Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) and ask for its immediate consideration.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been listening to this debate. It is, like all debates, interesting. Yesterday we had a debate, a relatively extended debate, in which Republican after Republican rose and said, This bill does not do enough. In this instance, it does not bring us full energy independence. That is obvious. But person after person got up and said, We're not doing enough for students, we're not doing enough for college aid, and then, lo and behold, the vote was taken and 356 people out of 435 voted for that bill, including 124 Republicans. We are not doing enough in this bill, that is clear, but the journey of a thousand miles, as has been observed, starts with a step.

Another individual got up, and then I will go to my remarks, and talked about the Washington Post editorial. An interesting comment that she made. I don't think she had perhaps read all of the editorial because the editorial said this:

``The good part of the bill revokes tax breaks for oil and gas production in the United States that should never have been granted.''

I believe in the free market system. What is the free market system? If you have a demand for a product and you can get a good price for it, you produce it. That's supply and demand. In point of fact, the price of the product has gone up and up and up. I do not criticize the oil companies for wanting a tax break. We all want tax breaks. What I criticize is the Congress of the United States for not making a judgment on behalf of the American people. That is who I criticize. The actions taken in the ETI bill were wrong.

Mr. Speaker, one of the lessons that most of us learn early on is to study history so that we can avoid making the same mistakes of the past. A generation ago, this Nation faced a series of crises born of an overreliance on foreign oil. Prices spiked and supplies were rationed. It took work, but Congress and the President acted to combat that dependence and ushered in a wave of new technologies, conservation and efficiency improvements that have saved untold billions of dollars and barrels of oil and greatly enhanced the Nation's economic performance and national security.

Unfortunately, in recent years, however, we seem to have forgotten that time period. The economy grew, the price of oil waned and we forgot the lessons of the past and abandoned the progress toward a more fuel efficient existence. Mr. Speaker, crises at home and abroad have changed that, changed it dramatically, and we find ourselves once again increasingly reliant on foreign oil. And drilling for more oil and gas alone is not the solution. Mr. Bartlett said that earlier today. Oil is a wasting resource. What wasting means is it is going to go away. I have a great-grandchild, unlike some of you who are much younger than I am. She may not use oil. It may not be available for her.

Today, we will pass the last of the bills that we promised the American people we would undertake at the beginning of this Congress. This legislation is but a first down payment on the promise of a new energy future for our country. This bill is not about punishing one sector of industry, nor does this bill represent the totality or even a substantial component of our energy policy, as evidenced by the Rural Caucus's biofuels energy package, Speaker Pelosi's innovation agenda, and the PROGRESS Act, which I, along with 129-plus Members of this body in the last Congress, introduced. However, the CLEAN Act starts to move our Nation in a new direction. It is about the focus of precious taxpayer dollars and the future of our country.

The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well-established and well-off. I applaud it for being so. It does not need the American taxpayers' help to be successful or to make a dollar. There is not an American who goes to the gas pump that doesn't know that. Even President Bush, a former executive of an oil company, agrees that the industry does not need additional government subsidies when prices are this high. But our future energy resources do need help to get started. Renewable energy, alternative fuels, conservation and efficiency programs are underutilized in our effort to wean our Nation off our dependence on foreign oil.

The money saved by this bill will be spent on our energy future and set aside to, among other things, accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the use of energy efficiency practices and conservation; and increase research, development and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

By acting now to take this small but significant step to move toward making America energy independent, we have the opportunity, ladies and gentlemen of this House, to leave future generations a lasting legacy that makes our Nation and our world a better place. The legislation is a good first start in that effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Chairman Miller, for bringing this bill to the floor. We campaigned on the fact that we would do certain things; one of those was to try to bring down college costs as they escalate throughout this country. All of us heard, throughout this country, parents who came up to us, students who came up to us and said, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon, we need that done. Mr. Wicker, we need that done.

This bill is not perfect. It doesn't go as far as some would like. Frankly, I would like to have very substantial impact on the Pell Grants, but we have adopted pay-as-you-go because we think you need to pay for what you buy. So we are constrained. But I hear people saying this isn't going to do anything for anybody. I disagree with that.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's economic security and future prosperity are inextricably bound to our ability to compete in the global marketplace. And in the 21st century, a century in which knowledge, skills and creativity are key, our competitiveness necessitates a highly educated citizenry.

As the journalist and author Tom Friedman has observed, and I quote, ``The main challenge to America today comes from the fact that all the walls are being taken down and many other people can now compete and collaborate with us much more directly.'' In fact, he has observed that the world is flat. That means we are more competitive. That means that we need to be better able to compete. That means that our young people need to be better educated. That means that we need to give them access to affordable, quality higher education.

Former President Clinton also has remarked that, and I quote, ``We are living in a world where what you can earn is the function of what you can learn.'' I think all of us agree with that. That is not a debating item. It is, how do we get there?

Today, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation, the College Student Relief Act of 2007, which is the first step by House Democrats to make college more affordable and accessible.

In short, this bill will cut interest rates on need based Federal student loans for undergraduate students from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over 5 years. Why over 5 years? Because we have got to pay for it. It would be very nice to do it like that if we could pay for it. But we are in a position where we are in deep debt. We can't do that.

This legislation will cut the cost of college for an estimated 5.5 million undergraduate students and their families. That is a significant number of people. And when fully phased in, it will save the typical borrower, with $13,800 in need-based student loans, $4,400 in savings over the life of the loan.

Now, frankly, that is not a big sum when you think of the life of the loan. I understand that. But, frankly, we view large sums differently than some

others, but we make $165,000 a year. Very few Americans are so privileged.

The irony of course is that at a time when an education is more important than ever to one's success, the costs of attending college have continued to skyrocket. For example, just since 2001 the tuition and fees at public universities have increased 44 percent when adjusted for inflation, and tuition and fees at private universities have risen 17 percent.

Madam Speaker, we simply need to make a college education more affordable and accessible, and this legislation helps us to do that.

Let no one be mistaken, H.R. 5 is not a panacea to the high costs of college education. But it is a good first step, and I know that Mr. Miller and Mr. McKeon are going to be looking at ways and means to do better for our students.

In the weeks ahead, House Democrats will continue to work on efforts to make college more affordable and to help our Nation maintain and strengthen its leadership role in education and the world economy.

Finally, I should note, Madam Speaker, that this bill contains no new costs for taxpayers. It meets all pay-as-you-go budget requirements, containing offsets that pay for the cost of cutting interest rates. This legislation is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Eighty-eight percent is the figure, but whether or not they specifically know about this legislation, the overwhelming majority of Americans know that we have to bring the cost of college education down if we are going to remain competitive.

I congratulate Mr. Miller on his leadership, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation as a step, a good step that we can take to make ourselves more competitive and to give our students greater access to college.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in honoring the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.--a man who answered humanity's highest calling and profoundly transformed the world in which we live.

Yesterday, like many of our colleagues here, I had the privilege of joining with my constituents in rejoicing, remembering and giving thanks to God for the wisdom that Dr. King imparted and the enduring spirit he shared with all mankind.

And at an event at St. Mary's College in southern Maryland, I encountered a man who told me that the third Monday of every January isn't just a national holiday--it's a national holy day--and he was exactly right.

The commemoration of Dr. King's birthday and the ideals for which he stood represent a sacred trust--an opportunity to take note of the heights we have reached as a Nation and celebrate the hard-earned triumphs of African Americans, while also demonstrating the courage to accept that we are sill far from perfect and much good work remains undone.

Coretta Scott King, who provided a shining example of strength and determination in her own right, once said, ``Struggle is a never ending process and freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it in every generation.''

I would take that statement a step further and say that it is up to us to win it and earn it in every day, hour, minute and second of our lives.

If we take nothing else from the life and work of Dr. King, it should be that each of us shares the responsibility of preserving the legacies of peace, equality and understanding that were left in our hands.

And if we take nothing else from yesterday's commemoration, it should be that our work is never done, and our mission is never completed.

In his letter from a Birmingham City Jail in April of 1963, Dr. King reminds us all that, ``Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability--it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.''

One of those co-workers is a distinguished Member of this body, an inspiration to all of those who continue to fight for social justice and equality, and the sponsor of this legislation. I, of course, am referring to our colleague and my very good friend, Congressman Lewis of Georgia, who I regard as nothing less than a national hero for demonstrating the courage to confront centuries of prejudice and racism and helping to move us toward a day where men and women are judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

As we continue to be co-workers with both the American people and the divine spirit that guides them, we should never forget Dr. King's immortal words from that Birmingham jail or the lessons he taught.

We are indebted to men and women like Dr. King and Coretta Scott King and John Lewis. Through their courage and their fortitude, we are a better Nation today.

While this important day is indeed a day of remembrance, it also is a day of reaffirmation--reaffirmation of the principles that guided Dr. King's life.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend, we don't have to say you did it perfectly, and that is what we are talking about, making it better. That is what this is about, improving. We can argue in debate about what is, but what we cannot argue about, I think, is it is not perfect, and we can make it better. We are going to have a bipartisan vote on this. We are going to have a lot of people on your side of the aisle say, yes, we can make it better. That is what this is about, making it better.

By the way, I will tell my friend, 92 percent of the American public responds in polls they think this is what we ought to do. That is not pounding on the table; it is pounding on democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, before I further discuss this particular bill, discuss the legislation H.R. 4. I would like to take a moment to congratulate the Members of the people's House, all of us, on the very productive week we have had. This week we worked to make America safer, passing bipartisan legislation that implements the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

We worked to make our economy fairer, passing bipartisan legislation that raises the Federal minimum wage, and we worked to improve the health care for all Americans, passing bipartisan legislation that promotes embryonic stem cell research. We are keeping our pledge to the American people to lead, govern effectively, and get results.

Today we consider H.R. 4, the Medicare prescription drug price negotiation act. Bipartisan legislation aimed at cutting prescription drug prices for millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities.

I can't believe there is anybody opposed to that objective. Yes, there is an issue of how do you do it best.

Many believe that this is one way to do it, not the only way to do it. This legislation repeals, in my opinion, a misguided provision in current law that explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from entering into negotiations with drug companies to lower the cost of prescription drugs for the 43 million beneficiaries of Medicare.

I tell my friend in the private sector that if the drug manufacturers believe there is an alternative, that will go into the price structure, I guarantee it. By that, I mean, even if it is not exercised, we require it to be exercised, but even if it were not, if that alternative were present, it is going to affect the psychology of pricing.

H.R. 4 requires the Secretary to conduct such negotiation but gives the Secretary broad discretion in how to most effectively implement negotiating authority to achieve the greatest discounts. We want him to take steps to be effective in accomplishing the objective of bringing drug prices down for seniors.

The bill also permits Medicare part D drug plans to obtain discounts or lower prices below those negotiated by the Secretary.

As The New York Times observes today in an editorial, the bill is, and I quote, sufficiently flexible to allow older Americans to benefit from the best efforts of both government and private drug plans.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the overwhelming support of the American people, many of whom have experienced firsthand the rising costs of prescription drugs. In fact, as I just quoted, a recent Newsweek poll indicated that 92 percent, more than nine of every ten Americans, believe this is a policy that ought to be supported.

The people's House is going to reflect that sentiment today. In my view, this legislation is a commonsense effort to do right by the 43 million Americans enrolled in Medicare. It removes an unnecessary prohibition on prescription drug negotiations that should not have been enacted in the first place and allows the Secretary to do what he was hired to do, to put the interests of the American people first.

As Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rangel have observed, this bill is a very important first step in making prescription drugs more affordable. In this 110th Congress, we also must commit ourselves to addressing the affordability of an accessibility of health care generally.

I urge my colleagues to support this very important, bipartisanship, commonsense step forward in bringing the prices of drugs down for all of our seniors and our people. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will not be in session so that Members can join with their communities in observance of the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour debate and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. You will be getting notice of those, hopefully, by the end of the day. We will consider several bills under suspension. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m., as has been our practice.

On Wednesday and the balance of the week, the House will meet at 10 a.m., although let me say to my friend that I may well be requesting again, as I did for today, unanimous consent that we meet at 9 on Friday. It has historically been the practice to wait until about May, the middle of May, when we get into heavy legislative business, to meet at 10 on Fridays if we were in on Fridays. My view is, however, and I want to say to all the Members, that it will be my intent to make every effort possible to have us adjourn on Fridays prior to or no later than 2 p.m. in consideration of Members' need to get back to their districts where they have events that are going on where they need to be. I want to tell my friend that we will, therefore, quite possibly ask for unanimous consent to come in at 9 rather than 10 next Friday.

In addition to other Suspension Calendar business, and all suspension bills, as I said, will be announced later today, the House will consider H.R. 5, a bill to cut in half the interest rates on student loans; and H.R. 6, a renewable energy bill.

In addition to that, I want to give notice to the House, and I have discussed this with Mr. Blunt and have discussed it with the leader, Mr. Boehner, that Nancy Boyda of Kansas is introducing a bill which will provide that Members who commit felonies while Members of Congress and in the course of their duties will be precluded from receiving pensions.

If they are receiving pensions, they will have those pensions discontinued.

That is obviously legislation which I think is appropriate. We have passed similar legislation that the majority proposed in the past. I believe this will pass with bipartisan support.

Mr. Boehner and I and Mr. Blunt all agree we need to look at this carefully, even though it has already passed, and so we have talked to Ms. Slaughter from the Rules Committee, and we will speak to Mr. Dreier and give him notice. I have not personally spoken with Mr. Dreier. But they will be considering this legislation on Wednesday, and we expect to have this bill on the floor next Friday.

In addition, it is quite possible again the House Administration Committee, and I am perhaps anticipating Mr. Blunt's question, has jurisdiction over the Page Board, we will also have, we hope, on the floor on Friday legislation that will deal with the Page Board, oversight of the page system, and the various procedures we can put in place to make sure that our pages are protected and treated with the respect and care that they deserve and that their parents expect.

I tell my friend, that is the anticipated schedule for next week. As I said, we will make every effort and it will be my very strong commitment to the Members that every effort will be made to adjourn on Friday no later than 2 p.m.

If the gentleman would yield, it is an important issue; you are correct. I believe a number of committees have already considered this legislation carefully. The issue is not new. What we want to ensure, Mr. Whip, is that the legislation is properly drawn and drafted because obviously it is an important piece of legislation with serious consequences, and we want to make sure that it is done properly.

The Rules Committee, in answer to your second question, we do believe that the Rules Committee can consider this and will consider the work that has been done by other committees because again this subject matter is something we have already considered. We believe it is important to move this matter early in the session so the public has confidence that there are consequences. There are not only consequences in terms of criminal convictions which we have seen, but also consequences in terms of the pensions that are earned during the performance of your duties, and that the American taxpayer is not happy with pensions being paid to those who have abused their oath of office and their responsibilities to the American public.

But the gentleman is correct, we have just given notice; but we do have Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Wednesday we will consider that, and then you will have another 48 hours or thereabouts before it comes to the floor.

I am hopeful that we will work together on this. I think we share the view that this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about making sure that Members comport themselves properly; and if they do not, that there are consequences. And I think then we can assure the taxpayer that they will not be subsidizing, through pensions, wrongdoers who fail to meet their duties under the Constitution.

If the gentleman would yield, let me say with respect to the specific question on American Samoa, as the gentleman undoubtedly knows, the minimum wage in American Samoa, unlike the Marianas or Guam, is set by the Department of Labor and Industry Committee so that it is determined in a different way than the others, including our States.

So it was not an oversight to that extent; it has historically been not treated. Having said that, I can tell the gentleman, I have talked to Mr. Miller, the chairman of the committee that dealt with the minimum wage bill, and he is going to look at that to make sure that American Samoa is consistent with, and that does not mean exactly the same wage scale, but consistent with our concerns that were incorporated in the minimum wage bill, which received, as you know, 82 votes on your side and all of the votes on our side; a very bipartisan bill.

But American Samoa has been treated in a way different in the past. So it was not an oversight. But the question has been raised by people on your side and our side, and so Mr. Miller and the people on his committee will be looking at that. So the answer to your question is, yes.

Many of the committees are already organized, as the gentleman probably knows. I don't have a list which committees have completed their organizational structuring, but many have and are ready to do their business.

I am confident that all committees will be organized, and they may not have every member because there are still some Members that have not been finally assigned to committees, but by the middle of next week, we are confident that all committees will be organized to do business.

I would like to comment on the second part of your question. I want you to know that although we believe that the two bills that I have discussed that may well be on the floor on Friday, I want Members to have notice of that, are dealing with ethics and the safety of our pages, both issues are of substantial concern, and I would suggest immediacy. While they will be considered, I want you to know on both sides of the aisle, there is a desire for and a commitment to regular order. The points the gentleman makes with respect to considered judgment being given are well taken, and I agree with him, and we hope to proceed in that manner.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

Let me say that none of the bills that we adopted this week violated the PAYGO rule, as I think the gentleman is aware. The 9/11 bill was an authorization subject to appropriation. Those programs will be paid for within the budget, we believe. We are committed to doing that.

The student loan bill will comply with the PAYGO rule. And the energy bill will raise revenues. That clearly complies with the PAYGO rule.

But the gentleman's point that they did not go to committee is accurate. When we adopted the rule, that was debated fully. The rule was adopted. We had a commitment as you know on our side to do those. We had a commitment to do those in the first 100 hours. That is what we are doing. We believe that they are overwhelmingly supported by the American public, and we are very pleased there was substantial bipartisan support for these bills as well.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me one additional time.

I am constrained to say with all the charity in my heart that, of course, you didn't violate the PAYGO rule, you eliminated the PAYGO rule. So it was not an issue on your side.

We have reinstated the PAYGO rule, which was adopted, as the gentleman knows, in a bipartisan way, and supported again in 1997, overwhelmingly adopted by the bipartisan Republicans and Democrats in this House and in the Senate. We hope that the PAYGO rule will lead us back from the abyss of what we believe to be a fiscally dire situation to a point that we were in 2001, where we had the President of the United States, President Bush, projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus. We are now, for various reasons, in part because we did not comply with and didn't have a PAYGO rule, confronted by a deficit in excess of $3 trillion.

So I say to my friend, I share his view that we need to comply with the PAYGO rule. We adopted a PAYGO rule, we intend to comply with it, and we intend to move towards restoring the fiscal discipline that we had. I think, working together, we can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday next for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for her leadership on this issue over the years, and I thank the former Governor of Delaware, our colleague, Congressman Castle, for his leadership on this. This bill in my opinion reflects the best in bipartisan cooperation to try to respond to the American public and their concerns and their needs.

Mr. Speaker, today for the third consecutive day in this 110th Congress, the new Democratic majority in the House is considering very important legislation that will pass on a bipartisan basis. On Tuesday, we passed legislation implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to make America safer. That bill passed 299-128 with 68 Republican votes. Yesterday we passed a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage by a vote of 315-116 with 82 Republican votes. That is a positive message to the American public that we can and we want to work together. There will not be unanimity, but today we will pass H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, legislation offered, again, by the gentlewoman from Colorado and the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a bold prediction to say that this legislation will pass today, because this House approved identical legislation last May by a vote of 238-194 with 50 Republicans joining 187 Democrats and one Independent. There are, as that vote reflects, bipartisan concerns about this legislation. It is my personal belief that they have been addressed in this legislation carefully drafted to do so. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 63-37 before the President vetoed it last July.

Mr. Speaker, in short, the DeGette-Castle bill would increase the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research. Current policy limits, as we all know, the use of Federal funds for research only to those stem cell lines that existed when President Bush issued an executive order on August 9, 2001. This policy severely restricts the potential for lifesaving breakthroughs because only 22 of those 78 stem cell lines are available for research and a vast majority of those 22 lines are aged, contaminated or have been developed through obsolete methods.

It cannot be stressed enough, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation only authorizes Federal research funds for stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. That seems to me to be a critical consideration for all who will vote on this legislation.

I believe this legislation does not seek to destroy life. Others disagree. I understand that. It seeks to preserve and protect life. In fact, former Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist who formerly opposed this legislation but now supports it has stated: ``I strongly believe that embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise for some therapies and potential cures that adult stem cells cannot provide.''

I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to provide our scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives and this legislation in my view accomplishes exactly that. We understand this is a difficult issue to many Americans and that it raises important questions that humanity

has yet to adequately answer. That is why this legislation also directs HHS and the National Institutes of Health to issue ethical guidelines that will ensure the highest standards of scientific investigation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys the overwhelming support of Members of this Congress and the American people, many of whom are affected by diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and injuries of the spinal cord and nervous system. This legislation represents the hope of millions of Americans who are waiting for us to take action. That is why we have urged action early in this session.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, as they have before; and I urge the President to reconsider his veto when this bipartisan legislation reaches his desk. Again I congratulate Ms. DeGette and Mr. Castle for working together assiduously and without flagging on behalf of the American people. This is a good bill for our country and for those who face great challenges of health.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 508 of House Resolution 6, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily happy to rise in support of this legislation. This legislation is very late in coming to this floor as a free-standing bill. It is, however, never too late to do the right thing.

This legislation, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, is long overdue. I believe it will pass this House today with broad bipartisan support, as the 9/11 bill did yesterday, making our country safer.

At long last, Mr. Speaker, this House is just hours away from finally passing a clean increase in the Federal minimum wage and sending this legislation to the Senate, where we devoutly hope the Members of the other body will do the same without delay.

H.R. 2 is the second key piece of legislation in the new Democratic majority's 100-hours agenda, and we are following through on our pledge to the American people to immediately address these critical issues.

There is probably not a Member of this House who fails to appreciate that an American who works full time at today's minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is essentially living in poverty. That is not right, Mr. Speaker. That worker, if he or she works 40 hours per week for 52 weeks, makes roughly $10,700 per year. If that mom has a child or that father has a wife and a child, they are essentially living on $6,000 less than we determine to be poverty in America.

Passing this legislation today, which will raise the minimum wage by $2.10 per hour to $7.25 in three steps over the next 2 years, is simply a matter of doing what is right, what is just and what is fair.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if it were up to me, I would do $7.25 an hour now. But we are going to phase this in so that small businesses and others can accommodate this raise. But that will mean, Mr. Speaker, that those on the minimum wage will still have to wait.

It has been 9 years and 4 months since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage took effect, and that was under President Clinton. This represents the longest period without an increase since Congress established the minimum wage in 1938, since Congress said we are going to have a minimum in the United States that we will pay people and respect people who work to make themselves, their families and their country better.

At $5.15 today, the minimum wage level is at its lowest level, adjusted for inflation, in over 50 years, half a century. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the minimum wage had been adjusted by a cost of living increase on an annual basis since 1968, a minimum wage worker would not be making $5.15, would not be making $7.25, but would be making $9.05. So, effectively, this raise will be $1.85 less than they would be making if it had been raised on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, just since 2000, the cost of health insurance, gasoline, home heating, attending college, food and other related expenses have all increased, in fact, for an average family, about $5,000 a year in that period of time. Yet the minimum wage worker has not received any raise.

This legislation will benefit literally millions of Americans. An estimated 5.6 million Americans who make less than $7.25 per hour will directly benefit from this increase. An estimated additional 7.3 million Americans, including family members of those making less than $7.25, will indirectly benefit.

Now there are those who will claim this legislation will hurt small business and the economy. I reject that. I believe history shows that that is not the case. In fact, when we raised it in 1997, the economy was having one of its most successful periods of time, which continued long past the adoption of the minimum wage. In fact, according to one recent study, small business employment grew more in States with a higher minimum wage between 1997 and 2003 than in Federal minimum wage States. In other words, in those States that were paying above the $5.15 an hour, their economies grew more and they created more jobs than did those States which had frozen their minimum wage at the Federal minimum wage.

In fact, Lee Scott, the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart, has stated that the current minimum wage ``is out of date with the times. We can see firsthand at Wal-Mart how many of our customers are struggling to get by. Our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic necessities between paychecks.''

Now, what is Wal-Mart all about? Wal-Mart is about bringing prices down. It is very controversial how they do it, but the fact is they know their consumers cannot buy even discounted necessities of life on the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that in the richest Nation on the face of the Earth, that is wrong.

In a bipartisan way, and I haven't counted the Republican votes, but we are going to get a lot of Republican votes from those who are saying to the American people, as we are, we agree with you. Because 89 percent of the American people, when questioned, believe the minimum wage ought to be raised. Eighty-nine percent of the American people. And, Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of small businesses say this will not adversely affect them.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass this legislation. Sixty-four House Republicans joined all Democrats here last July in voting for a $7.25 per hour wage under the vocational education bill.

There is simply no reason, I suggest to you, not to support this legislation. In the United States of America, the richest country on the face of the Earth, you should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this reasonable bipartisan legislation. The President of the United States has indicated that he will sign a minimum wage increase. There may be some changes that he wants, but he has recognized, as we will recognize today, that it is long past the time when we need to pay people and give them the dignity that their work demands and has earned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has been the leader on this issue in the House of Representatives and one of the leaders in the country and who chairs the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

We will celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday on Monday. I want to quote. He said this: ``Equality means dignity, and dignity demands a job and a paycheck that lasts through the week.''

That is what this vote is about, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, today, the United States House of Representatives, the people's House, demonstrated that we are committed to addressing the needs of all of our people--including those who struggle to make ends meet on the Federal minimum wage.

Today, the House will pass legislation, on a bipartisan basis, to increase the Federal minimum wage by $2.10 per hour over the next 3 years.

The minimum wage, of course, has not been increased since September 1, 1997, making this House action long overdue.

Increasing the minimum wage is simply a matter of doing what's right, just and fair.

Eighty-nine percent of the American people support such an increase, according to a Newsweek poll.

President Bush has expressed his support.

And a bipartisan majority of the Senate passed a minimum wage increase in June 2006.

Now, we urge our colleagues in the Senate to hold a clean up-or-down vote on this issue as soon as possible.

In the United States of America, the richest nation on earth, workers should not be relegated to poverty if they work hard and play by the rules.

On Monday, we commemorate the life of a great American--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And Dr. King once said: ``Equality means dignity. And dignity demands a job and a paycheck that lasts through the week.''

Today, we heed those words.

We must not ignore our citizens who are struggling.

We must get the legislation to the President's desk without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my very distinguished friend for yielding and thank him for his leadership in this Congress, in the great city that he represents and his State of Illinois. He does a wonderful job.

I am pleased to join the sponsor of this resolution, my good friend, Vern

Ehlers. Vern Ehlers represents the district, as some of you have already been told, I am sure, I just got to the floor, but I am sure you have been told he represents the district that Gerald Ford represented for a quarter of a century.

Jerry Ford was my friend. President Ford was someone who I got to know after he was President of the United States. As Mr. Davis observed, I was not in the Congress and did not serve with President Ford. He was, however, a distinguished leader of this body.

I would like to say just a few words, Mr. Speaker, about the contributions of a great American leader, a man who personified integrity, openness, civility and a sense of responsibility, and a man who helped restore public confidence in our institutions of government during a time of national crisis and grave doubt about our government, and that doubt existed here in this country and abroad.

President Jerry Ford, our Nation's 38th President, took office during a period of American history when deep skepticism was the norm and uncertainty ruled the day. The challenges he faced were not the product of his actions, but he effectively confronted them and helped our proud Nation rise above its ``long national nightmare,'' as he referred to it, and to begin dreaming again about the promise that has been ours since our founding.

President Ford, of course, never asked to be our Commander in Chief. The responsibilities and burdens of that office were thrust upon him when he chose to answer our Nation's highest calling. That calling came because of the respect that was accorded to him in this House, in the United States Senate and in our country.

He never put partisanship or ambition ahead of the needs of the American people, seeking instead to heal our national wounds. Where he saw division, he built bridges, and where he saw doubt, he nurtured trust.

I am proud to be able tonight to serve in the same Chamber where Gerald R. Ford served our Nation for such a long time. I have now served one year longer than Gerald Ford served in this House. He served for 25 years. I am in my 26th year. But no one brought more luster to their service, no one brought more integrity to this House, no one was a better example of what all of us ought to be as Members of this great institution, the People's House, than was Gerald R. Ford of Michigan.

He offered his talents for seeking compromise and building consensus. I would hope all of us would take a lesson from Gerald Ford as we move ahead over the next 2 years. Too often, the cycle that we enter is a cycle of confrontation rather than consensus creation. We need consensus. America wants consensus. America wants progress. America wants a Congress focused on its need, not a Congress focused on how we can make the other guy look bad.

Gerald Ford can be an example and should be an example for all of us to emulate. I am honored to have this opportunity to carry on President Ford's steadfast commitment to God, to country, to, obviously, his family, his beloved wife Betty and to the People's House.

It goes without saying that the thoughts and prayers of an indebted Nation are with the Ford family in their time of sorrow. I want to congratulate the Ford family, who conducted themselves with such great dignity and returned the caring of literally tens of thousands of people who came through our Rotunda to honor President Ford and his service and to thank him for that which he has done for our country. Jack and Susan in particular stood for hours greeting people and thanking them for being there, and the other children as well.

On December 26, 2006, we lost a great American, a great leader and a great friend. I was a member of the Appropriations Committee and had the honor of chairing the Treasury-Postal Committee. The Treasury- Postal Committee had under its aegis the retirement funds for our former Presidents, and in that capacity, I had an opportunity to talk to him from time to time, not about his own personal interests, which we did talk about, but that is not why we talked.

He talked about the institution. He talked about what we were doing to make this House run better. I can remember we were at a forum at Georgetown together over two decades ago at which we both spoke, and he spoke of the need for having more contested elections, as opposed to districts that were automatic for one party or the other. He said that would be good for democracy, good for discussion of issues and good for the creation of consensus.

Gerald Ford's indomitable spirit will live in these halls of power and service for generations to come, halls that will forever bear the mark of his influence and dedication to the people of the United States of America.

I want to extend my deepest sympathy to President Ford's beloved wife, Betty, his children and his family and loved ones, and in closing thank him; thank him for being an example to which all of us could repair for service in this body; thank him for being an example for the American people to look to for what a Member of Congress can and ought to be, a man of principle, a man of generosity, a man who cared about his country and its people.

Gerald Ford, we thank you for your service, and we miss you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark an important milestone in the life of one of my fellow Marylanders--John Abijah Davis--who today celebrates his 100th birthday.

John Abijah Davis was born January 4, 1907 in an upstairs bedroom of his parent's house on North Sherman Drive in Indianapolis, Indiana--a home built by his Uncle, Issac Davis. Named after another Uncle, John Davis, and his father, Abijah Alley Davis, John A. Davis grew up in that home, attending St. Phillip Neri school and parish, before moving on to Cathedral High School in 1920, graduating in 1924 with the first full four-year class in school history.

John Davis graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1928 with a BA in English. At school, he counted among his friends Walter ``Red'' Smith, later a Pulitzer Prize winning sports columnist for the New York Times, Miller Brewing Company heir Fred Miller and Howard Phelan, who later in life donated the famous ``Touchdown Jesus'' mural that adorns the facade of the school library overlooking the football stadium.

In 1934, John A. Davis married Virginia Lyon in Notre Dame's historic Log Chapel in a mass presided over by his cousin, Rev. John O'Hara, then president of Notre Dame. In 1936, John and Virginia had a daughter, Mary Elizabeth Davis.

Moving from Indiana to New York, John Davis joined his brother Charles and opened the Browne-Davis Furniture Co. The business prospered and both became treasured members of the local community in Oswego. Selling their successful business after 40-plus years, the Davis brothers enjoyed a fulfilling retirement.

John briefly became a constituent of mine when he retired to Dameron, Maryland to live with his daughter Mary Elizabeth. Following her death in 2001, John moved to Cheverly, Maryland, residing with his grandson, John Davis Porcari, and his wife and five children. John Porcari served with great distinction as Maryland Secretary of Transportation under Governor Parris Glendening. He has recently been selected by Governor- elect Martin O'Malley to take on this position in his administration.

John Davis heads a family consisting of four grandchildren, 15 great- grandchildren and two great-great grandchildren. Dozens of nieces and nephews from four generations and scores of friends continue to look up to Mr. Davis, including his grand-nephew, Lt. Col. Harold VanOpdorp, USMC, who commands the First Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment in Anbar Province, Iraq.

According to his family, John Abijah Davis continues to teach life's most valuable lessons--humility, duty and hard work, devotion to one's God, family and friends. These lessons are reflected in all those he has touched. As he, his family and friends celebrate this milestone, they celebrate not the chronology of years, but the character of the man.

I join with his family and many friends in wishing him continued health and happiness on his 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I want to say, Mr. Whip, we congratulate you on your reelection as the whip. I have an affection for whips, as you know, the position, and I am personally advantaged by our close working relationship and respect for one another. And I think the American public hopefully will be advantaged by that. I think this House will be advantaged by that, and I look forward to working with my good friend, Roy Blunt.

In addition, all of us on our side appreciated the very gracious remarks of your leader, Mr. Boehner, when introducing Speaker Pelosi and passing the gavel to her. We know that is a difficult role. It was a difficult role for Mr. Gephardt when in 1995 he had that responsibility, and it was a difficult role for Ms. Pelosi on the two occasions she had to do it. Your leader was extraordinarily gracious and positive in that role, and we appreciate that and we want you to know that.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and at noon for legislative business. Under the suspension calendar, we will consider a resolution mourning the passing of President Gerald Ford. That resolution, I would tell the Members, the principal sponsor of which is Mr. Vern Ehlers, our colleague on your side of the aisle, who represents the district which was so ably and effectively represented by President Ford for such a long period of time, a quarter of a century.

Mr. Speaker, we will also consider H.R. 1, a bill to implement the 9/ 11 Commission recommendations, and a resolution to establish a select intelligence oversight panel.

I will tell Mr. Blunt we expect votes to be not before 3 to 4 p.m. We had originally, as you know, thought we might come in Monday. There was a schedule conflict and we wanted to accommodate that. We are glad we did. We will try to hold votes until 3 or 4, but west coast Members will have a difficult time getting back so they ought to plan on being here on Monday unless they have an important engagement they have to attend.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider H.R. 2, a bill to increase the minimum wage.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider H.R. 3, a bill regarding stem cell research.

And on Friday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider H.R. 4, a bill regarding the Medicare prescription drug program. We expect the last votes to be hopefully no later than 2 p.m.

The practice, as you know, will be that we will come in at 6:30 on Mondays and adjourn no later than 2 p.m. on the day of adjournment. Many times that will be Friday, sometimes it will be Thursday. We understand the need for Members to get out. If it is on Thursday, the expectation is we may go a little later than that, but that will be generally the practice we will try to pursue.

The gentleman's assumption is correct. Pursuant to the rule that was adopted today, we will be moving the six items that we obviously

campaigned on, told the American public that we would move on within the first 100 hours.

We believe almost all of those items have been broadly discussed, considered, not only in the election process of approximately 6 months in duration or longer, but also, for instance, the 9/11 Commission report which we will consider in the first order of business next week, vetted by the bipartisan commission, the 9/11 Commission, chaired by Governor Kean and co-chaired by Mr. Hamilton, so that the gentleman's assumption is correct.

But that does not mean, I want to make it very clear, that does not mean that when we get through those items which essentially were the items focused on during the course of the election, that we will not hew to what we believe to be a positive step forward in including both sides in deliberations, in conference reports, in committees and on the floor.

I think the gentleman is correct and I am glad the gentleman said ``as early as Monday.'' It is my understanding those bills will be available to you this afternoon, and properly so. We want you to have the opportunity and the American public to have an opportunity to read and see those bills.

It is my understanding that all of those bills will be introduced by the close of business today so they will be available to be read over the weekend and before Monday, and certainly before we come back on Tuesday.

I thank the whip for that observation. That was one of the important recommendations that the commission made. Those recommendations were made, of course, over a year ago, I think. I am not sure of the exact date, but over a year ago. Your side did not implement that particular recommendation.

The gentleman is correct, we have not implemented the recommendation as recommended. What Speaker Pelosi has done, she has discussed with Leader Boehner what I would refer to as a hybrid of that, not perfect from I think the Commission standpoint, but meeting in spirit what the Commission wanted to do. What the Commission wanted to do was empower the Intelligence Committee with a participation in the appropriations process, which the Commission perceived would give them a greater relevance and greater influence.

We agree with that; so as you know, we have suggested and are implementing a hybrid where the members of the Intelligence Committee and members of the Defense Appropriations Committee will meet and work together to accomplish that objective. We hope that will move towards effecting what the Commission wanted to achieve, while, at the same time, maintaining the jurisdictional issues which, as you know, in this body can become very, very acutely debated.

They are being introduced today and very frankly, Mr. Whip, I can't give you a time because I don't know. If I knew, I would give it to you.

I am told H.R. 3 was just introduced, is already in the hopper, and obviously others will come. It is my belief, it has been represented to me that all of the bills that will be considered next week will be introduced as of close of business today so that you will have the balance of today, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and most of Tuesday to review those bills.

We could try. But let me say in all fairness, our original intent was to meet and have votes at 6:30 on Monday. There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live in Ohio and Florida.

In the spirit of comity, and I know if Maryland were playing, I would want to be accommodated and I want to accommodate my friend, Mr. Boehner. So we have done that; but it has put us in a position where we thought we would have come back Monday. That is not the case. We will have votes as late as possible, but we cannot guarantee. That leaves us a shorter period of time to do the work we have scheduled. So I cannot guarantee, but we are going to try to keep it for your Members' sake, for our Members' sake, and we understand the west coast travel issue, as late as we can in the day, but cannot guarantee later than 3:30 or 4 o'clock.

The good news is I know that I will get great empathy from you and Mr. Boehner on this challenge. The second response would be I want you to know, and you know this from our personal relationship, we will work very closely with you and Mr. Boehner to try to accommodate our Members. If we are going to be a civil body, if we are going to have civility, that means that we are going to have an understanding of the challenges facing each and every one of our Members irrespective of party and we intend to do that. I personally intend to do that, and we will work towards that. Obviously, there are times when Members are inconvenienced because we have 435, and

it is just tough to accommodate everybody's interests; but to the extent we can do so, it is our absolute intent to do so. And I thank the gentleman.