Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for all his hard work on this bill as well as on this amendment, which I support.

My problem with it is that right now we are doing a lot of housing law on these disasters, and what we are doing is setting precedent. And if this trend in the weather continues, I think we'll probably see a lot more. So I think we have to be very careful in how we move on this, because if it is made permanent, then the disaster voucher program will serve as a model for the future disasters, forcing Congress to act similarly time and time again.

Assisted families will continue to receive this rental subsidy for several months. This is to continue allowing time to transition to other types of housing, including home ownership. And I think that what we are doing is really making, prematurely making these DVPs permanent, so that as long

as the recipient remains eligible for assistance it eliminates other approaches.

Authorizing this, according to the Congressional Budget Office, puts the cost at about $11,900 per voucher per year. And I really wonder, we all have the goal of really getting the people, the victims of this disaster, back where they want to be, back in a home. And I don't know that by extending the time more, we have got until December, will encourage them, give them the incentive then to get moving. I think extending it through December 31 of 2007 allows Congress and HUD to assess the appropriate long-term solutions.

What we have been talking about with all of these vouchers, we have got other ways to do this. And we put in the bill the survey, and until this survey is completed, it may be difficult to identify the need for a permanent disaster voucher program extension, as the disaster voucher program provides assistance to many of these former HANO tenants. So I think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse. We really need to know where the people are, if they are coming back, and what their future plans are. And until HUD has the opportunity to do that, which they have said they would do soon, but not soon enough in time for this bill. So I think that this is premature, making these vouchers permanent, so long as the recipient remains eligible for their assistance.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, while I am grateful that this rule made in order one of my amendments to H.R. 1227, I rise today in opposition to this modified closed rule because my other amendment, a very important amendment, was not made in order.

My second amendment would have struck section 302 of H.R. 1227 and inserted a new section at the end of the bill resetting the section 8 funding formula to its pre-continuing resolution state. The amendment would require HUD to distribute section 8 funds to public housing authorities for the remainder of the 2007 calendar year as they were distributed before the enactment of the continuing resolution just last month.

The section 8 funding formula change that was included in the CR was not well thought out. One doesn't need to look very far for evidence of this fact. Under the funding formula change that was included in the CR, all of the gulf coast PHAs lose funding, and the budget of the New Orleans PHA alone drops from $73 million to $3 million in 2007 and then permanently from there on.

The bill before us today fixes this problem for the gulf coast and New Orleans PHAs, but not for the rest of the country. I guess they realized that they had made a mistake in that area, but let's just leave the other PHAs in trouble. Half of the PHAs in the country, then, over 1,200 public housing authorities in 29 States, remain in trouble.

Because of the section 8 funding formula change in the CR, PHAs in half of our Nation's communities will not be able to serve many of our neediest citizens. Very soon HUD will issue a notice that informs PHAs that if they haven't spent their ``unspent balances'' by a date certain, they lose these funds. If a person is walking the streets with a voucher and hasn't found a place to rent, he or she loses the voucher because these ``unspent funds'' will be recaptured by HUD. It was wrong to change the funding formula midyear when PHAs had already set their budgets for this year.

My amendment would have corrected this problem by telling HUD to distribute section 8 funds to PHAs for the remainder of 2007 calendar year as they were distributed to PHAs before the enactment of the CR.

Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues on the Rules Committee voted against making my amendment in order and against restoring much-needed funds to many of the Nation's PHAs. And they did so with full knowledge that PHAs in their own congressional districts would benefit from my amendment.

All three counties in my district lose funding under the formula change in this CR, but at least I attempted to do something about it and didn't consciously vote against fixing the problem.

We also will continue to try to fix the problem caused by the section 8 formula included in the CR. As ranking member on the Housing Subcommittee, I will continue to work with my Housing colleague Chairwoman Maxine Waters to craft a bipartisan section 8 reform bill in the Financial Services Committee, which is the appropriate place to address any changes to the funding formula, not in an appropriation bill such as the recently enacted CR.

I recognize that the minority party may not be able to stop this rule from going forward, Madam Speaker, but I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to seriously consider voting against this rule. While the bill prevents PHAs in the Gulf Stream from being harmed by the formula in the CR, this rule does nothing to help PHAs nationwide that are in the same predicament.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

When it was in committee, there was no point of order. And the amendment also contained New Orleans and the gulf coast.

That was carved out by your side of the aisle, realizing that that was very important, leaving the other PHAs.

When I went to the Rules Committee, I spent over an hour there, and the germaneness never came up.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Frank for bringing this bill to the House floor today and for presiding over a constructive debate when the Financial Services Committee considered the legislation earlier this month.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his leadership on this issue and of course Chairman Waters for all the work that she has done in the Subcommittee on Housing on this.

Let me just kind of return to where we started with the hurricane on August 29, 2005. Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans. September 2, 2005, President Bush signs into law a $10.5 billion supplemental appropriations measure for the affected areas. It was passed by voice vote in the House. September 9, 2005, President Bush signs into law a second installment, this time for $51.8 billion, again passed the House. March 16, 2006, the House passes the third installment for the supplemental. May 30, 2006, HUD approves Governor of Louisiana Blanco's Road Home Program, and the Governor needed congressional approval for the $4.2 billion. Fifteen days later, the House agrees to the conference report of voting approval. June 15, 2006, President Bush signs into law a third installment for the amount of $19.3 billion. June 16, 2006, the Road Home Program is operational in Louisiana. March 5, 2007, the Road Home enters its ninth month of operation. 112,672 Road Home applications. How many have closed? 2,790 grants.

So we have entered a new era where it was very important for us to go down and see what was happening and to make sure that we could effectively have something happen there.

The hurricanes that struck the gulf coast in August of 2005 affected over 1 million Americans, destroying or damaging some 265,000 homes and apartments in Louisiana and Mississippi alone. Since the disaster, the Federal Government has committed more than $110 billion to help the gulf coast, including $16.7 billion for the CDBG program, which provides flexibility for housing and economically rebuilding the programs. Unfortunately, getting the money out the door is taking more time than it should. With respect to the CDBG funding, for example, only $1.2 billion of the $16.7 billion promised has been delivered.

With respect to the affordable housing stock, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita left 112,000 fewer rental units in the five-State gulf coast region than existed before the storms. As the region recovers, and as residents seek to return, there has been a spike in demand for nondamaged rental units from construction workers, displaced lower- income renters, and higher-income homeowners who are temporarily renting units in the area while their houses are repaired.

Since the disaster first struck, the Financial Services Committee has certainly played an active role passing much needed legislation last Congress that relieved regulatory burdens and shored up the government's flood insurance program. During this Congress, the full committee and the Housing Subcommittee, on which I serve, have held multiple hearings on the reconstruction and recovery area in the gulf. Indeed, over the President's Day recess, as Chairwoman Waters mentioned, my colleague from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, and I participated in field hearings held by Chairman Waters in New Orleans and Mississippi. There we heard from residents trying to rebuild their lives and communities in the face of considerable obstacles and often maddening bureaucratic delays.

The magnitude of the challenge facing the gulf coast residents requires us to rise above partisanship and political finger-pointing and develop sustainable solutions to the very serious problems that persist in New Orleans and other parts of the region.

While the committee Republicans share the majority's goal of providing displaced families with stability and ensuring there is access to safe, affordable housing, a number of provisions in H.R. 1227 are troubling. Accordingly, the Republicans will offer several amendments made in order by the Rules Committee that will seek to assist those in need while, at the same time, being mindful of the need for fiscal responsibility and for prioritizing among competing demands for tax dollars.

It is important that we act in a deliberative and thoughtful manner on this important piece of legislation. Rather than seeking to simply reconstitute a public housing system that was clearly broken long before Katrina made land fall, we owe it to the residents of the gulf coast to build something better. Our focus should be on helping those families who lived in the gulf before the hurricanes and wish to return home to rebuild their lives and communities.

Hurricane Katrina not only left physical devastation in its wake; it left behind a reservoir of anger, strong emotions and painful experiences. Our challenge is to channel these experiences and emotions into an appropriate response. Thousands of affected Americans depend on us not to get angry, but to do it right. So do the families who in the future may themselves experience a Katrina-like tragedy.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to my very distinguished and esteemed colleague, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the deputy ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and who also traveled to New Orleans and Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who has probably seen much more of the devastation than we can ever imagine.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that going down there was quite an experience and something I never would have dreamed had happened. To see that firsthand, to go into the public housing and to see the interiors that had been sitting there for over 18 months that had been underwater for several days, particularly in New Orleans. In Mississippi, it was just a storm surge so the wall of water went in and then it went out, taking with it the homes.

But in New Orleans where the water sat, and to see the debris that was left inside, the clothes, the furniture, the food and cupboards and the mold will take an enormous amount of fixing.

When I was talking about it to someone, they asked, Are the cars still in the trees? I said, No, the cars have been removed from the trees, but the buildings are still standing just as they were untouched. So it is a big job.

As Ranking Member Bachus said about finding mixed-use housing, to move public housing into the 21st century I think should be all of our goals, to be able to provide a place where those who need subsidized housing can live in what would be a larger unit. The units that we saw were tiny. Water heaters were in the kitchen next to the stove with all of the wires where little kids would be playing. So to have larger units for a family, to have open spaces, and to have the services.

Right now they are in a quandary because people want to come back, but there is no housing. People want workers in their community, and there is no place for the workers to live. So until we can break this cycle, and that is what takes leadership from those that are in the community, to break that cycle so there is housing, there are workers, and there are services.

At least seven hospitals were destroyed in New Orleans. They don't have the medical services or the groceries stores. So even if someone comes back, and they have restored some of the housing and some of the units, they may remain empty because they are living in a place that is almost empty and there are no services. You can't just go to the grocery store. We have to jump-start this, and I think this bill goes well on its way to get over the bureaucracy and to have the leadership, the grass-roots leadership, begin to do that.

In Mississippi we saw a different situation where the storm came in and out.

All you see are slabs and concrete stairs from those slabs going to nowhere. About the only thing remaining were oak trees, beautiful, beautiful oak trees that did survive. All of the other foliage is gone.

There they have been able to rebuild. A lot has been done. Maybe it is because houses didn't sit in the water. The water came and went, and they were able to remove the debris. But there I think we had some of the leadership that is needed on the local level.

From the hearings, it gave us hope. After 18 months, they have the money. Congress has done their job and we will be able to get them back on a track and not set precedents that will be unwieldy if there are other such disasters.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment, but for clarification.

It is my understanding, and I know that your Dear Colleague letter states that currently vouchers of the public housing residents and section 8 vouchers do not include utilities. It is my understanding that prior to Katrina and Rita, the public housing residents had vouchers that did include utilities

I yield to the gentlewoman.

So this really is just a reclarification of how it was done in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the bill.

The other thing that worries me, though, is just that you said you saw a government that did not care about its people. And I think certainly we have seen people in the government here that care very much; $110 billion has been turned over to those States to use to rebuild. I just think that we all care about it, we as the government, we in the administration, and I think the State and the local government.

I yield to the gentlelady.

Reclaiming my time, let's just say that we are moving forward. I think this bill is a way to move forward, and I would accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment that I think fixes a provision of the bill that mistakenly includes replacements for 2,000 units in New Orleans, even though these units were not occupied and, in fact, were condemned and scheduled for demolition prior to Katrina.

Let's just do the math. Before Katrina, there were 5,156 public housing units that were occupied in New Orleans. We don't know how many of those 5,156 residents will want to return. We have asked HUD to find them and conduct a survey to ask that question. In the meantime, this bill authorizes replacements not only for the 5,156 units that were occupied by Katrina, it throws in another 2,000 units that were unoccupied, condemned, and scheduled for demolition. I see no point to that.

We don't know how many of the residents will return. Why then would we want to replace not only the 5,156 units they occupied, but an additional 2,000 units that nobody lived in even both before Katrina?

My amendment will permit one-for-one replacement of the units that were occupied by public housing residents at the time of the 2005 storms.

According to CBO estimates, this amendment would reduce the spending authorized in this bill by $270 million, which is the cost of replacing the 2,000 public housing units that nobody lived in before the 2005 storms hit.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that Mr. Neugebauer clarified that. The buildings, we went into those buildings and we climbed up to the second floor and it was just as bad as the first floor and there were no other floors.

One thing about New Orleans housing is at least it was not the high rises like we saw originally in Chicago, that a whole precinct would be public housing. And those have been done away with.

But let me just say that we want people to come back, and we want them to have the housing. And there are some of the units that have been fixed up. And what has happened is there is nobody there, and the police have to come because they are broken into and they are vandalized. And we need more people there.

But these units, we need to know how many people are going to come back originally. We have got to start the process someplace, and we don't seem to be able to do that. If we have 5,156 residents that were promised that they could come back, we should provide that. And it is a one-on-one. But for the 2,000, let's get those first people back and get them back by August so that they could have their kids go to school. The housing is not great, but let's get them back to do that. But to have 2,000 other units that are built

that we really would rather get the first ones going, we have got the money for it. And I think now we are talking about 18,000 people that are on the waiting list.

First of all, let's just say that there are people that have moved to other States. They have jobs. They have a life. The survey goes out, and it is going to be completed by HUD and we will know. We don't know how many people are on the waiting list. Nobody has made an attempt to figure out if they are people that are waiting or they have gone someplace else.

So I would say that this is just to get it going. And to undertake 5,165 units is going to take awhile. Obviously, to build a whole multi- use facility is going to take a lot more time. But there are plans to do it. So we can do it both, but let's get it going.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, with that, again, before we make all these decisions, we really have to know how many people are going to return. If we have the 5,100-some units and all the people that have been living in those units don't return, then there will be a time that they can open up the section 8 housing and have people off the waiting list who qualify. If they still qualify, if they come back.

But what this bill is doing is a one-on-one replacement, and that is what it says in this bill, is to replace the one-on-one replacement for those units that we were talking about, whether it is 5,000 or it is 7,000. And I say let's use the dollars that we have to start with the people that were displaced from there. They have the public housing, they have the vouchers, and let's not wait any longer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Bachus for the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would again extend FEMA temporary financial assistance through the end of December and then provide those section 8 vouchers to FEMA-assisted families when FEMA assistance expires, and that is exactly what the gentleman was talking about, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary.

The President currently has the authority to extend the length of this temporary assistance, as he has already done before. This assistance was supposed to expire at the end of 18 months, but the President extended it through August of 2007 to allow FEMA ample time, I think, to work with the families and help them secure permanent housing. This means that this assistance will have lasted a full 2 years since Katrina.

Since the hurricanes, FEMA has provided billions of dollars in assistance directly to individuals and households to support their recovery, including flood insurance payouts, direct payments for rental assistance, payments for home repairs and lost property. But FEMA assistance was supposed to be temporary to give families that were affected by the devastation time to get back on their feet. But today, as was said, 35,000 families are still living in FEMA trailers. Our efforts should be focused on moving these families to permanent housing, including homeownership, instead of keeping them in limbo.

It really concerns me that we move from FEMA and then turn it into section 8 housing. Deadlines such as the August 2007 deadline have encouraged families to make decisions about their future rather than continuing the expectation that the Federal Government will provide for them. In fact, every time FEMA has had a deadline and has enforced it, we have seen more people move further on the road to recovery and self- sufficiency. When FEMA moved people out of the hotels and motels, people said thousands would be

homeless. In fact, nationwide less than 100 people were in the shelters as a result, and most of them for only 3 days. I understand the same held true for the cruise ships. When the cruise ships' assistance ended, nobody ended up in a shelter.

So we need to encourage the President to have the flexibility he needs to do this right, and that means leaving it to the administration to determine when and for how long to extend the housing aid through

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

What this really boils down to, I think, and the problems we are having in communication is what to do with the long-term disaster housing. We haven't faced something like this before.

We have the disaster vouchers. We have the section 8 vouchers, and how do we make this all work. I think we all care about what is happening to these families. It has been over 18 months. We are concerned. People need to get on with their lives.

I don't think we are really asking for anything different except that we think that this is unnecessary because the President has the flexibility now to do what we are talking about. I think we should leave it. We think we should leave it to the administration to determine when, whether, and for how long to extend the housing aid through FEMA.

I agree, most of the families and individuals in the FEMA-sponsored housing are living in travel trailers that are not suitable for long- term housing. Just think of a family living in a trailer for the long term. I think extending the assistance will prolong this unsuitable housing arrangement.

I think FEMA is working now to determine, with Federal and State partners, to address the potential for what is going to happen for long-term housing needs as a result of these hurricanes.

We are setting precedent here. Let's hope we never have something like this again. I think this is moving along.

It will increase the amount of this bill if these vouchers are made permanent, but maybe we need to sit down and really work out what are disaster vouchers, and we already are working on section 8 vouchers; and we have jumped ahead on some of these things. I know everybody is enthusiastic on

this committee and wants to do everything right now, but we have a whole consideration of section 8 vouchers. And to extend FEMA and then turn them into permanent vouchers, section 8 vouchers, and I know they have to be eligible, but we really need to sit down and determine and debate what are really the long-term ramifications of what is going on.

I think some of these things can be worked out later. We don't have to do everything at once. I think this already is a costly bill, and I think we should wait to determine some of these things.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Again, I think we are talking about the same thing; it is just how we get there.

What we are saying is that right now FEMA has provided temporary assistance. When it has been needed to extend, it has been extended. If people finally have found housing, and they qualify for Section 8 vouchers, they will be able to get them, but let FEMA work to address the problem and the potential for long-term housing needs as a result of the hurricane.

I just do not think that this amendment is necessary because it has been taken care of by the administration.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, the ranking member of the Science Committee, for yielding me the time.

And I am so pleased to be the cosponsor of this bill that was introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). He has been a great member on the Science Committee for several years. This bill may seem familiar to many of my colleagues in the House and for

good reason. In both the 108th and 109th Congresses, we did introduce legislation that would do exactly the same thing as the bill we are considering today with some additions. H.R. 4218 in the 108th Congress and H.R. 28 in the 109th Congress were approved not only overwhelmingly by the Science Committee but by the full House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, because of jurisdictional complications, our friends in the other body across the rotunda had never considered this legislation. It had been endorsed by the President's science adviser, Dr. Marburger, several years ago. It is a real shame that it hasn't moved forward, but we are really happy we are, I think, going to have both sides of the aisle work on it this time.

At the time when we first introduced the High Performance Computing Revitalization Act in April of 2004, a new Japanese supercomputer, the Earth Simulator, was the fastest supercomputer in the world, a title it held for well over 2 years, from June 2002 through November of 2004.

Some experts claimed that Japan was able to produce a computer far ahead of American machines because the U.S. had taken an overly cautious or conventional approach to computing R&D. In hindsight, we see that caution meant lost opportunities.

Granted a lot has changed since November of 2004. The U.S. is now home to not only the world's fastest supercomputer, but seven of the 10 fastest, thanks to the hard work and competitive spirit of people at IBM, Cray and Silicon Graphics, as well as the Department of Energy and

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Hall, for yielding me the time to discuss H.R. 85, the Energy Technology Transfer Act. I would also like to commend my friend and colleague Mr. Baird of Washington for managing this bill, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for his hard work on this bill.

The provisions in this bill were included in section 11 of H.R. 6203, the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act, which passed the House by voice vote in September of last year. The Federal Government spends billions every year on energy-related research and development at our universities and national laboratories. The result is often new technologies that reduce our consumption of energy or encourage the use of alternative fuels, and thus reduces 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 are talking about a business owner, a homeowner, or a county or local government official, these energy end users may be hesitant to embrace advanced or alternative energy technologies with which they may not be familiar, have little experience or which may require new infrastructure.

The risk of investing in new energy technologies is just too great compared to conventional energy technologies, and getting information on the latest, greatest energy technologies can just be too costly or time-consuming.

That is why section 917 of EPACT of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to create a geographically dispersed network of energy efficient technology

transfer centers. The purpose of these centers is to transfer and provide education on energy efficiency and distribute clean energy technologies developed by DOE and at the national laboratories to energy end users.

The bill we are considering today, H.R. 85, the Energy Technology Transfer Act, would simply improve section 917 of EPACT. Instead of creating from scratch this network of centers, H.R. 85 would authorize the DOE to provide grants to and partner with existing community outreach networks. These existing networks could include cooperative extension system offices, State energy offices, local governments, institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations with expertise in energy technologies or outreach.

The Cooperative Extension Service and similar community outreach networks have a long and successful history of transferring knowledge about new technologies and techniques to farmers and other constituencies. However, few have the resources to focus on energy efficiency outside of the agriculture center. H.R. 85 would change that and would build on the successful model of the ag extension service without creating any new entity or bureaucracy.

H.R. 85 still demands the same requirements of these centers. They must be geographically dispersed; they must coordinate regional resource engineering and business expertise; and they must help apply energy technologies and methods suitable to local climate. But instead of limiting these centers to the transfer of energy technologies, H.R. 85 would expand their mission to include all advanced energy technologies.

In addition to requiring grant recipients to demonstrate results or risk losing their grant, H.R. 85 would require grantees to provide feedback to DOE on the research needs related to the production, storage or use of energy identified by energy end users. It would also encourage grant recipients to work with utilities to carry out informational activities for energy end users.

H.R. 85 prohibits grant recipients from using grants funding to construct facilities to house the tech transfer center. It doesn't authorize any funding that isn't already authorized in EPACT. In other words, this bill contains no new funding. Instead, it simply gives new guidance and direction to the Secretary about how to bolster the Department's technology transfer capacity.

I just want to give you one example from Chicago about how this program might work and its potential to save energy through the deployment of advanced energy technologies.

Before expanding their frozen pizza production plant in Woodridge, 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 Home Run Inn Pizza could reduce their energy consumption and energy costs. Using advanced energy technologies developed as a result of DOE's funded research, Home Run Inn Pizza could reduce natural gas consumption by 13 percent and energy consumption by 5 to 6 percent, saving a total of over $15,000 annually.

Because of resource limitations, the UIC Energy Resource Center will help 12 companies in this way in fiscal year 2007, saving each on the average 15 percent of its energy budget and providing a return on investment within 2 years.

With passage of H.R. 85, the UIC Energy Resource Center and other cooperative extension and community outreach organizations could add the capacity and expertise to help many, many more companies, building managers, home builders and homeowners use technology to save energy and money.

I want to conclude by thanking the bill's chief cosponsor, my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for his strong interest in tech transfer and this legislation in particular. As we have worked with the majority to improve this legislation, his input has been invaluable. I also want to thank Chairman Gordon for recognizing the value of this legislation and moving it expeditiously through the committee. I want to thank Ranking Member Hall for his assistance as well.

Finally, I want to thank the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and a long list of its members for their strong support of this bill. This bill represents just a small investment in the tech transfer capabilities we need to help our universities and labs move advanced energy technologies from the labs into the markets so Americans can enjoy the tangible benefits of our Federal investment in R&D.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a former member of this body and one of my personal role models, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois, Congresswoman Charlotte Thompson Reid, who passed away on January 25, 2007.

At the age of 93, Charlotte Reid leaves behind an extraordinary legacy of faithful public service that will be remembered always by the people of Illinois, and especially by those in her beloved hometown of Aurora.

As a young lady, Charlotte Reid attended Illinois College in Jacksonville and began her career as a professional singer on NBC radio. She was a singer under the name of Annette King on the very popular Don McNeil's Breakfast Club early morning radio show. I don't think that most of the members of this body would remember that show, but I remember listening to it as a child as I was getting ready for school.

Following the show in 1962, after the sudden death of her husband, Frank, after he had won a primary and before the general election, Charlotte Reid was asked to step in and take his place for a seat as representative in the U.S. Congress for the 15th District of Illinois. Renowned for her hard work, gentle charm and integrity, Charlotte Reid won the election and went on to serve almost five distinguished terms in the House of Representatives. She was known for hosting events of singing and music at her Washington, D.C., home after hours. Legend is that she probably was the first woman to appear on the House floor in a pantsuit, an event that was noted by the minority leader Gerald Ford that day.

At a time when only a dozen women had a voice in the Chamber, Charlotte, or ``Charlie'' as she was known to her friends, inspired not just me but an entire generation of women to take leadership roles in our communities.

Following her time in Congress, Charlotte continued to serve her country in many different capacities, including as a member of the Federal Communications Commission, she had been appointed by President Nixon; the Board of Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; and the Presidential Task Force on International Private Enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take this opportunity to celebrate the legacy of one of Illinois' most venerable daughters. And to her family, I offer my heartfelt condolences and my prayers, especially her three children, including my good friend and former colleague in the Illinois General Assembly, State Representative Patricia Reid Lindner, her daughter, as well as her eight grandchildren and 13 great grandchildren.

Thank you so much, Mr. Kirk, for organizing this opportunity to discuss the Suburban Agenda. As a Member who represents part of Cook County, the most populous county in Illinois, DuPage County, the second most populous county in Illinois, and Will County, the fastest growing county in Illinois, I certainly share your strong interest in suburban issues.

So I am delighted to be able to talk a little about the 401(k) kids. I want to just take a few minutes to explain what I think is one of the most important issues facing my constituents and constituents all over, particularly in the suburbs, the rising cost of college education.

Other than buying a home, the cost of a college education is probably one of the first major expenses that families need to start saving for. The average cost of tuition at an in-state public school is now at least $13,000; for an out-of-state public school, it is $19,000; and an average tuition at a private school is $28,000 and rising. These numbers have risen and continue to rise far faster than the rate of inflation.

Adding to this problem, let me put on my financial literacy hat just a little bit, is that personal savings rates in this country have dropped to a negative 1 percent, one of the lowest savings rates since the Great Depression. So what I fear here is we have a financial storm waiting to strike families across the country.

With students already carrying 45 percent more debt than they did 10 years ago, I simply don't think increasing loan amounts and reducing loan rates is enough. We have to provide more tools for parents and students to save for college. That is why we have introduced H.R. 87, the 401 Kids Family Savings Act of 2007.

This legislation would put American children on the path to an affordable education and a firm financial future. It allows an individual, including a parent, a grandparent, an aunt or an uncle, to set aside a total of $2,000 annually in 401 Kids Savings Accounts for each child.

Like that Roth IRA, the money is contributed to the account after taxes, but interest accumulates tax free, and the balance can be used tax free for the approved purposes in the bill. In the case of 401 Kids Savings Accounts, the money could be withdrawn tax free, first of all, for the college education.

The legislation would extend through 2015, the Coverdell Education Savings Account tax benefits, and rename these accounts 401 Kids Savings Accounts.

Second, for housing. 401 Kids Savings Accounts also can be used when the child grows up and they haven't used the amount, all of the amount, for the purchase of a first home.

And third, retirement. When the child grows up, he can roll over his 401 Kids Savings Account into a Roth IRA for use much later during retirement.

By enacting these reforms, we really can supply families with a single vehicle to set aside money for their children's futures. Money contributed at birth could grow tax free for 18 years until needed for college.

Parents and relatives also would have the peace of mind of knowing that if the child chooses not to go to college, even though they put away the money, or chooses a more affordable school, any money left over in the accounts can be used for the child's first home or retirement.

I would be remiss, as we talk about financial literacy and talk about savings, if I didn't mention that even Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve has said that creating savings accounts for children at the time they are born is a great idea. So I am really pleased to be with you.

I yield.

Thank you. Yes, there are several States that have started this process, too. The more that we can entice people to start that saving, to know what is available, the more that it is publicized, whether it is a State account or a Federal account, it is very important that this starts.

I know that in all the work that we do in the financial literacy and financial education that still we have kids that don't understand the difference between checks, cash or credit cards. Nor do people understand compound interest. Adults don't understand that.

Not even a teenager, but let's say a pre-teen, when the statement comes in and they look at it every month, they see how much interest, what interest means and what compound interest means, that they are getting more money every month, every year on this account. It isn't just sitting there static.

We have so many people in this country that are what we call ``unbanked,'' that don't even have a bank account or anything. They don't get these statements. So this is a tool, you are right, that kids learn about how to manage money. And part of that is having the opportunity that will be gained, being able to go to college because they had their parents and their family that put money aside for them. And you could put aside $2,000 a year, but you can start with $50, $100. Maybe families can't afford to put that much money in, but every dollar saved is a dollar towards education with the interest that is gained and reaped over the years in this account.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the goals of International

Women's Day. This is a day that not only recognizes the struggles women and girls have faced and continue to face throughout the world, but also celebrates their significant advancements and achievements.

Founded in the United States in the early 1900's, International Women's Day has grown to be recognized throughout the world each year on March 8th: from Australia, to Singapore, to Afghanistan, to Chile. This year alone, there are 269 International Women's Day events scheduled around the globe, with 44 occurring in the United States.

Since the inception of International Women's Day, women have made considerable progress throughout the world. A vast majority of women now have the right to vote. There currently are eleven women heads of state and 27 women presiding over national assemblies across the globe--including Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the U.S. House.

Some of women's most notable legislative successes here at home include: securing the right to vote in 1920; passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963; Title IX in 1972; and the Violence Against Women Act in 1994.

Despite these significant achievements, women in the United States and throughout the world still face obstacles to full equality. Women and girls are more likely to be illiterate, impoverished and a victim of domestic violence. Additionally, the U.S. Department of State estimates that every year, 800,000 to 900,000 people are victims of trafficking--most of them are women and girls.

I stand here today--in solidarity with women and girls around the globe--to bring attention to International Women's Day. It is important to recognize and celebrate the obstacles women have surmounted on the road to equality. Additionally, I hope to bring attention to the inequalities that we still face, so that we can continue to break down gender barriers in the hope that we can one day eradicate gender inequality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1066, the Depository Institution Community Development Investments Enhancement Act, and I want to commend Chairman Frank for introducing this legislation.

The regulatory relief legislation that was signed into law last October increased the authority of banks to invest in projects that benefit low and moderate income communities. The legislation increases the allowable percentage of public welfare investments from 10 to 15 percent of a thrift's capital and surplus. Banks currently have this authority.

H.R. 1066 would expand this authority in allowing thrifts to invest in distressed areas, as well as the low and moderate income communities. This enhanced authority is important because the need for investment in government-designated disaster areas may not necessarily be confined to low to moderate income areas.

H.R. 1066 also would make it easier for banks to invest in projects in devastated and abandoned communities on the gulf coast or to revitalize rural areas that are underserved or distressed. This legislation allows greater opportunities for banks and thrifts to provide housing, community services and jobs to communities throughout our Nation. It also helps these institutions meet their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act. Since the law was enacted in 1992, existing authority has already generated more than $16 billion of investments.

Twice last year legislation similar to H.R. 1066 passed the House overwhelmingly. H.R. 6062, the Community Development Investment Enhancement Act of 2006 passed the House by voice vote in September. The same language also was included in the House passed version of regulatory relief legislation, H.R. 3505, which cleared this body last March by a vote of 415-2, as Chairman Frank noted.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1066.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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 H.R. 644, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act of 2007. I want to commend Congressman Miller of California for introducing this legislation for the fourth time.

This bill aims to provide local communities greater access to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's brownfields program to clean up and redevelop contaminated sites. More importantly, the bill will help local communities create new jobs and expand their tax base.

The revitalization of brownfields sites has always been a familiar topic in Illinois, as my home State has thousands of these underused or vacant

properties. Brownfields are those sites where redevelopment is complicated by potential environmental contamination. They are less seriously contaminated than those covered under the Superfund Act, and there are an estimated 500,000 of them across the country.

HUD administers a brownfields program called the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, or BEDI. The main purpose of BEDI is to spur economic and community development of the brownfields sites. The problem is that due to a loan guarantee requirement, the program has been underutilized. Over the past 5 years, the Financial Services Committee has sought to make HUD's program more effective, specifically the BEDI program.

At hearings, we learned that many communities had been shut out of the BEDI program because they can't get a grant without going through the cumbersome process of applying for a section 108 loan. That is very hard on those smaller communities.

Under current law, HUD's brownfields redevelopment projects must be backed by those section 108 guaranteed loans. The section 108 loans require a local community to provide loan security by collateralizing its BEDI project with that community's current and future CDBG allocations. Therefore, many small communities have been hesitant to reply for BEDI because they are unwilling or unable to pledge their block grants as collateral for the guaranteed loans. In short, H.R. 644 amends the HUD Act of 1974 to permit HUD to issue BEDI grants independent of the section 108 loan guarantees.

This bill does not create a new program and would not trigger new spending or receipts. This bill will facilitate brownfields redevelopment in thousands of communities across the country, thereby encouraging economic development, expanding communities' tax bases and, most importantly, creating new jobs.

I applaud the bill's sponsors for introducing H.R. 644. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

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

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

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this nonbinding resolution. I

cannot support it for it neither supports our troops nor offers an alternative plan. It is symbolic, it is partisan, it is cynical, and it is meaningless.

The leadership of this body is taking the easy route: criticize the other guy's plan but don't offer your own. Call up your own nonbinding resolution, but don't allow votes on resolutions that actually have substance. Position yourselves for the next elections but not for the next wave of terrorism attacks. Win the White House, but lose the war on terror.

There is no doubt that the voters spoke in the last election. They are not happy with the war. Few, if any of us, are satisfied with the progress made in Iraq. I know I am not. Neither are my constituents. Their patience and that of all Americans has run thin.

For too long we pursued an open-ended commitment without well-defined goals and clear benchmarks for success. We also pursued a strategy that placed too heavy a burden on our troops and too light an expectation of the Iraqi Government. But I want to remind my colleagues that the voters will speak again if we don't get this right. And I say ``we'' because it is all of us. If we don't put aside the partisan positioning and work together for the good of this country, we all will lose more than just our seats in this body.

It is not enough to point the finger and say that the President is wrong, and wait for the returns to come in. It is not enough to disapprove and criticize and say It is not my job. He is the Commander in Chief. And it is not enough to turn around and through this resolution say you support troops that have been or are serving in Iraq, but not those who may go in as replacements, rotations, or as part of the new temporary deployment. This is why we should be using this opportunity, not to take a symbolic vote of no confidence in our Commander in Chief, but to discuss real options for the way forward in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I have been there several times. I have been to the red zone, visited the convention center where the Iraqi Parliament meets, and was there as Prime Minister Maliki presented his reconciliation plan. I met with our military commanders. I have listened to our soldiers who patrol the streets in Baghdad, and I have talked with democratically elected Iraqi leaders about their hopes for the future. The one thing that was very clear to me is that only the Iraqi Government can take the tough steps that will achieve reconciliation and an end to sectarian violence.

So now Prime Minister Maliki has stepped forward and asked our President for specific assistance in securing Baghdad. In response, President Bush's commanders have drawn up a plan. The President proposed a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus, who was confirmed by the other body in a bipartisan, unanimous vote of 81-0.

We urged the creation of a bipartisan Iraqi Study Group comprised of our country's most distinguished and seasoned experts and asked their advice. Among the key items they supported was a temporary surge in troop strength if called for by the commanders on the ground. ``As Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq,'' they pointed out.

These are all steps in the right direction. But what would approving this resolution signal to the world? That we tell the Iraqi people to take the tough steps, but then we deny them the support they need to do so? That we urge the creation of a bipartisan commission to give us guidance and then reject its advice? That we unanimously confirm a new general on the ground and then we deny him his plan? That we support our troops, but not their replacements?

These are not the messages that I want to send. We owe it to our troops and to those who have given their lives to give the Iraqis one last chance to show that they are willing to fight for and take responsibility for the future of their own country. But we have to exercise our constitutional powers and hold them to it, and we have to stop signaling that the best Congress can offer is a big, nonbinding ``no'' to someone else's plan.

So today I am cosponsoring legislation, H.R. 1062, that will do just that: hold the administration, and the Iraqi Government, accountable in achieving clear benchmarks. It requires the President to report to Congress every 30 days on the extent to which the government of Iraq is moving forward on more than a dozen fronts, from troop training and security to rebuilding, reconciliation, international cooperation, and enforcing the rule of law. It also requires progress reports on the implementation of strategies that will prevent Iraqi territory from becoming a safe haven for terrorist activities.

Most significantly, H.R. 1062 exercises the full constitutional powers of this body, not through a symbolic expression of discontent, but through vigorous oversight and true accountability.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1062 and reject the resolution before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Resolution 94, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Consumer Protection Week.

Now in its ninth year, this special week brings together a diverse array of public and private organizations in support of one common goal, ensuring that Americans have the knowledge and financial savvy they need to be responsible consumers and to protect themselves in the marketplace.

There have always been those who would prey on the unwary consumer, be it through misleading claims or fraudulent practices. And as more and more Americans begin conducting transactions on the Internet, or with the use of other rapidly changing technologies, we must actively educate ourselves against new and evolving threats.

Among the most serious risks today consumers face is identity theft. In Illinois alone, we had over 11,000 reports of identity theft in just 1 year. According to the FTC, Illinois ranks among the top 10 States where consumers are most likely to have their personal information compromised. And yet, by following just a few simple tips, consumers are better able to recognize frauds and can significantly reduce the likelihood that their private information will fall into the wrong hands.

In many cases, the wisest and safest consumers are those who simply, with the best understanding, make their choices. Whether it is paying for college, saving for retirement or shopping for a mortgage on a first home, many Americans just don't know where to look to learn about the scores of options that are available to them.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, in February 2005, I joined with my friend and distinguished colleague, Representative Hinojosa, to establish the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus. We began this caucus to ensure that Congress did its part, not just to protect consumers but to empower them. We wanted to make certain that Americans of all ages and all walks of life have access to the tools and the educational resources they need to ensure the economic security of their families.

Today, we have the opportunity to do just that. We can join the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Postal Service, the AARP, Better Business Bureaus of America, and hundreds of other consumer advocates across the country that have collaborated to make National Consumer Protection Week a success.

Together, we can raise the awareness, not just of pitfalls in the marketplace, but the wealth of information and options available to consumers. One such resource, as Representative Hinojosa said, is consumer.gov, a Federal Web site that provides one-stop shopping for information on everything from avoiding identity theft to finding savings at the gasoline pump.

I would like to also take this opportunity to thank my friend from Texas and cochair of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, for working so hard on today's resolution, and his tireless effort on financial education issues.

In addition, my thanks go out to Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton of the Energy and Commerce Committee for helping to bring this resolution to the floor in such a timely and bipartisan manner.

And finally, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for managing our resolution here today.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to sponsor House Resolution 94, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, this past Friday I had the privilege of visiting the third grade classes at Brook Forest Elementary School in Oak Brook, Illinois. They gave me a wonderful and informative presentation on current efforts to protect the Mexican Grey Wolf and save it from extinction. I was impressed by their thorough research and their dedication to protecting this endangered species. They felt so strongly about it that they held a bake sale and raised $448 to donate to Chicago's Brookfield Zoo for its wolf breeding program.

I commend their teachers for their creativity in planning such a comprehensive and engaging curriculum. They combined lessons in science, social studies, public speaking, and environmental and civic responsibility into one challenging and complete unit.

I want to offer a big ``thank you'' to my new friends at Brook Forest for teaching me so much. I join them in their noble cause, and will continue to work in Congress to protect endangered species like the Mexican Grey Wolf.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I support provisions in this resolution that provide funding for roads and transit, Pell Grants, Special Education, NCLB, veterans' healthcare and scientific research at places like NIH and Argonne National Laboratory.

However, I do not support a provision in this bill that will slash housing assistance for hundreds of families and seniors in my district and for thousands more nationwide.

It is unfortunate that the leadership and appropriators on the other side of the aisle decided that it was OK to completely rewrite the funding formula for the disbursement of Section 8 housing funds in this bill without consulting with the authorizing committee, Financial Services. The last time I checked, authorizing on an appropriations bill is against the House rules. But of course, the rule for this bill denies us any opportunity to raise a point of order, or amend the bill. At least during previous Republican-led Congresses, our leadership had the courtesy to allow Democrats to offer amendments and points of order and followed rules that reflect a truly democratic process.

Now, I must point out that the other side of the aisle still has a chance to do this the right way. As the new Ranking Member of the Financial Services Housing Subcommittee, I am perfectly happy to work with the majority to craft a comprehensive, bipartisan Section 8 reform package that will provide stability and predictability for our public housing authorities and those whom they serve.

My constituents are not well served by this abrupt and drastic change in the formula, and I would warn my colleagues from Illinois to look closely at the new numbers for their districts.

The Chicago suburbs are hit hard by this new formula. Each housing authority in all three counties of my Congressional district will receive a funding cut this year. The housing authority in Cook County will lose $8 million, Joliet will lose $1.1 million, Aurora and DuPage County will lose over a million dollars.

These are not just dollars; these are families and seniors who are being hurt here. With this bill's proposed cuts to Section 8 housing funding, more than 100 families in DuPage County, about 150 in Will County, and thousands across the country will be kicked to the curb in 2007. This is unacceptable.

I am disappointed by the thoughtlessness of those on the other side of the aisle who determined the new formula and numbers in this bill. I urge my colleagues to alert their constituents who will become homeless this year about this fly-by-night formula change that our dear colleagues have brought to the floor today. I invite the Democratic leadership to explain to the neediest citizens in the suburbs of Chicago and in communities across our Nation why they won't have a roof over their heads in 2007. This is no way to start the New Year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 57, a resolution congratulating Illinois State, as it celebrates on February 15 its 150th anniversary of its founding. I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Weller of Illinois, for introducing this resolution and recognizing the important role Illinois State University plays in educating the citizens of Illinois and many other States in the Nation.

With more than 20,000 students, Illinois State University is a large- scale university with a small-college feel. Of the 20,000 students, there are 3,000 students enrolled in graduate degree programs. In addition to a number of graduate certificates, Illinois State offers 63 undergraduate programs and over 47 master's degrees, specialist and doctoral degree programs.

Illinois State University has been ranked as one of the 100 best values in public education by Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine. ISU actually jumped four spots, from 83 to 79, in Kiplinger's newest edition and was only one of two State schools to make the list.

Sixty-six percent of Illinois State University students receive financial aid, and the school has a low default rate of 2 percent, well under the national default rate of 4.5 percent.

Illinois State also recognizes the importance of educating students to become good teachers. Founded by Jesse Fell in 1847, Illinois State was the first public university in Illinois and was quickly established as a teachers' education institution.

Now, 150 years later, the university is the second largest producer of teacher education degrees in the country. In fact one in seven Illinois teachers holds a degree from Illinois State. Mr. Speaker, Illinois State University is a remarkable institution, and I would like to congratulate all of those students, the alumni and past and present employees on all that they have accomplished over the past 150 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and would close with just urging all my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.