Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) for yielding.

I also am delighted to be a part of this discussion on solutions. As Mr. Bishop rightly stated, there are two approaches that we are taking to America's energy solutions, and as Mr. Latta stated, we are a Nation that is filled with resources. And I am called to mind by one of our founders, you may say, of our Nation, one of the greatest orators of his time and really all of American history, Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster made a statement, and I paraphrase: Should we not recall the resources that we have been given in this land that are extraordinary, unparalleled across the world, and shouldn't we call forth those resources that we've been given to generate something wonderful in our time?

I had the privilege of serving in the Minnesota State Senate. We had that quote stenciled around our beautiful rotunda, the Minnesota State Senate chamber. And as Mr. Latta stated, we have 25 percent of the world's coal. We have unlimited resources as far as nuclear power generation goes, as far as hydropower, solar, wind, but yet also natural gas, oil. All of the known reserves that we have, the United States manages to use those resources more efficiently, more cleanly than perhaps any other nation on the planet. Rather than this being one of the most expensive sources of manufacturing in the United States, energy could be one of the cheapest sources of manufacturing components. And yet the United States could be one of the leading exporters of this wonderful resource, energy. So shouldn't it be, as Daniel Webster said, that we should call forth these resources that have been given to us with the greatest benefit that we have, American ingenuity?

Use those resources to the benefit, not just of America, but of mankind.

And so I would agree with my colleague, Mr. Bishop. There are two ways to approach this solution, and I think that the solution that you gentlemen are speaking of this evening is the one that the American people are raising their hand to tonight saying, yes, don't tax me. In fact, bring resources into the Treasury and make my life better by being forward-looking, not backward-looking, and calling for these resources for the benefit of the American people.

Let alone millions of American jobs.

I had also heard the gentleman speak last week who wrote the report on Spain, and this is the country that the President holds up as being the country we should emulate. And as the gentleman from Missouri rightly stated, 17.5 percent rate of unemployment; the largest, highest unemployment rate of all the developing countries in the world, on their way to 20 percent unemployment.

And as the gentleman from Utah stated, there is 2.2 percent job loss for every job created. But the critical fact is that every job created, every green job, costs the country of Spain $770,000 per job, and these are not sustainable jobs. They are primarily installing and building windmills and solar panels.

Once the installation is complete, the job goes away. That's a very expensive investment for Spain. They are only going in the direction of further increased unemployment, not in the direction of decreased unemployment.

Well, American manufacturing has been at a competitive disadvantage for years. I'm a former Federal tax litigation attorney. America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world, at 34 percent.

Now the Federal Government is proposing to tie a cement block onto American manufacturing that would be extremely difficult to overcome. One thing that we need to consider are the corruption influences that come from manufacturers all trying to fight over scraps, you might say, of permits.

Originally, the President said there would be no permits that would be auctioned off to any industry. Now what we're seeing here in the House is that certain industries, certain fossil fuel-based industries are saying, We can't survive unless we have some kind of a free pass.

And so now we're hearing of backroom deals that are happening, where different industries are given free passes. All of this adds up to the American people smelling something is rotten in this deal of the cap- and-tax system,

Sure it is.

The problem is the American taxpayer, just as the banking system, the financial system, and now with energy, government is creating a problem where we don't have a problem. Government is creating a false economy where they don't have to do this. This is all to benefit governments coffers--not to benefit the American people, not to lower their energy tax bill, not to create more jobs when, just as Mr. Bishop said, we could take a completely different route.

My State of Minnesota, Mr. Latta's State of Ohio will be hit especially hard with this cap-and-tax system. Why burden those who are least able to afford it--senior citizens, people who, in Minnesota, you don't have a choice. You have to turn on the furnace come October.

This will be devastating to our economy, and we could have a completely different answer that would bring more money, bring more jobs by opening up all of America's energy resources.

I would yield back.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Delta Battery, 216th Air Defense Artillery Battalion as it is honored with the Army's Valorous Unit Award. This award requires an immense display of courage and skill from the United States Army unit when faced with a hazardous situation.

I want to congratulate every member of the Delta Battery for their contributions to the Battalion and especially for the actions that have led to earning this award. As the second highest award a Battery unit can receive, you should be proud of your efforts as individuals coming together to accomplish a mission as a team. Your heroic actions are what make America's uniformed services the pride of America.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to honor the Delta Battery, 216th Air Defense Artillery Battalion today. Their heroic acts of bravery are what keep our national values and liberties safe. Every American owes our servicemen a debt of gratitude and I hope these fine soldiers know that we appreciate all that they do.

Madam Speaker, as the House considers H. Res. 415, I rise to honor the members of the Civil Air Patrol's Minnesota Wing for their response efforts to the flooding in the Fargo-Moorhead communities this spring. The area saw some of the worst flooding in decades and the fact that so many homes and families were protected is a direct result of courageous and caring volunteers like those of the Civil Air Patrol.

The Minnesota Wing sent 122 volunteers into the area to fill and place thousands of sandbags in an unprecedented protection effort. These volunteers also flew aerial damage assessment missions and staffed a mission base in Fargo just when the worst flooding fears were coming true. As the Red River rose higher than anyone expected, these men, women and teenage cadets stepped up their efforts to help their neighbors in their most desperate time of need.

I rise today, Madam Speaker, to support H. Res. 415 and to honor the members of the Minnesota Wing of the Civil Air Patrol who crossed flooded and snow-covered roads to answer their neighbors' call for help. The motto of the Civil Air Patrol is ``Citizens Serving Communities: Above and Beyond'' and I can think of no group that embodies this slogan better.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor three people and companies that embody both the spirit of American entrepreneurship and the heart of American public service: John W. McDowall, owner of the McDowall Company, The Mahowald Insurance Agency, and Byron Bjorklund, owner of Short Stop Custom Catering. Today, they will be honored by the St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce for their outstanding success and positive contributions to the St. Cloud community.

I want to congratulate John W. McDowall, this year's recipient of the Chamber's Entrepreneurial Success Award. Mr. McDowall joined the family business after graduating high school in 1973 and worked his way up the ladder until being named President in 1999. Today, this construction company employs 130 individuals and continues to earn an impressive profit despite unexpected price increases and a sluggish economy. In addition to running a successful business, Mr. McDowall contributes to the community through his involvement on numerous boards, including Bremer, St. Cloud Technical College, St. Cloud Opportunities, and the Boys and Girls Club.

I also want to recognize The Mahowald Insurance Agency for earning the Chamber's Mark of Excellence Award. The family-owned business, which has been passed to four generations, began in 1930 when Anthony Mahowald started going door to door every week collecting premiums for life insurance polices he sold. When Tony's son, Robert Mahowald, took over in 1956, he expanded the agency beyond personal insurance coverage. The Mahowald Insurance Agency serves people, businesses, and even the schools of the St. Cloud area--and hopefully for many generations to come.

Last but not least, I want to recognize Byron Bjorklund, owner of the Short Stop Custom Catering and the 2009 St. Cloud Area Small Business Person on the Year. Beginning his career at the young age of 11, Mr. Bjorklund started in the fast food industry and in 1995, his business evolved into a catering service. He has experienced a nearly 25 percent growth by establishing solid relationships with a variety of businesses and organizations. And thanks to his entrepreneurship, more than 100 people have full-or part-time employment.

Madam Speaker, I applaud these outstanding individuals and businesses who have worked hard to achieve the American dream of free enterprise and serve our community by ensuring small businesses remain the job engine of America.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his work and also for yielding to me this morning. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill.

H.R. 1728 is far-reaching legislation, and it will significantly restrict access to credit for consumers and it will ultimately hurt consumers across the Nation, the very people that this bill seeks to help.

At a time when the financial markets are still fragile and they are working so hard to recover, I want to caution my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who support this bill and hope that they will think about the potential, even if unintended, consequences that this legislation could provoke. It sounds good and it makes a great sound bite, but I am afraid that it will deliver a very dramatic blow to consumers all across our very fragile economy.

The bill imposes harsh penalties on lenders for violations of vaguely defined and, some would even say, undefined lending standards. For instance, how does one truly define what a net tangible benefit to the consumer is or what a reasonable ability to pay really means? The bill leaves it up to banking regulators to determine answers to these questions. But we all know, and we should be concerned about how they might define such vague terms and what criteria they might choose to apply. Every person's financial circumstances are different, and they don't lend themselves to a broad rulemaking process.

During the committee consideration of this bill, I asked these questions to Sara Braunstein. She is the Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs over at the Federal Reserve. And I asked her how the Fed and others would define these terms, and it wasn't surprising, really. She stressed how challenging it would be to define them, but promised that the Fed would try.

It is not hard to see how their trying would simply open the door to a barrage of lawsuits. That is how this works. And that outcome will ultimately restrict access to credit for families all across our country. But even more troubling is that the bill would take this lack of clarity just one step further, and it would say that assignees and securitizers must also comply with these same standards when they purchase or assign loans.

So let's remember that these are parties that were not at the table when the loan originated. Think about that. The last thing our economy and our housing markets need as they struggle to recover is an unknown, widespread shadow of liability cast over them, and one that their government puts over them, by the way.

The uncertainties that will stem from this provision pose serious threats to liquidity and our already fragile financial marketplace. We should be looking for ways to help ease liquidity pressures, not forge greater obstacles. And, on principle, how can we expect those who had nothing to do with the loan origination to be held responsible for it later on? It goes against the very principles of law that our Nation is founded on. And I fear the chilling effect this would have on the housing market, and this is not a good time to do more harm than good to the housing market.

I would also like to point out that during our committee markup of the bill I offered an amendment to prevent organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud or who employ people who have been indicted for such crimes from being eligible for housing counseling grants and foreclosure legal assistance grants authorized by the underlying bill. I was very pleased when the gentleman from Massachusetts and our committee Chair accepted the amendment right in front of the whole committee and the amendment was passed unanimously by voice vote.

I assumed the easy passage was because my amendment used the very same language that this body approved last year as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. So you can imagine, I was quite surprised when later in that markup, during the day, the committee chairman flipped his position and said he wanted to strip down the amendment and that he would move to amend the language himself during House consideration.

Apparently, the intention might be to lower the bar so that organizations continue to have access to taxpayer money even after they have been involved with defrauding the American people and violating the American trust not just once, not just twice, but repeatedly, after almost every election cycle.

So make no mistake about it. The Chair will talk today about the bedrock legal principle of innocence until proven guilty, but that is not what this is about. The language in the bill today doesn't jeopardize that principle at all. Decisions on criminal guilt will remain

in the capable hands of a jury of peers. That is where it should. But it is not only legitimate for Congress to decide the threshold for accessing taxpayer funds, it is incumbent upon us to do so. We have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of this country, and for too long Congress has cavalierly distributed taxpayer money.

Today, each and every one of us can go on record saying we will no longer set the bar so low; that we will require organizations that want to use taxpayer funds to prove that they are worthy of the taxpayers' trust.

There's a saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. ACORN and organizations like it have fooled us not once, not twice, but over and over again. The stories of their indictments for voter fraud for violating their tax status, for voter registration improprieties abound. Grand juries across the nation have found them and their employees lacking. Yet, we continue to funnel millions of dollars into their coffers.

Just this week, in fact, the headlines out of Nevada were 39 counts of voter registration fraud against ACORN and two of its former employees.

How many felony charges does it take to see that this organization has violated the public trust? Congress is not the arbiter of guilt or innocence; but Congress does decide how to spend the people's money. At what point do we say that this organization is not worthy of the hard- earned bucks of the American taxpayer?

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts has been made in order under today's rule and if passed it will eviscerate the taxpayer protections in the underlying bill.

I look forward to further debating this issue later today and I urge my colleagues to make clear today that they stand with the people, not with ACORN.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strips down language in the bill designed to keep tax dollars from falling into the hands of organizations indicted for voter fraud or its related crimes.

It was last week during our Financial Services Committee markup of the underlying bill, I offered a straightforward amendment to limit eligibility for the housing counseling grants and the legal assistance grants authorized by the bill to exclude organizations indicted for voter fraud or that employed people indicted for such crimes.

Plain and simple, Mr. Chair, it should sound familiar to everyone here in this Chamber, because the exact same language was passed as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to prohibit groups, such as ACORN, from obtaining taxpayer-funded grants.

272 Members of this body, including the gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke, voted for that legislation, which became law last July. But not only is it legitimate for Congress to decide the threshold for accessing taxpayer funds, it's incumbent upon this body to do so in our fiduciary capacity to the taxpayers of this great country. And for far too long Congress has cavalierly distributed taxpayer money.

Every day we can go on record saying we will no longer set the bar this low. We are all saying, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. But ACORN and organizations like it have fooled us not once, not twice, but seemingly after every election. The stories of their indictments for voter fraud for violating their tax status for voter registration improprieties abound. Grand juries across the Nation have found them and their employees lacking. Yet we continue to funnel millions of dollars to their coffers.

Just last week, on Monday, the headlines out of Nevada read ``39 counts of voter registration fraud against ACORN and two of its former employees.'' It was just several hours ago, hot off the presses, that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported breaking news, an Allegheny County district attorney charged seven employees with ACORN ``with forgery and election law violations, saying they filed hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations during last year's general election.''

Can't this body do something about this, Mr. Chairman? How many felony charges does it take to see that this organization has violated the public trust?

Congress isn't the arbitrator of guilt or innocence. Congress does decide to spend the people's money. At what point do we finally say that this organization is simply not worthy of the hard-earned money of the American people.

According to recent testimony at the House Judiciary Committee, ACORN has been under investigation in States, for, among other things, violations of the Tax Code, 501(c)(3); violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; fraudulent voter registration activities; and failure to comply with State law in voter registration drives.

And here are just a few more headlines of late: January, 2009, a voter registration worker for ACORN in East Saint Louis was indicted on two counts of voter fraud for submitting forged cards for residents at nursing homes without their knowledge.

According to the AP in October of 2008, ``a suburban Philadelphia man was charged with forgery, allegedly altering 18 voter-registration applications during his employment with an organization [ACORN] whose voter-outreach efforts have become a flash point in the presidential campaign.''

CNN reported October 28 about an ACORN worker who helped register nearly 2,000 voters for the community group ACORN, not one of them actually existing, and he was convicted last year and spent nearly 3 months in prison.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says that his amendment is about due process. But I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the American people are smarter than that. They deserve better than such an oratory sleight of hand. His amendment is about our duty as stewards of the taxpayers' dollar and mine.

Others say this is about the importance of the underlying grant program. But there are plenty of legitimate law-abiding nonprofits who have never seen an indictment that could still apply for these grants.

The bottom line is this: either you're against allowing organizations that engage in or employ individuals under investigation for voter fraud to receive tax dollars, or you aren't.

Mr. Chair, our votes on this amendment make our positions crystal clear to the people we serve. Are we on the people's side or are we on ACORN's side? We owe it to our constituents who are already tired, frustrated, and outraged by this cycle of spending and bailout and taxing and borrowing to at least show them that we aren't going to pick their pockets to fund groups that are about abusing their trust over and over again.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just end by saying I urge the people of this body to oppose this amendment, because as we stand in our fiduciary duty before the taxpayers, we need to make our vote clear--and our vote will say we either stand with the taxpayers of this great country, or we stand with ACORN.

Mr. Chair, I would yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield to answer your point?

Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

That's right. There is. But I'd say to the Members, there's an unprecedented number of homeowners that are delinquent on their mortgages and entering foreclosures. In fact, the Mortgage Bankers Association estimates that at least 11 percent of the mortgages now are delinquent and will probably go into foreclosure. This is creating really a desperate situation across the country.

Unfortunately, as all desperate situations, this situation has created opportunities for scam artists to take advantage of homeowners in desperate situations through so-called foreclosure rescue schemes. My amendment is designed to at least offer some protection to those homeowners from being victimized in this way.

It's just amazing that, whether it was in Katrina or other natural disasters or gas shortages, that people seem to take advantage and act their worst during times of struggle and crisis.

This amendment allows mortgage servicers to work together with the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which is a congressionally chartered organization, to make delinquent borrowers aware that they may be targets of fraud and inform them on how best to protect themselves.

The amendment is funded by dedicating 10 percent of the funds authorized under section 404 to this much needed form of housing counseling.

Many scam artists use publicly available information about defaults and foreclosures starts to contact troubled borrowers. In States with judicial foreclosures, lenders file a foreclosure action in a local court. In States where there's nonjudicial foreclosure regimes, lenders file a notice of default with the county recorder. All these records are available to the public and provide raw material for fraud artists to prey upon troubled borrowers.

In a classic loan modification scam, borrowers are duped into paying up-front fees for a loan modification that never occurs. In some cases, borrowers are told that in order to complete a mortgage refinancing needed to avoid foreclosure, they must sign over the title of the property. Another scam promises homeowners they can stay in their home as renters and buy back their properties at a later date.

On February 10, 2009, the administration released the Home Affordable Refinance Program and a Home Affordable Modification Program. Unfortunately, with the introduction of these new programs, unscrupulous persons or companies have yet again found new opportunities to defraud unsuspecting borrowers.

In fact, April 6, about a month ago, Treasury's FinCEN announced guidance to financial institutions on filing suspicious activity reports regarding loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 382, which supports the goals and ideals of National Charter School Week.

I know very well the great importance of charter schools in public education today as I helped establish one of America's first charter schools, the New Heights Charter School in Stillwater, Minnesota in 1993. This school is not only continuing its success today but has driven the establishment of other charter schools. And, today, children are educated at almost 3000 charter schools across the United States.

With so many new charter schools opening since these past two decades, it is clear that these schools fulfill a real need for parents, students, and teachers alike. These schools are held accountable for the progress of their students and they continue to thrive because their students perform so well.

Charter schools hold great importance in our educational system because they give parents options. They allow parents to choose from a variety of institutions to find the environment that will best help them succeed. The traditional public school is not always the right fit for every child. Because of charter schools, not only children from families with means have choices. Charter schools give underprivileged families choices that they might not otherwise have.

Madam Speaker, charter schools have set students and teachers on a path to achieve their goals and are an integral part in our constant efforts to improve education in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 111, a resolution recognizing the 61st anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. I believe it is important on this occasion to highlight the close bond between the United States and Israel. Just as the U.S. is a symbol of hope and freedom around the globe, Israel stands as a symbol of freedom and democracy in an area historically rampant with violence and oppression.

On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence, with the United States being the first country to formally recognize the new nation. Since that historic day, the United States and Israel have shared a close relationship of friendship and cooperation that serves as an example to the rest of the world. This relationship is strengthened with each successive year.

One critical aspect of the U.S.-Israeli relationship is the role Israel plays in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. Indeed, Israel has worked hard to develop friendly working relationships with its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, setting an example of leadership and peace even as many around them spread hatred and terror. And while recent years have unfortunately been marked by escalating armed conflict between Israel and Hamas, the United States will stand steadfast in its commitment to a free Israel as the Middle East comes to embrace the liberties and freedoms of democratic societies.

Mr Speaker, as a cosponsor of this resolution, it is my honor to recognize and congratulate the success of Israel on its 61st Anniversary. It is vital the United States continue to develop its strong relationship with Israel so that other countries around the world still oppressed and ruled by terror can see the true value of a free and democratic society.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 391, which recognizes May as National Foster Care Month.

Today there are over 500,000 children in foster care across the United States, and my husband and I were privileged to have raised 23 foster children in our home.

Madam Speaker, as a foster mother, I know too well the challenges. And I am dedicated to changing public policy and to raising awareness related to the very special and individual needs of foster children, so that families who support these children receive the resources they need to help these really great kids receive adequate support to help them to reach adulthood in a positive way.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Bolton and Menk Firm for their innovative design of a new Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Buffalo, Minnesota. Their fresh ideas earned them a place of honor in the American Council of Engineering Companies 2009 Engineering Excellence Awards Competition.

This facility is the first of its kind in innovation and renewable resources for water treatment. The City of Buffalo, Minnesota asked for a state-of-the-art system and Bolton and Menk delivered. The facility provides a high quality treatment process and keeps the energy costs incredibly low to the city and its residents. By recycling and reusing, the wastewater treatment plant makes all biosolids disappear. Some of the biosolids are even reused in the community's road construction and repair. In the end, the City of Buffalo has one of the most eco- friendly and fiscally responsible wastewater treatment plants in America. In fact, estimated savings for the first year of operation are expected to exceed $90,000 and $500,000 in the next 20 years.

The 2009 Engineering Excellence Award has found a worthy recipient and I rise today to commend both Bolton and Menk for their innovation and attention to the needs of today's communities and the people of Buffalo, Minnesota for vision and a real commitment to excellence.

Madam Speaker, hydrocephalus, or water on the brain, is a medical condition that results in an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the ventricles, or cavities, of the brain. Sadly, the prognosis for individuals afflicted with hydrocephalus is difficult predict and often fatal. Moreover, while this condition affects approximately 1 in every 500 births, very few people are aware of it.

Indeed, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) is currently conducting research related to hydrocephalus prevention and treatment. However, more must be done at the community level to educate individual Americans about this surprisingly prevalent disorder. Recognizing September as National Hydrocephalus Awareness Month will bring this disease to the public's attention and encourage the discussions necessary to more effectively address the devastating effects of this disease and provide support to families who live with it each day.

For example, currently, the most common form of treatment for hydrocephalus involves the insertion of a shunt in order to maintain the flow of CSF from the brain. This outdated practice often results in complications that can jeopardize the life of the, often very young, patient. Through increased awareness and education, we will take the steps needed to modernize the treatment of hydrocephalus and move toward a cure. As one parent summarized, ``My son, and all the other children who suffer from Hydrocephalus, are literally 12-15 hours from irreversible damage, if not death, if a shunt failure was to go undetected or left

untreated. There has got to be a better treatment out there, if not an outright cure, we just have to find it.''

I'd like to share the thoughts of a father whose toddler son suffers from Hydrocephalus, Michael Illions: ``Our son Cole was born on July 25, 2005. We were prepared for his diagnosis of hydrocephalus since March of that year when we learned about it at a routine ultrasound. We interviewed Neurosurgeons and discussed our options for the treatment of the hydrocephalus for Cole which in his case would mean brain surgery at 1 day old. The most common treatment for hydrocephalus is the placement of a shunt into the ventricles of the brain to drain excess Cerebral Spinal Fluid. Cole had his first shunt surgery on July 26, 2005 at just one day old. 10 more brain surgeries and hospitalizations would follow in the next year, including 2 major shunt infections.

Life with a child living with hydrocephalus is very unpredictable. We have had to alter our lives in many ways. For the first year, we literally slept with a change of clothes right near the bed and the car keys on the night stand, just in case we had to make a late night visit to the ER. As parents, you are constantly observing your child for shunt failure and things that regular parents go through like stomach viruses and fevers could mean death for your child if not acted on immediately. We never travel to far from home for fear that we will need our hospital and Neurosurgeon in an emergency and when we do venture away, we always know where the closest hospital is.

Cole has experienced development delays due to his hydrocephalus, multiple surgeries and so much time spent in the hospital during his first year of life. He didn't walk till he was nearly 3 years old and he still doesn't talk. However, he started Preschool in September and is doing amazingly well. He runs, plays, laughs, and plays with other children just like any other 3 1/2 year old boy. Yet, as common as hydrocephalus is; 1 in 500 births, there are still so many people who have no idea what it is. The experience of having a child with this condition has enriched our lives beyond measure. We have met hundred of wonderful people, started our own support group in our state, and just recently started the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation, Inc. It is our goal to educate the rest of the United States about this condition and the millions of people living with it.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Miss Amelia Leuer of Albertville, Minnesota, for being chosen as a national winner in the Letters about Literature Reading Contest.

Miss Leuer, a senior at St. Michael-Albertville High School, was chosen as one of six winners in a national competition with 55,000 students for her letter to poet Linda Paston. After studying the piece, ``Caroline,''

Miss Leuer chose to write a letter to the author expressing the positive impact the poem provided as she dealt with the tragedy of loosing her sister in an accident.

``I personally attribute a great deal of that peace to your poem, `Caroline,' '' Miss Leuer wrote. ``I realize we can endure this pain only because of small miracles we experience every day. `Caroline' is one of those miracles.''

The panel of judges gave Miss Leuer a perfect score for her ``original, emotional, genuine, and inspiring response,'' and Target donated a $10,000 grant to St. Michael Catholic Library on her behalf.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Sixth District of Minnesota, I want to congratulate Amelia Leuer for her talent and national achievement. I wish her the very best as she graduates high school and pursues what are sure to be bright endeavors in her future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 357, which recognizes the month of April as Financial Literacy Month.

As a cosponsor of this important resolution, it is my goal to empower individuals with knowledge so they can make informed decisions and achieve financial freedom. During these tumultuous and unprecedented financial times, it is particularly important that Americans access available financial counseling and individuals pay close attention to details of all their financial agreements. These are surefire ways to ensure that families and individuals have the resources necessary to secure a solid future.

Through a financial plan, we begin to dream. When we dream, we have the incentive to save; and through savings, we flourish financially. Financial stability is the foundation on which freedom and prosperity are built.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Financial Literacy Caucus, I am thrilled to cosponsor this resolution so that many Americans, some for the first time, can begin to dream of a life of financial security, and work to reach their highest goals and aspirations.

I want to thank so much my colleague, Steve King from Iowa--the ``stunning'' Steve King of Iowa, as he is known in the mainstream media, so grateful for your advocacy, and also for that of Judge Gohmert. And Judge Gohmert, I trust that you're a hanging judge down in the State of Texas.

I just wanted to have a chance to speak just for a few moments on this hate crimes legislation. It truly is momentous, this rule that we will take up tomorrow.

First of all, I just want to say, from my perspective, this appears to me easily to fit the definition of an unjust law. Why do I say that? Because this will bring to Americans more loss of freedom, more loss of rights than we have seen leave in this first 100 days here in Congress because it goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights. When the Founders passed the Constitution, they would only pass it on one condition, and that is that the Bill of Rights would be passed next.

This is the very first amendment--what many consider the most important amendment--our First Amendment right. And contained in that First Amendment right is the freedom of speech and expression of religious affiliation. And this goes to the heart of taking away American's right to speech and expression and sincerely held religious beliefs.

I feel that this hate crimes legislation in some ways could be considered the very definition of tyranny because it gives government literally the key over deciding what the thoughts of Americans should be. And it says that Americans could only hold certain opinions and not others, and they can only express certain opinions and not others. Otherwise, it would be seen as a criminal act.

And I think back over this last century of world history, and I think of nations where they called certain expressions of speech not only hateful, but criminal. And that is what this bill does, it regulates speech. Government regulates speech. And it just seems that it is one more chink resulting in the loss of American freedom.

This bill, if it passes tomorrow, will have to be considered then a part of President Obama's 100-day legacy. And on his watch, if he chooses to sign this bill--and from all indications it appears he will--this will lay the foundation to further deny Americans First Amendment rights.

I think it also, we could say, denies equal protection under the law. If you have an individual going through a crosswalk and a person is in their car and they hit that person in the crosswalk, it is up to the person who is hit to file the charge if it was a hate crime or not. So if the person is gay, and that is the status that is being protected, and the person driving the car is straight, would it be a hate crime if the person driving the car who is straight hit the person who is gay in the crosswalk? So does it say, then, that that life that was hit in the crosswalk is more valuable because it was a gay life versus if the person who was in the car, who is gay, who hits the person in the crosswalk, who is straight, does that mean that the straight person in the crosswalk doesn't have a cause of action against the person who is gay who is driving that car? It raises the question of whose life is valuable and whose isn't. That is the question that Mr. Gohmert raised earlier.

Who will the government prefer? And who decides who gets protected? Are we protecting people on the basis of their behavioral actions; if they choose to have certain actions that are sexual in a certain manner, they get protected when others don't? Who decides who gets to be the good guy in this situation? Who gets to decide who is the bad guy in this situation?

And I would ask this question, is it a moving target? If we give government this level of authority, then easily we can see that down the road government could amend this hate crimes law to say that now a new behavior will be protected.

One thing that was mentioned by Mr. Gohmert earlier, that was brought up by Mr. King, that apparently people who are practicing pedophiles would be considered protected under this legislation, but not, I understand, veterans, not, I understand, pregnant women, not, I understand, 85-year-old grandmothers would be protected under this law. But who would be protected? A pedophile, someone who considers themselves gay, someone who considers themselves transgender, someone who considers themselves a cross-dresser? That is who is protected.

And yet, think of the impossibility that we are tasking government with. We are asking government to peer into the mind of the individual who perpetrated the crime. Government somehow is so wise, so all knowing that now government can peer into the mind of the individual and can somehow discern if the individual in fact hated the person based upon, potentially, what their sexuality is versus the sexuality of the person who the crime was being perpetrated against. Won't that be a moving target? Depending on what the new behavior of the day--the behavior du jour, so to speak--that government approves or won't approve?

Again, I think this is the very definition of tyranny because government's arbitrary decision will mean that more Americans will lose their First Amendment freedom of speech and expression. And this is something, again, that Mr. Gohmert had alluded to earlier. And that is when we can look, when this hate crime legislation has been put into place across the world, whether it is in Sweden, whether it is in Canada, whether it is in other nations, we can see what other nations have done with this type of legislation and what it has led to, the loss of freedom for individuals, citizens within those countries, and the citizens whose speech were protected.

Then I look at the specter of our own Supreme Court. One of our Justices,

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said, again, we need to have more Supreme Court Justices in our country look at international laws and the laws of other countries when we define our own. Well, our judges could look at Sweden, they could look at Spain, they could look at Canada. And they could see that pastors and priests who spoke out and who just gave sermons behind their pulpit that promoted what the Bible says about sexuality--and homosexuality in particular--that was construed as a hate crime in Sweden, construed as a hate crime in Canada, in Britain, in Spain. And if that is the case, we will not allow pastors to even have freedom of speech and expression.

As a matter of fact, we saw in Britain where there was a collision course in the EU Constitution between freedom of speech and expression and between exercising religious rights. When that clashed and came into contact with the hate crimes portion of the law internationally, which provision prevailed? They were both contained in the Constitution, hate crimes and religious liberties, hate crimes versus freedom of speech and expression. On every occasion, the law that prevailed was the hate crimes provision. In every case, the provision that lost was the provision that so-called protected a person's right of religious belief and expression. Do we think we will fair any differently here in the United States? I don't think so.

I think the collision course that we are on this evening, Mr. Speaker, is one that probably should frighten Americans almost more than any other. And I say it because there is probably nothing more sacred in our Constitution than that very First Amendment that protects my conscience. And even if my beliefs or your beliefs or the beliefs of people that are listening to us have this debate this evening are antithetical to what all of us believe here this evening--someone might hold some very hateful beliefs, but we are America, shouldn't they be allowed to hold those beliefs? Shouldn't they be allowed to believe, in this country, things that are contrary to what government believes? But that is not going to be allowed anymore. And people's sincerely held religious beliefs can now be considered contrary to public policy. And we can see for the first time in our Nation that people would be disallowed from having their sincerely held religious beliefs.

I think we are seeing a little bit of death today in this Chamber. We are seeing what our Founders bled and died for go away a little bit more in this Chamber tonight. We can hear Patrick Henry. We can hear echos of Jefferson, echos of Madison this evening in this Chamber. What would Daniel Webster say?

And as much as they would rail against people assaulting other people on the basis of what they believed, certainly they would not elevate to a certain level an extra measure of protection for expression of that speech.

I thank the gentleman, I thank Mr. Gohmert, and I thank the colleagues who are coming behind me because there is something that we should be fighting for. It's fighting for the idea that we are a Nation that is founded under God and that we have our rights emanating from a God who gave us unalienable rights, and we are losing that right tomorrow on this floor if this comes through.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Miss Amelia Lever of

Albertville, Minnesota, for being chosen as a national winner in the Letters about Literature Reading Contest.

Miss Lever, a senior at St. Michael-Albertville High School, was chosen as one of six winners in a national competition with 55,000 students for her letter to poet Linda Paston. After studying the piece, ``Caroline,'' Miss Lever chose to write a letter to the author expressing the positive impact the poem provided as she dealt with the tragedy of losing her sister in an accident.

``I personally attribute a great deal of that peace to your poem, `Caroline,' '' Miss Lever wrote. ``I realize we can endure this pain only because of small miracles we experience every day. `Caroline' is one of those miracles.''

The panel of judges gave Miss Lever a perfect score for her ``original, emotional, genuine, and inspiring response,'' and Target donated a $10,000 grant to St. Michael Catholic Library on her behalf.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Sixth District of Minnesota, I want to congratulate Amelia Lever for her talent and national achievement. I wish her the very best as she graduates high school and pursues what are sure to be bright endeavors in her future.