Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome over 300 franchisee, franchisor, and franchise supplier members of the International Franchise Association who are visiting Washington on September 13 as part of ``Franchise Appreciation Day,'' the IFA's annual fly-in to the Nation's Capital.

As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the IFA is the world's oldest and largest trade association representing the franchise community with a membership roster that includes more than 1,000 franchisors, 8,000 franchisees and 400 suppliers.

Franchising is a driving force of our economy and generates $1.53 trillion in economic output and one-of-every-seven jobs in the Nation's private-sector economy, according to a study conducted for the IFA Educational Foundation by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The ``Economic Impact of Franchised Businesses'' study found that there are more than 760,000 franchised small businesses in the U.S., generating more than 18 million jobs.

Those statistics are impressive enough on their own, but of particular concern and interest to me is the initiative the International Franchise Association has taken to help our veterans move from their service in the armed forces into the world of franchise ownership. Through the Veterans Transition Franchise Initiative, commonly known as ``VetFran,'' 360 veterans have been assisted in purchasing their own franchise small business, and 120 more are in various stages of negotiation.

VetFran was established by Don Dwyer, the late founder of The Dwyer Group and an IFA leader, during Operation Desert Storm. It was re- initiated following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program requires that participating franchisors offer veterans their ``best deal'' through discounts or other incentives that are determined by each company,

and more than 150 franchise companies that are members of IFA participate.

These businesses provide a great public service to our veterans and our communities, and I would like their names to be officially entered into the Congressional Record so that their good work may be officially recognized. I also would like the Record to include a list of the businesses started in 45 states.

It is inspiring to me to see these companies step up, put their resources on the line and help our veterans. I think it is important to note that these are not Federal dollars--these are private-sector dollars, and I think this program is a model that should be followed and supported by others.

I would also like to add that the good work of this program has been recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, which recently recognized IFA with a Support Sector Champion Award for expanding business opportunities for veterans; the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Veterans Corporation.

Those who know me know that I am no stranger to helping veterans, and earlier this year, I introduced legislation that would ease the way for more U.S. veterans to buy a franchised business.

The ``Veterans Self-Employment Act'' would establish a five-year pilot program that would allow American service members, veterans, national guardsmen, reservists, and qualified others to use some of their Veterans Administration educational assistance to defray training costs associated with obtaining a franchised small business.

Acquiring a franchise is a great way for people to gain the skills they need to successfully open and operate a business, but it often requires ``basic training'' in business education--customer service, daily operations management, business computer systems, inventory control, costing and pricing, and meeting regulatory obligations--as well as specialized training for the goods, services, policies, and practices of the individual franchise system.

The legislation I introduced is endorsed by the International Franchise Association, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill that would help to turn more proud veterans into proud business owners.

When franchise leaders and small business men and women visit us on Franchise Appreciation Day, September 13, I have no doubt that my colleagues will join me in making them feel welcome and discuss public- policy issues that will help franchising to continue to boost the nation's economy, and help our men and women who have fought so valiantly to protect our freedoms. IFA Member Franchisors Participating in the VetFran Program include:

1-800-DryClean, 1-800-Got-Junk, 2 Scoops Cafe, @Wireless,

@WORK Franchise, @WORK HelpingHands Services, @WORK Medical

Services, @WORK Personnel Services, A-Pro Services, Action

International, AeroWest Services, AIM Mail Centers, Aire Serv

Heating & Air Conditioning, All American Specialty

Restaurants, All Tune & Lube, Allegra Print & Imaging, Alta

Mere Window Tinting and Auto Alarms, American Leak Detection,

American Poolplayers Association, American Wholesale

Thermographers, AmeriSpec Home Inspection Service, Bark

Busters, Baskin-Robbins, Batteries Plus, Bevinco's, Big L's-

Friendly Computers, Big O Tires, Blimpie's Subs & Salads,

Brightscape Investment Centers, Camp Bow Wow, Candy Bouquet,

Cardsmart Retail Corporation, Cartridge World North America,

Carvel Corporation, Case Handyman Services, CGI

International, Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Children's

Orchard, CHIP The Child I.D. Program of America, The Cleaning

Authority, CM IT Solutions, The Coffee Beanery, College

Nannies & Tutors, ComForcare Senior Services, Comfort

Keepers, Computer Renaissance, ComputerTots/Computer

Explorers, Concerto Networks, Cookies by Design/Cookie

Bouquet, Copy Club, Cottman Transmissions Systems, Coverall

Cleaning Concepts, Creative Colors International, Crestcom

International, Cruise Holidays, Cruise One, D'Angelo Sandwich

Shops, DreamMaker Bath & Kitchen, Dunkin' Donuts, Edible

Arrangements, The Entrepreneur's Source, Expense Reduction

Analysts, Expense Reduction Consulting, Expetec Technology

Services, Express Personnel Services, ExxonMobil Corporation,

Fantastic Sam's, Fastframe USA, The Filta Group, Foodnet,

Foot Solutions, Furniture Medic, Geeks on Call, Glass

Doctor, Gold's Gym International, Gymboree Play & Music,

Handyman Matters Franchise Corp., Happy & Healthy

Products, Have Signs Will Travel, i9 Sports, Inspect-It

1st Franchising Corp., Island Ink-Jet Systems, Jet Black

International, Juice It Up Franchise Corp., KaBloom

Franchising Corp., Kitchen Tune-Up, Kwik Kopy Business

Centers, Labor Finders, Lawn Doctor, Learning Express

Toys, Leather Medic, Lentz USA Service Center, Liberty Tax

Service, Link Staffing Services, Maid Brigade, MaidPro,

Marble Slab Creamery, Marco's Pizza, Matco Tools, Maui

Wowi Smoothies, Meineke Car Care Centers, Merry Maids,

L.P., Milex, Tune-Up and Brakes, Molly Maid, Money Mailer,

Mr. Appliance, Mr. Electric, Mr. Handyman, Mr. Rooter

Plumbing, Mr. Transmission, Multistate Transmissions,

Navis Pack & Ship Centers, Netspace, Open Works, Outdoor

Lighting Perspectives, Parcel Plus, The Philly Franchising

Company, Planet Beach Franchising Corp., Positive Changes

Hypnosis, PostalAnnex+, Postal Connections of America,

PostNet, Precision Tune Auto Care, Puroclean, Rainbow

Int'l Restoration and Cleaning, Ritter's Frozen Custard,

Safe Kids Cards, Sarah Adult Day Services, The Screen

Machine, SealMaster, Sears Carpet & Upholstery Care,

ServiceMaster Clean, Siegel Capital, Snelling Personnel

Services, Sparkle Wash, Sport Clips, The Sports Section,

Spring-Green Lawn Care Corp., Sunbelt Business Brokers,

TeamLogic IT, Togo's Eatery, Travel Lines Express,

TruFoods, TurboHaul, Two Men And A Truck, The UPS Store,

Vanguard Cleaning Systems, Victory Lane Quick Oil Change,

Virginia Barbecue Franchise Co., Wild Bird Centers of

America, WineStyles, Wing Zone, Wireless Zone, World

Inspection Network, Zoup! Systems.

Franchised Businesses Established Through the VetFran

Program include:

Alabama: Birmingham: Meineke, Decatur: Vanguard Cleaning

Systems, Robertsdale: Merry Maids.

Alaska: Anchorage: American Poolplayers, MBE/UPS Store.

Arizona: Gilbert: DreamMaker Bath & Kitchen, Lake Havasu:

MBE/UPS Store, Maricopa: World Inspection Network, Mesa:

Expetec, Peoria: Coffee Beanery, Phoenix: Foot Solutions,

Molly Maid, World Inspection Network, Scottsdale: PostNet,

Show Low: Aire Serv Heating & Air Conditioning, Vail: KaBloom

Franchising Corp.

Arkansas: Little Rock: Cleaning Authority, Rogers: PostNet,

Siloam Springs: PostNet, Springdale: PostNet.

California: Anaheim: Navis Pack & Ship Centers, Angel Camp:

Mr. Rooter, Antelope: MBE/UPS Store, Auburn: PostalAnnex+,

Chula Vista: MBE/UPS Store, PostNet, Corte Madera: 1-800 Dry-

Clean, Crona: PostNet, Encinitas: Mr. Handyman, Fair Oaks:

PostNet, Fallbrook: DreamMaker Bath & Kitchen, Granada Hills:

MBE/UPS Store, Hayward: PostNet, Hesperia: World Inspection

Network, Huntington Beach: MBE/UPS Store, Imperial: Rainbow

Int'l Restoration & Cleaning, La Habra: Cm IT Solutions,

Laguna Hills: MBE/UPS Store, Laguna Niguel: Mr. Handyman,

Lakeside: MBE/UPS Store, Los Angeles: 1-800-Got Junk,

Meineke, Morgan Hills: World Inspection Network, Mountain

View: Mr. Handyman, Newark: Cartridge World, Orange:

Express Personnel, Pacifica: Molly Maid, Pasadena: MBE/UPS

Store, San Diego: Concerto Network, PostalAnnex+, Santa

Ana: MBE/UPS Store, Suisun City: MBE/UPS Store, Upland:

World Inspection Network.

Colorado: Colorado Springs: Meineke, PostalAnnex+, Ranbor

Int'l Restoration & Cleaning, Sears Carpet & Upholstery Care,

Denver: Meineke Car Care Centers, Fort Collins: Expetec,

Longmont: Mr. Electric, Loveland: MBE/UPS Store, Parker:

PostNet, Superior: MBE/UPS Store, Rainbow Int'l Restoration &

Cleaning.

Connecticut: Orange: MBE/UPS Store, Southbury: FastFrame

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and doctor, for yielding me this time, and I want to express my appreciation to him for his leadership in bringing this matter to the House's attention this morning.

And to the Chair and to Members I wish to express deep appreciation. I see my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), here this morning, whose district has been so adversely affected. I want to express to the Members of the House and to the Senate our appreciation for the extraordinary generosity, concern, and love that has been expressed in these preceding days.

To all Americans who have given of themselves, their time, their financial resources, their assets, it is an extraordinary thing to be on the end of people's generosity in a time of crisis, and it is a bit overwhelming. I can tell you that every dollar sent will be utilized for the highest and best purpose, that every bottle of water, every asset they choose to give us is indeed warranted and justified; and we are only in the early days of our difficulty.

I am told that there are areas in New Orleans where water may not yet be completely moved for another 80 days. So the stories will continue to unfold a day at a time, a week at a time, as the scope of this tragedy becomes fully appreciated.

To my fellow congressmen, the gentleman from South Louisiana (Mr. Melancon), whose St. Bernard Parish is at the moment 10 feet under water; to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has lost his personal residence and all his congressional capabilities; to his staff, who have also lost their personal assets; and to Senator Lott, who lost his home, which had stood for 151 years on the coast of Mississippi and endured the 200 mile-an-hour wrath of Hurricane Camille in 1969 and had no expectation that this storm would bring the consequences it brought.

On Sunday morning, before the storm's arrival on the following Monday, we heard this from the media: The storm has been downgraded from a Category 5 to a Category 4. It has now moved on an eastward track and will likely miss the city of New Orleans, and the evacuation has proceeded in an orderly and efficient manner. People are leaving in record numbers.

All of those predictions and observations were accurate. The storm missed New Orleans. It destroyed Mississippi. What we are now seeing is the aftermath of a levee failure. And with all due respect to those who have seen flood waters come and go for many decades, no one could predict the breach of those levees. No one expected it to occur. And the devastation that occurred was amplified by people who had stayed in their homes, survived 140-mile-an-hour winds, endured the passage of a 12-hour storm, saw the sun come out and the skies clear and think, we have made it. Within 20 minutes of a phone call to a New Orleans resident who was in one of those houses that survived, he had 3 feet of water in his home. He could not even grab resources

to get out quick enough. The water rose to 10 feet. Those in single- story structures were in great peril.

The magnitude of this tragedy cannot be explained in mere words. It is 90,000 square miles of devastation, and will more than double the cost of 9/11 to American citizens. The remedy is to get resources to people, get the lights on and let us go back to work.

There is corn and grain from the Midwest. Harvest season starts in 3 weeks. Sixty percent of that product goes through the Port of Orleans to the rest of the world. That has real economic implications for this Nation. Our petroleum industry needs to get back to work. Our port needs to get opened so dock workers can have jobs.

We can build ourselves back. We want to go to work. We need tolerance and patience and hope. We do not need recriminations and accusations today. The terrible scope of this tragedy is going to extend for 3 more months. There will be lots of time next year to decide who was at fault and what did not happen when it occurred.

I will tell you this: I am so appreciative to the President and the National Guard. My word, the personal effort these guys and ladies have put into their effort is just beyond comprehension. Many Louisianans, law enforcement, got in boats day and night to pull people out.

Everybody who has been touched by this wants the same thing: We want personal suffering to go away. We want lives to be restored and to go forward. Nobody got up and said, I am going to flip the switch off on the phones. No one said, I am not going if people need me.

The National Guard had to chain-saw their way from north Mississippi after the storm occurred to the coastal areas to get help in, and then we had the incredible event of people firing on their rescuers. This is unheard of. We then mobilized 7,500 National Guard. In any case, anywhere, any time, it takes 2 days to do that. It took 2 days to do it this time. Help is now on the ground. We have got a long way to go, but circumstances are better now than ever before.

Let me close and say, thank you, just a deep heartfelt thanks to America and thanks to this Congress. You guys are great, and we cannot make it without you.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 804) to exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program, as amended.

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 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was just last year that the United States Congress acted to reform the flood assistance programs of this country to ensure that those who engaged in abusive practices and thereby were over assessing the program for repetitive flood losses would no longer avail themselves of that inappropriate opportunity.

Accordingly, as the House passed legislation, there was an unintended consequence, however, pursuant to a ruling by the IRS which found that there was no technical or legislative basis on which to exempt payments made from the flood assistance program for the purposes of an individual qualifying for additional governmental assistance.

I will translate that into something that is more appropriate. If, for example, a person were to accept an assistance mitigation payment to reduce the probability of future flooding, that income could then be counted and disqualify that person from receiving food stamps, aid to dependent children, perhaps Social Security, other health care assistance. And that, of course, was not the intent of the legislation as passed.

In fact, under the provisions of the Stafford Act, all other emergency assistance granted by FEMA does not count toward qualifying individuals for governmental assistance, or for that matter, as income qualifying under the IRS for taxable liability.

The reason for this policy position is quite clear, the whole goal of the effort was to incent people to make changes necessary to their property so they would no longer call on the Federal Government for flood mitigation assistance.

In one instance, an individual who was to receive significant mitigation funding, had he accepted it, would have put him far over the qualifying limits for even his Social Security benefits. That is not the outcome that one would want to see as a result of trying to assist a person with flooding problems.

Coming on the heels of Hurricane Dennis and many events across the Gulf Coast of the past few months, it is now clear this action is not only appropriate but necessary and does not violate precedent nor other actions of the Congress with regard to other assistance programs.

For these reasons, I feel the adoption of H.R. 804 is highly appropriate and responsive to the needs of our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for his cooperative work in this matter.

It has been bipartisan. I think it achieves a worthwhile policy goal, and I express my appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) who is a strong advocate of our flood insurance program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all Members who have had an interest and role in perfecting this legislation. Merely for the purposes of establishing in the record as we close the chapter I believe on the reform of the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program, but every dollar of benefit paid is generated by premiums of flood insurance paid into the fund by home and property owners. It is a program which pays out benefits, and at any time, if there has been an advance of funding by the Federal Government when funds on hand have been deficient to pay existing claims, all dollars have been repaid plus interest over the life of the program. So in fact it is a program that functions in an efficient taxpayer-responsible manner.

And with the adjustments made over the past 18 months to the program, I hope it brings to an end further Congressional review and oversight of the important flood assistance programs as now constructed.

Mr. Speaker, the following is the revised cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 11, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for H.R. 804, a

bill to exclude from consideration as income certain payments

under the National Flood Insurance Program. This estimate

supersedes our original estimate that was transmitted on

March 31, 2005.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen

FitzGerald.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

Enclosure.

H.R. 804--A bill to exclude from consideration as income

certain payments under the National Flood Insurance

Program

If H.R. 804 were enacted, payments made under the National

Flood Insurance Program for flood mitigation activities would

not be

counted as income or resources when determining eligibility

for any federal means-tested program. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) awards grants to states and

communities, which in turn distribute funds to individuals

and businesses for activities that reduce the risk of

repetitive flood damage to buildings. Data from FEMA show

that the average approved award is about $75,000.

CBO expects that enacting this bil1 would increase the

number of persons eligible for certain means-tested programs

including Food Stamps and Medicaid. Currently, flood

mitigation grants are counted as income or resources. by

these programs and make some people ineligible for benefits

or reduce the amount of their benefit. (Certain other FEMA

grants are already excluded from income for benefit-

eligibility purposes.) Based on data from FEMA on the number

of flood mitigation grants awarded since fiscal year 1997 CBO

estimates that the increase in the number of people newly

eligible for these programs as a result of this legislation

would be small and that any increase in direct spending for

them would not be significant. Enacting the bill would not

affect revenues.

H.R. 804 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and

any increased spending by states for public benefits would be

minimal.

This revised estimate supersedes the estimate that CBO

transmitted on,this bill on March 31, 2005. Based on new

information on both the number of flood mitigation grants and

how they are distributed, CBO has lowered its estimate of the

number of instances where individual families receive such

grants. We previously estimated a cost of about $1 million a

year, but now estimate that such costs would be less than

$500,000 a year.

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Kathleen

FitzGerald (for federal costs), Leo Lex (for the impact on

state, local, and tribal governments), and Paige Piper/Bach

(for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved

by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget

Analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 68) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 68 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and the Members of the Texas delegation for their efforts in recognizing the achievements of NASA with the introduction of H.R. 68.

It is highly appropriate at the time we are soon to expect the space shuttle program to reenter demand exploration effort this week that we observe and appreciate the heroism, genius and sacrifices that the program has given us to this point in time.

I think it is also appropriate that with NASA's Deep Impact Project of just a few days ago, impacting the surface of Comet Temple, as well as the very slow rolling wheels of Spirit and Opportunity cross and traverse the face of Mars, it seems stunningly impossible that these programs began only 50 years ago. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is important for the House to favorably consider as it seeks to commemorate the anniversary by issuing in 2008 into silver dollar coins and a single $50 coin representing the nine planets and the gold coin representing the sun.

Fittingly, the first million dollars of surcharges resulting from this effort will go to a needs-based fund benefiting the next of kin of those heroes who died in the exploration of space. Further, the remainder of funds will go to the Smithsonian for help in preservation of important spacecraft and half of the fund to create a stand-alone Smithsonian museum here in the District dedicated specifically to coins, currency and other monetary forms of transaction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) who has led the charge to see this goal through to its final conclusion.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for the purpose of a colloquy.

That is my understanding.

That is unfortunately the case.

That is correct.

The gentleman agrees and stipulates the Mint should make every effort not to sell more than 10 sets of coins produced under the act to any buyer, be they bought by that individual or through buyers acting on behalf of that individual.

The gentleman continues to yield.

I do agree.

I do agree.

The gentleman agrees and believes that such a plan would be an excellent way to keep a new national museum of money exciting so that visitors would be interested in returning many times.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to point out that the astronauts are the bravest of the brave and assume the most dire risk in these missions as they approach to reach the outer limits of mankind's understandings. But within the organization known as NASA and JPL, there are literally thousands of individuals who work collaboratively for years to get these launches to the place where they can proceed at the highest level of safety and responsibility.

So I look at this act and this step the Congress is now authorizing today as one which recognizes not only those life-risking astronauts as being the pinnacle of our recognition, but certainly every member of the NASA JPL teams who literally work lifetimes to make these steps of exploration by humankind possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oxley: Thank you for your letter regarding

H.R. 68, the ``NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative

Coin Act,'' which was reported to the House by the Committee

on Financial Services on June 17, 2005.

As you noted, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains

jurisdiction over matters that concern raising revenue. H.R.

68 contains a provision that establishes a surcharge for the

sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the bill,

and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on

Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this bill for

floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action. This is

being done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or

similar legislation.

I appreciate and agree to your offer to include this

exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional

Record during floor consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by House Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member James Oberstar to introduce the Railroad Competition Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, a bill designed to restore a measure of competition to our Nation's freight rail marketplace. We are also joined by our colleagues Representatives Rodney Alexander, Charles Boustany, William Jefferson, Charlie Melancon, Denny Rehberg, Collin Peterson, Darlene Hooley, Marion Berry, and Ed Pastor. This bill, I believe, captures the true intentions of railroad deregulation.

Like all Americans, Mr. Speaker, I want our national railroad industry to remain the most efficient in the world. Indeed, our railroad system is a model for other national systems. My home state of Louisiana in particular relies heavily on efficient railroads to deliver product to market and provide the feedstock for our manufacturing base. Without reliable rail service, Louisiana--and all of America--would be economically hamstrung.

Congress deregulated the railroad industry in 1980 when it passed the Staggers Act. This law revitalized the industry, built efficiencies in the system, and bolstered the railroads as a critical component to America's transportation infrastructure. As Chairman of the Louisiana House Committee on Transportation and Highways, I observed closely the implementation and success of the Act.

However, one lingering element of the Staggers Act provides for ``differential pricing,'' which in effect allows railroads to ``price gouge'' customers served by a single railroad in order to help make up for revenue that is lost to customers served by more than one railroad. In other words railroads can overcharge a customer where the railroad is a monopoly to help recover the revenue it loses in a competitive, multiple-railroad environment.

Prior to the Staggers Act, the federal government administered the finances of railroads by imposing price controls. But by allowing railroads to institutionalize price gouging, are we not continuing the practice of price controls? Indeed, is differential pricing the thriving legacy of regulatory control? I believe it is. I assert that differential pricing is no more ``deregulation'' than the artificially imposed government price controls that existed before 1980.

I do not believe Congress intended to institutionalize price gouging when it passed the Staggers Act in 1980. Rather, the Staggers Act was an attempt to revive an important industry in America's economy. It was not enacted to allow the industry to thrive at its customers' expense. When the 109th Congress reflects back on the success of the Staggers Act, we can indeed take pride in ``getting it right.'' Congress achieved its goal of resuscitating the ailing railroad industry, but Congress

did not intend to sustain the life of this industry at the growing, unfair expense of other industries.

When Congress passed the Staggers Act in 1980 there were over 40 Class I railroads competing for business. Today, after over 50 mergers and consolidations there are only 7 Class I railroads in North America and four of them control over 95 percent of the railroad business. This unprecedented consolidation has led to whole states, regions and entire industries becoming captive to a single railroad. This level of concentration and the lack of competition it has brought were never envisioned by Congress in the 1980 Act.

Over this same period the agency that administers rail law, the Surface Transportation Board, has produced rulings, which have skewed the freight rail market place to the point that it is now a Federally protected monopoly. Railroads are operating within the law... but that law is outdated given the current number of railroads and market conditions of the new century.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, Louisiana industry is in dire straits. Every month companies announce closures, lay offs, and moves--depriving our economically struggling state of hundreds of important jobs. When these jobs are lost, so are the workers' pensions, salaries, and health benefits. When hundreds of jobs are lost, it affects other small businesses that rely on workers to keep them viable.

Though Louisiana industry faces many financial challenges, premier among them is the cost to do business--and aside from energy supply, the most expensive cost of business is the artificially inflated rates imposed on Louisiana companies that, through no fault of their own, exist under a railroad monopoly.

Mr. Speaker, this situation is not exclusive to Louisiana. It exists in West Virginia, North Dakota, Idaho, Georgia, Florida, Montana, Minnesota--in fact, Mr. Speaker, there is not a state in the Union free from this blemish on the free enterprise system.

The bill we are introducing today will truly match the deregulation goals of the Staggers Act with the tried and true American tradition of a competitive free market.

Our bill takes deregulation to a higher level by fortifying healthy market competition.

The bill would remove artificial protections maintained by an outdated policy that allows freight railroads to operate in an atmosphere, which no other business in the country enjoys--including exemption from anti-trust law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all pro-market, pro-consumer, pro-deregulation, pro-fairness, projobs, pro-economy, pro-transportation, and pro- railroad Members to join me in completing the deregulation goals of the Staggers Act of 1980 by cosponsoring the Railroad Competition Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, as the Federal Government seeks to provide better healthcare to more Americans while reducing healthcare expenses, we must look at the benefits of preventive care programs. Education, screening and preventive treatments can save patients and government significant heartache and expense. One area where preventive care shows tremendous promise is the treatment of diabetic foot complications.

Approximately 18 million Americans have diabetes, an increase of 61 percent since 1990. As diabetes rates continue to rise, the cost of treating diabetes, already estimated at $132 billion, will certainly rise. One of the most serious complications diabetes patients face is poor circulation and infections in their lower extremities. In fact, diabetic foot infections are the most common reason for hospital admissions among persons with diabetes, accounting for 25 percent of all diabetic admissions in the United States. Loss of circulation and feeling present real challenges to people with diabetes and 15 percent of people with diabetes will experience a foot ulcer, and between 14 and 24 percent of those with a foot ulcer will require amputation. Each year approximately 86,000 non-traumatic lower-limb amputations are performed each year among people with diabetes.

Lower extremity amputations cost Americans $2 billion a year, with each procedure totaling approximately $60,000. Although private insurance bears some of this expense, Medicare is saddled with many of these costs since these complications disproportionately affect the elderly. For example, analysis of the 1995 Medicare claims revealed that lower-extremity ulcer care accounted for $1.45 billion in Medicare costs and contributed substantially to the high cost of care for diabetics, compared with Medicare costs for the general population. In fact, the Medicare costs for diabetes patients with foot ulcers is 3 times higher than for diabetes patients in general, and inpatient care accounts for 74 percent of diabetic ulcer-related costs.

Fortunately, cost effective ulcer prevention and treatment interventions have proven effective at reducing foot complications and lower extremity amputations at only a fraction of the cost. Studies show that a multidisciplinary approach, including preventive strategies, patient and staff education, and treatment of foot ulcers, can reduce amputation rates up to 85 percent. Nationwide reductions of this size would save Americans as much as $1.7 billion a year. The American Diabetes Association estimates that comprehensive foot care programs can reduce amputation rates up to 85 percent. Furthermore, the LSU Health Sciences Center Diabetes Foot Program in Baton Rouge, Louisiana enrolled over 2,300 diabetes patients with published research demonstrating their prevention and treatment program resulted in an 89 percent reduction in foot related hospitalizations, an 81 percent reduction in emergency room visits, and a 79 percent reduction in foot amputations at a cost of about 50 percent of standard care. Unfortunately, a 2002 National Institutes of Health (NIH) study shows that less than 2 percent of adult diabetics receive the level of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association.

With sound research showing the benefits of preventive care for people with diabetes, now is the time to commission a large, authoritative study on the issue. The results of this study will serve as solid evidence to public and private organizations of the need for preventive care to aid in the reduction of diabetes foot complications and will help foster technical and policy changes to healthcare programs. In addition, thousands of Americans who participate in this study will benefit from the education and treatment provided by this grant program.

Mr. Speaker, I hope members will consider these facts and cosponsor the ``Diabetic Foot Complication and Lower Extremity Amputation Reduction Act of 2005.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act,'' legislation to establish a five-year pilot program that allows our Nation's servicemembers, veterans, national guardsman, reservists, and qualified others to use part of their VA educational assistance programs to defray legitimate training costs associated with obtaining a business franchise.

Mr. Speaker, franchising is an enormous component of the United States economy. According to a study conducted by International Franchise Association Educational Foundation, nearly 760,000 franchised businesses generate jobs for more than 18 million Americans annually, comprising nearly 14 percent of the Nation's private-sector employment and accounting for $1.53 trillion in economic output. Over 75 industries utilize the franchise model for distribution of products and services, ranging from familiar restaurants and hotels to home movers, tax preparers, personnel providers and so on. Clearly, franchising is a critical engine of America's economic growth.

When an individual acquires a franchise, the individual must first undergo various types of training, depending on the specific franchise he or she wishes to acquire. Training can include education on specialized knowledge of goods, services, policies and practices of the individual franchise system. Training may also include customer service, daily operational management, business computer systems, inventory control, costing and pricing as well as regulatory obligations.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, American military members, whether as active duty servicemembers or veterans, possess a wealth of experience and abilities. Their training in the armed forces has provided them with high-end skill sets that employers are looking for in the future workforce. Yet outside of what has been provided during their tenure with the military, statistics show that many of our young military men and women have had no formal education or training beyond their high school years.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act'' will allow more veterans to take advantage of the opportunities in franchising by allowing servicemembers, veterans, national guardsman, reservists, and eligible dependent spouses or children to apply a portion of his or her educational benefit to defray the portion of a franchise purchase cost attributable to training. Specifically, in a one-time lump sum payment, beneficiaries will be able to use the lesser of \1/3\ of the remaining Montgomery GI Benefit entitlement or \1/2\ the franchise fee.

In addition, the bill provides the Secretary of Veterans Affairs proper authority to oversee and avoid any possible abuse of this program; submit to the Secretary a detailed description of the training program; two year operating rule for franchise businesses; and provide individual progress reports regarding successful completion of individual training, among other things.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's veterans and thus urge floor consideration for the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act,'' legislation to establish a five-year pilot program that allows our Nation's servicemembers, veterans, national guardsman, reservists, and qualified others to use part of their VA educational assistance programs to defray legitimate training costs associated with obtaining a business franchise.

Mr. Speaker, franchising is an enormous component of the United States economy. According to a study conducted by International Franchise Association Educational Foundation, nearly 760,000 franchised businesses generate jobs for more than 18 million Americans annually, comprising nearly 14 percent of the Nation's private-sector employment and accounting for $1.53 trillion in economic output. Over 75 industries utilize the franchise model

for distribution of products and services, ranging from familiar restaurants and hotels to home movers, tax preparers, personnel providers and so on. Clearly, franchising is a critical engine of America's economic growth.

When an individual acquires a franchise, the individual must first undergo various types of training, depending on the specific franchise he or she wishes to acquire. Training can include education on specialized knowledge of goods, services, policies and practices of the individual franchise system. Training may also include customer service, daily operational management, business computer systems, inventory control, costing and pricing as well as regulatory obligations.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, American military members, whether as active duty servicemembers or veterans, possess a wealth of experience and abilities. Their training in the armed forces has provided them with high-end skill sets that employers are looking for in the future workforce. Yet outside of what has been provided during their tenure with the military, statistics show that many of our young military men and women have had no formal education or training beyond their high school years.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act'' will allow more veterans to take advantage of the opportunities in franchising by allowing servicemembers, veterans, national guardsman, reservists, and eligible dependent spouses or children to apply a portion of his or her educational benefit to defray the portion of a franchise purchase cost attributable to training. Specifically, in a one-time lump sum payment, beneficiaries will be able to use the lesser of 1/3 of the remaining Montgomery GI Benefit entitlement or 1/2 the franchise fee.

In addition, the bill provides the Secretary of Veterans Affairs proper authority to oversee and avoid any possible abuse of this program; submit to the Secretary a detailed description of the training program; two year operating rule for franchise businesses; and provide individual progress reports regarding successful completion of individual training, among other things.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's veterans and thus urge floor consideration for the ``Veterans Self-Employment Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that is not only important for Louisiana, but for the Nation as well. The ripple effects of the Civil War and Reconstruction remain as our country continues to wrestle with its legacy of race relations and Federal, State and civil rights. In order to properly commemorate this event, I believe it is imperative to create a Sesquicentennial, or 150th, Commission for the Commemoration of the Civil War.

I am grateful the House of Representatives agrees that the 150th anniversary of the Civil War should receive attention. In the 108th Congress the House of Representatives adopted by unanimous vote the exact legislation I offer today.

In 1996, Congress designated the United States Civil War Center, USCWC, at Louisiana State University, LSU, and the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College as future co-facilitators of the Sesquicentennial Commemoration of the Civil War to be held between 2011 and 2015. Legislation establishing the Sesquicentennial Commission was to be passed in the 107th Congress. Today I again offer this aforementioned legislation.

The American Civil War, 1861-1865, was one of the most violent times in the history of the United States, touching not only every State and territory, but claiming more than 600,000 lives, bringing freedom to over 4 million slaves and destroying property valued at $5 billion. In 1993, the USCWC was created to promote the study of the American Civil War from the perspectives of all professions, occupations, and academic disciplines in order to facilitate a deeper, more thorough understanding of one of the most important events in our nation's history. This mission is fulfilled through a variety of projects, including an official web site featuring over 9000 links to Civil War- related sites, the Michael Shaara Award for Civil War Fiction, Civil War Book Review, the Michael Lehman Williamson Collection of Civil War Books for Young People, the David Madden Collection of Civil War Fiction, and the Sesquicentennial Commemoration of the Civil War.

The commission will include members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, directors of the Library of Congress and National Archives, and academics in history, anthropology, sociology, political science, art history and law. Mr. Speaker, I fully support the objectives and services the USCWC provides and hope they are fully utilized by its inclusion in the commission. I believe the USCWC will strengthen the commission, and aid to it's goal of providing the direction and resources needed for the proper Sesquicentennial Commemorations of the Civil War throughout this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Atchafalaya refers to both a river and a large wetlands region of Louisiana; the name derives from the Choctaw hacha falaia, meaning ``Long River.'' The river itself serves as a major tributary of the Mississippi and Red rivers, and runs through a swampy wetlands called the Atchafalaya Basin, which is about 20 miles in width and 150 in length. The Atchafalaya Basin is rich with wildlife, including three hundred bird species, as well as crawfish, shrimp, crabs, frogs, snakes, nutrias, beavers, raccoons, foxes, alligators, and black bears. Since the 18th century, Cajun fishermen and trappers have depended on the basin and river for their livelihoods and culture. Today, I rise with all my colleagues from Louisiana to offer legislation to preserve this unique area of natural, cultural, historic and recreational resource as a National Heritage Area.

This legislation will designate the Atchafalaya Trace Commission as the local coordinating entity of the Heritage Area. In 1997, the Atchafalaya Trace Commission was created by the Louisiana Legislature and was charged with planning and managing the Atchafalaya Heritage Area to help our communities save important cultural and natural resources. I support their mission to enhance the positive benefits of tourism and create a sustainable, healthy economy. I commend the Atchafalaya Trace Commission in their leadership in preservation and advocacy on behalf of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I submit today also establishes a procedure for the voluntary inclusion of private property in the Heritage Area. I believe this is important in balancing both public and private interests in such a diverse natural and cultural area.

In conclusion, I believe the establishment of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will provide the direction and resources needed to maintain what the area has to offer for generations to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5011) to prevent the sale of abusive insurance and investment products to military personnel, as amended.

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. 5011.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the House Committee on Financial Services and I assume many Members of the Congress were shocked to learn of practices on military installations of this Nation wherein the practice of bringing in retired military officers to meet with young enlisted men and women to represent to them that financial investment opportunities were being made available which, in fact, were not financial investments but financial misfortune.

Young men and women, often headed to a theater of war, thinking they were buying life insurance for their dependents and their spouses, would return finding that the premiums paid yielded very little benefit at high cost. Mutual fund investments, which often required half of the first year's investment, went into the pockets of the broker.

It would be years in some cases before these young men or women would find a financial return on what they thought would be an investment for their family's future.

Upon learning of these revelations, the committee began its work and made serious inquiries into the manner in which these actions were permitted. The bill before the House today, the result of work by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and other Members, takes an important stride forward in that it would preclude the sale of contractual mutual fund products period on military installations and, secondly, would require the establishment of rules and regulations by State insurance commissioners to ensure that types of activities previously engaged in here would heretofore be prohibited.

This measure is one with which I believe both sides of the aisle can strongly agree. I find it highly appropriate that, as young men and women are preparing to stand in defense of this country, that this Congress at least stand in defense of their financial security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) who introduced legislation early in this Congress and encouraged the committee to act in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

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

I simply wish to acknowledge the good work of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and his colleagues on this matter and to express appreciation for the bipartisan manner in which it was considered, passed and, I think this afternoon, passed on the floor of this House.

Clearly, when we identify a problem of such pressing urgency to the young men and women of our national defense, it is highly appropriate this Congress should be timely and responsive in meeting their need. I think H.R. 5011 achieves that goal, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to have worked with my colleague and echo the observations of the gentleman from Illinois. I hope this bipartisan approach continues with issues yet to come.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding me time. I rise here today to speak to my appreciation for his good work in bringing this matter to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the American Civil War was perhaps the most dramatic forging event in our Nation's history. In a brief period of time, over 600,000 lives were lost. The struggle was immense. But from this incredible event and the huge loss of life, a new nation was forged, with its eye on principle and in practice to afford equal rights to all.

In the course of our history, this Congress has acted with regard to this matter in years past. In fact, there are two institutions. The United States Civil War Center at Louisiana State University and the Civil War Institute at the Gettysburg College have been the only two institutions nationally recognized as Civil War centers. It is my hope and expectation that as the commission itself is appointed and work is commenced, that they will become significant partners with the center at LSU and at the Gettysburg College in coming to the appropriate decisions for the sesquicentennial celebrations of this event.

It is truly an important, formative event in our Nation's history. It is a time when no one should be without education and understanding, for from it we learn much about ourselves and what makes our Nation as great as it is today.

Mr. Speaker, as many in this chamber now know, Coach Gayle Hatch of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, will be the coach of the U.S. Olympic Weightlifting Team at the 2004 Summer Olympiad in Athens, Greece.

I can think of no one associated with coaching, even at the highest levels, more deserving of Olympic recognition. The Olympics is the venue where the best of our world's athletes compete and pursue the ideals of sportsmanship.

Hard work, hard work, and hard work are three of the most important elements of preparation. Talent is certainly important, but commitment to principle is essential. There is no other challenge to an athlete that holds out the highest standards of conduct, as the minimum standard for admission. This makes participation in the Olympics a rare honor. To be selected as a coach of such competitors is even more special.

It is likely that most in the House who listen to this text would assume it is written as a casual political statement to acknowledge Coach Hatch's recent success. Few would know of our long-standing friendship.

It was well over 20 years ago when I first brought my son Brandon to Coach Hatch's training facility. I thought well enough of him then to trust his guidance with my own son. To the exclusion of all other sports, Brandon trained with a commitment I have not seen before. Today my son is a hard working and disciplined person, in large measure due to the principles instilled in Coach Hatch's gym.

I also know the same is true for many men and women who have been part of the ``Hatch'' family. Whether in sports or other endeavors, graduates of the ``Hatch School of Hard Work'' always found ways to succeed in life. This is why I rise today to speak to my colleagues in the House.

Coach Hatch's contribution to the Baton Rouge and sporting community goes far beyond helping a talented young athlete finish in first place. Coach Hatch's work, by instilling principles of decency into young people, is of immeasurable value.

The Olympic Committee has selected Coach Hatch to lead young Americans in the most difficult athletic challenge they will likely ever face. This is a big deal. But I know that our team members will bring honor to America, because of their principled conduct which Coach Hatch will require. Their athletic success will only be an additional reward.

Long after Coach Hatch returns home from Athens, returning I hope, to coach more young people, the awards and acknowledgments will continue to come. Some may be from an Olympic Committee, or an Olympian here or there, but hundreds will come from dads like me. We know, Coach Hatch, what you have given of yourself to help mold our children into principled and committed young adults.

Although it can't be found or put on a shelf, I hope you take pride in hearing all us dads say, ``Thanks Coach''.

For those who don't know Coach Hatch, it is worth noting that he has been active as a weightlifting and strength coach for more than 30 years, and the Gayle Hatch Weightlifting Team has won more than 40 men's Junior, Senior, and Masters national championships. Coach Hatch is a member of the USA Weightlifting Hall of Fame, the National Master Weightlifting Hall of Fame and the USA Strength and Conditioning Coaches Hall of Fame. He holds USA Weightlifting's highest certificate ranking, Senior U.S. International Coach, and is the director of USA Weightlifting's Southern Regional Training Center.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to acknowledge at this time the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) on this most important and difficult matter. Over the course of the past months, the committee has engaged in numerous hearings and roundtables to discuss the advisability of FASB's recommendation and to craft the appropriate remedy given the committee's concerns. The chairman at all times has been insistent on a balanced analytical process to afford all stakeholders the ability to be heard.

I certainly would also wish to extend my appreciation to the leader on the Democratic side, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who have been at the forefront of leading the charge from their perspective on what they both believe to be an important economic tool for job creation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the committee and an interested party in this most important issue.

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

I wish to speak to the issue of FASB's independence and their track record on matters of financial accounting standards. It was in the fall of 1998 when FASB issued a statement relative to concerns about earnings manipulations by registrants in a number of industries, specifically banks, in the treatment of what was called loan loss reserves.

The allegation was that executives were exacerbating the amount of reserves necessary in order to offset potential volatility in financial institutions' earnings. Suffice it to say, it is a technical issue, again beginning in fall of 1998. I reference testimony of Governor Lawrence Meyer, member of the Federal Reserve, speaking on behalf of the Federal Reserve and all finance regulators. Six years later a letter issued then by the FDIC indicated that institutions should continue to determine the appropriateness of all their loan loss reserves on the basis of existing guidance set forth in GAAP and in the agency's supervisory guidance. Translation: they should ignore what FASB started 6 years earlier as an ill-conceived modification of safety and soundness provisions.

The point of this historic analysis is to provide the Congress with the understanding that FASB does not always get it right. I join with many Members of Congress in that era in expressing concerns about the unintended consequences of the implementation of FASB's rule should it be implemented.

Let us talk about what FASB has done in the course of the consideration of the issue currently at hand. The board announced their positions before a single comment from the public was solicited. The board disinvited comments on key issues of the current matter. The board disregarded the overwhelming majority of comments solicited. The board created an option valuation group to discuss valuation.

After all was said and done, apparently FASB did not find the board's work to be of much use since it decided to revert to the same valuation models before appointing the board. FASB refuses to conduct road tests of actual valuation models, meaning it is not trying out to see what the real-world consequence is of its valuation methodology. It has refused to respond to industry presentations on the existing valuation methodologies. It has refused to respond to recommended alternatives and compromises.

What has the board done? I alert the Members who have not yet received it to an e-mail distributed by a representative of FASB's foundation, I assume an independent arm of an independent

agency prescribed with the responsibility of engaging in political correspondence. What is a sad note about this particular e-mail, if one goes to the two phone numbers listed at the bottom of the e-mail, which is probably in all Members' offices, and they call those numbers, they can then refer themselves to directory assistance and ask for FASB's telephone numbers.

The two numbers cited in this independent political correspondence are numbers listed as FASB's official phone numbers. If one were to apply their own standards of financial transparency to their own e- mail, it should say FASB is now lobbying the Congress and using our phone numbers for ones to respond and make significant inquiry into the matter. It would appear although they find political interference a sullied and tawdry business, they have now engaged in such practice in attempting to influence the Congress on the direction of appropriate conduct.

What is an option, and what does it mean to our economic direction? Assume for the moment we are trying to gather a half dozen young bright people into a garage at someone's home to construct a new innovative product and we bring these people in without sufficient cash to pay them salary; but we offer them the opportunity, should their intellectual prowess be sufficient in building value to a company, to one day cash in on the options we are giving them as a piece of their investment. Assume for the moment the value of the options are $20. Things go awry. Things go poorly. Six months hence the stock price may be worth $10. The employees will not cash in their right to those options because they are called, in the terms of the industry, underwater. They are not worth what they were when they were granted. The employee may leave and go elsewhere. Without the passage of this bill, what would FASB require them to do? To expense that option at the time of granting even though it were later not exercised. The result: an underreporting of financial value of corporate value. That seems to me to be just as big a problem as what those opponents allege is some grand misrepresentation of current financial condition.

Options are reported today in the footnotes. One who persists can find out the dilutive effect on other shareholders. Translation: one can find out the facts about accurate financial condition if they choose to seek it out in currently published information.

It is quite clear that many have accused the current administration and others of finding ourselves in a jobless economic recovery. Were that to be the case, which I certainly dispute, there is no dispute that the granting of options to a broad base of employees has been and remains a very strong component of job creation within our economy. Does it make sense for those who criticize a jobless economic recovery to take away one of the proven tools that does create jobs when they are so badly needed? I think not.

So where are we to go? The identified problem was that a handful of executives were manipulating the granting of options for their personal financial gain. I, frankly, do not think the bill before us is a perfect remedy. I think it is a flawed remedy because the valuation of the option cannot be accurately predicted. But in response to the critics, we have said those top five must expense their options. Let us make them accountable for the reported wrongdoings of the past, but please do not affect adversely the broad-based stock option plans for the vast numbers of employees who have gained from their hard work, shared in the dynamic capital enhancement of corporations, and, yes, made money.

I am one of those staunch advocates in the Congress who believe that money is the cure to poverty. And by allowing employees to invest and work and believe in the great American Dream that one day they can have a part of it, stock options represent a magnificent tool of economic opportunity.

I urge this Congress to adopt H.R. 3574 as balanced; fair; transparent; and, most importantly, important for our economy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a respected Member on matters of financial reporting.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), a staunch defender of free enterprise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield reluctantly only 1 minute, because of time limitations, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the

committee and an outspoken advocate for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, under the current FASB proposal, one would either use the binomial or the Black-Scholes methodology to determine the valuation of a stock option. During the intervening period, staff has calculated the remaining debate time available to me to close through both Black-Scholes and binomial, and the result has come out anywhere from zero to an hour and a half. Recognizing we have a commonsense limit of 1 minute, I shall proceed diligently.

The current proposal under H.R. 3574 would lead us to a transparent disclosure regime. It would continue a very important job-creation tool to our free enterprise system. It would allow employees to share in the free-enterprise dream of participating in the growth and ultimate financial profitability in the corporation for which they work.

Make no mistake: this bill nails those executives who have been held up as the abusive forces within our system by requiring the top five to expense their options granted.

The solution is not perfect; frankly, I would not require expensing at all. But it is a response to the critics who said executives have abused their privilege. For commonsense job creation and reform, I urge this body to support H.R. 3574.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This, of course, is an important amendment, and we should not forget for a moment that the lawmaking business is a very difficult course to follow. If one introduces a measure in the House of Representatives, it may be subject to numerous hearings and, of course, examination by many people over the course of many months, in some cases, years. It then must go to the United States Senate, where it goes through a similar process.

Assuming the House and Senate may disagree, there is an extensive conference committee process. Ultimately, if passed by both Houses as a conference committee report, it goes on to the President of the United States, either for his signature or for his veto.

What is contemplated by the gentlewoman's amendment is to dramatically alter the course of public policy consideration. If one were to take, for example, the 1934 Securities Act, considered after many, many months of deliberation and debate, I would point out that we start in the United States Congress or in the United States Senate.

Both Houses meet, deliberate, hear witnesses, stakeholders, public comment, lobbyists abound, even FASB running around through the halls, and ultimately we pass a bill out that makes its way to the White House, and the White House may or may not sign or choose to veto such a proposal.

The effect of the gentlewoman's amendment from New York would be to say after that lengthy process which, by the way, in the case of the stock option expensing debate has raged now for some time, after considerable hearings within the House Committee on Financial Services, even the cursory examination in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, now this public debate on the House floor.

And might I remind you we are now officially in an open public comment period by FASB, which we all of course know is closed, but for the sake of public discourse, we have an open public comment period. I would suggest the Congress is getting ready to comment on the matter.

What some are proposing with the Maloney amendment in the last circling at the end of the chart is that it would be the ``oops'' provision. The SEC could say, ``Oops, the Congress got it wrong. The President got it wrong. We are simply going to disregard the actions of our public policymakers and decide we are going to do it differently.''

Nowhere in the text of the public policy is there an arbitrary and capricious grant of authority for any bureaucratic enterprise to set aside the public policy determinations of the United States Congress. This, in fact, would be a first.

Now, I understand the dispute over the underlying reform proposal; but this, I suggest to Members of the House, is not an appropriate remedy for the concerns expressed by Members opposed to this H.R. 3574.

Should you be opposed to it, I suggest you vote against this measure and simply vote against the bill on final passage. However, I, for one, think it an extremely well-crafted remedy to the identified problem and urge my colleagues to support it on final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Since 1969, the current debate has been in some form or fashion engaged by FASB, 1969, 35 years. You would not think that that would be considered a new and innovative strategy to begin expensing or not expensing options.

In 1995, the current methodology was adopted as a compromise. Yes, you can expense, if you so choose, determined by your board, driven perhaps by your shareholders, but you may also disclose in the footnotes.

What are footnotes? They are notes in the annual report to shareholders. If you are a shareholder and you are worried about diluted effect, in other words, they are giving an option to someone, what does that do to my asset in the company, you can find that out with an examination of the annual report.

To suggest that this is a new tactic developed by some executive in a back room to cheat shareholders or Americans out of value gained in their corporate investment is simply not accurate. This has been a practice common in the business world for many, many years.

Now, at question is whether or not a handful of executives who are identified as abusing their privileges ought to be brought to some account. The answer with the passage of this bill is ``yes.'' If you are one of the top five executives who, by some accounts, hold the majority of options granted, you will now be required to expense those options at the time they are granted to the employee. It does not, however, require the large number of employees who benefit from investment, showing up early, staying late, investing their intellectual and personal capital into the business, who ultimately benefit from the overall growth and value of that corporation by seeing their shares increase in value.

Forty-five percent of the venture capital in this country goes to the Silicon Valley, 45 percent, and the bulk of that goes to these new technology start-up companies. If my colleagues wish to see them in the future, please vote for H.R. 3574. It is rational reform headed in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3574, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.