Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it was a close call on September 1 in the town of Menasha, Wisconsin. Merlin Harn and his wife Teresa were in their car when they noticed two boys, one apparently age 5 and the other under 2, walking on some railroad tracks.

Mrs. Harn said it ``didn't look right'' to have two small children so far away from any homes, so she called 911. As she was talking to the 911 operator, she realized a train was coming. Mr. Harn immediately jumped out of the car. The older child got off the tracks, but Mr. Harn saved the life of the younger child by pulling him to safety.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people would have seen those two boys and would have said, ``That doesn't look right, but it's none of my business.''

But, no. The Harns acted like concerned neighbors, like responsible members of a community rather than self-obsessed individuals. And they saved a young life.

Their concern, and their heroic actions, deserve our recognition and thanks.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to highlight and express my support for a provision included in H.R. 3221 that would establish a solar demonstration project.

U.S. industry has begun to commercialize a number of devices such as solar light tubes, which use solar concentrators, reflectors and lenses, light fibers, and other technologies to direct natural light into buildings, tunnels and other enclosures to augment or replace light from traditional fixtures.

Sec. 4306 of this bill would establish a research and development program to provide

assistance in the demonstration and commercial application of direct solar renewable energy sources to provide alternatives to traditional power generation for lighting and illumination, including light pipe technology, and to promote greater energy conservation and improved efficiency.

This type of technology presents an economically feasible and affordable solution for the private and public sector to reduce its reliance on the electrical grid. This in turn will have positive effects on both the environment and our overall demand on traditional power sources.

I have visited a company in my district which is engaged in very innovative and cost efficient light technology, and there are many other such efforts around the country that are developing exciting new products. As we look to diversify our energy sources, we need to enact policies that make it easier to harness the power of the market and spur the entrepreneurial and innovative sector of this country.

If we get this right, the United States will gain an even greater competitive advantage around the world while becoming less reliant on other countries--all in an environmentally responsible manner.

When we go to conference, I urge that this important demonstration project be included in the final conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that provides needed health care coverage to millions of children across this nation. It is vital to our nation's children and is in need of expansion in order to cover all eligible uninsured children.

In fact, this February I joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Budget Committee requesting that the fiscal year 2008 budget include sufficient funding to maintain existing SCHIP caseloads, as well as make reauthorization of the program a high priority.

Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 3162 takes the wrong approach and goes beyond what is necessary to cover uninsured children in America. Furthermore, the legislation puts seniors in my district at risk by making cuts to the Medicare Program. By trying to do too much in this bill, we have shifted our focus from helping our nation's children and now have a bill that has become mired in controversy.

I believe the Senate's stand-alone reauthorization legislation is a more reasonable approach. It focuses solely on strengthening SCHIP by implementing measures to expand the enrollment of low-income children as well as to improve the quality of health care that children in the program receive.

House passage today is not the final step in the legislative process, of course. While I cannot support the bill before us today, I hope that when a conference report is brought before us, it will be a reasonable compromise that provides needed expansion of SCHIP without the troublesome provisions of this bill. We need to reauthorize and strengthen this important and necessary program.

Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues on the committee who have studied this matter in opposing the amendment before us.

Just this morning the Aviation Subcommittee conducted a hearing on our aging air traffic control facilities, some of which are in very, very bad condition, and this amendment would move us in the wrong direction rather than the right direction. The impact of the amendment would be, according to the FAA, that it would lose some $110 million in funds that have been programmed to modernize the facilities that it needs to maintain to keep our system moving. And this will expire if the amendment is adopted.

The average age of FAA towers is some 27 years and in route centers are 43 years. They need to spend some $30 billion over the next few years to modernize the facilities and maintain them.

And I realize that it's a well-meaning amendment, but it would set us back and delay the efficiency and mobility of our population, and could even result in some increase in risk in the system.

For those reasons, I would urge rejection of the amendment.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

First of all, let me say that there is no one in this body who pays more attention and is more hardworking in defending the interests of his constituents than Mr. Frelinghuysen, the author of this amendment. But the fact of

the matter is that it's not in the national interest to stop this study in its track. They're not doing it just because they want to. They're doing it because the Nation has grown. The system is at capacity. It needs to be redesigned to accommodate the movement of people by air through this New York region. If we don't do it, they will have to go by train, and that's almost at capacity. And the roads are congested. It will slow down our economy. It will impact and affect the growth of the whole region if this can't go forward.

So, I would urge people to defeat the amendment. We will work with the Member from New Jersey and others to make sure they're sensitive to local noise concerns, but this is not the way to do it.

I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I'd like to share an alternative Republican viewpoint on the bill before us this afternoon. Traditionally, Republicans have stood for budgetary responsibility and competition to ensure a good return on taxpayer investment in Federal programs. I believe that this bill, while not perfect, is something that any Republican who stands for these principles should support.

For many years, I have spoken out against the excess subsidies that taxpayers pay to lenders in the guaranteed loan program. Government and private economists, including those in the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Treasury Department, have all confirmed the significant inefficiencies in the program due to the arbitrary and capricious nature in which lender subsidies have been set over the last 40 years.

In fact, these scorekeepers have found that taxpayers spend $3 to $5 billion each year on unnecessary subsidies that could be better applied as direct aid to students. The status quo on lender subsidies is inefficient, wasteful and unacceptable, and I applaud the effort made in this bill to redirect these resources primarily as Pell Grants and interest rate reductions.

This bill also contains two other critically important provisions that

largely have been overlooked in this debate. First, it includes an amendment that I offered and which was unanimously adopted in committee to study and implement a pilot program using market-based reforms, such as auctions, to bring down the cost to taxpayers in the guaranteed loan program. The reason we find ourselves needing to redirect these subsidies in the first place is due to the fact that Congress set subsidy rates blindly and irresponsibly, not based on any market considerations.

As a free-market Republican, I believe Congress has no business setting lender returns. Other mechanisms, such as auctions, will actually capture market demands to obtain the optimal rate for taxpayers and for lenders. Given the tremendous waste, fraud and unethical relationships that have been uncovered in this program over the last 6 months, it's clear that the guaranteed loan program is fundamentally and structurally flawed. This study and pilot are key to comprehensively reforming this program to ensure it serves students and taxpayers. And I'd like to thank the chairman and the committee for their strong support for this important effort.

Further, this bill applies a small portion of the savings towards improving income-contingent student loan repayment. Earlier this year, I introduced the IDEA Act, H.R. 2465, to make key changes to our current, limited income-contingent loan repayment program. The bill would make this repayment model accessible to all borrowers and better address the growing debt burdens which our students are graduating with. Some of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that this repayment model was actually developed by free-market economist Milton Friedman as the optimal way for all students, no matter their income, to repay their student loans.

The College Cost Reduction Act includes several provisions included in my legislation to improve this program, such as a 15 percent cap on adjusted income payments and moving the floor from 100 to 150 percent of the poverty level. These are positive first steps towards implementing a viable income-contingent repayment program, and I hope my colleagues will consider cosponsoring the IDEA Act to develop a loan repayment system for the 21st century.

I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Kimberly High School, located in Wisconsin's Sixth Congressional District, for accomplishing a feat unprecedented in the history of the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA).

The Kimberly High School Papermakers were victorious in the WIAA Division 1 championship in both girls' softball and boys' baseball, marking the first time in Wisconsin history that this title has been won in the same year by two sports teams from one high school. For these high school students to have achieved this is nothing short of remarkable.

During the season, the softball team celebrated a 23-4 record, capturing the state title and earning the Fox Valley Association Conference title. Equally as impressive, the baseball team posted a 20- 6 record, winning the WIAA Division 1 Boys' Baseball State Tournament.

The hard work, dedication and teamwork of these young men and women is commendable and enabled them to become the best softball and baseball teams in the State of Wisconsin this year. These students are a source of pride and inspiration for the Village of Kimberly and the entire Kimberly Area School District.

Madam Speaker, it is because of this unique accomplishment that I extend congratulations and celebrate the championship wins of the Kimberly Papermakers.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing of the Income- Dependent Education Assistance (IDEA) Act of 2007. This legislation would provide a new consolidation option for federal Stafford student loan borrowers with an improved repayment schedule through direct IRS collection of payments, along with other new protections for borrowers and taxpayers.

I believe that the IDEA Act will address the oft-overlooked side of federal student loan assistance: repayment. For over four decades, most of the discussion regarding federal student loans has primarily focused on making ever-increasing amounts of money available to students to keep up with the rising costs of college tuition.

However, providing students with larger loans to attend college leads to another, more complex challenge after graduation. How should students be expected to repay these taxpayerfunded loans? This is an area that has received relatively little attention until recently. With students graduating with ever-increasing debt loads, averaging over $18,000 this year and projected to continue to rise, students are finding it increasingly difficult to make loan payments on time and in full.

Unfortunately, little has been done by way of providing more flexible repayment options for borrowers after graduation. Traditionally it has been expected that the borrower will pay the amortized loan over a standard period, usually 10 years, with the same repayment amount on day one as on the last day. However, this model of repayment fails to take into account that students often face periods of significant unemployment or underemployment during the first years after leaving college.

As of now, for the most part, the only options available to borrowers are to request a period of forbearance or slip into default, which is bad for both borrower and taxpayers. We simply cannot keep providing more and more money for education if graduates then enter the workforce saddled with payments they can't afford.

While there have been some attempts to provide more diverse repayment options, such as the income-contingent loan repayment program available through Direct Lending that has been in existence for over a decade, borrowers have failed to adopt them, usually due to a lack of information or current program limitations. The bottom line is that Congress needs to develop better repayment alternatives for federal student loan borrowers, especially as students continue to take out larger and larger loans in coming years.

I believe the IDEA Act does just that. This legislation would allow any Stafford loan borrower the ability to consolidate into a direct IDEA loan with a repayment schedule that corresponds to the borrower's income once in repayment. This new schedule requires regular payments; however, it ensures that such payments reflect the borrowers' capacity to repay under their current income status. This feature would be particularly useful for those pursuing lower-income, public-service careers. It also would help relieve some of the stress that borrowers face during periods of unemployment or underemployment following graduation.

Another critical component of this legislation is the direct collection of payments from the borrower through IRS withholdings. By incorporating the IRS directly as the collection entity, the borrower's income is automatically calculated into the repayment system and reduces the odds of fraud or abuse on the part of the borrower or the collection agency. Furthermore, direct IRS collection would simplify the process for borrowers and reduce their paperwork burden as the agency would already have the necessary information on file and in place for processing the payment amounts and schedules. Finally, the IDEA Act stipulates that borrowers that go into default and have exhausted all relief from the loan holder would automatically be consolidated into IDEA loans in order to help them get their payments back on track and avoid costly defaults. Thus the taxpayers' investment will be protected from the damaging effects of borrower default, which currently affects 5.1 percent of federal student loans each year.

Madam Speaker, the IDEA Act is an innovative solution to the growing problem of unmanageable debt loads for students. Students would be able to borrow what they need, up to the current Stafford limits, and later consolidate into IDEA loans knowing that their repayment amounts will be within their income levels and ability to pay. On the other hand, taxpayers can count on those loans being repaid as they are collected through the IRS. This is a responsible approach to a serious and growing problem for student loan borrowers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, the bipartisan Student Loan Sunshine Act, as a first step towards comprehensive student loan reform. The series of scandals that have surfaced over the last month have underscored the need for clear and explicit guidance on student lending ethics. These revelations of kickbacks, financial aid officer compensation, lavish travel, and aid office staffing are just a few of the egregious practices lenders have employed to buy access on preferred lender lists and manipulate the trust of both students and taxpayers.

In supporting H.R. 890, however, we must remember that these abuses are merely symptoms of a very broken system: the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. The excessive subsidies made to student lenders through this archaic loan-delivery system cost taxpayers approximately $5 billion more each year than the comparable Direct Loan program. Indeed, the Office of Management and Budget, Congressional Budget Office, Treasury Department, Government Accountability Office, and other economists are all in agreement that the FFEL structure is hemorrhaging taxpayer subsidies. While this wasteful spending is inexcusable, it is even more appalling that none of these excess subsidies filter back down to students in the form of borrower benefits, but rather have been used to underwrite these unethical practices.

Let me be very clear, while the Sunshine Act is a positive first step towards reform, we must only consider it a stop-gap measure to limit further abuse of the FFEL program while we develop a comprehensive, structural loan reform. In the coming months, Congress will have another opportunity to consider changes to this nation's higher education laws. The real test of our resolve will be whether we settle for

yet another Band-Aid on a broken system or if we work to redesign this system to ensure that critical tax dollars in federal student loans provide the best return on our taxpaying constituents' investment.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me not only in supporting this bill, but also working towards comprehensive student loan reform. Students and taxpayers deserve better, and Congress has the responsibility to deliver these critical reforms this year.

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Higher Education for Freedom Act. This legislation establishes a competitive grant program making available funds to institutions of higher education, centers within such institutions, and associated nonprofit foundations. These grants would promote programs focused on the teaching and study of traditional American history, free institutions, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization at both the graduate and undergraduate level, including those that serve students enrolled in K-12 teacher education programs.

Several years ago I was involved in a congressional effort to highlight the decline in historical and civic literacy among American college students. This effort led to the unanimous, bicameral passage of S. Con. Res. 129 which stated, in part, that ``the historical illiteracy of America's college and university graduates is a serious problem that should be addressed by the Nation's higher education community.''

Given the increased threat to American ideals in the trying times in which we live, it is easy to see how the lack of historical and civic literacy among today's college students has become a more pressing issue. Nevertheless, most of the Nation's colleges and universities no longer require United States history or systematic study of Western civilization and free institutions as a general prerequisite to graduation, or for completing a teacher education program.

I believe it is time for Congress to take a more active role in addressing this matter. Our country's higher education system must do a better job of providing the basic knowledge that is essential to full and informed participation in civic life and to the larger vibrancy of the American experiment in self-government, binding together a diverse people into a single nation with common purposes.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment, the bill before us, which would require the Army Corps of Engineers to revise the principles and guidelines under which the Secretary formulates and evaluates water resource projects.

It has been almost 25 years since any type of revision has been made to the Corps' decision-making process for formulating, evaluating, and implementing a project. The National Academy of Sciences has twice recommended that these guidelines be updated.

We want to be sure that we have a fair and impartial analysis of projects and that we don't set in place a procedure that inevitably leads to the largest projects getting built, not the most cost- effective ones.

The amendment is supported by many organizations, including the American Rivers, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Up-to-date scientific engineering and environmental tools should be taken into account when looking at projects. As Representative Blumenauer has said, it is time to bring the Corps into the 20th and 21st centuries.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act of 2007 to remove a serious disincentive that limits the participation of many in charitable activities. Charitable organizations play an important role in our society, and it is important that Congress not stand in the way by penalizing those who wish to offer their services to these groups.

Under current law, individuals that volunteer their time and energy by driving their personal vehicles on behalf of a charitable group can end up with an unpleasant surprise in the form of an unanticipated tax bill. Specifically, volunteer drivers receiving reimbursement for the use of their vehicle are taxed on these payments to the extent that they exceed 14 cents per mile, This treatment stands in stark contract to the 48\1/2\ cent allowance for reimbursement for the business use of that same vehicle.

The Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act will equalize the tax treatment of charitable reimbursements with those received for business driving because the point of the payment is essentially the same, that is, to cover the cost of operating a personal vehicle while performing an important service in the pursuit of a greater good.

To achieve this end, my legislation would exclude from gross income any reimbursement received for the use of a volunteer's car while assisting a charitable group, limited only by the cap the Internal Revenue Service sets each year regarding business driving. This treatment would be available only for services provided without compensation and drivers would be required to maintain sufficient records to substantiate the charitable use of their vehicles. Finally, this bill drops the requirement that charitable groups report these reimbursements to the IRS, removing an administrative and paperwork burden that detracts resources from their larger purpose.

Each day, thousands of Americans lend a hand in providing transportation services to a multitude of organizations engaged in good works. These activities include assisting individuals with their routine grocery shopping, providing the use of a four-wheel drive vehicle to transport home-visit nurses during inclement weather, delivering meals as part of a holiday food drive, helping individuals to keep their medical appointments, and many more similar activities.

These volunteer drivers are donating their time and their talents, not their vehicles, and accepting reimbursement for the use of that car, incidental to their time and talent donation, is a reasonable act, which should not result in an additional tax liability. Today, when it comes to driving a personal vehicle, our tax code makes a distinction between business and charitable uses. This distinction is a mistake; it serves as a serious disincentive to charitable activities, and it should be corrected. I encourage my colleagues to support the continued efforts of our charity-minded constituents by cosponsoring the Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, today Representative Paul Kanjorski and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a program of limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans more involved in the political process. This bill, the Citizens Involvement in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, will broaden the base of political contributors and limit the influence of big money donors in federal elections.

We need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches to campaign finance reform, with special attention paid to ideas that encourage, and not restrict, greater participation in our campaigns. Toward this end, I have been advocating tax credits and deductions for small political contributions for many years. An updated tax credit system would be a simple and effective means of balancing the influence of big money donors and bringing individual contributors back to our campaigns. The impact of this counterweight will reduce the burden of raising money, as well as the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the money chase.

Most would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is through a broad base of donors. But, as we are all painfully aware, the economic realities of modern-day campaigning lead many candidates to focus most of their efforts on collecting funds from a few large donors. This reality alienates many Americans from the political process.

The concept of empowering small donors is not a new idea. For example, from 1972 to 1986, the federal government offered a tax credit for small political contributions. This provided an incentive for average Americans to contribute to campaigns in small amounts while simultaneously encouraging politicians to solicit donations from a larger pool of contributors. Currently, 6 geographically and politically diverse States (Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas, and Arizona) offer their own tax credits for political contributions. These state-level credits vary in many respects, but all share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to become more involved.

The CIVIC Act can begin the process of building this counterweight for federal elections. This bill is designed to encourage Americans who ordinarily do not get involved in politics beyond casting a vote every 2 or 4 years (that is, if they bother to vote at all) to become more active participants in our political process.

The CIVIC Act will reestablish and update the discontinued federal tax credit. Taxpayers can choose between a 100 percent tax credit for political contributions to Federal candidates or national political parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100 percent tax deduction (limited to $600 per taxable year). Both limits, of course, are doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and candidates promote the existence of these credits, the program can have a real impact and aid in making elections more grassroots affairs than they are today.

A limited tax credit for political contributions can be a bipartisan, cost-efficient method for helping balance the influence of large money donors in the American electoral process. Instead of driving away most Americans from participation in political life, we can offer an invitation for citizens to play a larger role in political campaigns. It seems to me that this will be a fruitful way to clean up our system, while at the same time convincing Americans that they actually have a meaningful stake in elections.

Madam Speaker, today, along with six of my colleagues, I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone ``push polls.'' As many candidates for Federal office have learned through personal experience, these push polls are not legitimate telephone surveys, but ``smear polls,'' campaign devices designed to smear a candidate under the guise of a standard opinion poll.

Legitimate polls are designed to gather information helping candidates to focus their campaigns and refine their messages. Smear polls, on the other hand, are intended to spread information damaging the reputation of one's opponent without public debate or discussion.

Imagine a voter, who has been identified as a supporter of candidate X, being asked in a survey if such support would continue if it was learned that candidate X was guilty of a terrible indiscretion or an outright crime. It doesn't matter whether the allegations are true because the idea that candidate X is somehow unfit for office has been planted successfully. This is a telephone ``smear'' poll.

My legislation, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2007, combats this practice by exposing it to the light of day. Specifically, the bill requires that each participant in a Federal election poll be told the identity of the survey's sponsor whenever at least 1,200 households are included. It also requires further disclosures when a survey's results are not to be released to the public. In this case, the cost of the poll and the sources of its funding must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, along with a count of the households contacted and a transcript of the questions asked.

The Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2007 is a simple bill. It will not hinder legitimate polling, nor will it burden polling firms with excessive regulations. What this bill does do, however, is regulate smear polls for what they are--campaign activities, and questionable ones at that. This legislation is noncontroversial and should be bipartisan, and its passage will make campaigns for Federal office a little bit cleaner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 1129, introduced by Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri, provides for the construction, operation and maintenance of an arterial road in St. Louis County, Missouri, over deed-restricted property and requires that county to restrict a nearby parcel of land for open space, recreation or wetland management. The bill allows construction of a surface road across property purchased with Federal funds.

Following the 1993 Midwest floods, this property was purchased for the purpose of clearing the floodplain of homes to prevent future flood losses. The bill requires St. Louis County to ensure that this project will not cause future flood damage. If there is flood damage caused by this project, the bill assigns liability to St. Louis County. This property will remain permanently ineligible for Federal disaster assistance. The Federal interest in reducing Federal disaster costs remains protected.

This project is not setting precedent. In the past, exceptions have been made to allow for road and public works development on deed restricted properties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) on January 16, 2007, conveys the final interest retained by the United States in St. Joseph Memorial Hall in St. Joseph, Michigan.

St. Joseph, Michigan, is in the process of redeveloping an area of town that will link downtown with the beautiful lakefront district. Removing the deed restriction will allow St. Joseph to create a recreational, educational, and cultural district that benefits the entire community.

This redevelopment will make the city a more attractive place to work, live and play while improving the local economy.

H.R. 494 will allow St. Joseph Memorial Hall to be incorporated into these redevelopment plans. Under the current restriction, redevelopment of the area may be impeded by a deed restriction placed on the property by the Federal Government more than 70 years ago. The deed restriction on Memorial Hall has remained despite the fact that similar deed restrictions in the city have been lifted. If not lifted, limitations on this tiny parcel of land located in the center of the redevelopment will significantly jeopardize the city's plan.

The bill before us is a commonsense solution that will allow the city of St. Joseph to proceed with redevelopment. In the 109th Congress, the House recognized this as a sensible, simple solution and passed the same language in H.R. 4700. I support this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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