Peter Roskam

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, have I ever told you about my dog, Max? I don't think I have. Let me just take a minute and tell you about Max. Like a lot of us who are fathers of younger children, I have four children, who approached me, Mr. Speaker, and begged me and begged me and begged me to get them a dog. And for years I was able to avoid eye contact and was able to keep an animal out of my house. But, finally, in a moment of weakness, I said yes. And a friend of mine, Mr. Speaker, realized what was happening, and he pulled me aside and he said, ``Look, if you're going to get a dog, realize this: You get what you pet.'' You get what you pet. So if a dog comes in and it's disobedient and you pet that dog and give it all kinds of affirmation, then guess what. It's going to keep being disobedient. And not being very wise, we started to do that, and so now we've got a slightly out-of-control dog. Now, why do I mention Max? We're on the verge of doing that same type of conduct exactly to people who have fundamentally made some bad decisions. Let's take the borrowers aside, and I realize the chairman has worked hard, but let's take the borrowers aside and just put them in a different category because what we're going to be doing today, in addition to helping borrowers, is really bailing out lenders. And I don't think that's an overcharacterization. I don't think that's an unfair way of looking at this. We are being told that lenders who were in this, who are great advocates of the free market when they're making money, they love the free market when they're making money, and now all of a sudden, they are coming to the Federal taxpayer and saying this has gotten a little bit more complicated than we thought, and now we want the taxpayers to come in and take care of this from here out. It's voluntary on the part of the lenders, and think about how voluntary that would be. What a great invitation. These lenders go and they say here's our pile of bad debt. Let's take a haircut, 85 percent of the value, shove that off to the FHA, which is pretty ill equipped, I might add, to take on this obligation--let's shove that off to the taxpayer, and instead of getting our heads chopped off as lenders, we're just going to get a haircut. I think we can do a lot better, I think, over a period of time. There is a great willingness, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the aisle to try and work creatively and to try and work substantively on solutions. But I think as we reflect back on this, in the chairman's own words, it is going to cost $5,000 for every defaulted mortgage that is assumed by the FHA, times a half million. That gets us to the $2.5 billion figure that makes many of us cringe. And I don't think that those types of numbers should be allocated to lenders and bailing out lenders who made bad decisions.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And in response to the chairman's question, yeah, no question about it. There's a plan requirement on page 3, section 4 of the bill, but the plan requirement doesn't prohibit the type of conduct that I just described, a plan as it relates to goals for the sale to different groups, accessibility to different groups, but the plan is silent as it relates to this potentially corrupt practice. I think it's a flaw and I don't think it's a flaw that can't be redeemed. It can be very easily corrected. It doesn't help the underlying policy objections to the bill. But $15 billion put out there without any requirement whatsoever as it relates to a prohibition against self-dealing, a member of the housing development authority of a particular municipality calling up a cousin and saying, hey, come on by here, we just purchased this foreclosed property for $100,000, I'll sell it to you for $75,000, there's nothing in here. Notwithstanding the plan language, notwithstanding any other declaration of the majority, it is silent, and we can do much, much better.

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for the time. One of the underlying issues as it relates to this bill is I think the way in which it was contemplated. I'm not making a process argument, but what I am making is an argument that suggests there's a very serious oversight. And the oversight was the committee's rejection of the McHenry amendment. The McHenry amendment basically said, look, if you're going to have these grants and loans and there's going to be properties that are going to be purchased, there should be an open process, there should be a bidding process, and it should be something that everybody has access to. And I think the failure of the majority in this case was to dismiss that and put it aside. I've heard cities tonight described as victims. The chairman a minute ago said he has great confidence, and I'm paraphrasing, but great confidence that cities are going to use the money judiciously and wisely. Well, my congressional district falls in the shadow of a city with a different reputation that doesn't have a judicious and wise reputation always. Let me read you just a couple of headlines within the past couple of weeks about some of the schemes that have happened from a corruption point of view about the very people that you're contemplating entrusting $15 billion to. Here's one this month: ``Witness Details Pay-To-Play Schemes'' or ``Ex-Illinois Official Pleads Guilty to Lying'' or ``Corruption Firmly Entrenched in State'' or ``Illinois: Corruption on Parade'' or ``Top Aide to Illinois Governor Is Indicted in Kickback Inquiry.'' We have got deep troubles in northern Illinois, and what is conspicuously absent in this bill, and I've read it, I've looked at it all, within this bill there is no requirement of any kind of disclosure, no requirement of any kind of notice, no requirement of anything whatsoever. So, in other words, if you're a corrupt official working for an agency that has been entrusted with this $15 billion, there's absolutely nothing, nothing that prohibits you from selling this to a friend for whatever you want to sell it for. The bill is absolutely silent. Now, is the majority trying to be complicit in a nefarious scheme? Of course not. But was it a gross oversight on the part of the majority in the committee to reject the McHenry amendment? I think so, and I think for that fundamental flaw alone, notwithstanding all the underlying policy questions, that fundamental flaw alone brings a great deal of skepticism to voters in my congressional district. And for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROSKAM

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

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 5512, the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act of 2008. First, I would like to thank Chairman Frank, Chairman Gutierrez and my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Space) for bringing this important bill to the floor. And I would also like to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his support of my own coin content bill, H.R. 4036, the Cents and Sensibility Act, which I introduced with Mr. Castle of Delaware. Madam Speaker, last year, I took my son to visit the Denver Mint in Colorado, and there we discovered during our tour that the cost of a penny was--actually what the gentleman from Illinois just referred to-- 1.7 cents, the cost to the government to make each single penny. And that's obviously more than it's worth. At current production rates, the Federal Government spends more than $134 million to produce eight billion pennies annually at a loss of $54 million to the taxpayer. It makes no sense. Two years ago last Thursday, when I was not yet a Member of this body, the U.S. Mint sent to Congress a letter stating what my son and I discovered on our trip. And since then, a whole lot of nothing has happened. And I think, frankly, the Mint has been a little bit remiss in not bringing up a thoughtful suggestion on cost cutting. This bill will address the short-term problem of the costly penny and I believe the longer term issues of what circulating coins should be made of. I've got to say I'm flattered in a way in that there are elements of this bill that have taken some of the elements of the bill that I introduced. So when H.R. 5512 was introduced, this bill, in other words, it was done so with some of the provisions that I was pleased to offer. The most important point is to immediately change the composition of the penny from copper-coated zinc to copper-coated steel. This change would slash the cost to make the penny. For several years, Canada, our neighbors to the north, have been saving money producing its one cent coin, which is essentially identical to the U.S. penny, out of steel in this manner, originally in the same Tennessee plant in which our penny blanks are made. This provision blends an enormous cost-saving opportunity with ensuring that the content of the penny remains metal and securing American jobs that currently produce the penny. Two other provisions from my bill are included in H.R. 5512, that is, the provision giving the Mint explicit authority to do research and development with outside firms on potential coin content, an authority that the Mint says now is ambiguous, and this bill takes away that ambiguity. And secondly, requiring regular reports from the Mint to the Congress on production cost trends and strategies to reduce costs, Madam Speaker, either with different content or different production techniques, either one. These two provisions will ensure that the Mint is performing its due diligence in a timely manner and keeping the cost of production of all circulating coins down while maintaining communication with those who currently are involved in the industry on the production, supply and research sides. Madam Speaker, without wanting to be overly critical of the Mint, let me just point out that I think that they have not done exactly as I think would be wise as it relates to solving this cost production problem. It sent legislation here proposing to transfer power from Congress to the Mint on the authority to decide what coins should be made of, what they would weigh, authority explicitly held by Congress since the founding of this country. More recently, the Mint has criticized the bill before us because it would force the Mint to continue making coins out of metal. I don't know about your constituents, Madam Speaker, but I can guess, along with mine, that they're not interested in having coins made out of plastic, and even less enthusiastic if they found out that the decision to switch had been made by a few unelected bureaucrats in a gray building somewhere in Washington, DC. This is our responsibility to make these decisions. And worse, if such a switch were made the wrong way, it could force billions in conversion costs onto coin handlers, vending machines and banks, that would eventually be passed onto customers. As a Member representing the Land of Lincoln, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that H.R. 5512 satisfies the need to reduce the cost to taxpayers, retains American jobs, all the while preserving the small one cent coin that has been the foundation of our economic system since its inception. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I, like many of us, come to the floor and want to congratulate Mr. Klein for his leadership on this issue and bringing us together actually in an area that I think most folks, if you reflect back, you can think of a favorite teacher. Let me tell you a little bit about one of my favorite teachers. My fourth grade teacher was Lillian Anderson. Lillian Anderson was 65 years old and I was in the last class. Maybe I caused her to retire, but I was the last class that Ms. Anderson had. Ms. Anderson was one of those people at Ben Franklin School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, that began to open up our eyes, myself and my classmates, to the State of Illinois, and that's a tradition that we have in Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as a fine product of the public schools in Illinois, you know that fourth graders in Illinois begin to learn about the State. We learn the State flower, the violet. We learn the State song, which I will not sing for you. We learn the State bird, the cardinal, and all of these things. And what happened to me was in Ms. Anderson's class, beginning to learn about the three branches of government, in all of those things, suddenly this was a whole new area that was revealed to me. I grew up in a family that wasn't active when it came to politics. My mom and dad would vote, but that was pretty much it. So here I was a young student, a young boy in Ms. Anderson's class, and a seed was planted by that dear woman. The seed was later watered for me when I was in eighth grade and took the Constitution test, and I was one of those kids in eighth grade that couldn't get enough of it, absolutely loved it. My point is that there were teachers along the way that encouraged and nurtured me, and I have a strong suspicion that, as we reflect, every one of us can point to somebody along the way, in addition to those people in our immediate families, but somebody along the way that encouraged us, that saw a little something in us, moved us along, took the time to pull us aside and give us an important word. I think that that legacy is the great benefit of the teaching profession today because they don't know all of the ways in which they've influenced people. So I want to thank Mr. Klein. I want to thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor, for having the Congress today pause and to reflect on those people who were influential in bringing us here today, and I know he's worked very hard to reach out to folks on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank my friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for yielding.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to recognize an outstanding young man from my Congressional District, Reid Colliander, for his hard work and dedication to raising money for Children's Memorial Hospital Brain Tumor Research. Reid was diagnosed with a brain tumor when he was just 7 years old. As a benefactor of brain tumor research, he underwent brain surgery and over 3 years of rehabilitation. Today Reid is happy, healthy, normal, and active in basketball and baseball. Reid's journey did not end when he was cured. In 2005, he formed Reid's Lemon-AID stand, which seeks to raise money for brain tumor research at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and develop a lifestyle for local youth of charity and service. To this date, Reid has raised over $45,000. As part of Lemon-AID, Reid, along with friends and family, visits several local communities to build awareness on the critical need for the funding of brain tumor research and to gain support for his organization. More than 100 children, ranging in age from 5 to 12, have participated in various Reid's Lemon-AID fundraising events, learning citizenship and much more along the way. One such event is the second annual Reid's LemonAid Ride for Research event. During this event, more than 100 kids will lead as many as 700 cyclists on a 5K bike ride through downtown Glen Ellyn, Illinois this Saturday April 19th. This family fun bicycle ride is working to hit Reid's ultimate goal, $1 million for research of brain tumors. Reid Colliander truly has turned what was once a tragic moment in his life to an outstanding service project, benefiting many children who are stricken with brain tumors. To honor Reid, I encourage my colleagues to sign onto H. Res. 424, a resolution that calls for the recognition of National Brain Cancer Awareness Month in May. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in congratulating Reid Colliander and all that he has done for brain tumor research.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Fox Valley Chapter of Kids Against Hunger, located in Roselle, Illinois. Kids Against Hunger is a non-profit organization with a mission to provide nutritious food to impoverished children around the world. The Fox Valley chapter of Kids Against Hunger located in my district focuses on providing meals to impoverished families in Nicaragua. As the second poorest nation in its hemisphere, 80 percent of Nicaragua's population lives on less than $2 a day. In 2007, 140 youth and adult volunteers at the Fox Valley Chapter of Kids Against Hunger packaged and provided more than 108,440 meals. Pastor Darrel Malcom, from Poplar Creek Church in Bartlett, Illinois, recently traveled to Nicaragua to observe the food being received. He visited the Casa Bernabe Orphanage, where several hundred of the Kids Against Hunger meals were distributed. Pastor Malcom had an opportunity to see firsthand the incredible impact Kids Against Hunger is having. In addition to serving the needy in Nicaragua, Kids Against Hunger serves individuals right here in our own communities, including Streamwood, Illinois. More than 110 seniors in DuPage and Kane Counties have received humanitarian services through the Fox Valley Chapter. Currently, the Kids Against Hunger--Fox Valley Chapter, is looking for volunteers and funds to continue the production of meals. Additionally, they are looking for areas to host ``packaging events'' so that they can continue to expand their services. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in honoring the Fox Valley Chapter of Kids Against Hunger for their outstanding work to date, and wishing them all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. The bill makes several changes to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Public Housing Agency Asset Management Final Rule. And what I'd like to do, rather than reading a lengthy statement, is just sort of summarize some of my concerns in a nutshell. Without question, there's been a great deal of good work and good faith that's been put in on this bill, but I think that there's a couple of key points that just fall a little bit short, and I think we can do better. The first is, the exemption of so many public housing authorities from the asset management mandate. And that's something that's a good thing, on balance. Asset management says that if you've got unit A and unit B and unit C of public housing, then we're going to determine the cost of unit A, the cost of unit B, and the cost of unit C, and that we're not going to mix all these things up together and act as if each individual one isn't responsible for an individual cost. Asset management is a good business practice that makes all kinds of sense. And if the bill, as amended, is ultimately passed by this House, 88 percent of public housing authorities in the United States would be exempt. That's a bad idea. The second thing that is actually a bigger concern to me, is section 2 of the bill, and it relates to management and related fees. Let me just read part of the language that this House is being asked to vote on. It says, ``The Secretary shall not impose any,'' and that's the operative word, Mr. Chairman, ``any restriction or limitation on the amount of management and related fees with respect to a public housing project if the fee is determined to be reasonable by the Public Housing Agency unless,'' and then there's a couple of limitations that have to do with timing. The Secretary shall not impose any restriction or limitation. Any restriction? Any limitation? And who is it that's going to determine whether a fee is reasonable? Well, under this bill, as amended, under this bill, it's going to be the very entity that's going to be the beneficiary of that fee. So we're essentially saying to the fox, Why don't you guard the henhouse? Why don't you decide what your fee is going to be, and you simply send the bill to the taxpayer, and that's the bill that's going to be paid? I think that's unreasonable. I think that common sense says, no, no, no. Common sense says, there's going to be someone else that determines reasonableness of fees before a bill is going to be paid. And what this does is it says, and it's a curious thing to me. I can't figure out for the life of me why. It says that the determination of reasonableness and the renegotiation of reasonableness can't be brought up for another year. This can't even be the subject of a conversation, a substantive negotiation, until April 1 of 2009. And then, even if something is negotiated then, it can't be imposed until 2011, 3 years away. I just think that's unreasonable, and I think it is a financial control that's in place that is being put adrift, and we're not going to be able to get it back for 3 years. Costs are going to go up. Mark my words. Finally, this allows for the diversion of capital funds, Mr. Chairman. You know, there's always a natural tension, right, between capital funds and operating funds, and we hear that all the time. There is no shortage of national attention and national conversation and national concern about the atrophying of our capital, the atrophying of our infrastructure. And what we ought not be doing is creating more fungibility, in other words, more pressure to take money and divert precious capital money from capital expenditures, which are the traditional bricks and mortars of public housing to go into the operating side. And for those reasons, I rise in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the tone of the discussion this afternoon very, very much. I just want to point out and really ask the House if you notice something, and at the beginning of my remarks, I put out, essentially as a challenge, this concern that I have of this language: the secretary shall not impose any restriction or limitation on the amount of management and related fees. Nothing: no restrictions, no authority, completely stripped so that there is nobody that has the ability that can come in and say this invoice for management, this amount of money for management, are you kidding me? That's outrageous. Nobody has the authority to do that. They do now, they do currently have that ability, but under this bill, Mr. Chairman, that authority goes away. Now, the gentleman from New Jersey, the previous speaker, mentioned the fungibility argument. I accept that as an argument. I just don't think it is a good idea. I don't think that something that's in an appropriations bill, just because it's a bad idea, that it needs the House's imprimatur once again. That's going to expire at the end of the year, and I think we can do better. So just in summary, what we are being asked to do today is essentially to limit down the amount of public housing authorities that would be under asset management to only 12 percent of the public housing authorities in the United States. Only 12 percent of them would be subject to asset management if this bill is enacted. So I think those are sufficient numbers to say, you know what, I think we can do better. Those are sufficient reasons, sufficient arguments that would suggest that we can do better. This should go back to the drawing board. And I urge a ``no'' vote. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas Mefferd for his 22 years of dedication and service to DuPage County. Tom began his career in emergency management in 1971 as the Civil Defense Director for the Village of Plainfield, IL, a position he held for 10 years. In 1981, Tom left municipal government and became an instructor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. While there, he was responsible for conducting training courses and disaster exercises in FEMA Region 5. In 1988, Tom returned to local government service and became the Deputy Coordinator of the DuPage County Office of Emergency Management, where he oversaw disaster planning and training activities. In recognition of his exemplary role as Deputy Coordinator, Tom was appointed Coordinator of the DuPage County Office of Emergency Management in 1995. While holding this position, he supervised the renovation of the county's Emergency Operations Center, designed the county's Mobile Operating Center and the installation of Illinois' first Emergency Alert System. He also serves as a member on the Illinois Terrorism Task Force. In 2003, Tom became the Director of the DuPage County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, as DuPage became the first county in Illinois to merge the roles of emergency management and homeland security. Tom's steadfast dedication to protecting our communities has spanned more than two decades. On February 29, 2008 he will begin a well deserved respite. Thanks to Thomas Mefferd, DuPage County's emergency management system is clearly a cut above the rest. Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring the distinguished career and service of Thomas Mefferd.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Hanover Park, Illinois, an exciting and important town in my congressional district. Today, Hanover Park has grown to include more than 12,000 families. However, its history truly began in the 19th century when the community began to lay roots in northern Illinois. With its close proximity to downtown Chicago and the major commercial centers surrounding O'Hare airport, Hanover Park represents the perfect blend between urban dynamism and suburban life. Hanover Park also boasts the youngest average resident population in the Northern suburbs. Its multitude of parks, sporting venues, and youth and family friendly activities make this a great place to work, live, and raise a family. The spirit of Hanover Park's citizens is matched only by the industriousness of its business community. From small entrepreneurial endeavors to Fortune 500 companies, Hanover Park's economy is thriving. This impressive economy owes its prosperity to both the hardworking residents, the Village President Rodney Craig, and Hanover Park Board of Trustees to promote new business tax incentives and champion economic development. For over half of a century, the Village of Hanover Park has been a thriving community. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in recognizing the outstanding contributions of Hanover Park, Illinois on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor William Lichter for his 29 years of devoted service to the Village of Lombard, Illinois. In early life, Bill served as Assistant City Manager for Mentor, Ohio and Administrative Assistant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Vermont. He then earned a Master's degree in Political Administration from American University and is also currently a Ph.D. candidate at Northern Illinois University. Bill Lichter began his service to the Village of Lombard on January 7, 1985, when he became its ninth Village Manager. Since that day, he has served with vision and fortitude for over 22 years. Through the years, Bill has been an insightful observer, keen in his understanding of the long-term challenges facing the Village. Throughout his career, he has tackled these challenges with deft skill, deep understanding, and strong personal integrity. While Lombard has gone through change after change over the years, one thing has remained the same. Bill Lichter has kept a steady hand to the wheel, advising the Village Board and working tirelessly for the benefit of his community. Bill has had many accomplishments over the years, though they are too numerous to list exhaustively. Chief among them, however, are his success in improving the Village's long-term financial forecasting and management and his rewarding efforts to promote local economic development. Bill Lichter has been an advocate for the people of Lombard since his very first days in office more than two decades ago. In his time with the Village, he has affected countless lives and left an indelible impression on Lombard and its residents. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, Bill Lichter is a remarkable man who has dedicated his life to serving the people of Lombard. Please join me in honoring this unsung hero for his extraordinary career and wishing him every happiness in the well deserved respite of his retirement.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, a special word of thanks to the majority leader, who worked hard to get this resolution on the floor, and to him I'm deeply grateful. You know, there's been a lot said about Henry Hyde over the past several weeks, particularly since his passing and in the weeks prior to that when he received the Medal of Freedom from President Bush in a White House ceremony that he was unable to attend due to his illness. And we've often focused in those comments on his conduct here in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to give just a little bit of a glimpse of what he was like back at home, because the same shadow that was cast here in the Capitol was similarly cast in the Sixth District of Illinois, which is the west and northwest suburbs of Chicago. There, he was Henry Hyde who would be routinely introduced at various gatherings, and in partisan gatherings he would oftentimes get a standing ovation from a very grateful group of Republicans. But all across the aisle, both sides of the aisle, people were able to approach him, and they would often think of him, really, as an alderman for that area, or almost a city councilman. And by that I don't mean anything to negate his status, but simply, his accessibility as a Member of Congress, which was something really to behold. You could routinely find him in his district. He would fly back and forth every week into O'Hare Airport, which was right in the middle of his Sixth District of Illinois. And I think that he was one of those people that, when you think about Congressmen, you think about the very best and the very brightest. And I would submit that when, from 1974 all the way up through his retirement, when people contemplated Henry Hyde, he was contemplated in a way that was a positive reflection on this institution. When people thought of him, they thought, You know what? That's the way a congressman is supposed to be. That's the way a congressman is supposed to handle himself. That's the way a congressman is supposed to interact with people on his own side of the aisle and, even more importantly, with people on the other side of the aisle. His legacy is one, and his name will inextricably be linked with the pro-life movement. He was a passionate advocate, as we all know, for the unborn. He did his duty in the impeachment of President Clinton. But those things, while they're formative, and they're very interesting, and they are who he was, sort of the lead gets buried if you stop the Henry Hyde story there, because he was someone who was also very active and a partner in trying to reach out to come up with the funds and the support to take on HIV/AIDS globally. And he was far ahead of his time. He was one who broke from his ranks and voted in favor of the Family and Medical Leave Act, much to the chagrin, at the time, of many in his party who subsequently have come to see the light of that courage of his convictions. And so, Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is a time of reflection and it's a time of honoring the legacy of a great man. And I think the words of Paul Johnson, a great British historian, come to mind when he wrote a history of the American people. And the British historian Johnson said, to paraphrase, he said this: All kinds of factors go into how history comes out. Just all kinds of things. But without question, the single most important factor are the people who are in charge at the time. And I think all of us today rise and acknowledge that Henry J. Hyde and the oath that he took and the way in which he carried himself in office was a great credit, not only to this institution, but a great credit to our country.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I am saddened to rise today to honor the life and service of an exceptional young Peace Corps Volunteer Blythe Ann O'Sullivan of Bloomingdale, Illinois. On December 6, 2007, Blythe passed away while serving the people of the Republic of Suriname in South America. After graduating from Bradley University, she decided to join the Peace Corps. Blythe was sworn in as a Volunteer on August 3, 2006, after 4 months of intensive training. Leaving her loved ones and comfortable life in the United States behind, Blythe bravely took on the challenge of sharing her knowledge and expertise with the Brokopondo people. As a small business and community development advisor, Blythe dedicated herself to improving the operations of a local water project and building a community center for the women in the village where she was staying. While serving in Suriname, Blythe recognized how extraordinarily blessed we are in the United States, saying ``I am so humbled by the challenges the Suriname villagers must conquer day after day. Here, each waking moment must be spent satisfying basic needs.'' Blythe's dedication to improving the lives of others is an example for us all. Blythe's ready smile, compassionate care for the people of Suriname and efforts to bring them hope have affected countless lives. Blythe's efforts will forever be a tribute to her life and service. Madam Speaker, I wish to offer my deepest sympathies to Blythe's parents, John and Joan, and the entire O'Sullivan family. They are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. Madam Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues, please join me in mourning the loss of an extraordinary young woman, Blythe Ann O'Sullivan.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3505, the Securities Law Technical Corrections Act of 2007, a measure to make technical corrections to the various securities laws, and I thank Mr. Scott for his support for this measure and also Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for advocating that this come to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, Congress enacted the Federal securities laws of the 1930s and the 1940s. Over many years, Congress has amended these laws to adopt innovation and growth in the securities industry. Securities laws have become incredibly complex and technical due to the intricate and global markets we have today. The goal of these laws is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and to facilitate capital formation and promote competition. These laws range from governing over the initial issuance and registration of securities to the oversight of financial reporting and registration of people involved in the sale of securities. The laws also regulate the purchase and sale of securities, securities brokerage firms and securities exchanges, and they also have been responsible for the rules of the creation and operation of mutual funds and those laws governing the operation of investment advisors, all good things. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to review laws that we pass to ensure that they are current and that they are up to date. Most importantly, Congress needs to clarify that these laws are well- crafted so that agencies who administer and enforce them are able to do so without causing unnecessary confusion to investors, to market participants and the courts. Keeping the security laws current is a worthwhile undertaking. One such example where there is need to update our securities laws which are included in this legislation is to address the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. It was repealed, as Mr. Scott mentioned, in the 2005 energy bill because it was no longer necessary. But it was originally adopted to deal with circumstances that existed in the 1930s and 1940s when the commission was restructuring the utility industry. At that point, a number of holding companies would have owned minority stakes in utilities and other holding companies and they may have held substantial equity assets that caused them to meet the investment company definition at that time. Today, virtually all utility holding companies operate throughout wholly owned subsidiaries and, thus, do not have investment company status issues any different from any other type of holding company. So utility holding companies no longer need to be treated differently than any other type of company for purposes of determining whether they meet the definition of investment company. H.R. 3505 makes almost 50 technical changes to the Federal securities laws. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the Securities and Exchange Commission supports these changes. Once again I want to thank my colleague Mr. Scott, along with Ranking Member Bachus and our chairman, Chairman Frank, for their support of this legislation, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, you know, as I've sat and listened this evening to the tributes of Congressman Hyde, a couple of things have become clear to me, that there's an element, a great sense of loss tonight among us about a man that people on both sides of the aisle really came to respect and admire and deeply appreciate. As I've thought about Congressman Hyde and the role that he played, he came to Congress in 1974, that was a very difficult time for the Republican Party. He's one of the few people that was successful in a campaign after the scandal of Watergate, and came in and in a way Henry Hyde was a conservative in the House of Representatives before conservative was cool. He was passionate about a strong America and understanding fundamentally what our Nation's role was in the world. We've talked a lot over the past several minutes about Henry Hyde and his pro-life legacy. There was another passion that he had, and I think it was inextricably linked to his view of life and defending it at all ages, and that was his high view of freedom. He was a person who understood fundamentally that the United States had a very special role to play. I was a staffer for him and remember him talking about the captive nations. That was a phrase that was used to capture the description of the Eastern Bloc nations. And you see, in Henry Hyde's district, in the Sixth District of Illinois, there were a whole host of immigrants, folks who had come to this land of America because America was free. And Henry Hyde represented that constituency well. And it was a people that had been formed largely by their suffering under a tyrannical communist regime. And when Henry Hyde came to office in 1974, in those years before the 1980 election, he was among a small group of people in the House, I think, that really understood what was at stake. Turned out Ronald Reagan won a historic election in 1980. It was a land slide really of epic proportion. And Henry Hyde was one of those people that was positioned in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, to be one of Ronald Reagan's partners over the next 8 years on what has been nothing short of a transformation of American foreign policy. Henry Hyde was a pivotal figure in the mid-1980s when the House turned to him and asked him to play a key role at the time in the Iran- Contra investigation. And I remember working for him at that time and a whole great deal of activity. And when I was looking at my boss, Congressman Hyde, during the committee hearings, every time he asked a question, every time he made a point, there was a sense of clarity about him that was just very, very inviting. He understood what was going on. He didn't shy away from a political fight, as we all know, but he had this way about him that was a way to engage people in such a way that he was able to persuade them. He was sort of the old school of American politics in that he wasn't satisfied merely to have a debate. No. This was a guy who wanted to persuade you. And his view was, look, if you knew what I knew and if you had seen what I have seen and if you understand what I understand, then surely looking at this evidence you'll be persuaded, as I am, to this way of thinking. And I think the way that he approached that, Mr. Speaker, was very inviting in a way. Listen, he was at a pivotal point in our public life together in very difficult times for our country. But we all know, as we reflect on this great man, that he did it with a sense of duty, he did it with a sense of honor, and he did it in a way that he always upheld his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I remember the first time I met Henry Hyde, I was interviewing in his office, and it was when he was in the Rayburn building, room 2104 in the Rayburn building. It was, I think, an April evening, if I'm not mistaken, in the mid-1980s, and I had a chance to interview with my own congressman, Henry Hyde, to become possibly a legislative assistant. I went in. I handed him my resume. And I have an independent recollection, as I am standing here today, of Henry Hyde looking out over me in these half glasses and kind of clearing his throat looking at the resume, sort of looking it over, and I remember feeling very intimidated because at the time, after all, I was in a conversation with Henry Hyde. Well, to make a long story short, he very graciously offered me the job. And what I will say is this. We serve with a whole cast of characters here in Congress. And we see one another many times on the floor, and we interact with one another, and we see one another in the hallways. But when you really want to get to know a Member, you ask the staff what is that person really like? The staff people who are working for that Member, out of the public view, behind closed doors in the office when nobody is around, and I will tell you this: Henry Hyde was the same person to work for as the person who would appear here on the floor of the House of Representatives. He was gracious. Now, he expected you to work hard. He expected excellence on the part of his staff, and he wanted you to do a good job. But the same pleasant man that you encountered and is fondly remembered here this evening was the same person that interacted with his staff. You know, there are different ways to measure people. And I called Congressman Hyde on the phone in April of this year. I was walking into the Cannon building. It was an early morning. And I called him on my cell phone, and I caught him at home. It was fairly early. And I said, ``Henry, I have been here for 4 months.'' I said, ``I marvel at what you were able to accomplish during the time that you were here.'' Many of us come from legislative bodies, State legislatures or county legislative bodies, and they are fairly intimate affairs, actually. They're fairly small groups of legislators that come together. But when you think of the figurative shadow that he cast on legislation for the past 30 years, it was a thing to behold. I know he enjoyed the phone call, but it wasn't false flattery. It was actually admiration from somebody who has recently come to succeed him in Congress. Finally, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I remember when I sat with Congressman Hyde several months before I came to this body, and at the end of a very pleasant conversation as we went back and forth on issues and talked about local politics and State politics and national politics and all kinds of issues, he said a word to me. When I share it with you, Mr. Speaker, it is going to sound like a very common thing. But when you're me and you are seated across from Henry J. Hyde, it didn't sound very common at that point. And he said to me this: He said, ``Peter, this is important work in Congress. This is important work.'' And there was an urgency with what he was saying to me that day. And it wasn't the whimsy of an old man who was just reflecting back on 32 years of service, but it was the admonition of a statesman who had looked out over the horizon and really understood the great challenges but, even more, the great opportunities that are here for us in the United States of America. So I know that I am joined by many, many, many Americans who considered Henry Hyde to be their congressman, to be America's congressman. And so it is with a great sense of pride and also a great sense of sadness and loss that I rise today, like so many of my colleagues, to honor his memory.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, many of us come to Washington, D.C. for our first time and we go out and about and we introduce ourselves. And I did that as a candidate, introduced myself to people, and they had no interest whatsoever in who I was. I tried then to seek a little bit of common ground and tell them where I am from. They had no interest whatsoever in where I was from. And then I didn't play fair. Then I said to them, I am running to succeed Congressman Hyde. At that moment, the demeanor on every single person changed. They pulled me a little bit closer, they grabbed my elbow, and they would say, Henry Hyde, let me tell you about Henry Hyde. They would tell some unbelievable story about how Henry Hyde would come down to the well of this Chamber in a packed place and with the whole country watching and do what great statesmen do, and that was to speak to the great weighty issues of the day. Or they would tell me about Henry Hyde and a kindness that he had extended to them out of the presence of anybody else, that no one would ever know about. So it is with a great deal of regret that Mr. Costello and I are here announcing the passing of a great man. This great man was my predecessor. He was known not only ultimately for what he accomplished and what he stood for but I think actually who he was.

Mr. ROSKAM

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Like many others, I very much appreciate the tone and the effort of the chairman and the ranking member to come to terms with a very difficult problem that is facing our country, and that is the subprime mortgage crisis and the ripple effect, the profound ripple effect it is having throughout the economy. My sense, though, is that while there are some very good elements in the bill, I appreciate the fact that it is prospective, I appreciate the fact that it is not a bailout, and I appreciate the fact that its focus is limited to subprime mortgages and not prime mortgages, there is an element that is of enough concern to me to come to the floor and bring it to the House's attention. I am not unique in bringing it to the House's attention, but I urge a real sense of caution, and I think we can do slightly better, and that is the ambiguity of some of the phrases and definitions in the bill. The gentleman from Georgia referenced these in his remarks. But when regulatory language, as this is, has words like ``appropriate'' without further definition; ``ability to repay'' without further definition; and ``net tangible benefit'' without further definition, I think it is a weakness in the bill, and I think it is a fatal flaw in the bill. My hope is that these ambiguities will be cleaned up. I am not one that says we necessarily need to yield this turf to the regulators. I think we as Members of Congress have that ability and that responsibility to define these terms. Because if we don't, I think what will happen is that capital that is currently available to subprime borrowers will become unavailable to some subprime borrowers. There is language that creates the purported safe harbor in the bill, but it is a safe harbor that does not end with a period at the end of the sentence, essentially. It is a safe harbor that has a comma at the end and is simply a rebuttable presumption. So safe harbors are mostly safe, but not entirely safe. I think Americans like to be governed with a light touch and not a heavy hand, and I hope that we can revisit this bill when it may come back from the other body.