Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here. I'm going to be joined by a number of the members of the freshmen class, and I appreciate the Speaker being one of our Members from Ohio. We have a great group of Members from all over the United States who were elected a year ago on certainly a campaign of change and bringing some new ideas, new energy. And energy is going to be the subject tonight because a lot of us have a lot of it.

I know Americans are looking for some new ideas on how to solve our problems with energy and how to move our country forward. And the reason it's important, particularly important today is because today this House Chamber took a bold, new step, and we passed the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. And as I said, many freshmen, and many Members, Democrat and Republican, ran on a platform of change and new ideas. Energy is that idea. It's that platform.

And if you're old enough, you'll remember the Manhattan Project. I know I'm speaking to people who are listening in this Chamber tonight that are familiar with that Manhattan Project. It was that great ingenuity that Americans came together and knew what they had to do in order to win World War II. It was done in secret, but it produced the results that were necessary to save lives at the end of the day.

More recently, again a number of years but more recently, we had something called the Sputnik that Russia sent up, a little tin can that went up into space. And for those people who were alive at that time, they were frightened, rightfully so, that the Russians had gotten ahead of us and had put something in space that could potentially give the Russians the control, the Soviet Union control, of the space above our heads and maybe they would rain down on us weapons and have other kinds of threats against the United States.

And President John F. Kennedy, at that moment in time when Americans looked up and saw that can, that little flash in the sky, and realized that it wasn't the United States that put that up there but a country that at that time was viewed as in competition and the Cold War was just developing, what happened at that moment was John F. Kennedy said we are going to take this moment, capitalize on the concern, and channel that into a new program, a space program that was going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. And, boy, that was something that was incredible. It was unheard of. Could we do it? I mean, the Moon is up there, and it would take a great amount of technology and science, and maybe it was a dream that our philosophers and other scientists years ago had, but to actually accomplish that in 10 years?

And lo and behold, in 1969, in July, I remember the moment. I was in a camp at that time, and I remember watching with my friends. In July of 1969, Americans put a man on the Moon and landed a man on the Moon. What an incredible accomplishment. And today we are still receiving the dividends from a space program that has just had so much impact not only on American ingenuity in terms of the space program and all the great things that have come out of that, but in consumer products, microwave ovens and a whole lot of other things that we take for granted today that came out of the science, and the math and the science and all the great things that went on in our schools to create the future leaders and the science program and the space program that has continued through today.

This is that moment. This is that time when Americans need to seize this crisis that has been developing for quite some time, and we need to do something about it. And there are three groups of people in the United States that are all coming together behind renewable energy and making sure that America becomes energy self-sufficient over the next number of years.

We have had many people in this country from the environmental community that for years have said that the pollution caused by various types of fossil fuels have clouded our air and damaged and polluted our waters, and it's not only in the United States but throughout the world. The environmental community has been very concerned about this and has tried to build bridges and coalitions, and they've really worked hard on that. And they are now joined by two other groups.

All Americans join in the notion that as a matter of national security, and I certainly believe this and I know the Speaker does too, and many of the men and women in this room and most Americans understand this, that for too long we in America have made foreign policy decisions based on where the next drop of oil is coming from. And what a mistake. What a mistake. We've done it over and over and over again, whether it's dealing with Iran in our past history, dealing with Iraq presently, dealing with Venezuela, or any number of other countries in the Middle East, some of whom at best, at best, may not be our friends and, at worst, are our enemies. And yet every time you go to the pump, you're putting money not necessarily in an American company, but you are putting money that is eventually getting into the pockets of some of the owners of these oil wells in these countries that are damaging our interests and in many cases are funneling to the terrorists and the people around the world that are really putting our men and women at risk, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere around the world. This is a very dangerous prospect and it's unacceptable.

The third group, of course, and I think this is one of the most exciting things, is the new economy that is developing out of this energy discussion. The job opportunities, the great innovators, the scientists, the American men and women at our universities, our business entrepreneurs that understand that not only is this good for America in terms of our environment and our national security but we could be very successful at it from a business point of view. We can create new technologies. We can do lots of things that create jobs, create revenue, create income, make our standard of living higher and greater. And we cannot only take that and build for America, this can be the next economic boom that exports our technology, our products, our sciences to other countries around the world. It's pretty exciting.

And I really believe very strongly that the great notions that have come out of today's bill recognize the fact that a few years ago when President Bush was inaugurated as President, oil was at $26 a barrel. Think about that. That's $26 a barrel. Today it's hovering around $100 a barrel. And I know that every American should say shame on all of us, not only as elected officials, but also as American consumers, shame on us for allowing that to happen. That's not just a political thing; that's literally our responsibility. We have our own responsibility to make a decision and make a difference here.

So what we have done today, and I am joined by other members of our freshmen class and others and we are all going to talk about this for a few minutes, is pass a bill that does what we were talking about. It puts the emphasis, it puts the incentives, economic

and otherwise, into the science, the technology of renewable energy sources, whether it's wave power, wind power, any combination of coal, nuclear.

And, yes, I hear from so many people that some of these have issues, technology issues, safety issues. And they may. And it's up to us to solve those. Let's think big. I'm not here to advocate for any one of these alternatives. I think all of them have possibilities, and we have to make sure that all of them have the necessary safety and necessary science that goes with them before we move in any direction. But this is the time for us to focus all of our energy, our attention, and our resources on making sure our country is energy independent. And today is the first step where we are going to do that. And I look forward to working with all of our colleagues in the Senate and hopefully get our President to go along with us because I know America is ready, willing, and able to accomplish this goal.

I am joined by a good friend, Congressman Ellison. Congressman Ellison has been a very outspoken person on the importance of energy independence, and I'm going to yield to him to give his thoughts on today's action.

Thank you, Congressman, and I appreciate, I know you come from the Midwest and obviously dealing at this time of the year with the oil costs for people that have to heat their homes and to drive cars, this is a very serious issue.

As we take a look at some of these charts that we have here, we already talked about the fact back in January of 2001, it cost $1.47 for a tank of gas. Today, it is $3.13. Now the inflation rate hasn't gone at that pace. The inflation rate is starting to pick up now, but nothing like this. And I have to tell you something, where I live in south Florida, it is not $3.13. It is higher than that. It is $3.40.

Absolutely. And as a matter of fact, we had a discussion in our Financial Services Committee today. I am on the Financial Services Committee with you. And we heard Mr. Bernanke, who is the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who is really trying to do the best that he can under difficult circumstances, and he talked about 6 months ago, we talked about the fact that we had a subprime mortgage crisis problem and a couple of other things, but that all the other indicators, inflation and cost of living were pretty okay. Well, guess what? Today, we see the things that really affect families. When we talk about families, we are not talking about Wall Street. We are talking about what it really costs to live day to day. Look through your checkbook, your monthly expenses. Your mortgage or your rent, the cost of utilities, all have gone up because oil prices have gone up. The cost of food, extraordinarily, inflation, big inflation costs of food, a gallon of milk, vegetables, fruits, cereals, all these kinds of things all have gone up. Gasoline now costs $50, $60 a tank, depending on what kind of car you have or how big the tank is. Do you know something? For people that are earning 20, 30, $40,000 a year, it is pretty hard to make ends meet. For people on minimum wage, it is even worse. So I think this is a real economic issue for people at this moment that we have to solve. And there will be short-term issues we put in this bill and some longer term issues we started out talking about today.

Let me just talk for a second, Congressman, about the bill itself and talk about what it does. First of all, it extends the tax credit for solar energy and qualified fuel cells. We start talking about some of these renewable energy ideas. I happen to be from Florida, so I'm a big fan of solar. But do you know something? The State of Washington, with all the rain that Seattle gets actually does more solar than other States and Florida does. Nationwide there are opportunities to do solar. Solar power has been around a long time. Many countries depend on solar. The State of Israel, the Middle East, a big portion of their electric grid is supported by solar power. Technology just has to make some changes in the battery capacity and storage and things like that. But these are all solvable problems when we put our minds to it.

Again, investment tax credits, using the Federal Government to stimulate market, which is exactly what we want to incentivize the science and business development.

We are authorizing over $2 billion of new, clean renewable energy bonds for public power providers and electric cooperatives, again encouraging through market, through incentives, our utilities, to start to convert over to clean, renewable energy products and fuels.

We create a new production tax credit for cellulitic alcohol produced for fuel in the United States. Now we all know about corn ethanol, corn-based ethanol. Brazil, the largest industrial country in South America, 190 million people, they are now energy independent. This is not an 8 million person country. This is a country that put its goal on the line about a generation ago and said we are going to do it, and a whole lot of different types, but they use sugar-based ethanol as one way of doing it. We extend the biodiesel production tax credit. We extend the tax credit for purchase of fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles. We extend the energy-efficient commercial buildings deduction. All these things are designed to create market. We don't have to have the Federal Government involved in all of this, other than to say create market. Federal buildings, let's make them energy independent. And by doing so, as taxpayers, we are getting a better cost for our utility, and we are also creating the products and

encouraging the development of products that are going to save money.

So these are the kinds of things that are in this bill. And there are a whole lot of other things we have already done. We have increased the CAFE standards, that is for fuel miles per gallon in automobiles, for the first time in 36 years. Imagine Congresses over the last 10, 20 years that haven't touched that. Technology has grown, but no commitment. So I am really proud that we have worked together in a bipartisan way to do this.

And President Bush has gone along. One thing President Bush has not gone along with, and I hope he does right now, is this notion of $15 billion or so of tax rebates or incentives to oil companies for more oil drilling. God bless the oil companies. They are doing just fine. As a matter of fact, I think there is a chart that we have here on oil company profits. This is not a question of bashing oil companies. We are all entrepreneurs. We are all capitalists. We understand what that means. But at the same time, a little fairness here, this is a chart that shows the major oil companies in the United States. In 2002, $30 billion of profit. In 2004, $109 billion of profit, 2 years later. In 2007, $123 billion of profit. That is a lot of profit. That is more money than any other company in the history of the United States has ever made.

Now I am not even going to knock that. But what I will say is the American taxpayer doesn't have to put $15 billion of additional taxpayer money on top of that. And when you hear our friends on the other side of the aisle say, oh, well, if you take away the incentives that the Federal Government is giving them, all you are going to do is raise the price at the pump. Excuse me? Lots of profit here to generate more oil wells and things like that, and they will do that because it makes good economic sense, and let them do it. That is good. I just don't think we have to put some frosting on the cake. I would rather take our taxpayer money and put it toward development of energy independence.

Thank you, Congressman, and I just want to touch on, if I can, because this freshman class of ours along with many others in the Congress were very frustrated, along with most Americans, about the way that Congress had been operating for the last number of years. The last 6 years before this past term, Congress was passing these bloated budgets, the President was signing them going deeper and deeper into deficit, and obviously there are a lot of very expensive things going on right now, but no lack of discipline in terms of control of our fiscal house. And I have kids, Congressman, you have kids, we all have children, grandchildren, parents whatever, why would we, as a country, want to continue to put ourselves farther and farther in debt? And that is the direction we have been going.

I am very proud to say that this Congress in the first week, we passed something called PAYGO. It's a simple principle, pay as you go. It is no different from when I had a business, if I couldn't meet my payroll, I made cuts. You can't spend more than you have coming in. Maybe you can borrow a little bit. But you have to pay your debt service. You can't keep on borrowing, and in the case of government, printing money. The good news is that this Congress is showing fiscal discipline for the first time in a long time. I am committed to it, I am a fiscal discipline person, a hawk if you will, and I know you are, as well, Congressman, and as we go through this process, this bill is fully paid for. And the rule that we have, PAYGO, is that no bill can pass unless it is fully paid for. So that means no speculation that the budget is going to grow by 3 percent next year and we will have the money next year, and money is going to appear out of nowhere. The money has to be in the budget. We have to make cuts somewhere else or prioritize something. And that is exactly what budgeting is all about.

I am proud not only as a Democrat but as an American, as a Member of this Congress, that is the direction we are going. It is going to take time to dig out of this hole, but it is a start. This particular piece of legislation is paid for. The way it has been paid for is in part taking the subsidy I mentioned a few minutes ago which is billions and billions of dollars and saying instead of just giving it to oil companies for more oil drilling, oil is always going to be a part of our national energy policy. But it can't be the only. And just to give more money and flush it in that way, let's bring it in. And so we have taken money from one source and put it in what I believe and I think many of us believe is a higher priority of renewable energy sources and moving in that direction.

I will just share this with you real quickly because I thought it was quite unique. A lot of this stuff that we pass out of Washington is viewed in a partisan way, but there are different groups that have different positions on it and different opinions. I am going to read, this is a very long list, I will read just a handful of the supporters, the organizations that are supporting this energy legislation because I think it speaks volumes coming from different points in the country and how important it is.

We have the American Institute of Architects, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the Audubon Society, DuPont, a big manufacturer; Friends of the Earth, an environmental group; Greenpeace, The Home Depot, Florida Power & Light, a big producer in my State of electricity; Macy's, Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics U.S.A., National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Industrial Office Properties, PG&E Corporation, Target Corporation, Wal-Mart, Yahoo. And I can go on. There are pages and pages of groups that are behind this, environmental all the way on one end or wherever you want to place them, to large industrial corporations, entrepreneurs, innovators, venture capitalists, scientists and universities on the other. That to me is the ideal position you want to be in. You want to have an ownership of an idea that we've taken into context all the various ideas and brought in a piece of legislation that is good for everyone.

It is not perfect. We are going to continue to build on this. But it is an excellent first step, Congressman.

Well, I agree with you. And if you think about the bills that we passed, this one and the other one, the other bill we passed, in addition to increasing the fuel efficiency for automobiles, which I think is long overdue, also creates changes in specifications of light bulbs, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers.

These are products all of us have in our home. Many of them, they are inefficient. They may be older, or they may just not be efficient to start with. What we have done is, as the products are now going to come out of the market, they are going to have to have a greater efficiency standard for the amount of power that they use.

That is a very important thing, because now what we are seeing is with light bulbs or any other thing that uses electricity out there, that over time we are going to be able to save massive amounts of power, and the amount of power that we save directly goes into the amount of fuel and pollution and hydrocarbons and all of the rest of those things that are produced.

This is something that Americans are asking for. And as competition comes into play, more and more companies will be producing these, the prices will come down, the normal competitive forces work.

So the fact that if you hear about one company right now that manufactures a refrigerator that uses 30 percent less power but it costs you $1,000 more, well, you are not going to buy it. Some people may, but it is not going to have wide market appeal. But it will when you have 10 companies producing it, and they are all in there trying to make it better than the other companies.

This is just like any other product that comes to market. We know that happens with TVs, and even with the flat screen TVs. They are all coming down in price now, and DVDs and VCRs and all those kinds of things. It is the same concept. American people want products that are going to be efficient because they can save money in the long run. If you can pay for it over the next 3 years in savings, it is a wonderful thing.

But I think it is very exciting, because we are in there to promote the general idea of renewable energy. There is not one answer for all of this, but there are so many different parts of this country where there is lots of great research going on.

Right off the coast of Florida where I live is the Gulf Stream. You may be familiar with the Gulf Stream. It is a current that developed off the coast of the United States and goes all the way up north.

I am told by the scientists who are working on this right now that the power of the Gulf Stream, if harnessed with various types of turbines and things like that, and these turbines have to be generated and have to be environmentally friendly and all the rest and all of this is under development, that over time they believe that power can generate enough electricity to power half of Florida's power needs. Wow. I don't know if that is going to happen, but I like the idea that people are thinking and creating and innovating.

We have enough coal in the ground in the continental United States to power this country for decades to come, but there are problems with coal. Some of it is high sulfur and it creates pollution problems. But there may be technology that can be developed to scrub the coal. Again, there needs to be this emphasis to say, we are not just going to accept the fact that this is coal and that we are going to continue to pollute. We are going to be able to find a solution here. There are solutions to every problem.

As I said before, it is not only the United States, because we can do all that we want to do in terms of leading the world in dealing with these environmental issues and energy solutions, but there are other countries, China and so many other countries, that are huge power users and huge fossil fuel users, that if we can create something that is cost-effective, environmentally friendly, will create a better life for everybody, we are going to have a huge market to sell those products to.

So, I am just very excited, and you can probably hear it in my voice because I have been talking about this for many years, but I am so happy to be a part of Congress with our freshman class, Democrats and Republicans and Members who just have been hearing loud and clear from people back home, all over America, that they want change. And this is one of these areas that allows such opportunity for us to come together as a country, solve a

problem, create jobs, fix the environment, and do things that will increase our national security.

As we go forward with this, we have so many members of our caucus who have been interested in this. We are joined by another member of our freshman class, I like to call them freshmen, we are still freshmen, it is Congressman Hall from New York. Congressman Hall has a long history before he got to Congress of having a tremendous amount of interest in energy, and he has some personal experiences in work in his own community on energy issues.

I am glad you joined us for this discussion. We have been talking about the landmark bill that we passed today and what a great thing it is for America and how we are going to take many, many more steps forward. But please give us your thoughts, Congressman Hall.

Well, I hope that as we are all discussing this today, it's clear that the level of deep understanding of this issue from my colleagues here and many on the floor of the United States House of Representatives today really gives you the sense that we are moving in a direction that has been well thought out, it has been deliberated carefully.

As I said before, you have got a remarkable group of people from one end of our country to the other, the business community, the environmental community that have come to embrace this and break down this, it's either good for the environment and bad for the economy or, you know, bad for jobs and good for the environment. It's a fallacy. It's a false statement, it's a misstatement, and it's just the wrong way to approach it, but it has been that way for so many years. People seem to position it that way in the political environment.

As you very clearly made the case today, it's a win-win-win, good for the environment, good for our economy and people's lives and really solves a national security problem that we should have never been in but has now come to the point where we have to listen to OPEC. We have to listen to these countries that are deciding our future.

As I said previously in this Chamber, all it's going to take is one super tanker to go down the Strait of Hormuz in the Middle East and we will have a worldwide energy crisis. We can't allow that to happen. We cannot allow that to happen. We will not solve it overnight, we will have to take the necessary steps, but today through your efforts Mr. Hall and Mr. Ellison and so many people in the United States House of Representatives, so many Americans who came forward and said take these ideas and put them in legislation and collaborate together, work with Democrats and Republicans, people from all walks of life to come up with something that is innovative, exciting, forward thinking, progressive, this is what we have today.

I thank the gentleman from New York for great insight and great thought, because you are truly one of the architects of the great piece of legislation today.

Mr. Ellison, I know you were ready to add something to Mr. Hall's comments as well.

Thank you, Congressman. Again, Minnesota is well served by great leadership there. You know, it's funny, as the gentleman was talking about our children, I look back and think when I was growing up, and you would drive down the road, and people would just, when they were done with a bag of food, they would just throw it out the window; a can of soda, throw it out the window; cigarettes, throw it out the window. On any side road, you just see garbage.

It wasn't until our kids started saying what are you doing, why are you doing this? Then the whole notion of recycling and how that became built in. But it wasn't from parents that came forward or grandparents. It was children. Learning in school, learning about their environment, learning about how important it was to preserve and to protect and clean up and not add to pollution and things that caused environmental problems.

Those are the things. Those are the changes. Seat belts, those are another example. Children were taught about it. We as adults, many people didn't do it. Obviously laws were passed later, but it was children. I remember my kids saying to my wife early on, you got in the car, where is your seat belt? Why don't you put your seat belt on? She obviously was not shamed into it but learned from our kids.

I think our generation today is a generation, as I started today's conversation, this is the calling of this generation, a calling of our young people to call upon our adults, our grandparents, everyone in America to say this is something that is so important to the United States on so many levels as we have been discussing, that we are going to have to do it.

It's the generation that's in school today, that's in college today that are young adults that are driving and realize that they have a lifetime to live. That lifetime needs to be on a planet that is clean, has fresh air, has fresh water and all the things that are important, and, at the same time, we can live in a country that produces high- quality jobs and creates all sorts of products and services that can be done.

Last week in West Palm Beach, I was in an office building that's a green building, a certified building. Now some people don't know what that is, and I am learning about this as we go, but this is a building that is designed from top to bottom. Its energy use, the whole construct of the building is such that it is really designed to save energy, to create a much more productive environment. So it's not just the energy side, but it's the whole environment, working and living and all those kinds of things.

It was fascinating, because a lot of people say, well, I am not going to go there. It costs a lot more. If you build it from the ground up, it doesn't cost that much more. There are a lot of savings to be generated out of these types of savings, savings of water in the plumbing, savings of water in the energy, the lights, the electricity, the heating, the ventilating and the air conditioning, all very important, lots of opportunity.

Market is being created. The support is there. These people are leasing up this building. Things are a little slower for it right now, but this gentleman who has speculated on this building, he is finding tenants because they are saying, you know something, it makes sense. It's good for my corporate image. It's good for my employees, my production. We're going to save money in the long run. Why not.

There are lots of ways to retrofit buildings, too, that I know the gentleman is very familiar with. So these are the kinds of things that I know are very important to all of us that are created and encouraged in this bill and in other bills. Of course, as we move forward we are going to look for ideas from our constituents, our business people, our kids, our scientists and what other things we can do for our country, some through legislation, some just talking about it, moving it forward.

These are the things, and now we are joined by another Member who is so active, and I know his campaign was heavily involved in environmental and energy issues, the gentleman from California, the Golden State, Mr. McNerney. If you would please join us and give us your thoughts on today's legislation and how you feel about the issue.

I thank the gentleman from New York for the encouragement to help move this in the right direction.

And to close, I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California.

I certainly call on those in the other body, the Senate, to also think boldly about energy independence and help us pass this bill as fast as possible.

When the Senate passes the energy bill, we as Americans urge the President of the United States to sign it quickly and to join together with all of us. This is the calling of our generation, and the time is now. I thank the gentlemen and all of our Members of the House of Representatives, those who supported the bill today, and encourage others to join us on the ride.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man, Congressman Tom Lantos.

I would like to send my deepest sympathies to Annette and the whole Lantos family. Congressman Tom Lantos' partnership with his wife, Annette, was one of respect and true adoration. I hope that the whole family will be comforted by the knowledge that Tom's work has enhanced the lives of millions around the world.

I was proud to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of Tom Lantos. Within the Congress, he was viewed as the strongest and most vocal defender of human rights. When he spoke, people listened, and when he led, people followed. His moral clarity serves as an example that generations to come will strive to follow.

His achievements in world affairs will live on as his legacy. His impassioned protection of human rights, his crusade for democracy, his defense of Israel and Jews worldwide, show that one individual truly can make a difference in this world.

Last fall, he and Annette asked me to lead the Congressional Taskforce on Anti-Semitism, which is a project that they started together as Holocaust survivors. Now, as we continue our fight against anti-Semitism throughout the world, his memory will carry on in everything that we do.

Congress and the Nation have lost an important voice. But that voice will continue to inspire America and people throughout the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished member of our community in Broward County, Florida. I would like to recognize and congratulate Ms. Nicole Marsala as Broward County's Teacher of the Year for 2009. Ms. Marsala has taught her students the true meaning of civic duty, not only through her creative teaching style, but also by example, having served Coral Springs for over eight years.

Her innovative approach to teaching traditional topics in social sciences provides her students with a new perspective on some of the most important chapters in our country's history. She believes that teaching involves more than just following lesson plans in textbooks, and that it is critical to step outside the classroom from time to time and learn through hands-on experience.

I believe that there is no lesson more significant and appropriate for our students than how this country was founded, and how we can continue to improve our community. As caring as she is competent, Ms. Marsala has shown faithful dedication to the education of her students by inspiring creativity and encouraging parents to take an active role in fostering a passion for history and civic responsibility.

Madam Speaker, Coral Springs is privileged to have Ms. Marsala as a teacher, and our entire community is grateful for her leadership. Her lessons have truly gone beyond the classroom, and her contributions to our community will certainly last for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is in trouble, and millions of hardworking American families are feeling the impact as we speak. Since 2001, the real income of a typical working family has fallen by $2,500, and workers' wages have failed to keep up with the inflation for the fourth time in the past 5 years.

In December, the unemployment rate shot up to a 2-year high of 5 percent with over 900,000 more Americans looking for work over the same period last year. Stagnant wages are not only forcing families to squeeze more out of every dollar, but are also taking a toll on our overall economy. Retailers suffered their worst December shopping season in 5 years, and consumer confidence fell this month to its lowest point on record.

Last week, the House approved a bipartisan economic package that will provide urgent relief to 117 million Americans. This is a fair economic package that gets money to the workers, the people who need it the most; and they are most likely to spend it on necessities like groceries and gas.

Economists estimate that each dollar of the rebate will lead to $1.26 in economic growth. Mr. Speaker, economists also say we have to act fast. That's exactly what this House did, and I hope the Senate joins us.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from New York. I certainly agree with all the statements you have made and would just share a few of my own thoughts on the budget.

A budget is a statement of our values, as Americans, collectively. We are not Democrats, we are not Republicans, we are not independents, we are Americans. We all are putting a lot of money, hard-earned money into the government. The question is what's going to be done with it. What is the best value that can be used to help people achieve a better life, help our economy, help job creation and all those things that are important to our communities.

The biggest concern that I have with the budget that is being proposed by the administration is to me it is more of missed opportunities. We know that we have a difficult economy right now. Certainly in Florida where we have had tremendous growth over the last number of years, all of a sudden things have stopped. The real estate market and all of the various businesses that are affected, and homeowners that are affected by a real estate market that has slowed to a standstill, we need to help people through the foreclosures and various other things. But what does this budget do, something that all of us said we were going to change.

In this body we have PAYGO, pay as you go. We can only pass legislation that is paid for in advance. My two friends here are fiscal hawks. We believe in a deficit that has to be brought down and a balanced budget. That is the way we live our personal lives. In the State legislature, we had balanced budgets. That is the way you run your business.

What does this budget do? First of all, it is over $3 trillion. The amount of money going into the Federal Government is extraordinary from an administration that said they wanted smaller government and less spending.

Put that issue aside for a second, this continues the budget deficit and increases it by another $400 billion. This is after, as the gentleman from New York said, this does not stop the biggest tax increase, the alternative minimum tax, which we tried to fix. We had a very good way of fixing it this year, and the President refused. Some people on the other side of the aisle in the Senate refused to do it. It has to be fixed.

The President in his proposal cuts Medicare and Medicaid. I don't know about you; I am sure you are hearing the same thing I'm hearing. Our doctors, our hospitals, our providers, they are taking care of our Medicare population in our communities, and they are feeling it. They have been cut and cut and cut, and it is not keeping up with the cost of operating a practice. We know that they need to receive fair compensation. That is unacceptable. I don't think that is something that this Congress is going to support. So again, an assumption that doesn't have any bearing on where things are going.

The President, who has been a big supporter of the Iraq war, as we know, and has continued to ask for more and more money, hundreds of billions of dollars, interestingly enough, in this budget sets it up for $70 billion of additional expenditures only through January 20. Now, what is January 20? That is Inauguration Day of a new President, whoever that may be.

But boy, is that an unrealistic way of looking at it, particularly after he has been criticizing Members of Congress saying that you can't put a date at the end of funding because you are going to cut off our troops, cut off funding of the bullets and all of the necessary support, which we are not prepared to do, but he is doing.

He is saying on January 20, if you pass this budget, there is no more money after that date to fund the Iraq war, not because he doesn't want to fund the Iraq war, but that is how he is creating a smaller amount of a big deficit. Instead of $400 billion, it would be $500 billion or something like that.

So the question is what can we do, because I think there are a whole lot of assumptions here that are incorrect.

I have a chart here that I have talked about before, and I think this is totally unacceptable. The lack of fiscal discipline of this administration over the last 6 or 7 years has resulted in increasing debt to an unacceptable amount in terms of us bringing our budget in line.

So, although the financing of the war, which has been off the books, the financing of all of these various things that the President wanted to fund, instead of cutting spending or being a little more fiscally responsible, we have been borrowing, and borrowing from foreign investors. Those are foreign countries. We are a debtor country to China and Mexico, and the list goes on and on.

Under this administration, in trillions of dollars we are talking about, in 2001 the amount of foreign-held Treasury securities was $1 trillion. That is a massive amount of money. In the last 6 years, it has now doubled to $2.3 trillion. Just to put it in perspective, the amount of interest that we are paying this year, strictly interest, not principal, not amortizing of the principal and interest together, just interest is over $300 billion. To me, that is money we are just flushing down the drain.

If there was some fiscal discipline like the House leadership has been pushing, we could take that money and do a number of things. We could take care of Americans first. How about all of us, whether it is health care, job creation, job training, so many infrastructure issues in our communities; these are the issue of our day.

And instead of sending that money overseas to pay interest, not even principal, that is $300 billion that is being thrown out the door offshore to some other country because we don't have the wherewithal, as we do in this House, because the President hasn't been willing to work with us in bringing this budget in line.

Mr. Speaker, there are many Republicans as well, but certainly the Democrats have stood together on this, and we welcome everyone as Americans to focus on this together. We have to get the budget in line. The budget that is being proposed by the President right now is something that is relying on a lot of unrealistic assumptions that will never pass because the American people don't want them to be cut, whether Medicare and a number of other things, and we have to find a way to get the budget deficit under control. That is essential. We can't mortgage the future of our country. We cannot allow our children to have to pay and our grandchildren to have to pay for something that this generation wasn't prepared to stand up and say, Yes, we can live within our means. Yes, we can have a strong economy and fight wars when necessary. And yes, we will take care of Americans when there are natural disasters, and it can all be done under a fiscally responsible way, and that has not been the record of this administration. We are going to work hard in a bipartisan way to get this under control.

I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky brought this to us, and I look forward to working with him and the gentleman from New York on fixing this problem.

Thank you. I think both of you were talking about two priorities of our country and the shortfalls and where we need to be, where we've been, and where we are going as a country. And I think we look at ourselves, and you hear this in the Presidential debates right now about the vision. And any Presidential candidate that comes forward and talks about the vision of what our country needs to be, where we need to go, the heritage of our country, the legacy of all of the great innovation that's happened and the fact that maybe we've missed a couple of steps. Not to say we can't regain and continue to move forward, because that's exactly what we are going to do. But it is going to take some new leadership through the Congress, through the Presidency and through the American people, and through our business community as well. It is a cooperative effort.

And I think about a few of the things that are the priorities that help us get there. Education, as you just said, is one of them. And one of the things that concerned me about the budget was the fact that the President had dropped the amount of college grants and the tuition assistance programs in the budget. And again, once again, this Congress, bipartisan, came forward and increased the Pell Grants and increased the college tuition, because if there's one thing I think we can all agree on as Americans, every student, every teenager, every adult who wants to get a higher level of education and create a greater level of workforce training which will only make their lives more productive and make their country more productive, that's a good thing. It always has been. Education has been the great equalizer in the United States, and we ought to be doing everything we can to make sure that we are giving that access and that opportunity for every student.

So, again, a misdirection in this budget which needs to be corrected.

Another thing that I think is extremely important, and all of us have some family history of illness whether it is Alzheimer's, whether it is kidney disease, or whether it is cancer or heart disease. And one of the things that our government has consistently done working with the private sector is research, basic research, which will hopefully find cures.

I know my mother passed away at a young age of 52. She was a very vibrant person and developed cancer, and after she went through some treatments over a period of time, we lost her. But it certainly gave me that commitment, and I know I fought along with many Members of the Congress, and the people who are listening tonight have their own family histories. And we know that collectively, we have to find ways of curing diseases.

Cuts in this budget to the grants for research, wrong direction. Really wrong direction. I feel extremely strong about this that we need to have the National Institute of Health grants to work with scientists or universities in our health institutions to find the therapies, to find the cures, to help make people's lives better. It's also a wonderful way of expanding our economic opportunity in exporting and licensing and creating technologies to help people around the world and selling those products around the world as well. So, again, something we need to fix in this budget.

I think the gentleman mentioned the COPS program, which is something that is very much on our streets, and that's, of course, the ability to have safety and public safety and security in our communities. I know in my local community, $8.5 million in our area would be cut from that funding. That's real dollars that affect real people in terms of putting police and security on our streets. It is one of the most important things our government can do to provide for the public safety.

These are the kinds of things that are misdirections. They can all be fixed. It is a question of all of us coming together, putting a budget together, hopefully persuading the President that these were mistakes and we need to come back and fix them.

And lastly, of course, I just want to touch on the fact of our economy, and the people back home are hurting right now. And we hear it every day, whether it is subprime, whether it is foreclosures, any number of things; and the Congress is working right now, and we will be passing, in the next number of days, an economic stimulus, which is designed to be short term. It's designed as a little bit of a prop up and a support of people. It will give them some cash and hopefully retire some of those responsibilities and pay for some of the necessities.

But long term, we have got to work together on energy issues. It's already been discussed. Paying $50, $60 for a tank of gas on someone who is earning $30,000 a year is a real issue. And at a time, as we already talked about, when energy companies are making incredible, historic amounts of money, we need to work together to substitute those resources for renewable energy programs, which I know the Congressman from New York has been all over and all of us feel very strongly about.

This is our moment. This is our time. This is our ``Sputnik'' moment. This is our putting-the-man-on-the-moon moment. This is the time for the American people to work together with the business, private sector, and government to create the markets and to do it. But we have to do it and start that process now.

So I think there are long-term and short-term issues on our economy. I look forward to working on infrastructure issues with everyone else, recognizing, as our Speaker said last week, in 1806 you had the Louisiana Purchase period of time, and that was a moment when President Jefferson said, This is the time we are going to start building our country: the Erie Canal and the canal systems, the road systems that got our country going in the industrial revolution.

A hundred years later, 1908, President Roosevelt coming forward and saying, This country is building and developing. Let's preserve some of our great areas, and we developed the National Parks System.

Now 100 years later, to her credit, Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying this is our time to now focus on rebuilding this country: our road systems, sewer systems, bridge systems, all of those kinds of things. It has everything to do with the economy. It has everything to do with the quality of life. Our commerce, people's quality of life, these are the things that we need to be working on together. Where there's a will, there's a way is my attitude, and I know we are going to do this all together.

I am an eternal optimist, like everyone in the Chamber, Democrats and Republicans.

I feel the American people are up to the challenge. We are up to sacrifice. And we're going to do this. And we will convince the administration along the way here that it's the right thing to do. And we're going to continue to rebuild our country and be successful. But let's put our nose down and work hard. And I look forward to working with all my colleagues to accomplish that.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mrs. Marguerite Cantini of Fort Lauderdale, FL, who will turn 100 years old on January 25, 2008.

Mrs. Cantini is the paradigm of her generation. Her parents immigrated to the United States, making her the first generation of her family to be born on U.S. soil. She was the second daughter to her parents, Edgar and Thea Barbe, who had recently arrived in New York. The family moved to California and then returned to the East Coast.

In 1936, she married Raphael S. Cantini, a surgeon from New Jersey, and together, they raised a family. She dedicated her life to the welfare and happiness of those around her. The American people can look to Mrs. Cantini as a model for family values.

Mrs. Cantini has always lived a graceful and creative life, and throughout her 100 years, she has excelled in flower arranging and drawing. She would create doll houses out of cardboard with her grandchildren and especially enjoyed making paper dolls and all their clothing for her granddaughters.

I join her family and friends in wishing Mrs. Marguerite Cantini a very happy birthday.

I would like to thank my good friend from Washington, who has been working on these issues and talking and moving toward getting the Congress to act on behalf of the American people on energy issues for 10 years-plus.

And as you and I have talked about this this year, I have learned a lot from you. I know that I personally have had 20 years of my own personal beliefs that Americans can accomplish anything. You've talked to me about the Manhattan Project. We all know about Sputnik. And these were callings of a generation ago to say when America wants to do something, we want to focus our scientists, our education, our entrepreneurs, all the elements that come together so that Americans can accomplish anything, we did it. And this is the moment in time in the national security side in making sure that we never have to make another foreign policy decision based on where the next drop of oil is coming from; the new economy side, and that's the job creation that you are talking about and many people are talking about, the entrepreneurs at home in our communities that are developing the GM Volt and the other car companies and all the entrepreneurs that are developing the alternative means of furnishing energy that are different from fossil fuels; and certainly the environmental side.

And being from Florida and your being from the other corner of our country, we have a great sensitivity to our environment. And I represent a coast of 75 miles at sea level; so we are particularly sensitive that we do everything we can to make sure that our environment is protected, that we don't do things to affect the global temperature, which may, in fact, change the level of the ocean and, of course, do a lot of other damage.

These are very exciting times. And, again, as a member of the freshman class and with Democrats and Republicans in our class, we have all come to that same conclusion that you have come to along with many others and the leadership of this Congress to say this is not a choice of drilling more off the coast of Florida or in Alaska. Those are false choices. When you hear the discussion that we have to drill or we can't become energy independent, that's ridiculous. What we really need to be doing is focusing, as this bill does, on alternative renewable energy sources.

And one of the things that I am very excited about also is the correcting of something that Congress did a year or so ago, and I know you were against this at the time, but it was passed by the leaders at that time in the Congress and the President signed it. The President correctly said a couple of years ago in his State of the Union we are addicted to oil.

So what did Congress do over your objections and others? They basically gave some $15 billion or some number like that to the oil companies to subsidize them for more oil drilling. Now, we all believe in a capitalist system. We believe in for-profit and companies prospering. And the oil companies right now are making more money than any company in the history of the United States. So I find it particularly offensive as a taxpayer like everybody in the country to have to add frosting on the cake and give Federal tax subsidies to those oil companies over and above that. That's not right.

And what this bill does, and I know you are going to talk about this, is it redirects that type of incentive, those tax incentives, to change consumer behavior, to incentivize our entrepreneurs and our scientists to come up with the kinds of products that will move us toward energy independence, because it is all about this next generation. And when I speak to kids in school, I know we charge them up and say this is your calling. This is something that we as adults and our children have to really work together to make sure that we do this together.

So I'm very happy to be here in support of what you are doing tonight. And I look forward, when you are done with that, talking about a specific kind of energy alternative that is very exciting that I have been watching in my community. But I appreciate your bringing this up tonight.

I would like to thank the gentleman for the recognition about solar. Being from Florida, we call ourselves the Sunshine State. It seems like one of the most appropriate places to be one of the founding areas of solar, and yet many other States, including the State of Washington, which has a fairly active solar program, have been developing this further. But I am very excited about this project that you have mentioned in Florida or anywhere in the United States. Of course, we all know about wind power. We have large utilities in the country. We have one in our area, Florida Power and Light, FPL, that is one of the largest wind generators in the country, in Texas and other places, California. There is no one solution here.

The good news is there is a competitive economy out there. There are competitive scientists that are coming up with different ideas. I am going to mention another very interesting one.

Part of what this bill does, as you correctly mentioned, is it provides grants and seed money and challenge grants to new industries and entrepreneurs that are developing new ideas. The Gulf Stream, we have all heard about the Gulf Stream, it is a current that runs along the eastern United States from the southern part all the way up to the eastern coast of the United States and Nova Scotia. It's a fast-moving current. Billions of gallons per minute pass off the coast of Florida, for example. We have a Centers of Excellence at Florida Atlantic University that has been developing, and there is a program out in Oregon that is doing something similar, where with turbines in the Gulf Stream itself, they can generate enough electricity, they believe, over time, to power one-third of the power needs of the whole State of Florida.

Now, we have 18 million people that live in the State of Florida. Think about that opportunity. And there are other places along the eastern seaboard of the United States that if this technology can be captured and the electricity can be generated, again, as you point out, no greenhouse gas emissions. This is totally 100 percent clean, renewable. They are working through all the environmental issues right now. They believe there will not be any as they continue to develop this.

It is still at midstage testing, but the opportunity is there.

And again, what's exciting now is we're capturing this excitement. The American people understand this is a necessity that we have to do these kinds of things. This is one particular program I'm interested in because I've already seen the potential that it may accomplish.

But along with solar, along with some of the other things that we're going to talk about, there are great opportunities for the United States to become energy independent in a relatively short period of time, no different than Brazil, no different than other countries around the world that have found their own natural resources that can be used, Iceland and other places, that can be used to generate the power needs for growth, for success, for a clean environment. And again, it's just very exciting.

I'm glad to be here to support this bill and encourage not only the Senate, but the President, too, when this bill gets to him, because I'm confident that Congress is going to pass a bill that's going to include most of these items that we're talking about today. When it does pass, we are going to really get the American people behind this. So, Mr. President, I hope that as we get this to you, that you join us in really taking this mission that we have to the American people and our next generation.

If I can just add something to the gentleman's thoughts about that.

Part of what we're doing here is creating market. That is the exciting part. Obviously entrepreneurs are going to invest and make the capital investments if they know that they can sell the product. As you said with the windmills, the turbines, a market has been created. It has now justified itself to the point where the price is actually going up because the demand is there, which is great. That's great news. And some of these technologies that are being developed are at different stages. But the whole notion of creating an obligation to have 15 percent of the electricity we generate, instead of from fossil fuels, coming from these renewable energy sources will, again, move in a way which are your public utilities will come together and find ways to enhance and encourage companies to come forward and provide these products.

We are behind the curve in Europe. Europe is way ahead of us on this. Most European countries already generate a much larger percentage of their energy from renewable energy sources. And they have recognized and they've taken it upon themselves to do this, by law, voluntarily, or otherwise.

The whole notion of the environmental impacts of global warming and things like that, these are not limited to anybody's border. They're not limited to the United States' borders. They're not limited to any State. They're not limited to China. It's a worldwide issue. But Europe, in fact, has shown some good leadership here. And I think that the United States, and I know that Americans, as I said before, are very innovative people who respect their environment, that we can all work together. And this notion in this bill of making the 15 percent obligation is good because it not only makes the statement, but it creates the market which will in turn create the jobs and the new economy that will sustain and build these types of products, which is very exciting.

And to further your point, the supply is indefinite. It's infinite. It's perpetual. It's forever. Oil is not. And it's not a question of whether there is going to be enough oil on the ground for the next generation; it's the question of the people that are supplying the oil are not reliable sources, they're not necessarily friends of the United States. We're at their whim. We've seen the statistic, when President Bush was sworn into office in 2000, oil was at $28 a barrel. It is now $90 to $100 a barrel, depending on what day is going on here. OPEC, we have no control over that. This is a cartel of people that are not acting in our best interests at best, and at worst, in some cases, some of these organizations, these countries are financing people who are out to harm the United States. So, we are totally off in the wrong direction in terms of oil, and that has obviously been a mainstay.

Now, oil will continue to be part of our source, and that's fine. But in terms of our future, as you correctly said, where do we want to put our efforts, our resources, our energy? It should be in these renewable resources because they are coming to the point where there is going to be a crossover, and the sooner we have total control over our energy destiny, the better off we're going to be from a national security point, from an economic growth point, and everything else.

I am going to add another form of ethanol out there that I think people around the world are familiar with in Brazil, which is a very large country, it is a fully industrialized country. They decided a generation ago to move towards energy independence for the same reasons we are having these discussions here today in this country. And they have oil. They have lots of other things, but they use sugar-based ethanol, a different type of ethanol based on a sugar product, and it is cellulosic based.

I have heard and some of the research that has been done, well, it is not as efficient, and there are food-chain issues and everything else. As far as I am concerned, and I know that many Members of Congress and most Americans believe, where there's a will there is a way. If there are any technological limitations to anything we have talked about tonight, they can be overcome. I think this entire conversation needs to be about how can we move forward in all these areas. If there is a limitation, let's figure out how to overcome that.

Again, sugar-based ethanol in Brazil, their ethanol that is a big part of their production. The cost is slightly different from here, but, again, let's figure it out. It could be a question of production; it could be a question of greater efficiency of production of sugar cane, where in Florida we have a very large production of sugar cane, and obviously most of it is used for production of food. In other parts of the country, sugar beet and other things are used to produce sugar.

But the point of all this, and I think the part that is so interesting, is that various types of alternative or renewable energy sources are already in production as you have in Washington in different stages. And we are allowing every one of these to compete. That is the greatest thing about our economy. It is a system where the great ideas, the great science will move forward and whatever is most efficient over time, it could be any combination of ways that we are going to achieve energy independence in this next generation, we will do it. So when I hear people, the naysayers, the people who say, oh, we can't do this, there is this problem, there is that problem, we can do it. We are going to do it. We will do it. It is going to require everybody to partner together, consumers to drive this, industry to drive it, education and scientists to drive it, government partnering with the private sector to drive it. It is going to happen.

Again, I am so proud to be part of a Congress that recognizes this and is moving this notion forward, and I'm proud the American people are finally coming together and saying, hey, this is something that is all about who we are, how we define ourselves, we being the great leaders in the world; and science and other things are going to use our scientists and our technology to achieve these great goals. It is exciting to see a plant like that with all the silos and all the great things going on there. They are already the largest in the world. That is pretty exciting.

I am going to give you a plug because not only did Al Gore obviously earn the Nobel Prize for what he did, but Mr. Inslee you have also taken upon yourself not only to work in this Congress, but you also have independently written about this subject and you have brought forward a publication called ``Apollo's Fire.'' I don't know if you talked about it in the very beginning. I am going to give you a little plug because I have had a chance to take a look at it. It is an inspirational book that talks about what we have talked about tonight and where the country is going.

I will read one quote which I thought was very self-descriptive, and this is a quote out of your book. It says: ``A new Apollo Project for energy is really a mission to rebuild our economy. Smart energy policy is, in fact, good economic policy. The two are inextricably intertwined. Done right, solving our crisis of climate change and oil dependence can create tremendous opportunity for America and the world, not only by avoiding the severe economic harm of climate disruption, but also by driving new investment into local and metropolitan economies, increasing social justice and reducing economic disparity by creating new career ladders and skilled domestic jobs across the economic spectrum.''

And I think in that quote you have captured a lot of what America is interested in: the environmental issues, the impact on our whole society and the job opportunities that go on. It doesn't touch the national security issues because I think people clearly already know it is a bad deal for us to depend on other countries. But the internal things that operate inside the United States, our economy, our daily lives, our jobs, the fact you are spending $60 for a tank of gas on something that is creating problems in the economy, in the environment, and instead we can go in a totally different direction. The book you have entitled ``Apollo's Fire'' I think lays it out very nicely. And I just wanted to mention that because I commend you and I recommend the Members of this body to take a look at that because I think it lays it out very clearly in a very simple fashion so that Americans can take that charge and move forward with it.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue forward and allowing us to discuss this in the Congress. I certainly am going to recommend to our colleagues here in the Congress, the House and the Senate, while we go home and have a chance to have some working days at home during the holidays, to speak to our business entrepreneurs in our local communities, speak to our universities, speak to the scientists, speak to consumers.

I think, number one, that people are excited about these ideas; but as you are suggesting, this is just the first step. Whatever law we pass ultimately you can pass all the laws you want and it is up to Americans to say, this is our priority. This is something we are going to embrace. And this is something we are going to follow through. The private sector ultimately is going to drive this. We encourage our businesses. We encourage our academics to work together and come up with new ideas, express those ideas to the extent that government can partner, if there are things we can do to eliminate regulation or change policy to make things easier to move it in a direction where businesses and homeowners can do things to create more environmentally friendly pieces of property improvements, things like that and industry. It is good for all of us.

So I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Members of Congress and moving our country forward on this very important topic.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern about the lack of progress that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made on the issue of hurricane tracking and prediction.

Yesterday, the House passed a resolution honoring the 200th anniversary of NOAA, celebrating NOAA's many accomplishments. I voted for this resolution because the work of the men and women of NOAA has been and continues to be critical to keeping my constituents and the rest of our country safe from the threats of the hurricane season.

However, I continue to be uncomfortable with the management of NOAA's decision to spend $4 million for a public relations campaign about its anniversary celebration. To spend $4 million dollars at a time when resources should be applied to assessing and supporting one of the most critical weather tools in hurricane tracking and prediction, the Quick Scatterometer (QuikSCAT) satellite, is completely unacceptable.

The detailed daily snapshots provided by QuikSCAT allow climatologists, meteorologists, and oceanographers to better understand global weather abnormalities and to improve weather forecasting. In one day, QuikSCAT collects data covering 90 percent of the Earth's surface. Without the data provided by QuikSCAT, hurricane forecasting would be 16 percent less accurate 72 hours before hurricane landfall and 10 percent less accurate 48 hours before landfall. This decrease in accuracy would lead to larger stretches of coastline under evacuation warnings and more local resources utilized.

That is why I helped author H.R. 2531, which authorizes $375 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the design and launch of an improved QuikSCAT satellite. The new, next- generation satellite would maintain weather forecasting and warning capabilities and improve data capabilities for future weather-related disasters. The bill also requires that NOAA provide annual reports on the status of the satellite to ensure that Congress has sufficient time for authorizing and funding a replacement when necessary.

As a Member of Congress with over 70 miles of coastline in my district, I feel it is my responsibility to ask NOAA how we got to this point where a valuable satellite is on its last legs, and why our taxpayers are footing the bill for a PR campaign when hurricanes remain a daily threat to Florida and the entire region. I join in the celebration of NOAA's accomplishments for the last 200 years, but I urge them to be responsible with resources so that they can be effective for the next 200 years and beyond.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Improve & Expand Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans Act of 2007. America's veterans have given their best for this country, for the freedoms that we cherish so much, and we must give them our best in return.

This legislation would expand the Small Business Administration's Office of Veterans Business Development in order to facilitate better business outreach to our Nation's veterans. The legislation requires that the SBA open two additional Veterans' Outreach offices in the coming year and expand opportunities for women veterans. It would also allow veterans to obtain reduced fee SBA loans.

Approximately 5 percent of the 80 million small businesses in this country are owned by veterans. Veteran-owned small businesses have a higher success rate than other small businesses, perhaps because of the strong work ethic and value system that the military imbues in its soldiers. I support this legislation because it will help veterans to enter and compete in today's business world, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today.

I rise today to honor Adrianne Karanusic, a registered nurse at Broward General Medical Center, for receiving the Florida Hospital Association's 2007 Hospital Hero of the Year Award.

A nurse of 18 years, Adrianne showed amazing compassion and dedication to a Croatian patient who spoke no English and fell critically ill from cancer while working on a cruise ship. Adrianne, who speaks Croatian, made herself available as an interpreter and would even call the patient's family in Croatia from her personal cell phone to keep them up to date.

But Adrianne's support and overwhelming compassion for her patient did not end there. Concerned with his mounting bills, she contacted Croatian churches in New York and California, ultimately raising over $10,000 for his medical expenses. She even took a week off to accompany them back so she could explain his clinical ailments.

Adrianne's incredible kindness and dedication is the epitome of a ``Hospital Hero,'' and I am proud to honor her today on the floor of the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor our Nation's veterans. This is a day to reflect and give thanks to those who have served the United States of America. Their dedication and courage to protect America's freedoms should never go unnoticed or unappreciated.

This week, I was proud to introduce the Military Service Tax Relief Act, which provides tax relief to members of the military and their families. This bill permanently extends a current provision that allows military members called to active duty to make withdrawals--penalty- free--from their retirement plans. It also continues to allow members of the military to include combat pay as earned income, thus allowing more military members to further capitalize on the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Furthermore, this year, I have been advocating for assured healthcare for veterans and I helped pass the largest budget increase in the 77- year history of the VA, which boosts funding for veterans' services by $6.7 billion over last year's level. This funding will help cover the VA's increasing patient load and improve health care facilities and treatment for service members and veterans.

This money is increasingly important to Florida, where we have 1.8 million veterans. And, last year, over 50 veterans moved to Florida every day, making it the fastest growing veterans' population in the country.

Florida also has over 100,000 returning soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In wartime, as our men and women come home, we need to realize that they have new needs, and we must find new solutions to help return them to productivity in the workforce and in our communities.

With the influx of many more disabled soldiers coming home, I supported legislation that includes $62 million to hire new claims processors to address the 400,000 claim backlog and $20 million to help speed up administering initial disability exams.

On this Veterans Day, and on every day, I honor America's veterans and soldiers and continuously express my sincere gratitude for their sacrifices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 435, a resolution that I authored with my friend, Mr. Mack.

This resolution expresses the concern of the House of Representatives about the growing national security implications of Iran's relationships with countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has visited Latin America three times in the past year, and has signed agreements with several countries in the region worth billions of dollars. This is a strategic move on his part to build capabilities in our neighborhood.

On one side of the word, Iran continues to make progress on its nuclear program. And, on this side of the world, Iran has tried to sway leaders into supporting this dangerous agenda. And so far, his strategy is gaining momentum, which is extremely alarming.

Iranian involvement in Latin America is particularly concerning, especially considering Iran's history in places like Argentina. This week, Interpol, the world's law enforcement agency, will consider whether to uphold the arrest warrants for five Iranians and one Lebanese who planned and executed the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center. Argentines are still waiting for justice to be served against those responsible, and Hizbollah and Iran are the lead suspects.

I also remain concerned about Hizbollah in our hemisphere as it relates to fundraising in the tri-border area, and other places. In fact, just last month, Admiral Jim Stavreedees, head of the U.S. Southern Command wrote, ``We consider Latin America and the Caribbean as being highly likely bases for future terrorist threats to the U.S. and others.''

The region has seen some progress, with new anti-terrorism legislation and increased counter-terrorism efforts. But, we all have a long way to go. Eliminating the threat of terrorism and its state sponsors is not just in the best interest of the United States. The countries in our hemisphere will be safer. The United States and Central and Latin America have an aligned interest.

I hope that this resolution is seen as a signal that the United States is willing to help our friends in Central and Latin America make their countries safer and free from terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3355 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3355, the Homeowners' Defense Act. This bill responds to the growing crisis in the availability and affordability of homeowners insurance and further works to protect the financial solvency of States. This bipartisan legislation represents many months of deliberation and thoughtful input from members of both parties and across each region of the United States. We recognize that disasters will continue to occur across the country and are moving proactively to ensure that a plan is in place before the next one strikes.

Every region of the United States is susceptible to some form of natural disaster, be it earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes, or wildfires, and we are here to provide relief.

It is important to understand that insurance availability and affordability problems have become a national issue. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners across the country have already had their insurance coverage dropped or are currently slated for nonrenewal by their insurance company. Those who remain insured are confronted with crippling premiums, which in some cases is forcing homeowners to make tough decisions about whether to go with or without property insurance, if they have that choice.

Insurance problems are not isolated to Florida, Mississippi, or Louisiana. Last year property insurers indicated that they plan to stop offering new coverage in Maryland and Virginia's

coastal markets, and property insurers have also stopped writing new policies for residents in Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut, no matter where in the State the property is located.

Furthermore, tens of thousands of homeowners in Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, and Texas have also been dropped as well. And adding to that, even with California's known record of seismic activity, over 84 percent of California homeowners currently do not have earthquake policies. It is simply unacceptable for property owners not to be able to get reliable coverage in these markets, and it is precisely this reason that legislation is necessary.

The Homeowners' Defense Act aims to take a twofold approach by establishing a program to help States responsibly manage their risk before disaster strikes while also providing financial assistance to ensure that they can quickly and efficiently respond to homeowners insurance claims following a natural disaster.

Specifically, this bill provides a venue for State-sponsored insurance funds to voluntarily bundle their catastrophic risk with one another and then transfer that risk to the private markets through the use of catastrophic bonds and reinsurance contracts. The legislation also allows for the Federal Government to extend loans to cash-strapped States after a large-scale natural disaster so that they can meet their obligations to homeowners.

By utilizing new strategies and an innovative capital market approach, the bill allows investors to assume some of the risk currently held by the States in return for an interest payment. The voluntary nature of the program, coupled with the use of the capital markets, ensures that homeowners in less disaster-prone States will not be on the hook if a disaster strikes a neighboring State.

I want to emphasize that the opt-in nature of this plan creates no burden or obligation whatsoever on States that do not choose to participate. This is essential.

The total economic impact accompanying natural disasters resonates throughout our entire Nation. The total economic damages from the 2005 hurricanes will likely exceed $200 billion, with the Federal Government taking responsibility for paying out in excess of $109 billion for disaster relief.

Although we all agree that it is necessary, this Federal spending is drawn equally from taxpayers across the country, not simply from those in affected regions.

Through this legislation, we are looking to take a proactive approach where States responsibly plan in advance of a disaster, rather than a reactive approach, where the Federal Government and every taxpayer opens up the Treasury after a catastrophe. It is important to emphasize, however, that the status quo is no longer an option. We must work together to establish a system to make sure that property insurance is both available and affordable for hardworking families and those most in need.

I urge Members to vote in favor of this much-needed legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time we have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the gentlewoman from West Virginia, I yield such time as he may consume to my cosponsor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to acknowledge Chairman Barney Frank, who, without his guidance and leadership and thoughtfulness and process of good ideas, we wouldn't be here today, as well as Tom Glassic, Kathleen Mellody, Lawranne Stewart, Peter Roberson, Patrick Givens from Congressman Mahoney's office, and Garrett Donovan from my office, and all the staff and experts from around the country who have participated in this very carefully thought out piece of innovative legislation.

We are very honored to be here today, because the bill that we have before us is a comprehensive step in the right direction. As a Member of Congress from south Florida, I have lived under the threat of natural disasters for some time. It was only when I came to Washington, however, that I began to discuss this issue with Members from other parts of country who also shared stories about disasters that their constituents faced, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes. It was then that I began to realize that this is not a regional problem; it is a national one.

I further reflected on the fact that the Federal response following a major disaster is very predictable. We open up the Treasury and start spending. This spending is entirely necessary, but often is delivered with only few restraints and comes equally from taxpayers in every corner of our country. So even if you are not in a high-risk region, you are still impacted by the event.

Under this bill, participating States would be better protected, again, States that only opt in on their own if they choose; and they would be increasingly able to provide services for those who are not able to find insurance on their own. The State-Federal partnership would present States with the tools necessary to responsibly, fiscally responsibly, manage their risk before disaster strikes, while also ensuring that States can quickly and efficiently respond to homeowners' insurance claims following a natural catastrophe.

This legislation employs several new ideas to help States address the property insurance crisis, such as the transfer of States' insurance risk through the use of catastrophe bonds. By utilizing an innovative capital market approach, the bill allows investors to assume some of the risk, while at the same time putting the burden on local homeowners to do all the necessary mitigation responsibility they have to reduce risk to their own home, to the State, and to the Federal Government.

This is a fundamental rethinking of disaster planning and response, and it is long overdue. Our bill works because it's voluntary, actuarially sound, and stabilizes the market by ensuring that homeowners will always get their claim paid while capping the State liability.

In addition, our bill is fiscally responsible. The Homeowners' Defense Act will end the policy of Federal bailouts following natural disasters.

The steps taken in this bill provide us with a blueprint of how States can responsibly plan for catastrophes ahead while also providing them with a path to recovery.

As I have said time and time again, the status quo is no longer an option. I urge Members of this body to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is testament to the fact that this legislation is truly a work of bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans came together as this legislation began to work its way through the process. A number of interested Members reached out to us with well-thought suggestions on how to improve the underlying bill. I am pleased to say we were able to incorporate many suggestions into this amendment, including the adoption of a provision that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) has been developing over the last couple of years.

This amendment would establish a high-level natural catastrophe reinsurance fund which would be authorized to write reinsurance contracts to cover catastrophic natural disasters. The addition of such a fund would add a third layer of protection to the legislation, which could further help to increase availability and stabilize rates for homeowners. The fund would provide reinsurance contracts for coverage that is available after the qualified reinsurance program has sustained losses resulting from a 1-in-200-year event.

Coverage would be provided on an actuarially sound basis and would not displace or compete with the private market. This provision will go a long way with providing high-level protection for States coping with natural disasters.

The amendment also provides for a study and conditional authorization for the inclusion of commercial residential lines of coverage. It is important for us to make sure that renters are not left behind following a disaster, and this

provision takes us in the right step of determining how capacity restrictions impact housing affordability for renters. I know this was a concern brought up, and I am glad to include it in this amendment.

I am also pleased that we were able to include a provision suggested by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) which ensures that qualified reinsurance programs will engage in responsible reserving. This provision would use an NAIC-developed formula to ensure that participating States will be operating in a sound fashion.

We also wanted to make sure that States would not become overly reliant on programs established under the legislation, and this addition will add a safeguard against that concern.

Again, I would like to thank those Members who have come forward with suggestions on how to improve the bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I do appreciate the fact in our committee, the Committee on Financial Services, you had a number of interesting inquiries, some of which were incorporated and some are still a work in progress.

I will be more than happy to sit down, as this bill goes through the process. Obviously the Senate is going to begin to consider this bill. There will be opportunity through the conference, and I think there should be an opportunity to take a closer look at this issue.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois. And just to respond to a couple of points there, the building up of reserves and the passing of savings to consumers are not necessarily inconsistent points. One of the goals of this bill is not to make more money for insurance companies, many of them are doing just fine, it is to try to create stability in the market at an actuarially sound rate. I take your points, and they are well taken in terms of making sure we learn from mistakes. I commit to the fact that we will continue to work through this and make sure that it is based on sound actuarial principles by which definition usually sound actuarial estimations do take into account future anticipated events. I commit to that point.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois. The notion of the terms of repayment are to be negotiated with the Treasury. Each State may have a slightly different scenario in terms of terms and conditions.

What I would expect to be negotiated would be, just like any other private sector contract with a set of covenants and defaults in terms of understanding what the expectations are. So I would expect the Treasury, and if we need to get that clarified in the future, I would be happy to, but I expect the terms to be very clear regarding notification and things like that.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

I think the thinking is this is an authorization. It is not an appropriation.

The general notion is in the early stage of this thing, it is a relatively small amount of dollars. It creates authorization if necessary.

If you have a number of States that do participate, which we anticipate, I think the language of the bill talks about the fact that they will pay for that. The notion is there is an authorization. And to get more States involved to pay for it, there is this limited amount of Federal responsibility. I think the thinking is that the States will take responsibility.

I am a true believer, if you give somebody 5 years to do it, it will take 5 years. At the same time I realize from the experience we have had in Florida and many other States that have tried to move forward with building codes and other things, it does take some time. But I am all for encouraging as strong as possible to move as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my friend, and all of us are freshmen here, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Roskam, we're all new to this process, but with all due respect to his approach here, the problem with the amendment is that this takes the Federal Government and puts its stamp of approval on local building codes.

And from my perspective, I don't think we want the U.S. Treasury or FEMA or anybody else to be responsible for making decisions on local building codes. These are very localized functions, certainly will encourage mitigation, and we've got some standards in place and our colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) in a few minutes I understand is going to be offering a very good amendment which deals with some Federal standards that are outside the Federal Government's role, but some trade industry standards on building code which relate to mitigation and reducing the hazard and reducing the potential exposure.

So while I do appreciate the fact that Illinois may have different issues than Iowa, that has different issues than California, there's different issues in Florida, we certainly, in my view, don't want to federalize, if you will, the building code process. And it's something that I believe that we should allow local governments, within the confines of standards that are adopted by the industry, to reduce exposure to natural disasters. I think that's a better way to do it.

So I would suggest that this amendment be opposed and that the Members of the House vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for coming up to a response to what I think the gentleman from Illinois was raising; that is, we want to encourage mitigation. We want to encourage reduction of the scope of the hazard.

I think all of us understand that the more you can do to protect your home in terms of the roof, if it's an earthquake zone, the foundation, lots of different kinds of risks out there, but the more we can do to solidify that, the less deductible you are going to pay as a homeowner, which is good for you as a homeowner, the less risk you are creating for the insurance underwriter, the less payout, the less the State is going to have to take responsibility if there is a State risk catastrophe fund. With a Federal system to back it up, beyond that, in terms of the State catastrophe bonds, it reduces that as well.

The whole purpose of this is to reduce that. What the gentleman from Connecticut has come up with in a broad-based way is to bring in the international code, council building codes, which is an organized effort, well thought out, well designed. Instead of having the secretary of the Treasury, which I am not quite sure who or what qualifications he or she would have to make an independent judgment of whether a building code makes sense or not, let's put professionals, the experts, the people who understand building codes, let's put them in the middle of this thing and say this is the standard by which we will judge whether a State is doing what it is supposed to do to reduce that risk.

I think that's a very sound, logical way of solving the problem, encouraging the mitigation, reducing the hazard. I think it's something that deserves to be supported.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut. Hopefully the gentlewoman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Illinois will join us in what I think is something that addresses their concern, and probably we can all come together and say this is a solid way of doing it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, let's get down to the bottom of what we are trying to accomplish here. There is a problem in the United States, in certain parts of the United States, where the insurance market, unfortunately, cannot deal with a very large disaster.

Now, some of our colleagues may not have been exposed to this problem because in their markets they haven't had any large-scale natural disasters, but the more time that passes, the more communities are affected by large-scale natural disasters.

The impact of a very large-scale natural disaster is that the insurance industry in these areas retrenches, pulls back, cancels policies or they call them nonrenewal.

I have to tell you, one of the most frustrating things after living through some hurricanes in Florida was members of my communities calling me up, as a State Senator, saying, I paid my premium for 15 years straight, and now I am afraid to make a claim because I have had some damage, never made a claim before, but I am afraid to make a claim because the insurance company is going to cancel me.

Something is wrong with the market, free market, as we like to think of it, if that is happening. People want to know the bargain is if I have paid my premium my insurance company is going be there and there is some stability behind it.

What we have tried to do is recognize that in some cases, not many, but in some cases, and the very high scale of large-scale natural disasters, there is some reaction that has to be provided. What we have done, instead of putting the government in the middle of it, which is exactly where it is right night now, no matter how you slice it, every time there is a large-scale natural disaster that the insurance company can't

deal with, the States can't deal with, then the Federal Government comes rushing in, from Washington, with a big check.

What we have been trying to do is something proactive, up front. We have come up with some plans from experts in the insurance industry and the consumer side and everything else to balance this out.

What this amendment does is it arbitrarily limits the ability of programs to meet the reinsurance needs of the respective States not provided for by the private sector. The limit shows, and it is a 100- year event. Why 100? Why 1 in 100? Why not 1 in 50? Why not 1 in 250? As you can imagine, a 1-in-250-year event really changes the dynamics of the equation of what will have to be paid in reserves and make sure that the money is there.

They have chosen 100 years. That is consistent with the way we have very carefully, with a lot of input, chosen to work on this formula. We have chosen events where the losses have exceeded 150 percent of the aggregate amount of direct premium over the prior year.

That is a direct reflection of what's going on in that local market, how much premium's been paid. It's a 1.5 factor over and above that. It's very well thought out. It may not be perfect. It may be over time there's a better way to do it, but this is a very consistent approach we've taken throughout the bill.

If you adopt this amendment, we are now creating two inconsistent measures which I don't think will ever work together. So I would suggest that this amendment not be adopted.

I believe that we have come up with something that is logical, it's common sense, it reacts to the fact that there is a need here.

And again, for those folks who live in parts of the country that don't have natural disasters up to this point, let's all continue to pray and hope that we don't have many natural disasters.

But we're a country that's in this together. Certainly our insurance is something that we want to make sure everyone has the ability to have private homeowners insurance. But more importantly, every taxpayer is part of a bail out. We're trying to avoid that for the future.

So I would suggest the amendment should not be supported.

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois' proposition that if you are in default, you probably shouldn't be able to get anything further because maybe you haven't acted responsibly. But there are two faults that make this amendment unnecessary.

Number one, if a State is a recipient of a loan and it has defaulted or hasn't made the terms of payback, that has nothing to do with a State risk catastrophe fund, which is independent of the State. Most State risk catastrophe funds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the State. They're separate, independent organizations. So one has really nothing to do with the other. The fact that the State of Illinois may not have paid back something that it had received from the Federal Government should have nothing to do with an Illinois risk catastrophe fund if it has been doing whatever it's supposed to do. So I think that's number one.

Number two, the notion of the one disaster and then the Illinois risk catastrophe fund defaulting or not paying back, we have already taken care of that problem in terms of a future disaster that hits Chicago. And that is the Treasury who would be responsible for authorizing the second loan would not grant that. It is already provided in the content of our bill.

So I do support the proposition that if you are in default, you probably shouldn't be a continued further drag. And I think that we have taken care of that in the bill, and I think it's not necessary to pass this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the amendment because what it does is it creates an unnecessary regulatory burden. You already have in place the Treasury. Our Treasury Department in Washington would look at it. There's a default. Under the current language of the bill. Take a look at the language of the bill. It specifically says they would not be entitled to another loan, so we've already taken care of that problem.

As it relates to the State itself being in default, the State is independent of a State risk catastrophe fund. So the fact that the State of Illinois doesn't repay something to the Federal Government doesn't necessarily or should not necessarily put a burden on an independent organization that has a State risk catastrophe fund that does not operate under the full faith and credit of the State of Illinois.

So, again, I support the notion that a deadbeat should not receive more. But, again, we are dealing with States and organizations where we've already taken care of the problem or that we are looking to solve a problem that really isn't there.

So I would suggest that this amendment should be opposed. It's unnecessary and duplicative, and I think we've already addressed the problem very clearly in the legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I'm looking back at the amendment. And the point I was trying to make, which I think is pretty clear here, is that it says ``under any loan previously made under this Act or any loan provided by any agency or establishment of the Federal Government to the program,'' that's the risk catastrophe fund, ``or the State for assistance in connection with a natural or other major disaster.''

First of all, a question for you is the money that goes to a State, are you talking about FEMA money?

You're saying ``the State for assistance in connection with a natural or other major disaster.'' To the State. You're saying if there's a default in money that went to the State.

Then what are you referring to? What is the default you're speaking of, then?

There is no money that under this program goes to the State. It goes to the participants of the risk catastrophe funds. Those are independent.

The way this is designed is that the loans are structured between the risk catastrophe fund and the Treasury under terms and conditions that are acceptable to the

Treasury. Now, if there is a default under those terms and conditions, it's already clear in our bill that the Treasury will not lend under any future natural disaster, if that's what you are concerned about, and I think it says here. It's already part of the bill, and I think that answers the question.

The good news is that we are in agreement that we certainly want to make sure this is fiscally sound and responsible. I think we all agree on that.

The only thing I'm suggesting, as we pull up this language, is that it's already in the bill. The intention is that the Treasury have this authority. If it isn't clear, we would be glad to fix it. But I think it is crystal clear and we'll just pull it up.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The Full Taxpayer Repayment section of the bill, page 20, line 6: ``The Secretary shall require the full repayment of all loans made under this title. If the Secretary determines at any time that such full repayment will not be made, or is likely not to be made, the Secretary shall promptly submit a report to the Congress explaining why such full repayment will not be made or is likely not to be made.''

Line 6, section c.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman from Utah for an excellent amendment which really adds some good value to the bill. And basically what it does is it creates a metric by which States can determine whether joining the consortium in the future would provide a benefit. It's information. The more information the States have, the better, the more consumers will benefit. I think that's the kind of ongoing accountability, both to the taxpayers and to the States themselves, in terms of whether this is something that a particular State should join.

So I appreciate the suggestion. We didn't think of it. It's another good example of us all coming together and trying to put something together that makes some sense. So I would like to support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman.

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