislation, we require that these leases be renegotiated. The American people deserve a fair royalty for publicly-owned resources.

I also want to respond to some of the statements made today by opponents of this legislation. Some have suggested that our legislation unfairly singles out the oil and gas industry by repealing their ability to take advantage of a tax provision intended to encourage domestic manufacturing. This is not the case. Many of my colleagues will recall that several years ago our trading partners in the European Union successfully challenged a tax benefit that the Federal Government provided to U.S. exporters. Let's be clear that the oil and gas industry did not qualify for the old FSC-ETI tax benefit, and neither did any number of other U.S. industries, including financial services, hospitals, and real estate, to name only a few. When Congress repealed the FSC-ETI in 2004, we provided a replacement benefit to U.S. exporters in the form of tax benefit for domestic manufacturers. But for some reason, this manufacturing tax break was extended to include the oil and gas industry, even though they were never eligible for the old FSC-ETI benefit. If there is a problem with unfairly singling out an industry, it is not in the bill before the House today. The problem lies in the loophole in the 2004 bill that singled out the oil and gas industry to receive a domestic manufacturing benefit that was not justified.

I hope this clears up this matter and that all my colleagues will join me in voting for this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of the New Direction for America was a promise to make higher education more affordable and accessible so that more Americans can advance their education and enhance their economic future in an increasingly competitive global economy. Today we are taking a first step towards achieving this goal.

For a country whose economic success relies on the very best colleges and universities in the world, we are at an important crossroads. Today's college students are graduating with increasing levels of student loan debt--$17,500 on average. In many cases, this debt is simply too substantial to manageably repay. For many young people, the mere thought of putting themselves in such enormous debt could lead them to delay or forgo college. Indeed, according to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million high school graduates from attending any college at all.

At a time when college tuition is skyrocketing--increasing by 35% at four-year public institutions over the past five years--it is clear that Congress needs to act and act now to make college more affordable.

The College Student Relief Act cuts the interest rates for undergraduate students with subsidized student loans in half over the next five years at no cost to the taxpayer. This commonsense legislation will help 5.5 million students across the country.

In Michigan, for about 144,000 student borrowers who will graduate from Michigan colleges and universities, this bill would generate savings of over $4,200 on average over the life of their loans. For example, these savings will benefit close to 1,200 students at Lawrence Tech and 3,500 students at Oakland University.

For Michigan, the benefits of this loan relief couldn't be clearer. A report by Michigan's Lt. Governor John Cherry's Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth spelled out how Michigan's economic future is directly linked to our ability to accelerate the completion of degrees of higher education. Two-thirds of the jobs created in the next decade will require post-secondary education and training.

By making a higher education more affordable for thousands of Michiganders we are not only helping them realize their dreams, but we are also helping ensure the future of our state.

I urge all of my colleagues to stand today with our students and support the College Student Relief Act.

Madam Speaker, last Friday, I was unavoidably absent during rollcalls 22 and 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 22, the motion to recommit H.R. 4 with instructions. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 23, final passage of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Embryonic stem cell research holds potential for some of the most far-reaching breakthroughs seen in modem medicine. This is a field filled with promise, with the potential to cure the incurable and to heal that which was once thought impossible to mend.

We're bringing this bill up again with the hope that the President will hear the scientists and researchers and hear the voices of the American people that he do the right thing and sign this vital measure into law. We need to take action now so that this crucial research can go forward for the sake of the millions of people dealing with incurable or debilitating diseases--diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. We can never guarantee the results of scientific research, but without it we guarantee there can be no results.

The President's current stem cell policy is not working. Research is practically at a standstill in this country. Of the 78 existing stem cell lines permitted for use in Federally funded research, only 21 of these lines are currently used for research, and many of the available stem cell lines are contaminated, making their therapeutic use for humans questionable.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is a well-crafted, bipartisan approach. Let me be clear that the bill only allows the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The legislation contains strict ethical guidelines, including the requirement that embryos can be used only if the donors give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange.

There has been recent news regarding ongoing research using non- embryonic stem cells. While I believe it is necessary to support study on all stem cell types, this research alone is in no way a substitute for embryonic stem cell research, whose potential is different from that of other stem cell types.

We need to pass this bill today on a strong, bipartisan vote. I truly hope the President will reconsider and do the right thing and sign this bill into law. This legislation is so important to millions of Americans, and we stand with them as we vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act today.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital legislation.