Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

In 2005, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act, or EPACT, the first comprehensive energy package enacted with bipartisan support in well over a decade. I supported it for one reason, because it made a much needed and sustained investment in the basic science and applied energy research that will end our reliance on foreign oil.

Congress and the Federal Government must make a steadfast commitment to support the development of advanced energy technologies and alternative fuels that will help end our addiction to oil and gasoline. That is why in the 109th Congress I introduced H.R. 6203, the Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. This bill reflected the latest research, the emergence of innovative technologies, and new ways of thinking about our power problems. Among other things, it supported the development of biofuels, solar and wind power, and battery technologies. It also promoted energy conservation in a number of important ways.

This bill received bipartisan support from the Science Committee. It was approved unanimously by this body in September of last year, but the other body, on the other side of the rotunda, failed to act on it before Congress adjourned. So why aren't these widely supported provisions included in the bill we are considering today? Good question.

I tried to offer an amendment to include provisions from H.R. 6203 in this bill. I went to the Rules Committee to explain my amendment and how it might contribute to our energy independence. But before I could speak, a decision had already been made by the Democratic leadership not to allow any amendments to this bill, not even those whose provisions had been passed unanimously just 4 months ago.

So how does this bill contribute to our energy independence, Mr. Speaker? I supported fixing the Clinton administration oil and gas leasing errors, but I believe we are missing the opportunity to take the next step. We should know where the money will go. Instead of creating a slush fund, as this bill does, for some unknown use in the indefinite future, we should take the steps today to invest in the kind of research, development, and demonstration projects outlined in H.R. 6203 that will ultimately lead to advanced energy technologies. We need to start today.

If we are serious about energy independence, we should put that money to work today as an incentive for consumers to become more energy efficient and use alternative fuels. This could be accomplished by extending and expanding the tax credits created in EPACT for the purchase of vehicles that run on alternative fuels. Let us lift the cap on the number of vehicles that can qualify for these credits. Let us expand incentives for the installation of alternative refueling infrastructure.

I introduced another bill in the last Congress that would do just that by using the revenue generated from repealing certain tax credits for oil and gas production. These are the kind of concrete initiatives that will bring us measurably closer to achieving true energy independence. These are the kind of worthy initiatives we should consider.

I will have to support this bill, I guess, but I think it could be better, so much better, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 188, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). This bill will provide a new effective date for certain provisions in Public Law 105-331. It is a simple bill and it is simple to describe.

Passage will allow the Edison Tower Museum in Edison, New Jersey, an extension until the end of June to raise private funds. These funds will match the roughly $380,000 in surcharges due from the sale of coins as part of the Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin Act of 2004.

As a result of some miscommunications and, frankly, a lack of clarity in materials, the United States Mint provided the Edison Memorial Tower Corporation regarding statutory requirements, this brief extension is necessary. It will allow the corporation time to raise private sector matching funds and thus claim the surcharges from the sale of the coins.

The situation is now cleared up and the Mint has corrected the documentation and all concerned agree that a brief extension of the statutory 2-year timeline is both reasonable and a practical and fair way to deal with the situation.

The matching fund requirements were part of sensible reforms to the commemorative coin program enacted in the 104th Congress at the behest of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). They are an important safeguard against misuse of the commemorative coin program. This modest extension creates no precedent for future surcharge recipients who fail to raise the required funds in a timely fashion, and is merely a brief pause to allow satisfaction of the statute.

This is a good bill, one that passed the House in November of 2006 by voice vote but was not acted upon by the other body. I urge its immediate passage.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kind words.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 391, legislation that would temporarily remove the cap on the number of home equity conversion mortgages that may be insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's FHA program. I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Jim Matheson, and Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, for introducing this important bill.

This legislation is similar to H.R. 2892, the Reverse Mortgages to Help America's Seniors Act, which was approved by the House by voice vote in the previous Congress.

Madam Speaker, this legislation would enable senior homeowners to

continue to tap into an important source of cash, the equity in their own homes. Nicknamed ``reverse mortgages,'' these HECMs allow Americans age 62 and older to maintain financial independence while staying in their own homes.

The reverse mortgage is a unique loan that allows seniors who are homeowners to convert part of the equity in their homes into tax-free income without having to sell their home, give up title, or take on new mortgage payments.

The funds collected from a reverse mortgage can be used for whatever needs a senior may have, including home repairs, health care costs, debts or simple daily living expenses.

Instead of making monthly payments to the lender, as with a regular or forward mortgage, the senior can receive payments or a payment from the lender. Under the reverse mortgage, senior homeowners can receive a lump sum, fixed monthly payments, a line of credit or a combination of the three, depending on their individual situations.

The program ensures that the reverse mortgage is paid back when they move or when they pass away, and the homeowner will never owe more than the house is worth.

With a reverse mortgage, senior homeowners who are house rich but cash poor can access cash for their needs while keeping their homes.

When the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program was initially made permanent, the number of such loans that the FHA program could handle at any given time was capped so that HUD and Congress could determine the safety and soundness of the program.

Nearly 10 years later, we now know the program is successful. In my home State of Illinois alone, the number of FHA-insured reverse mortgages has nearly doubled since 2004 to just short of 2,000 in 2006.

With the removal of the cap, more seniors will be able to put the equity in their homes to work for them.

Under this bill, the cap only will be removed through February 15, as was noted. It is my hope that by temporarily removing this cap, which currently limits the number of outstanding loans to 275,000, another measure that we will consider later could expand the removal further, eventually leading to a permanent fix.

According to the AARP, a leading supporter of this bill, only the complete removal of the volume cap will prevent the possibility of detrimental program disruptions in the future.

Living in the home that may have seen the raising of children and the joy of grandchildren should be an option for seniors well into retirement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill that will protect the ability of seniors to stay in their homes and provide them with economic security.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing let me just say that the number of elderly people in America continues to rise, and with advances in health care and technology seniors will continue to represent a larger percentage of the population. It is important that these citizens have as many economic resources as possible to support them in the future.

Further, studies show that given the chance seniors overwhelmingly desire to live out their lives in their own homes. The reverse mortgage is an important tool that can help in addressing the needs of seniors today and in the years to come.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for introducing this bill, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for managing the bill. I urge support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, which would provide less choice and no savings. I think my friends on the other side of the aisle failed to mention some of the negative aspects of the veterans drug plan, which they are now highlighting as a model for government negotiation.

I know they haven't highlighted the fact that many widely used drugs, including Lipitor, the most widely used drug in America, isn't even available through the VA plan. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle are prepared to tell their seniors why they can't get Lipitor.

Are they prepared to tell them they can't go to their local pharmacy, but have to go to a VA pharmacy, which could be hundreds of miles away, or they have to order their drugs through the mail? I wonder why one- third of the veterans have already moved to the part D plan.

Personally, I know my seniors would want to be able to choose a drug plan that gets them the best deal for the drugs they use. They don't want to be locked into a one-size-fits-all plan that

doesn't cover their drugs, especially since the CBO says it won't save them any money.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, which would provide less choice and no savings.

This morning, as I reviewed all of the letters of support and opposition on this bill, I was struck by the lack of patient group support for this legislation. I could not find a single letter from the American Cancer Society, any diabetes group, or the American Heart Association supporting government negotiation under Medicare Part D.

What I did find was a letter from the Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Greater Chicago, in opposition to the bill, which I think represents the views of all these groups.

It states, and I quote, ``To date, government interventions in prescription medication pricing, at the federal and state levels, have resulted in policies restricting access to medications.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be included in the Record.

In addition, I think my friends on the other side of the aisle have failed to mention some of the negative aspects of the Veterans Drug Plan they are now highlighting as the model from government negotiation. I know they haven't highlighted the fact that many widely used drugs--including lipitor, the most used drug in America--aren't even available through the VA Plan. I wonder if my friends on the other side of the aisle are prepared to tell their seniors why they can't get their lipitor or why they need to fail on a less costly drug first. Are they prepared to tell them that they can't go to their local pharmacy or that they need to order their drugs through the mail?

Personally, I know my seniors want to be able to choose a drug plan that gets them the best deal on the drugs they use. They don't want to be locked into a one-size-fits-all plan that doesn't cover their drugs.

And then there is the other issue nobody on the other side of the aisle wants to talk about. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation we are considering today won't save seniors any money and won't save the government any money. So why should seniors give up their drug coverage if it won't even save them money?

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation because it threatens to limit the drug choices of America's seniors without saving them or the government any money. Currently, there are 54,575 seniors in my district that utilize the Medicare Part D program, and they save on average $1,200 a year. Costs to seniors are already less than originally projected and they are expected to fall further. Let's let the program continue to work.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3.

Everyone has a family member or friend who suffers from diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or other diseases. Unfortunately, without Federal Government support, scientists won't have access to the stem cells they need to develop treatments and cures for these and a host of other diseases that touch the lives of every American.

We already are using Federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research. But science has advanced rapidly since the President announced his stem cell research policy. These cells were just identified less than ten years ago, and already, the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 lines currently available under the President's policy were developed using outdated techniques and have been contaminated, possibly skewing the outcome of experiments.

There are now 125 good, pure cell lines available for use. Because they are more diverse, not only can scientists use them to research more conditions, but they better reflect the genetic diversity of individuals.

I support lifting the ban on Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, so long as the donors give their consent and the cells made available would otherwise be discarded and destroyed. It is simply tragic that something so valuable would just be thrown away when it has so much potential to alleviate so much suffering.

Given the promise that these stem cells hold, it is time to drop the restrictions and allow researchers to do what they do best. Let's let researchers go where the science leads them, not where politicians dictate. In order to truly explore all the possibilities, scientists must have access to all kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic and those from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid. That is why I plan to vote for H.R. 3.

I am proud to support H.R. 3, and for the sake of the millions suffering from debilitating diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank John Case for his eight years of service as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors. Under John's leadership, numerous improvements were instituted to North America's 6th largest bus system, resulting in better service for millions of Americans living in the Chicagoland area.

It is no surprise that John was chosen to serve as Chairman of the Board--he has a long history of serving his community and nation. As a retired United States Air Force Major with twenty years of service, including in the third bomber wing during the Korean War, he brought many valuable skills to his role as Chairman. His experience is evident in the many improvements he instituted. These include developing Board Committees to handle specific decision areas, implementing use of biodiesel in the Pace bus fleet, doubling the size of Pace's vanpool program, ensuring that retirement funds are being adequately funded, and implementation of the Intelligent Bus System, which provides real- time information on bus locations, ridership and on-time performance.

John is a dedicated public servant. For more than forty years, he has served his community in many public roles. He began his public career in Lisle Township--located in the 13th District of Illinois, which I represent--and, since then, has held the position of Township Trustee and Supervisor for Lisle Township. In Dupage County, in which Lisle Township resides, he has served as a DuPage County Board Member, County Board Chairman, and Forest Preserve President.

Once again, I would like to congratulate and thank John Case on his eight successful years as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors and for all he has done for his community.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to title IV. I am a fiscal conservative and I strongly support a balanced budget, fiscal discipline, and earmark reform; but I am afraid that this version of PAYGO means taxes will go up.

I think that the problem that we have had between the two sides of the aisle is over what is spending and what is tax relief. And I think that we see tax relief as tax relief and that it is the people's money and they know best how to spend it; and the other side of the aisle includes tax relief as spending. So I think until we can iron out that difference, I think we are going to have problems.

Madam Speaker, the Wall Street Journal today in an editorial called ``Tax As You Go,'' that is January 5, puts it best and much better than I can say it and I would just like to quote a couple of lines from there. It says: ``PAYGO, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending discipline while making it all but impossible to let the taxpayers keep more of their money. It really should be called spend and tax as you go.'' I would urge everyone to look at this Wall Street Journal, and I submit it for inclusion into the Record.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2007]

Tax As You Go

Congressional Democrats are dashing out of the gates to

establish their fiscal conservative credentials. And as early

as today

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push through so-called ``pay-

as-you-go'' budget rules for Congress. Keep an eye on your

wallet.

``Paygo,'' as Washington insiders call it, sounds like a

fiscally prudent budget practice: If government spends more

on program A, it has to spend less money on program B, and

thus budget deficits will be restrained. We're all for that.

But when Republicans proposed exactly that budget rule in

recent years, House Democrats voted it down.

Ms. Pelosi has something different in mind. Under her paygo

plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would

have to be offset by either cutbacks in other entitlement

programs or tax increases. This version of paygo is a budget

trapdoor, designed not to control expenditures but to make it

easier to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts.

Supporters of paygo claim it will help restrain entitlement

spending. It won't. Paygo doesn't apply to current

entitlements that will grow automatically over the next

several decades. Ms. Pelosi's version of paygo applies only

to new entitlements or changes in law that expand current

programs.

And on present trajectory, Medicare, Medicaid, Social

Security, food stamps and the like are scheduled to increase

federal spending to almost 38% of GDP by 2050, up from 21%

today. Paygo won't stop a dime of that increase. This may

explain why one of the leading supporters of paygo is the

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal outfit that

favors far more social spending.

Paygo enthusiasts also claim that when these rules were in

effect in the 1990s the budget deficit disappeared and by

2001 the budget recorded a $121 billion surplus. Sorry. The

budget improvement in the late 1990s was a result of three

events wholly unrelated to paygo: the initial spending

restraint under the Republican Congress in 1995 and 1996 as

part of their pledge to balance the budget; a huge reduction

in military spending, totaling nearly 2% of GDP, over the

decade; and rapid economic growth, which always causes a

bounce in revenues. Paygo didn't expire until 2002, but by

the late 1990s politicians in both parties were already re-

stoking the domestic spending fires.

What paygo does restrain are tax cuts, by requiring that

any tax cut be offset dollar-for-dollar with some entitlement

reduction. Congressional budgeteers always overestimate the

revenue losses from tax cuts, which under paygo would require

onerous budget cuts to ``pay for'' the tax cuts. As a

political matter, those spending cuts will never happen.

First on the chopping block, therefore, would be the

investment tax cuts of 2003 that are set to expire in 2010.

Last year Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin, the new

Appropriations Committee chairman and a prodigious spender,

gave this strategy away when he urged paygo rules so he could

enact new social spending and pay for it by canceling the

Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $1 million.

Never mind that, in the wake of those capital gains and

dividend tax-rate cuts, federal revenues climbed by a record

$550 billion over the past two fiscal years. Incidentally,

thanks to the current economic expansion and the surge in tax

revenues, the budget deficit has fallen by $165 billion in

just two years--without paygo.

Given all of this, it's especially puzzling that even some

conservatives seem tempted by paygo's fiscal illusions. Our

friends at the Heritage Foundation have of late become

obsessed with future entitlement forecasts and have advised

Ms. Pelosi to enact paygo rules to stop it. But Heritage

notably did not insist that tax increases be excluded from

any paygo rule. Had such logic prevailed in 1980 or 2003,

it's possible that neither the Reagan nor Bush tax cuts would

ever have become law. As a political matter, paygo is about

returning Republicans to their historical minority role as

tax collectors for the welfare state.

That's not to say that new budget rules aren't highly

desirable. The line-item veto, a new Grace Commission to

identify and eliminate the billions of dollars of waste and

failed programs, and an automatic spending sequester if the

budget rises above agreed baselines would all help to restore

spending discipline. But it is precisely because these rules

would restrain spending that they are not on the Democratic

agenda.

Paygo, by contrast, gives the appearance of spending

discipline while making it all but impossible to let

taxpayers keep more of their money. It should really be

called ``spend and tax as you go.''

I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.

I rise to honor my colleague and friend, Congressman Henry Hyde. I am in the district next to Mr. Hyde. But as a freshman I used to say, try and get press when your district is sandwiched in between Henry Hyde and the Speaker.

I think the one thing that I just will miss on the House floor about Henry is his jokes. Whenever you are feeling blue, whenever you just needed a pick-me-up, there was Henry sitting on the aisle and then over here. I just would go up, and he would give the joke of his day, which always made you feel really good.

He is always gracious and always ready to give credit to his colleagues. One time he used a joke that I used to open speeches with. He would always give me credit. He would say, ``as Judy Biggert says,'' and then go on with the joke.

I think that the House needs more Henry Hydes. Probably Congress hasn't been so well thought of these days, and lately by the public. Our image seems to be a little bit tarnished. But I think Henry Hyde has always stood out in this body as a statesman. I can remember coming here as a freshman and going to our Republican Conference.

When he would come in the room, people would stand and clap. He just walked into the room, and he has always just stood out like that. I think the one thing that we could all really want to do is to follow him as far as the statesmanship and not just what people think of us politicians. So we are going to miss him, but I think the institution has become a better place because Henry Hyde has been here, and we will miss him.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3938) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the immediate passage of Senate 3938, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006. A compromise between the Senate-passed product and the House version, H.R. 5068, introduced by my friend from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), this is an excellent bill that deserves broad and deep support.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see this bill on the floor today. The House and Senate versions both enjoyed broad bipartisan support in committee and in floor consideration, and it seems to me that this bill makes a number of important reforms to the way Ex-Im operates that we all can be very proud of.

First and foremost, Madam Speaker, this bill firmly establishes congressional intent that the bank should focus its attention on increasing exports by small businesses. The bank does a tremendous job of supporting exports by large corporations and will continue to do so. But small businesses often have had a difficult time navigating the intricate and unfamiliar waters of loan guarantees and insurance offered by the bank.

This bill establishes a small business division within the bank staffed by specialists on small business operations. More importantly, it authorizes the small business specialist to approve loans, guarantees and insurance on some projects quickly so that the U.S. small businesses will not be aced out of international competition by another country's export credit agency that moves faster to cement the deal.

The bill also establishes a special office to serve small businesses owned by women and the economically disadvantaged and expresses the congressional view that Ex-Im should have an office that focuses on exports of renewable energy technology, an area where the U.S. can excel as a world leader.

Finally, this bill establishes a number of new reporting regimes and reorganizes others so that Congress can better monitor and perform oversight on Ex-Im operations, a job some have felt to be difficult in the past.

In our increasingly competitive global environment, we must ensure that we can provide every advantage and eliminate every obstacle for U.S. businesses to win the sale over foreign competitors. This is a bill that all Members can be proud of and will increase U.S. exports, and thus U.S. employment in a responsible manner.

I want to thank Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their strong support in guiding this bill. They, along with Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Manzullo and Ms. Velazquez, joined me as original cosponsors with Chairman Pryce, and all were helpful, as well as Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes and Senator Crapo in the Senate.

I would also like to thank the staff who worked on this bill: Chairman Pryce's former staff member, Jackie Moran; Scott Morris of Mr. Frank's staff; and Eleni Constantine from Mrs. Maloney's staff. Also Gregg Richard on the staff of the Senate bill's sponsor, Senator Crapo, was instrumental in passage, and I will note we trained him well when he worked here in the House, as well as Andrew Olmen from Senator Shelby's staff and Steve Kroll for Senator Sarbanes.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge immediate passage of this bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would urge passage of this very important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2250) to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge Members to join in saluting an American hero who deserves to be recognized for his lifetime service to the world by passing S. 2250, the Congressional Tribute to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug Act of 2006.

Senate 2250 directs the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to make appropriate arrangements to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Dr. Norman Borlaug in recognition of his enduring contributions in fighting hunger around the world. This legislation is identical to H.R. 4924, introduced by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Madam Speaker, Dr. Borlaug is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient of whom few have heard, a humanitarian responsible for mounting a global campaign against hunger that saved so many of the world's neediest people through agricultural science.

In 1944, he took on the task of researching high-yield and disease- resistant cereal grains. Through trial and error, Dr. Borlaug's efforts led to the development of varieties of wheat that completely altered production agriculture as it was then known in places like Pakistan, India and Mexico. The dwarf wheat variety allowed farmers to produce far more grain per acre than anyone could have predicted. This newfound bounty gave the world's poorest people access to food, ensuring children who otherwise would have been victims of malnutrition could thrive.

Dr. Borlaug's landmark discoveries in agriculture led to what is called the ``Green Revolution.'' However, this modest man, born and raised in Cresco, Iowa, and educated in Minnesota, once said his accomplishments were only ``a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation.''

Madam Speaker, I recognize that many in Congress and throughout the country do not know about the progress we have made in production agriculture and are unaware of the countless contributions made by agricultural scientists such as Dr. Borlaug. However, his leadership has inspired so many others of our best and brightest students to pursue careers in agriculture sciences, and his work will live on in the lives of those who have been spared the misery of starvation.

Madam Speaker, this is an honor long overdue, and I would urge immediate passage of this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the sponsor of the identical legislation, H.R. 4924.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman also from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and he has been a great leader and we will miss him in Congress.

I would recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank John Case for his 8 years of service as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors. Under John's leadership, numerous improvements were instituted to North America's 6th largest bus system, resulting in better service for millions of Americans living in the Chicagoland area.

It is no surprise that John was chosen to serve as Chairman of the Board--he has a long history of serving his community and nation. As a retired United States Air Force Major with 20 years of service, including the third bomber wing during the Korean War, he brought many valuable skills to his role as Chairman. His experience is evident in the many improvements he instituted. These include developing Board Committees to handle specific decision areas, implementing use of biodiesel in the Pace bus fleet, doubling the size of Pace's vanpool program, ensuring that retirement funds are being adequately funded, and implementation of the Intelligent Bus System, which provides real- time information on bus locations, ridership and on-time performance.

John is a dedicated public servant. For more than 40 years, he has served his community in many public roles. He began his public career in Lisle Township--located in the 13th District of Illinois, which I represent--and, since then, has held the position of Township Trustee and Supervisor for Lisle Township. In DuPage County, in which Lisle Township resides, he has served as a DuPage County Board Member, County Board Chairman, and Forest Preserve President.

Once again, I would like to congratulate and thank John Case on his eight successful years as Chairman of the Pace Board of Directors and for all he has done for his community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding woman whose commitment and passion for a great cause led her to accomplish a very good thing for her community and state.

The woman is Debra Nauman. The cause is educating autistic children. And the very good thing accomplished is a place called Giant Steps, Illinois.

When Debra's son Riley entered pre-school, she became concerned about the quality of education he would receive as an autistic child. But instead of becoming disheartened, Debra Nauman became inspired. She was determined to provide her son with an education that would facilitate his mental and physical progression.

Her resolve led her to Giant Steps, a school for children with autism, in Montreal, Canada. Here was a school that featured an environment that nurtured the autistic mind and provided therapeutic services. Here was what she was seeking for Riley. But here--Montreal, Canada--was a very long way away from her home and business in Illinois.

So when Debra sought such a school back home and couldn't find one, she founded her own.

Armed only with her tenacity and infectious enthusiasm, she recruited a board of directors, raised funds, rented space, hired personnel and opened the doors at Giant Steps, Inc. Illinois, an academic and therapeutic day school for children with autism spectrum disorders in Burr Ridge, Illinois.

As we celebrate the tenth anniversary of Giant Steps of Illinois, it is only appropriate that we recognize Debra Nauman. We celebrate her because, despite the challenges she faces as a single mom running her own business, she did not compromise when it came to

her autistic son and his needs. Debra recognized long ago that every child deserves an education that will help him or her progress in life. She continues to work tirelessly to improve Giant Steps of Illinois and expand its programs. In so doing, she has made a world of difference in the lives of so many autistic children and their families in Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Debra Nauman and congratulate her on Giant Steps of Illinois' tenth anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6203) to provide for Federal energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6203, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6203, the Alternative Energy and Research Development Act.

As its title suggests, this bill is designed to advance development of a number of alternative energy technologies by establishing policy goals and focusing research on key technical challenges.

Building on the excellent R&D provisions the Science Committee included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, or EPACT, H.R. 6203 supports the development of biofuels from cellulose, meaning feedstocks other than corn; biodegradable natural plastics from biomass; technologies for hydrogen storage onboard vehicles; advanced solar technologies that are economical and make solar power cost competitive in a decade; technologies that minimize the cost and environmental impact and maximize the efficiency of harnessing the power of the wind; and advanced battery technologies specifically for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

In addition to requiring the DOE to continue carrying out the geothermal energy, hydropower distributor and cogeneration research authorized in EPACT, H.R. 6203 supports research to convert coal into pipeline quality gaseous fuels.

The bill also promotes energy conservation in three important ways. First, it provides incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings. Today's buildings consume 50 percent of the Nation's supply of natural gas and 70 percent of its electricity, more energy than any other sector of the economy, including industry and transportation.

Second, the bill offers grants to States who deploy solar cells and purchase plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Finally, it establishes a cooperative extension program to encourage the use of advanced energy technologies patterned after the successful agricultural extension programs that aided farmers in incorporating advanced technologies and food production.

H.R. 6203 is a modified version of H.R. 5656, which was approved by the Science Committee in July. Like most bills that emerge from the Science Committee, H.R. 6203 represents a compilation of great ideas from a number of members of the committee, including my colleagues from Texas, Lamar Smith and Mike McCaul. And I would especially like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Gordon, for his leadership and his additions to the bill. The bill was further perfected in committee by Representatives Ralph Hall, Doris Matsui, Lynn Woolsey, Sheila Jackson- Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ken Calvert, Al Green, Brian Baird, and Brad Miller. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their contributions. H.R. 6203 is the product of a truly bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, high natural gas prices and the summer spike in gasoline prices serve as a stark reminder that the path to energy independence is a long and arduous one.

To make significant progress down this path requires a steadfast commitment from Congress and the Federal Government to support the development of advanced energy technologies and alternative fuels that will help end our addiction to oil and gasoline.

The bill we are considering today would do just that in a fiscally responsible way. In some cases, it gives new direction to research funding authorized in EPACT. In others, the House already has appropriated funds for the programs.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6203.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize a valuable member of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize another member of the Science Committee who has worked hard in this area, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCall), for 2 minutes.

Mr. McCALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Congresswoman Biggert for her leadership on this bill. We have worked very hard to get to this point to get this bill on the floor. I was very proud to be a part of it. I thank you again for your leadership. And I thank Congressman Kirk for helping us in this effort and my colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith, for his hard work.

This alternative energy legislation is crucial for America. But it isn't just an alternative energy issue. It is also very much a national security issue. For some time now, we in the Congress have been pushing towards reducing America's addiction to foreign sources of oil. This is a giant step in the right direction. This bill will provide research and development for energy independence, for clean energy technologies, for plug-in hybrid vehicles, solar power, wind, biofuels, clean coal technologies, and hydrogen.

If passed, this visionary legislation will put us on the track to provide cheaper and more reliable alternatives to fossil fuels and will work to provide a cleaner environment for our children and our grandchildren.

I want to thank our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their strong support of this legislation as well. It is an important bill for America's energy future.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who is not a member of the Science Committee but has been so helpful as a member of the Policy Committee and of the Appropriations Committee, and I yield 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). He has been the chairman of the Suburban Caucus, and this bill has been on the Suburban Caucus list for those bills that are important to not only suburban areas but all over the country, and I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a long-time member of the Science Committee, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Bartlett from Maryland.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record an exchange of letters between the Committees on Science and Education and the Workforce.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2006.

Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science, 2320 Rayburn HOB, Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate 3661.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Luvernia Fuller Foundation for the invaluable support it provides to cancer patients. In doing so, I join two local governments in the 13th District of Illinois in recognizing the Luvernia Fuller Foundation for its generosity. Both the Village of Romeoville and the City of Joliet in my district have declared May 18, 2007, Luvernia Fuller Foundation ``Answer My Prayer'' day.

This not-for-profit organization was established on January 20, 2004 by the son of cancer patient, Luvernia Fuller. Unfortunately, like too many people stricken with cancer, Luvernia Fuller lost her battle. Inspired by his mother, Brian Fuller established the Foundation to provide emotional and monetary assistance to cancer patients and their families.

``Answer My Prayer'' day was created to raise awareness and support for cancer patients. The Luvernia Fuller Foundation's goal of ``Answer My Prayer'' day is not only to raise money to help provide necessary medical treatment and medicine for cancer patients, but also to educate the public about cancer and to celebrate the dignity of cancer patients.

As representative of the 13th District of Illinois, I am extremely pleased that such a fine foundation is based in my district and is providing life-saving assistance to the people of Illinois, I wish the Luvernia Fuller Foundation continued success in its mission and hope that we all set aside May 18th as ``Answer My Prayer'' day to help and remember those who have been or are currently afflicted with cancer.