Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. What gave it away?

Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, what they call the bragging rights, the day after the annual congressional baseball game.

Mr. Speaker, last evening at historic Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, the Republican baseball team defeated the Democrats by a score of 19-10. We most appreciate everybody's participation. Mr. Speaker, this was the largest crowd in the history of this vaunted contest that goes back, in the modern era, some 45 years. We had almost 6,000 spectators. The winners in this contest were not the Republicans, really, but the charities that were involved that will benefit greatly. We raised about $125,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Washington and the Adult Literacy Council.

I want to thank all of the players who participated, particularly Kevin Brady, the second baseman for the Republican squad, who was voted our MVP. Kevin has had a checkered career recently. The last two seasons before this, he did not last through the first inning because of injuries. This year he played the entire game and had a couple of hits and played well in the field and was voted our MVP.

Our congratulations also go to Jay Inslee from the Evergreen State who played magnificently at third base for the Democrats and was awarded the MVP award by the manager of the Democratic team, my good friend, Martin Sabo, a great sportsman and a real leader.

We enjoyed the game immensely. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Maryland for hosting us for so many years up in Bowie; but we had an opportunity, as he knows, to move to the major league ballpark, and to play in a major league ballpark, I think I speak for all of our players, was like getting our youth back, at least for 2 or 3 hours out there in that contest.

I want to thank all of the sponsors and all of the people who purchased tickets for this event. It was truly a great historic event on the Hill and one that we look forward to participating in next year.

I will be glad to yield to my friend from Maryland.

I would have found a way somehow to get this in.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.J. Res. 10, which calls for a constitutional amendment permitting Congress to protect our nation's flag.

Old Glory is far more than a piece of cloth. Especially in this post- September 11 era, it is the most visible symbol of our Nation and the freedoms we have too often taken for granted. It is a unifying sign in times of peace and war, instilling pride in our great country and continued hope for our future.

Americans from across the political spectrum and from every walk of life support the passage of this amendment. Since the Supreme Court in 1989 invalidated state-passed flag protection laws, the legislatures in each of the 50 states have passed resolutions petitioning Congress for this amendment. I am proud that the House is taking this important step toward a constitutional amendment today.

Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is well known for its civic pride and spirited celebration of the flag. The annual display of thousands of flags on houses and businesses throughout Findlay earned the community the designation ``Flag City USA.'' Arlington, Ohio, which I am also privileged to represent, has been named ``Flag Village USA'' for the patriotism inherent in its citizens. The letters, phone calls, and e-mails I have received from Findlay, Arlington, and throughout my congressional district in recent weeks express strong support for the protection of Old Glory.

I am proud again this year to be a cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's joint resolution, and recognize him for his unwavering leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and vote in favor of sending this amendment to the states for ratification.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. OXLEY: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 68. A bill

to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in

commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Jet

Propulsion Laboratory, with an amendment; referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means for a period ending not later

than June 17, 2005, (Rept. 109-133, Pt. 1). Ordered to be

printed.

Mr. OXLEY: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 358. A

bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins

in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the desegregation

of the Little Rock Central High School in Little Rock,

Arkansas, and for other purposes, with an amendment; referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means for a period ending not

later than June 17, 2005, (Rept. 109-134, Pt. 1). Ordered to

be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the floor during today's rollcall votes on H. Con. Res. 44 (recognizing the importance of Cinco de Mayo) and H. Res. 282 (expressing the sense of the House regarding anti-Semitism by United Nations members). Had I been present, I would have voted yea on each of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1224, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2005, which repeals antiquated banking laws that prohibit banks from paying interest on business checking accounts and the Federal Reserve from paying interest on funds that banks and other depository institutions are required by law to maintain at the Federal Reserve Banks.

Mr. Speaker, it may surprise some of our colleagues to know that since 1933, banks have been unable to pay interest on business checking accounts. The law was originally intended to ensure that larger banks did not use higher interest payments to lure deposits away from small, rural banks to fund stock market speculation. While at the time this law may have been wise public policy--although even that is debatable-- in the year 2005 it is a relic of a financial world that no longer exists.

There is little doubt that now, with the current complex and competitive nature of the financial services industry, all depository institutions would benefit from the ability to offer business checking accounts and are more than able to manage the potential risks involved.

In fact, as the financial services industry grows more competitive and more complex, antiquated laws that limit the competitive capacities of financial institutions only harm the customer's ability to find appropriate financial solutions. Repealing the ban on interest on business checking accounts will free banks to compete for business customers on a level playing field, and promote the development of bank products and services geared toward a small business clientele that is ill-served by the current prohibition.

In addition to providing small businesses with much-needed regulatory relief, H.R. 1224 would authorize the payment of interest on certain reserves that depository institutions are required to maintain at the Federal Reserve. Current law prohibits such payments, thereby imposing a ``hidden tax'' on depository institutions and placing them at a competitive disadvantage relative to non-bank financial firms and foreign banks that are not subject to the same reserve requirements. If, under the Federal Reserve Act, banks, thrifts, and credit unions are required to hold funds against transaction accounts, simple fairness dictates that the Federal Reserve should be required to pay interest on those reserve balances. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified on numerous occasions that repealing the current prohibition would have the additional benefit of facilitating the Federal Reserve's management of U.S. monetary policy.

The bill also contains a hard fought compromise by Mr. Gillmor of Ohio and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts that addresses the authority of industrial loan companies (ILCs) to offer interest-bearing accounts to their business customers. The provision specifies that an ILC which obtained deposit insurance prior to October 1, 2003, is authorized to pay interest on a business account, provided the ILC is owned by the same parent company that owned it as of that date. Other ILCs could also offer such interest-bearing accounts, provided that at least 85 percent of the gross revenues of their parent company and other affiliates were derived from activities that were financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity during at least three of the prior four calendar quarters.

Mr. Speaker, legislation substantially similar to H.R. 1224 has been approved by this body on several prior occasions, including twice in the last Congress. The Bush administration has previously endorsed authorizing banks to pay interest on business checking accounts. In addition, H.R. 1224 is strongly supported by all segments of the small business community, including the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce, and by America's Community Bankers.

I want to conclude by thanking two valued Members of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Gillmor from Ohio, who have worked tirelessly over several Congresses to advance this legislation, as well as our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Frank, who has contributed greatly to this legislation and has been strongly supportive of the overall effort on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1224.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1185.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1185, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation preserves the value of insured deposits at America's banks, thrifts and credit unions, advances the national priority of enhancing retirement security for all Americans, and ensures that the benefits and costs of deposit insurance are allocated equitably and fairly among financial institutions.

Federal deposit insurance was first established in 1934 during the Great Depression and has served for over 70 years as a source of stability in the banking system and a valued safety net for depositors. Deposits in banks and savings associations are covered either by the Bank Insurance Fund or the Savings Association Insurance Fund, while the deposits of America's 85 million credit union members are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.

Federal deposit insurance serves as a guarantee to depositors in U.S. depository institutions that up to $100,000 will be available to them in the event that their institution should ever fail. It both protects depositors from a sudden and unforeseen loss of wealth and insulates the economy from the consequences of a loss of liquidity in the banking system.

Shortly after I became chairman of the newly formed Committee on Financial Services in the 107th Congress, the FDIC, the Federal agency responsible for administering the deposit insurance program, recommended a number of reforms to the system to address structural imbalances that had emerged since the last major overhaul of deposit insurance following the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, got to work holding extensive hearings and drafting comprehensive legislation incorporating the FDIC's recommendations and making other needed changes to the system. The legislation that resulted from the efforts of the gentleman from Alabama passed the House with well over 400 votes in the 107th Congress and by an even larger margin in the 108th.

With the other body having twice failed to act on the legislation approved overwhelmingly by this House, we are back this year with high hopes that the third time will truly be the charm in enacting this critically important legislation. The reasons for reforming the deposit insurance system remain every bit as compelling today as they were almost 4 years ago when we first began to climb this mountain.

By merging the BIF and the SAIF into a single deposit insurance fund, H.R. 1185 will create administrative efficiencies and promote fundamental fairness in the system. By giving the FDIC more flexible tools for managing the insurance funds according to changing economic conditions, while at the same time ensuring that funds are returned to the industry in the form of rebates and credits when circumstances warrant, H.R. 1185 will promote economic stability and address the system's current bias toward charging excessive premiums at ``down'' points in the business cycle. All of these reforms command broad consensus among banking regulators and in the banking industry, as well as in the House.

On the issue of deposit insurance coverage levels, which have now gone a record 25 years without being adjusted for inflation, the legislation of the gentleman from Alabama provides for incremental increases that promote retirement security and help to keep municipal deposits in the communities where they originated to serve as a funding source for loans and other development initiatives.

All of us recognize that the increased coverage levels prescribed in the House bill are what have blocked its progress in the other body, and I have therefore indicated that I am willing to entertain compromise on that issue if it is the price of achieving the other important reforms contained in this legislation.

That said, it should also be noted that H.R. 1185's increase in base deposit

insurance coverage from $100,000 to $130,000 hardly constitutes a radical expansion of the deposit insurance safety net. If coverage had merely kept pace with inflation since 1980 when coverage was last updated, it would now be well over $200,000. Even going all the way back to the $40,000 coverage amount in effect in 1974 and indexing for inflation from that level yields a coverage level well above $140,000.

Let me conclude by commending Chairman Bachus for his leadership and persistence in pursuing this legislation over the course of three Congresses. I also want to thank our committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has championed several of the specific reforms contained in this bill and has acted throughout the process in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation that has become the hallmark of our committee's work in recent years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I appreciate her cooperation in this area. I think all of us recognize some of the potential issues that are inherent in passage of Check 21.

It is also important to notice that about 1 percent of the checks today are being truncated, so we are early into the process here. It is also important to note that under the provision of Check 21, the Fed is empowered should they see an imbalance between the deposits and withdrawals to not only draw attention to it, but to deal with it.

The study, of course, will not be completed for about 2 years. And as a result I think it is important for the committee, as we have discussed before and I discussed with the ranking member, to have the committee continue to monitor the situation, and we would do so, and to that end, I would indicate to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that we would plan to hold an oversight hearing on that specific issue. I will be glad to work with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) as far as the potential witnesses are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me as I was listening to my friend from California, we could go back to the old days of giving out toasters for deposits. I would say that the system we have now, I have not heard of toaster promotion for a long time, mercifully, but it certainly seems to me that the consumer, saver, investor is a lot more sophisticated than they ever were and they will not be lured by toaster opportunities as opposed to depositing it into an institution where they feel comfortable that their deposit is indeed insured.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises an excellent point. Our good colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), this is his contribution to this legislation, because as he shares the district that is next to mine, a number of small communities that have exceeded that amount of $100,000, they are under a fiduciary responsibility to have that money protected by the FDIC. And what it has done, of course, is drive some of that money out of the small communities and into larger communities so you cannot put that money to use in the community.

So I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I am glad the gentleman brought that issue up because it is a very important part of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 902, the ``Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005,'' that the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, has written.

The dollar coin has the potential to save consumers and business billions of dollars if it is available for the niche population that has need of it. However, for number of reasons the so-called ``golden'' dollar coin never has achieved the success it should have when it was introduced in 2000. I think the Castle bill addresses all of those, creating a demand for the coin rather than trying to force it into circulation. I like the educational opportunities the coin presents, and I particularly like that the bill would put the Statue of Liberty on the reverse of the coin. Mr. Castle isn't going to say this, but I will: In 1997, when Congress approved the original Golden Dollar program, the legislation left the House with more than 400 votes to put the Statue of Liberty on the coin. Somehow, before it got to the President, that important symbol disappeared. Especially after 9/11, I think all of us believe that having Lady Liberty on our currency will be terrific.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 902, introduced by Mr. Castle for himself and Mrs. Maloney, seeks to improve demand for and thus circulation of the current one-dollar coin, with the intent of saving money for business and thus restraining price increases for consumers.

The legislation directs the Secretary of the Treasury to redesign the new ``golden'' one-dollar coin, beginning in 2007, issuing four different designs a year. Each design would depict the image and pertinent information about a President of the United States, in order of service, on the front. The reverse of the coin would depict an image of the Statue of Liberty.

Additionally, the legislation directs the Treasury Secretary to begin issuing, concurrently with the Presidential dollars, pure-gold ``bullion'' coins honoring and depicting the First Spouses. The bill also allows striking of an inexpensive bronze copy of the Spouse coin so that schoolchildren could collect affordable President-and-First Spouse sets, and proposes a number of methods to increase the circulation of the dollar coin.

Essentially similar legislation passed both subcommittee and full committee last year. Changes to this version include moving the starting date back one year, to 2007, and explicit guarantees that the so-called ``Sacagawea'' design currently being minted and issued, will continue to be minted and issued during the life of the Presidential Dollar program, as well as becoming the sole design after the end of that program.

Finally the legislation incorporates as a separate title the text of H.R. 767, introduced by Mr. LaHood for himself and Mr. Jackson, which calls for a temporary redesign of the reverse of the one-cent coin in 2009 honoring the bicentennial of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln.

With that, I urge unanimous support for H.R. 902.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Real-time Investor Protection Act and would like to commend my good friend from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, for his excellent work on this important legislation.

Informed investors are critical to our Nation's markets. Ready access to complete information about securities firms and brokers is critical to informing investors and building investor confidence. NASD, the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers, has been providing this information to the public since 1990 when Congress mandated that NASD make relevant portions of the information available to the public without charge through a toll-free telephone number.

At the time, the telephone was the easiest and most convenient solution. However, investors today have embraced the Internet as their preferred means of obtaining information. Therefore NASD seeks to use the Internet to disseminate this information. Investors want and need online access to disclosure of information to assist them in deciding whether to do business with a securities firm or broker.

When Congress mandated that NASD release this information, it accorded NASD immunity form liability for the release of such information to the public--recognizing that the disclosure of key information about securities firms and brokers is a critical part of NASD's regulatory and investor protection mission.

I would like to clarify that under prevailing Federal case law there is no private right of action against NASD for acts or omissions taken pursuant to its regulatory responsibilities under the Federal securities laws. I want to be clear that this legislation is not intended to change existing law pertaining to private rights of action under those laws. In addition, courts have historically granted NASD absolute immunity for its regulatory actions. This legislation is not intended to limit NASD's immunity for regulatory actions.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan investor protection bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 436, the Increased Capital Access for Growing Business Act. This bill creates an improved regulatory environment for small business, the undisputed engine of our economy.

A quarter of a century ago, Congress created business development companies to encourage investments in small businesses. Unrelated rules promulgated by regulators since that time have had the unintended consequence of limiting the investment opportunities of business development companies.

This bill will restore the true intent of Congress by modernizing the securities laws governing these companies. Small businesses will once again have the important capital access provided by business development companies. This is crucial as small businesses must have efficient access to capital to create jobs and promote economic growth.

I would like to commend my good friend and subcommittee chair, Mrs. Kelly of New York, for her fine work in crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important bipartisan legislation for investors and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1025, the ``Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act,'' providing a narrow but necessary exemption for mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien.

I want to commend Congressman Royce and Congressman Kanjorski for introducing this legislation, as well as Ranking Member Frank for helping to guide this important measure through the legislative process. This legislation passed by a voice vote in the 107th Congress and passed last Congress on a vote of 424-0.

When a mortgage servicer acquires the right to service a loan portfolio, the servicer is generally exempt from complying with the FDCPA because the Act extends the creditor's exemption to the new servicer. The problem arises because in a typical loan servicing transfer, a percentage of the loans transferred are delinquent or in default. These loans are technically covered by FDCPA provisions requiring the new mortgage servicer to include harshly

worded notices to its borrowers identifying the servicer as a ``debt collector'' and warning the borrower that any information he or she discloses to the servicer will be used in the debt collection process. These notices are commonly referred to as ``Miranda notices,'' and they can have the unintended consequences of discouraging borrowers from contacting their new service provider.

Under the exemption made by H.R. 1025, a mortgage servicer would not be required to provide a Miranda notice upon the first contact with its new customer, as well as in all subsequent contacts, on those loans that were in default at the time of transfer. However, mortgage services would not qualify for this exemption with respect to other loans that may go into default after the transfer occurs.

Let me close by saying that this bill is drafted to be consistent with previous recommendations by the Federal Trade Commission, the agency charged with the enforcement of the FDCPA, and is supported by a variety of financial services trade groups, including the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, American Financial Services Association, and Mortgage Bankers Association.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 797, the Native American Housing Enhancement Act of 2005 and want to commend the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from Arizona, Rick Renzi, for his tireless work and continued dedication to improving the housing conditions for Native Americans in this country.

Native Americans are three times more likely to live in overcrowded housing, and are more likely than other Americans to lack sewage and water systems, telephone lines and electricity, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Nearly 12 percent of Native Americans lack complete plumbing, compared with 1.2 percent of the general population. Native Americans have the highest poverty rates at 26 percent and have the highest unemployment rate in the country at nearly 14 percent.

Last year, in May, this Committee held the first Indian Housing Congressional hearing in Tuba City, Arizona in Indian country. At that hearing, members were able to witness first hand the substandard conditions experienced by Native Americans and learned of the many barriers to housing development on reservations.

After that hearing, this Committee took action and enacted H.R. 4471, the Homeownership Opportunities for Native Americans Act of 2004 to provide more chances to provide quality housing for Native Americans. That legislation restored the government repayment under the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program from 80 percent to 95 percent in case of default. The bill we are considering today represents another installment in this Committee's commitment to addressing the many housing needs facing Native Americans. The legislation we are considering today, H.R. 797, represents another small step toward improving housing for Native Americans in this country.

First, it requires federally recognized, self-governing Indian Tribes (whose self-governing status would otherwise make them exempt) to comply with the Indian Civil Rights Act--title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1968--if they receive financial assistance from the Agriculture Department for farm housing. Under current law, the department can provide loans to farm owners to improve housing conditions for themselves or their workers. The Indian Civil Rights Act prohibits tribes from making laws that restrict freedom of religion, speech or the press. It also sets other requirements pertaining to fair due process for people who are arrested.

The measure also exempts tribes currently in compliance with the Indian Civil Rights Act and tribes acting under other federal affordable housing programs from compliance with certain sections relating to fair housing under other civil rights laws, which overlap with provisions in the Indian Civil Rights Act.

The bill makes Indian tribes or their housing entities eligible for Youthbuild grants. The grants are part of a Housing and Urban Development Department program that provides job training and academic assistance to low-income young people.

Finally, the measure clarifies that the Interior Department cannot restrict access to or reduce funds going to tribes receiving block grants under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996 (PL 104-330).

While this legislation does not make monumental changes, it makes changes that will help stretch the housing resources available to Native Americans. I urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support of House leadership for working on our behalf to give Terri Schiavo her day in Federal court.

From our founding days, the Federal system we enjoy has reserved significant authority to the States to settle disputes. However, Federal courts have always been able to review possible violations of a citizen's constitutional rights. The narrowly drawn language of S. 686 merely gives a Federal court the chance to review the unique circumstances of the Schiavo case in accordance with her Fourteenth Amendment guarantee: That no State shall deprive her of life without due process of law. In seeking this Federal review, Congress ensures that the basic protections available to all citizens are available to Terri Schiavo as well.

No federally guaranteed right is more sacred than this right to life. I applaud the authors of this legislation for crafting language allowing for a more thorough examination of Terri Schiavo's rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU).

In my congressional district, the rural highways that have served my constituents for years can no longer sustain the increased traffic levels they see every day. Many of these roads cannot meet the growing needs of the communities and economies that they serve. U.S. Route 30, the prime east-west truck route in my district, exemplifies this problem.

As the main alternative to the Ohio Turnpike and Interstate 70, Route 30 has seen huge increases in truck traffic over the years--roughly 65 percent in the last decade. This has led to a tragic number of fatal accidents on the narrow two-lane segments of this road. Obviously, the need for a four-lane upgrade has never been more crucial.

Seven years ago, as part of TEA-21, I was able to secure more than $11 million for the purchase of right-of-ways for the Route 30 modernization throughout my congressional district. Since that time, I have been honored to join my constituents at groundbreaking and ribbon- cutting ceremonies to mark continuing progress on this lifesaving project, for which they have been waiting for more than four decades. The four-lane segment between Upper Sandusky and Bucyrus opened just last December, and completion of the Bucyrus-Ontario section is expected by August of this year. As soon as next week, construction work could begin on the longest uncompleted section in the Fourth District between State Route 235 and Upper Sandusky. I'm grateful that TEA-LU will provide an additional $10 million in direct funding for Route 30 modernization to bring much needed relief to those who drive and live near this major highway.

I'm also pleased that the bill provides $2.3 million to continue U.S. Route 68 bypass construction efforts in Urbana. Nearly fifty years ago, the State of Ohio launched this project to connect Interstate 70 to U.S. Route 33 west of Columbus, purchasing significant parcels of land for the new road. Little progress has been made on it, though, hindering economic development on the west side of the city. This bill will advance the second phase of the overall project by providing needed design and right-of-way funding.

In accord with TEA-LU's expansion of rail/highway crossing safety programs, I am grateful to the Committee for including important rail grade separation projects in the reauthorization as well. In the city of Lima, the construction of new grade separations will alleviate the potential dangers that arise when stopped trains cut off an entire sector of the populace from emergency services. A similar project in Urbana will allow for the rehabilitation of the rail bridge over U.S. Route 36.

Mr. Chairman, I salute the commitment of Chairmen Don Young and Tom Petri in setting a course toward meeting our nation's growing transportation needs. I applaud the continuing hard work of Steve LaTourette and Bob Ney in securing the best possible rate of return for Ohio and other donor states to the Highway Trust Fund. As we move to conference, their efforts in support of highway funding equity will help our state to complete the many vital infrastructure projects that have been on the shelf for years due to lack of funding. I also thank them and our outstanding senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, for their leadership in fixing the ethanol tax penalty last year--a fix that will result in an additional $160 million in highway funds for Ohio each year. Their work is ensuring that our state and our nation have the best and most modern transportation systems in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to salute Champaign County, Ohio, in my congressional district, which is celebrating its bicentennial on March 1. Champaign County is an area rich in history and tradition that prides itself as a fine place to work, live and raise a family.

Champaign County takes its name from a French word describing its flat surface. It became the 18th of Ohio's 88 counties on March 1, 1805. The area was first inhabited by the North American Indian mound builders and became the hunting grounds of the Shawnee tribe. As the State of Ohio grew, Champaign County also grew in business and agriculture. Of particular note was the great success of the railway industry.

During the Civil War, this small county sent 3,235 men to fight for the Union Army. A memorial, the Man on the Monument, stands in the town square of Urbana to remember the ultimate sacrifice made by 578 soldiers from Champaign County.

Champaign County has continued to thrive with successful businesses, industry and agriculture for 200 years. It boasts five school systems and one accredited university in the county seat of Urbana. Urbana University, founded in 1850, has 24 majors for students and houses the largest collection of Johnny Appleseed memorabilia and information known to exist. Today, 36,000 people live and work in the county's city, towns and villages.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Champaign County on this momentous occasion. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring the county's success over the past 200 years.