Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though we're not opposed to the amendment. The Acting CHAIRWOMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. We have no opposition to the gentleman's amendment. We appreciate his effort to add to the positive things which we need to do to move towards solving this energy crisis we find ourselves in.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I won't take that time. I just want to commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. We have no opposition. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, although I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would just comment that we appreciate the chairwoman's willingness to work with the gentleman in accepting his amendment. We would be happy to be part of that conversation. We appreciate your cooperation.

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

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. We have no objection to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves). This is a good amendment that I feel strikes the appropriate balance on the issue of venture capital companies' funding of SBIR participants. One of the guiding principles that we focused on as we worked on the legislation was the premise that we ought to be funding the best science. By allowing the amounts of venture capital investment in SBIR applicants that are prescribed by this amendment, we are not only ensuring that we are funding the best science, but also maintaining the program's goal of helping small businesses. The gentleman from Missouri has been a leader on this issue for years, and I applaud his efforts on our committee and throughout the House to find a solution for this issue. And it is a balance here. You can make arguments on both sides, but I think what he has tried to do is to do something that is fair to small businesses and also have the best science. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. We have no objection to the gentleman's amendment and would commend him for offering it.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Obviously we are still waiting for Mr. Young to speak. If he gets here, he gets here; if he doesn't, he doesn't. I would like to, first of all, again commend the gentlewoman from New York for her cooperation and once again putting together a bipartisan effort here. And we both agree that both of these programs should be continued and have great value; so I would encourage my colleagues to support it. Without Mr. Young's being here and not having spoken to him ahead of time and knowing exactly what he wanted to talk about, I would guess what he wanted to talk about had to do with the fact that energy is a huge problem in this country and some of it is because we have handcuffed ourselves and we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy from the Middle East, from some of the most unstable parts of the world, from Nigeria, from Venezuela. And for that reason, we're seeing gas prices at all-time highs, approximately $3.50 per gallon, and it's hurting an awful lot of our constituents, my constituents in Cincinnati and other members of the driving public all over this country. And one of the principal reasons is we are too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We also haven't built an oil refinery.

Mr. CHABOT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, we have been told we have Don Young, who is on his way here; so we're not prepared to close. But if time runs out, then it runs out.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for interposing his points of view. But as I was saying, Madam Chairman, I think one of the principal reasons we are seeing these high energy prices is because we are far too reliant upon foreign sources of energy. We have put off-limits an area which is in Mr. Young's State, in Alaska, ANWR. It's an area that not many people go to, although the photographs that you see of it make it look like it's nothing but flowers and animals and that it's a very lovely area, and I'm sure it is lovely in certain parts of the year. But the bottom line is by putting that 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil off-limits, we have to buy more oil from other countries, and that's one of the things that drives up the cost. Another part of considerable oil reserves that we have put off-limits is in the Outer Continental Shelf. Now compared to 16 to 18 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, we have, we think, 83 to 86 billion barrels of oil and huge amounts of natural gas. And as long as we put those areas off-limits, it means we have to buy oil from somewhere else. It puts OPEC in a position where they can turn the spigot down somewhat or not increase it to take care of not only our needs but the needs of a growing environment in India and in China and those areas; so the price goes up as a result of that. The other problem is we haven't built an oil refinery in this country since 1976. We make it virtually impossible for that to happen. We had over 300 oil refineries 30 years ago. We're down to 148, so fewer than half the number of oil refineries. That's another big problem. And I think those are the types of problems that Mr. Young would have in all likelihood spoken about. Madam Chairman, I see that Mr. Young has entered, so I will at this point yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. We have no objections.

Mr. CHABOT. We would commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, we will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, we have no opposition.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), who before joining us here in Congress was a very distinguished judge who was recognized for his leadership in working to promote the interests of victims of crime.

Mr. CHABOT. We have no additional speakers, and we would be happy to yield back our time.

Mr. CHABOT

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

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1095, a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act. On April 4, 2008, just 11 days ago, this Nation joined together to pay tribute to the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and recognize his contributions to this Nation. Thus, it's only fitting that we recognize one aspect of Dr. King's legacy, passage of the Fair Housing Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on April 11, 1968, just one week after Dr. King's tragic assassination. The act, which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, and later handicap and family status, was another tool to give meaning to the rights and protections afforded to all citizens by the Constitution. Passage of the Fair Housing Act was a fitting memorial to Dr. King, as his name was closely associated with fair housing legislation since the 1966 ``open housing'' marches in Chicago. At the same time, Senator Edward Brooke, the first African American ever to be elected to the Senate by popular vote, helped facilitate this Act's passage by describing his difficulties finding housing for his new family following his service in World War II. The first official appointed to administer the act was former Governor George Romney. Secretary Romney assumed his position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development after serving as Governor of Michigan, where he successfully campaigned for the ratification of a State constitutional amendment that prohibited discrimination in housing. Since its enactment, the Fair Housing Act has prevented both countless instances of specific discrimination as well as broader patterns or practices of discrimination in housing programs. In addition, the act serves to punish those who attempt to disguise their discriminatory motives by giving false information to potential homebuyers, or by manipulating zoning codes. It prohibits sexual harassment in housing, and enables the disabled to more easily assimilate into our communities. Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't also commend and recognize the chairman of the Judiciary, Mr. Conyers, both for his remarks, and also working with myself in a bipartisan manner on the issue that he raised about those that find themselves at risk of having their homes foreclosed upon. And I agree with him that we ought to give the bankruptcy judges additional powers to modify those particular agreements so that they can have a better chance of retaining their homes. That certainly would move forward those that find themselves at risk of losing their own homes. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for working with us in a bipartisan manner on that issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution today, and in celebrating the 40th anniversary of passage of the Fair Housing Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, House Democrats' fiscally irresponsible budget will impose on American workers and businesses a $683 billion tax hike, the largest in U.S. history. With our economy slowing and many families losing their homes, the last thing Congress needs to do is to take more money from these hardworking Americans. Tax relief, not a tax increase, is the best stimulant to our economy. Socking 116 million Americans with an average tax hike of over $1,800 is an irresponsible fiscal strategy. Working families would be hit especially hard by the Democrats' irresponsibility. A family of four with two children that currently earns $50,000 annually would have to pay an additional $2,155 in taxes under the Democrats' plan. That would amount to a 191 percent increase in their tax bill. The last thing our economy needs right now is the largest tax increase in history. House Republicans are dedicated to protecting working families, investors, and small businesses from the irresponsible tax hike that is being foisted upon us.