Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of full disclosure, my side of the aisle is looking at every conceivable opportunity under the House rules and in any reasonable parlance of conversation to talk about energy.

So when we're beginning this conversation today, follow me along, because we're going to start about Native American housing, but eventually, the conversation is going to turn to energy. And why is that?

It's true, Mr. Speaker, because that's what the entire country is talking about, and that's what the entire country, I would submit, wants the House to focus its, no pun intended, energy on. So follow me, if you will.

When the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 was passed, it reorganized housing assistance for Native Americans by eliminating several disparate Federal assistance programs and replacing them with the Indian Housing Block Grant program.

In the underlying statute, section 202 specifies eligible affordable housing activities for the block grant program, with the goal of developing, operating, maintaining, or supporting affordable housing or homeownership.

Further, section 202(2)(A) of S. 2062 amends current law and expands the eligible affordable housing activities under the statute. The language of the aforementioned bill would give tribes more flexibility under the Act by allowing a recipient to utilize funds not only for the acquisition and new construction of affordable housing, but it would also allow tribes to utilize block grant funds for the development and rehabilitation of utilities and necessary infrastructure to achieve greater energy efficiency.

Native Americans in this country are facing serious housing problems. Last Congress, the Financial Services Committee held several hearings to investigate the housing situation in Indian lands, which are the result of widespread poverty, high unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of affordable housing on Native American lands. In addition to reorganizing the program, the statute sought to provide Native Americans the right to self-determination and self-governance by allowing tribes to have greater freedom over their tribal housing. Reauthorization is an important step in addressing many of these issues.

Like every American today, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are struggling with the high cost of energy. Whether on tribal lands or in suburban America, families are grappling with the escalating cost of energy in today's economy and the effect it has on maintaining housing affordability. Rising energy costs associated with renting or owning a home and the transportation cost of traveling back and forth from home to work are having a devastating impact on everyone's budget, including families in Indian country.

So the conversation then surrounds itself around greater flexibility and enhancing, literally, the opportunity for Native Americans to pursue energy solutions, particularly as it relates to utilities. And why is this important?

This is important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to take a holistic approach. We need to pursue every conceivable, reasonable energy alternative, Mr. Speaker. We've got to make sure that we don't leave any solutions on the table and we pursue everything.

So, for example, yesterday we had a hearing in the Financial Services Committee where the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, came in and commented on a wide range of elements of the economy. But what was particularly interesting, I found, among other things, was the assertion that he made when he said this: that if we increase production of oil by 1 percent, he anticipates a 10 percent drop in price. Let me say that again. I'm going to say that two more times, it's so unbelievable. A 1 percent increase in production, according to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who we defer on many things in our economy, he said would create a 10 percent decrease in price. A 1 percent increase in production would create a 10 percent decrease in price.

That is a staggering assertion from the person that both sides of the aisle give a great deal of deference to, both sides of the aisle listen to and consult with and are very interested in his comments. And he says, again, a 1 percent increase in production creates a 10 percent decrease in price.

So how does the motion to instruct weave into this? The motion to instruct is part of a broader conversation on energy, and I think what my side of the aisle is trying to assert in this and in other bills obviously that have come before the floor in the past several days, Mr. Speaker, is that when it comes to energy and when it comes to solutions, we need a holistic approach, and not to allow ourselves to be hidebound by an orthodoxy that has developed among some elements that are driving the other side of the aisle, to say, well, we're not going to pursue those things, those are not on the table, we're not going to pursue enhanced production, we're not going to pursue clean coal technologies, we're not going to pursue some of these other technologies that are so dynamic and are so vibrant.

So I have done my best, Mr. Speaker, to weave the energy debate into this motion to instruct.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the chairman's encouragement on this motion and the clarity with which he spoke and articulated the need for it, and I think I want to follow up on a couple of the things that he highlighted, and I think they're important, and I think they're a first step.

But I would encourage all Members to take that first step and not stop walking, and I think the first step that the chairman talked about--and he mentioned the gentleman from Colorado and his efforts as it relates to energy efficiency and creating incentives, Mr. Speaker, in the Federal housing market, a tremendous goal, no question about it, pursuing efficiency, pursuing conservation efforts.

This whole energy debate that we're having, it seems to me, is a time at which there should be a sense of unanimity within our country about moving forward. We should be now a Congress that is listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans that are just hamstrung by the high price of energy. It's having a disproportionate impact on the poor, who are very concerned about it. It's having a disproportionate impact, creating a disadvantage for American businesses as they're struggling to compete overseas.

This should be the one issue that is able to transcend sort of regionalism. It should transcend other past alliances, frankly, because the crisis is so great.

In past national crises, what happens is that legislative bodies tend to get over themselves, and rather than looking inwardly, they look outside of the walls of the legislative body and say we've got a responsibility here; 435 people, we can do this, we can move forward.

Part of what the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about is part of that equation, that is, conservation, that is, energy efficiencies. But that's not enough.

Part of what the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple of minutes ago in renewables in his 1-minute speech is part of the equation, too, but you know what, that's not enough.

If we choose to go to the Financial Services Committee hearing and we choose selectively to listen to what the Chairman of the Fed says, then I think we're deluding ourselves and we're not serving the public well. What we've got to do is listen to when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comments about energy production and the de minimis amount of production that has to be created and its impact on price. It was a staggering, staggering figure; 1 percent in increased production yields a 10 percent decrease in price. That is a bargain any day of the week. And the idea that this Congress, that somehow 435 people can't come together and come up with a plan to increase oil production by 1 percent, that's just ridiculous that we can't meet that challenge. One percent increase in production, a 10 percent decrease in price.

And so what you're seeing manifested here today, I think, is part of the conversation that this side of the aisle wants to have--wants to have on almost every conceivable bill--because what we're hearing back in our districts is I think what everybody's hearing back in their districts, and that is, the crushing weight of energy.

When there is that much pressure, we've got to make sure that we are not the generation of a Congress that simply chooses to kick the can down the lane. As Americans, we have a history of doing this, don't we, Mr. Speaker? We have a history. When we got the wake-up call in the mid-1970s that our energy policy at that point was dysfunctional and we had a real vulnerability as it relates to manipulations by actors overseas who have a low view of us and want to put foreign policy pressure on us--that is, the OPEC oil embargo--rather than dealing with that, what did we do as a country in the mid-seventies? We kicked the can down the lane. Prices sort of receded a little bit, the lines for gasoline went away and shortened, and rather than dealing with it, we kicked the can down the lane. So here we are, decades later, not only in the same place, but, in fact, at a more vulnerable place.

And so I sense that the country is hungry, Mr. Speaker, for this Congress to act, for this Congress to come together and say, you know what? There is not one side of the aisle that's got all the answers on this. You've got to completely move the ball. And I know it was sort of a foolish throw-away line that was quoted in the press by a Democrat staffer a couple weeks ago, but when he said the strategy is drive small cars and wait for the wind, I hope that that is not speaking for the majority.

And I hope that the majority is willing to say, you know what? When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comes in and makes an assertion of the relationship between production and price, we need to listen to that. We need to pivot off of the past orthodoxy that has said we're not going to allow new production, we're simply going to close our ears and not allow the conversation to shift to new production.

There are some that say we're not going to drill our way out of this. Well, that's a thought. But certainly, responsible exploration has to be a part of this equation, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a part of this equation.

Some of our colleagues, as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple minutes ago, they're going to go to Colorado and look at essentially the next generation of technology that is

clearly part of this. But they're also going to go up to ANWR and begin to really see what that's all about. Had we not been in the situation where the ANWR bill was vetoed in the mid-nineties, it would be, by conservative estimates, now pumping and producing at least a million barrels a day. Can you imagine what that does to the price equation?

Ultimately, what our job is, as Members of Congress, if we are united in our desire to get off of foreign oil, then what we've got to do is come up with 9 million barrels a day, or the equivalent, in terms of energy, or savings and conservation, efficiency and so forth. Nine million barrels a day. We can do this. We can absolutely do this. Far greater challenges have been laid out that our country has looked in the eye and has risen to, as the United States of America, and taken on that challenge.

I think that we cannot let this Congress adjourn, we can't go home for the August recess until we wholeheartedly take this challenge on. And if it means discharge petitions, if it means all kinds of procedural things to continue to drive the debate, I think we really have no other choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on both sides.

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 the motion to instruct conferees on S. 2062.

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

In response to the gentleman from Colorado, a slight word of caution. I think it was maybe an overstatement to say that the National Renewable Energy Lab didn't enjoy any support from this side of the aisle until now. I find that difficult to believe. I don't have any roll calls in my presence, but

my hunch is that a program that big and that expansive didn't just get that way because of support from one side of the aisle.

But be that as it may, I think there is an opportunity here, because the opportunity is a recognition of all Members of Congress that we are at a pivotal point as it relates to energy policy. And the pivotal point is one that should bring us together.

Regardless of what one's motivation is, there is a desire to have a long-term energy solution. And part of that has to be an increase in our supply, Mr. Speaker; part of it has to be an increase in renewables. It has to be pushing new technologies, as the gentleman from Colorado talked about, conservation and efficiency measures.

There is a whole host of bills that, unfortunately, the Speaker is not allowing to come to the floor. For the life of me I don't understand it when, at the beginning of her assuming the office of Speaker, she talked about really having a desire for a bipartisan solution to most problems. She was going to change the tone. Unfortunately, we just haven't seen that.

Let me go through a couple of these bills that are literally pending that are bottled up in committee that the majority party, and its leadership, I sense--and I don't want to speak for the rank-and-file, but I do know several rank-and-file members of the majority that are terribly frustrated right now and have a desire to have some bills voted on that are sensible and that the overwhelming majority of the American public says would be a good idea.

For example, H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007. Here is what it does. It reduces the price of gasoline by opening new oil refineries. That's something we haven't talked about this afternoon or this morning. We've not had a new oil refinery put in place in the United States in 30 years. Investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves, that's one bill.

Why isn't that bill on the floor in an open rule with amendments and with the ability to have a conversation about it? Well, unfortunately, the New York Times today gives us part of the answer, and the answer is not really a pretty one.

According to today's New York Times, in a report, it says: ``Ms. Pelosi, who is now House Speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor.'' Further quoting: ``She and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits.'' Then further--and this is actually, I think, the darkest part of this report--``In a private meeting last week, according to some in attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans in the White House and that she was having none of it.''

Is that what this has come down to? Is that what this has come down to? Depending on how you're calculating, 70-plus percent of the American public says, ``Give us more energy. Please, put these tools on the table.'' Then we have a meeting that this is about ``capitulation'' and not wanting to give someone a political advantage. Is that what this has come down to?

I can't even tell you, Mr. Speaker, how incredibly disappointing that is to me that someone would say that it is a matter of political pride that's going to keep an idea off the table. Why can't we have the bill on the floor that I just mentioned?

How about this, H.R. 2279, to Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations. That is nothing but a good idea. We've got distressed military installations. They're not well utilized. Let's use them. It reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. We have not had a new refinery for 30 years in this country, and this is our opportunity to change that dynamic.

There is H.R. 5656, to Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels. It reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.

In my State and in your State, Mr. Speaker, in southern Illinois, there are more British Thermal Units of energy in the coalfields of southern Illinois, in those gigantic fields, than in the entire Saudi oil fields. Imagine that. There are more BTUs of energy, more energy in southern Illinois, than in all of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Yet it is largely untapped.

Why is it untapped? Well, it's untapped, in part, because it's high sulfur coal, and it's pretty nasty stuff to burn and to have emitted.

I have referred to this word ``orthodoxy.'' There has developed this thinking that has become so hidebound that, regardless of the facts that are around, it eventually says we don't even want to have a conversation about coal. We don't even want to contemplate coal because certain interest groups have told us that all coal is always bad all the time. Well, maybe not so.

Maybe this Congress should be part of the solution. This Congress could be part of the conversation that says no, no, no, that we're not going to listen to the bumper stickers. We're going to be policymakers, and we're going to unleash the potential to begin to transform a region.

Mr. Speaker, you and I represent Illinois. You know southern Illinois, and you know how challenged that area is. Can you imagine if in this country we began to unleash resources and, with that, the type of dynamic social and economic change that could come about in an incredibly challenged rural area? It begins to transform everything. As a State legislature, we struggled constantly with diverting State money to those areas, to diverting Medicaid money to those areas. Why? Because they were devastated from an economic point of view.

What do we have here? What is the opportunity here? The opportunity here is not only to create more energy but ultimately to transform regions to make them prosperous and to make them environmentally sensitive. Absolutely. It is to get them to the point where they're producing and where they're on their own two feet. We ought not to squander that opportunity.

There is H.R. 2208, the Coal Liquid Fuel Act, which reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuels.

These are all bills where there are discharged motions either pending or coming. A ``discharge motion'' is where 218 of us come together, where 218 of us come together and say: You know what? We're not going to be limited. We're not going to be limited to secret meetings where this is about capitulation and political agendas. We're not going to be limited to that. We're going to break free of that. Two hundred eighteen of us are all it takes for us to sign those discharge petitions. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, it doesn't matter. All that has to happen is that 218 Members go down to the well and sign their names. Then you know what? The bills are on the floor. Then we can talk about them, and we don't have to whisper about them in the corridors. We don't have to be held hostage to secret meetings where agendas are about--and this is the characterization-- capitulation. I mean I can't even begin to tell you how disappointing that is.

There is H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas prices.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents are in crisis. They are crying out to us. They want us to lead. They want us to get over past grievances. They are tired of this place. Haven't we all seen the polls? Haven't we all seen the low view that they have of the United States Congress? Why? Because of meetings like this that characterize solutions as capitulations. We can do much better than that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I have no other speaker seeking recognition. I will reserve the balance of my time and have the right to close.

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

I want to join everybody that has joined in this debate today. It has been robust and transparent. But I think there have been some false choices placed out here, and I want to clear that up.

I think I am speaking for a majority on this side of the aisle that says, Let's do it all. Let's have an all-of-the-above approach.

Our side has not come to the conclusion that simply enhanced production is going to get out us of this because it is not going to. But enhanced production has got to be part of the solution. So you would find a great deal of support, Mr. Speaker, for conservation efforts on this side of the aisle, at least from this Member, for increased efficiency efforts, and for renewable efforts. But all of those things by themselves don't do American consumers any good really in the short run.

Even the call by the Speaker of the House to release part of the strategic oil reserves, that only amounts to, one suggestion is selling 75 million barrels out of the strategic oil reserve, about 10 percent of the reserve, so about a 3-day supply of oil. That doesn't do much for anybody. So let's not fall into that trap; although it is an admonition on the Speaker's part, ironically, that supply does affect price.

But here is the real point. The other side of the aisle has controlled 30 minutes this morning, and did you notice something? Did you notice that there was no answer to what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said yesterday? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve--and this is now the fourth or fifth time that I have put this out on the House

floor today--said simply by increasing production by 1 percent, Mr. Speaker, that has an impact of dropping the price by 10 percent.

We have heard some of the best and the brightest, absolutely the A team, some of the folks who came through in the 2006 election, we have heard from the best and the brightest, and yet no answer. They didn't even pick it up. This is not some fact that I trotted out 2 minutes ago, this is a fact that I put out two or three or four times, and yet the silence on the other side of the aisle has been absolutely deafening. Why, because it doesn't fit into the orthodoxy that has absolutely bound this leadership and has taken this debate from what should be a national security debate, what should be a transition time in our public life, what should bring us all together, Mr. Speaker, and has devolved into simple pettiness and capitulation. We can do better. We know what we need to do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you for the time.

I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pivotal time in our public life and it's a pivotal time that doesn't come along very often, the sense of clarity that has emerged across the country when gasoline is now knocking on the door of $4.50 a gallon all across the country. Today as I left Wheaton, Illinois, $4.17 a gallon. As I'm out in town hall meetings, as I'm literally walking in the parades over the 4th of July, everybody is coming together and saying, look, let's do something about this. And rather than having this whole opportunity just be squandered away, we have got an opportunity to move forward. And, unfortunately, the orthodoxy that is developed on the other side of the aisle is what my predecessor, Henry Hyde, used to call ``government by bumper sticker.'' ``Government by bumper sticker'' says put cute little phrases on the backs of cars and that's the policy that is going to drive our country. Well, that's great. Bumper stickers are nice and cute when it's at $2.50 a gallon. But in my district you know what people are saying? Rip the bumper stickers off and let's get serious about bringing a national policy as it relates to energy independence for the United States of America so that we're not creating the same elements of great risk where right now, as you know, we are funding both sides of the war on terror. When we go to the gas pump and the money that we are putting in and the taxes that we are paying, yes, we're protecting ourselves from terrorism. We are protecting ourselves with homeland security and domestic security efforts and our whole military infrastructure. But we are also putting money in the hands of regimes that are hostile, that are exporting terrorism and are being very provocative on the world stage.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have got a chance today in this Congress to bring together a wide-ranging coalition that has an interest and a desire to move forward on energy independence, and I think that the time is now. Part of it has to be exploring and continuing to unlock American resources. Part of it has to be that. You can't do the math. You can't ultimately come up with the types of solutions that are going to satisfy our energy needs and simply ignore the resources that are available in the Arctic, the resources that are available in the Outer Continental Shelf. So that has got to be part of it.

Part of it is we have got to put nuclear power back into this mix. We have had great obstacles in the past as it relates to nuclear energy. Look at France. They have done a tremendous job harnessing that energy, moving it in ways that don't have the same types of emissions problems that other elements do. Nuclear energy has to be a part of it.

The types of funding resources that would be available if we were to unlock those American resources that I talked about a minute ago could fund many of the R and D types of projects. Let me tell you about one in my district. I represent an institution called the Gas Technology Institute, GTI, in Des Plaines, Illinois. It's a wonderful program, a public/private partnership. They are the types of folks that are doing the R and D that looks into emerging technologies, and then they help hand that off to industry and applied science. They have got a technology that they are on the verge of that is an anti-idling technology. So here's what happens: If you're a commercial truck, if you're a commercial bus, they waste tremendous energy as they are idling, as they are at stoplights and moving and not moving in traffic. Well, the technology that GTI is developing moves this so that in a nutshell it's a solid-fuel oxide that literally saves us in terms of the amount of energy that's used, the emissions that are emitted. It's that type of R and D that can undergird the types of things that the gentleman from Georgia has been talking about, Mr. Speaker.

There is a whole host of opportunities here, and it's dynamic. The public knows it. The public is crying out for what? The public is crying out for this body to act, for this body to get over the nonsense of ``government by bumper sticker,'' and to say, look, we can all come together. And we can get 218 Members, a majority of this House, to come together around commonsense ideas that strive for American energy independence. The gentleman from Illinois my colleague Mr. Shimkus has been a table pounder for clean coal technology. That can transform not only our region of the country in being an exporter, but it can literally transform how the United States begins to look in the future. So the opportunities are there.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm very hopeful about what can come out of this. But it only comes out if there is a political will that develops that says we are going to put 218 votes up on that board and we're going to move the ball for the American public.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I came down a couple of minutes ago and listened to the opening comments of the distinguished gentleman from Florida as he went through the litany of successes of the space program in the past, and it was a good recitation and a good reflection

on those things that we can really be proud of as Americans that the space program has accomplished. I jotted down a couple of notes, the pacemaker, solar energy, environmental control systems, MRIs, microwaves, wireless technology and so forth and so on.

I am here as a supporter of the space program and as someone who wants to see that innovation and that creativity deployed in a way that not only has an impact on these types of things, but also has an impact on the great struggle that we are facing as a country and that my district and many, many other districts around the country are facing, and that is the cost of aviation fuel. I had an amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee that unfortunately was just swatted away in a partisan fashion, and I was very disappointed in that. Not a single Democrat was willing to vote for it, and I was just disappointed.

My sense is let's take the NASA program and develop that talent and tilt that talent that the gentleman from Florida cited so eloquently a few minutes ago, and let's get it working on alternative fuels as it relates to aviation. Because, you see, I represent O'Hare Airport in the Chicago metropolitan area. I represent thousands and thousands of passengers, thousands of airline employees.

The airline industry is now under the crushing weight of excessive costs of aviation fuel. Fuel is up 40 percent to the point of a ticket price, 40 percent now is that of the ticket price, of the ticket on an airplane, up from only 15 percent back in the year 2000. American Airlines spent $61 billion this year in fuel, whereas last year they spent only $41 billion.

My amendment simply said this, to direct NASA, to say, look, don't allocate resources at this time when we can't afford it, to the Deep Space Climate Observatory. Instead, direct those resources to alternative fuels for commercial aviation with a three-prong test, the need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, the need to develop a fuel that will provide greater stability for the airline industry and also that will reduce the emissions.

I think that's an area where the entire Congress can come together. For the life of me, I don't understand why it was swatted away in such a partisan fashion, and I hope that on future evaluations by the Rules Committee that they will have a little bit of an open mind.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for her leadership on this issue and for bringing this bill to the floor.

I rise today to support the passage of H. Res. 1124, calling for the establishment of a National Brain Tumor Awareness Month.

Each year, more than 190,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with over 120 different types of brain tumors, representing the third leading cause of cancer-related death among those aged 20-39. However, since brain tumors are not as prevalent as breast, lung and other types of cancers, this devastating disease often doesn't get the attention and research dollars it deserves.

That's why I was so impressed when Linda Magiera of Des Plaines, IL, came to Congresswoman Schakowsky and me last year to bravely share the story of her daughter, Lori Arquilla Anderson's struggle with brain cancer. Each day Lori brought her good humor, cheerfulness and love of life to her battle with brain cancer, and remained a model for us all until the very end.

Linda's strength and compassion in not only fighting day by day alongside her daughter, but also in ultimately turning this tragedy into a blessing for others, is an inspiration.

I was similarly struck by the story of a young man from my Congressional District, Reid Colliander, who has worked so hard to turn his experience with a brain tumor into an opportunity to raise awareness, support research, and help others.

After being diagnosed and treated for a brain tumor at age 7, Reid started Reid's Lemon-AID stand with a group of his friends. Last year, they raised $45,000 for the Brain Tumor Research Center at Children's Memorial Hospital. This year, they are well on their way to raising even more.

The work Linda Magiera, Reid Colliander and dozens of outstanding local and national advocacy groups are doing to raise awareness and support research for understanding and treating brain tumors brings hope and new energy to the families and individuals affected by this disease.

Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in recognizing the individuals leading these effort to eradicate brain tumors and resolving to renew our commitment and redouble our efforts in the battle with this devastating disease.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.

I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee chose to reject an amendment that I offered that was an attempt to bring some clarity and light to this debate, particularly as it relates to energy needs.

I represent a district, Mr. Speaker, in the Chicago area which the Chicago Tribune this week has reported has the highest gas prices in the Nation. So in an attempt to try to take that on, I offered an amendment that I thought was a very straightforward thing, not meant to be controversial, not meant to be overly partisan, just a good commonsense idea that unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee rejected. That was a simple thing, and that would create a tax credit, Mr. Speaker, a tax credit for biofuel vehicles.

Right now we have got a tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles, and that is great. But you have got a lot of municipalities in my district that are really suffering under the weight of these high gas prices, and they are looking for alternatives and a biofuel vehicle is just one of those things. So, in other words, oftentimes these vehicles can start up using gasoline, and then it can be transferred and powered on compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied propane, or hydrogen, all things that if municipalities are using will take pressure off gas prices.

Now think about it. This is an opportunity for Congress to do something to help to create a market for other vehicles. Right now sometimes the private marketplace isn't able to come up as quickly as we want it, so we have got local units of government that are saying we want to use these types of vehicles; and this Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, has denied the tax credit that would empower that kind of thing. It makes no sense to me. I am just deeply disappointed that folks on the Rules Committee who are in the majority just rejected this idea. It is not a partisan idea. It is what is called a good idea that we need to move forward.

In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned for the Presidency claiming he had a secret plan to end the war. He went all over the country and said: I have got a secret plan to end the war. If you elect me President of the United States, my secret plan to end the war will win it all and will bring it all home.

Well, we all know there was no secret plan. His Secretary of Defense said so, everyone has declared so, and history shows it. But there are eerie similarities between that declaration of Richard Nixon in 1968 and the words of now Speaker Pelosi when she was the minority leader: She had a plan to bring gas prices down.

Well, if what the majority is doing on the Rules Committee is rejecting commonsense ideas like tax credits for biofuel vehicles that help suburban communities in my district, I am very interested for when this secret plan that the Speaker has alluded to is going to be coming forward. I don't think there is a secret plan, Mr. Speaker.

I think the Speaker in the last campaign was using the type of campaign rhetoric that is now unfortunately coming home to roost.

I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee didn't see fit to let a commonsense idea that helps the suburban municipalities that I represent cope with outrageous gas prices.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 307, I was detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, have I ever told you about my dog, Max? I don't think I have. Let me just take a minute and tell you about Max.

Like a lot of us who are fathers of younger children, I have four children, who approached me, Mr. Speaker, and begged me and begged me and begged me to get them a dog. And for years I was able to avoid eye contact and was able to keep an animal out of my house. But, finally, in a moment of weakness, I said yes.

And a friend of mine, Mr. Speaker, realized what was happening, and he pulled me aside and he said, ``Look, if you're going to get a dog, realize this: You get what you pet.'' You get what you pet. So if a dog comes in and it's disobedient and you pet that dog and give it all kinds of affirmation, then guess what. It's going to keep being disobedient. And not being very wise, we started to do that, and so now we've got a slightly out-of-control dog.

Now, why do I mention Max? We're on the verge of doing that same type of conduct exactly to people who have fundamentally made some bad decisions. Let's take the borrowers aside, and I realize the chairman has worked hard, but let's take the borrowers aside and just put them in a different category because what we're going to be doing today, in addition to helping borrowers, is really bailing out lenders. And I don't think that's an overcharacterization. I don't think that's an unfair way of looking at this. We are being told that lenders who were in this, who are great advocates of the free market when they're making money, they love the free market when they're making money, and now all of a sudden, they are coming to the Federal taxpayer and saying this has gotten a little bit more complicated than we thought, and now we want the taxpayers to come in and take care of this from here out. It's voluntary on the part of the lenders, and think about how voluntary that would be. What a great invitation. These lenders go and they say here's our pile of bad debt. Let's take a haircut, 85 percent of the value, shove that off to the FHA, which is pretty ill equipped, I might add, to take on this obligation--let's shove that off to the taxpayer, and instead of getting our heads chopped off as lenders, we're just going to get a haircut.

I think we can do a lot better, I think, over a period of time.

There is a great willingness, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle to try and work creatively and to try and work substantively on solutions. But I think as we reflect back on this, in the

chairman's own words, it is going to cost $5,000 for every defaulted mortgage that is assumed by the FHA, times a half million. That gets us to the $2.5 billion figure that makes many of us cringe.

And I don't think that those types of numbers should be allocated to lenders and bailing out lenders who made bad decisions.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for the time.

One of the underlying issues as it relates to this bill is I think the way in which it was contemplated. I'm not making a process argument, but what I am making is an argument that suggests there's a very serious oversight.

And the oversight was the committee's rejection of the McHenry amendment. The McHenry amendment basically said, look, if you're going to have these grants and loans and there's going to be properties that are going to be purchased, there should be an open process, there should be a bidding process, and it should be something that everybody has access to. And I think the failure of the majority in this case was to dismiss that and put it aside.

I've heard cities tonight described as victims. The chairman a minute ago said he has great confidence, and I'm paraphrasing, but great confidence that cities are going to use the money judiciously and wisely. Well, my congressional district falls in the shadow of a city with a different reputation that doesn't have a judicious and wise reputation always. Let me read you just a couple of headlines within the past couple of weeks about some of the schemes that have happened from a corruption point of view about the very people that you're contemplating entrusting $15 billion to.

Here's one this month: ``Witness Details Pay-To-Play Schemes'' or ``Ex-Illinois Official Pleads Guilty to Lying'' or ``Corruption Firmly Entrenched in State'' or ``Illinois: Corruption on Parade'' or ``Top Aide to Illinois Governor Is Indicted in Kickback Inquiry.''

We have got deep troubles in northern Illinois, and what is conspicuously absent in this bill, and I've read it, I've looked at it all, within this bill there is no requirement of any kind of disclosure, no requirement of any kind of notice, no requirement of anything whatsoever. So, in other words, if you're a corrupt official working for an agency that has been entrusted with this $15 billion, there's absolutely nothing, nothing that prohibits you from selling this to a friend for whatever you want to sell it for. The bill is absolutely silent.

Now, is the majority trying to be complicit in a nefarious scheme? Of course not. But was it a gross oversight on the part of the majority in the committee to reject the McHenry amendment? I think so, and I think for that fundamental flaw alone, notwithstanding all the underlying policy questions, that fundamental flaw alone brings a great deal of skepticism to voters in my congressional district. And for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

And in response to the chairman's question, yeah, no question about it. There's a plan requirement on page 3, section 4 of the bill, but the plan requirement doesn't prohibit the type of conduct that I just described, a plan as it relates to goals for the sale to different groups, accessibility to different groups, but the plan is silent as it relates to this potentially corrupt practice.

I think it's a flaw and I don't think it's a flaw that can't be redeemed. It can be very easily corrected. It doesn't help the underlying policy objections to the bill.

But $15 billion put out there without any requirement whatsoever as it relates to a prohibition against self-dealing, a member of the housing development authority of a particular municipality calling up a cousin and saying, hey, come on by here, we just purchased this foreclosed property for $100,000, I'll sell it to you for $75,000, there's nothing in here. Notwithstanding the plan language, notwithstanding any other declaration of the majority, it is silent, and we can do much, much better.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 5512, the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2008.

First, I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Chairman Gutierrez and my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Space) for bringing this important bill to the floor. And I would also like to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his support of my own coin content bill, H.R. 4036, the Cents and Sensibility Act, which I introduced with Mr. Castle of Delaware.

Madam Speaker, last year, I took my son to visit the Denver Mint in Colorado, and there we discovered during our tour that the cost of a penny was--actually what the gentleman from Illinois just referred to-- 1.7 cents, the cost to the government to make each single penny. And that's obviously more than it's worth. At current production rates, the Federal Government spends more than $134 million to produce eight billion pennies annually at a loss of $54 million to the taxpayer. It makes no sense.

Two years ago last Thursday, when I was not yet a Member of this body, the U.S. Mint sent to Congress a letter stating what my son and I discovered on our trip. And since then, a whole lot of nothing has happened. And I think, frankly, the Mint has been a little bit remiss in not bringing up a thoughtful suggestion on cost cutting. This bill will address the short-term problem of the costly penny and I believe the longer term issues of what circulating coins should be made of.

I've got to say I'm flattered in a way in that there are elements of this bill that have taken some of the elements of the bill that I introduced. So when H.R. 5512 was introduced, this bill, in other words, it was done so with some of the provisions that I was pleased to offer. The most important point is to immediately change the composition of the penny from copper-coated zinc to copper-coated steel. This change would slash the cost to make the penny.

For several years, Canada, our neighbors to the north, have been saving money producing its one cent coin, which is essentially identical to the U.S. penny, out of steel in this manner, originally in the same Tennessee plant in which our penny blanks are made. This provision blends an enormous cost-saving opportunity with ensuring that the content of the penny remains metal and securing American jobs that currently produce the penny.

Two other provisions from my bill are included in H.R. 5512, that is, the provision giving the Mint explicit authority to do research and development with outside firms on potential coin content, an authority that the Mint says now is ambiguous, and this bill takes away that ambiguity. And secondly, requiring regular reports from the Mint to the Congress on production cost trends and strategies to reduce costs, Madam Speaker, either with different content or different production techniques, either one.

These two provisions will ensure that the Mint is performing its due diligence in a timely manner and keeping the cost of production of all circulating coins down while maintaining communication with those who currently are involved in the industry on the production, supply and research sides.

Madam Speaker, without wanting to be overly critical of the Mint, let me just point out that I think that they have not done exactly as I think would be wise as it relates to solving this cost production problem. It sent legislation here proposing to transfer power from Congress to the Mint on the authority to decide what coins should be made of, what they would weigh, authority explicitly held by Congress since the founding of this country.

More recently, the Mint has criticized the bill before us because it would force the Mint to continue making coins out of metal. I don't know about your constituents, Madam Speaker, but I can guess, along with mine, that they're not interested in having coins made out of plastic, and even less enthusiastic if they found out that the decision to switch had been made by a few unelected bureaucrats in a gray building somewhere in Washington, DC. This is our responsibility to make these decisions. And worse, if such a switch were made the wrong way, it could force billions in conversion costs onto coin handlers, vending machines and banks, that would eventually be passed onto customers.

As a Member representing the Land of Lincoln, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that H.R. 5512 satisfies the need to reduce the cost to taxpayers, retains American jobs, all the while preserving the small one cent coin that has been the foundation of our economic system since its inception.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I, like many of us, come to the floor and want to congratulate Mr. Klein for his leadership on this issue and bringing us together actually in an area that I think most folks, if you reflect back, you can think of a favorite teacher. Let me tell you a little bit about one of my favorite teachers.

My fourth grade teacher was Lillian Anderson. Lillian Anderson was 65 years old and I was in the last class. Maybe I caused her to retire, but I was the last class that Ms. Anderson had. Ms. Anderson was one of those people at Ben Franklin School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, that began to open up our eyes, myself and my classmates, to the State of Illinois, and that's a tradition that we have in Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, as a fine product of the public schools in Illinois, you know that fourth graders in Illinois begin to learn about the State. We learn the State flower, the violet. We learn the State song, which I will not sing for you. We learn the State bird, the cardinal, and all of these things.

And what happened to me was in Ms. Anderson's class, beginning to learn about the three branches of government, in all of those things, suddenly this was a whole new area that was revealed to me.

I grew up in a family that wasn't active when it came to politics. My mom and dad would vote, but that was pretty much it. So here I was a young student, a young boy in Ms. Anderson's class, and a seed was planted by that dear woman. The seed was later watered for me when I was in eighth grade and took the Constitution test, and I was one of those kids in eighth grade that couldn't get enough of it, absolutely loved it.

My point is that there were teachers along the way that encouraged and nurtured me, and I have a strong suspicion that, as we reflect, every one of us can point to somebody along the way, in addition to those people in our immediate families, but somebody along the way that encouraged us, that saw a little something in us, moved us along, took the time to pull us aside and give us an important word. I think that that legacy is the great benefit of the teaching profession today because they don't know all of the ways in which they've influenced people.

So I want to thank Mr. Klein. I want to thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor, for having the Congress today pause and to reflect on those people who were influential in bringing us here today, and I know he's worked very hard to reach out to folks on both sides of the aisle.

I want to thank my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to recognize an outstanding young man from my Congressional District, Reid Colliander, for his hard work and dedication to raising money for Children's Memorial Hospital Brain Tumor Research.

Reid was diagnosed with a brain tumor when he was just 7 years old. As a benefactor of brain tumor research, he underwent brain surgery and over 3 years of rehabilitation. Today Reid is happy, healthy, normal, and active in basketball and baseball.

Reid's journey did not end when he was cured. In 2005, he formed Reid's Lemon-AID stand, which seeks to raise money for brain tumor research at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and develop a lifestyle for local youth of charity and service. To this date, Reid has raised over $45,000.

As part of Lemon-AID, Reid, along with friends and family, visits several local communities to build awareness on the critical need for the funding of brain tumor research and to gain support for his organization.

More than 100 children, ranging in age from 5 to 12, have participated in various Reid's Lemon-AID fundraising events, learning citizenship and much more along the way.

One such event is the second annual Reid's LemonAid Ride for Research event. During this event, more than 100 kids will lead as many as 700 cyclists on a 5K bike ride through downtown Glen Ellyn, Illinois this Saturday April 19th.

This family fun bicycle ride is working to hit Reid's ultimate goal, $1 million for research of brain tumors.

Reid Colliander truly has turned what was once a tragic moment in his life to an outstanding service project, benefiting many children who are stricken with brain tumors.

To honor Reid, I encourage my colleagues to sign onto H. Res. 424, a resolution that calls for the recognition of National Brain Cancer Awareness Month in May.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Reid Colliander and all that he has done for brain tumor research.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fox Valley Chapter of Kids Against Hunger, located in Roselle, Illinois.

Kids Against Hunger is a non-profit organization with a mission to provide nutritious food to impoverished children around the world.

The Fox Valley chapter of Kids Against Hunger located in my district focuses on providing meals to impoverished families in Nicaragua. As the second poorest nation in its hemisphere, 80 percent of Nicaragua's population lives on less than $2 a day.

In 2007, 140 youth and adult volunteers at the Fox Valley Chapter of Kids Against Hunger packaged and provided more than 108,440 meals.

Pastor Darrel Malcom, from Poplar Creek Church in Bartlett, Illinois, recently traveled to Nicaragua to observe the food being received. He visited the Casa Bernabe Orphanage, where several hundred of the Kids Against Hunger meals were distributed. Pastor Malcom had an opportunity to see firsthand the incredible impact Kids Against Hunger is having.

In addition to serving the needy in Nicaragua, Kids Against Hunger serves individuals right here in our own communities, including Streamwood, Illinois. More than 110 seniors in DuPage and Kane Counties have received humanitarian services through the Fox Valley Chapter.

Currently, the Kids Against Hunger--Fox Valley Chapter, is looking for volunteers and funds to continue the production of meals. Additionally, they are looking for areas to host ``packaging events'' so that they can continue to expand their services.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in honoring the Fox Valley Chapter of Kids Against Hunger for their outstanding work to date, and wishing them all the best in their future endeavors.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. The bill makes several changes to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Public Housing Agency Asset Management Final Rule. And what I'd like to do, rather than reading a lengthy statement, is just sort of summarize some of my concerns in a nutshell.

Without question, there's been a great deal of good work and good faith that's been put in on this bill, but I think that there's a couple of key points that just fall a little bit short, and I think we can do better.

The first is, the exemption of so many public housing authorities from the asset management mandate. And that's something that's a good thing, on balance. Asset management says that if you've got unit A and unit B and unit C of public housing, then we're going to determine the cost of unit A, the cost of unit B, and the cost of unit C, and that we're not going to mix all these things up together and act as if each individual one isn't responsible for an individual cost. Asset management is a good business practice that makes all kinds of sense. And if the bill, as amended, is ultimately passed by this House, 88 percent of public housing authorities in the United States would be exempt. That's a bad idea.

The second thing that is actually a bigger concern to me, is section 2 of the bill, and it relates to management and related fees. Let me just read part of the language that this House is being asked to vote on. It says, ``The Secretary shall not impose any,'' and that's the operative word, Mr. Chairman, ``any restriction or limitation on the amount of management and related fees with respect to a public housing project if the fee is determined to be reasonable by the Public Housing Agency unless,'' and then there's a couple of limitations that have to do with timing. The Secretary shall not impose any restriction or limitation. Any restriction? Any limitation? And who is it that's going to determine whether a fee is reasonable?

Well, under this bill, as amended, under this bill, it's going to be the very entity that's going to be the beneficiary of that fee. So we're essentially saying to the fox, Why don't you guard the henhouse? Why don't you decide what your fee is going to be, and you simply send the bill to the taxpayer, and that's the bill that's going to be paid? I think that's unreasonable. I think that common sense says, no, no, no. Common sense says, there's going to be someone else that determines reasonableness of fees before a bill is going to be paid. And what this does is it says, and it's a curious thing to me. I can't figure out for the life of me why. It says that the determination of reasonableness and the renegotiation of reasonableness can't be brought up for another year. This can't even be the subject of a conversation, a substantive negotiation, until April 1 of 2009. And then, even if something is negotiated then, it can't be imposed until 2011, 3 years away. I just think that's unreasonable, and I think it is a financial control that's in place that is being put adrift, and we're not going to be able to get it back for 3 years. Costs are going to go up. Mark my words.

Finally, this allows for the diversion of capital funds, Mr. Chairman. You know, there's always a natural tension, right, between capital funds and operating funds, and we hear that all the time. There is no shortage of national attention and national conversation and national concern about the atrophying of our capital, the atrophying of our infrastructure. And what we ought not be doing is creating more fungibility, in other words, more pressure to take money and divert precious capital money from capital expenditures, which are the traditional bricks and mortars of public housing to go into the operating side. And for those reasons, I rise in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the tone of the discussion this afternoon very, very much. I just want to point out and really ask the House if you notice something, and at the beginning of my remarks, I put out, essentially as a challenge, this concern that I have of this language: the secretary shall not impose any restriction or limitation on the amount of management and related fees. Nothing: no restrictions, no authority, completely stripped so that there is nobody that has the ability that can come in and say this invoice for management, this amount of money for management, are you kidding me? That's outrageous. Nobody has the authority to do that. They do now, they do currently have that ability, but under this bill, Mr. Chairman, that authority goes away.

Now, the gentleman from New Jersey, the previous speaker, mentioned the fungibility argument. I accept that as an argument. I just don't think it is a good idea. I don't think that something that's in an appropriations bill, just because it's a bad idea, that it needs the House's imprimatur once again. That's going to expire at the end of the year, and I think we can do better.

So just in summary, what we are being asked to do today is essentially to limit down the amount of public housing authorities that would be under asset management to only 12 percent of the public housing authorities in the United States. Only 12 percent of them would be subject to asset management if this bill is enacted.

So I think those are sufficient numbers to say, you know what, I think we can do better. Those are sufficient reasons, sufficient arguments that would suggest that we can do better. This should go back to the drawing board. And I urge a ``no'' vote.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas Mefferd for his 22 years of dedication and service to DuPage County.

Tom began his career in emergency management in 1971 as the Civil Defense Director for the Village of Plainfield, IL, a position he held for 10 years.

In 1981, Tom left municipal government and became an instructor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. While

there, he was responsible for conducting training courses and disaster exercises in FEMA Region 5.

In 1988, Tom returned to local government service and became the Deputy Coordinator of the DuPage County Office of Emergency Management, where he oversaw disaster planning and training activities.

In recognition of his exemplary role as Deputy Coordinator, Tom was appointed Coordinator of the DuPage County Office of Emergency Management in 1995. While holding this position, he supervised the renovation of the county's Emergency Operations Center, designed the county's Mobile Operating Center and the installation of Illinois' first Emergency Alert System.

He also serves as a member on the Illinois Terrorism Task Force.

In 2003, Tom became the Director of the DuPage County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, as DuPage became the first county in Illinois to merge the roles of emergency management and homeland security.

Tom's steadfast dedication to protecting our communities has spanned more than two decades. On February 29, 2008 he will begin a well deserved respite. Thanks to Thomas Mefferd, DuPage County's emergency management system is clearly a cut above the rest.

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring the distinguished career and service of Thomas Mefferd.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Hanover Park, Illinois, an exciting and important town in my congressional district.

Today, Hanover Park has grown to include more than 12,000 families. However, its history truly began in the 19th century when the community began to lay roots in northern Illinois.

With its close proximity to downtown Chicago and the major commercial centers surrounding O'Hare airport, Hanover Park represents the perfect blend between urban dynamism and suburban life.

Hanover Park also boasts the youngest average resident population in the Northern suburbs. Its multitude of parks, sporting venues, and youth and family friendly activities make this a great place to work, live, and raise a family.

The spirit of Hanover Park's citizens is matched only by the industriousness of its business community. From small entrepreneurial endeavors to Fortune 500 companies, Hanover Park's economy is thriving. This impressive economy owes its prosperity to both the hardworking residents, the Village President Rodney Craig, and Hanover Park Board of Trustees to promote new business tax incentives and champion economic development. For over half of a century, the Village of Hanover Park has been a thriving community.

Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing the outstanding contributions of Hanover Park, Illinois on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.