Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the results of the 43rd Annual Roll Call Baseball Game for Charity between the Democrats and Republicans. While the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is still on the floor, I want to thank him for his warm hospitality in his district at the Prince George's County Stadium and his graciousness, despite losing. And I particularly want to thank all of the players and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the Democrat manager, for being such great sportsmen. We are pleased for one more year to possess this coveted Roll Call trophy, which is all one word, coveted Roll Call trophy. I am glad to have it here on the floor, and I will have it protected in my office for the next year. The score was 14-7.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The final score was 14-7. I thank the sponsors of this event. There were over 5,000 people, the largest crowd at the event ever, and it will produce over $100,000 for the Adult Literacy Council and Boys and Girls Clubs of the Washington area. They are always very worthy recipients.

Thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), half of the budget of the Adult Literacy Council will be provided from the proceeds of this game. We are very pleased about that. I notice the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), one of the announcers for the game, he and former member Martin Russo. We thank them for their fine work. And finally, I want to thank Hall of Famer Lou Brock, who was brought here by the auspices of the Baseball Hall of Fame, as well as Major League Baseball. He was very gracious, threw out the first ball, threw a strike, signed autographs for the kids, and had pictures taken. To Lou Brock and his wife, thank you for making the 43rd annual baseball game one to remember.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I attended the funeral of the Honorable John Stozich, former State representative and former mayor of my hometown of Findlay, Ohio.

As a result, I was absent from the House during rollcall votes on H. Res. 707, H. Res. 706, and H.R. 3980. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of each.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chairman, as many of us know, the Child On-line Protection Act, or legislation better known as COPA, was signed into law on October 21, 1998. I was the author of that legislation, which was designed to shield minors from Internet pornography. And despite my attempt to craft a narrowly tailored requirement involving only commercial, on-line pornographers to screen out minors before they distribute or sell pornographic materials on the Internet, by verifying their clients' adult status through the use of credit cards, adult access codes, or other reasonable technologies, last week the Supreme Court, on a 5-to-4 vote, voted to uphold a preliminary injunction that would block COPA from being implemented. This is now 6 years into this issue.

After COPA was enacted, the Supreme Court ruled that mechanisms designed to filter minors away from graphic and obscene images on the Web may not be the least restrictive alternative available to accomplish our goal of protecting minors from porn on the Internet.

I echo the opinion expressed by Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote in dissent, ``My conclusion is that the Act, as properly interpreted, risks imposition of minor burdens on some protected material, burdens that adults wishing to view the material may overcome at modest cost.'' In other words, Justice Breyer felt that the burden ought to be on the pornographer, not on the parents to provide this kind of protection for their children.

The popularity and growth of the Internet presents opportunities for minors to access information that can frustrate parental supervision and control. Seventy million individuals visit pornographic Web sites each week, of which about 11 million are minors. This is not a Playboy magazine type of situation. These are very, very graphic and very, very much other than the usual centerfold one might expect. Once posted on the Internet, sexually explicit material has entered all communities and virtually any home that has access to the Internet.

Minors often stumble upon sexually explicit material on the Internet by mistake. To use one example, they use copycat URLs to take advantage of innocent mistakes. A child searching the Internet for the official Web site of the White House can be confronted by hard core pornography by mistyping www.whitehouse.com, rather than www.whitehouse.gov. In my mind, COPA's requirement that purveyors of pornographic material on the Web utilize technological safeguards was the practically available and least restrictive way to limit minors' access.

In light of last week's disappointing decision, I was pleased to see the report language for H.R. 4754, which includes $2.605 million for 25 new positions to investigate and prosecute adult obscenity and child exploitation crimes. This level of funding is in addition to the $5.2 million which is included in this bill for the investigation and prosecution of these crimes by the existing staff at the Department of Justice. My thanks go out to the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for his leadership in this regard.

Because of the magnitude of the problem of adult obscenity and child exploitation, I believe these 25 new positions at the Department of Justice are a good start. However, I believe it is not proportionate to the volume of obscenity being disseminated by the Web sites of commercial American pornographers. Type the word ``sex'' into a Internet search engine like Google, and you will get 180 million hits.

Today, pornography accounts for more than one-tenth of all on-line consumer purchases. According to one study, purveyors of pornographic material on the Web earned $12 billion in revenue last year. In the space of a generation, a product that was once available in the back alleys of big cities is now delivered directly into homes by some of the biggest companies in the United States. I have serious concerns that the Congress' $7.8 million is simply not enough to handle the problem.

If the distinguished chairman would join me in a colloquy, I would ask him if he supports the prosecution of adult obscenity and child exploitation crimes.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the chairman to ensure these crimes are investigated and prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

Offered By: Mr. Oxley

Amendment No. 17: Page 5, line 20, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``, of which $2,605,000 shall

be for 25 positions to investigate and prosecute adult

obsenity and child exploitation crimes,''.

Offered By: Mr. Oxley

Amendment No. 18: Page 5, line 20, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``, of which $2,605,000 shall

be for the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,''.

Offered By: Mr. Oxley

Amendment No. 19: Page 5, line 20, after the first dollar

amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $2,605,000)

(increased by $2,605,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2238, the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This important piece of legislation not only reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30, 2008, but also makes much- needed reforms that will help the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stem wasteful use of taxpayer funds on properties that flood over and over again.

By now most Members are well aware of the long road we have traveled in developing this legislation. After years' worth of discussions with floodplain managers, taxpayer groups, environmental groups, insurance professionals and the housing industry, the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 253 by a unanimous, bipartisan vote on July 23, 2003. The bill was subsequently passed in the House by an overwhelming margin on November 20, 2003. The National Flood Insurance Program is now set to expire on June 30, 2004; it is critical that we act on this bill today.

Thanks to the hard work of my colleagues, there should be no doubt that this legislation will receive a favorable vote once again. The Senate bill is, in most respects, identical to the one we passed here in the House. That bill, H.R. 253, authorized funds to address severe repetitive loss properties for both the existing Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program and authorized a new pilot program to address these properties. Under the House bill, this trial pilot program addressed the properties in a simple, straightforward manner: the owner of a severe repetitive loss property would be charged a rate closer to the actuarial, risk-based rates for their national flood insurance policy if certain conditions were met. Safeguards were built into the system to ensure that homeowners would be protected. Through our bill, the number of repetitive flood loss properties would be decreased because FEMA would have the money and the means to take care of them.

S. 2238 adds a title creating certain policyholder protections designed to ensure swift action for the payment of claims in the event of a flood. In addition, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be tasked with promulgating regulations outlining an appeals process for policyholders with respect to claims, proofs of loss, and loss estimates related to flood insurance policies. And at the request of FEMA, the Senate has made minor changes regarding implementation of the flood mitigation programs originally set forth in the House bill.

On a personal note, perhaps the most appropriate change made by the Senate was in naming this legislation for Congressman Doug Bereuter, my good friend who is retiring from the House this year. This legislation is a testament to his hard work and to the dedication he has shown throughout his career to further the interests of not only his constituents but also the Nation as a whole and to the ideal of good government. Congressman Bereuter worked tirelessly to craft this bill with Senators Bunning and Sarbanes as well as Ranking Member Frank and Representatives Blumenauer and Baker. Mr. Baker was also particularly helpful in crafting this legislation and in providing a voice for his constituents in Louisiana and other states particularly hard-hit by repetitive flood losses.

It is important to note once again that the National Flood Insurance Program has been long overdue for change. The Bunning-Bereuter- Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 addresses the problem of repetitive loss properties (buildings that flood regularly because of their location) and the threat such properties pose to the ability of the NFIP to meet obligations to policyholders without drawing on taxpayer funds. Repetitive loss properties are a problem in nearly every one of the fifty States and cost the NFIP approximately $200 million each year, which is an unacceptable expense. One percent of all properties in the NFIP account for approximately 25 percent to 30 percent of all the NFIP losses. Repetitive loss properties have for too long exhausted the NFIP's funds and subverted the original intent of the program.

Despite the problems caused by repetitive flood loss properties, the NFIP is a program that provides important protections for homeowners who live on the Nation's floodplains. Though most of these homes have never flooded, the NFIP is a vital safeguard with a proven record of success. These much-needed reforms will enhance the program's effectiveness by requiring people living in flood prone areas to reduce their risk of flooding in a way that is not punitive and which saves the program and taxpayers money. This legislation should enjoy widespread bipartisan support in the Congress and will be welcomed by the people who work every day to control floods all across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4363, the Helping Hands for Homeownership Act of 2004. This bill will be considered under the suspension of the rules. This legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee, by a unanimous bipartisan voice vote on June 3, 2004.

This legislation was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green). This bill will simply make a technical correction to the ``Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996'' to permit families who receive homes from groups such as Habitat for Humanity (Habitat) to fulfill the ``sweat equity'' requirement for receiving Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) funds by helping to build other Habitat homes in the community, in addition to their own.

In 1996, Congress created the SHOP, which provides competitive grants for groups such as Habitat to help with land and infrastructure expenses. In order to receive SHOP funds, the recipients of a home from groups such as Habitat must contribute a certain amount of physical labor to the home-building process, also known as ``sweat equity.'' In FY 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the first time interpreted the law to preclude the families who receive these homes from fulfilling their ``sweat equity'' requirements by working on program homes other than their own.

This new interpretation could cause problems for Habitat affiliates all over the country. Habitat allows its home recipients to obtain its ``sweat equity'' requirement by working on Habitat homes for others in the community, as well as their own home. H.R. 4363 makes the needed technical change to make sure that Habitat and similar programs can continue to promote homeownership.

Furthermore, H.R. 4363 also contains a provision which names the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Section 502 single-family loan guarantee program after my friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). This program, like Habitat, promotes the goal of homeownership among those who might otherwise find it out of reach. Those are precisely the people that Mr. Bereuter has spent his career serving, and this provision represents a small thank- you for those efforts.

As many of you know, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) is leaving the House at the end of August to become the President of the Asia Foundation. He was elected to the House in 1978 to represent the constituents of the First District of Nebraska. Mr. Bereuter has served on the House Financial Services Committee and its predecessor, the House Banking Committee, since 1981. During his service on these committees, he has authored a number of significant bipartisan bills which were enacted into law.

One of his most successful legislative accomplishments is the USDA Section 502 single-family loan guarantee program. This initiative was enacted into law as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act in 1990 and authorizes the Department of Agriculture to guarantee a single-family loan made by a commercial lender to moderate- income families in small towns and rural areas where conventional mortgage financing may not always be available.

Since the program's creation in 1991, 316,625 single-family loans have been guaranteed by the USDA. The State of Ohio has been a major beneficiary with 629 single-family loans valued at over $58 million having been guaranteed in Ohio under this program so far this year. This program, like Mr. Bereuter's legislative career, has been a huge success.

In conclusion, I want to urge your support for H.R. 4363. This bipartisan bill contains important provisions to promote homeownership.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Rogers Amendment recognizing the vital, groundbreaking work of our intelligence community.

As a former FBI special agent, I well understand the importance of human intelligence gathering. The patriots of our intelligence community are frequently unsung heroes, not receiving due credit for their tireless efforts. Due to the nature of their work, they don't make the headlines, but their work will continue to derail terrorist activities and thus prevent headlines from being made.

Mr. Chairman, we're facing significant new threats in the post-Cold War era, and certainly since September 11, 2001. New hot spots have emerged throughout the world, and new havens for terrorists and their supporters. The threats we encounter are no longer solely state-based, and require new methods to combat them.

Unfortunately, changing our Cold War ways has not kept pace with these new threats. It

has taken too long to reverse the Church Commission's outdated and overreaching reforms that crippled our intelligence abilities, restricting human intelligence and limiting people from getting out in the field. The 2002 Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks confirmed that the lack of reliable human sources in al Qaeda ``significantly limited the [intelligence] community's ability to acquire intelligence that could be acted upon before the September 11 attacks.''

While human intelligence can be the force multiplier in many instances, our intelligence community has not received the funding or the support it requires to conduct operations. Through the leadership of Chairman Goss and others, we're continuing to work toward revitalizing the community, giving our operatives what they need to continue their work and respond to the new threats we face. Their work stands at the center of our global war on terrorism.

I salute Mike Rogers for introducing this amendment to recognize the dedication and importance of our intelligence community, and thank Chairman Goss for crafting this authorization to meet our current and future threats.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 591, a resolution expressing the gratitude of the House of Representatives for the contributions made by America's community banks to the Nation's economic well-being and prosperity and the sense of the House of Representatives that a month should be designated as ``Community Banking Month''. Community banks are the lifeblood of our local economies, and this is an appropriate way to recognize their contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I am including for the record correspondence between the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and myself regarding the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Government Reform. I appreciate his efforts in permitting this resolution to reach the floor quickly.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, June 21, 2004.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for consulting with the

Government Reform Committee regarding H. Res. 591, expressing

the gratitude of the House of Representatives for the

contributions made by America's community banks to the

Nation's economic well-being and prosperity and the sense of

the House of Representatives that a month should be

designated as ``Community Banking Month.'' As you know, the

Committee on Government Reform has jurisdiction over holidays

and celebrations.

Because of your willingness to consult with my committee, I

will not seek a sequential referral of the resolution to the

Committee on Government Reform. By agreeing to not seek

sequential referral, the Government Reform Committee does not

waive its jurisdiction over H. Res. 591. I respectfully

request that you include this letter and your response in the

Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation

on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these

matters.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, the leadership that Ronald Reagan provided changed the country and the world.

I had the privilege to be elected to Congress during the heady days of the `Reagan Revolution.' I had barely won a special election in June 1981 to keep the Fourth Ohio District in Republican hands, and as a young freshman congressman was quickly invited to the White House to meet the President and his aides.

It was more than a welcome to Washington because the President's tax cut package was pending on the floor the next week, and I think they were there to take my temperature as well as to make sure that I was going to vote for the tax cut.

I was proud to support the tax cut, the military buildup that helped win the Cold War, and the President's policies up and down the line.

President Reagan's economic program lifted us out of the malaise of the late 1970s, when America was doubting its greatness, and set the stage for a historic period of prosperity that benefitted all segments of our society.

Still, I believe that Ronald Reagan is most likely to be celebrated as the President who led the way in winning the Cold War. People in the past had always talked about the containment of Soviet communism and yet Reagan's theory behind the Cold War was essentially, we win and they lose. He was able to lead the country and Congress into modernizing our military and ultimately brought about the end of what he called the Evil Empire.

For those of us who grew up in the shadow of nuclear annihilation, what could be more important than the victory that was won without firing a shot? It was won with ideas, and was something that I honestly thought I would never see in my lifetime.

I had the thrill of traveling with President Reagan on the Heartland Express during a whistlestop campaign tour through Ohio in 1984. Everytime there would be a crowd gathered in a crossroads in a small town, the President would stand in the back of the train and wave. He was obviously in a buoyant mood. Large crowds cheered him during stops in Sidney and Lima, and people still remember that today.

We remember President Reagan for his vision, leadership, and infectious optimism.

I don't think I ever met anybody in politics or anywhere else who didn't like Ronald Reagan as a person. They may have disagreed with him on a number of issues but they never disliked him personally. I think President Reagan's legacy in politics is this ability to disagree without being disagreeable, to see politics as a noble calling and that you have your debates and arguments and have a beer afterwards. That is missed very much today in Washington and I don't think we're the better for it.

Our country will accord its highest honors to Ronald Reagan as we pay our heartfelt respects to him this week. But he will be remembered each day that men and women live in freedom, because what Ronald Reagan ultimately believed in was dignity and liberty for each individual.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's rollcall votes on H. Con. Res. 295, H. Res. 612, and H. Con. Res. 417. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of each of these resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution, and to thank Mr. Charles Johnson, the Parliamentarian, for his service to this institution and its members. Those of us who have the privilege to serve as committee chairmen know first hand the good work done by Charlie and his team of professionals. In many ways, the Parliamentarian and his deputies are the grease which makes our legislative machine work a little more smoothly.

Charlie's dedication to this institution spans his 40-year career. Beginning his career fresh out of the University of Virginia law school in 1963, he guided members of both parties through the shoals of the legislative process. Charlie was particularly helpful to those of us who were newly elected committee and subcommittee chairmen in 1995 and beyond. His advice and counsel have served us all well as we learned the sometimes difficult lessons of legislating in the 21st century.

As anyone who knows Charlie knows, his only greater love than this institution is his love of baseball. As he begins his retirement after 40 years of crouching behind home plate, we all hope he enjoys watching the rest of the game from the stands.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Mr. Johnson well in his retirement, and extend my heartfelt thanks for his service.

Mr. Speaker, during today's rollcall votes on H. Res. 627, H. Con. Res. 326, and H. Con. Res. 398, I was en route to my congressional district for official business. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of each of these resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 27, the Small Public Housing Authority Act. This bill will be considered under the suspension of the rules. This legislation, which addresses the annual plan requirement for small public housing authorities (PHAs), passed the House Financial Services Committee by a unanimous bipartisan voice vote on March 17, 2004.

First, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the author of this legislation, for his efforts in attempting to reduce the regulatory burdens that small PHAs face. I would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chairman of the Subcommittee for Housing and Community Opportunity, Mr. Bob Ney, and the ranking member, Ms. Maxine Waters, for their support of H.R. 27.

This legislation would exempt small PHAs from being required to submit an annual plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Under current law, PHAs are required to submit both a 5-year plan and an annual plan to HUD. This legislation is needed to provide some regulatory relief to small PHAs who do not have the resources or time to do these HUD annual plans by themselves. Currently, small PHAs are having to hire expensive third parties to complete these annual plans. Furthermore, an indirect result of this bill would give executive directors of these small PHAs more time to focus on the important needs of their tenants.

The exemption of these smaller PHAs will not have an adverse impact on the ability of tenant organizations to continue to have input with the manager's of their developments. Language was incorporated into the legislation to ensure tenant's participation. Additionally, I want to assure my colleagues that this legislation will still require smaller PHAs to provide the forward-type thinking and advance planning as required under the 5-year plans.

The larger question, however, raised by this legislation is whether the planning requirements for smaller and larger PHAs alike can be a useful tool. It appears that the jury is still out on that question and the Committee will review the issue to determine how we can provide as much flexibility to the Public Housing Authorities, decrease unnecessary regulatory burdens as well as ensure that tenants have a stake in the communities where they live.

In conclusion, I want to urge your support for H.R. 27. This bipartisan bill contains important provisions to reduce the regulatory burdens on small PHAs.