Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, before beginning, Ms. Matsui, do you have 30 seconds you could yield me?

Mr. SHAYS. I thank both Members for their courtesy in yielding me this time. I have a different view than some of my colleagues. This industry may be highly regulated by State, Federal and international governments, but because all are involved, no one takes ownership. I had an experience with a constituent, George Smith, who was lost at sea on his honeymoon on board a cruise ship in the Mediterranean. We had hearings on this tragedy, and had people contact us with unbelievable stories of someone missing, the family never being notified, the cruise line taking the person's possessions and putting them in a lost-and-found and then selling them, of sexual assaults and thefts, and no information being provided about the crimes to the proper authorities. What this language does, the Matsui amendment, requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to maintain a numerical account of missing persons and alleged crimes committed on cruise ships. The database will be updated quarterly and aggregated by the cruise line industry. It requires cruise lines to include a link to this database on their public Web site. The public has a right to know about the exact circumstances that take place on board cruise ships. This is a sensible amendment. It needs to pass. And I thank her for introducing it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank my former chairman for yielding, and now ranking member of the Government Oversight Committee. I wanted to speak today because I have tremendous admiration for William Buckley, Jr. He lived in many places. He had a wonderful home in New York City, he had a wonderful home on the water in Stamford, Connecticut, in the Fourth Congressional District, and a family compound in Sharon, Connecticut, as well. Bill Buckley was an absolute delight to interact with. On occasion, not often, I would be invited to have dinner at his home, and he would have people of great notoriety. I would participate in the dialog, but a lot of the time I felt it was best to listen more than talk. I loved the twinkle in Bill Buckley's eyes as he debated people, and me, on occasion. There was nothing mean or angry ever in the way he spoke to people. He had strong views, but he clearly liked the interaction that took place. He loved debating ideas, he loved drawing you out. But I never once ever heard him be nasty about anyone. He was a conservative with strong views but he listened kindly to those with other views. I would like to place in the Record, A Eulogy for My Father, St. Patrick's Cathedral, April 4, 2008, and that is by his only son, Christopher Buckley. I will just read a slight part of it. This was delivered on the occasion of the memorial mass for his dad at St. Patrick's Cathedral. Christopher began by saying, ``We talked about this day, he and I, a few years ago. He said to me, `If I'm still famous, try to convince the cardinal to do the service at St. Patrick's. If I'm not, just tuck me away in Stamford.' '' Then Christopher went on to say, ``Well, Pup, I guess you're famous.'' Further on he said, ``Pope Benedict will be saying mass here in 2 weeks. I was told that the music at this mass for my father would in effect be the dress rehearsal for the Pope's. I think that would have pleased him, though doubtless he would have preferred it to be the other way around.'' It was a magnificent service. It was a service where great joy and admiration was expressed and with people from all political persuasions, from the most liberal, to the most conservative. We were saluting a man, the likes of which we may never see again, sadly. With that, let me say thank goodness for William Buckley, for his magnificent family, and for the grace which embodied everything he did. Eulogy for My Father Delivered on the Occasion of the Memorial Mass for the Repose of the Soul of William F. Buckley Jr. on April 4, 2008, at St. Patrick's Cathedral (By Christopher Buckley) We talked about this day, he and I, a few years ago. He said to me, ``If I'm still famous, try to convince the Cardinal to do the service at St. Patrick's. If I'm not, just tuck me away in Stamford.'' Well, Pup, I guess you're still famous. I'd like to thank Cardinal Egan and Msgr. Ritchie of the archdiocese for their celestial hospitality, and Fr. Rutter for his typically gracious words. I'd also like to thank Dr. Jennifer Pascual, musical director of St. Patrick's, as well as the St. Patrick's Cathedral Choir, and organists Donald Dumler and Rick Tripodi for such beautiful music. Pope Benedict will be saying Mass here in two weeks. I was told that the music at this Mass for my father would, in effect, be the dress rehearsal for the Pope's. I think that would have pleased him, though doubtless he'd have preferred it to be the other way around. I do know he'd have been pleased, amidst the many obituaries and tributes, by the number of editorial cartoons that depicted him at the Pearly Gates. One showed St. Peter groaning, ``I'm going to need a bigger dictionary.'' If I disposed of the cartoonist's skills, I might draw one showing a weary St. Peter greeting the Fed Ex man, ``Let me guess-- another cover story on Mr. Buckley?'' My mother is no longer with us, so we can only speculate as to how she might react to these depictions of her husband of 56 years arriving in Paradise so briskly. My sense is that she would be vastly amused. On the day he retired from Firing Line after a 33-year-long run, Nightline (no relation) did a show to mark the occasion. At the end, Ted Koppel said, ``Bill, we have one minute left. Would you care to sum up your 33-years in television?'' To which my father replied, ``No.'' Taking his cue, I won't attempt to sum him up in my few minutes here. A great deal has been written and said about him in the month since he died, at his desk, in his study in Stamford. After I'd absorbed the news, I sat down to compose an e-mail. My inner English major ineluctably asserted itself and I found myself quoting (misquoting, slightly) a line from Hamlet, He was a man, Horatio, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again. One of my first memories of him was of driving up to Sharon, Connecticut for Thanksgiving. It would have been about 1957. He had on the seat between us an enormous reel- to-reel tape recorder. For a conservative, my old man was always on the cutting edge of the latest gadgetry--despite the fact that at his death, he was almost certainly the only human being left on the planet who still used Word Star. It was a recording of MacBeth. My five-year-old brain couldn't make much sense of it. I asked him finally, ``What's eating the queen?'' He explained about the out-out-damned spot business. I replied, ``Why doesn't she try Palmolive?'' So began my tutelage with the world's coolest mentor. It was on those drives to Sharon that we had some of our best talks. This afternoon, I'll make one last drive up there to bury him, alongside with his sisters in the little cemetery by the brook. When we held the wake for him some days after he died, I placed inside his casket a few items to see him across the River Styx: his favorite rosary, the TV remote control-- private joke--a jar of peanut butter, and my mother's ashes. I can hear her saying, ``Bill--what is that disgusting substance leaking all over me?'' No pharaoh went off to the afterlife better equipped than he does. The last time I was with him in Sharon was last October. It was a fundraiser for the local library, billed as ``A Bevy of Buckleys''--my dad, Uncle Jim, Aunt Pitts, Aunt Carol, me-- reading from the aggregate Buckley oeuvre--a word I first heard from his lips many years ago, along with other exotic, multi-lingual bon mots: mutatis mutandis; pari passu; quod licet Jove, non licet bovi. An article had appeared in the local paper a few days before, alerting the community to this gala event. As I perused the clipping, my eyes alighted on the sentence: ``The Buckleys are a well-known American family, William F. Buckley being arguably the best known.'' I kept my amusement to myself, and handed Pup the clipping and waited silently for the reaction I knew would come. Sure enough, within seconds, he looked up with what I would describe as only faintly bemused indignation and said, ``Ar-guably?'' He was--inarguably--a great man. This is, from a son's perspective, a mixed blessing, because it means having to share him with the wide world. It was often a very mixed blessing when you were out sailing with him. Great men always have too much canvas up. And great men set out from port in conditions that keep lesser men--such as myself--safe and snug on shore. One October day in 1997, I arrived from Washington in Stamford for a long-planned overnight sail. As the train pulled into the station, I looked out and saw people hanging onto lampposts at 90-degree angles, trying not to be blown away by the northeast gale that was raging. Indeed, it resembled a scene from The Wizard of Oz. When the train doors opened, I was blown back into the carriage by the 50-mile-an-hour wind. I managed to crawl out onto the platform, practically on all fours, whereupon my father greeted me with a chipper, ``We'll have a brisk sail.'' I looked up at him incredulously and said, ``We're going out in this?'' Indeed we did go out in it. We always went out in it. Some of my earliest memories are of my mother, shrieking at him as the water broke over the cockpit and the boat pitched furiously in boiling seas, ``Bill--Bill! Why are you trying to kill us?'' But the cries of timorous souls never phased him. He had been going out in it for years, ever since he published his first book, God and Man At Yale. Nor did he need a sailboat to roil the waters. His Royal typewriter--and later, Word Star--would do. How many words flowed from those keyboards. I went up to Yale recently to inspect his archive of papers. They total 550 linear feet. To put it in perspective, the spire of St. Patrick's rises 300 feet above us. By some scholarly estimates, he may have written more letters than any other American in history. Add to that prodigal output: 6,000 columns, 1,500 Firing Line episodes, countless articles, over 50 books. He was working on one the day he died. Jose Marti famously said that a man must do three things in life: write a book, plant a tree, have a son. I don't know that my father ever planted a tree. Surely whole forests, whole eco-systems, were put to the axe on his account. But he did plant a lot of seeds and many of them, grown to fruition, are here today. Quite a harvest, that. It's not easy coming up with an epitaph for such a man. I was tempted by something Mark Twain once said, ``Homer's dead, Shakespeare's dead, and I myself am not feeling at all well.'' Years ago, he gave an interview to Playboy Magazine. Asked why he did this, he couldn't resist saying, ``In order to communicate with my 16-year-old son.'' At the end of the interview, he was asked what he would like for an epitaph and he replied, `` `I know that my Redeemer liveth.' '' Only Pup could manage to work the Book of Job into a Hugh Hefner publication. I finally settled on one, and I'll say the words over his grave at sunset today in Sharon, as we lay him to rest. They're from a poem he knew well--Robert Louis Stevenson's Requiem--each line of which, indeed, seemed to have been written just for him: Under the wide and starry sky Dig the grave and let me lie. Glad did I live, and gladly die. And I lay me down with a will. This be the verse you grave for me: Here he lies where he longed to be. Home is the sailor, home from sea, And the hunter home from the hill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I appreciate his launching this bill. Let me say, first and foremost, that you have worked on this legislation for over 4 years, and you have done what many of us in Congress said we wanted to do. We said we wanted Americans to have the same health care that Members of Congress have. And that's what I said, the same health care that Federal employees have, because that's the program that Members of Congress are a part of. It's a program that in my State, and in most States, we have, like, 18 different choices. And so what I'd like to do, I'd like to start out, if you wouldn't mind putting the American health benefit guiding principles back up on the chart there, because I think that's a good way to start out. And, again, let me say, Congressman Langevin, it's a privilege to work with you. You have done incredible work to bring forward a plan that Congress can consider seriously. And what you've done is what all of us said we wanted to do, and you've given me the privilege of not having to write it, but I got to edit it. And that's a lot of fun. So this is a partnership, and what a great partnership, to be able to first argue, as you have, that chart in front of you, universal coverage. So there's 85 percent of the Americans have coverage and 15 percent don't. 90 percent have it in Connecticut. But there are about 45 million Americans that don't have health coverage. What that does, as you've pointed out so well, it means that you have a distortion in the marketplace because those 45 million are going to get covered when they are really sick in a hospital, and it's going to be the uncompensated care. So you've written a bill that says, universal coverage. You've written a bill that says, Americans will have choice, which is really important to me. You've written a bill that said there'll be shared responsibility, that individuals, employers, the government, hospitals, insurers, all have a responsibility. That's what you've done. You and I are seeking to have this be affordable, so we are going to talk about a commission that we've established that would be established under this bill. But you want it to be portable. You want it to be that if an employee moves somewhere else they're going to have that same coverage. And if the employee wants to upgrade, they can upgrade every year, or reduce it, because Federal employees pay 28 percent of the cost. The government pays the employer, in this case, 72 percent. So 28 and 72 on the part of the government. The continuity concept, that if employers have worked out a really good program with their employees then they can keep it. But eventually I think they will ultimately want to be part of the American health benefit plan. And I particularly like the aspect that no insurer is going to be allowed to participate unless they have a strong preventative care program. And we can get into that. And then the health care re-investment. Insurers take 20 percent out and 80 percent goes to health care. The way you've drafted the bill, and we are promoting this bill, there's going to be, our expectation, and this is our goal, is that 90 percent be reinvested into health care. Now, it's pretty amazing when you look at the differences in cost. And maybe you want to comment on this. You have a pretty good view of it. But we're looking at statistics in 2004. And you can see that the Gross Domestic Product in the United States, in 2004, was 15 percent. And yet, it was 11 percent, and in 1980 it was 8.8. But the significant thing is Canada's is at 10, just slightly under 10, where ours is at 15. The United Kingdom is at 8 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Japan is at 8. And Germany slightly over 10. There's a big difference in the cost here compared to our cost. I have a sense that part of that is just the uncompensated care, and that's, you know, we've had information that says that. But I think this is one that just gets you to have to wake up. If we do nothing, if we do nothing, we are going to be spending, by the year 2016, it's estimated, over $4 trillion a year in health care. And it still means that a good number of Americans don't get the coverage. So we have to do something. And let me just make this last point, and then I know that you'll have things that you want to say as well. But our bill, the bill that you wrote, and the bill that I'm now a part of, is going to give Americans choice. And there are going to be some other bills presented. There's a bill that says you have a single payer system. There's another bill that says the individual pays and not the employer in a tax to, and as you've designed the bill, pays into a tax, in which we have 300 million people in one pool. So you don't have this problem of a single employer. But, no, I just want to make this point before yielding back. The point I want to make is that we all know we're going to get to universal coverage. And the question is not if, but when. The other question is what is it going to look like? We have the perfect model, a system that the employer pays, that the individual pays, a system now where the hospitals, because they won't have such uncompensated care, will be contributing a bit, and where the insurers are going to be making sure that more goes into health care. And there's the other plan that will come out here, Mr. Wyden's bill, that deserves to be looked at, where the individual is going to pay. There's again, the single payer plan. And then there's the other groups that say, well, let's just kind of work on the edges and keep covering more and more of the uninsured and then see what it looks like when we're done. So maybe we could have more back and forth dialogue, but this is something I deeply believe in. And I appreciate the work that's gone in by you and your staff. And now, my staff as well. And this is a debate that Congress needs to say, let's begin it. Let's have a hearing in the House and in the Senate on this legislation, on the other legislation. Let's understand the impact on individuals and on employers. So this is a lot of fun for me to be out here with you.

Mr. SHAYS. And if I could just jump in. The key that you make is that there are 8 million individuals, either actively working for the government or retired, who are part of the same pool, and so the purchasing power becomes more powerful.

Mr. SHAYS. And the exciting part, I think, or the very sensible part of what we have as Federal employees, because as Congressmen, we have that same plan that all Federal employees have, is that we can choose to upgrade our plan and spend 28 percent on the more expensive plan, or we can choose to lower it each year. But we never have a problem of there being a pre-existing condition. And thinking how it would work in the private sector, you move to another job and you will be able to keep the same plan. Or you are unemployed. You lost your job. And you have this huge fear of buying COBRA and having to pay all of the cost, and you can't. You're not working. In this case, you would be part of the government coverage, and it would be paid for almost entirely by the government, in that instance, until you were back working. And what's hugely important about that is to recognize though, that that individual wouldn't, then, be able to get the most expensive plan, they'd have the basic plan. But the basic plan is a good plan.

Mr. SHAYS. If I could thank the Speaker as well. And thank you again and your staff, and my staff as well. It's a great opportunity to work on this legislation with you. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. I love to talk about this and just delve into the preventative care part even more. The insurance company isn't guaranteed that that individual will be with them for life. But they are aware that the insurance company's part of the American Health Benefit Plan and that all of the other insurers, as well, have to focus on preventative care. And that's going to be hugely important how people take care of themselves; are they having physical checkups, but more importantly, how do they take care of themselves? Are they smoking? Are they overweight? You are going to have insurance companies that are going to provide incentives for people, one, to not smoke; to provide incentives for them to lose weight; and this is going to also include a health savings account for those who want it. And the significance of that will be that it becomes a high deductible. So they would have to put in for the first few thousand dollars, but it comes out of what they put into a savings account. And if they don't spend it, then it stays in that savings account. And then there has been no cost to the insurer and, in this case, it will be a less expensive plan to the government as well.

Mr. SHAYS. I would love to, if you wouldn't mind, just point out that what we have done in this legislation is that when the bill passes, it will take 2 years to be implemented so that as we vote out the legislation with whatever changes are in there, it may be that the amount that an employer has to put into the system may be higher or lower in certain numbers of employees and so on; and we can go back to that chart in a second. But we want to have time to write the legislation but then to examine it during the course of the 2 years. And one of the things that we've done is that we require there to be a health benefits commission. And the significance of that is that we don't want the United States to be spending so much more than other countries. So much of our wealth and our income is going into health care, and we would like it to be less.

Mr. SHAYS. But they won't have to negotiate a plan every year, and it won't be unique to that business. It will be a plan that will have been negotiated by the American Health Benefits Plan. You know, I look at this trend line, and I see that we're looking that in the year 2016, we would be spending $4 trillion. But what will we be spending in the year 2020? And this is without doing what we need to do, which is to reform the system. And so what we have done is we have established a commission, and the commission will be of nine members, the chair and vice chair, as well as two other members who will be chosen by the comptroller general. The President, the majority leader, the minority leaders of the Senate and Speaker, the minority leader of the House will choose one representative. And the commission shall examine and make recommendations regarding the major issues and cost drivers affecting the delivery of health services as it pertains to the American Health Benefit Program. Within the legislation, we specifically are directing the commission to examine a comparison of the American Health Benefit Plan to other public health insurance programs, the proper implementation and utilization of electronic medical records and other health information technologies, including privacy and interoperability issues. We're directing them to look at the effects of medical malpractice insurance and defensive medicine on the delivery and cost of health care, and that's something that needs to be looked at. The patterns and effects of overutilization. When do people overutilize care? Why do they overutilize it, and what steps can an overall plan do to encourage all of the insurance companies to have some of the basic same practices that would discourage overutilization? We are having them look at the cost and implementation factor of retiree health coverage under the American Health Benefit Plan. What is the impact of retirees? And candidly, what is the impact of the last few months of someone's life when we see a huge amount of money spent? A comparison of prescription drug prices under the American Health Benefit Plan to other public health programs, and the effects of insurance monopolies on health care costs and delivery, we need to look at that. Now, what this commission will do, it has 18 months to file its findings, which is 6 months before the law actually goes into effect. But we're asking them to give us a preliminary finding 12 months in, a final version 18 months, but one 12 months. So the legislation passes 2 years before it's implemented. The commission comes back in a year and says, You need to make these changes to help control costs, to help discourage overutilization, to help with preventative care. That would help save costs in the long run. We will come back 18 months later. Now, one of the last points I would make, and I know that you have comments that you need to make as well, we are willing to amend this legislation as we get data. And, for instance, I hope that sometime again we can look at the chart that you had where you talked about employer contributions because we're asking employers to say, okay, what do you pay now and how would this legislation impact you. And even if now they would be paying a little bit more, I suspect that in the long run, because their costs are going up significantly without a plan, but if I could just point out how this chart works. It's rather small. But we look at an average wage earner of $21,000 or less, and then we say okay, there's 10 employees to 25 employees. There are 200 to 500 employees. That's on the left column. And in an average wage of $21,000 or less, even with 500 employees, they would only be paying about $1,000, slightly over $1,000 a year. Now, when you go and look at someone who is making $83,000-plus, the amount that they would be contributing would ultimately max out, potentially, at a much higher rate, more than $10,000. But the question is, what do they pay now? Did I get that right? Yeah. But the point is, employers are going to say, I have 26 employees, their average salary is $42,000. They will know that they're going to be paying approximately $6,600 an employee. So that's what they would pay under this plan. What do they pay now, and are there employees having the same choices that now--do they have the same choices under their private plan as they would under this plan?

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Because what we do is we cap the payroll at $120,000. And so it ends up being $12,000 an employer would pay. But when I was speaking of someone with 500 employees, they would pay $21,000 salary, they pay 5.25, 5\1/4\ percent of payroll. It gets up to, if they're making $83,000 on average, and that would be quite a company, then they would be paying the 10 percent rate. And the key is that when we drafted this legislation, we had the input of private foundations and experts. But in the end, this still is an estimate of what we think brings in the revenue needed to provide the services. And the challenges you just don't know until you get more into it. That's why the hearings are so necessary.

Mr. SHAYS. We have to draft legislation that we think is as accurate as can be, and then we present it to those who would be impacted: Employers, government individuals, and say tell us how it impacts your life. I have committee meetings, and I had individuals say, well, for a period of time I lost my job. This plan would have meant I would have had health care. I had someone else who said, you know, I had a condition. I was insured. I couldn't hold my COBRA. I couldn't keep my insurance for a while. It stopped. And then I got insurance later and they said, you had a preexisting condition, and they weren't covered. I had business men and women who said, I only have five people in my office, and we're paying an exorbitant amount. I mean, under our legislation, someone who had less than 10 would be paying, if their salary was $21,000, 4 percent of payroll. If their salary was 83, they would be paying 6 percent of payroll, far less than what they're paying now, far less. And so, it's a debate that we need to have. Now, I'm waiting for the employer who comes to me and says, guess what? Under your plan, I'm going to have to pay more. I want him or her to tell us why and how much. So we need to make sure that people get on your web page or our web page and take a look at this legislation and give us feedback. We're going to literally tour the country to argue that we need to begin, first, a debate on health care that our bill, the bill presented by Mr. Wyden, the bill of the single payer, all of that should be brought forward for really a terrific debate.

Mr. SHAYS. See, that's, I think, one of the key points. You could make an assumption that 15 percent are not covered and you're now going to cover them, that it means it's going to be more expensive for everyone. And there are arguments that we might have to phase the legislation in to make sure that we get more doctors and nurses and so on because we're looking at potential shortages. But the key thing is that those that don't have insurance have extreme measures taken, and by extreme, more services, more costly services. And so we have this artificially inflated cost, and that clearly will have an impact if everyone is, in fact, covered. Before we end, I'd love to make sure we just go right through the simple parts of this legislation. If I could just start by saying you've written a bill that says all Americans should have the same health care benefits and opportunities that Federal employees have. Federal employees, Members of Congress who are Federal employees, we pay 28 percent of the cost, the government pays 72 percent of the cost. We can get a more expensive plan or we can get a less expensive plan. What your plan does is it puts everyone in a pool, one pool, 300 million people. It spreads out the cost. It gives all Americans at least, probably--we have now 18 choices, there will probably be more, and they have choice. Your plan says that you will never lose your insurance, ever. Your plan says it doesn't matter if you're an employer with five employees or one with a thousand. Your plan recognizes whether you're one person or 500, you're going to get covered and be part of the same pool. And ultimately it means that we're going to do something that we've talked about for 50 years, and that is, this great country of ours, the United States of America, will have a universal plan, all Americans. And when we do it, I think you're going to find that we're going to say, what took us so long? So it's just a real pleasure and an honor to work with you and your staff. And I look forward to our having some impact on this hugely important issue.

Mr. SHAYS. We just have to insert different names here, but our web page is www.house.gov/shays. If someone goes to www.house.gov/shays, they will see this plan, as we've been talking about, on our main page. And I'm assuming that your web page would be www.house.gov/langevin. So they can go on either of our web pages and see the plan. We would love for people to respond, tell us what they like about it, how they would benefit. And then we would like their help in contacting their Member of Congress and saying we would like you to support the Langevin bill, and get on it. We need to start getting cosponsors. We need to encourage Congress to have hearings on this legislation, begin that process. So again, that's www.house.gov/langevin or www.house.gov/shays.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the work on both sides of the aisle. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5715, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, because it is an important legislative step to addressing the liquidity shortage in the student loan market. I would like to thank Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon and the Education and Labor Committee in general for bringing this legislation to the floor today to ensure continued access to student loans in this time of financial strain. This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, this is an American issue, and I'm grateful we were able to work together to take this first step to protect our Nation's students. The fallout of the subprime market and subsequent weakening of the credit market has destabilized what many consider to be sound investments, most notably, student loans. Investors are not hungry to invest, funds have dried up, and lenders have been unable to secure the capital they need to make new loans. All this in the aftermath of reductions in lender subsidies to the Federal Family Education Loan Program that were made in the past 3 years and have created the perfect storm in the student loan market. We should re-examine the effect of these cuts and affect swiftly if we have an over-cut in any area. What's more, lenders have backed out of the program before most students have even gone to secure their loans for next year. We see the potential for a problem ahead, and I believe it is our job in Congress to find solutions and alternatives now, before we see a repeat of the subprime mortgage market meltdown. When we considered the Higher Education Reauthorization bill back in February, I offered an amendment expressing a Sense of Congress that the Departments of Education and Treasury explore options within Federal financing institutions to ensure liquidity for the program providers. While I am pleased that Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon have included this language in the bill before us today, I wonder if we would be in this situation had we worked to address this situation back in February. Lenders who have exited the FFEL program account for 13 percent of total student loan volume in the FFEL program. What's worse, we have not entered the period of time when students will call their individual lenders for next year's loans. We need to act quickly to prevent students from being denied loans. While I believe this bill is a good first step, we need to work with the Treasury Department to open access to Federal financing institutions like the Federal Home Loan Bank or the Federal Financing Bank. Ultimately, this is a liquidity issue. While I am pleased the bill provides additional Federal assistance to students and their families, I am concerned that we are not getting to the heart of the matter. It is alarming to think in this period of economic uncertainty we would be willing to provide anything less than the highest quality education to citizens of our Nation. Access to higher education is critical to maintaining our global competitiveness. And, again, let me thank both the chairman and ranking member.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, just before yielding, I would like to explain to my colleagues on the other side that we have 8 minutes left. We are going to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois and then reserve our 3 minutes and you are going to have an opportunity to go through a number of speakers. With that, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask my colleague, does he just have one last speaker?

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself the remaining time. I appreciate first the work of Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congressman Spencer Bachus to bring the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008 to the floor, and in particular, my chairman, Barney Frank, who continues to be an American first and is an outstanding chairman of the Finance Committee and puts all the partisan stuff second. I appreciate that. Debt cancellation has proven to reduce poverty and save lives. It sends a strong message that we care about the rest of the world. It is sound economics, and it is humane. The debt cancellation support by Congress in 1999 and 2005 has reached more than 2,000 countries in Africa and Latin America as has been described already. When Uganda is using $57.9 million freed by debt cancellation to increase spending on primary education, malaria control, health care and infrastructure, that is good for every Ugandan citizen, its neighbors and the world at large. Today's legislation, adopting an additional nine impoverished countries to the list of countries eligible for debt cancellation and making an additional 15 countries eligible for relief is a very positive step. The bill costs an estimated $197 million if all nine countries enter into the agreement, and $119 million if Vietnam decides not to participate. This is reasonable expenditure, a wise investment and a significant effort of goodwill by our country towards the world community. While I support this legislation, debt relief by itself will not lead to reforms that are needed in many of these countries. Investment in foreign policy programs that promote world stability is crucial, and that is why oversight is so important. Many of us in this Chamber believe responsible debt relief is not only the right thing to do, but it is also in our national security interests, particularly when coupled with reforms that will lead to substantial development. Developing nations that improve economically and help their citizens out of poverty and despair are much less likely to develop in ways that make them a threat to their neighbors and the greater world. I urge passage of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2008, and I again thank all those involved, the chairman of the full committee Mr. Frank, Ms. Waters and my ranking member, Spencer Bachus. I yield back my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan manager's amendment. I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Mr. Bachus and Mrs. Biggert for their work on the amendment, which addresses several concerns that Members had with the version of the bill reported by the Committee on Financial Services. With the adoption of this amendment, the Jubilee Act will be a better bill. The manager's amendment clarifies the conditions for that relief. Specifically, it will ensure that countries receiving debt relief comply with specific outlined conditions. By doing do, these countries will be held accountable, and, as a result, the debt relief accorded them will be effective in alleviating poverty, establishing sustainable development and ensuring good governance. Beyond clarifying the requirements for eligible countries, this amendment adds three more: Requiring greater cooperation with the U.S. on human trafficking, preventing illegal immigration to the U.S., and promoting Democratic standards within the country benefiting from debt relief. These additional measures will have a positive effect not only on the recipient nations, but on the U.S. as well. Finally, the manager's amendment makes clear that countries that have engaged in human rights violations and aided terrorism are excluded from receiving debt relief. This manager's amendment represents progress towards making this a more effective measure. I again commend the sponsors of the amendment, and urge its adoption. Without objection from the chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who had wanted a minute when we didn't have time. I would like to give him a minute at this time.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to emphasize we support this amendment, and I yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be silent to the concerns that my colleague from Florida Mr. Hastings has expressed. Haiti is a country that has tremendous poverty, and while his resolution speaks to the HIPIC package of the 43 nations who have already been authorized for debt forgiveness. I hope the folks in the administration are listening to his concern that is shared by so many. While the legislation before us deals with countries to be added to the list, I think he is right in pointing out a concern that I know many on this side of the aisle share. Haiti is a country in desperate need of help, and it is a very close neighbor and friend and we need to do everything we can to help it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, on April 14, 2008, I missed 3 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on recorded vote number 183, ``yea'' on recorded vote 184, and ``yea'' on recorded vote 185.