Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the celebration of Diwali, the ``Festival of Lights.'' It is during this time that the Hindu people celebrate their heritage with festivals, fireworks, and worship. I would like to acknowledge the thousands of Hindus in my Congressional District and their valuable contributions to our community as citizens of strong faith, families with deep cultural roots, and business leaders of unmatched work ethic and ingenuity. Diwali marks the Hindu commitments to faith, peace, family and heritage. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in acknowledging the celebration of Diwali and wishing the Hindu people of Illinois' Sixth Congressional District a peaceful holiday.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of introspection, fasting and spiritual renewal. Throughout the entire 9th month of the Islamic calendar year, Muslims demonstrate their devotion by fasting from sunrise until sunset. The month of Ramadan is also an important time for Muslim families and communities as they join together in expression of their devotion. Many Muslims use this time to seek physical and spiritual renewal. In fact, more than 25,000 Muslims in my Congressional District observe this celebration to mark their steadfast commitments to faith, family and heritage. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in acknowledging the celebration of the month of Ramadan and wishing Muslims a peaceful holiday.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. First of all, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and for his willingness to listen and for his thoughtful approach on this and for how he has brought, really, a bipartisan group together in trying to drive towards a solution. Since coming to Congress, I've noticed that, many times, what we need to do is to spend time bringing statutes up to date, and this is just one of those examples. We've been struggling over these past several days with the financial markets and, in many cases, with a regulatory environment that isn't regulating properly. Well, here is an opportunity for us to be proactive and to bring a regulation up to date to really deal with current needs. Giving the Surface Transportation Board the authority to consider a couple of things, I think, is very thoughtful and very wise and very measured. This is what this bill is about. It says that the Surface Transportation Board in these transactions has to consider a couple of things. It has to consider the impact on safety and the environment. It has to consider the impact of grade crossings, of HAZMAT, of emergency response time, and of noise. In my view, those are not unreasonable requests. It doesn't predetermine an outcome. It doesn't say what they need to do with that information, but it says, as a matter of record, that they have to consider that. Now a word about Canadian National: Whether or not Canadian National decided to show up at a hearing is really their prerogative. I just confirmed with the chairman that they were welcomed to show up. This is a pattern, frankly, that we've seen with Canadian National in our community where we were told they would show up at any time and at any place to talk to anyone, but when a forum was created, they waived off of that. Now let's just set that aside. Here we have a chance to create a statute that says, if you're going to increase rail traffic through a community, you've got to consider the cost, and you've got to consider the cost on the community. The gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) spoke a couple of minutes ago about the cost of one of these rail crossings and of the cost of a grade separation. They are a thing to behold, and they are incredibly expensive. The fact that Canadian National in this particular case has several tens of millions of dollars on the table doesn't anywhere near answer the cost to local taxpayers who would be asked to bear the burden with very little benefit. So I think the chairman's approach on this--the way he has brought a bipartisan group together around it and the thoughtfulness of it and, really, the holistic way that this would be evaluated--is a very light touch, in fact, and he is not coming down with a heavy hand. I am strongly supportive of it.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, it is a real honor for me to be here with my colleagues from Illinois to honor two men who have really served admirably and have brought great pride to the Land of Lincoln. The first is Congressman Jerry Weller who I got to know in the Illinois House of Representatives, and I served for one term with Congressman Weller. When he was in the State House of Representatives, he had a reputation of somebody who knew how to come back. And he got involved in a tough election, and I won't drag you all through the weeds of that tough election, but he got dealt a tough blow in that many people thought he fairly won that election, but for a whole host of political reasons, he wasn't seated in that election. Do you know what? Rather than going home and say, oh, woe is me, Jerry Weller came back and he went out and he campaigned, and he earned the confidence of the voters of that district. He earned the confidence of his neighbors in Morris, Illinois, and he came back, and he was there to greet me when I first went to the House of Representatives in 1992. Then Jerry Weller was a part of the historic class of 1994 that came in, and as has been previously mentioned by Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Shimkus, he was the person who focused in on repealing that marriage penalty, and I remember him talking about that to me. I remember him focusing on that. I remember reading about Jerry Weller pursuing that and pursuing that and pursuing that, and as we all know, it is a very difficult thing to pass a major piece of landmark legislation like that. There's a lot of exit ramps around here for good ideas. There's a lot of trap doors for good ideas. But Jerry Weller was tenacious and he was able to put together the coalitions. He was focused and he got that done, and today, millions of Americans have fundamentally benefited because of his tenacity and the political savvy with which he moved that through the House and ultimately through the Congress. He had other successes as well, and that was the transformation of the Joliet arsenal in Illinois, and that was property that had not it been for his leadership in his district, it could have essentially gone by the wayside. But because he was tenacious and he was focused, it's been turned into a good thing. So Jerry Weller, we are going to miss you, and it is with regret that we're here tonight. But it is with a great deal of hope and optimism that we'll see you and your tenacity and the glint in your eye. The other person that we're here to honor is also another member of that class, and that is Congressman Ray LaHood. Congressman LaHood has been described by Mr. Shimkus as a man of the House, and I kind of feel like he has the demeanor of sort of Dad coming home. When he would be in the Chair and the House would be raucous and a little bit spunky, he would gavel that down, and he was entrusted with the gavel during some of the most historic times. And he is a man of history because he serves in the same seat that Abraham Lincoln served in. He's from the same hometown as another Illinois great, that is, Everett Dirksen. He served also at the side of Bob Michel, and these are great Illinoisans. I'm pleased that now the Easter Seals of Peoria, Illinois, has chosen to honor Congressman LaHood and his bride by setting up the Ray and Kathy LaHood House for Children with Special Needs. I think it's indicative of the type of person that he is, the type of integrity, the directness with which he interacts with his colleagues, and I know that that's great encouragement not only to me but I know it's great encouragement and a great example for all Americans. So for these two men who have chosen to sacrifice so greatly and serve our State so well, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that it is with a great deal of pride that I say it's been an honor to serve with Congressman Weller. It's been an honor to serve with Congressman LaHood, and I look forward to our paths crossing many, many times in the future.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4081, the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking, PACT, Act of 2008, and commend Mr. Weiner and Mr. Smith for their hard work on this important bill. By some accounts, my own State of Illinois has lost $214 million last year alone due to smuggling, counterfeit products, and Internet sales. The illegal trafficking of cigarettes not only results in the loss of Federal, State and local taxes on those products, but it is also of very serious consequence because much of these profits is going to fund criminal and terrorist activities. Currently, there is technology available that can dramatically improve the States' tobacco tax security systems. One such system, currently in use by the State of California with great success, about to be implemented by New Jersey and under consideration by other States as well, is manufactured in my district. My hope is we can move forward on this issue to ensure these new technologies can be part of a bigger solution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to pursue ways in which the Congress can assist States in understanding and implementing such systems to combat smuggling of tobacco products.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable accomplishments of Sean Rooney of Wheaton, Illinois, and his contributions to the 2008 U.S. Olympic Men's Indoor Volleyball Team's triumph to win the gold medal in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. At Wheaton-Warrenville South High School in my district, Sean was a standout player who garnered Illinois State Player of the Year honors and led his team to a State championship in 2001. He then went on to Pepperdine University, where he became one of their top players and helped lead them to a national championship in 2005. After graduating in 2005, Sean continued to pursue his love of the sport, playing professionally for 2 years. Then, Sean was selected to represent his country on the international stage as a member of the United States' Men's Indoor Volleyball Team in the Games of the XXIX Olympiad in Beijing, China. As the competition was beginning, though, the team faced a tragic setback when Todd Bachman, the father-in-law of the team's coach, Hugh McCutcheon, was fatally stabbed and his wife was seriously injured following an act of random, senseless violence. In the face of this adversity, the team rallied behind their coach and his family to win three games. When their coach returned for the remainder of the tournament, the team won five more games, including an incredible upset victory over the top-ranked team from Brazil to win the Gold Medal. The Olympic Games are a time for countries to come together in the spirit of competition and sportsmanship. They are a time to showcase the best our country has to offer. Sean Rooney and the Men's Volleyball Team showed outstanding courage, commitment and athleticism at the Beijing Olympics and our country couldn't be more proud. Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in recognizing Sean Rooney and the entire Men's Indoor Volleyball Team for their remarkable performance in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Moon Khan for his devoted service to DuPage County and the State of Illinois. Moon started serving the community as an anchor on the Indian community's cable television program Bharat Darshan, also working as Community Editor of the India Tribune and Chief Editor of Spotlight Weekly. After earning M.A. and M.B.A. degrees from Northern Illinois University, he founded the Asian American Caucus of DuPage, serving as its first President. From his early dedication to scholarship and community service, Moon has become heavily involved in local government and commerce, serving as a vocal advocate for the Asian American community. As a member of the Illinois Ethnic Coalition, Moon has advocated for the rights of new immigrants and various ethnic groups, assisting them in the transition to American culture and helping with the preservation of their heritage. His commitment to unity resulted in Moon being presented the Americanism Award by the Society of Daughters of the American Revolution in 2005. In April of 2005, Moon was elected as a Trustee for York Township, becoming the first Asian American to be elected to that office and the first Muslim elected to government office in the State of Illinois. As a result of his commitment to serving the Asian American community, Moon was appointed as the Asian American Liaison of the DuPage County Republican Party. Moon Khan has been an advocate for the rights of immigrants, Muslims, and other ethnic groups. His committed service to empowering all ethnicities has affected countless lives throughout the State of Illinois. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Moon Khan is a remarkable man who has dedicated his life to serving the people of DuPage County and the State of Illinois. Please join me in honoring him for his public service and recognizing the important work he is doing to build a stronger, better America.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but sitting here and listening to these speeches, I'm ready for some good news. And the good news is we are joined today by a constituent of mine named Charles Hooker, who is a young boy who wrote an essay. It's short, it's sweet, it's succinct, and I'm going to read it to you. It is a result of him winning the Character Counts Contest in Elmhurst, Illinois. This is what young Charles says to us. ``If I were Mayor of Elmhurst, I would be fair to everyone by treating everyone the way I would like to be treated. I would listen to the requests of the young and old equally, because they both matter. I would be honest, be fair, and most importantly give credit to anyone who helped make things possible. I would also make sure I communicated well to show I'm trustful and responsible in all things. I am a Christian, and I would represent God in anything I do.'' Madam Speaker, as we listen to these challenges that have been outlined today, I think that's a good word for us all, and I offer great congratulations to young Charles.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, I appreciate the tone and even the urgency with which Congress is wrestling with this, and there is no question as you look into this bill there are some good elements to it. But there are some substantive reforms to GSEs that I think we can all come around. There are some elements that are very distasteful, from my point of view, and they have been articulated well. And as the chairman has said, there is even a time to put aside some of that and to all come together. But there is, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, an element to this bill that isn't just slightly distasteful but it's a deal breaker. And that's the blank check within this bill. When the Secretary of the Treasury came in and briefed a number of us, he said that they wanted this authority to move forward, an unprecedented amount of authority, and then almost in the next breath--I don't want to overly characterize what he said--but almost in the next breath he said, ``But don't worry. We'll never use it.'' Well, I think that should give us all a reason to pause. The notion of giving a blank check to anyone for any circumstance is an idea that I think is a deal breaker, and we will rue the day that we gave that kind of authority away. I find it ironic that the other side of the aisle that has pounded on this President for the past 7 years as being an almost imperial President is willing to yield this type of authority to him and literally give him or anyone a blank check. My predecessor, Henry Hyde, urged a great deal of caution at what he characterized as the greased chute of government. And this is the greased chute of government moving very, very quickly. I urge us to pause. I urge us not to give a blank check to anyone. We can do much better than this.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to the gentleman from Colorado, a slight word of caution. I think it was maybe an overstatement to say that the National Renewable Energy Lab didn't enjoy any support from this side of the aisle until now. I find that difficult to believe. I don't have any roll calls in my presence, but my hunch is that a program that big and that expansive didn't just get that way because of support from one side of the aisle. But be that as it may, I think there is an opportunity here, because the opportunity is a recognition of all Members of Congress that we are at a pivotal point as it relates to energy policy. And the pivotal point is one that should bring us together. Regardless of what one's motivation is, there is a desire to have a long-term energy solution. And part of that has to be an increase in our supply, Mr. Speaker; part of it has to be an increase in renewables. It has to be pushing new technologies, as the gentleman from Colorado talked about, conservation and efficiency measures. There is a whole host of bills that, unfortunately, the Speaker is not allowing to come to the floor. For the life of me I don't understand it when, at the beginning of her assuming the office of Speaker, she talked about really having a desire for a bipartisan solution to most problems. She was going to change the tone. Unfortunately, we just haven't seen that. Let me go through a couple of these bills that are literally pending that are bottled up in committee that the majority party, and its leadership, I sense--and I don't want to speak for the rank-and-file, but I do know several rank-and-file members of the majority that are terribly frustrated right now and have a desire to have some bills voted on that are sensible and that the overwhelming majority of the American public says would be a good idea. For example, H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007. Here is what it does. It reduces the price of gasoline by opening new oil refineries. That's something we haven't talked about this afternoon or this morning. We've not had a new oil refinery put in place in the United States in 30 years. Investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's deep-sea energy reserves, that's one bill. Why isn't that bill on the floor in an open rule with amendments and with the ability to have a conversation about it? Well, unfortunately, the New York Times today gives us part of the answer, and the answer is not really a pretty one. According to today's New York Times, in a report, it says: ``Ms. Pelosi, who is now House Speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor.'' Further quoting: ``She and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits.'' Then further--and this is actually, I think, the darkest part of this report--``In a private meeting last week, according to some in attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans in the White House and that she was having none of it.'' Is that what this has come down to? Is that what this has come down to? Depending on how you're calculating, 70-plus percent of the American public says, ``Give us more energy. Please, put these tools on the table.'' Then we have a meeting that this is about ``capitulation'' and not wanting to give someone a political advantage. Is that what this has come down to? I can't even tell you, Mr. Speaker, how incredibly disappointing that is to me that someone would say that it is a matter of political pride that's going to keep an idea off the table. Why can't we have the bill on the floor that I just mentioned? How about this, H.R. 2279, to Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations. That is nothing but a good idea. We've got distressed military installations. They're not well utilized. Let's use them. It reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. We have not had a new refinery for 30 years in this country, and this is our opportunity to change that dynamic. There is H.R. 5656, to Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels. It reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology. In my State and in your State, Mr. Speaker, in southern Illinois, there are more British Thermal Units of energy in the coalfields of southern Illinois, in those gigantic fields, than in the entire Saudi oil fields. Imagine that. There are more BTUs of energy, more energy in southern Illinois, than in all of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Yet it is largely untapped. Why is it untapped? Well, it's untapped, in part, because it's high sulfur coal, and it's pretty nasty stuff to burn and to have emitted. I have referred to this word ``orthodoxy.'' There has developed this thinking that has become so hidebound that, regardless of the facts that are around, it eventually says we don't even want to have a conversation about coal. We don't even want to contemplate coal because certain interest groups have told us that all coal is always bad all the time. Well, maybe not so. Maybe this Congress should be part of the solution. This Congress could be part of the conversation that says no, no, no, that we're not going to listen to the bumper stickers. We're going to be policymakers, and we're going to unleash the potential to begin to transform a region. Mr. Speaker, you and I represent Illinois. You know southern Illinois, and you know how challenged that area is. Can you imagine if in this country we began to unleash resources and, with that, the type of dynamic social and economic change that could come about in an incredibly challenged rural area? It begins to transform everything. As a State legislature, we struggled constantly with diverting State money to those areas, to diverting Medicaid money to those areas. Why? Because they were devastated from an economic point of view. What do we have here? What is the opportunity here? The opportunity here is not only to create more energy but ultimately to transform regions to make them prosperous and to make them environmentally sensitive. Absolutely. It is to get them to the point where they're producing and where they're on their own two feet. We ought not to squander that opportunity. There is H.R. 2208, the Coal Liquid Fuel Act, which reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuels. These are all bills where there are discharged motions either pending or coming. A ``discharge motion'' is where 218 of us come together, where 218 of us come together and say: You know what? We're not going to be limited. We're not going to be limited to secret meetings where this is about capitulation and political agendas. We're not going to be limited to that. We're going to break free of that. Two hundred eighteen of us are all it takes for us to sign those discharge petitions. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, it doesn't matter. All that has to happen is that 218 Members go down to the well and sign their names. Then you know what? The bills are on the floor. Then we can talk about them, and we don't have to whisper about them in the corridors. We don't have to be held hostage to secret meetings where agendas are about--and this is the characterization-- capitulation. I mean I can't even begin to tell you how disappointing that is. There is H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007. It reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas prices. Mr. Speaker, our constituents are in crisis. They are crying out to us. They want us to lead. They want us to get over past grievances. They are tired of this place. Haven't we all seen the polls? Haven't we all seen the low view that they have of the United States Congress? Why? Because of meetings like this that characterize solutions as capitulations. We can do much better than that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to join everybody that has joined in this debate today. It has been robust and transparent. But I think there have been some false choices placed out here, and I want to clear that up. I think I am speaking for a majority on this side of the aisle that says, Let's do it all. Let's have an all-of-the-above approach. Our side has not come to the conclusion that simply enhanced production is going to get out us of this because it is not going to. But enhanced production has got to be part of the solution. So you would find a great deal of support, Mr. Speaker, for conservation efforts on this side of the aisle, at least from this Member, for increased efficiency efforts, and for renewable efforts. But all of those things by themselves don't do American consumers any good really in the short run. Even the call by the Speaker of the House to release part of the strategic oil reserves, that only amounts to, one suggestion is selling 75 million barrels out of the strategic oil reserve, about 10 percent of the reserve, so about a 3-day supply of oil. That doesn't do much for anybody. So let's not fall into that trap; although it is an admonition on the Speaker's part, ironically, that supply does affect price. But here is the real point. The other side of the aisle has controlled 30 minutes this morning, and did you notice something? Did you notice that there was no answer to what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said yesterday? The Chairman of the Federal Reserve--and this is now the fourth or fifth time that I have put this out on the House floor today--said simply by increasing production by 1 percent, Mr. Speaker, that has an impact of dropping the price by 10 percent. We have heard some of the best and the brightest, absolutely the A team, some of the folks who came through in the 2006 election, we have heard from the best and the brightest, and yet no answer. They didn't even pick it up. This is not some fact that I trotted out 2 minutes ago, this is a fact that I put out two or three or four times, and yet the silence on the other side of the aisle has been absolutely deafening. Why, because it doesn't fit into the orthodoxy that has absolutely bound this leadership and has taken this debate from what should be a national security debate, what should be a transition time in our public life, what should bring us all together, Mr. Speaker, and has devolved into simple pettiness and capitulation. We can do better. We know what we need to do. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of full disclosure, my side of the aisle is looking at every conceivable opportunity under the House rules and in any reasonable parlance of conversation to talk about energy. So when we're beginning this conversation today, follow me along, because we're going to start about Native American housing, but eventually, the conversation is going to turn to energy. And why is that? It's true, Mr. Speaker, because that's what the entire country is talking about, and that's what the entire country, I would submit, wants the House to focus its, no pun intended, energy on. So follow me, if you will. When the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 was passed, it reorganized housing assistance for Native Americans by eliminating several disparate Federal assistance programs and replacing them with the Indian Housing Block Grant program. In the underlying statute, section 202 specifies eligible affordable housing activities for the block grant program, with the goal of developing, operating, maintaining, or supporting affordable housing or homeownership. Further, section 202(2)(A) of S. 2062 amends current law and expands the eligible affordable housing activities under the statute. The language of the aforementioned bill would give tribes more flexibility under the Act by allowing a recipient to utilize funds not only for the acquisition and new construction of affordable housing, but it would also allow tribes to utilize block grant funds for the development and rehabilitation of utilities and necessary infrastructure to achieve greater energy efficiency. Native Americans in this country are facing serious housing problems. Last Congress, the Financial Services Committee held several hearings to investigate the housing situation in Indian lands, which are the result of widespread poverty, high unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of affordable housing on Native American lands. In addition to reorganizing the program, the statute sought to provide Native Americans the right to self-determination and self-governance by allowing tribes to have greater freedom over their tribal housing. Reauthorization is an important step in addressing many of these issues. Like every American today, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are struggling with the high cost of energy. Whether on tribal lands or in suburban America, families are grappling with the escalating cost of energy in today's economy and the effect it has on maintaining housing affordability. Rising energy costs associated with renting or owning a home and the transportation cost of traveling back and forth from home to work are having a devastating impact on everyone's budget, including families in Indian country. So the conversation then surrounds itself around greater flexibility and enhancing, literally, the opportunity for Native Americans to pursue energy solutions, particularly as it relates to utilities. And why is this important? This is important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to take a holistic approach. We need to pursue every conceivable, reasonable energy alternative, Mr. Speaker. We've got to make sure that we don't leave any solutions on the table and we pursue everything. So, for example, yesterday we had a hearing in the Financial Services Committee where the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, came in and commented on a wide range of elements of the economy. But what was particularly interesting, I found, among other things, was the assertion that he made when he said this: that if we increase production of oil by 1 percent, he anticipates a 10 percent drop in price. Let me say that again. I'm going to say that two more times, it's so unbelievable. A 1 percent increase in production, according to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who we defer on many things in our economy, he said would create a 10 percent decrease in price. A 1 percent increase in production would create a 10 percent decrease in price. That is a staggering assertion from the person that both sides of the aisle give a great deal of deference to, both sides of the aisle listen to and consult with and are very interested in his comments. And he says, again, a 1 percent increase in production creates a 10 percent decrease in price. So how does the motion to instruct weave into this? The motion to instruct is part of a broader conversation on energy, and I think what my side of the aisle is trying to assert in this and in other bills obviously that have come before the floor in the past several days, Mr. Speaker, is that when it comes to energy and when it comes to solutions, we need a holistic approach, and not to allow ourselves to be hidebound by an orthodoxy that has developed among some elements that are driving the other side of the aisle, to say, well, we're not going to pursue those things, those are not on the table, we're not going to pursue enhanced production, we're not going to pursue clean coal technologies, we're not going to pursue some of these other technologies that are so dynamic and are so vibrant. So I have done my best, Mr. Speaker, to weave the energy debate into this motion to instruct. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the chairman's encouragement on this motion and the clarity with which he spoke and articulated the need for it, and I think I want to follow up on a couple of the things that he highlighted, and I think they're important, and I think they're a first step. But I would encourage all Members to take that first step and not stop walking, and I think the first step that the chairman talked about--and he mentioned the gentleman from Colorado and his efforts as it relates to energy efficiency and creating incentives, Mr. Speaker, in the Federal housing market, a tremendous goal, no question about it, pursuing efficiency, pursuing conservation efforts. This whole energy debate that we're having, it seems to me, is a time at which there should be a sense of unanimity within our country about moving forward. We should be now a Congress that is listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans that are just hamstrung by the high price of energy. It's having a disproportionate impact on the poor, who are very concerned about it. It's having a disproportionate impact, creating a disadvantage for American businesses as they're struggling to compete overseas. This should be the one issue that is able to transcend sort of regionalism. It should transcend other past alliances, frankly, because the crisis is so great. In past national crises, what happens is that legislative bodies tend to get over themselves, and rather than looking inwardly, they look outside of the walls of the legislative body and say we've got a responsibility here; 435 people, we can do this, we can move forward. Part of what the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about is part of that equation, that is, conservation, that is, energy efficiencies. But that's not enough. Part of what the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple of minutes ago in renewables in his 1-minute speech is part of the equation, too, but you know what, that's not enough. If we choose to go to the Financial Services Committee hearing and we choose selectively to listen to what the Chairman of the Fed says, then I think we're deluding ourselves and we're not serving the public well. What we've got to do is listen to when the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comments about energy production and the de minimis amount of production that has to be created and its impact on price. It was a staggering, staggering figure; 1 percent in increased production yields a 10 percent decrease in price. That is a bargain any day of the week. And the idea that this Congress, that somehow 435 people can't come together and come up with a plan to increase oil production by 1 percent, that's just ridiculous that we can't meet that challenge. One percent increase in production, a 10 percent decrease in price. And so what you're seeing manifested here today, I think, is part of the conversation that this side of the aisle wants to have--wants to have on almost every conceivable bill--because what we're hearing back in our districts is I think what everybody's hearing back in their districts, and that is, the crushing weight of energy. When there is that much pressure, we've got to make sure that we are not the generation of a Congress that simply chooses to kick the can down the lane. As Americans, we have a history of doing this, don't we, Mr. Speaker? We have a history. When we got the wake-up call in the mid-1970s that our energy policy at that point was dysfunctional and we had a real vulnerability as it relates to manipulations by actors overseas who have a low view of us and want to put foreign policy pressure on us--that is, the OPEC oil embargo--rather than dealing with that, what did we do as a country in the mid-seventies? We kicked the can down the lane. Prices sort of receded a little bit, the lines for gasoline went away and shortened, and rather than dealing with it, we kicked the can down the lane. So here we are, decades later, not only in the same place, but, in fact, at a more vulnerable place. And so I sense that the country is hungry, Mr. Speaker, for this Congress to act, for this Congress to come together and say, you know what? There is not one side of the aisle that's got all the answers on this. You've got to completely move the ball. And I know it was sort of a foolish throw-away line that was quoted in the press by a Democrat staffer a couple weeks ago, but when he said the strategy is drive small cars and wait for the wind, I hope that that is not speaking for the majority. And I hope that the majority is willing to say, you know what? When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve comes in and makes an assertion of the relationship between production and price, we need to listen to that. We need to pivot off of the past orthodoxy that has said we're not going to allow new production, we're simply going to close our ears and not allow the conversation to shift to new production. There are some that say we're not going to drill our way out of this. Well, that's a thought. But certainly, responsible exploration has to be a part of this equation, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a part of this equation. Some of our colleagues, as the gentleman from Colorado mentioned a couple minutes ago, they're going to go to Colorado and look at essentially the next generation of technology that is clearly part of this. But they're also going to go up to ANWR and begin to really see what that's all about. Had we not been in the situation where the ANWR bill was vetoed in the mid-nineties, it would be, by conservative estimates, now pumping and producing at least a million barrels a day. Can you imagine what that does to the price equation? Ultimately, what our job is, as Members of Congress, if we are united in our desire to get off of foreign oil, then what we've got to do is come up with 9 million barrels a day, or the equivalent, in terms of energy, or savings and conservation, efficiency and so forth. Nine million barrels a day. We can do this. We can absolutely do this. Far greater challenges have been laid out that our country has looked in the eye and has risen to, as the United States of America, and taken on that challenge. I think that we cannot let this Congress adjourn, we can't go home for the August recess until we wholeheartedly take this challenge on. And if it means discharge petitions, if it means all kinds of procedural things to continue to drive the debate, I think we really have no other choice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct conferees on S. 2062.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Thank you for the time. I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this is a pivotal time in our public life and it's a pivotal time that doesn't come along very often, the sense of clarity that has emerged across the country when gasoline is now knocking on the door of $4.50 a gallon all across the country. Today as I left Wheaton, Illinois, $4.17 a gallon. As I'm out in town hall meetings, as I'm literally walking in the parades over the 4th of July, everybody is coming together and saying, look, let's do something about this. And rather than having this whole opportunity just be squandered away, we have got an opportunity to move forward. And, unfortunately, the orthodoxy that is developed on the other side of the aisle is what my predecessor, Henry Hyde, used to call ``government by bumper sticker.'' ``Government by bumper sticker'' says put cute little phrases on the backs of cars and that's the policy that is going to drive our country. Well, that's great. Bumper stickers are nice and cute when it's at $2.50 a gallon. But in my district you know what people are saying? Rip the bumper stickers off and let's get serious about bringing a national policy as it relates to energy independence for the United States of America so that we're not creating the same elements of great risk where right now, as you know, we are funding both sides of the war on terror. When we go to the gas pump and the money that we are putting in and the taxes that we are paying, yes, we're protecting ourselves from terrorism. We are protecting ourselves with homeland security and domestic security efforts and our whole military infrastructure. But we are also putting money in the hands of regimes that are hostile, that are exporting terrorism and are being very provocative on the world stage. So, Mr. Speaker, we have got a chance today in this Congress to bring together a wide-ranging coalition that has an interest and a desire to move forward on energy independence, and I think that the time is now. Part of it has to be exploring and continuing to unlock American resources. Part of it has to be that. You can't do the math. You can't ultimately come up with the types of solutions that are going to satisfy our energy needs and simply ignore the resources that are available in the Arctic, the resources that are available in the Outer Continental Shelf. So that has got to be part of it. Part of it is we have got to put nuclear power back into this mix. We have had great obstacles in the past as it relates to nuclear energy. Look at France. They have done a tremendous job harnessing that energy, moving it in ways that don't have the same types of emissions problems that other elements do. Nuclear energy has to be a part of it. The types of funding resources that would be available if we were to unlock those American resources that I talked about a minute ago could fund many of the R and D types of projects. Let me tell you about one in my district. I represent an institution called the Gas Technology Institute, GTI, in Des Plaines, Illinois. It's a wonderful program, a public/private partnership. They are the types of folks that are doing the R and D that looks into emerging technologies, and then they help hand that off to industry and applied science. They have got a technology that they are on the verge of that is an anti-idling technology. So here's what happens: If you're a commercial truck, if you're a commercial bus, they waste tremendous energy as they are idling, as they are at stoplights and moving and not moving in traffic. Well, the technology that GTI is developing moves this so that in a nutshell it's a solid-fuel oxide that literally saves us in terms of the amount of energy that's used, the emissions that are emitted. It's that type of R and D that can undergird the types of things that the gentleman from Georgia has been talking about, Mr. Speaker. There is a whole host of opportunities here, and it's dynamic. The public knows it. The public is crying out for what? The public is crying out for this body to act, for this body to get over the nonsense of ``government by bumper sticker,'' and to say, look, we can all come together. And we can get 218 Members, a majority of this House, to come together around commonsense ideas that strive for American energy independence. The gentleman from Illinois my colleague Mr. Shimkus has been a table pounder for clean coal technology. That can transform not only our region of the country in being an exporter, but it can literally transform how the United States begins to look in the future. So the opportunities are there. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm very hopeful about what can come out of this. But it only comes out if there is a political will that develops that says we are going to put 218 votes up on that board and we're going to move the ball for the American public.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I came down a couple of minutes ago and listened to the opening comments of the distinguished gentleman from Florida as he went through the litany of successes of the space program in the past, and it was a good recitation and a good reflection on those things that we can really be proud of as Americans that the space program has accomplished. I jotted down a couple of notes, the pacemaker, solar energy, environmental control systems, MRIs, microwaves, wireless technology and so forth and so on. I am here as a supporter of the space program and as someone who wants to see that innovation and that creativity deployed in a way that not only has an impact on these types of things, but also has an impact on the great struggle that we are facing as a country and that my district and many, many other districts around the country are facing, and that is the cost of aviation fuel. I had an amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee that unfortunately was just swatted away in a partisan fashion, and I was very disappointed in that. Not a single Democrat was willing to vote for it, and I was just disappointed. My sense is let's take the NASA program and develop that talent and tilt that talent that the gentleman from Florida cited so eloquently a few minutes ago, and let's get it working on alternative fuels as it relates to aviation. Because, you see, I represent O'Hare Airport in the Chicago metropolitan area. I represent thousands and thousands of passengers, thousands of airline employees. The airline industry is now under the crushing weight of excessive costs of aviation fuel. Fuel is up 40 percent to the point of a ticket price, 40 percent now is that of the ticket price, of the ticket on an airplane, up from only 15 percent back in the year 2000. American Airlines spent $61 billion this year in fuel, whereas last year they spent only $41 billion. My amendment simply said this, to direct NASA, to say, look, don't allocate resources at this time when we can't afford it, to the Deep Space Climate Observatory. Instead, direct those resources to alternative fuels for commercial aviation with a three-prong test, the need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, the need to develop a fuel that will provide greater stability for the airline industry and also that will reduce the emissions. I think that's an area where the entire Congress can come together. For the life of me, I don't understand why it was swatted away in such a partisan fashion, and I hope that on future evaluations by the Rules Committee that they will have a little bit of an open mind.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for her leadership on this issue and for bringing this bill to the floor. I rise today to support the passage of H. Res. 1124, calling for the establishment of a National Brain Tumor Awareness Month. Each year, more than 190,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with over 120 different types of brain tumors, representing the third leading cause of cancer-related death among those aged 20-39. However, since brain tumors are not as prevalent as breast, lung and other types of cancers, this devastating disease often doesn't get the attention and research dollars it deserves. That's why I was so impressed when Linda Magiera of Des Plaines, IL, came to Congresswoman Schakowsky and me last year to bravely share the story of her daughter, Lori Arquilla Anderson's struggle with brain cancer. Each day Lori brought her good humor, cheerfulness and love of life to her battle with brain cancer, and remained a model for us all until the very end. Linda's strength and compassion in not only fighting day by day alongside her daughter, but also in ultimately turning this tragedy into a blessing for others, is an inspiration. I was similarly struck by the story of a young man from my Congressional District, Reid Colliander, who has worked so hard to turn his experience with a brain tumor into an opportunity to raise awareness, support research, and help others. After being diagnosed and treated for a brain tumor at age 7, Reid started Reid's Lemon-AID stand with a group of his friends. Last year, they raised $45,000 for the Brain Tumor Research Center at Children's Memorial Hospital. This year, they are well on their way to raising even more. The work Linda Magiera, Reid Colliander and dozens of outstanding local and national advocacy groups are doing to raise awareness and support research for understanding and treating brain tumors brings hope and new energy to the families and individuals affected by this disease. Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in recognizing the individuals leading these effort to eradicate brain tumors and resolving to renew our commitment and redouble our efforts in the battle with this devastating disease.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee chose to reject an amendment that I offered that was an attempt to bring some clarity and light to this debate, particularly as it relates to energy needs. I represent a district, Mr. Speaker, in the Chicago area which the Chicago Tribune this week has reported has the highest gas prices in the Nation. So in an attempt to try to take that on, I offered an amendment that I thought was a very straightforward thing, not meant to be controversial, not meant to be overly partisan, just a good commonsense idea that unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee rejected. That was a simple thing, and that would create a tax credit, Mr. Speaker, a tax credit for biofuel vehicles. Right now we have got a tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles, and that is great. But you have got a lot of municipalities in my district that are really suffering under the weight of these high gas prices, and they are looking for alternatives and a biofuel vehicle is just one of those things. So, in other words, oftentimes these vehicles can start up using gasoline, and then it can be transferred and powered on compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied propane, or hydrogen, all things that if municipalities are using will take pressure off gas prices. Now think about it. This is an opportunity for Congress to do something to help to create a market for other vehicles. Right now sometimes the private marketplace isn't able to come up as quickly as we want it, so we have got local units of government that are saying we want to use these types of vehicles; and this Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, has denied the tax credit that would empower that kind of thing. It makes no sense to me. I am just deeply disappointed that folks on the Rules Committee who are in the majority just rejected this idea. It is not a partisan idea. It is what is called a good idea that we need to move forward. In 1968, Richard Nixon campaigned for the Presidency claiming he had a secret plan to end the war. He went all over the country and said: I have got a secret plan to end the war. If you elect me President of the United States, my secret plan to end the war will win it all and will bring it all home. Well, we all know there was no secret plan. His Secretary of Defense said so, everyone has declared so, and history shows it. But there are eerie similarities between that declaration of Richard Nixon in 1968 and the words of now Speaker Pelosi when she was the minority leader: She had a plan to bring gas prices down. Well, if what the majority is doing on the Rules Committee is rejecting commonsense ideas like tax credits for biofuel vehicles that help suburban communities in my district, I am very interested for when this secret plan that the Speaker has alluded to is going to be coming forward. I don't think there is a secret plan, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ROSKAM. I think the Speaker in the last campaign was using the type of campaign rhetoric that is now unfortunately coming home to roost. I am deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee didn't see fit to let a commonsense idea that helps the suburban municipalities that I represent cope with outrageous gas prices. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ROSKAM

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