Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the City of Bloomfield Hills, in Oakland County, Michigan which is celebrating its 75th anniversary on September 16, 2007. This city's rolling hills and beautiful gardens show why it continues to rank among Michigan's loveliest communities.

Bloomfield Hills celebrates its 75th anniversary simultaneously with the 200th anniversary of Woodward Avenue, the nation's oldest by-way. The two are inextricably linked because as Woodward developed, city dwellers were able to travel north of Detroit to enjoy fresh air and relaxed country living.

Originally a densely wooded wilderness inhabited by Native Americas, the Village of Bloomfield Hills grew from pastoral farms and orchards into the Estate Era, where men of vision and high ideals like, George Booth, bought huge parcels of land for summer retreats. Known by many names, including Bagley's Corners, Circle City, and Bloomfield Centre, the Village of Bloomfield Hills officially became a city in 1932 upon adoption of its City Charter.

George Booth envisioned elaborate plans for the acreage he acquired in 1904, designing a church and school for the benefit of the community. The jewel of his imagination, the Cranbrook Educational Community, a nationally acclaimed educational, scientific, and artistic complex, is on of Bloomfield Hills' most notable and unique treasures. Thousands visit the historical campus each year, enjoying the Cranbrook Academy of Art and the Cranbrook Institute of Science.

Madam Speaker, today Bloomfield Hills is a vibrant community in Oakland County that is home to over 4,000 residents, a preeminent graduate school of art, and Michigan's largest natural history museum. I congratulate them on their 75th anniversary and wish the residents many more years of prosperity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the rising cost of health care in this country. While the nature of health care makes reaching consensus difficult, Congress must take action to make health care more affordable.

For this reason, I have introduced H.R. 853, the Wellness and Prevention Act of 2007. This legislation encourages the implementation of wellness and prevention plans in the workplace. The bill allows companies and employees to collect tax credits for wellness programs.

Statistics have proven that every dollar a business spends on a wellness program results in a $3 return. Furthermore, Americans will take charge of their own health, thereby increasing productivity and reducing absenteeism.

I invite my colleagues to sponsor H.R. 853, because as the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Congress must now act to reduce the risk of disease, encourage a healthier America and help curb the rising cost of health care.

Madam Speaker, between 1915-1923, the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against 1.5 million Armenians. As the first genocide of the 20th century, this crime against humanity has yet to gain full recognition by the United States.

However, for the first time in history, the majority of Congress supports the Armenian Genocide Resolution, House Resolution 106.

While scholars, historians, and the international community acknowledge the genocide, the Turkish government continues to deny this atrocity. Passing House Resolution and recognizing the Armenian genocide will help prevent other nations from being victims of such horrid tragedies.

By acknowledging the events of 1915, Congress will finally recognize the history of an entire nation--a nation whose population was driven out of their homes, massacred, but never forgotten.

The United States owes Armenians recognition of this great crime, and should pass House Resolution 106.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an important problem that threatens America's position as the world's economic leader. Each year, only 70,000 students graduate from America's colleges with degrees in engineering and technology. In China, more than 700,000 students graduate per year with similar degrees. China, which has the world's fastest growing economy, is quickly becoming a dominant manufacturing power.

To ensure our position as the world's global economic leader, we must encourage students to pursue careers critical to America's industries. An educated workforce will be the stimulus for our economy. Therefore, I have introduced H.R. 1568, the Henry Ford Scholarship Program Act of 2007. By providing college students pursuing engineering, math, science or health care degrees with up to a $20,000 scholarship, America will create the innovators it needs to sustain our leadership in the competitive global market.

I invite my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1568. Together we can help our students afford higher education and ensure our economic well- being.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about why the Drug Elimination Grant Program was eliminated back in 2005.

It was terminated in 2005 after numerous reports and investigations revealed that the program had been greatly abused and that funds were being spent for completely inappropriate activities ranging from picnics to conferences. Further, as a competitive grant program, HUD had difficulty receiving qualified applicants, and much of the funds went unspent. In fact, at the time it was terminated, almost 2 years of funds remained unspent.

Instead, the Congress wisely, rather, increased the formula, the operating subsidy program, that has continued to significantly increase that program each and every year. As my colleague's amendment suggests, every activity funded by the former Drug Elimination Grant program is eligible for funding under the operating subsidy program. I think the chairman mentioned that.

This is a better way to achieve the Members' objectives, since these funds are sent to the PHAs by formula, so no competition or plan is required, and because there is certainty of funding.

Most importantly, it leaves it up to the PHA to determine the priorities of use of those funds.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this funding for housing counseling.

I know, Mr. Chairman, you have a view about hoping to see him withdraw, but there is an urgency involved here. This amendment recognizes the harsh realities that in many places across the country families face delinquencies in mortgage payments. And they're on a rapid rise. Michigan is one of those States as well. This modest amendment would add funds to professional counselors to help families keep their homes and perhaps help them avoid high-risk loans to begin with.

The program has been a proven success. Michigan, like Ohio, has been experiencing a rise in delinquent loans. This increase could make a huge difference for so many families who are facing a mortgage crisis.

The Inspector General has received significant increases since Katrina to ensure that it can monitor the use of funds in the reconstruction. Therefore, I do not believe the reduction will in any way impact the IG's ability to do its job, and could greatly improve the lives of many families facing a financial crisis.

I do support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection. We have no objection. We accept the amendment.

I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, am opposed to this amendment. A number of planned and paid-for capital improvement projects will be delayed or completely cancelled if this amendment goes through. And I think that the discussion you've heard from the two previous speakers is enough to suggest that, as much as we may want to help the dilemma in the gentleman's Florida area, there is a lot of other land out there across this country that needs to be looked at, too.

I yield to the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. John Mica.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield now to the gentleman on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Petri from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I, too, oppose the amendment. I agree that we need to do something with the problems that are out there. We have to strike a balance between our neighborhoods and our close-in airports. And I know that Mr. Garrett spoke about 1,500 people showing up for a hearing and/or town hall hearing, some kind. That's a lot of people, so there is a lot of grief and upset out there. But the traffic delays of the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania airports, as has been pointed out by Mr. Oberstar, are the worst in history, and I think it's less than 50 percent of the flights were on time. The FAA does need to act.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, Mr. Mica from Florida, a member of the T&I Committee.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will be very, very brief.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that we are all in agreement here. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is. I am. That should be the end of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would overturn HUD's urgent attempt to halt these scam practices by the so-called nonprofits that operate under the veil of helping people get mortgages.

Under the guidance of the Inspector General, and in coordination with the Treasury Department, HUD is moving to crack down on so-called nonprofits that offer to pay the down payment so that families can purchase a home. This amendment would overturn that effort and cost the taxpayers some millions of dollars in defaulted loans.

While there may be honest nonprofits, and I am sure there are, that genuinely want to help increase homeownership, this program does have many problems.

First, the default rate for mortgages in which the down payment is paid for by nonprofits is three times the national average. That is the default rate. This has cost millions and is a source of instability to the fund, and, according to HUD, is a major reason that the FHA fund is rapidly heading to a deficit situation.

Second, there is no free lunch. The mortgages are simply turned upside down with the down payment added to the price of the home. They are not free to the homeowner. Further, expensive fees are often added to the costs of the mortgage by nonprofits.

The Treasury Department is moving quickly to revoke the nonprofit status

of many of these organizations, but HUD needs to act now and needs to get this rule out as final.

I oppose any attempt to delay the rule and oppose this amendment. I think that if the Federal Government is so concerned about how a program is operating that it feels compelled to draft a regulation, I think we should carefully review the situation before we rush to overturn that effort. Frankly, we have not done that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection. We agree. We accept. Thank you.

And likewise, I accept as well.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I, frankly, am not in favor, and I must oppose this amendment because I think any superhighway between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, and there are no funds in this bill for this mythical private road, I just don't believe that this superhighway is something that we should get into.

And furthermore, this amendment puts a stop on several transportation-related initiatives between my State, which is Michigan, my city and Canada. For example, we've been working for years to improve the crossing at the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. That's the busiest, it isn't the second busiest, it's the busiest U.S.-Canadian crossing in our country. This amendment would stop years of work and cooperative efforts that we've been working on.

And another example of a cooperative effort under this partnership is aviation. I've got to tell you that there are three international airports in my area, all of which fly into Canada. DOT and Canada are working together to ensure that travel between the two countries is smooth, free and safe.

I would say, free of any burdensome barriers. This amendment would put all of the U.S.-Canada transportation initiatives to an end. That would be detrimental to the Nation.

I think the amendment is one that is a broad brush. It tries to actually focus on one thing, but it is too broad. In fact, it contains some elements that bring about a real problem. I think that they can do much better if they ever redrafted this.

But here is the story. There is no superhighway in this bill. There is not. But there are good initiatives in this bill, ongoing initiatives, that are vital to our country.

Mr. Chairman, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I accept the amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, as we consider the rule for H.R. 3074, that's the bill, of course, that makes the appropriations for the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, crafting the underlying bill before us has not been easy. While there are both certain funding and policy issues in the bill that I have concerns with, this bill represents a reasonable approach at funding our highways, transit systems, airports and housing programs.

The chairman from Massachusetts and I have worked together to resolve our differences as best possible. While we don't agree on everything, this bill is something, I believe, I can support.

Under this bill, highway programs will receive $40.2 billion. This meets the level guaranteed in the highway authorization bill called SAFETEA-LU, as required under House Rules.

Now, this is the next and most important line I am going to present this evening. For those that don't fully grasp the significance of this, if the bill does not meet the authorization levels, the bill can be struck on a point of order.

Further amendments that ultimately underfund the authorization levels will sink the bill.

One specific area I would like to highlight is the $75 million for FTA's Clean Fuels Grant program, a $26 million increase above fiscal year 2007. Promoting clean fuel bus technology such as hybrid buses can be an important aspect to reducing our carbon footprint, and I thank the chairman for working with me to include this additional funding.

I also want to point out that all specific projects included in the report were requested and certified by Members. This open rule will provide Members with the opportunity to offer amendments that would strike some projects. I would just say that both the majority and the minority reviewed all requests closely and required certifications from requesting Members.

These projects are important for local communities. I am sure, if there is a mayor city council member, or county administrator who doesn't want these funds to improve their communities, I haven't met them; and I thank again the chairman for making that inclusion.

I would conclude by saying that I look forward to the debate on the underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us, H.R. 3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing, and Related Agencies funding bill is, as the chairman noted, a balanced bill and a bill that I can support.

I am not going to repeat the funding proposals described by the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I will say that the vast majority of the legislation and the principles behind the funding levels are very similar to prior year House-passed bills for housing and transportation.

Crafting this bill is not for the faint of heart. There is no easy formula when you consider the authorizations and expectations of both the housing and the transportation communities. Neither group is shy about vocalizing what it wants, and both communities have needs and issues that need attention. Some of these needs are intertwined, however, and we do have different approaches for the solution. The chairman proposes that these issues need to be handled at a Federal level and has even included funds for a commission between DOT and HUD to coordinate housing and transportation policies.

I am of the school that the Federal Government needs to be aware of these issues and provide guidance on these issues, but we need to recognize that housing and transportation decisions are local decisions made by cities and metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs. I don't think any of our districts would appreciate the Federal Government's telling our cities where a bus should run or where housing should be located. The majority of these funds in this bill, from highways and transit to Section 8 and the Community Development Block Grant program, even flows to the States and localities without a lot of specific input from the Federal Government on how these funds are spent.

I want to thank the chairman for his wise and steadfast decision to keep new authorizing matters off this bill. There are a number of ideas in both housing and transportation being considered in the various committees of jurisdiction in both houses of Congress, and I agree that we need those committees to do their work and present to the Congress what might be the best proposal. I will work with the chairman and oppose any authorizing amendments to this bill.

In transportation, I thank the chairman for keeping the Amtrak pro- reform language in the bill. I am optimistic that with continued oversight

from the committee, the IG and the GAO, we can find a sensible operating scheme for Amtrak.

In highways, I know SAFETEA-LU and the budget resolution support the inclusion of the highway RABA funds. I don't know of any State that could not use more highway funding; however, as we have discussed in numerous hearings, the highway trust fund is speeding towards bankruptcy, and the mid-season review shows that receipts are down even further than originally anticipated. For the first time ever, the number of vehicle miles traveled declined. Eventually the rubber will hit the road, and this committee does not have jurisdiction over the income and expenditures of the highway trust fund, nor does this committee have the general funds to make up for any shortfall in the trust fund.

I do have some concerns about the size of the highway trust fund rescission. I will not deny that in the past we have used the rescission to ensure that programs in this bill are funded at an acceptable level; however, we did not propose a rescission of this magnitude so early in the game. I am hopeful that as we move through the conference, this number will go down.

In housing, I support the chairman's decision to bring the programs up at least to last year's level where the budget request proposed to make cuts, especially in CDBG, assisted housing, and housing for the elderly and disabled.

I am most appreciative of the chairman's decision to keep the Section 8 program a budget-based program in fiscal year 2008. I firmly believe that we need to see some continuity in the programs after the change is mandated in the fiscal year 2007 CR before we can evaluate what direction the program should go in the future.

In Section 8, the bill proposes adding 4,000 new vouchers, as I think the chairman referenced, of which 1,000 are directed by law to homeless veterans. The remainder of the new vouchers are for nonelderly disabled people, the so-called ``Frelinghuysen vouchers,'' as we used to call them thanks to Mr. Frelinghuysen's work on behalf of this community. We are supportive of the increase, but we cautiously remind the Congress that the cost increase each year to maintain the vouchers is substantial. The program baseline increases by $30 million each year into the future. This is not an increase to sneeze at.

Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend Mr. Olver, and his staff for their willingness to work with us to address my concerns and the concerns of many on my side of the aisle. He and his staff have been very fair and accommodating, holding true to a process that has been in place for years as he has crafted this bill. While we may agree to disagree on some specific policies, we agree on this introduced bill. I appreciate very much his decision to leave authorizing issues with the authorizers, and the directives and funding levels in this proposal are ones that I can support.

I also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their continued hard work during this past year. I know this has been a tough year on them, but I think their hard work is demonstrated in this decent and, I think, very thoughtful bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Mica amendment.

I understand that there is a lot of meat to what you just discussed, Mr. Chairman, but I think the real problem is, if you look at the AASHTO letter, the acronym for the State group, they recognize this as something that should be done.

We need to maintain the rescission to meet the funding requirements of the bill. I do support giving States the greatest flexibility to meet that rescission.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida for his closing comments.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, the thing that I have a problem with is we seem to be, and I know the gentleman is well-intentioned in terms of what he's doing, but we're losing more and more vouchers, and this is one way we're going to lose a substantial amount. If you reduce it by 330 million in tenant-based vouchers, you would have an adversive impact, a significant impact on the number of families that would receive assistance in 2008. So I must rise in opposition to this amendment.

The program today is administered based on the number of vouchers that are under lease. Currently, 13 percent

of the 2 million vouchers authorized turn over each year. This means that about 240,000 vouchers are relinquished each year and provided to new families or individuals.

The amendment, if adopted, would mean that about 47,000 vouchers could not be renewed upon turnover nationwide. And after years of trying to increase the use of vouchers so more families could receive assistance, this amendment would greatly undermine that effort.

While it is true that in 2007 the appropriations bill provided significantly more funding than was called for or was needed, reducing next year's funding level will offset the overage provided in 2007. Instead, 2007 funds should be recaptured and used by the Congress. So therefore, I must stand in opposition to this amendment.

I would be happy to yield.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to provide some perspective on the effect H.R. 1851 will have on discretionary spending and on the appropriations process. If we're not careful, we will be opening the door to a huge new spending at uncontrollable rates.

The section 8 voucher program has proved widely successful and popular. But there is also wide consensus that we must provide reform to the program, which I agree with. We all want the program to be effective, provide assistance to those truly in need and be fiscally responsible for American taxpayers.

First, I want to point out, there are positive reforms in H.R. 1851. The bill increases the number of PHAs allowed

to participate in the Moving to Work Program. This program, renamed in the bill as the Housing Innovation Program, gives PHAs flexibility to design and test methods that achieve efficiency, reduce costs and promote self-sufficiency.

The bill also enhances HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency Act program which works to give low-income families the skills and experience needed to become economically independent.

I do, however, have major concerns with the provisions in H.R. 1851 that abandons the budget-based funding methodology. Going back to the flawed unit-based methodology like this bill proposes is a recipe for budgetary disaster.

A unit-based system lacks incentives for PHAs to maximize assistance to needy families within a fixed budget. A unit-based formula system that includes costs incurred as well as units put under lease simply tells PHAs to lease at whatever cost they want, even if it is more than the market rate and the market price for the same unit. We already know what that can mean. We have experience with a unit-based approach and have seen what it means.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Appropriations Committee shifted to a unit-based funding to spur leasing, and the result was skyrocketing per unit cost and total funding requirements that increased by 40 percent, from $9 billion to $13 billion, in 2 years. In 2005, a budget-based system was reinstituted.

We, as appropriators, can simply not afford to see a similar increase in the future. Today, in total, the section 8 program has grown to consume 60 percent of HUD's budget. Going back to a unit-based program will only increase that percentage. Simply put, as the Housing Voucher Program takes up more of HUD's budget, there will be less we will have for other housing programs.

As the former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for HUD, and as the current chairman will attest, the growing Housing Voucher Program is forcing Congress to choose between section 8 vouchers and other important HUD priorities. That includes programs that support first-time ownership, home ownership, homeless facilities, and care and housing for the elderly and the disabled.

And then there is this Community Development Block Grant, which I believe virtually every Member supports because they hear from their mayor, the city council and from the county administrators on how the program makes their community better. If we're not careful, these programs will face deep cuts in future years just to accommodate the section 8 increases.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a work in progress. It has been improved in committee, and I believe amendments before us today can improve it further. I am hopeful that as the bill works its way through into the legislative process, we can improve it even more.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the importance of this bill and the many issues associated with U.S. foreign policy.

As a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for over 12 years, I commend first the new chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey, as well as the new ranking member, Mr. Wolf, for putting together a good bill with the allocations that they received. But let me be clear. The chairwoman and the ranking member have done a commendable job crafting our foreign assistance policies, and I support most of this bill. However, there are a few provisions that are in strong contrast to my views.

First let me highlight the provisions I strongly support. The bill fully funds the administration's request for Israel and Egypt. Ten years ago, the U.S. entered into a proportional agreement with the two countries. This bill marks the last year of this agreement. I am pleased that Congress has met its obligations to these two important allies in the Middle East.

The committee has also fully funded the Refugee Resettlement Program in Israel at $40 million. And further, this legislation almost doubles the President's request for Armenia. This funding is absolutely crucial as Armenia is still dealing with an illegal blockade by its neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia's economy has suffered, but U.S. assistance has helped stymie the economic detriment of these blockades.

The administration continues to deny Armenia adequate economic support in their request, and I commend the chairwoman again for seeing the importance of our ally, Armenia, and increasing economic funding for the country. Chairwoman Lowey has also continued military parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which sends a strong signal that the United States does not condone Azerbaijan's military threats towards Armenia.

Now, there are also a number of provisions and funding levels within this bill that trouble me. First among them is funding for the Millenium Challenge Account.

In 2004, Congress authorized a new and innovative program which fundamentally changed the way we view foreign assistance. The MCA provides assistance to developing nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms. Their motto, ``reducing poverty through growth'' speaks to the validity of the program. The MCA specifically awards compacts to countries that have shown improvement in eliminating corruption and investing in people and ruling justly, and fostering enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Before entering into a compact, the MCA and the eligible country work together to draft the parameters of the compact. Each compact is different because the needs of individual countries are different. For instance, the MCA and Armenia signed a compact that focuses on rural development and Armenia's agricultural industry.

What this program also does is to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted. Eligible countries are held accountable for how the money is spent as well as how their government is performing. I strongly believe that this program is the future of U.S. foreign assistance, where accountability and results are the top priorities.

This bill, however, underfunds the MCA by $1.2 billion. While I understand the subcommittee made every effort to accommodate funding given its allocation, funding the MCA at only $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2008 will stop the program in its tracks and slow the process of signing compacts with eligible countries.

Last year during the debate on the fiscal year 2007 Foreign Operations bill, the House approved $2 billion for the MCA. Now, a year later, the new majority has cut the MCA below the President's request and below the House-passed level for fiscal year 2007. This is no way to grow a program.

Mr. Chairman, during the full committee markup of the bill, the chairwoman expressed her support for the MCA and her willingness to work with me to find more funding for the MCA through the process. I very much appreciate her support and look forward to continuing to work with her on what I believe is a very, very important issue.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, there are provisions within this bill that go against the fundamental value of life. The United States has a long history of supporting nongovernmental organizations and other groups that support abstinence and prevention but do not promote abortion. Current policy is fair and balanced and has worked for years. However, this bill, I believe, goes against the will of the U.S. citizens and allows NGOs that promote abortion to receive U.S. Federal assistance. I understand there are going to be amendments to strike these provisions within this bill, and I intend to support these amendments. And although there are many things I support in this bill, if those amendments fail, I cannot support final passage.

I would hope the majority would work with the President and the minority to ensure that core American values are upheld as the bill moves forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Peter B. Ajluni of

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan on his election to the position of 111th president of the American Osteopathic Association.

In 1965, Dr. Peter B. Ajluni graduated from the Chicago College of Osteopathy to become a board certified osteopathic physician. For 35 years, Dr. Ajluni has delivered high quality service to his patients.

Currently, Dr. Ajluni is a senior orthopedic surgeon in the Bone and Joint Center at the Regional Medical Center in Mount Clemens, Michigan. He has also served as president of both the Michigan Osteopathic Association and the Michigan Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Furthermore, Dr. Ajluni has served on the American Osteopathic Association Board of Trustees since 1998.

As president of the American Osteopathic Association, Dr. Ajluni will lead 59,000 osteopathic physicians to deliver high quality and cost- effective health care in this vital profession. In addition, Dr. Ajluni will help to ensure the osteopathic community is united in their profession and that they receive the highest quality of education and training programs.

Dr. Ajluni resides in Michigan's Ninth Congressional district with his wife Judy. They have a daughter and two sons. I am proud to have the Ajluni family as constituents.

Madam Speaker, once again, I congratulate Dr. Ajluni on his election as the President of the American Osteopathic Association and for his long dedication to high quality patient care.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Reverend Douglas P. Jones, who celebrates his 18th anniversary as pastor of the Welcome Missionary Baptist Church in Pontiac, Michigan, on June 18, 2007, as well as his birthday on June 10, 2007.

After graduating from the University of Cincinnati, Pastor Jones continued his studies in pastoral care administration at Cincinnati Bible College. On April 8, 1989, the Welcome Ministry Baptist Church voted to call Reverend Jones as their pastor. During his years of service, he has earned certificates in various workshops and counseling sessions, as well as special training in administration, management, and planning. Under his leadership, the congregation has seen its membership grow from 165 to over 3,600.

Pastor Jones' tireless efforts and continued dedication to the ministry has allowed him to develop strong support that extends throughout the city of Pontiac and Oakland County. This includes serving as the Chaplain of the Oakland County Sheriff's Department, Board Chair of North Oakland Medical Center, and acting as a board member for the Pontiac Oakland Symphony, the Minority Chamber of Commerce, and the Salvation Army. Pastor Jones is more than deserving of the numerous honors and awards that he has received over the past 18 years, including commendations from the City of Pontiac, the State of Michigan, and even recognition from President Bill Clinton.

The impact that Pastor Jones has had on the community is immeasurable. As founder and President of the Greater Pontiac Community Coalition and board member of the Pontiac Youth Assistance Board, he has established programs that guide our youth to a brighter future. In addition, the scholarship established by his church has helped open the doors of success to hundreds of young men and women.

Today I recognize Reverend Douglas P. Jones for his commitment to his faith and community. He has truly worked to help better those around him. I wish him many years of continued success and a happy and healthy birthday.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do want to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Visclosky.

Today I rise to highlight the importance of research of advanced battery technology and our efforts to reduce our country's dependence on Mideast oil, also increase energy efficiency, cut emissions and strengthen the manufacturing sectors, all of which is all so vital to our economy. The U.S. automotive industry understands these goals and is currently working to meet them. I believe Congress should continue to assist The Big Three in reaching these goals.

There are many ideas that show promise of accomplishing these critical goals; but alternative and renewable fuels are an essential part of the equation and many promising technologies are being developed. Ethanol and biofuels are encouraging, but the technology and infrastructure simply are not there to make them viable solutions right away.

Hybrid-electric technology has already shown its capability to dramatically increase fuel efficiency and has proven to be acceptable to the American car consumer. However, gas-electric hybrid vehicles do not represent the end of this avenue. If we invest valuable research and development dollars into leap-ahead technology such as advanced batteries, we can move past the tailpipe entirely with fully electric automobiles.

The Japanese Government invests heavily in advanced battery research which benefits Toyota directly. The American auto companies asked President Bush and Congress for a modest investment of $500 million over the next 5 years for advanced battery technology research and development. This research, which would be conducted by USCAR, is critical to making the plug-in hybrids a reality.

While I understand the limitations that you face with your allocation, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope we will be able to work together to increase funding for advanced battery research and the development that goes with it as this bill works its way to conference.

I yield to the chairman.

I thank the chairman for his support and am greatly appreciative of his commitment to such an important endeavor. However, the U.S. automotive industry believes that a significant increase of Federal investment in the development of advanced batteries will not only improve fuel efficiency and reduce the emissions, but it will also help them compete with foreign automakers whose countries have already committed to provide significant funding for advanced battery R&D. The U.S. automakers believe that an additional $100 million this year for advanced battery R&D would considerably promote current efforts to develop the technology and become a leader in the production of advanced lithium ion batteries.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the City of Berkley, in Oakland County, MI, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this week. This City's rich history and enduring perseverance serves as a shining example of the mettle of all Michiganders.

Before being established as a village in 1823, Berkley was part of a vast forest and swamp teeming with quicksand and other perils. Despite these hardships, settlers pressed on through the wilderness outside of Detroit to stake their claims in Berkley. By 1832, the burgeoning number of settlers arriving in Detroit warranted a stagecoach route that ran through Berkley on the way to Pontiac.

Berkley, along with many other communities, suffered through many adversities during the Great Depression. However, the village met those challenges head on and established a pay-as-you-go plan, spending only what it took in, in order to continue to govern responsibly. Many of the residents became active in local politics, and upon learning of the benefits of becoming a city, the discussion commenced.

After a year of debate and preparation, the residents of Berkley adopted a city charter, and elected a mayor and six commissioners. On May 23, 1932, now with a population of 6,000, the City of Berkley was established. With Detroit opening up its factories to produce materials at the onset of World War II, the residents of Berkley joined in the war effort. In 1946 Berkley had spent more for constructing new facilities and factories than any other city in Oakland County.

Madam Speaker, today Berkley is a vibrant community in Oakland County that is home to over 15,000 residents, a state-of-the-art library, and a bustling downtown district. I congratulate them on their 75th anniversary and wish the residents many more years of prosperity.