Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I stand in support of H.J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment. I believe there are strong cultural, historic, and societal reasons for reaffirming the definition of marriage. For centuries, our society has been built upon the tradition that marriage consists of one man and one woman. The institution of marriage is not one made to discriminate, but was created to advocate an ideal home for children. This enduring and cherished institution is the healthiest way to raise strong families. We have to ask ourselves why we would want to change the institution of marriage after it has served human civilization so well over the course of time.

My home state of Ohio has spoken very strongly on this. The state legislature has passed its own Defense of Marriage Act, and I have received hundreds of letters on the issue from my constituents in the Fourth District. I believe there is a strong majority consensus in Ohio for the traditional definition of marriage. It now appears that proponents have received enough signatures through petitions to put this issue on the ballot on Election Day.

I do not take amending the U.S. Constitution lightly. But because of the decision made by activist judges in states like Massachusetts, there is no assurance that existing federal and state defense of marriage acts can remain intact. The American people deserve to be heard through their elected representatives, and that is why it is proper for the House to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives to Carl G. Stoecklin upon the completion of his term as President of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents (PIA).

Carl Stoecklin is a pillar of the insurance community in the State of Ohio. As President of the Broze Insurance Agency of Cincinnati, he has spent his entire professional career advising consumers about obtaining the best insurance coverage for their needs.

He has been honored as Professional Agent of the year by PIA of Ohio in 1995, and was the recipient of the prestigious Dow Reichley Award from PIA of Ohio in 1985.

Carl has served in many positions of responsibility in PIA for the past quarter century, including as President of the Ohio affiliate of the PIA and for the last year as the President of the national association.

His dedication to the highest standards of professionalism as an insurance agent has earned Carl the respect of his friends, associates, and business colleagues, and of the insurance industry as a whole.

As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I recognize the essential and irreplaceable function that insurance provides in our economy.

Carl G. Stoecklin deserves our commendations for his dedicated service to his consumers, profession, and community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend to the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives the achievements of Dick Strahm, a great football coach, civic figure, and role model for our young people.

Dick Strahm's accomplishments as the head football coach at the University of Findlay were formally recognized in August when he was inducted into the National Football Foundation College Hall of Fame in South Bend, Indiana.

Simply put, Dick Strahm is Findlay football. In his 24 years as head coach for the Findlay Oilers, he compiled a record of 183-64-5 that included four National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) championships. His fourth and final national title came in 1997 when the Oilers were a perfect 14-0. During one remarkable ten-year run, his teams won nine Hoosier-Buckeye Conference championships. The team's record in the 1990s was the best in the country for NAIA schools.

Dick is a 12-time NAIA District 22 Coach of the Year and four-time National Coach of the Year. With his induction into the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame, he joins such coaching legends as Woody Hayes, Knute Rockne, and Amos Alonzo Stagg.

But while my hometown of Findlay is proud of Dick Strahm's record on the football field, it has even greater respect for the influence that he has had on the lives of the young men in his program and in his community.

Because they do not receive athletic scholarships, those who attend NAIA schools truly are students first and athletes second. Dick Strahm always recognized that. He insisted that his players be as diligent in the classroom as they were on the field. By teaching the importance of commitment, discipline, and perseverance, Dick Strahm has prepared countless young men to become successful businessmen, public servants, and husbands and fathers.

Dick Strahm will be honored at a dinner at the University of Findlay on Saturday, September 25. Findlay continues to look to Coach Strahm for advice and guidance. We are glad that the nation now knows what we've known all along: our community is blessed to have such a great teacher and leader in our midst.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and he will be pleased to know that I will not use the entire 18 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as the proud sponsor of the Video Voyeurism Act, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) for their leadership in getting this bill through the committee, and also would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for sponsoring this bipartisan bill with me.

I would like to express my appreciation for Senator DeWine's work in passing the companion bill in the Senate. I have introduced this bill in the past 3 Congresses, and I am very happy to see it on the floor today.

My original interest in this issue came from a concern that a constituent expressed in a letter. I had also just written the Child Online Protection Act, which is something we need to have implemented after years of legal delays.

Video voyeurism is something that has been in the news a lot lately, in part, due to the improper use of the camera cell phones that have become so popular. For the victim, it is embarrassing and degrading to be photographed in a compromised position. It is an invasion of personal privacy.

What we have seen in recent years is that technologically savvy predators have infiltrated high school locker rooms, department store dressing rooms and even people's homes using small concealed cameras. Women have even been victimized standing in line at the mall or an amusement park.

What makes it worse now is that these pictures can be instantly posted on the Internet for millions to use. In fact, there are a multitude of Web sites devoted specifically for these types of pictures and videos.

As is often the case, the law has not kept up with technology. Many of these cases have been tried under old peeping tom laws which were not written to cover photographic equipment, so a case either cannot be brought or the sentence does not adequately fit the crime.

Although more States are passing laws to address this, our Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would create a comprehensive law that covers all forms of video voyeurism on Federal land, and it will serve as a model for States that either have not enacted or may not want to strengthen their own laws against video voyeurism.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good bill that protects privacy and decency, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to salute the determined efforts of the crew of the Spirit of Galion and the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio National Guard in preventing a major disaster over the skies of Iraq earlier this year.

On June 29, the six-man crew of the C-130 transport plane Spirit of Galion took off from Balad Airbase in Iraq with 59 Army soldiers on board. The soldiers were en route to the United States for a two-week break. However, the upbeat mood on board did not last for long. Major Bruce Fogle and Major Jeff Charette, the pilot and co-pilot, respectively, and both constituents of mine from Mansfield, quickly noticed that the right main landing gear would not retract after takeoff.

The crew's two loadmasters, Senior Master Sergeant Mike Cyphert (also a constituent of mine from Shelby) and Staff Sergeant Mike Keller from Sycamore, examined the landing gear to discover what was wrong. They found that the gear was wedged at an angle, with one wheel fully retracted and the other almost all the way down. In that position, there was no way the plane could possibly land safely.

Majors Fogle and Charette, though, with 28 years of C-130 flight experience between them, did not panic, even though the plane's fuel level afforded them very limited time to fix this major problem. Working with Captain Matt Muha of Dayton, their navigator, they decided to make their way toward the Persian Gulf, circling overhead until either the gear problem was fixed or their fuel level reached a critical level.

Meanwhile, Technical Sergeant Shane Adams, the flight's engineer and a constituent of mine from Lima, worked with Sergeants Cyphert and Keller to free the jammed gear. The flight crew alerted experts on the ground as to their situation, working with ground crews in the region, at the 179th Airlift Wing base in Mansfield, and even with private sector aerospace engineers. Even with the combined efforts and suggestions of the dozens of people now troubleshooting the problem, none of the solutions proposed was successful in lowering the gear.

With these options exhausted, Sergeants Adams, Cyphert, and Keller continued to rock the stuck wheels from side to side in an attempt to dislodge them. However, the Spirit of Galion was quickly running out of fuel. The pilots radioed Kuwait International Airport and requested clearance for an emergency landing. Just in time, however, the crew freed the gear, allowing it to drop freely.

Even with the gear freed, though, there was no guarantee of a safe landing. The crew had no way of knowing if the gear would stay in place and support the weight of the plane on touchdown. The crew immediately went to work bracing the gear with heavy cargo chains strapped across the width of the cramped plane. The crew also had to rearrange the seating for their Army passengers to minimize the risk to them should the gear give way. The loadmasters helped to secure several of the soldiers to the floor of the airplane with cargo straps.

With the gear secured and emergency crews in place near the runway prepared for the worst, Major Fogle brought the plane in. Despite the continuing tension and the knowledge that so many lives were potentially in the balance, it was a textbook landing, with Major Charette calling it the smoothest he had ever seen. Thanks to the dedicated efforts of the entire crew, the gear stayed in place.

The six-man crew was greeted with cheers from their Army passengers and their crewmates on the ground around the world. Befitting their professionalism and dedication, though, they deflected these accolades, instead expressing their own thanks to the soldiers on board, the ground crews in Kuwait, their teammates at the 179th in Mansfield, and everyone else involved in the effort to bring the Spirit of Galion back safely.

I am proud to add my commendations to the entire team that prevented disaster on that day--but especially to the flight crew on board. Using their years of experience and through their calm actions, they saved many lives in the air and on the ground that day. The Spirit of Galion and the soldiers on board could not have been in more capable hands than this crew, which knew that failure was not an option with so much at stake. Their devotion to their duty and their country is a credit to everyone at the 179th Airlift Wing and an ideal reflection of the bravery and skills of our reservists and guardsmen now serving the United States throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

By seeking to undo regulations governing the proper application of State laws to national banks, this amendment goes to the heart of the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction over banking matters. During this Congress, the Financial Services Committee has held two hearings addressing the OCC's regulations. The hearings revealed deep divisions between those who, like the proponents of this amendment, are critical of the OCC's regulations, and those who believe they represent a thoughtful codification of long-standing statutory and judicial precedents. I fall into the latter camp.

Based on the Committee's hearings, it is clear that there is no consensus at the present time on the merits of the OCC's regulations. Legislation introduced by Mr. Gutierrez to invalidate the regulations under the Congressional Review Act has received little support. To attempt to legislate a resolution to this highly contentious issue in an appropriations bill--over the strong objection of the leadership of the Committee with jurisdiction over the substantive issue and with no opportunity for input from that Committee--subverts the regular order of this House.

The rules that Mr. Gutierrez disagrees with were finalized earlier this year, after a lengthy period for public notice and comment. The rules have been in full force and effect for most of the year, and the dire consequences predicted by Mr. Gutierrez have simply not materialized. National banks continue to be closely monitored for compliance with applicable consumer protection laws, and the State banking system remains strong. Two Federal judges have recently dismissed legal challenges to the OCC regulations filed by States against national banks, upholding the OCC's exclusive authority to regulate the lending activities of national banks and their operating subsidiaries.

Finally, it is unclear what effect--if any--this amendment might have. Given that the OCC is self-funded, and any litigation to enforce the regulation would be undertaken by the Department of Justice and not the Department of the Treasury, I am unclear about what effect this amendment might have.

For all of these reasons, I urge Members--regardless of their views on the underlying OCC regulations at issue--to strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that half of my time be allocated to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, as well as a respected member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Our amendment will strike ill advised language adopted in the Committee on Appropriations that, if allowed to remain in the bill, would prevent the Treasury Department from enforcing regulations implementing customer identification provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that are critically important to combating money laundering and disrupting the financing of terrorism.

I note at the outset that the Bush administration has issued a strongly worded statement of administration position opposing the language that the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment would strike from this legislation.

My colleagues are going to hear a lot in today's debate about what whether one form of ID is better than another; but as the author of the USA PATRIOT Act's anti-terrorist financing provisions and as a former FBI, agent, let me set the record straight. Today's debate is not about good or bad ID. It is about whether we are going to ask financial services customers for any ID at all. My amendment says yes; and the bill, as currently constructed, says no.

By way of background, the regulations that the bill seeks to block were issued by the Treasury Department last year under section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which I authored. That provision was intended to enhance the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism by requiring those institutions to develop comprehensive procedures for verifying customer identity at the time of account opening. Among other things, the provision requires financial institutions to consult lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations when opening accounts for new customers.

In implementing section 326, the administration ultimately decided to give institutions the flexibility to tailor their customer identification programs to the risks of money laundering or terrorist financing posed by their products, services, and customer base. Consistent with this risk-based approach, the final regulations give financial institutions the discretion to determine which forms of identification issued by foreign governments they will accept and under what circumstances.

Make no mistake, the regulations do not mandate or require the acceptance of the matricula consular card. If financial institutions are concerned about their validity, they are free to reject the use of those cards as identification.

These regulations were finalized only after two lengthy public comment periods, which included extensive input from the financial services industry, law enforcement agencies, and a host of other interested parties, and after careful analysis and study by the Treasury Department and other financial regulators. The regulations, effective last year, are currently being enforced by Treasury and the Federal financial regulators and implemented by financial institutions across the country.

The so-called Culberson amendment throws into question the obligation of financial institutions to verify the identities of their customers and ties Treasury's hands in enforcing one of the centerpieces of the post-September

11 congressional response to the terrorist financing threat.

Indeed, when he appeared before our committee last month, 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a former distinguished colleague of ours, singled out section 326 for particular praise, calling it a ``significant tool to assist fast-moving terrorism investigations.''

Failure to adopt this amendment will result in this critical tool being taken from the Government's hands. I would suggest to my colleagues that now is not the time to be unilaterally disarming in the financial war against terrorists.

The Bush administration and the Treasury Department have registered their strong support for this amendment, arguing that denying access to the mainstream financial system serves only to drive consumers into the underground financial economy, making it virtually impossible to track their financial activity and frustrating the Government's efforts to enforce antimoney laundering and antiterrorist financing laws. In the words of Secretary Snow, if the section my amendment seeks to strike becomes law, ``it will be a step backwards in the financial war on terror.''

Let us be very serious and understand that that is what the PATRIOT Act is all about. This is an effort to repeal part of the PATRIOT Act that has worked so successfully in protecting American citizens.

Finally, let me express my frustration with this kind of back-door legislating in appropriations bills. This is simply not the way we should be operating in this House.

My colleagues have a simple choice before them: vote for our amendment and give our financial regulators the ability to track, seize, and freeze terrorist funds or vote against us and drive terrorist money laundering even further underground. The choice is clear.

Support our fight against the funding of terror. Support the Oxley- Frank-Kolbe amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think there has been a very broad misunderstanding about the destruction of those photographs and/or records. The law clearly requires that the financial institutions keep those documents for 5 years. That is not a change in policy. Treasury has recognized that for a number of years. The law has recognized that for a number of years. Financial institutions have recognized that for a number of years. It is simply not accurate to say that those records are destroyed immediately by the banks. They are required by law to keep those records for 5 years.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just quote from the letter from the Department of Justice: ``The Justice Department supports the administration's determination to permit the acceptance of matricula consular cards by financial institutions under circumstances where financial institutions reasonably believe they can properly identify the new customer.''

That is from the letter of the Justice Department.

That letter was dated today. The Justice Department clearly supports the Oxley amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend from California for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me say, this bill was drafted in our committee. I was the lead sponsor of the legislation. We have fully determined the efficacy of using these matricula consular cards. By the way, it is not the only form of identification. As a matter of fact, matricula consular is not even mentioned in the statute, nor is it mentioned in the rules and regulations from Treasury Department.

I would invite the gentleman and the gentleman from Texas to introduce a bill and to have it referred to the appropriate committee, the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

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

Mr. Chairman, for my part in closing, I first want to say it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), my ranking member.

I do not think any of us take a back seat, I know I do not, in fighting terrorism. And our committee was in the thick of passing the PATRIOT Act, and one of the proudest moments I have had as chairman was the section 326 and what we did in the Act, and to see the President sign that was indeed a real honor.

This provision that we had is important in the fight on terrorism. And I regret some of the arguments that indicate otherwise because our committee had it right the first time, and what I regret, frankly, is the Committee on Appropriations stepping into an area that the authorizing committee has the knowledge and the expertise in.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the other cosponsors for this important legislation.

In late August, our committee held a hearing on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We heard from the Homeland Security Department, we heard from the Justice Department and

the Treasury Department. A lead witness was our former colleague and good friend, Lee Hamilton from Indiana, who, as my colleagues know, was the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, vice chair to Governor Kean of New Jersey.

In his testimony, Mr. Hamilton made it very clear that FinCEN not only plays an important logistical and strategic position in determining and finding terrorist financing, but that their desire for new technology and a need for new technology was very much appreciated by the commission. As a result of that testimony, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), showing excellent leadership having had a number of oversight hearings on terrorist financing, and indeed the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) is one of the real experts in this Congress on terrorist financing, she felt it imperative to introduce this legislation that would provide another $25 million so FinCEN could provide this kind of information in real-time, working with some 70 other countries to locate, identify, in some cases freeze, or certainly try to recapture those amounts of funding by terrorist groups.

So I come to the floor not only as a cosponsor of the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) amendment, but as chairman of the Committee on Financial Services to say that clearly Mr. Hamilton made the kind of point that all of us need to listen to. As we will begin our efforts in the Congress to adopt the 9/11 Commission report this month or early next month, this is a first opportunity we have in this vehicle, this appropriations measure to show that the Congress is serious about funding FinCEN with the kind of funding necessary for them to be fully implemented and fully up to speed in terms of technology. That is what this amendment is about, and I commend the gentlewoman.

Twenty-five million dollars in the overall scheme of things in an appropriation is not a lot of money, but FinCEN is not a large government bureaucracy. It is a very effective, relatively small group that does an excellent job.

So I stand here in strong support of the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Oxley

Amendment No. 3: Strike section 216 (relating to

identification accepted by financial institutions).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3574, the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act.

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

I would like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, for his great leadership on the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act. His legislation strikes a significant compromise between those who believe that expensing options will help prevent some of the corporate governance abuses we have seen in the last few years and those who believe that expensing options will harm our most innovative companies, especially those in the high-tech industry, but not exclusive to them.

Requiring publicly held companies to record as an expense options granted to the chief executive and the next four most highly compensated officers will help preserve broad-based employee stock options and, at the same time, addresses the corporate governance concerns voiced by advocates of expensing.

Our most successful enterprises, many of which are small businesses and venture capital companies, would not be as successful as they are today but for their ability to attract and retain talented employees by giving them ownership in that endeavor. Ownership rewards due to one's personal contribution to a successful enterprise is the ethos of our capital markets system.

While I have been, and continue to be, a strong supporter of FASB's independence, I am supportive of the gentleman from Louisiana's (Chairman Baker) legislation because I believe FASB's proposal, as currently drafted, would do harm to our most innovative companies. While I believe that FASB should be separated from the political process, and I have supported FASB's independence during all of my 20- plus years here in the Congress, its authority is subject to review by the Congress.

In extraordinary circumstances, and I believe this is one of those rare occasions, FASB's rule-making should be halted when its proposal will do harm to our economy, and I believe that is the case here. The Congress is ultimately responsible for the economic well-being of this country. Policies that could create an environment that is hostile to innovation and entrepreneurship must be reviewed and altered accordingly.

Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support the gentleman from Louisiana's (Chairman Baker) important legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) be permitted to control the remainder of my time for consideration of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The manager's amendment to H.R. 3574 makes an important clarification to the bill as reported by the Committee on Financial Services. The bill was never designed to prevent any company that either currently expenses its employee stock options or wishes to do so in the future from doing so. The manager's amendment makes it explicit that a company that wishes to voluntarily expense its employee stock options may do so based on the expensing rules that companies are using today to expense their stock options.

The bill's requirement that companies expense the employee stock options with the five top executives would not apply to any company that voluntarily expenses all of its employee stock options under current rules.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important distinction, because if companies feel

it is important to expense these stock options, if they feel they may perhaps have a competitive advantage over competitors, they may choose to do so. It literally is a free country, and they have that obligation. This amendment simply clarifies that option that all companies, publicly traded companies, have; and I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, we have debated this amendment in committee, and it was defeated on a vote of 13 ayes and 43 nays, precisely because while the gentleman's intentions I think are good, as debate in the committee clearly showed, this amendment, should it be adopted, would, frankly, confuse investors far more than it would educate them.

An options value is estimated by applying an options pricing model at the date the option is granted.

It was interesting that one national accounting firm, which incidentally supports expensing, wrote FASB last year to support zero volatility, something that the Sherman amendment would bring into question. ``We believe that using zero as the expected volatility of the stock price would increase the reliability of option values.''

So what we are trying to do with the underlying bill is not only provide the top five executives with the need to expense stock options, but also to give the investing public the kind of information they need so they can compare apples to apples in this regard; and unfortunately, the Sherman amendment does just quite the opposite.

So for those reasons, I would oppose the Sherman amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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

Let me say this debate raged in the committee. I think the committee made a wise choice in defeating that. It only got 14 votes and 33 against because of some of the arguments that were purported from members on both sides of the aisle regarding the innate confusion the gentleman's amendment would cause to the investing public.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he might consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first say, while I oppose the amendment, the gentlewoman from New York has made an excellent contribution to the committee on a number of fronts, and we appreciate her efforts. We just happen to disagree on this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who has been enormously helpful throughout this process and, in fact, testified before the Committee on Financial Services on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

This has been an excellent debate, and I have great respect for the two gentlemen who have offered this substitute, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), but the issue here is whether duly elected public policymakers, that is, the Congress, have a responsibility to deal with issues that come into the realm of the economy, job creation, economic growth and the like, and I think clearly the answer is ``yes.''

How many arguments have we heard about outsourcing? How many arguments have we heard about the fact that we are falling behind in the technology gap with Asian countries? How many times have we heard the arguments about the number of engineers that are produced in other parts of the world compared to here or in science and the like? How many times have we heard about the competition out there for good quality people who have an idea, who want to bring that idea to fruition?

That is really what employee stock options do. It gives them an incentive. It incentivizes these folks to work harder and to come up with more innovations because they have a piece of the action. They own part of that company, and this is clearly what it is.

The fastest growing area for employee stock options is Asia, and among the Asian countries, the fastest growing country for creation of employee stock options is Communist China.

When our American companies have to compete for talent with Japan and China and other countries in Asia, and at the same time we have politicians and pundits complaining about outsourcing and about our inability to be competitive, do we have to stand back as elected Members of Congress and say we are willing to allow those decisions to be made by unelected bureaucrats and the private sector? I say, no.

So this idea that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) came up with, which deals with that 30 percent, the top five people in a corporation, this deals directly with that. It says we are going to have them report those stock options. That is precisely the point behind this.

If the argument is that somehow all of the business scandals resulted from the fact that people were abusing stock options, then this bill is the answer to that problem. I ask Members to oppose the substitute and for a strong bipartisan vote for final passage.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the Apollo 11 mission and honor a native of the 4th district of Ohio, Neil Armstrong. As mission commander, Armstrong was first to step on the lunar surface at 10:56 p.m., EDT on July 20, 1969. His immortal words--``That is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind''--will resonate in our hearts and minds forever.

Neil Alden Armstrong took his first steps in Wapakoneta, Ohio. Born to Stephen and Viola Armstrong, Neil developed an early interest in flying. At age six, he took his first airplane ride in Warren, Ohio in a Ford Tri-Motor plane nicknamed the ``Tin Goose''. He began taking flying lessons at the age of fifteen and had his student pilot's license before graduating from Blume High School in 1947.

While in college at Purdue University, he was called up for active duty in the Navy and was sent to Korea as an aviator. During the war, he flew seventy-eight combat missions from the aircraft carrier USS Essex. Following the war, Armstrong joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and was sent to the Lewis Research Center near Cleveland, Ohio (today the Glenn Research Center) where he was an engineer and test pilot. At Lewis and later at NASA's Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, Armstrong flew over 200 different models of aircraft while pursuing a master of science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California.

In 1962, Armstrong was transferred to astronaut status and moved to El Lago, Texas, where he underwent four years of training for the Apollo program. He commanded his first space mission as pilot for Gemini VII, but his most famous mission came when Apollo 11 launched on July 16, 1969. Armstrong and the two other astronauts, ``Buzz'' Aldrin and Michael Collins, spent eight days in space and 2\1/2\ hours on the Moon's surface.

For his work as an astronaut, Armstrong received the Medal of Freedom, the NASA Distinguished Service Medal, the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, and the Congressional Space Medal of Honor. Neil Armstrong went where no one had gone before and helped our Nation become the leader in space exploration. This man from rural Ohio paved the way for generations to continue to explore and dream of the far reaches of our universe. As our Nation embarks on future space travels, we need to take time to honor those explorers who carved out a new path for us to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the floor during rollcall votes 360 (Hefley amendment to H.R. 4755), 361 (Sherman motion to recommit H.R. 4755), and 362 (H.R. 4755 final passage), taken last night. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 360 and 361 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 362.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1914, the ``Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of 2003,'' authored by the gentle lady from Virginia, Mrs. Davis, and ask for its immediate passage.

Madam Speaker, it is easy to lose sight of the importance of the founding of Jamestown. Of course, it was the first permanent European settlement in what is now the United

States. But from its earliest days, Jamestown fused the cultures of Europe, of the natives of America, and of the Caribbean, establishing a tradition of diversity and respect for others, as well as the traditions of English common law. In a very important way, the colony was not only the toehold of Europe, but the seed from which a new and truly American--not a replica European--society was formed.

It is for that reason that I wholeheartedly support this legislation. The educational efforts and the archaeological efforts that would be funded by the surcharges generated by the sales of the coins authorized in this legislation will be an important way to remind us, our children, and those who come long after of the importance of this colony.

I would like to congratulate Mrs. Davis for her legislation and for all the hard work to get the co-sponsorship of more than two-thirds of this body, and as well thank Chairman Thomas for his help in expediting consideration of the bill. With that, I urge immediate passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3277, the Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, and ask for its immediate passage.

All of us know the grit the Marines have shown in the face of some of the worst of the fighting necessary to protect our Nation. All of us know the esprit de corps for which the Marines are famous. But, I think, few of us know all of the history of the Marines--that they were formed even before the United States became a country, for example. Passage of this legislation will help rectify that problem.

Surcharges from the sale of the coins authorized in this bill will help fund construction of a facility at Quantico to house Marines memorabilia currently held in a 60-plus-year-old corrugated-metal building that isn't going to last forever. The Marine Corps Heritage Center that would be partially funded by surcharges and matching funds will provide a permanent center for preserving those artifacts, and a place to do research on the Marines.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Murtha for his legislation and for all the hard work to get the co-sponsorship of more than two-thirds of this body, and as well to thank Chairman Thomas for his help in expediting consideration of the bill. With that, I urge immediate passage of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2768, the ``John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act,'' introduced by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, no school child of my age, or probably even of today, does not know of the famous Marbury vs. Madison decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, that established the principle of judicial review and made the Supreme Court, and the Federal judiciary, a co- equal branch of government.

I think, though, that even law students probably do not know that as the country's first Chief Justice, John Marshall wrote more than 500 opinions, truly making the court the great institution it is today during his 34 years of service in that post.

Just as importantly, I am certain that few know of the great efforts by the Supreme Court Historical Society, which preserves court memorabilia, provides docents for the court building and offers conservation for some truly valuable items held by the society--here I am thinking particularly of a striking portrait of John Marshall himself.

Surcharge income from the sale of the coins authorized in this legislation will help preserve those items and preserve the true history of the court, a history for which John Marshall's own hand scrawled the first bold strokes.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Bachus for his legislation and for all the hard work to get the co-sponsorship of more than 500 Members of this body, and as well to thank Chairman Thomas for his help in expediting consideration of the bill. With that, I urge immediate passage of this legislation.