Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor a good friend and constituent, Mr. Ed Warner of Hampton Bays, New York, who recently passed away at the age of 80.

As a native of Hampton Bays and a fifth generation bayman, Mr. Warner knew more than just about anyone concerning the town's history and its people. He was highly admired for his kindness, generosity and steadfast advocacy for Southampton, its residents and its unique environment.

Born in 1925, Ed grew up in Hampton Bays developing a keen sense of loyalty and pride for his hometown. After serving in the Navy during the Second World War, he returned home and worked as a bayman, catching fish that he sold to the local market. Ed knew the best places to catch fish, how to catch the most fish and where to dig for the largest clams.

Ed put his knowledge of the sea to work as a member of the Southampton Board of Trustees. He excelled on this governing body that monitored the town's waterways, serving 27 years through 13 re- elections.

In addition to his public service, Ed's sense of humor and his generosity will not soon be forgotten. An example of his kindness and compassion for others was made evident when, without hesitation, Ed gave fifty dollars to a friend in need who couldn't afford to fix his chainsaw, which he used for his livelihood--sawing holes for ice fishing.

Indeed, Ed's sympathy and goodwill earned him an impeccable reputation. He will always be remembered as an excellent fisherman, public servant, and loving husband and father. He is survived by his wife of 48 years, Teresa, their daughter Merry, sons James and Edward Warner Jr., who is following in his father's footsteps as a newly appointed Southampton Trustee.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's first congressional district, the residents of Hampton Bays and the entire town of Southampton, I thank the House for this opportunity to express our sadness in the wake of Ed Warner's passing. He was a good man whose many enduring contributions to his community will always be remembered with fondness and gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, just because the Medicare enrollment deadline has passed and the President refuses to extend it, those of us who voted against a shortsighted Medicare bill and opposed this past Monday's deadline will not fade quietly away.

We will continue to fight for seniors who need more time to choose a plan that is right for them. We will fight the punitive lifetime tax on the elderly and disabled who, through no fault of their own, have yet to sign up for a plan.

And here is the ultimate irony. While the President and congressional Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like, including more dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the already very comfortable, corporate tax holidays for extra-territorial income, they are imposing a new tax on one of the most vulnerable segments of our population: seniors.

Medicare part D works just fine for the pharmaceutical companies and big business HMOs, but it is not working for those seniors who have yet to sign up for a plan and who will have to pay for it for the rest of their life.

Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue that we fix this program. We need a plan B for part D.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this martial law same-day rule, and in opposition to the budget resolution.

Every landmark budget reform enacted by Congress was intended to make the process more efficient so we

can go about the business of funding programs important to the American people, particularly aid and relief to those who need our help the most.

We can all agree that a budget is supposed to be the congressional blueprint for funding America's priorities. Regrettably, however, the Republicans have abrogated this responsibility on at least two counts. First, this resolution comes halfway into the calendar year, and halfway into the third quarter of the current fiscal year, way too late to responsibly budget for America's priorities.

Second, this budget comes sandwiched between $70 billion worth of tax cuts for the most comfortable among us, and $100 billion in off-budget supplemental funds. It is this kind of fiscal irresponsibility that drives people to disapprove of the 109th Congress and why a change of leadership is needed before our country sinks deeper into red ink and before the budget resolution becomes completely irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, with only 5 days before the deadline to sign up for the Medicare drug benefit, only 9 percent of eligible New Yorkers have voluntarily signed up for it.

Why such low enrollment? Could it be that seniors have to choose among 47 plans that keep changing? It is a daunting task to tackle a moving target.

Could it be that a third of the calls answered by Medicare operators result in inaccurate information or none at all? Could there be a more clear-cut case for extending the sign-up deadline?

Clearly, the President disagrees. To him, the ``D'' in part D stands for ``deadline.'' But he is not a senior or a disabled American who needs and deserves more time and for whom ``D'' stands for disaster.

After holding dozens of town hall meetings over the past 6 months, I join with my colleagues today in calling upon the Republicans to extend the deadline, penalty free, through the end of the year.

For nine of 10 eligible New Yorkers who haven't chosen a plan yet, but must pick from among 47 plans, another 6 months will go a long way toward helping them choose a plan that is right for them.

Mr. Speaker, is there any doubt today that this administration's first priority continues to be tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of education, health care and homeland security, all of which are being cut to pay for these tax cuts?

We have been promised that extending dividend and capital gains cuts will create a rising tide that lifts all boats. But American families know that it takes so much more than a trickle-down effect for tax cuts to deliver relief from rising gas prices, soaring tuition and skyrocketing health costs.

If the tax cuts had performed as our friends on the other side of the aisle promised, an exploding economy would have offset these strains. Instead, we are now burdened with $400 billion deficits, $3 trillion in new debt since 2001, and deep cuts to hospitals, schools and law enforcement.

How can we possibly justify tax breaks for millionaires worth more than the entire amount President Bush requested for the Department of Education and more than twice his budget for the VA? The answer is that we can't. We just can't.

Instead, Americans who need our help the most must get in line and patiently wait for the Republicans' tax cuts to make any meaningful difference, if they ever do, in their daily struggle.

Mr. Speaker, middle-class Americans deserve much better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a beloved constituent and community leader, Mrs. Phyllis McCarrick, of Rocky Point, New York, who recently passed away at the age of eighty-three.

Born Phyllis Healy in Arlington, Massachusetts, she served in the Navy during World War II and later settled in Rocky Point with her childhood sweetheart and husband, Mr. Thomas McCarrick. After running a milk delivery service, Phyllis and her husband opened the McCarrick Dairy and Grocery store, which grew into a beloved landmark in our community, and is owned and operated by their sons today.

Named Rocky Point's Citizen of the Year in 1999, Phyllis raised money for Catholic charities and was a Cub Scout den mother in addition to running a successful business. Her enduring contributions to eastern Long Island will always be remembered by our community with fondness and deep gratitude.

Phyllis is survived by eight children, nineteen grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New York's First Congressional District, I express our profound sorrow following Phyllis' passing as well as the gratitude of our community, which will always remember her extraordinary life and lifelong dedication to Rocky Point, New York.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davis for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4101, which I proudly introduced last October on behalf of all 29 members of the New York delegation in the House.

Our bill names the U.S. Post Office on 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, in honor of a fallen neighbor and decorated hero of the United States Navy's elite Sea-Air-Land forces, Lt. Michael P. Murphy, who was killed in action on the evening of June 28, 2005, while tracking insurgent Taliban and al Qaeda movements in the mountains of the Kubar province of Afghanistan.

For his valor and sacrifice, Lieutenant Murphy was posthumously awarded the Silver Star and the Purple Heart. Approaching the first anniversary of the deaths of Lieutenant Murphy and his fellow SEALs, it is appropriate for this House to once again express the solemn appreciation of a grateful Nation for their sacrifices and to share this tribute with their families.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will recall the tragic images from around the last July 4 holiday when it was first reported that U.S. Army helicopters carrying two teams of Special Forces, known as the ``Night Stalkers,'' who were attempting a daring rescue of Lieutenant Murphy's unit, were shot down by rocket-propelled grenades over the mountains in Eastern Afghanistan.

That tragic day claimed the lives of 11 SEALs and eight soldiers, representing the single deadliest attack on the U.S. military up to that point in the global war on terror. The Naval Special Warfare Command later confirmed that it was also the single largest loss of life in the history of the Navy SEALs, the smallest of our intrepid Special Operations Forces.

Nearly a thousand people attended Lieutenant Murphy's memorial service at our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Patchogue. His parents, Daniel and Maureen, spoke of how their extraordinary son's boundless enthusiasm, generosity, and determination made them so proud of him through the short years they had together. Remembered not only for his courage and for the ultimate sacrifice Lieutenant Murphy made for this country, he will also be admired in our community as one of its favorite sons. At Patchogue-Medford High School, he was an excellent student, awarded by the National Honor Society and accepted to Penn State University, where he majored in political science. He played varsity football, life-guarded along the beaches of Long Island during the summers, and, after graduating from Penn State University, chose the Navy over offers from two law schools.

Like the impeccable reputation he earned in the eyes of the community of Patchogue, Lieutenant Murphy's brilliant naval record reflects his courage, diligence, and steadfast dedication.

With firm resolve and a robust drive toward perfection, he was determined to exceed the SEALs' rigorous physical requirements and was known to perform chin-ups wearing full body armor to stay in shape.

Still, he took the time each day during his deployment to stay in touch with his family and his fiance, Heather, whom he would have married upon his anticipated return last fall. Through it all, he comforted them with a cheerful outlook and a sense of humor.

Although under the most unfortunate circumstances, I am proud to have come to know the Murphy family over the past year and feel privileged to represent them. Today, it is entirely appropriate that we pay tribute to their son by naming the post office on East Main Street in his hometown in his honor.

On behalf of Eastern Long Island, I thank all of my colleagues in the New York delegation for cosponsoring H.R. 4101, and appreciate the leadership's decision to call this bill to the floor. By passing this legislation, the Murphy family will know that they are in our thoughts and prayers and that our Nation will always honor the memory of their son.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4101.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina for her support of this measure, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. I wish to thank my colleague from Washington for yielding, and, more importantly, for his leadership on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, President Bush reminded the American people last week that he is a decider. His decisions affecting our economy, gas prices in particular, decidedly favor the wealthiest of his base. Thanks to terribly misguided economic priorities, oil and gas CEOs get two tax breaks for the price of one.

Subsidies worth $16.5 billion in the energy bill make it possible for oil and gas companies to lavish obscene compensation on their CEOs, who then, in turn, get to claim another break on capital gains and dividends.

This belies both the need for permanent rate cuts and the industry's argument that market forces instead of price fixing are responsible for gas approaching $4 a gallon. Do not take my word for it. IRS data show that for the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend cuts benefited only 1 in 7, and capital gains reductions helped just 1 in 20. While congressional leaders seem prepared to allow a stealth middle-class tax increase, which will negatively impact 19 million families, they are insisting on extending the dividends and capital gains cuts which will shower benefits on only 234,000 families in the main.

We can thank our President and congressional majority for these terrible choices and for the disastrous results.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the McDermott motion to restore sanity to our economic and energy policies, and so that they reflect the real values, needs and priorities of middle-class families and consumers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution and in support of the Democratic substitute.

The President and the Republican majority like to take credit when there's a better statistic to report about the economy. Those stats might mean something to the fortunate few in the top income bracket.

But middle-class families struggling to keep up with soaring tuition, health care and gas prices don't have much to celebrate. And a budget that builds on a strong economy for all Americans shouldn't be one that allows more pensions to evaporate and tears more holes through the safety net.

Is there any doubt today that this Administration's first priority has been--and continues to be--tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of education, health care, scientific research and other middle class priorities, all of which are being cut to pay for these tax cuts?

But my main concern is the hypocrisy of this budget--that extending dividend, capital gains, and tax cuts for millionaires and corporations are like a rising tide that lifts all boats. We've already proved more needs to be done than just hope that sooner or later tax cuts will reach Americans who need our help the most.

Why, for instance, are we saddled with recordbreaking deficits exceeding $400 billion; $3 trillion in new debt since 2001; a debt limit now over $9 trillion; and deep cuts to hospitals, schools, and security? If our tax cuts performed as our friends on the other side of the aisle had promised, an exploding economy would have wiped out this debt.

How can we possibly justify a budget that cuts taxes for millionaires worth more than President Bush requested for the Department of Education and more than twice his budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs?

The answer is that we can't justify the choices made to produce this budget. Under this resolution, Mr. Chairman, those who need our help the most must get in line and hope that the benefits of tax cuts for millionaires and corporations will ultimately trickle down to them.

Mr. Chairman, middle-class Americans deserve much better.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking Congressman Cooper for introducing House Concurrent Resolution 355, which recognizes the benefits and importance of school-based music education. He has been steadfast in his support of music as a learning tool in the classroom, and we appreciate his work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, every year schools throughout the country highlight the importance of music education. It is time to celebrate music and to use music as a means for enhancing the academic experience of students. While there has been much debate on how to teach students to read and to perform math, there is little debate that music contributes to overall learning ability.

We know that students who participate consistently in music activities over middle and high school show significantly higher levels of math proficiency by the 12th grade. Additional data shows correlations between music and higher SAT scores and a decrease in disciplinary problems and risky behavior. Students who are involved in music classes in school have higher self-esteem and self-confidence than their counterparts who do not participate in music class.

Unfortunately, even with all the data to support the importance of music in learning, many schools are struggling to keep art and music in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, music education is facing severe cuts in thousands of school districts throughout the Nation due to budget cuts. Instead of being able to fund programs to support music in the classroom, student choirs, and high school bands, local school districts find themselves struggling to find money for teachers' salaries.

Mr. Speaker, we must do better if we are committed to seeing to it that all children succeed. And for those who say that the three R's of reading, writing, and arithmetic should outweigh the arts and music in priority, I disagree. Music is a complementary academic subject and belongs right alongside math and reading.

In fact, the arts are considered a core academic subject under No Child Left Behind. This reflects an understanding by Congress and the President that the arts are critical to a well-rounded education.

Again, I would like to thank Mr. Cooper for bringing this resolution to the floor today and join with him in calling for more resources to our schools and to make sure that all children have access to music in the classroom.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the author of this resolution, my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Souder-Bishop amendment. This bipartisan amendment is the culmination of several months of debate and compromise among Members on both sides of the aisle, the Education and the Workforce Committee, and the college community.

I want to thank Mr. Souder for offering this important amendment with me, and I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon for his work on this issue.

Our amendment would simply require that, as part of its review for accreditation, colleges must publicly disclose their transfer of credit policies and specifically state whether the institution denies transfer of credit based solely on the accreditation of the sending institution. This language is, in our view, much improved from the original form and intent, and I proudly support it.

The original language in H.R. 609 included a provision that would have imposed a new transfer of credit mandate on colleges that would have created costly new bureaucratic headaches for students and institutions. In our view, we should not be dictating how colleges evaluate the coursework of transferring students as the earlier language would have required. Transfer credit decisions are academic decisions, not administrative decisions, and in principle, Congress should not be interfering in the academic decisions made on college campuses. Colleges and universities are fully capable of developing and implementing fair and appropriate transfer-of-credit policies on their own; and most important, it is in the best interest of students to have these judgments made by those most qualified to make them, and that would be the faculty and staff of the institution they attend.

The amendment we are offering today strikes the correct balance between academic autonomy and transparency for students. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Souder-Bishop amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Grace Peshkur and her family on the occasion of her fourth birthday today. Grace is an extraordinary child who has endured a life of struggle, and yet she has persevered against a rare skin disease and genetic disorder called epidermolysis bullosa, or EB for short.

Grace is an inspiration to many Long Island families who have rallied around her. She has helped raise awareness about EB, which I had never heard of before meeting Grace.

Over 12,000 Americans like Grace are afflicted with EB. The symptoms are fragile skin, recurrent blisters and painful sores caused by minor rubbing and that can be aggravated by routine activities we take for granted, like eating, walking and even changing clothes.

For Grace and her family, every day that goes by is another battle won. I admire the Peshkur family and over 12,000 other Americans afflicted with EB who fight this disease and are working to raise awareness, find better treatments and, ultimately, discover a cure.

In lieu of a fourth birthday present for Grace, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor H. Res. 335, which would raise awareness by creating an EB awareness week.

Mr. Speaker, we can only imagine the difficulty that Grace and her family face on a daily basis, but we can do something about it. We can provide the hope and promise of a cure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to H.R. 609 in its current form. Prior to coming to Congress, for 29 years, I was a college administrator, and I spent 16 of those years as the chief administrator of the college I served. And my views on this bill and on this rule are informed by what I learned over the course of that time in dealing with students and faculty and parents and staff and all constituencies of the higher education community.

Over a hundred amendments have been offered on this bill, and this underscores the importance of this bill and of this issue to this Congress and to our future. And I understand that we are going to have a second rule, but I am troubled that the Rules Committee thus far seems to have excluded a great many amendments that would have taken a bill that many of us take issue with and made it better. We are talking about getting it through this week. What's the rush? Why do we have to take the most important issue to our future and rush through a consideration of a bill that is going to have far reaching consequences for the next several years? I mean, is this not what the American people sent us here to do, to debate the issues of importance to our future?

Some specific issues: There is an amendment with respect to whether or not the Federal Government should have a role in evaluating transfer credit and forming institutional policies on transfer credit. Is that not an issue that this body should debate? Should this body not debate whether or not we ought to extend the tuition tax credit that expired on December 31, a tax credit, by the way, that primarily benefits the middle class? Should we not be debating a reasonable change to the needs analysis system, the fundamental system that determines a family's ability to pay, which determines their eligibility for aid, which, in turn, determines whether or not they will be able to attend college? These are just some of the issues that at least thus far the rule excludes from consideration. And in so doing, I would say that the American people and certainly the students of this country are not being well served.

As Mr. McKeon, our chairman, just said, education is the last issue we should be politicizing, but it appears that that is precisely what we are doing. Simply put, H.R. 609 fails to achieve its goal. We said the goal would be to make college more affordable and to expand access for Americans who wish to pursue the dream of a college education. H.R. 609, in its present form, falls woefully short of that goal. I say let us vote down this rule. Let us send the bill back to the Education Committee and let us try again.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I spent nearly 30 years working on a college campus, and based on my experience, I have three major concerns with H.R. 609.

First, in my view, this legislation, coupled with the budget cuts authorized by this Congress and further cuts proposed by the President, threatens to return the state of higher education in America to the pre-World War II era. Back then, only 5 percent of Americans had a college degree compared with nearly 30 percent today. This bill does little, if anything, to make college more affordable or expand access to Americans pursuing the dream of a college education. The bill is another step backward in a retreat from affordability and access.

Second, I oppose this bill because the Federal Government should not be in the business of telling colleges and universities that we know better than them when it comes to making decisions concerning the price of tuition, the transfer of credit, and academic freedom and integrity, yet that is what this bill does.

This bill is based on the flawed notion that colleges and universities are not capable of governing themselves and thus need to be directed by Congress. Our solution to this accountability problem is more intrusion into the day-to-day operations of colleges and universities. It is wrong for us to be dictating these decisions, and it is insulting to the colleges.

Worse, this ideology is inconsistent with the reality of what is actually happening on the college campus. It is illogical that Congress imposes government oversight into academia, but does not conduct the same oversight for the oil and pharmaceutical industries, to name just two.

Third, while this bill demonstrates a lack of confidence in the not- for-profit higher education sector, it shows strong confidence in the for-profit sector. As a result, there is less accountability and oversight for that sector.

I want to be clear that there are a great many for-profit schools which are excellent and have been doing a great job for a long, long time; but there is also a long history in the for-profit sector of defrauding students, parents, taxpayers and Congress, and there is skepticism toward the sector of higher education with a stellar record of achievement, that being the not-for-profit sector.

By relaxing safeguards put into place to keep students and taxpayers safe against fraud by proprietary institutions, Congress is essentially giving the for-profit sector their stamp of approval.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and vote against final passage of H.R. 609.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my opposition to H.R. 609, a higher education reauthorization bill that is much more than a day late and a dollar short.

As a former college chief administrator, I am deeply proud to represent my district, my State, and the higher education community on the Education and Workforce Committee; but I am not particularly proud of the reauthorization bill we produced.

We have had the past 8 years to build on the Higher Education Act of 1998. Today, we have an opportunity in this reauthorization bill to give young Americans and aspiring students more opportunities to attain the dream of a college education.

Indeed, we have a choice to expand access and the reach of the Federal Government's helping hand to those who cannot afford skyrocketing tuition, rising fees, room and board, textbooks, and so many other soaring costs and sacrifices associated with going to college.

But the choice we made late last year to cut student loans to the tune of $12 billion weakened our commitment to students. With those cuts in the budget reconciliation bill, we sent a message to America's students and their families that they are no longer among this Nation's top priorities.

As a consequence, the rapidly expanding gap between the amounts of available student aid compared to the cost of attaining a college education is growing out of control. And yet, while this administration's response is that colleges should simply charge less, it is not making the same demands of other industries that are equally critical to our economy's infrastructure and competitiveness.

This month, as high school seniors across the land receive their college acceptance letters, their proud parents are calculating how they can squeeze college costs into their budget. It is an uphill climb for most families that is made tougher by the President's budget cuts, which freeze Pell grants for a fifth year in a row; recalls the Federal portion of the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund that could extract another $600 million out of the student aid system each year; and freezes funding for SEOG and work study.

If we want to maintain our edge in the global economy, we cannot afford to undercut the administration's competitiveness initiative. But the promise of a more competitive workforce is simply incompatible with budget proposals to freeze Pell grants for a fifth year in a row and recalling a portion of the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund.

This hypocrisy builds on the Republicans' record on student aid: $12 billion in cuts to student loans; failure to extend the tuition deduction for higher education; and a 3-year long impasse over this reauthorization bill. Deep cuts in the President's budget will most likely carry over into the budget resolution we consider next week, further compounding the Republican hypocrisy. Similarly, the reauthorization bill moves America in the exact opposite direction of where our competitive workforce should be heading.

In fact, cuts to student aid threaten to return the state of higher education to the pre-World War II era, when only 5 percent of Americans had earned a college degree, compared with nearly 30 percent today. If we are to sustain our leadership and competitive edge in the global economy, we cannot afford to enact policies which will lead to only the elite being able to afford to go to college.

The so-called ``education President'' has put forward a woefully inadequate budget, and our leaders in this Chamber have presented a short-sighted reauthorization bill that falls short of what America's students, their parents, and our workforce deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I will be offering several amendments this week to address some of the shortfalls of H.R. 609. One bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Souder, would strike intrusive language in the bill dictating how colleges should carry out transfer credit policies.

An amendment sponsored by another colleague on the committee, Mr. Holt, would correct a problem with the State tax allowance tables that deprive over 1 million students out of their fair share of Pell grants and reduce, if not eliminate, their eligibility for other types of need-based aid.

I will also offer amendments to preserve the Perkins Loan Revolving Fund, extend the expired tuition deduction claimed by middle-class families, and increase oversight on the administration and grading of ability to benefit exams.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the Rules Committee will make these amendments in order. They are not partisan or political but, rather, commonsense amendments, making a weak bill better and keeping America's college students a top priority for this Nation.