Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the anniversary of America's staunchest ally in the Middle East, Israel. After 60 years, Israel has proved that a nation that embraces liberty and democracy can flourish in the face of even the strongest adversity. Despite decades of violence and terrorist attacks, the Israeli people have achieved an outstanding level of economic, intellectual, and cultural success.

Among its most notable achievements has been its well-earned reputation as a free sanctuary for millions of refugees from around the world. No other nation in the Middle East has embraced a diverse array of oppressed people like Israel. Over the last 60 years, individuals from more than 100 countries have traveled there and found a welcome home. And, as in America, this great diversity has created a vibrant culture, one that I have enjoyed on several occasions.

In Israel, I have seen firsthand the impressive contributions Israelis have made to the world in areas from scholarship and engineering to cooking and music.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the people of Israel on this historic achievement. Their efforts have created for America a powerful ally and a dynamic trading partner, and I'm confident that our close relationship will remain strong for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of House Resolution 1142, recognizing May 25, 2008, as National Missing Children's Day. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan declared May 25 to be National Missing Children's Day. In doing so, he provided an annual reminder of our Nation's obligation to locate and recover missing children. National Missing Children's Day prompts parents, guardians, and other trusted adult role models to make child safety a priority.

It is tragic that every year thousands of children are abducted or go missing in our country. While more missing children come home safely today than ever before, there is still work to be done. Nearly 8,000 children are reported missing each year in the United States. More than 2,000 children are reported missing every day. Too many children do not make it home, and many more continue to be victimized by acts of violence. In fact, children are the most victimized segment of our society, and crimes committed against children of all ages are the most underreported of any victim category.

In 1979, the disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz served as the impetus for the creation of National Missing Children's Day. Etan's photo appeared in the media across the Nation and around the world. His image came to represent the anguish of thousands of families searching for their missing children. Today, local, State, and Federal law enforcement work diligently across the country in an effort to find children and reunite them with their families.

In December 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2517, the reauthorization of the Missing and Exploited Children's Program. I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of that bill, and am hopeful that we will be able to complete the reauthorization this Congress.

Our efforts here in Congress provide resources, training, and technical assistance in order to assist in increasing the capabilities of State and local law enforcement to locate missing children. The recognition of May 25, 2008, as the 26th National Missing Children's Day serves to remind us that we still have work to do to reunite families, work that requires parents, families, neighbors, and law enforcement to come together to locate all missing children.

For this reason, I am proud to join my fellow cochair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, Mr. Lampson, in support of National Missing Children's Day, and thank him for introducing House Resolution 1142. I ask for my colleagues' support, and thank Mr. Bishop for managing this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1147, congratulating the Northern Kentucky University Norse women's basketball team, the 2008 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II tournament champions. How far women have come since the days that women basketball players were required to play half court only. I remember those days. This has really changed.

On March 29, 2008, and before a crowd of 3,067, the unranked Northern Kentucky Norse, from Highland Heights, Kentucky, put an end to the third-ranked University of South Dakota's Coyotes' 31-game win streak. NKU's women's basketball team used a 23-9 run to overcome a nine-point deficit and beat South Dakota 63-58 in the 2008 NCAA Division II national championship game.

Only 3 weeks earlier, NKU was just hoping to make it into the NCAA tournament. The Norse improved its NCAA chances by advancing to the Great Lakes Valley Conference finals, where it lost to Drury. Despite the loss, the team received a fourth seed in the Great Lakes regional. Earlier in the tournament, NKU had to overcome a 15-point deficit to win its first round games against Indianapolis, 55-54. The Norse then whipped Drury, 84-65, and edged Missouri S&T, 60-52, on the path to the finals.

NKU is led by one of the top coaches in the NCAA Division II women's basketball, Nancy Winstel. Currently in her 25th season as head coach at Northern Kentucky University, Coach Winstel reached the 500-win plateau 3 years ago. With this most recent championship, Coach Winstel has led NKU to two national titles, having earlier guided NKU to the 1999-2000 NCAA Division II national championship.

We should recognize Northern Kentucky University for embracing a regional stewardship role as reflected by its significant consideration to the intellectual, social, economic, cultural, and civic vitality of the region and the commonwealth. NKU supports multidimensional excellence across the full breadth of its work: Teaching and learning, research and creative activity, and outreach and public engagement. The university fosters a community that values openness, inclusion, and respect, and is committed to intellectual and creative freedom and to the open expression of ideas.

I extend my congratulations to the university's President, Dr. James Votruba; Athletic Director Jane Meier; Head Coach, Nancy Winstel, and her staff; and all of the hardworking the players, the fans, and to Northern Kentucky University. I am happy to be joined by my good friend and colleague, Representative Geoff Davis, in honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments, and wish all involved continued success. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

If there are no further speakers on the other side, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2744, the Airline Flight Crew Technical Corrections Act. Just last week, this bill was approved unanimously by the Education and Labor Committee. The reason H.R. 2744 has secured the level of support that it has is because it sticks to what its name promises, a bill that has been crafted narrowly to address a need identified by flight crew personnel that has arisen because of a technicality in how their work hours are calculated.

Airline personnel, including certain flight attendants, are subject to a unique scheduling process in which they are paid for being on call, but in some cases are not credited with those hours in the work requirement calculation used for Family and Medical Leave Act eligibility. What is the practical impact of this situation? Some flight crew personnel may work a full-time schedule, but fail to qualify for family and medical leave. This is a real concern for those grappling with health conditions or a family obligation.

The bill before us today is an important opportunity to extend the protections of FMLA to flight crew who might otherwise be denied benefits under the law. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, and I want to thank Representative Bishop and Chairman Miller for working with Members on both sides of the aisle to ensure this bill achieves its stated goal, no more and no less. But no one should look at this bill as a substitute for the type of comprehensive reform that is needed.

Mr. Speaker, many Members have been uneasy about efforts to open up the Family and Medical Leave Act for small changes when it is clear that broader reforms are necessary. The Family and Medical Leave Act has worked well for 15 years, offering workers the flexibility to attend to their own health or care for a loved one in their time of need without fear of losing their job.

But despite the law's many successes, it has also become clear that many changes are needed. The reality of today's workplaces are different than those of a decade-and-a-half ago. In an addition, the courts have offered evolving interpretations, and, as is often the case with such a sweeping change to employment law, there have been unintended consequences for both employers and employees.

There is another reason that some of my colleagues have been cautious about opening up FMLA. There is always a danger that by placing special protections in the law for one group of workers, we may end up on a slippery slope of piecemeal changes that breed confusion rather than clarity. This could lead to unintended consequences that could actually harm workers if, for instance, our new protections for one class of workers are interpreted by the courts or Federal regulators as a means to exclude other workers. I think these are valid concerns, and that is why this bill has been drafted carefully in an effort to avoid these dangers. Going forward, I think we must be mindful of the consequences that could come from further attempts to tweak the law, rather than to give it a more thorough update.

So while I continue to believe that we must proceed with the utmost caution, I also believe it is reasonable today to correct this law so flight crews can benefit from the FMLA, just as millions of other workers do. The bill before us today is a small step, but one that will make a meaningful difference to a number of my constituents and other families across the country.

I would like to thank the flight attendants in my district who came in to see me on this topic for all their help. I am hopeful that we can take the same constructive approach on broader FMLA reforms to ensure that FMLA continues to work as it was intended, offering a balance for both workers and employers.

With that, if the gentleman has no further speakers, I will yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2894, the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act. It is a great honor to be speaking on this bill brought to the floor by the efforts of my friend and colleague from Maryland, Congressman Ruppersberger. I commend the gentleman for his work on this act.

Mr. Speaker, over 200 years ago, a fateful night gave birth to what is now our national anthem, ``The Star-Spangled Banner.'' As it is widely known today, Francis Scott Key penned the piece during the War of 1812 after he witnessed the American flag flying resiliently over Fort McHenry after it sustained 25 hours of British bombardment.

However, Mr. Speaker, what is often overlooked is the original title of the poem that Key wrote. The piece was entitled, ``In Defense of Fort McHenry.'' I bring this up because I believe it reveals a larger lesson about our Nation. We are, above all things, Americans, bound to serve and protect one another. What affects one citizen, community, or State affects the entire Nation.

When Fort McHenry came under attack, the brave patriots there fought for its survival, knowing that a nation depends on their efforts. Significantly, the failure of the British navy to take Fort McHenry proved to be the end of the British naval portion of the war. The attack launched from the great navy base on Bermuda had failed, and at nearly the same time a British land attack towards Baltimore faltered as well.

I cannot imagine a more inspiring sight than what Mr. Key saw that morning as the smoke from the British rockets cleared. After witnessing the fearsome and seemingly endless barrage, he must have imagined the worse. Yet, when he set his eyes upon the land, he saw the American flag, symbolizing the resolve of a nation and preserving the freedoms and ideals in the face of any threat.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation has endured many trials during its history. From its nascent moments of independence, through the sacking of the Capitol and the White House during the War of 1812, to Pearl Harbor and the attacks of 9/11, the United States has not only survived these tests, but has emerged a stronger union because of such adversity.

No matter how overwhelming the odds, men and women have put country above all and weathered each storm. And what has always been true is what was true that fateful morning when Francis Scott Key peered through the clearing smoke: This Nation's flag stands proud, a symbol of strength and spirit.

As far as the coin is concerned, surcharges on the sale of the $1 coins will be used to support bicentennial activities, including education and outreach activities, and preservation and improvements to the sites and structures relating to the War of 1812.

This event was a proud moment in the Nation's history, Mr. Speaker, and H.R. 2894 recognizes that fact. I urge immediate passage of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5872, the Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), which would authorize the minting and sale of silver dollars commemorating the founding of the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

As Mr. Sessions said, after coming back to London, the Chicago publisher William Boyce founded the Boy Scouts of America, and the Scouting movement became so successfully transplanted in the United States that within a few short years, in 1916, the House of Representatives recognized that Boy Scouts of America ``tends to conserve the moral, intellectual, and physical life of the coming generation.''

Those words have remained true generation after generation. And today Boy Scouts of America strives through its Scout outreach program to provide an opportunity for young people to join Scouting regardless of their circumstances, neighborhood, or ethnic background. Boy Scouts of America partners with other charitable organizations such as the Habitat For Humanity, the American Red Cross, and the Salvation Army to help countless citizens across our country as part of the ``Good Turn for America.'' And Boy Scouts reaches beyond its traditional programs to help schools and community organizations build character and enhance self-confidence of all of our youth through Learning for Life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join in recognizing the Boy Scouts of America's 100-year anniversary with a commemorative coin in 2010.

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

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

Today I rise in support of H.R. 406, the Alice Paul Women's Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act. This legislation will recognize Alice Paul's role in the women's suffrage movement with the award of the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian honor.

It's a great honor to be speaking on this bill authored by my friend and colleague from California, Congressman Baca. I commend the gentleman for his work on this act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill celebrates the 72-year struggle towards women's suffrage and the woman who devoted her life to that movement, Alice Paul.

To many, Alice Paul symbolizes the very spirit of determination and resilience of the suffrage movement.

She was born in 1885 to Quaker parents. Alice Paul's childhood was somewhat of an anomaly for the time, because she was raised with the belief of gender equality. In this way, her childhood reflected the vision of the larger society she would work to forge until her death.

A graduate of Swarthmore College, a recipient of a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, and a believer in working towards the betterment of society, Alice Paul became an ardent proponent of women's suffrage in 1907 while in London.

Upon her return to the United States in 1910, Ms. Paul brought the determination of the English movement to bear on the American campaign. She

joined the National American Women's Suffrage Association and was quickly charged with heading the drive for a Federal suffrage amendment.

Recognizing that boldness was needed to accomplish her task, Alice Paul organized a parade comprised of woman to coincide with the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson. The participating women were attacked with both insults and physical violence. However, the news made headlines and suffrage became a popular topic throughout the Nation.

Because of differences on tactics, Alice Paul left Women Suffrage Association and formed the National Woman's Party. Paul and her newly formed party were more aggressively than ever, picketing a war-time President and staging hunger strikes. Such methods were met with vehement opposition from authorities who arrested Paul and members of her group, subjecting them to horrific prison conditions and even attempted to have Paul declared insane. Yet nothing deterred her. Paul continued the march towards enfranchisement.

The suffragist's imprisonment and abuse caused a public outcry so strong that President Wilson reversed his position on a suffrage amendment, supporting it as a necessary ``war-time'' measure. It passed the House and Senate in 1919, and was ratified by the necessary three- fourths of States in 1920. In August of 1920 American women gained the right to vote.

However, Alice Paul's advocacy did not end with that triumph. In 1923, Alice Paul began her work on the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA. The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until its passage in 1972. To date, the amendment has never been become part of the U.S. Constitution. It has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 States needed to ratify the Constitution. Alice Paul fought for its passage each time. And we continue to fight for it to become an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in honor of Alice Paul.

Today, two prominent institutions work to memorialize Paul's life and the progress of the women's movement: The Alice Paul Institute and the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum in Washington. This Congressional Gold Medal will be displayed in an alternating fashion at these two establishments, further honoring Ms. Paul and her legacy.

This historic movement and this historic woman gave this Nation so much. H.R. 406 acknowledges this fact, commemorating Alice Paul. I urge its immediate passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mrs. Bachmann.

I have no additional speakers and would yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) for his work on this bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

In short, the bill makes a technical correction to a law Congress passed in 2003, The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA. FACTA currently requires businesses to truncate a customer's credit or debit card number to five numbers. Many businesses complying with this requirement truncated the credit card number, but kept the expiration date of a customer's credit card on the receipt.

Very shortly after the FACTA was enacted, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against businesses because the plaintiffs claimed that expiration date should count as part of a customer's credit card number.

One such business is Home Run Inn, a family-owned business that makes ``Chicago's Finest Pizza,'' located in Woodridge, Illinois. It was not the intention of Congress to include the expiration date as part of the credit card number and caused this confusion. To my knowledge, no consumer has been harmed or been a victim of identity theft or fraud as a result of his or her credit card expiration date being printed on a receipt.

Therefore, this bill clears up the matter. If this bill becomes law, attorneys will no longer be tempted to file lawsuits against businesses, but consumers harmed by a business who was violating FACTA can still file a lawsuit.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to another member of the Financial Services Committee, Mrs. Bachmann from Minnesota.

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

I would say that all I can find in the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate is that it's $2.7 billion and not $2.4 billion over 2008 to 2013, as far as the CBO estimate that Chairman Frank was talking about.

You know, Congress has yet to submit a single bill to the President that might begin to address this crisis in the housing market, and here we are again debating controversial new housing legislation, instead of passing common-sense housing reform that could start helping homeowners.

And I feel like I woke up one morning, we just had a markup on the Housing bill, and suddenly, I couldn't even find the number of it, H.R. 3221, and it suddenly was a different bill with a lot of different provisions in it. Some were the same and some weren't. I have to say this reminds me of the SCHIP bill that we debated, which kind of came over here the same way from the Senate. I don't think it's going to be the same result, but I just can't understand that process.

And I do appreciate Chairman Frank's inclusion of FHA and GSE reform, as well as the funding for housing

counseling and mortgage fraud in the bill that we're considering today. But these are much needed reforms that could increase the liquidity in the housing market and provide consumers with an alternative to the bad subprime loans, and help to restore consumer confidence, which is so important.

But attaching these things to a taxpayer-funded bailout will not get them any closer to the President's desk. And make no mistake. This is a bailout. It would place U.S. taxpayers on the hook for the $300 billion guarantee, but that includes the riskiest mortgage debt on the market. And it does this by allowing speculators, borrowers who have overstated assets, who have cheated and knew that they couldn't make the payments, and those who invested irresponsibly, to pawn off their financial liabilities on U.S. taxpayers. This is a liability.

And instead of serving distressed homeowners, the bill requires that the lenders, not the homeowners, to make the decision to place the mortgage in the program. Since the lenders are the ones that would like to get rid of their bad loans and put those on the, be guaranteed by the Federal Government, the taxpayers, the taxpayers will be bailing out the banks, the investors on their most unwise lending decisions.

Even more disturbing is that the bailout is partially funded on the backs of seniors through changes to FHA reverse mortgage program.

Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be asking American taxpayers to pay for the mistakes of those who over estimated their income on mortgage applications, or scam artists that inflated appraisals and flipped properties. Nor should they pay for homeowners who chose to live beyond their means, using inflated home equity loans to buy a new plasma TV, a swimming pool or a fancy car. It is not fair to those who saved and invested responsibly.

The majority of Americans are working hard to make ends meet. Ninety- three percent of our mortgage holders are making their payments on time. Fifty-one out of 55 million Americans with a mortgage are making their mortgage payments on time.

Twenty-five million Americans own their own homes and have no mortgage. Thirty-four million Americans are prudently renting because they aren't ready to own a home. These hardworking Americans should not be forced to foot the bill for the bad decisions of a few who gambled that their home values would never stop rising. They don't think that's fair, and I don't think so either.

I understand that many of my colleagues are looking at the economic effects of the housing bubble and saying to themselves, ``We must act, we must do something. ``But we shouldn't do something if it's not right. Congress can help struggling borrowers and promote economic growth without burdening the taxpayers with inappropriate spending.

And that's why I join with Financial Services Ranking Member Bachus to offer an alternative plan that helps homeowners in a responsible way. It does include the FHA reform. This could solve this problem right away. Our substitute funds housing for counseling, other reforms to GSEs that's so important, without a so-called trust fund or slush fund.

And there's nothing in the Democrat alternative that would prevent a similar housing crisis like this in the future. Though improved, disclosure lender registration higher price is standard.

Our Republican alternative would do more than put an expensive Band-Aid on the housing market. It begins to address the underlying causes of the subprime mess. It will ensure that borrowers have access to legitimate loans; that they understand the terms of their loan, and that they are taking a loan that they can afford based on the actual value of the house.

We need to bring transparency and integrity to the homebuying process, and we need to expand access to credit for worthy borrowers who genuinely want to pay off their loans, but we need to do it without wasting taxpayers' dollars.

I think we have an alternative bill that would solve these problems. And many were supported by both Republicans and Democrats. It's a commonsense plan that doesn't spend money and, in fact, has been scored by CBO to actually reduce the deficit by $25 million. Coupled with Mr. Terry's tax credit for owner-occupied homebuyers, it will jump-start the flailing housing market and get our economy back on track.

That's why I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill before us today and consider the alternative, if we had the opportunity to have an alternative.

Will the gentleman yield? I thank you for putting that $300 million.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the rule.

I was very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle couldn't resist the temptation to shut out all the Republican amendments during the debate on the rule. Like Chairman Frank did in the committee, calling up Republican amendments, they could have allowed at least one Republican amendment to be offered to this bill.

Speaker Pelosi has said that the Democrats are advancing a New Direction for America. However, I would argue that denying House Republicans from offering any amendments to this bill is the wrong direction.

Our voices have been silenced. It's a sad day when people who represent about half the population of the United States don't have the opportunity to bring solutions to the table during debate on this important issue. I hope that this wasn't a calculated maneuver for political gain.

Congress is yet to send a single bill to the President that might begin to address the turbulence in the housing market, and I know that this is important. Ranking Member Bachus and I had planned to offer an amendment that contains cost-effective reforms that can start helping homeowners and the economy now.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, our substitute amendment would decrease the deficit by $25 million over 10 years. Instead of outbidding each other on how much taxpayer funding should be spent on bailouts, House and Senate leaders should have chosen to move the good, commonsense, bipartisan ideas that are right in front of them in our amendment, and many have been passed before.

The amendment represents the very best elements of housing reforms that Congress has been debating over the last several years and none of the bad ones. It includes FHA reform which alone could help an additional 250,000 homeowners refinance through the FHA Secure program.

Our amendment would strengthen the national oversight of the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as reform these entities.

These reforms would infuse much needed liquidity into the flailing housing market.

It would add funding for housing counseling; enhance appraisal standards; require mortgage originator registration; provide resources to crack down on mortgage fraud; enhance disclosure; and provide liability protection for lenders that help struggling homeowners to refinance and eventually repay their loans.

It also provides returning veterans with foreclosure protection and temporarily raises loan limits on mortgages backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Notably absent from our amendment is a high price tag. That's because it doesn't reward speculators, fraudsters, or those who engaged in inappropriate or recklessly irresponsible behavior. Several components of our amendment, including FHA and GSE reform, already have passed in one or both Chambers.

I understand that some--but not all--of our good provisions will be included in the Frank amendment. We need to break the logjam on these commonsense reforms. Counselors can help prevent foreclosures by guiding homeowners into a loan that best meets their budget and needs. And FHA and GSE reform will add much-needed liquidity to the market while providing more consumers with an alternative to bad, subprime loans.

Most importantly for Chicago and other urban communities, our amendment addresses mortgage and appraisal fraud, which has skyrocketed in Chicago and devastated communities.

I wish my colleagues could have had the opportunity to vote on our Republican commonsense, cost-effective substitute amendment. This could have been the bipartisan alternative to the bill we will vote on today, which is littered with controversial provisions.

However, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle chose to shut out our clean alternative and shut out the voices of millions of Americans who want a cost-effective solution to jump-start the housing market and get our economy back on track.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

And I thank you for being a cosponsor of this legislation and for all your hard work on it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill that is made in order. And I just want to say that I'll be talking in general debate too, but it was so important for me to come down here today to speak during the rule also.

When the human genome project was completed in 2003, the House of Representatives recognized it as one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past 100 years. For the first time, individuals actually could know their genetic risk of developing diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and the list goes on. And knowing that, they could take preventative measures to decrease their risk of getting such a disease. Completion of the human genome project and genetic testing spawned the personalized medicine movement, focusing on catching diseases earlier, when they are cheaper and easier to treat, or, even better, preventing the onset of the disease in the first place.

But after investing $3.7 billion in taxpayer money to achieve this breakthrough, Congress walked away and left the job undone. We left people without any assurance that their genetic information wouldn't be used against them. So, understandably, so many avoided this great technology, never realizing the untold health benefits and savings.

This concern even spilled over to NIH, the National Institutes of Health, where fear of genetic discrimination is currently the most common reason for not participating in research on potentially lifesaving genetic testing for breast cancer and colon cancer.

Fully one-third of those eligible to participate decline to do this for this

reason, undermining the development of new treatments and cures.

Madam Speaker, today Congress is here to settle some unfinished business and provide Americans the protection against genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment that they need to utilize genetic testing without fear. It's just a great day that we are here now, and it has been a long, long road to this. When you have got three committees of jurisdiction on the House side and various committees on the Senate side, to get all of these committees together to come up with a bill, to craft a bill that everybody can agree on and everybody will benefit by it, it's just a great day.

I really came to the floor to speak on the rule at this time, to acknowledge my good friend and colleague, esteemed colleague and a true leader on this issue, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. As my colleagues may know, and you just heard from Mr. Sessions, Congresswoman Slaughter first introduced a version of this bill in the 104th Congress. For the newest Members of this body, they might not know that was the nineties. In 1995, to be exact.

So that Ms. Slaughter introduced this bill at this time, that far back, is a testament to the foresight of my friend from New York. Just think, the human genome project really was 2003. So she's had the background in this scientific area to really have had that foresight for so long ago. That she introduced it, still amazes me, and the hard work. There were a lot of things that we worked out as far as the path through these years. I first joined her I think it was in 2005 when we introduced the bill again and again and again to reach this day.

So I really applaud her for her dedication to this cause, and her perseverance. Working with her on this bill has been a real joy, and I value our partnership and the historic legislation that it has produced. I look forward to hand delivering this bill to the White House with her. I think that that will be sooner than later.

Let me just say I want to highlight a few things and reasons for why we should pass this rule and why we should pass this bill. Besides the fact that we invested the $3.7 billion in the human genome, the bill is needed to maintain high quality genetic research and clinical trials at NIH. I think we have all emphasized that, that that is so important. They don't have the whole body of people getting into the clinical trials, which will then I think find the cure for these diseases.

Ninety-three percent of Americans believe that insurers and employers should not be able to discriminate based on genetic information. This bill passed the House last year 420-3. It passed the Senate last week 95-0. The bill has received three strong SAPs from the administration. And last year, President Bush said, ``I really want to make it clear to the Congress that I hope they pass the legislation that makes genetic discrimination illegal.'' Newt Gingrich, who has been a strong, strong supporter of genetic nondiscrimination said, and I quote, ``To not have this bill is to cripple our ability to save lives.'' This legislation is supported by over 500 organizations, including BIO and AHIP.

With that, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which will prohibit health insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information.

As many of my colleagues are aware, this legislation has been around for quite some time. I have been working on for it more than 7 years, and Congresswoman Slaughter has been working on it for more than 12 years. It's been a long road, and there have been

many times I thought this day would never come; but it is here.

Over this period of time, I have heard stories from my constituents and other individuals across the country about how genetic information was affecting their lives. Quite simply, they are stories of how our laws have failed to keep pace with medical science.

A breast cancer survivor in Chicago told me that even though her doctor recommended she undergo a genetic test to see if she had a 60 percent chance of developing ovarian cancer, which was quite common in the type of breast cancer that they had, she refused the test. She said I can't, I will lose my job.

It isn't that she didn't want to know; quite the opposite. She desperately wanted to know, but she feared if she had an adverse result from the test, she would lose her job. She is not alone; studies show that 85 percent of Americans fear employers will use genetic information to discriminate.

And then there is the woman from Missouri whose sister had suffered from cancer was cautioned by her doctor that undergoing genetic testing would cause her to lose her health insurance. She too chose not to undergo a genetic test. She is not alone; studies show that 84 percent of Americans express concern that health insurance companies would deny coverage based on genetic information.

And then there is the man with a family history of PKD, decided to take a genetic test but chose to use an alias and pay cash rather than bill his insurance just to keep the test out of his medical file. And he also is not alone; 26 percent of genetic counselors themselves admit that they would use an alias and 68 percent said they would pay for the test out of their pocket to protect themselves from discrimination.

The dean of a prominent university in Massachusetts told me that the fear of genetic discrimination was hindering clinical trials, slowing the development of life-saving techniques. At NIH, fear of genetic discrimination is the most common reason people cite for not participating in clinical trials on breast and colon cancers.

Madam Speaker, I have heard these stories over and over again from individuals wanting to know their genetic risk of developing diseases as far ranging as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Tay-Sachs, and PKD.

The sad fact is that these individuals are avoiding genetic tests that would empower them with the information that could save their lives.

So I want to let all people know that when the House passes GINA today, we will be just one step away, and that would be the signing by the President, from realizing the medical benefits of genetic testing. One step away from ensuring that people will be able to take a genetic test without risking their jobs and health insurance. One step away from ensuring that patients can stop using aliases and paying out of pocket to keep their genetic tests secret. One step away from ensuring that individuals will be able to participate in genetic clinical trials without fear of discrimination.

And the last step is the President's signature, and I am happy to say that he is expected to sign this bill.

Madam Speaker, it is clear to me that by passing GINA and freeing people from fear of genetic discrimination, we can unlock the tremendous life-saving and cost-saving potential of genetic research. More Americans will participate in genetic clinical trials, and more Americans will use these technologies to improve their health.

And with these improvements comes the prospect of dramatically reducing the chronic care costs that cripple our health care system. We now have more than 500 different health advocacy and business organizations supporting this bill. Recent surveys shows that 93 percent of Americans believe that employers and insurers should not be able to use genetic information to discriminate.

With numbers like these, it should be no surprise that the House passed this bill last April 420-3, and the Senate passed it last week 95-0, and the President is expected to sign this measure into law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words. And it's been a long road, but we're here, and with your help.

Just let me say that there's three benefits that are so important for this bill. Number one is that people will get a genetic test. And if it shows that they have a propensity for having some disease, they can then take preventive measures and take measures that are going to improve the quality of their life. And it's personalized medicine. People have got to take command of their medical lives.

Second of all, because people will take preventive measures, this is going to reduce the cost of health care. It's going to reduce the cost to businesses because their employees will be taking these preventive measures, and it's going to reduce the cost to health care providers because people, again, will be taking these measures.

And as I said before, through the clinical trials, it will increase the ability to find cures for so many diseases if people get into these.

So with that, I would really like to take a moment to thank Representative Slaughter, Chairman Slaughter of the Rules Committee one more time, Greg Walden of Oregon who has been a major sponsor of this bill, Congressman Andrews of New Jersey, who has been so helpful, and Mrs. Eshoo from California, who has been so involved. And then Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for all their hard work on this issue. It's truly been a pleasure to work with all of them.

I would also like to thank Mr. McKeon and Mr. Miller again, the chairman and ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, for all their support. And then the other chairmen, Congressman Dingell and Congressman Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Mr. Upton of Michigan for coming down and working on this today. And then Chairman Rangel and ranking member McCrery of the Ways and Means Committee, and then Representative Camp for being the spokesman for them. I applaud them for all their efforts.

I would also like to thank former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been so supportive of this legislation. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention Sharon Terry and the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, as well as all of our other organizational supporters, for all their persistence and their expertise on this issue.

And Dr. Francis Collins of NIH for his testimony before all three committees in the House.

Finally, I have to thank the staff, all of the staff, who worked so tirelessly for years now behind the scenes on our behalf and put in long, long hours on this legislation. And in particular, my thanks go to Michelle Varnhagen and Jim Paretti from the Education and Labor Committee staff, and then Michelle Adams from Ms. Slaughter's staff, and Brian Peterson of my staff.

There's so many reasons why everybody should vote for this, and certainly having passed the House by 420-3 last April and the Senate 95-0, you say, This is a no-brainer; why didn't this happen a long time ago? And what's been alluded to is to get three committees in the House of Representatives to work on all of the issues, and they are so technical in how they relate to each other and how it relates to privacy and the other HIPAA and ADA and all of the things that had to be brought in here, I think everyone works so hard just to have a wonderful result. And it's no surprise that we're here, but it just took a long time.

With that, I would urge all my colleagues to vote for this measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2739, which includes the provisions of H.R. 85, a bill called the Energy Technology Transfer Act that I introduced with my Science and Technology Committee colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Miller). The House approved our bill by a vote of 395-1 back in March of last year. And this is so important, Mr. Speaker, that it is now before this House again, and I appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government spends billions every year on energy-related research and development for our universities and national laboratories. The result is often new technologies that exponentially reduce our consumption of energy or encourage the use of alternative fuels and thus reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. But the biggest challenge to realizing these energy savings is getting these technologies out of the laboratory and into the marketplace where they can benefit all energy end users. Whether we're talking about a business owner, a homeowner, a county or local government officials, these energy end users may be hesitant to embrace advanced or alternative technologies with which they are not familiar, have little experience, or which may require new infrastructure.

To help energy end users embrace these new technologies, section 917 of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to create a geographically dispersed network of energy efficiency technology transfer centers to help in this process. This bill will simply improve that section 917 of EPACT, and instead of creating from scratch these network centers, H.R. 85 authorizes the DOE to provide grants to and partner with existing community outreach networks. These existing networks could include Cooperative Extension Systems--just like what we have seen with the farms--offices, State energy offices, local governments, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations with expertise in energy technologies or outreach. And so instead of limiting these centers to the transfer of energy efficiency technologies, it also expands their mission to include all advanced energy technologies and requires grantees to provide feedback to DOE on the energy research needs identified by these energy end users.

I just want to give you one example of what I'm talking about in Chicago and how this program might work. Before expanding their frozen pizza production plant in Illinois, Home Run Inn Pizza consulted with the University of Illinois--Chicago's Energy Resource Center. After conducting an assessment of the plant and its operations, the UIC Energy Resource Center identified nine ways that the Home Run Inn Pizza could reduce their energy consumption and energy costs. Using advanced energy technologies developed as a result of the DOE-funded research, Home Run Inn Pizza could reduce natural gas consumption by 15 percent and electricity consumption by 5 to 6 percent, saving a total of about $15,000 annually.

So with the enactment of H.R. 85, the UIC Energy Resource Center and other cooperative extension and community outreach organizations could add capacity and expertise to help many, many companies, building managers, homebuilders and homeowners use the technology to save energy and money.

So the bill represents just a small investment in the tech transfer capabilities that we need to help our universities and labs move advanced energy technologies from labs into the market so Americans can enjoy the tangible benefits of our Federal investment in R&D.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Miller from North Carolina, for his strong interest in tech transfer and for being the lead Democrat on this bill. I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for recognizing the value of this bill and moving it through the committee, Senators Bingaman and Domenici and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for approving this bill and including it in S. 2739. Finally, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and the House Republican and Democrat leadership for bringing this package of bills to the floor today and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1079, which recognizes April as National Financial Literacy Month. I am pleased to say that this will be the fifth year in a row that Congress has designated April as Financial Literacy Month, and I would like to thank my good friend and fellow Chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, for introducing this resolution and for his continuing efforts to improve financial literacy rates in America.

Our caucus, which boasts about 80 members from both sides of the aisle, has been on the front line of this issue for several years, and I think it is fair to say that we have made some genuine progress. Today, 40 States include personal finance in their educational standards. That is up from 31 in 2002. Even more promising, 49 States now include some aspect of economics in the

curriculum guidelines. But we have much work ahead of us if we are going to help today's children become tomorrow's smart investors, entrepreneurs and business leaders.

The savings rate is still hovering just below zero; 10 million Americans are unbanked; there were 2.2 million foreclosures in 2007; and the front pages of our newspapers across the country proclaim that millions of Americans are losing their homes because they were not ready to be homeowners.

Clearly, the need to improve financial literacy of Americans is greater than ever. And this applies to all Americans, not just students and children. From college grads to senior citizens, consumers are being asked to make decisions about increasingly complex financial products. According to the FTC, one-third of borrowers could not even identify the interest rate in a mortgage disclosure form and half could not correctly identify the loan amount. The problem is amplified by complicated legal jargon about balloon payments, rate resets, escrow accounts, prepayments and closing costs. The list goes on and on. That is why I have introduced several bills to help owners find a loan that best meets their budget and needs, steering them away from a situation that could lead to foreclosure down the road.

Just last week, I joined Financial Services Ranking Member Bachus and Housing and Community Development Subcommittee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito to introduce legislation that would simplify mortgage documents and increase resources for housing counseling. Taken together, these reforms will not only prevent foreclosures, they will help owners to avoid fraud and allow them to easily compare financial products to find the best loan for their families' needs.

Mr. Speaker, efforts to stimulate the economy cannot succeed unless we equip Americans with the knowledge and resources they need to succeed in today's sophisticated economic market. Housing is just one of these areas where improved financial literacy will benefit consumers.

Americans also need access to the proper tools for saving and investing money. At the start of the 110th Congress, I introduced a bill called the 401 Kids Family Savings Act of 2007. This bill will allow parents and family members to set aside money in a child's account that will accumulate tax-free and can be used for college tuition, a first home, or even retirement, should the money last that long. Not only will this boost savings, it will get kids actively engaged in banking from the time they are old enough to count. This way, they can learn about things like compound interest in the best way imaginable, by watching their own college fund grow.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many great ideas for improving financial literacy rates. In fact, over 50 nonprofit community and private sector organizations from across the country came to the Hill yesterday for the annual Financial Literacy Day Fair. On display for policymakers were hundreds of books, programs and resources on how to improve financial literacy in ways that will make a positive impact on people's lives. It was a remarkable success, and I would like to congratulate the National Council on Economic Education, the Jump$tart Coalition, Junior Achievement, and all the other sponsors who worked with Senators Akaka and Enzi to put it together.

I would also like to recognize the impressive efforts of Charles Schwab, John Hope Bryant and the other members of the President's new Private Sector Advisory Council on Financial Literacy. It is increasingly clear that teaching financial literacy requires cooperation between the government and industry. This council will help to facilitate that cooperation by making and implementing recommendations for improving on current financial literacy outreach efforts.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are a diverse group, but we all share some very basic financial needs. We need to be prepared for tuition costs, a home, health care and retirement. We need a financial cushion against unexpected challenges like the death of a family member. And we need the capital necessary for new entrepreneurs to launch the start-ups and open the small businesses that drive the economy. Every American should have the opportunity and know-how to fulfill each of these goals. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and show that financial literacy remains a top priority for Congress.

I would like to once again thank Representative Hinojosa and his staff, especially Greg Davis, for all their hard work on this resolution. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank and Mr. Bachus, for helping to move this resolution through our committee in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), an important member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the Chair of the Financial Institution Subcommittee, for her hard work on this bill, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, if you are a consumer and you have a complaint or a problem of a financial nature, which regulator are you going to call, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the CFTC, FTC, OFHEO, HUD, Treasury, OTS, NCUA, the SEC? In these challenging times, consumers should not have to have a Ph.D. in finance to quickly and easily get in touch with the appropriate State and Federal banking regulators.

Given the complexity of our banking system and the various regulators that work in this area, consumers may not know where to turn when they have a dispute with their institutions. This legislation creates a single hotline that can help steer consumers in the right direction. Federal regulators currently have had an informal system in place to redirect misplaced consumer complaints, and regulators are constantly trying to improve the system. But this bill will ensure that no consumer complaint falls through the cracks. Consumers should not have to make 12 phone calls to find the right regulator.

Again, I am pleased that this bill will ensure that consumer complaints are heard and that regulators are responsive. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.