Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I join with the chairman in recommending swift passage through the House for at least the third time. This bill has passed under

multiple authors, both Republican and Democrat. It is, by nature, one in which we believe we are appropriately asserting a daylight requirement on past and future Presidents and would certainly hope that we would view this bill as noncontroversial in most areas.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's Presidential libraries attract millions of visitors each year. They have become elaborate institutions, and the cost of building and maintaining these facilities has grown dramatically.

Under current law, Presidential libraries are built with private funds, then turned over to the Archivist for operation.

Amendments to the Presidential Libraries Act mandated the establishment of an endowment to cover some of the costs of operating the library, which are usually met through the establishment of a charitable organization.

Funding for construction and the endowment comes from private sources. But under current law, no duty to disclose the source of those contributions exists.

On both sides of the aisle, there is strong support for increasing disclosure.

Earlier, under Mr. Duncan's leadership, the House passed solid bipartisan legislation to require the disclosure of contributions to organizations that raise funds for Presidential libraries and related facilities. And a bill identical to the bill before us passed the House last year by a wide margin.

We recognize the perception of impropriety that contributions to a Presidential library can raise, given the huge sums that must be amassed, and the attraction this avenue may hold for those seeking favors or influence.

This legislation will provide a needed degree of transparency to that process.

If I may, I am going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for a particular portion of the bill that he feels, before it becomes law, should ultimately be looked at.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure now to yield up to 10 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the author of the original bill substantially similar to the one today and a constant advocate for this type of transparency.

We have no further speakers at this time. If the gentleman's prepared to close, I will be brief.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to say that I look forward to working with the chairman on any perfecting language here or in the Senate necessary to make this an even more acceptable bill to all Members because I believe that, as Mr. Duncan said, this is a bill whose time has come. We have been more than 6 years attempting to have this happen.

I think one thing that is very clear is that we could talk about library A, library B, library C, but as President Bush leaves office and that library is going to be built in Dallas, I think the American people will want to know every bit as much as with any previous President that that money was given by people who appreciated the legacy of that President and not by people who appreciated specific actions of that President in real-time.

And so I join with the majority and Mr. Duncan, as the original author of some time ago, in asking for quick passage of a bill, perfected as necessary in the work that I expect we will do together.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am strongly in support of this resolution as necessary and appropriate. It is sort of interesting to have to bring a vote to give somebody less money and save the taxpayers money, but I'm pleased to do it at any time, and hopefully we will find larger savings as the year goes on.

But I would like to comment on one thing. This is obviously something that we've agreed on beforehand and we look forward to quick passage, but I am committed here today, and would say on the floor with the chairman, to going back to committee to drafting a broader bill, one we would bring before the House within a few days that would cover Congresswoman Hilda Solis, former Congressman Ray LaHood, and other Members who are going to be in the same situation of having voted for the tax bill or been present for it and are going to be, in all likelihood, in the President's Cabinet. I believe that we should bring a piece of legislation that, on a blanket basis, says if you want to accept the job, you will accept the lower pay.

So, although I was pleased to be on the floor and participate in the UC, I am pleased to do this. I would hope that for judicial expedience that we would bring a single bill in the next coming weeks that would cover anyone who chooses in the first 2 years to be in the Obama administration, and I look forward to the savings that will come from those appointments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers and would yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. If I could inquire of the gentleman: Would this bill, in fact, proactively cover the Secretary of State if it is Senator Hillary Clinton?

A further inquiry: Would this cover anyone in the House or in the Senate who had voted on a pay package in the House or in the Senate so that they could then become the Secretary of State?

So who would it be limited to?

So it would be limited to the Secretary of State. Regardless of where they came from, they would be frozen at this year's pay as a result of this bill?

A last inquiry: If I understand correctly then, in every way possible, this piece of legislation passed in this Congress would, by definition, by freezing the pay, actually be, though relatively small, a savings to the taxpayers?

With that, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

I am resolute in my opposition, not because it was easy to vote against your President, but our President and his administration are wrong. And if we vote here today for this bill, it is truly the end of the Reagan era.

It's the end of the Reagan era because, in fact, under Ronald Reagan's time, we dealt with similar problems, a huge financial problem, and we worked our way out of it without unnecessarily buying assets. We closed institutions but we also saved institutions.

Madam Speaker, my Governor often says, ``I'll be back.'' Madam Speaker, I have no doubt I'll be back, and I have no doubt that we will be trying to fix the problems next year that we don't fix here today. The mark-to-market problem, which Secretary Paulson has refused to deal with, in fact, in his own bill is very clearly being denounced. He is raising the price of the assets we buy above mark-to-market while refusing to have the other assets allowed to be flowed to their true value. By definition today we are picking winners and losers in assets rather than going to creditworthy companies and helping them get the capital they need so they can make loans to men and women and companies and entrepreneurs out there who desperately need it to grow our economy.

Madam Speaker, we are deleveraging the very capital and the very enterprises we need to date. GE Capital has said they are openly deleveraging. Why? Because that's the signal we're sending. We are collapsing this country into, in fact, a recession at a time in which the Ronald Reagan policy would be to expand opportunity, to find ways to give people who have great ideas an opportunity to reinvent America.

So today we are ending the Reagan era if we vote for this, and if we can't come back and fix it next year, we will have permanently put a coffin on top of the coffin of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, the deal that is being presented to us is not the best deal that can be had. I know this because of 20-plus years in business, borrowing from banks. There is a better deal. We are not getting it. As the gentlelady from Ohio said, there are other advisers, including Bill Isaac and others, who are weighing in and who are trying to get us to see reason.

A plan that I have put forward has been endorsed, not only by Peter Tanous but by Art Laffer, certainly no liberal. The fact is we can bail out these entities without giving away. We can, in fact, loan to them against their substantial assets and not simply buy the bad assets and leave them free to take their good assets and our taxpayers' hard- earned money and walk off into the sunset to do what they want to do, which in this case is unlikely to be to extend a home loan to someone who needs it or a business loan to an innovator.

Mr. Speaker, I expect to vote against this bill. From what I've seen of it, not yet fully drafted, it does not do what the American people are asking it to do, which is to protect their tax dollars. That is the fundamental thing we're supposed to do. That's what we are charged to do. That is what we are being told not to worry about because this is an emergency.

If a drowning man asks you for a lifeline, you give him a lifeline, but you don't give him your boat and let it sail away. That's what we're being asked to do today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6146, a bill to stifle the practice of libel tourism.

The right to free speech in the United States is of fundamental importance. It is arguably the cornerstone of our democracy and the hammer that keeps our government and its officials in check.

We must not take our right to free speech for granted, for our level of freedom is not honored in many countries around the world. China is an easy example of government-controlled speech, as demonstrated recently by the restrictions placed on the international press during the Olympic Games. But other countries are more of a surprise.

Our friend and ally, Great Britain, takes a much more liberal position on libel laws than the United States. They allow judgments against defendants that would not pass muster in our domestic courts, and for this reason many plaintiffs in libel suits involving American defendants seek redress in British courts.

For example, the book, ``Alms for Jihad'', written by a former State Department analyst and a University of California Santa Barbara professor, looked into the network of global finances aiding international terrorism. The book mentioned a Saudi billionaire as being involved at some level, a claim not without controversy, but also not without legitimate research by the authors.

The threat of lawsuit by the billionaire in the British courts alone caused Cambridge University Press to shred all unsold copies of ``Alms for Jihad'' in addition to asking libraries the world over to pull the book.

We cannot allow libel laws in other countries to censor the writings of American authors when laws within the United States find the writings legitimate. Doing so will erode our right to free speech in the United States, an outcome I believe we all find abhorrent.

I cosponsored H.R. 6146 with Congressman Steve Cohen to help eliminate this threat. The bill instructs courts within the United States not to enforce libel judgments of foreign courts unless the domestic court finds the judgment is consistent with the First Amendment. This is a fairly simple mechanism, but one that we expect to help control the threat of censorship arising from libel tourism.

Without the fear of foreign judgments against legitimate writings, American authors should feel safe continue to promote national and international discourse and debate.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, September 18, 2008, I was absent from the House. Had I been present I would have voted:

On rollcall No. 610, ``nay''--H.R. 3036--To Amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes.

On rollcall No. 611, ``nay''--H.R. 3036--Providing for consideration of H.R. 3036, to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes.

On rollcall No. 613, ``yes''--H.R. 3036--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008.

On rollcall No. 614, ``nay''--H.R. 3036--On Passage of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008.

On rollcall No. 615, ``nay''--H.R. 6460--On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak in support of H.R. 6897, the ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2008.''

Recently Congress honored the 67th anniversary of President Franklin Roosevelt's military order conscripting the Philippine military forces into the service of the United States Armed Forces. On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt said, ``In this great struggle of the Pacific the loyal Americans of the Philippine Island are called upon to play a crucial role . . . I count on every Philippine man, woman, and child to do his duty. We will do ours.''

H.R. 6897 recognizes the service of these veterans to our Nation and commitment of President Roosevelt.

In World War II, approximately 200,000 Filipinos served under the command of General MacArthur in the Far East, in guerrilla units,

and the Philippine Scouts. Their service to our country was a critical component to the allied success in the Pacific.

Approximately 13,000 survivors of the total estimated 200,000 Filipino World War II veterans now reside in the United States and in the Philippines, many of which are not receiving benefits they earned as servicemen for the U.S. military.

Since coming to Congress and as co-chairman of the U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus I have urged my House colleagues to support legislation providing equity to World War II Filipino veterans.

While not perfect, H.R. 6897 would make payments to those that have yet to receive recognition for their service to the United States.

With each passing year, there are fewer surviving Filipino veterans. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6897 to give these veterans their long overdue recognition.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Representatives has voted to hold the District of Columbia accountable for violating the civil rights of D.C. residents for decades. Making the District adhere to the Constitution now is better than waiting 180 days. Once the District comes into compliance with the Supreme Court decision, D.C. residents will finally be able to defend themselves against armed criminals. The District's anti-gun law created a bastion for crime. Our action here today puts D.C. residents first and criminals second.

Mr. Speaker, the American people know who the Republicans are. We are the party that for decades the Democrats, backed by the radical left, have accused of wanting to do nuclear power. We are the party that for decades the environmental movement has fought because we wanted to drill for oil and natural gas in America.

Mr. Speaker, we are the party that has this energy bill that is not being considered, while your party, headed by Nick Rahall, Gene Green, George Miller, and John Dingell, is claiming to have a bipartisan bill that is yours which does nothing.

Mr. Speaker, there is no Republican in your bipartisan. That is a new definition even for this Democrat Congress.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1998 I called for our California coast to be opened for exploration so we would have a strategic reserve we could tap in time of need. Guess what, Barbara Boxer and the radical left attacked me. I lost that election. I haven't changed my position since then; I never will. America has to have its own resources. We are the party that you know has wanted to do that, and you are the party that has been blocking it.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in strong support of H.R. 5938, the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008.

As my colleague said so rightfully, it is appropriate that we grant to former Vice Presidents, their spouses and children a period of time in transition of protection by the Secret Service.

For the past 30 years, it has been a common practice for former Vice Presidents to receive protections on a temporary basis, via joint resolution of Congress. This act seeks to make that, appropriately, permanent, and I join with my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I say this in a bipartisan way, that in fact this body, and I know we are not allowed to talk about the other body, the Senate, and so I will only talk in terms of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill came back with a very good piece of legislation attached to a very good piece of legislation; but it came back based on a fundamental problem between the two bodies, and I thought it appropriate to speak on it.

There is no germaneness to the second half of this bill. This is simply the Senate's ability under their rules to take something that is not germane and attach it. I wouldn't have a problem with that except under our rules, Mr. Speaker, even if we are in fact doing an immigration bill in committee, as we were last week, even if that immigration bill deals with the allocation of who gets to come into this country temporarily and permanently, if the bill only deals with one sub, sub, sub-portion of a statute, that is all we are allowed to consider. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

And so I address you on behalf of the inequity between something completely unrelated being attached to a bill and voted out of this body. Both of these pieces of legislation are bipartisan. But if we cannot in fact even consider like information if it is ever so slightly outside of the definition of germaneness, and then we have to accept whole pieces of legislation never voted on because they were attached by the Senate, this body needs fundamental reform as to what our rules of germaneness are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this important piece of legislation and am pleased that a cosponsor of this bill, someone who has contributed meaningfully to the bill and to its amendments, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) is with us, and I yield to him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation hammered out on a bipartisan basis. I urge the passage of this bill. I know that the 11 States that already have a Silver Alert would greatly appreciate knowing that if someone passes from their State to an adjoining State, that that protection they provide to their citizens would be provided to their citizens in another State.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge support.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2352, the School Safety Enhancement Act of 2008. Each day roughly 160,000 children miss school because they are afraid of violent incident: 100,000 children take a weapon to school, often a gun, more often a knife; 14,000 young people are attacked on school property each year; 6,250 teachers are threatened each day; and 260 teachers are assaulted. This has to stop.

Normally, the Federal Government doesn't have a role in the day-to- day activities of public schools. In this case, when, in fact, a future workforce is endangered, and the widespread use of these kinds of techniques is often done by gangs and other organized crime links that, in fact, we are fighting on another front.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this because we cannot put all of our money into fighting gangs on the street. We have to do something to secure schools. We have to make sure that gang membership is not necessary just to go to class.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that, in fact, was first introduced by, many of the provisions were first introduced by Republicans. It is one of those bills that has transcended the change in the administration, change in leadership of the House. And I hope that we will continue to have this kind of work, finding smarter ways, better ways to stem crime on the street, including stemming crime in the classroom.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in urging support for this legislation.

The Supreme Court is an independent branch of government needing to have the exact same level and should, to be honest, without any need for extension should, on a permanent basis, have a recognized ability to protect itself.

We view ourselves as independent, and we have the Capitol Police. Certainly the executive branch views itself as independent and has both the Secret Service and, of course, the Army, the Navy, and the Marines, and so on.

So I certainly believe that this is important for us to do today to extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police. But I would happily work with my colleague on the other side of the aisle to recognize that in fact this is a permanent need, and although we would have to fund it on an annual basis as we do the Secret Service, the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and so on, that we should never let the Supreme Court have any doubt but that its independence, its autonomy, its ability to do its constitutional duty without any question, but that they and those who they need to protect along with them would be protected, we should do that through a funding mechanism and never again need to do what we're doing here today. Having said that, this is a body that takes what it gets and does what it can with what it gets.

Today we're considering an extension. I move with my colleague on the other side to do that, and I urge all of my colleagues to pass this. I believe this is going to be passed unanimously today. But long before 2013, we should, in fact, make this a permanent authorization.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague on a bipartisan basis to recognize that in the 100 years since President Theodore Roosevelt created the FBI out of basically an assemblage of Secret Service agents and detectives, what we have done is we have grown 1,000-fold in the number of agents. Clearly today with 30,000 employees, you ask how large has the task of the FBI grown. It has grown 1,000-fold.

Whether in fact it was taking on public corruption throughout this last 100 years or taking on racketeering, white collar crime, taking on the rubble of the Oklahoma City bombing and finding out who the true perpetrators were and bringing them to justice, or going after wrongdoing by the most hidden and most influential of corporate America, the FBI has spread out to do its job and do it well.

The Bureau, in fact, has taken the next step since September 11 when its primary task became protecting us from another terrorist attack like the one we experienced in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania. Those attacks made it very clear that this elite agency had to do more.

Today more than ever the FBI agents who are spread throughout the world in every embassy and in locations not even known to this body, they deal with counterterrorism in a way that no other agency can. Working hand-in-hand with overseas entities who have the charge for that, they make it their business to ensure that that foreign terrorism doesn't become an American tragedy.

No other group is so prepared to recognize the needs of America and the civil rights of America. The FBI has been a critical tool for President after President to enforce our civil rights laws often against the powerful, even against governors and other elected officials who chose not to recognize the importance of the U.S. Constitution.

The FBI has never been a partisan organization and has, in fact, served each and every administration in a way that we today commemorate and appreciate so much.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, for the first 90-plus years, the FBI was important. After September 11, 2001, the FBI's expanded role is vital.

With that, I urge the passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.