Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker. I rise today to recognize Douglas A. Fraser of Southfield, Michigan. Douglas A. Fraser departed from this life Saturday, February 23, 2008 at a fulfilling 91 years old. Douglas will forever be remembered for his dedication to labor rights, as he constantly sought after fairness and justice in employment practices. Douglas led the United Auto Workers (UAW), though a period of transition in the 1970s and 1980s. As the chief of the United Auto Workers, he played an instrumental role in saving the former Chrysler Corporation from bankruptcy. Mr. Fraser commenced his career with the auto industry by taking a job at a DeSoto plant owned by Chrysler that had been organized by the UAW. He rose rapidly in the ranks of the union, eventually being elected of Local 227, in 1944, at the age of 27. After three terms as president, in 1947 he was hired as a member of the union's international staff. In 1951, Mr. Fraser joined then UAW President Walter Reuther's staff. Because of skills at negotiation, he quickly became known for his shrewd bargaining ability. Respected for being both an artful politician and an impassioned activist, Mr. Fraser was one of the first labor leaders to take on many of the thorny issues facing the auto industry today, from global competition to soaring health costs. Without Mr. Fraser's aggressive lobbying on Capitol Hill and among UAW rank and file, Chrysler would not have been able to secure $1.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 1979, which saved the automaker from bankruptcy, according to labor historians and top UAW officials. Also, in the 1979, as president of the UAW, Mr. Fraser and his team achieved other breakthroughs: Incremental increases in pension benefits for current and future retirees, a substantial increase in reduced work time, improvements in the cost-of-living allowance formula, and Chrysler agreement to union representation on its board of directors. In 1980, Mr. Fraser became the first American union official to sit on the board of a large corporation. He even donated his board salary to Wayne State University in Detroit. Current UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who has led the union through a period of labor challenges in the face of the financial downturn of the automotive ``Big Three'', said he often turned to Mr. Fraser for guidance and support. Once Mr. Fraser retired as UAW president in 1983, he became a professor of labor studies at Wayne State and launched another career that spanned 25 years. In that capacity, he served as a guest faculty member at other campuses, including the University of Michigan, Harvard University and Columbia Business School, where he was labor leader in residence for 3 years. It is with the deepest appreciation that I pay tribute to the long life of a hard-working, just and passionate man, Douglas Fraser. He lived his years in service to his family, friends and fellow United Auto Workers. May this ardent labor leader be showered with blessings into eternity and receive a loving peace.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, not so many years ago two famous American artists, Josh Stone and Dionne Warwick, created a song called, ``What's it all about, Alfie?'' Here is how the song began: ``What's it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we live? What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie? Are we meant to take more than we give?'' On June 19 this week, 2008, the New York Times lead story said quite a bit about taking. The headline reads, ``Deals With Iraq Are Set To Bring the Oil Giants Back.'' I hope every American reads the lead story in the New York Times this week, June 19, a story written by Andrew Kramer. Here is some of what it says. It says Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP, along with some other companies like Chevron, and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's oil ministry for no-bid contracts, I repeat, no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields. The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry. Many experts consider these contracts to be their best hope for large-scale increases in production over there. And it talks a lot about the politics of global oil and how other places like Bolivia and Venezuela and Russia and Kazakhstan aren't so friendly to the United States anymore as we become totally dependent on imported fuel. And it says that the biggest prize everybody is waiting for is the development of these new oil fields. But of course we have to be careful because these mother lodes are threatened by insurgents who don't like the fact that western companies are coveting their resources. And here we live in a country now where gas is over $4 a gallon. It would be so easy just to take it. And as the song says, are we meant to take more than we give? Technically, these no-bid deals, more no-bid from this administration, are structured as service contracts. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiites, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions inside that country where their parliament is in turmoil and cannot pass a hydrocarbon law. And thus, outsiders come in and are covetous of those resources. The whole process is designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate. I might say, how convenient. How convenient. And so Americans should ponder the connection between our dependence. Now almost 75 percent of what people pump into their tanks comes from resources from other places, and think about how serious we had best be as a country to become energy independent here at home so we can restore our independence again because every American family that can't afford to drive to work anymore or go on vacation is less free than they were a year ago. And the year 1998 is very important because that is the year when America began importing over half of what we consume. Every year we become less and less free. It is really sad what is happening in the world. I mourn for my country as we approach Independence Day that she is not free. And the way we are going to fix this is for Americans to really understand the nature of our predicament. I would prefer not to send America's finest to wars over oil, but that is exactly what we have done. And it will cost upwards of a trillion dollars already to pay for their deployment. It is important to think about the words to that song: Are we meant to take? I really think we are meant to create. The way this country was born out of people's highest ideals, to create a Nation that could be self- sustaining within its own borders without all these interlocking, foreign entailments that George Washington warned us about over 200 years ago. Maybe some Americans have forgotten, but we shouldn't forget. We should remember what it means to be free. Again, June 19, lead story, New York Times, ``Deals With Iraq Are Set To Bring the Oil Giants Back.'' It is required reading for every American who has a heart where freedom beats. [From the New York Times, June 19, 2008] Deals With Iraq Are Set To Bring Oil Giants Back (By Andrew E. Kramer) Baghdad.--Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP--the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company--along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations. The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry. Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry. For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world's dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity. While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the world's oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts. The Iraqi government's stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency. For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices. The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no- bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament. It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology. A Shell spokeswoman hinted at the kind of work the companies might be engaged in. ``We can confirm that we have submitted a conceptual proposal to the Iraqi authorities to minimize current and future gas flaring in the south through gas gathering and utilization,'' said the spokeswoman, Marnie Funk ``The contents of the proposal are confidential.'' While small, the deals hold great promise for the companies. ``The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new fields,'' Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said in a tlephone interview from the firm's Paris office. The current contracts, she said, are a ``foothold'' in Iraq for companies striving for these longer-term deals. Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. And work in the deserts and swamps that contain much of Iraq's oil reserves would be virtually impossible unless carried out solely by Iraqi subcontractors, who would likely be threatened by insurgents for cooperating with Western companies. Yet at today's oil prices, there is no shortage of companies coveting a contract in Iraq. It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production. David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries, said he believed that Iraq's output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take longer than the six months the oil Ministry estimated. Mr. Fyfe's organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq's output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices. The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding. A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts. The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions. The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry. They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today's prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash. ``These are not actually service contracts,'' Ms. Benali said. ``They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate'' and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law. A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding, according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms. Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. ``Because of that, they got the priority,'' he said. In all cases but one, the same company that had provided free advice to the ministry for work on a specific field was offered the technical support contract for that field, one of the companies' officials said. The exception is the West Qurna field in southern Iraq, outside Basra. There, the Russian company Lukoil, which claims a Hussein-era contract for the field, had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but a consortium of Chevron and Total, a French company, was offered the contract. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment. Charles Ries, the chief economic official in the American Embassy in Baghdad, described the no-bid contracts as a bridging mechanism to bring modern technology into the fields before the oil law was passed, and as an extension of the earlier work without charge. To be sure, these are not the first foreign oil contracts in Iraq, and all have proved contentious. The Kurdistan regional government, which in many respects functions as an independent entity in northern Iraq, has concluded a number of deals. Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, for example, signed a production-sharing agreement with the regional government last fall, though its legality is questioned by the central Iraqi government. The technical support agreements, however, are the first commercial work by the major oil companies in Iraq. The impact, experts say, could be remarkable increases in Iraqi oil output. While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies' previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world's largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back. But a spokesman for Exxon said the company's approach to Iraq was no different from its work elsewhere. ``Consistent with our longstanding, global business strategy, ExxonMobil would pursue business opportunities as they arise in Iraq, just as we would in other countries in which we are permitted to operate,'' the spokesman, Len D'Eramo, said in an e-mailed statement. But the company is clearly aware of the history. In an interview with Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, praised Iraq's potential as an oil- producing country and added that Exxon was in a position to know. ``There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,'' Mr. Raymond said. ``We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the American people are crying out. The story in my district is no different than across our country. As gas prices continue to rise, Washington is deadlocked. The energy crisis is sapping our economic future coast to coast. Consolidation in the oil industry is putting a tourniquet on the heart of the American economy. In 1983, the United States consumed about 18 percent of the world's oil supply. Today, with the price of oil at over $135 a barrel, our share of world oil consumption has grown to over 25 percent. We only have 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume 25 percent of the global oil supply. During the last 25 years, our country has gone from producing the majority of its oil domestically to importing most of our oil from abroad. So, since 1997, the United States' gluttony for oil has boiled over, and we've been consistently importing more than half of the oil we consume since the late 1990s. The increasing levels of oil importation have caused our structural deficit to skyrocket and have encouraged the creation of a pipeline that flows in the wrong direction--straight from the Middle East. This pipeline is not carrying back our finished cars or windmills or solar arrays, but, instead, hundreds of billions of dollars every year from the American people's pockets are going to some of the most undemocratic regimes in the world. The GAO has recently come to a conclusion which is obvious to the American people. As oil companies continue to consolidate, the price of oil spikes. The GAO report shows that, for the seven large mergers they modeled, five led to increased prices. Especially with the ExxonMobil and MAP-UDS oil merger, gas prices have increased upwards of 2 cents a gallon. Since 1976, not a single refinery has been built in this country, and between 1991 and 2000, over 2,600 mergers in all segments of the U.S. petroleum industry have destroyed competition. As fewer players control bigger segments of the industry, the American people lose. ExxonMobil reports earnings of $40 billion in a single year, and as the price of gasoline increases, these firms merge into even larger and larger conglomerates. This week, we passed into law a farm bill with over $1 billion of incentives to begin converting a portion of our market to biofuels. That is long overdue. With gasoline prices reaching toward $5 a gallon, it's time for action here in Washington. The other body and the President should join us in passing H.R. 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy Act and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and a renewable energy portfolio standard to bring these new energy technologies into our Nation's grid. While our House of Representatives has acted on these bills, we really need a commitment from the other part of this institution and up Pennsylvania Avenue. As this summer's driving season begins, Americans will be brutally reminded that energy innovation will never materialize unless we develop public policy that prevents the big oil companies from manipulating and from controlling our market. In fact, we really lost control in 1998 when over half of our market came from someplace else. From investigations into the futures market to a comprehensive antitrust policy, we can get rid of the corruption, manipulation and speculation that have driven the cost of oil higher and higher to a point where many of our people simply cannot afford it. The way out of this is innovation and invention, and these very same companies should not throttle that invention in this country. In fact, they should be investing in it themselves. This government needs to take a lead in helping every American, if they so choose, to become a producer on the roofs of their houses and in the fields in their regions. We could have wind farms, geothermal, fuel cells, biofuels, cryogenic hydrogen. All of these are a part of America in the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, it's really difficult to be a Member of Congress and to see the future and yet not be able to gain a majority of votes in both Chambers and the real leadership of the President of the United States to meet this critical national need. America's energy dependence is our largest strategic vulnerability. It's time that we stopped trying to bring in oil from every place else on the globe and, rather, become energy independent here at home.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee of Financial Services held a major hearing in the City of Cleveland, Ohio. The subject was the foreclosure crisis facing the American people. I want to thank Congresswoman Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, California, who did such a phenomenal job, all the Members who attended and certainly Chairman Frank, the chairman of the full committee, for allowing this proceeding to occur outside of Washington. Cleveland, without a doubt, is ground zero in the mortgage foreclosure crisis facing Ohio. Although every quadrant of our State is suffering from rising foreclosures, the crisis is most acute in Cuyahoga County where nearly 15,000 new foreclosures occurred in 2007, a 350 percent increase compared to 10 years ago. Over 85,000 Ohioans have faced foreclosure, and we expect those numbers to increase as we look across our country and see homeowners nationwide just in the next 2 years lose nearly $356 billion on their property values with no end in sight. Some estimate the crisis will cost our country over $1 trillion. Almost 9 million homeowners now owe more on their mortgage than their home is worth, the largest share since the Great Depression. If we really look at what has been happening, for the first time since World War II in the critical home mortgage sector, our largest form of an average family's net savings, net home equity is now negative. That is below 50 percent. As a whole, Americans owe more on their homes than they are worth. This enormous loss of wealth affects not just homeowners but our Nation as a whole. We are a net debtor country, both publicly and privately. There have been inferences of a taxpayer bailout to prevent the financial collapse of major Wall Street banks and brokerages such as Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers are waiting in the wings, probably, for life support there too. Most often, when a homeowner can't make ends meet, they lose their home. But when a giant firm like Bear Stearns can't make ends meet, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury get involved and billions of dollars of capital, much of it now from foreign places like Abu Dhabi, are found to fill the gap. Mergers of banks are approved expeditiously and, just in case, the Federal Reserve opens its New York window with our taxpayers becoming the insurance company of last resort, pledging the full faith and credit of the United States to the big banks, and now, for the first time in history, to brokerages, to investment firms. Will ordinary homeowners in our Nation ever be afforded equal attention by both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury? It does not appear to be so with the rate of foreclosures and bankruptcies rising every month. There remains much Congress does not know about what got us here. An old professor of mine at the Harvard Business School used to say, ``If you want to know the way the world operates, follow the cash.'' Yet Congress has not really followed the cash. It has not investigated the paper trails of firms, brokerages, regulatory boards, government bodies and key individuals who initiated and carried out these risky subprime and internationalized security practices. An equity washout of this magnitude does not happen by spontaneous combustion. It was willed to happen. Specific people in specific places set the pieces in place to allow it to proceed. Many have been handsomely rewarded. America needs to know who they were and are. It is incumbent that Congress authorize a full independent investigation of the tools of the roots of this crisis that trace back to the unstable period following the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s. The development of the internationalized mortgage security instrument itself deserves more attention. In effect, it became a clever and high-risk credit device, with little transparency, that acted like a bank. It created money, or at least the illusion of it, in a Ponzi-like scheme. It did so without the normal regulatory restraints of full accounting and proper examination. How could the regulators have let that happen? America should know the individuals and organizations that allowed these risky instruments and practices to proceed. One of the first institutions to embark on subprime lending was Superior Bank of Hinsdale, Illinois. That bank had a return on assets 7\1/2\ times the industry average, a CAMEL rating of only 2. Yet its executives were financially rewarded for presiding over ruin. Where was the Office of Thrift Supervision? I am going to place in the Record many questions the American people need to know answers to in order to figure out who is responsible for this crisis and to prevent further raids on the private savings of the American people.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, today the New York Post reported that a foreign government in the form of the Abu Dhabi Investment Council plans to buy the Chrysler Building, a New York City landmark, for more than $800 million, continuing a trend of foreign government buyouts of American business, real estate and assets. This is the same sovereign wealth fund that bailed out Citigroup earlier in this year. Recall Citigroup, America's biggest bank and a key player in recycling international petrodollars and a holder of enormous debt from the subprime lending crisis. Abu Dhabi is jointly owned by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and the National Bank of Abu Dhabi. The former chairman is Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who is pictured here on the poster with President Bush. The Sheik is the President of the United Arab Emirates and the ruler of Abu Dhabi. This is not just a foreign executive buying up an American icon building. This is the ruler of a foreign country. For those who are opposed to the American government owning private property, allowing foreign governments, and I underline that, to own America's priceless assets should be anathema. But the same people who advocate less U.S. Government involvement surely cannot support the meddling of undemocratic governments such as Abu Dhabi in buying up America's assets. U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson went to Abu Dhabi earlier this month to put stardust on the state of the U.S. economy, assuring the Sheik that the United States encourages these types of foreign government investments and buyouts, even while the Secretary advocates a smaller role for the U.S. Government in our own country. Does this make any sense? Abu Dhabi's investments are particularly alarming, because in addition to the Authority and Council being state-run and perhaps the largest such funds in the world, they are among the least transparent sovereign wealth funds. According to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute, there is a ranking of the transparency of who really owns these funds and whose money is in there and what is that money doing. Abu Dhabi and the UAE are at the very bottom, at the very bottom. They are the least transparent of global sovereign wealth funds. The Authority in particular has a reputation for intense secrecy, without even an internal communications department. The fund is state-run and ``does not answer to a wide public at home,'' said David L. Mack, a former United States Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. How would this fund stand up to the regulations we have in place here in our own country? Would this fund be legal in the United States? How is this fund supportive of democratic principles? Abu Dhabi and the UAE are not democratic places. Without even asking these questions, this oil-hungry administration courts these investors personally. Of course, sovereign wealth funds are not just in the UAE. Kuwait, Qatar and Boston Properties purchased the GM Building earlier this week. Do you see the pattern? Nor are these funds limited to the oil- rich Middle Eastern countries. In fact, one of the largest funds is Norway's. But that country, a democracy, has perhaps the most transparent and conventional investment strategy. They are at the top in terms of transparency and normal Western business and law practices. China, Saudi Arabia and many funds, such as those of the UAE, invest unconventionally, are very secret. They are not transparent, even when countries like Norway set an example of responsible investment. As our trade deficit swells even more, in April it deepened even more, to $60.9 billion in one month, America cannot afford to sell off any more of our country. We need to reduce our dependency on oil, balance our trade accounts and invest in our own country so that undemocratic and secretive foreign governments do not buy out our heritage. We need to recapture America's independence and stand on our own two feet again. It will require sacrifice and discipline and responsibility. Freedom's clock is really ticking for this generation. Are we going to hear it? Are we going to hear it? Mr. Speaker, I include the June 11, 2008, New York Post article entitled ``Chrysler Building on the Block'' for the Record. [From the New York Post, June 11, 2008] Chrysler Building on the Block (By Lois Weiss) The latest Big Apple trophy being coveted by oil-rich sovereign wealth funds is the landmark Chrysler Building. Sources say the super-rich Abu Dhabi Investment Council is negotiating an $800 million deal for a 75 percent stake in the Art Deco treasure that has defined the Midtown skyline since 1930. The Chrysler assets would be purchased from TMW--the German arm of an Atlanta-based investment fund that's been eager to cash out of its Chrysler stake. The deal follows last month's sale of the GM Building and three other Macklowe/Equity Portfolio properties for $3.95 billion to a group of investors including the wealth funds of Kuwait and Qatar and Boston Properties. As part of the Chrysler deal, sources said the Abu Dhabi Investment Council would also get part of the skyscraper's signature Trylons retail prize next door. Tishman Speyer Properties owns the remaining 25 percent stake in the Chrysler Building and operates the landmark at 405 Lexington Ave., along with the Trylons and the newer next door neighbor at 666 Third Ave. The Trylons space also involves retail portion, which includes the Capital Grille steakhouse and a Citibank branch. The buildings sit on land owned by Cooper Union, which leased it in a long-term arrangement to others and uses the payments to support tuition for its students. Recently Tishman Speyer obtained a 150-year extension of the ground lease. Sources say the deal would leave Tishman Speyer in charge of the building, with the Abu Dhabi fund essentially acting as a silent partner. Abu Dhabi has also partnered with Tishman Speyer in other deals around the world, sources said. Since TMW and Tishman Speyer sold 666 Fifth Ave. to Kushner Companies for $1.8 billion last year, the Atlanta group began informing the real estate community that it was ready to cash out in the landmark Chrysler Center, as well. None of the principals involved in the deal had any comment. Boston Properties closed on its purchase of the GM Building on Monday with investment partners Kuwait and Qatar, and will complete the purchase of three other former Macklowe properties over the next few months. Developer Harry Macklowe was forced to sell the assets after taking a personal loan on the GM Building and other family assets to raise nearly $7 billion to buy a city package of former Equity Office buildings.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I would like to place on the Record the following: That this afternoon when the House voted on H.R. 6003, rollcall 400, I would have voted ``yes'' on the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act as I have fully supported its intent and worked with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Oberstar, to include the Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago Corridor in that bill, and as a member of the Transportation Housing Subcommittee of Appropriations with responsibility for funding the effort. However, at the time of the vote, after voting ``no'' on the prior motion to recommit, when that vote was held open for 15 minutes I left the Chamber to locate 226 high school students from Timber Stone Junior High School in my district, who were nowhere to be found on either the east or west side of the Capitol. When I came back to the floor, the vote had been reduced to 5 minutes and I was not able to record my final vote as ``yes'' on the final vote. I wanted to place that on the Record.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I also stand here this evening in memory of a young gentleman by the name of Zachary Hebda from the State of Maryland, who died at the age of seven of a childhood cancer. And at seven, that child had such measure, just like an adult. And he faced, as your daughter did, something that we, as adults, wonder if we could face. And we never forget them because they hold us up in our own work with their strength and their courage. We need answers. We need answers for our children. We need to stem this disease, and we need to prevent and we need to cure. I want to thank Congresswoman Pryce for her years of service and doing what is so wrenching, to continue after the loss of someone who is so much a part of yourself and helping us better ourselves as a country. I thank you for this exceptional piece of legislation. I thank Chairman Pallone. I thank Congresswoman Capps and those who have supported you in this effort. And I thank you for, most of all, sharing Caroline with us as a most beautiful, beautiful memory and tribute to her and to you.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege this evening to rise in support of H.R. 1553, the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2008, and to thank my beloved colleague from Ohio, from our Buckeye State, Deborah Pryce, a loving mother and a very, very able Congresswoman, for taking her grief and helping place it here, and in memory of her beautiful daughter, taking that struggle forward for the sake of the future of our country. I suppose one could say, ``for every season there is a purpose,'' and Caroline's season forever will be spring; and that what you lived together you shared with the country. And the personal became political in the best sense so that we could make it better for those who will come after us. And after all, is that not what we are here to do?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Chairman Butterfield for yielding and for his kindness in allowing me to rise in support of H. Res. 977, encouraging Americans to expend their rebates to stimulate our economy the most by buying and investing in goods and products made right here in the good old USA. Congressman Bruce Braley of Iowa is to be commended for bringing such a sensible bill to the floor. The voters of Iowa were smart to send him here. He has obtained over 106 cosponsors on this bipartisan bill. We know as we debate this today, he is out in his district trying to help the families there who have been hurt by the terrible, terrible flooding. We know he is not just working there, but he is working here as well, and has the deep respect of his colleagues. Rebate checks spent here in America on American goods will better stimulate our economy. Buying American products and American services from American-owned companies, purchasing U.S. farm products produced in this country or processed here, buying U.S. Savings Bonds, if you want to save, all keep jobs and income here. Indeed, buying fuel that contains ethanol or biodiesel from U.S. farmers helps America. With the U.S. trade deficit soaring towards $1 trillion in red ink, investing in America makes more sense today, and I spell that S-E-N-S-E and C-E-N-T-S, than ever before. Today we were reminded of the softness in our economy with the announcement that the Chrysler Building in New York City, one of America's historic landmarks, will be purchased by a Middle Eastern oil conglomerate from Abu Dubai, just another sign of America's shrinking independence here at home. Spending a stimulus check on foreign-made goods stimulates the Abu Dubai economy or the Chinese economy or the Mexican economy. Expending those precious dollars here at home or saving them in U.S. Savings Bonds strengthens communities across our country. So I would urge my colleagues and our fellow citizens to buy America, buy made-in-America, invest in jobs here. Use your stimulus check to build a stronger Nation. Now is the hour for all good men and women to use their rebate checks to come to the aid of their country. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me, and urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 977.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, the New York Times CBS spring poll has reported that 68 percent of Americans favor putting restrictions on what is called free trade to protect our domestic industries. That is the highest level of concern since the poll began asking the question in the 1980s, and a 12 percent rise just since 2000. Only 14 percent of Americans surveyed last year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project said increase in trade was very good for our country. And the American people, by a healthy majority, view NAFTA and NAFTA- like trade agreements as flawed and costing our people more job washout every day. In other words, a majority of people in our country not only believe something is wrong with current U.S. trade policy, enough of them have now been hurt directly by unfair trade that they now know personally what a bad trade deal can yield. When you are almost $1 trillion in trade deficit, something is fundamentally wrong. So what does one of America's premier newspapers place on its editorial page this week in response? Do they look inside the gaping job loss and trade deficits our Nation is experiencing and attempt to reshape the policy to again produce a better yield in jobs for our people and Nation? No. They put their head in the sand. And they do so in the form of an editorial that is nothing more than a red herring. Actually, this looks like a herring to me. A red herring. You've heard that old expression which means someone distracts attention from the real issue. They state a half-truth and then wage a fierce argument against that falsehood as if the falsehood were true. It is an old trick. The New York Times article written by Eduardo Porter, is a complete red herring. He said that people who worry about job loss in America related to trade want to stop trade. He said that those people are isolationists. Nothing could be more untrue. I say to Mr. Porter the vast majority of the American people want to fix what is wrong with these trade deals. And there is plenty wrong. If he fails to grasp that, he might, as the old expression goes, ``fail to see the wall in front of his face and run right into it.'' Mr. Porter alleges that the majority of Americans who favor putting restrictions on free trade to protect domestic industries will push the new President to be undiplomatic and unreasonable when it comes to what Porter calls economic protectionism. Mr. Porter, reciprocity is not protectionism. With nearly $1 trillion net trade deficit sucking more and more jobs out of this country, he should be championing balancing our trade agreement and creating jobs here in America again. But he opines that other countries, like Canada, Sweden and Germany, in which fewer people favor such measures, are scared that a new trade model would bring about what he calls a trade war. Yeah, you scare them, right? Try to scare the American people. What Mr. Porter does not understand is that America's hostility is not to international trade, but to trade agreements and deficits that cause job outsourcing, job losses and cuts to middle-class benefits and health coverage. Americans support trade that wins for them and that brings prosperity to America again. They want trade that builds a middle class here at home and abroad. They are tired of being jerked around by the multinational companies that trade them for $1 an hour worker in China who has no hope of a better life. They want that worker to get a fair deal too. They support trade that creates jobs, America used to do that before we fell into deficit, and exports American products again to customers around the world. They broadly oppose the failed NAFTA model that has sucked jobs and money away from America to corrupt and closed markets that keep their boot on the necks of workers around the world who have no rights. Porter claims trade hawks want to disengage from the world. Wrong again. Nothing could be further from the truth. Americans wants to engage. They want reciprocal trade, balanced trade and free trade that builds a middle class, not shatters it. That is why a number of us introduced a bill he mentions offhand, the trade act, H.R. 6180 which currently has over 50 sponsors and sets guidelines for responsible trade that encourages free trade among free people. Porter says that Europe and Germany don't share our point of view and we should be more like them. I will agree with him on one account. We should be more like them because they have trade balances, not trade deficits. They are sitting pretty compared to ours. We have a $711.6 trade deficit in 2007, and they, in fact, have surpluses. So Mr. Porter ought to be fighting for a strong America. And that means free trade among free people. Indeed, the latest monthly trade figures from April show our nation has just gone further in the hole at $60.9 billion deficit. More red ink = more lost jobs and more workers falling out of the middle class. Yet Canada and Sweden both managed surpluses of about $30 billion in U.S. dollars. Their trade numbers are moving in the right direction. Germany commanded a trade surplus of more than $185 billion. I ask Mr. Porter, why shouldn't America move its accounts to balance and surplus? Why does he favor more job washout? More loss of income for our people? More red ink? Furthermore, workers in those countries need not worry about losing their healthcare since the government provides assistance. Those countries trade in order to make money, but our trade policies have resulted in a hemorrhage of our resources. The New York Times and Mr. Porter ought to be fighting for a strong America--and that means a strong economy evidenced by balanced trade accounts, not deficits. A strong America means keeping and creating good jobs, with living wages and benefits like healthcare. And a strong America means trade relationships that bring strength to our economy and our trading partners', not a race to the bottom or human rights violations. America ought to be fighting for opening the closed markets of the world, like Japan's and China's, not putting our heads in the sand while our competitors levy non-tariff barriers against America's goods and services. If we are not trading with a free country with a free market and free people, we are not trading freely at all. We are paying these countries to continue unfair economic and political practices at the cost of our own prosperity and standard of living. We ought to be fighting for America's middle class, not outsourcing their jobs to China, India, and Mexico. We should not oppose free trade; we should support free trade among free people. [From the New York Times, June 7, 2008] Europe Fears a Post-Bush Unilateralism, This Time on Trade (By Eduardo Porter) The Democrats' vocal hostility to trade is starting to scare many of America's best friends. As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have bashed China and a variety of free trade agreements, allies who have been yearning for an end to President Bush's in-your-face unilateralism are worried that a Democratic president may be just as undiplomatic, and unreasonable, when it comes to economic protectionism. ``It is very irresponsible, in my view, to pretend to people that we can disengage from international trade,'' Peter Mandelstam, the European trade commissioner, warned in a May interview with the BBC. It would be a mistake to brush all this off as mere campaign posturing. The United States remains as open to trade as its European allies, and in some areas it has even fewer restrictions. But the question is, for how long? Despite economists' assurances about trade's many benefits, American workers increasingly view globalization as a losing battle against China's cheap labor and a very personal threat to their wages and jobs. According to a poll this spring by The New York Times and CBS News, 68 percent of Americans favor putting restrictions on free trade to protect domestic industries. That is the highest share since they began asking the question in the 1980s, and 12 percentage points more than in 2000. Workers in other rich nations feel less threatened. Only 14 percent of Americans surveyed last year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project said increasing trade was ``very good'' for the country. That's less than half the share in Canada, Germany or Sweden. Even among the French, who tend to see capitalism as gauche and occasionally drive tractors into their local McDonalds, 22 percent said more trade was very good. The issue isn't the amount of trade. European countries actually trade much more than the United States. But their citizens appear to be more comfortable with the idea because their governments provide a stronger safety net to catch workers undercut by foreign competition and redistribute the gains from trade more equitably. In the United States, public spending on social programs, from unemployment insurance to health care, amounts to about 17 percent of the overall economy. This is about half the level in Germany and less than almost every other rich nation. America's meager social safety net and its winner- take-all distribution of riches means workers have less to gain from trade's benefits and more to lose from any disruption. Most economists agree that trade plays a small role in the deteriorating fortunes of less educated American workers. But as their wages have sagged, their pensions have shrunk and their health insurance has disappeared, trade has become the scapegoat. Politicians, especially but not solely from the Democratic Party, have been eager to capitalize on those anxieties. Just this week, Democrats in the House and Senate proposed a bill that would require the president to submit plans to renegotiate all current trade agreements--before Congress considered any pending agreements and before the president negotiated any new ones. In April, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to change the rules guiding approval of free trade agreements to stall the approval of one with Colombia. The United States has an enormous stake in maintaining an open global economy. Trade means export markets for American products, as well as cheap imports for American companies and consumers. Foreign competition helps spur productivity, which has driven the spectacular increase in American living standards since World War II. Before this country stumbles into a trade war, all political leaders would benefit from a careful examination of how other wealthy democracies have found ways to cushion economic blows on the most vulnerable and make trade more palatable to their workers. More generous social policies are a far better choice than protectionism.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone anniversary for the City of Sylvania in my district. This month, Sylvania celebrates the 150th anniversary of its founding. Founded in 1833 by General David White and Judge William Wilson at the junction of Ten Mile and Ottawa Creeks near the present day border of Ohio and Michigan, the area was originally the campgrounds of Erie, Chippewa and Wyandot tribes. First settlers' names continue through generations, including Lathrop, Pease, Printup, Rice, Green and Cosgrove. They established the first Sylvania school and church early on: both the Stone Academy and First Presbyterian Church were established in 1834. In 1876, the town was formally incorporated. Truly a sylvan glade with more than one thousand trees, Sylvania took its name from the Latin ``sylvan'' meaning ``the woods.'' It remains a city of trees today, including 27 varieties of maple, with the maple leaf as the city's symbol. In the decades which followed through the nineteenth, twentieth, and now the twenty-first century, Sylvania has prospered. It is a caring community with fine schools and first rate services for young and old and families. Sylvania remains a bucolic community reminiscent of its wooded early history, yet offers a bustling suburban economy of thriving businesses. Its Main Street retains charm from its past, but Sylvania at 150 years is a city moving forward. I am pleased to offer the congratulations of our entire region during this sesquicentennial celebration.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise today and ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3712, which seeks to name the Federal Courthouse Building located in Toledo Ohio, the James M. Ashley and Thomas W. Ludlow Ashley Customs Building and United States Courthouse. This deserved recognition of two well-known lawmakers from the Ashley family, whose roots run deep in America and our community, pays tribute to the lives of late Congressman and Governor James M. Ashley who served here in the 19th century, as well as his great-grandson, former Congressman Thomas W. Ludlow Ashley, who served here during the 20th century. These visionary Americans who lived in three different centuries advanced America's promise and the cause of social justice as they made immeasurable public service contributions to both define and direct the course of our Nation, one in the abolitionist fight to eliminate slavery in our Nation, and the other to bind up America's wounds in the civil rights era to help our Nation gain its idealistic foothold again. Congressman James Ashley, who served in our U.S. House of Representatives from December 1859 to March 1869, was an active abolitionist credited with introducing the first bill for the 13th Amendment to our constitution to abolish the practice of slavery. He also drafted a bill to abolish slavery in Washington, DC. These extraordinarily brave actions in his era are illustrative of Ashley's courageous leadership. They reflect the Ashley family's place in history on the scales of justice and equality for all people. During his tenure in Congress, James Ashley served as chairman of the Committee on Territories, and he was later appointed Governor of Montana. Congressman Thomas Ludlow Ashley, great-grandson of James Ashley from Lucas County, Toledo, Ohio, served a quarter century, 13 terms, from January 1955 to January 1981. During his tenure, he served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy where he was chosen by then-Speaker Thomas Tip O'Neill to prepare comprehensive legislative proposals across congressional committees to regain America's energy independence. During that era of the 1970s, that landmark legislation, the Energy Conservation Act of 1976, and subsequent Carter administration energy independence proposals became America's first step on an arduous journey into a new energy age. He also served as chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marines and Fisheries and as assistant majority whip for the Democrats in the House. Lud was an outstanding leader in both community development and energy policy. As Chair of the Housing and Community Development Subcommittee for the Banking Committee, he, like his great-grandfather before him, championed social justice. He wrote and gained passage of the Demonstration City Act and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and 1977 to rebuild America's cities and communities in the wake of the civil rights era. Indeed, the very establishment of the Department of Housing and Urban Development during the Lyndon Johnson administration was made possible by Lud's effective and dogged congressional leadership. Housing for the less fortunate and more sustainable communities across our country were made possible through his unyielding and creative efforts. A banker's banker, he also gained passage of the Bank Merger Act of 1966, the Export Development Administration Act of 1969, the Export Expansion and Finance Act of 1971. A World War II hero, Congressman Ashley also served in the U.S. Army prior to his service in the U.S. House. Subsequent to his career in Congress, Congressman Ashley founded a consulting firm in Washington, DC, and now resides in Traverse City, Michigan. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting this bill in honor of two centuries of a family's service to America by the Ashley family and their two outstanding sons whose commitment to America is historic. Ohio is proud to claim these two favorite sons, men of principle, as people who changed America for the better. I thank my dear colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Johnson for yielding to me. I thank Congressman Kuhl, and I thank the leadership here for allowing us from the proud Buckeye State of Ohio to place the Ashley family's name on our revered Federal courthouse in perpetuity.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, and will place quite a bit of information in the Record on what Democrats are trying to do here in order to put America on an energy independent path. But it is pretty difficult when you have a Bush administration that vetoes everything that we try to do, or threatens it, and you have the kind of speeches that are occurring down here today. We have got an oil man as the President of this country. His right- hand fellow over there from Wyoming, Mr. Cheney, ran Halliburton, an oil servicing company. So you pretty well know what you have got sitting over there in the White House. Since they became President and Vice President, this country is importing 1 billion more barrels of oil every year, 1 billion barrels more under the Bush administration. This is not a recipe for energy independence in our country. This week it was embarrassing to see Secretary Paulson over in Abu Dhabi asking them to, gee, you know, still believe in the dollar, and all of the investors over there made rich by these oil petro dollars, largely U.S. dollars, watching our Secretary give that set of remarks. Similarly, President Bush a couple of weeks ago went to Saudi Arabia and sort of drilled around in the Middle East to see if he could find any additional sources of supply, begging the oil barons. You know, it wouldn't take that much for him to direct his limousine right up here to Congress, not the Middle East. We have got some rooms over here on this side; we could sit around and talk about what can we agree on in terms of energy independence, what can we agree on here in order to do together what we cannot do alone. Make America energy independent. As the gentlelady from California said, the President even vetoed the farm bill where we put in a major new title dealing with biofuels. Rural America wants to help lift this country to energy independence. We are trying to get additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve suspended for the moment in order to give some price relief to the American people. Gee, it would be great if President Bush would kind of help us out on that. He hasn't supported any of our renewable energy bills down here on the floor. In fact, if you look at the energy bill that he produced up there, that big report in his first term, he doesn't even deal with renewables. When you have got an oil perspective at the head of the machine, the car doesn't go in the right direction. And so it seems to me, look at the record. Look at what he has done and not done on these--The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, no support there. Trying to get OPEC and the big oil companies to have some accountability, he doesn't support us on that. Rather than the President taking trips over to the Middle East, he ought to just come right up Pennsylvania Avenue here to the Congress. Meet with the chairs of our committees who really do care about this, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Markey, Speaker Pelosi. We have got a lot of people here willing to talk. But the President is sending the Secretary of the Treasury over to Abu Dhabi and he himself over to Saudi Arabia. What does that tell the American people? A billion more barrels a year imported every year since he became President. We don't have a partner to deal with over there at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And that is why the American people are changing the people being elected here. They know America needs change. They want real leadership. They know they are not getting it. So I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is time to deal. Get the President. Let's talk about something serious for the sake of the Republic. Here's a list: Democratic-Led Congress Taking Action To Bring Down the Cost of Gas

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the remarkable career of Jeri Milstead, PhD in my district. Dr. Milstead is retiring in June 2008 after decades of illustrious nursing and public service. Dr. Milstead serves as Dean of the College of Nursing at the University of Toledo. Throughout her tenure, first at the Medical College of Ohio and since following the merger with the University of Toledo, Dean Milstead has led the College of Nursing with an integrity and quality which is rare. Her talent in nursing is matched by her gift as a teacher and mentor, her passion for policy, and her skill as a leader. Dr. Milstead holds a PhD in political science with majors in health policy and comparative politics from the University of Georgia. She received both her Master of Science and Bachelor of Science in Nursing from Ohio State University, graduating cum laude. She holds a nursing diploma from Mt. Carmel Hospital School of Nursing. One of only 1500 out of nearly three million nurses, Dr. Milstead is a Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing. She is board certified as a Nurse Executive Advanced. Dr. Milstead is also a founding member of the Nightingale Policy Institute, a virtual gathering of U.S. policy nurses. She serves as Chair of the Board of Commissioners of the Commission on Nurse Certification. She is a member of the Health Policy Council of the Ohio Nursing Association and the American Academy of Nursing's Expert Panel on Global Health. Appointed to the Toledo Lucas County Port Authority, Dr. Milstead has traveled to China, Cuba, and Jordan and evaluated programs in these countries. Jeri Milstead has received many awards and accolades throughout her career. She was awarded the American Nursing Association's first Search for Excellence Award. She has been honored by Ohio's General Assembly for her leadership and service. She was awarded a Duquesne University Creative Teaching Award for her pioneering design and implementation of the first online course taught in the first online nursing PhD program offered in the world. Her own institution recognized her efforts by awarding her its Career Achievement Award. Internationally respected as an expert in public policy and the politics of health care, Dr. Milstead is well-published in this arena and nursing. In addition to several books and journal publications, she was Editor-in-Chief of The International Nurse for eleven years until its recent cessation. Jeri Milstead has been a guiding light in nursing and health care worldwide. Her caring work has been inspirational, and her counsel invaluable. tier retirement leaves shoes nearly impossible to fill, yet her imprimatur is everywhere: in her profession, the university, our nation and world. She will most certainly be missed. As she begins this new journey in her life we wish for Jeri time spent doing what she most enjoys with those for whom she most cares. Godspeed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Paulina Tul- Ortyl of Toledo, Ohio on the 40th anniversary of the commencement of the Echoes of Poland It is with the deepest appreciation that I pay tribute to Paulina Tul-Ortyl upon reaching the 40th anniversary as the founder, director and choreographer of the Toledo-based ``Echoes of Poland'' song and dance ensemble. Her enthusiasm, energy and dedication to the performance of Polish folk dances and songs have given appreciative audiences, through the United States, Canada, and Poland, the satisfaction of seeing and hearing the essence of absolute beauty. Paulina was born and educated in Poland and has a degree in dance choreography from the prestigious Catholic University of Lublin. She has blessed the Toledo community with her talents, her pride of our Polish-American culture and her generous nature, providing numerous years to the development and awareness of the artistic and cultural gifts in our Toledo youth. The Echoes of Poland was founded in the fall of 1967, when Paulina was asked to prepare a group of young people to perform some of the traditional aspects of the Polish Christmas celebration. She gathered some of her friends from the Nebraska Avenue and Lagrange Street areas in Toledo, OH, for the church pageant. During the first few years, the troupe held practices once a week. They were asked to participate at many local festivals and church functions. At that time, the ensemble practiced at several places in Toledo including St. Anthony's, The Argonne Post, Polish Falcons, PNA Hall and the Lagrange-Central Center. Today, the group practices at the Polish Roman-Catholic Union of America (P.R.C.U.A.) hall on Tuesday and Thursday nights. Through the weekly practices, Paulina has instilled in her members a great sense of pride and love for Polish folk customs through dancing and singing. A nonprofit organization, the Echoes of Poland have performed at festivals and concerts throughout the United States and in Canada. In 1977, the ensemble traveled to Rzeszow, Poland for the Triennial World Festival of Polish Folk Dancers. One reviewer said, ``By the end of the performance, everyone in the audience was tapping feet or clapping hand to the infectious rhythms.'' Since 1979, the group has staged their own concerts in the Toledo area to show our full repertoire of regional and national dances. During the mid-seventies, Mrs. Ortyl began a children group to train the young members for the adult ensemble. By starting at a young age, the children become familiar with many of the rudimentary skills in the art of song and dance. In 1980, a Kapela, a Polish band, was added. The dancers certainly enjoy dancing and singing to a live musician. Because of Paulina's untiring drive and inspiration, the ensemble was awarded first prize from a field of 64 competitors at the Rzeszow, Polish Folk Festival in 1980. The ensemble won the highest honor for authentically portraying Polish Folk culture by performing the Dozynki, the Polish Harvest Celebration. The Ensemble has made the trip to the Rzeszow Festival seven times and always performs admirably. Through the years, Paulina has received numerous proclamations, certificates, awards of appreciation and recognition for her outstanding contribution in the field of preserving one of the most endearing aspects of Polish culture; the traditional folk songs and dances from the several distinct regions in Poland. For example, On October 16, 1983, The Echoes of Poland Folk Song & Dance Ensemble held their Fifteenth Anniversary. Mrs. Ortyl was honored for her dedication in perpetuating Polish culture among hundreds of youth in the Toledo area. In 1996, WGTE Public Broadcasting was putting together a special on the Polish people of Toledo for their Cornerstones series entitled ``The Polish in Toledo'' and contacted Paulina about providing the music for this endeavor. Paulina got some musicians together and recorded all the folk music for this 41-minute tribute to the Poles in Toledo. In 1997, The Ohio House of Representatives recognized the members of the Echoes of Poland for their valuable contribution to the preservation of our Polish culture through song and dance. On January 16, 1999, the ensemble had the honor to welcome Lech Walesa, former leader of Solidarnosc and former President of Poland, to St. Adalbert for an informal meeting with the Polish community. In the spring of 2002, Echoes of Poland celebrated their 35th anniversary. Paulina remains the sole choreographer and director of the ensemble. Paulina was presented an appreciation award from P.R.C.U.A. and recognition award from Polish American Congress at the Annual Spring Concert for all her years of dedication. The Echoes of Poland, under Paulina performed their first television show in America, ``Polka Bandstand'' in October 2004. They performed a suite of dances from the Lublin region and Kujawac Obarac to an enthusiastic live audience. Therefore, it with sincere gratitude that I extend heartfelt congratulations to all Paulina has done to strengthen our community through the Echoes of Poland. I wish her unremitting energy, enthusiasm and success as she continues her journey as being the director and choreographer of this most esteemed and talented group. Sto Lat Paulina!

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Friday, President Bush will visit Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah and other key Saudi leaders. According to the White House, the President's visit will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the formal establishment of U.S.-Saudi relations. Of course the underlying reason for the trip to Riyadh is to beg the Saudis to produce more oil. Faced with $4 a gallon gasoline--it was $3.99 this week in Ohio, and already exceeding over $4 in many parts of our country--a prospect which the President recently questioned would even happen, now the President is reduced to begging the Saudis, who literally have us over a barrel. Record-high gasoline prices are hurting American families, American truckers and American businesses. The average price of gasoline has more than doubled since this President was placed in office. Fuel costs now account for 10 percent of the average family's budget. It is especially hard for people who have to drive to work, such as people in rural areas. It's hard for farmers and truckers who have seen diesel prices spiral way out of control. And still we have no real leadership on a new energy policy from this White House, no policy for making our great Nation less dependent on undemocratic theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, and no policy to move away from the carbon-based economy and ease the pressure on our fragile planet. Under George W. Bush, America has gone backwards. Last year, the United States imported 1.45 million barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia every single day of the year. Can you imagine that? 530 million barrels in 1 year. In fact, since this President has taken office, we, as a country, are importing a billion more barrels a year, a billion more barrels a year. Less independent, more dependent. It just so happens America is the world's number one importer of crude and Saudi Arabia is the world's number one exporter. Fourteen percent of our Nation's oil addiction is supplied just by dealers in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't count Kuwait and all the surrounding countries, like Bahrain, et cetera. Last year, we imported $237 billion worth of crude oil, one-third of a trillion dollars. That's when the average price per barrel was $64. This year, that number will probably top $300 billion, and rising. For the first 3 months of this year, our crude oil imports totaled $76 billion, which is 63 percent above where it was a year ago. How much longer can this continue? I think the American people know how to answer that question: No more. They're saying no more. This week, we will see another episode of this pitiful drama of the vice-grip relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. The House of Bush, represented by our President, will beg the House of Saud, represented by King Abdullah, to increase production as a short- term fix for America's growing energy deficit. We ought to be bringing those dollars back here at home and have the same kind of commitment as we did when we landed a man on the Moon. We can do this as a country, we just need better leadership. At every step, this Democratic Congress has tried to make a difference. In the Price Gouging Prevention Act, the Renewable Energy Act, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Suspension Act, the Consumer Protection Act, and of course H.R. 6, to try to help launch energy independence for this country. But yesterday, our House passed a farm bill with a billion dollar title to bring in bioenergy as an important part of the solution for the future. As this lame duck Presidency fades, hopefully the next President of the United States will negotiate in earnest and help America develop an agenda for our own independence, not continued subservience to human rights violators and undemocratic nations like Saudi Arabia. This country is long overdue for a change, and it's definitely due for an oil change.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, despite a President that has been unwilling to negotiate in good faith, the Agriculture Committee, on both sides of the aisle, has produced a solid compromise. And for the first time, under Chairman Collin Peterson's leadership, this House has provided authority for the agricultural interests of this country to lead America forward into a new energy age. The committee also has provided $1 billion to secure specialty crop production in America for a change, to try to stunt foreign imports, while also providing critical increases for farmers markets to help empower local family farmers. And while there are some trade provisions that were airdropped into this bill, not by the Agriculture Committee that should have been considered in a different manner, the agriculture provisions of this bill are critical for transforming our economy into the 21st century. In a world of increasing trade deficits and economic instability, the production of food, fiber, forestry and now fuel, are all critical for protecting America's economic independence, and her food security. I want to congratulate Chairman Peterson for his incredible leadership. He is the right man at the right place at the right time. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the base bill. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. To continue . . . ASC Servicing, HomeEq, Wilshire, Nationalstar, EquiFirst, Litton Loan, Flagstar, and Saxon Mortgage Services. In fact, the Federal Reserve still has among its privileged list of primary Treasury security dealers Countrywide, HSBC, and Citigroup, some of the very companies that aren't answering the telephone. Banks and mortgage servicers should be mandated to disclose contact information, phone numbers, and lay services for their loss mitigation departments. Citizens attempting to do workouts on loans must have these recalcitrant institutions at the table. In addition, as I've said for months, forthcoming improvements to the bill should include a short-term foreclosure moratorium, perhaps 3 months, to help hundreds of thousands of Americans avoid foreclosure. And, most importantly, Congress should vote again on allowing judges the flexibility to modify the terms of mortgage loans in bankruptcy court proceedings. Frankly, the Senate should filibuster on this issue. In other words, do for the homeowner what the Federal Reserve has done for the big banks. Without enacting tougher legislation, a ``no'' vote on this rule and the one to follow will allow for a more effective set of bills to come before us that will really address the comprehensive foreclosure needs of the American people. I'm glad to see the progress we've made, but we could go so much further.

Ms. KAPTUR. May I have an additional minute?

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I rise today in reluctant opposition to the rules on both housing bills that are before us because they are not coming up before us in regular order. Neither one is an open rule on such an important subject. I truly want to thank Chairman Frank and Congresswoman Waters for their efforts to improve these bills as they move forward. But on a matter so serious, the membership should be afforded the respect our offices bestow to represent their people and be allowed to amend and be heard in this body. Every day, between 7,000 and 8,000 American households lose their homes to foreclosure. Meanwhile, the banks responsible are being rescued by the Federal Reserve, an instrument of our government. Today, the major bills before us to assist with foreclosures will unleash the power of the taxpayer-insured Federal Housing Administration to catch some of the homeowners in its rescue net. But these bills do nothing to hold the lenders and servicers responsible. Despite the promise of rescue hotlines and Federal and State government compacts, Federal action to help homeowners being foreclosed lacks bite. It is voluntary. It pushes to the FHA what the private sector should be making whole. The two plans to be considered today, again, ask mortgage servicers to voluntarily, and I underline that word voluntarily, enter into an agreement with the FHA to insure these troubled loans if servicers offer modest loan concessions. The problem: The voluntary aspect of the program leaves homeowners yet again at the mercy of the mortgage loan holder. Take Countrywide. The CEO of that company had his compensation approach over $200 million, with salaries, bonuses, options, and everything over the last 5 years. Yet the Federal Reserve still rewards Countrywide as one of its privileged primary dealers trading in U.S. Government securities. The FHA rescue plan promises to save maybe 500,000 homeowners, or half a million Americans. That equals maybe 25 percent of the more than 2 million additional homeowners still at risk of foreclosure. Let me ask, is helping 25 percent, perhaps, of homeowners at risk the best America can do? Because the bills are not being considered under an open rule with the ability to amend, we cannot perfect this legislation. So it's fair to ask, where have these voluntary rescue plans gotten us so far? Housing counselors in my area tell me dozens of servicers refuse even to come to the table and return phone calls, for heaven's sake. Not restructuring the loan is one thing but not picking up the phone is another. When servicers refuse to answer the phone, no degree of local government effort or foreclosure prevention counseling can be effective. Who is not picking up the phone? Some of these characters: CitiFinancial, HSBC/Beneficial, Chase Mortgage, Countrywide, Sovereign Bank, Indymac Bank, Popular Mortgage, GMAC, NovaStar, EMC Mortgage.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Louis M. Thomson, Jr. of Toledo, Ohio. Louis M. Thomson, Jr., blessed Toledo, OH with his many talents, always giving an enthusiastic word about his native city. Louis passed from this life April 18, 2008, but will always be remembered by his family and friends for his warm smile, quick wit and uncompromising passion to better his community. Louis served as a longtime labor arbitrator, fact-finder, and mediator. Mr. Thomson, a Toledo native, graduated from Scott High School in 1945. Afterwards he serve in the U.S. Army from 1945 to 1947, later graduating from the University of Toledo in 1950. Louis started his career with the city of Toledo in 1960 as director of public information and industrial relations, a position he held until 1968. Following his position with the city of Toledo, he served as the director of the Toledo Labor-Management-Citizens Committee from 1968 until 1991. He worked as an independent arbitrator, fact-finder, and mediator. During his years on the job, he was known for working behind the scenes to improve the local labor climate. His family and colleagues remembered how he enjoyed helping to resolve labor disputes. His wife, Rose Thomson, recalled that the career called on him to be neutral and exercise good judgment. She said, ``He liked listening to all the different things and trying to decide if people had been treated properly''. He retired from the job two weeks before his death and only because of his failing health. In addition to his work, Mr. Thomson was involved with a number of local community groups, including the University of Toledo Alumni Association, which he had served as president; the Scott Alumni Association; the City of Toledo Credit Union, of which he was also a past president; the Toledo Museum of Art; the Maumee Valley Historical Society; the Committee on Relations with Toledo, Spain, and numerous other organizations. Louis simply desired to help people and do things for other, and in the meantime improve the city of Toledo as well. However, the organization closest to his heart was the Toledo Zoo, family members recalled. They estimated he had been involved with the Toledo Zoo for nearly 50 years because it was a landmark for the people of Toledo and surrounding areas. His love for the Toledo Zoo mimicked his love for the Toledo community. Louis always promoted the city of Toledo from an industrial, business and cultural perspective, never ceasing in the opinion that Toledo was a great place to live. Toledo will miss one of its dearest sons. May his positive spirit and love of community be remembered in word and deed by all Toledo residents.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, this month marks a celebration in the community of Monclova, Ohio. After four years, hundreds of volunteer hours given by dozens of volunteers, and many donations and financial contributions from generous sponsors, the citizens of Monclova will dedicate a reconstructed and renovated historical Post Office. Bill Strayer and Mary Kay and Connie Nuhfer of the Monclova Historical Society prepared a wonderfully descriptive history of the building and the effort to restore it, which I am pleased to submit for the Record. A Brief History of the Monclova Old Post Office By the late 1800s and early 1900s, Monclova Township boasted a variety store, a mercantile, a drugstore and a barbershop, as well as wagon makers, blacksmiths, and a lyceum. Home mail delivery was also provided to area residents following the Rural Free Delivery legislation enacted by Congress. Ira Hinkle became the first mail carrier in the Township, using a horse and covered wagon on good weather days and riding the horse in snowy weather. Claire Metzger became the first Postmistress of Monclova Township on March 19, 1915; she served for 41 years before retiring on October 31, 1956. Prior to Miss Metzger becoming Postmistress, the Trapp Mercantile Store housed the Monclova Post Office. Claire, however, had a cement block building erected on property owned by her father, John Metzger, creating the first stand-alone post office in the Township. This one room building was unique in that it was the only post office in the country to have a piano; Claire would often entertain her customers by playing songs on it. The post office continued to operate until December of 1961, when the current Monclova Post Office opened on the corner of Monclova and Waterville-Monclova Roads. Within a few years after its creation, the Monclova Historical Foundation was approached by the Kerscher family to see if its members would like to have the old Post Office building that now sat empty. The Kerschers, who owned the land where the old post office was located, requested that the building be moved from its current site and relocated on the Community Center property. At that time, the Foundation did not have the resources to take on the property and so the project was put on hold. In 2004, however, the Foundation was approached by retired Master Carpenter and builder Ray Parker. He and friend Peggy Brown were willing to take on the project of saving and restoring the old building. In June 2004, a letter was signed granting the Foundation ownership of the old Monclova Post Office with the condition that it be removed from the Kerscher property. In early fall 2004, a meeting with Ray Parker, Peggy Brown, Bill Strayer, then president of the Foundation, and Tom Meyer, architect and friend of Bill's, met to discuss what had to be done to move the building. Ray made detailed drawings of the building including noting where each block was located. There were four different style blocks used in the Post Office and Ray wanted to be sure it would be reconstructed exactly as it was before it was taken down. A few weeks later a group of volunteers took apart the building block by block. The blocks themselves were the only part of the building that were salvageable, but small pieces of trim were saved to be used as a pattern for creating new trim work. The blocks were stored behind the Community Center until plans, prints, permits and funds were ready. In late summer 2005, reconstruction of the old Post Office began and the building was under roof by winter. In early 2006, Ray Parker died of cancer. Peggy, along with Bill and many other volunteers, have worked to complete the building the way Ray would have wanted. Over seventy volunteers have put in hundred of hours of work on the project and contributors have given both large and small donations in order to make this restoration possible. On May 24, 2008, the building will be officially dedicated; it will then be used as a museum for area school-children and visitors to explore and to learn about the history of this great community.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker. I rise today, pleased to recognize a milestone for Toledo Blessed Sacrament Catholic Parish. They celebrate the dedication of a neighborhood center and middle school. Blessed Sacrament became the Mother Church of West Toledo, established December 31, 1924, by Father Otto C. Kappus, in the forested epicenter of western Toledo. Struggling middle-class families of the densely populated, majority Catholic residential area settled and thrived though the Great Depression and World War II. September 6, 1925, marked the laying of the cornerstone for the first church and school by Monsignor J. T. O'Connell. However, the church and school were completed in February 1926. The Sisters of Blessed Sacrament who served the Parish in 1925 belonged to the Dominican Order. The sisters found residence originally in the school building. In 1925, there were 112 pupils enrolled, with Sister Mary Leonilla as principal and 3 assistant nuns. The 1952 enrollment was 778 pupils with 14 nuns, 2 lay teachers and Sister Helen Patrick as principal. For much of the parish's history, Dominican Sisters shepherded generations of the youth through the school. They remain much loved, greatly respected and well remembered. Their teacher successors have upheld the grand tradition. Between 1938 and 1952, school registration increased to the point where the entire floor space, occupied as residence by the nuns, was converted to classrooms. Then, the Sisters resided at 4110 Bellevue Road until the spring of 1948, when they moved to the convent on Castlewood Drive in Toledo, OH. Blessed Sacrament Parish experienced rapid growth in its early years. To help serve the growing congregation, a new church was constructed. It was completed in 1954 and is still in use today. The charter members chose a Southern California Spanish architectural theme that has been faithfully reflected in the new constructions. This style was remarkably suited to accommodate the liturgical reforms of the Vatican Council, but also made the addition of narthex, in the 1970s, possible. Finally, the 2008 opening of the new middle school, neighborhood center and gymnasium facility marked the newest stage in Blessed Sacrament's development. Today, Blessed Sacrament's parish community continues to be a hallmark of hospitality and ministry to its neighbors. The parish is lively with young families and a thriving school, currently enjoying an increase in enrollment. Thus, the parish recognized the necessity for a hub to carry on the progress and traditions of the Blessed Sacrament community. The establishment of a neighborhood center invites parish members and neighborhood residents to enter a partnership to ensure and enhance the neighborhood's vitality. In lieu of the new landmark, the neighborhood formed an organization named ``The Greater Close Park Neighborhood Organization.'' Their mission is to maintain and improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. They strive to beautify the area with trees and flowers, develop programs for seniors and children, enhance lighting in the Block Watch Program for safety, and establish community projects like Spring Clean Up, Welcome Wagon and a neighborhood garage sale. These programs will create recreational and social opportunities for all ages. I stand here to applaud the efforts of Blessed Sacrament to bolster a strong tradition of community in this West Toledo neighborhood.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke says Congress should do more to address the housing foreclosure crisis. I agree. However, let me respectfully suggest to the Fed Chairman that he, too, can do much more to help. Let him use his considerable power to bring to the table the very big banks that aren't coming to do foreclosure workouts at the local level. They just happen to be the firms the Fed has been rewarding handsomely by injecting billions and billions of dollars to rescue them. You know the names: Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wachovia. Firms like Countrywide don't even show up when borrowers at the local level try to renegotiate their loans. Yet, the Federal Reserve has been rewarding them by putting them on their list of select primary dealers. Fancy that. So, Mr. Bernanke, let me help you out. Here's a list of the firms you can invite right now. They're not responding to Ohioans witnessing foreclosure: Countrywide, Chase Mortgage, Citifinancial, GMAC, HSBC, Sovereign Bank, Indy Mac Bank, Popular Mortgage, Nova Star, Saxon Mortgage Services, Option One Mortgage, EMC Mortgage, ASC Servicing, HomeEq, Wilshire, Nationstar, Equifirst, Litton Loan, Flagstar. Let's be honest. These mega firms are holding the levers of power over our homeowners. It's time the scales of justice had balance restored on behalf of our people.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the housing foreclosure crisis in America is getting worse. Last February alone brought another quarter of a million foreclosures, 223,561 families. Last year, in 2007, our Nation suffered 1.6 million foreclosures, the largest equity washout in our history. That's 1.6 million families, probably between 4 and 5 million people, who have destroyed credit and who lost their homes. Their lives have been thrown into chaos. Despite the death grip that mortgage foreclosures are having in this country, Washington has yet to offer a credible solution. Back home my constituents are demanding to know what is taking so long. The huge jumps in foreclosures were becoming evident in 2006. Experts have forecast an even larger increase based on loan resets on adjustable rate mortgages. Still no credible action from the Bush administration or this Congress. One has to wonder why Washington has not moved more decisively to enact legislation when no congressional district has gone unaffected by this crisis. In whose interest is it to have so many Americans, by the millions, falling off the edge of the mortgage cliff? The Bush administration should take real action. It isn't. This Congress should take real effective action. It hasn't. It is clear what will happen if we don't. Another 2.9 million loans were past due last December, signaling high rates of foreclosure to come. Another 40 million homeowners are at risk of seeing their property values decline, and 12.5 million will have either zero or negative net equity in their home. In fact, America has reached a very dangerous position. For the first time in our history, people owe more on their homes than their homes are worth. People owe more on their homes than their homes are worth. Net negative home equity. Despite the great fanfare associated with government compacts and rescue hotlines, many servicers and investment banks are still refusing to come to the table. I've received a long list of servicers who can't be reached or who refuse to pursue workouts, including the banks that hold the mortgages that were serviced, when housing counselors and homeowners try to reach out to them at the local level. They used to call that ``taking the lamb.'' They've disappeared, and, therefore, there is no one to work it out with. Counseling services at the local level are overrun with desperate homeowners, many of whom could be helped if they weren't on long waiting lists for counseling assistance and could find with whom they should work out that mortgage. What good is the $180 million in housing counseling funds we passed in Congress last year if the majority of servicers are still refusing those workouts and if that 180 million wasn't targeted to the districts that are most in need? And it wasn't. Of those who are willing to engage in workouts, most only offer repayment plans, giving homeowners additional time to catch up with their payments. But this begs the question if homeowners cannot keep up with their regular payments, what good does it do them to offer them a chance to catch up by making double and triple payments? One of my constituents was offered such a ``deal.'' He tells me that the bank will allow him to save his home if he just comes up with $40,000 by October. This gentleman, who has lived in his home for more than two decades, has a low fixed income with no hope of coming up with such a large sum. His lender is offering concessions in name only. A few servicers who are engaging in workouts are moving toward modifying the terms of the loans, reducing principal, lowering interest rates, extending the terms of the loan, to make them more affordable. We need much more of that. But the relatively small segment of the industry that is willing to do so, coupled with the painfully slow pace of working out individual plans, only drives America into deeper crisis. More effective solutions should be forthcoming from this Congress, including bankruptcy bills like that of Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Congressman Brad Miller, which would allow judges now the flexibility to modify the terms of mortgage loans in bankruptcy court proceedings by lowering interest rates, forgiving penalties, reducing principal, and getting those servicers and banks to the table. Of course they don't want that. Too bad. The crisis is an American crisis and it needs an American solution. To tread water while this disaster unfolds is wrong. It's not just about helping homeowners. It's about helping our Nation's economy and trying to rebuild the economic strength that we have lost through this deepening crisis.