Steve Driehaus

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for all of his support in this legislation, and also my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Lee from New York, for his tremendous support. This is simply a good government bill, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 3330 is about protecting the financial institutions but providing efficiency, efficiency when it comes to the Inspectors General. What we're dealing with today is material loss reviews, and right now we have a problem in the United States in that our Inspectors General, who are charged with conducting material loss reviews, can't keep up with the number of financial institutions who are experiencing these losses. So we have been requested by the FDIC to look at the threshold. And what this bill does is it increases the threshold in the case of our financial institutions from $25 million in losses to $200 million in losses. And in the case of our credit unions, from $10 million in losses to $25 million in losses. And if I might, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read briefly from a letter dated July 17, 2009, from Jon Rymer, the Inspector General of the FDIC. And in this letter, Mr. Rymer says, As of today, my office has conducted and completed nine material loss reviews under section 38(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. We now have an additional 31 reviews in the planning or production phase. Based on publicly available projections alone, we believe the numbers of reviews that will be required under the law as it presently exists will continue to grow significantly in the foreseeable future. We require that the Inspectors General complete these reviews within 6 months. And right now, given the threshold, they simply don't have the ability to do that. So this is a good government measure, a good government measure that without increasing spending, without increasing taxes, we make government more efficient. And it's simply increasing the threshold to allow the Inspectors General to do their jobs while at the same time allowing them to look at the smaller financial institutions if such reviews are warranted.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Yes, that is correct. The purpose of H.R. 3330 is to increase and improve oversight conducted by the Inspectors General. Congress and our constituents will continue to learn important information from these material loss review reports, posted online within 3 days, so we can better understand why financial institutions failed. My bill will not change that at all.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good, commonsense bill. This is about helping our Inspectors General do their job and do it well. We have heard from both sides of the aisle how important the work they are doing is to the health and safety of our financial institutions and to our financial system. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this good-government piece of legislation. I thank them for their support.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, if you want to see where the stimulus package is saving and creating jobs, come to Cincinnati. Yesterday, the Department of Justice announced $17 million in grants for local law enforcement in my district. These grants will help local governments that are struggling to maintain services. But more than that, this funding is going to keep 66 full-time officers on the streets protecting the people of greater Cincinnati. Some of my friends in this Chamber have said that the stimulus isn't working. Ask the 66 officers who will still have their jobs whether or not the stimulus is working. Ask their families. Ask people in the neighborhoods they are protecting. Public safety matters, and the stimulus is working to keep our communities safe.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Speaker, today we celebrate the life of Dr. Raphael Katzen as well as his 60-year career and vast accomplishments in the biofuel industry. Called the ``biofuel world champion'' by a dear friend, Raphael Katzen was a pioneer in the ethanol industry. Dr. Katzen saw ethanol grow from a World War II emergency measure to a five billion-gallon industry. Beside establishing Raphael Katzen Associates International, Inc., a company well known and respected for its focus on innovation and next-generation technology, Dr. Katzen was named a fellow of both the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and the American Institute of Chemists. Among his many accolades, Dr. Katzen received the prestigious Professional Practice Award of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, an award that earned him recognition by the Ohio House of Representatives. He also received the C.D. Scott Award of the Symposium on Biotechnology and Bioengineering. In 1996 Dr. Katzen was honored for his lifetime of achievements in bioengineering by election to the National Academy of Engineering. While all of Dr. Katzen's accomplishments are impressive, perhaps most memorable will be his timeless drive and innovation that kept him on the cutting edge of technology development. Even in his 90s, he could still be found asking tough questions and pushing the envelope at industry conferences. On behalf of the Congress of the United States and the citizens of Ohio's First Congressional District, it is an honor to recognize the life and career of this remarkable man.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you very much, Congressman Boccieri, and I would agree that this is about action versus inaction. From 1994 until 2006, the Republican Party ruled the Congress. They ruled the House of Representatives, and they were at the root of the inaction. This energy crisis didn't sneak up on us. This health care crisis didn't sneak up on us. The housing bubble and the financial crisis didn't sneak up on us. We could have done something. We could have done something about our reliance on foreign energy. We could have done something about health care. We could have done something about the financial institutions. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rather than act, they chose not to act. So I agree wholeheartedly that we will be judged on what we are willing to do for this country. I have a couple of observations about the bill that we passed, and I have never seen so much information--misinformation, on a bill in my life as I saw on this one. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who are chatting--were spreading rumors. They were spreading rumors about costs of $4,000 a year in tax increases on the energy bill. Now, I don't know about you, but I talked to my energy friends back home. I talked to my friends at Duke Power, and they suggested that the potential increases, if there are increases--and I would argue that those increases are going to be offset by savings and they're going to be offset by job creation--but they were spreading misinformation about the cost of this bill; yet it went on and on and on and on. And then they talked about the fact that no one had read the bill as they searched the Chamber for an amendment that sat right in front of them. Their leader came to the floor with the very amendment and went through page by page that he had earmarked, clearly having had time to read the bill. The fact of the matter is we have been discussing our reliance upon foreign oil. We have been discussing energy for years.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. No.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I'm talking about the misinformation.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. No, I won't yield. I have heard misinformation after misinformation come to this floor, and the American people deserve the truth. They deserve the truth. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, point of clarification. I am challenging the facts.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I will further clarify it for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I believe there was gross exaggeration engaged in on the debate with regard to energy. And the attempt wasn't to solve a problem. The attempt was to scare the American people. They scared the American people rather than addressing the problem, rather than taking on the problem. The attempt was to scare the American people, to scare the American people and suggest to them that this was some type of massive tax increase when, in fact, this is about the energy security of the United States of America. That's what this bill is about. And that's what we had the courage to do. It is about the job creation for our State of Ohio. It is about job creation and clean energy and new energy jobs across the United States, and it is about ensuring the energy security for our children and future generations. And that's the courage that it took to pass this bill rather than letting it go, letting it go, taking the ostrich approach of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak, Mr. Boccieri.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DRIEHAUS. This goes back to the question of action versus inaction, and the question is, If you don't embark down this road, if you don't address the energy crisis, if you don't work toward a system of cap-and-trade, what's the alternative? And the alternative is simply this: The EPA comes out with rules cracking down on utilities and emitters of carbon, which would in fact be a massive tax, a massive government mandate on utilities and manufacturers, killing jobs, raising rates for businesses, raising rates for residential consumers. Instead, the choice we made, the choice for action was about using a free-market approach to incentivize job creation, to incentivize creativity, just like we did with telecommunications. We now have the opportunity to do the same with energy. We believe in the American economy. We believe in the innovation that can be released through the use of a free-market system like cap-and-trade. That's why we went down this road, and that's why we chose to act

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I appreciate that, Congressman. I think it begs the question: Do we want the future of this country dependent upon the innovation of the American worker; do we want the future dependent upon green energy and new technologies that will be driven by the American people; or do we want to rely upon and depend upon the sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, as we do today and as we have in the past? Our dependency is growing, not declining. This bill provides us an opportunity for a future, a destiny controlled by Americans, controlled by the American worker, and unleashing the innovation of the American worker. I was dismayed during this debate when I heard critics suggest that maybe we shouldn't go first. Maybe shouldn't lead. That we should wait for others--maybe developing countries, maybe others in Asia to lead before we move forward. I don't know when we became a Nation of followers. I am not of that belief. I believe the United States of America has led time and time again for this vote on issues of freedom, on issues of democracy, on issues of economic innovation. And we should be the leaders on new technology when it comes to energy. We need to lead and we should set an example for the globe. I am not one to follow the examples of countries on the other side of the world suggesting to us what we should be doing on our energy policy. We should be leaders. And we need to restore our place as leaders when it comes to energy.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Just to back up the gentleman's point, China is moving down that road. They're not waiting. The week after the vote, Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, went to China. And he went to China to check out the carbon sequestration that they're currently employing on new Chinese coal-burning power plants. Because the Chinese aren't waiting. The Chinese are moving ahead with new technology. So we have a choice. We have an opportunity. Do we want to continue with business as usual and just sit still as China moves forward, or do we want to be at the cutting edge, do we want to be leading when it comes to new energy technology? This is an opportunity. We need to seize that opportunity. And this legislation allows the free market to do that. So that's what this is about. This is about creating jobs and creating an economic future for the United States.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I will just go back to the analogy of telecommunications. If you remember, it wasn't more than a decade or two ago when you were paying exorbitant rates on your long distance bills; there were a very limited number of channels on TV. And then through the Telecommunications Act, we made sure that we allowed for innovation and competition. We allowed for the cable companies and the telephone companies to use those same broadband lines. We required that to happen. And now today broadband is across the country. We have the potential today to unleash that same type of innovation that was unthought of 20 years ago in telecommunications; but we all know it today, as people send IMs, as people e-mail each other--that wasn't thought about 20 years ago--the hundreds of TV stations that you get on cable TV. I don't think we can begin to imagine the innovation that we are going to see over the next several decades in the field of energy because of the steps of this House, because of the steps of this Congress, the courage to move us from the status quo toward energy security for the future and unleashing the innovative nature of the American people.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I appreciate the opportunity, Congressman Boccieri, to be here tonight with you. And I think there is a reason that you see four relatively young Members of Congress standing here talking about the future of energy in the United States. We all have a vested interest in this. We all understand how important this issue is for our future and the future of our kids. We sat on the sidelines for far too long, as the other side did nothing, as Congressman Ryan explained. They had an opportunity to act when it came to energy policy, creative energy policy that would move us forward into the next generation, but they failed to do it. We have been elected to take responsibility and to move forward on critical issues that are impacting our families today and will impact them in the future. That is what we are doing on financial services. That is what we are doing on energy. That is what we are doing on health care. On energy, this bill takes us down that road for ensuring a future of prosperity for our children. It is the right thing to do for the country today. It is the right thing to do for our children tomorrow.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, until we fix health care in this country, families and small businesses will bear a heavier and heavier financial burden that will slow economic recovery and stifle growth and investment. In Ohio, health care costs for small businesses have grown 30 percent in recent years. Employer coverage across the State has declined, so that now less than half of all small businesses offer health care coverage benefits to their employees. The average Ohio family that does receive health care coverage from their employer pays nearly $13,000 in premiums every year. And because more than 1 in 10 Ohioans lives without any health insurance, Ohio's economy loses between $3.5 billion and $7 billion every year due to lost productivity. The health care crisis is an economic crisis, and part of fixing our economy is ensuring that every single American has quality, affordable health care. The status quo is no longer tolerable for Ohio and no longer tolerable for America.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I am a former Peace Corps volunteer, and I am an American, and the money was spent wisely. As a matter of fact, I don't know if the sponsor is familiar at all with the Peace Corps, but we spend $225 a month on a Peace Corps volunteer. That's what the salary is for a Peace Corps volunteer. Now, find me a job anywhere else where America's dollars are better spent on foreign policy than for $225 a month. The total cost of the Peace Corps is less than two F-22 fighters, almost 1\1/2\ planes. That's what we spend to send hundreds of thousands of Americans across the globe to help people better understand this United States. That's what we spend, less than two F-22 fighters. The Peace Corps is critical to the foreign policy of this United States. That is why the Obama administration did not, did not object to this funding increase, because they know it is the right thing to do. It is the most cost-effective foreign policy program we have. I would urge my colleagues to support the Peace Corps and reject this amendment.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I thank the gentlewoman for this opportunity. There has been much talk about fiscal responsibility on the floor of this House, and I come to the floor to support the rule and support the bill. I support it because of the inclusion of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program because when we talk about fiscal responsibility, it is through competition that we achieve fiscal responsibility. Since fiscal year 2006, nearly $2.5 billion has been provided for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program, and last month President Obama signed the Weapons Systems Acquisitions Reform Act of 2009 into law. This supported an increased use of competition and defense procurement. The expected cost of the primary Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system has increased by $1.8 billion while the competitive engine program has not experienced any cost growth at all. In fact, the contractor has indicated a willingness to negotiate on fixed price terms for the remaining development and production of the competitive engine. We know that competition works. When we looked at the F-15 and F-16 in the 1970s, we found that the great engine war brought lower prices, better engines, better competition, and more reliability. We have the same thing today with the Joint Strike Fighter; and in this bill we have included the competitive engine program, which is critical to the success of the Joint Strike Fighter engines. I urge you to support the rule because with it comes enhanced contractor responsiveness, technological innovation, improved operation readiness, and a more robust industrial base for the United States.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my privilege to rise today and bring to the floor this resolution honoring the third annual Civil Rights Game. It is the third annual Civil Rights Game, but it is the first time that this game has been played during the regular season. And we are honored in Cincinnati to have that game at Great American Ballpark. I know Congresswoman Jean Schmidt and I will be looking forward to that event. And as was mentioned earlier by several of my colleagues, it's not just a baseball game. It's also recognizing great leaders, great leaders who have broken down barriers. That includes at the luncheon that we will be holding Muhammad Ali, Hank Aaron, and Bill Cosby, three giants who have broken down so many barriers amongst them. I applaud Major League Baseball. I applaud the Cincinnati Reds for choosing Cincinnati as the host of this event. I would draw your attention to one other aspect of the game, Mr. Speaker, and that is to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center. The Underground Railroad Freedom Center is a stone's throw--a baseball's throw, if you will, from Great American Ballpark. The Underground Railroad Freedom Center, founded in 2002 in Cincinnati, is all about discussing freedom. It's all about being the champion of civil rights. And while it was established to draw attention to the role the city of Cincinnati played and that the people of Cincinnati played in the underground railroad, today it serves as the vehicle, it serves as the convener of conversations around injustices today and freedoms which are challenged today, making it relevant to you and I and all Americans as we discuss civil rights. So I'm proud to have the Underground Railroad Freedom Center being part of this celebration. I think it is very much appropriate that the Freedom Center is participating in the luncheon, celebrating our heroes. And I am proud to be a Cincinnatian and to welcome this game to the city of Cincinnati. I join with the Cincinnati Reds in thanking Major League Baseball.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to this tragedy and to honor the family of Mr. Johns, who was tragically killed yesterday at the Holocaust museum. When I come to the floor and when I think about this job and what we are trying to do, to send a message to our children across this country, it is a message of tolerance. It is a message of trying to wipe out hatred, trying to wipe out the hatred that exists against different races, different religions, different cultures. It is about learning to accept and appreciate the cultures. The Holocaust museum stands as a tribute and helps us better understand the tragedies that occur when intolerance runs amok. I stand with my fellow colleagues and the people of this body in honor of Mr. Johns to say we believe in tolerance, we believe in acceptance, and we thank him and his family and we mourn with them.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 302, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to cast a series of votes today on the floor of the House of Representatives. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 286, Final Passage of the Conference Report on S. 454, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 287, a Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 1676, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 288, a Burgess (TX) Amendment to H.R. 915, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 289, a McCaul (TX) Amendment to H.R. 915, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 290, a Motion to Recommit H.R. 915, I would have voted ``no'' on the question. Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 291, Final Passage of H.R. 915, I would have voted ``aye'' on the question.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I thank the gentleman for his amendment and the underlying bill. I rise to support the amendment and the underlying bill. We heard just a little while ago the gentlewoman from Colorado talk about the pitfalls in creating small businesses and the challenges that entrepreneurs face. This is about identifying those challenges and helping veterans, as they return, think through the issues of creating a viable business plan, assistance with product development, providing assistance in marketing, learning how to access capital necessary to make their businesses successful. In sum, this is about leveraging the skills that so many of our men and women have learned, so many of our men and women have utilized overseas so that when they return home, they can put those skills to work in terms of small business development, in terms of coming together and driving this economy and creating new jobs. This is the direction we should be heading. I support the amendment.