Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Texas for yielding. It is an enormous challenge to follow a distinguished gentleman, the dean of the House from Michigan, who comes and asks us to invest in America. Indeed, all of us feel passionately about the investors and, more importantly, the workers, not just in Michigan, but around the country, that are currently dependent on the automobile industry in America.

But, as the gentleman from Michigan pleaded we ought to invest in America, the truth of the matter is the reason we are here tonight is that nobody in their right mind is willing to invest their own money in a failed and antiquated model. So they are asking Congress to confiscate money from taxpayers to make an investment.

That is what this is about. It is a short-term bailout so we can get until March so that much, much more money will be spent bailing out these failed and antiquated industries.

There are people in Florida hurting, not just in the automobile industry. We have got automobile dealers and salespeople and parts manufacturers. Our real estate industry is devastated, our time share industry, our theme park industry, our hotels and motels and restaurants.

But the truth of the matter is, micromanaging a business from Washington is the supreme act of hubris. It will never work. No matter how much the administration, no matter how much the Congress wants to do the right thing, they will hurt us.

110 years ago, the United States Congress probably felt bad for people that manufactured buggy whips and horse carriages. We could have bailed them out. We could have created a buggy whip and horse carriage czar. It would not have helped America move towards prosperity and freedom. And, unfortunately, this is a terrible idea that will punish taxpayers and just prolong the agony. I ask us to vote for freedom and free markets and reject this bailout.

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, author of this bailout bill, ``The free market failed, it's up to government to fix the problem.''

It is important that we understand the how we got here in order to address a solution to the problem. Who and what caused the subprime bubbles and the current economic crisis?

Treasury Secretary Alan Greenspan in 2005 said:

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ``continue to grow . . . they

potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down

the road . . . we are placing the total financial system of

the future at substantial risk.''

During a Financial Services Committee legislative markup on May 24, 2005, the Hensarling/Feeney Amendment was offered to protect taxpayers from crushing bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Hensarling/Feeney Amendment established a new regulator to:

(1) repeal the Congressional charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

(2) create a bank-like secondary mortgage market, and

(3) establish new charters for limited purpose mortgage securitization entities that could be auctioned off competitively.

I voted YES but the Democrats unanimously voted NO and killed reform and taxpayer protection.

Why?

Leading Democrat Barney Frank said in 2003:

These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not

facing any kind of financial crisis.

The more people exaggerate these problems, the more

pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in

terms of affordable housing.''

After billions in accounting scandals at both Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac, Barney Frank said in 2004:

I don't see anything in your report that raises safety and

soundness problems.

I have seen nothing in here that suggests the safety and

soundness are an issue. And, I think it serves us badly to

raise safety and soundness as kind of a general [inaudible]

when it does not seem to be an issue.

Democratic leader Maxine Waters said:

Through nearly a dozen hearings that we were, frankly,

trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr. Chairman we do

not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular Fannie

Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Rains.

I also voted in 2005 to cut off a $2 billion line of credit from U.S. taxpayers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Today, the same people who protected the corrupt and out-of-control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are proposing a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street speculators.

Barney Frank and other Democratic leaders revised the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and all American lenders to make risky loans to people in poor communities. Loans were given regardless of the borrower's ability to pay!

And, ACORN, a corrupt left wing ``community group'' engaged in extensive voter registration fraud across this country, was given taxpayer money to extort banks and lenders into making more bad loans.

Taxpayer money was used to browbeat lenders to make non-creditworthy loans.

Since the economic credit crisis began, we were told by Secretary Paulson and Barney Frank that:

1. The $152 billion ``stimulus'' package would resolve the American economic problem. (I predicted it is a silly ``rain dance,'' having no long term stimulus)

2. The Bear Stearns taxpayer bailout would resolve the credit crisis.

3. The Fannie/Freddie bailout in July would totally resolve the financial crisis and the U.S. Treasury would not have to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (I voted no and predict bigger problems for America)

4. The federal government takeover of AIG, the largest insurer in America, would end this global crisis.

The current $700 billion bailout, touted by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Chairman Barney Frank, fixes none of the fundamental structural problems the federal government is responsible for.

Buying troubled assets on Wall Street balance sheets does NOT stimulate American banks on Main Street in Central Florida to increase lending and credit.

It adds short term money, which banks will HOARD, as they are required to increase reserves and make fewer loans to healthy consumers and businesses.

It does NOT privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It does not repeal the community Reinvestment Act.

It creates a huge new bureaucracy which may control lending in America and become the largest leap toward socialism in my lifetime.

What we must do (now or later) to save American freedom and our economy.

1. Stop naked short selling of bank stocks--Predatory investors, including foreigners, sell stocks they don't own to drive down the price of the stock, which they can later buy cheaper and profit.

This kills bank equity and forces banks to stop making loans in order to meet material reserve requirements.

2. Guarantee bank deposits in excess of $100,000 and bank creditors-- This will bolster bank share prices and lead to more immediate lending to families and small businesses.

3. Issue guaranteed network certificates in exchange for bank promissory notes--This will get banks to save lending restrictions and give them time to work through the real estate mess.

4. End ``mark to market'' accounting rules--Banks and institutions that hold packages of securitized mortgages cannot sell those packages because in this environment there are NO buyers. But those mortgages are secured by real estate worth some value, even if it is not 100 percent of the loan value.

These mortgages are not worth zero, just because there is no market to buy them during this crisis. Banks have to count such mortgage holdings as ZERO asset reserves. Every dollar a bank counts as reserves would result in $10 in lending ability today.

Mark these assets at ``fair market value.''

5. Jump start private purchase of mortgage securities--Don't buy $700 billion in troubled mortgage securities with taxpayer money. have an auction for private investors using private money to make such purchasers. To start buyer activity, grant buyers a zero percent capital gains tax--not the 28 percent tax Senator Obama proposes, but 0 percent.

Most mortgages will be purchased without any taxpayer exposure.

6. Establish a privately funded insurance model for mortgage backed securities--Holders of these securities would pay risk-based premiums to fully fund a guarantee of asset values, without taxpayer exposure.

7. Unleash the American Economy--Immediately pass comprehensive energy policy that will put hundreds of billions of dollars into the American economy overnight.

Congress should pass free trade legislation including agreements with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea to help American exporters.

Without delay, Congress should kill the built-in Democrat tax increases which are scheduled to raise taxes on Florida families by $3,040 a year.

Finally, the Paulson/Frank bailout bill raises the Federal Government's debt to $11.3 trillion--a 26 percent increase. In the less than two years Democrats have controlled Congress, the national debt has jumped over $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Can we afford two more years of that behavior?

Madam Speaker, on rollcall no. H.R. 7110--Providing for Appropriations for Job Creation and Preservation, Infrastructure Investment, and Economic and Energy Assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

Due to a computer malfunction it appeared the vote was not taking place. By the time I got back to my office and a new vote ordered it was too late to return to the floor. The computer malfunction is the cause of my missed vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act:

I received two projects as follows:

Project 1--Joint Medical Simulation Technology Research and Development Center (JMSTRDC) at 12423 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826, received $1,600,000 from the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 38 PE 0603015A Next Generation Training and Simulation Systems account. The funds will be used to provide this facility with a new modeling and simulation center to coordinate Army efforts in medical care simulation training. The center will improve medical care for wounded servicemen and women.

Project 2--The Joint Training Integration and Evaluation Center at 12000 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 received from the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, Line 104 PE 0604760A Distribution Interactive Simulations account. The funds will be used to provide the facility with a unique asset to leverage with Joint Forces. This center links Joint Forces Command in Virginia with Orlando's modeling and simulation capabilities. This helps to foster development of Department of Defense high fidelity training for war fighters.

I thank the ranking member, and I am pleased to rise to talk about this bill. I just think that it's important that we be square with the American people about what this bill does and what it doesn't do.

This bill essentially creates a straw man or a boogeyman and attacks that straw man or boogeyman as though they were responsible for the price of gasoline and energy in America today. Regardless of whether you are voting for or against this bill, it doesn't do anything to help Americans concerned about saving the American family and American business from the high price of oil and gas.

Let me explain to Americans what speculators do. I am not a speculator. Speculators bet on the future. It's legal to make a gamble in America and bet on the future of commodities prices, of pork bellies, and, as the agriculture chairman and ranking member are well aware, of the price of corn and wheat in the future. Speculators bet on the future.

What speculators have done with the price of oil and gas on the commodities market, they have simply bet on the future price of oil and gas. Now in this case, what are they betting on? They are betting that the demand for energy in the world, places like India and China and the third world, will increase. That's a pretty smart bet.

But they are betting on another thing. They are betting that the Democratic-led Congress will continue to be stupid and refuse to supply more energy for America. It's a simple preponderance rule of supply and demand. If you have less corn 2 months from now, the price of corn will go up. That's what speculators bet on.

If you are going to have more demand for energy and oil and gas, and you know you will not produce more supply, then the price of oil and gas will go up. To punish the speculators for betting that Congress will continue to be stupid and not produce American energy is really attacking a boogeyman. It is attacking a straw man and will not help with the price of oil.

Now, as the ranking member said, the great news is, America has an abundant supply of energy. We just won't access it. We are the Saudi Arabia of the world's coal supply. We can produce and burn coal in a liquefied or gasified manner cleaner than ever, but we refuse to do it. China is doing it, India is doing it, our competitors are doing it. We won't, even though we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

We won't drill in ANWR. We will not access oil and tar shale. We passed a fraud on the American people in a bill the other day that said 88 percent of the area where we could drill off the Outer Continental Shelf for oil can never be drilled in, and the other 12 percent can be drilled in, but only if all of the radical environmentalists and trial lawyers somehow, someday, give us permission.

That is a no drilling bill. It is a no energy bill. Now we won't build nuclear plants. America has the finest nuclear technology in the world. We stopped building nuclear plants 30 years ago, and American nuclear expertise, scientists and technologies went to France. You are a really foolish country if the French are outsmarting you on policy with your own technology, but that is what's happening every day.

So what do we do here today? Instead of passing a real American-based energy bill where American energy can be produced by American workers to save American families and American jobs, we have tax speculators who have bet on the future, and they have bet that the Democrat-led Congress will continue to be dumb.

I think they made a good bet.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599, the FY 09 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill:

I sent the attached letter to the Appropriations committee members on February 4, 2008 asking for complete funding for the veterans hospital being built in Orlando, FL.

The funds for the new medical facility in Orlando, FL come from the Major Construction account under Veterans Affairs. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, will be receiving the funds. The $220,000,000 will be used toward construction, site preparation, installation of utilities, roads, and an energy plant.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 4, 2008.

Hon. Roger Wicker,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Ranking Member Wicker: I am writing to request that

Congress include full funding for the completion of the VA

hospital to be located in Orlando, Florida. The

President's budget released today allocates $120 million for

the hospital. In order to insure the swift completion of the

Lake Nona hospital it is imperative that the VA receive full

funding in this budget year.

Today, there are more than 26.5 million veterans living in

the United States and Puerto Rico with more than 1.8 million

of them residing in the State of Florida. That is the second

highest total in America, second only to California. More

than one-third of these live in the Central Florida area

alone.

According to the VA, Central Florida is the number one

destination for combat veterans 65 years of age or older. It

is also the number one area for veterans who have 50 percent

or more service connected disability and 18 percent of our

veterans have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has estimated the cost

to complete this hospital at $597 million. This hospital is a

top priority for the VA and is badly needed in central

Florida. It is vital that the remaining $537 million, to

finish construction, is included in the Fiscal Year 2009

Military Construction appropriations bill.

I hope you will consider the inclusion of these funds as

you work through the many important requests during the FY09

appropriations process.

Sincerely,

Tom Feeney,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 375, to honor the goal of the International Year of Astronomy, along with the gentleman from Texas.

In 1609, Galileo Galilei turned a telescope to the night sky and saw an amazing array of astronomical wonders. From that point on, mankind has been fascinated by the secrets of the universe and has been committed to understanding Earth and everything beyond through extraordinary scientific leaps.

In honor of the 400th anniversary of Galileo's discovery, the United Nations has designated 2009 the International Year of Astronomy. The purpose of the International Year of Astronomy is to help citizens of the world discover the impact astronomy has had on their daily lives and create a greater knowledge of what the universe has to offer. The International Year of Astronomy will be a worldwide celebration aiming to stimulate interest in astronomy and science, particularly in younger generations, coalescing around the central theme of, ``The Universe, Yours to Discover.''

There are eight major goals of the International Year of Astronomy. They include:

Increasing scientific awareness in the general public through the communication of scientific breakthroughs;

Promoting widespread access to the universal knowledge of fundamental science through astronomy and sky-observing experiences;

Empowering astronomical communities in developing countries by engaging in international collaboration;

Supporting and improving formal and informal science education in schools and science centers;

Providing a modern image of science and scientists to reinforce the connection between science education and science careers;

Facilitating new and strengthen existing astronomical networks by connecting amateur astronomers with educators and scientists on a local, regional, and national level;

Improving the gender balance of scientists at all levels and promote greater involvement by underrepresented minorities in scientific and engineering careers; and, finally

Facilitating the preservation of the world's dark skies in places such as national parks and astronomical sites.

The U.S. is taking a lead role in the International Year of Astronomy by heading up four of the 11 cornerstone projects outlined by the International Astronomical Union. They include the Galileoscope initiative, which aims to provide millions of people with an inexpensive telescope in order to make their own discoveries just as Galileo did so many years ago; and Dark Skies Awareness, a wide-ranging effort to preserve and protect the world's heritage of Dark Night Skies in astronomical observation sites.

The U.S. is also taking part in From the Earth to the Universe, an exhibit of astronomical photographs from ground and space-based observatories to be displayed in public locations accessible to all. These projects are designed to help achieve one or more of the eight main goals that I went through before.

The International Year of Astronomy is an effort in which the United States is pleased to take a leading role, and I applaud the efforts of the United Nations and the International Astronomical Union. Therefore, I am pleased to join today with the gentleman from Texas, and I urge all of my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 375.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the gentleman from Texas. All humanity has a common interest in what astronomy can provide to us, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill.

I want to thank staff on both sides for their work on this bill, including a young woman named Susan Gleiser. This is one of the first bills she has had a chance to work on. I urge unanimous adoption of this resolution.

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

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

I am pleased to join Mr. Lampson in cosponsoring House Resolution 1313 which honors the life and accomplishments of an amazing woman, astronaut Dr. Sally K. Ride.

Sally Ride was born in Los Angeles, California, on May 26, 1951, and is perhaps best known as the first American woman in space. She was selected for NASA's astronaut program in January 1978, and became a mission specialist on the seventh space shuttle mission, which launched from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on June 18, 1983. This was the second flight of the space shuttle Challenger, and the first mission with a five-person crew. During the mission, Dr. Ride operated the shuttle's remote manipulator arm to perform the first deployment and retrieval exercise from the shuttle's cargo bay. These early demonstrations paved the way for routine, yet vitally important, operations necessary to build the International Space Station.

Prior to her service with NASA, Sally Ride received a bachelor of science in physics and a bachelor of arts in English, and went on to receive a master of science and doctorate degree in physics from Stanford University.

What is perhaps less well known about Sally Ride is the work she has done to motivate girls and young women to pursue careers in math and science and technology. She has written five science books for children, and initiated and directed education programs to encourage a fascination with science among middle school students.

Dr. Ride also served the Nation in other capacities, including as a member of the Presidential Commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, and later the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. She has been a member of the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology, and the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, as well as served on the Boards of Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.

Indeed, our country does owe a great debt of gratitude to this amazing woman, Dr. Sally Ride.

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

I have no further speakers, and again, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Mr. Lampson's resolution honoring a great American. I urge its adoption by the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1312 which commemorates the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation. I want to thank its sponsors, Mr. Lamborn of Colorado and Mr. Lampson from Texas, for this very important resolution honoring the Space Foundation.

The Space Foundation was established in Colorado Springs in 1983 to provide a nonpartisan source of credible information to a wide variety in the space community, from professionals to the general public.

Over the last 25 years, the Space Foundation's mission has been to advance space-related endeavors to inspire, enable, and propel humanity. The Space Foundation has developed alongside the space community by fostering and promoting a greater understanding and awareness and practical uses of space for the benefit of civilization in all aspects of space: commercial, civil, and national security.

Perhaps the most notable has been the Space Foundation's commitment to space education programs. Since its inception, the Space Foundation has been a leading champion for bringing space science into the classroom. The Space Foundation's Summer Institute provides a unique educational environment in which teachers can continue their space studies and help enhance their students' classroom experience.

In addition to the Summer Institute, the Space Foundation hosts the National Space Symposium and Strategic Space and Defense, two of the top three conferences for space professionals worldwide. I might say I had the honor of attending a recent conference in Colorado Springs. The Space Foundation has been useful in efforts to bring together all aspects of the space industry and has established itself a crucial member of the space community.

I'm proud to support this resolution honoring a significant organization, and I urge my colleagues to also support House Resolution 1312.

With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of the resolution, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close.

With that, I want to thank Mr. Lamborn and urge the resolution's adoption by the full House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I'm thrilled to be part of the celebration of NASA's 50th anniversary with this House Resolution 1315.

NASA was created 50 years ago in the wake of the former Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik. Sputnik provided the perception of Soviet superiority in military power and scientific achievement.

To counter that challenge, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded for conducting America's civilian space program.

NASA actually succeeded the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, a splendid organization founded in 1915 that produced gems of aeronautical research. Now the task was to extend America's reach from the air to space.

NASA did so. Satellites were launched to monitor the weather, relay communications, and explore our solar system. America's human spaceflight program, Project Mercury, began. Astronauts were selected in 1959, and in 1960, NASA began planning a manned lunar landing.

The rest became an integral part of the American identity, not just for us but for how the rest of the world views the American experience: our journeys to the Moon; the space shuttle; the International Space Station; Apollo 13's harrowing journey; the tragedies of Apollo 1, the Shuttle Challenger, and the Shuttle Columbia; the Hubble Space Telescope; the robotic exploration of other planets; the monitoring of our dynamic Earth; and of course, the wonder of flight itself. All done in the full view of the world.

Today, America is the world's premier spacefaring Nation. For 50 years, the men and women of the NASA family have brought great honor and prestige to this country. Today, the House of Representatives honors those people, past and present.

We will continue that legacy. Last month, this House overwhelmingly passed a NASA reauthorization bill that lays out a comprehensive blueprint for sustaining a healthy and vigorous NASA. Considerable care has been devoted to all elements of NASA's portfolio, human spaceflight, Earth and space sciences, and aeronautics. We must never relinquish our leadership in space.

And yet, today in the Washington Post, the Washington Post points out that just like competition on Earth, space is now a global competitive environment, and I quote the Washington Post from today's edition. ``Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing `the final frontier' is slipping away, many experts believe.''

I agree with that assessment. Slowly but steadily, we are allowing our historic lead in space to slip away, and this House and the Senate and the next administration needs to step to the forefront. We're experiencing increasing competition from China, from India, from Japan, from Russia, from the European Space Agency, and increasingly, many others.

In the aftermath of the Shuttle Columbia accident, America rededicated itself to human spaceflight. We vowed to resume flying the shuttle, complete the International Space Station, and then build and fly a new generation of spacecraft that will take America beyond orbiting the Earth. The Moon will be the first of many destinations.

When this vision was announced, one of the first responses came in an editorial in The Daily Telegraph. Sometimes those living ``across the pond'' are the best way to observe the American people. Here's what the editorial said. ``Americans, thank Heaven, are a restless, inquisitive, pioneering people. The concept of exploration, of an ever-expanding frontier, is central to their identity in a way that some Europeans find hard to understand.''

As the world watches, NASA displays this fundamental part of our American character, and that is appropriate. For we explore space not just for ourselves, we do so for all of humankind.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the oceans have been the largest sink of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is a valuable natural function. When the oceans absorb carbon dioxide, it lowers the pH of the water. Although the increased acidity of the oceans to date has not been significant, many in the ocean science community are concerned about the rate of change that they have witnessed.

H.R. 4174 organizes Federal activities on ocean acidification research. It is intended to provide a blueprint for research and monitoring efforts at the Federal level, and encourage international cooperation for a global problem.

We have an obligation to ourselves and to future generations to make informed decisions on something as serious as the health and welfare of our oceans, but at this point, we do not know enough to make those decisions. We do not know how much the ocean's chemistry is going to change, how fast it will change, or what the impacts of this change will be on marine life or the health of marine ecosystems. We also do not know how all of this will affect mankind's reliance on the ocean for food, for industry, and for energy resources. How can we possibly engage in serious discussions about mitigation and adoption strategies if we do not know these important things?

Passing the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act is the first step we need to take to collect this vital information. The legislation directs the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, or JSOST, to coordinate all Federal research and monitoring activities. The subcommittee is co-chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. These are the three agencies that should be most involved in ocean acidification research.

This bill requires JSOST to develop a strategic research plan with an eye toward being able to produce useable products to the fishing industry, the energy industry, policy makers, and other shareholders at some point in the future. This strategic plan is not meant to reinvent the wheel. It should be based on several research road maps that have already been developed by other institutions.

The legislation authorizes NOAA to continue its ocean acidification research and monitoring activities as long as such activities are consistent with the strategic research plan. It also authorizes funding for NSF to provide research grants for ocean acidification. And it directs NASA to focus resources on ocean acidification monitoring in future Earth observation missions.

Most importantly, H.R. 4174 requires that JSOST and NOAA coordinate

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my friend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

I want to thank the gentleman from Washington and the others that worked on this bill.

Our oceans are the property of all humanity, and we want to do everything we can to understand them and preserve them.

With that I would urge the passage of this bill.

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

I want to thank Ranking Member Hall and Chairman Gordon and, as they pointed out, all of the staff on both sides that made possible a bipartisan bill that got unanimous support in the committee.

I also want to suggest that terrific staff work on both sides and transparency and openness in the process is sort of a model that this Congress ought to try to emulate more often, and I want to thank, again, Chairman Gordon and Chairman Udall for doing that.

By the way, this is likely to be, since he's not running for reelection, Chairman Udall's last reauthorization as a House Member. He has been a champion on space issues. He's been a great friend and a delight to work with, and I know that he will continue to be a champion for space and aeronautics. And so I really appreciated the chance to work with you.

And following me I think at some point will be Congressman Weldon, my neighbor to the south. We share the different assets of Kennedy Space Center, Patrick Air Force Base, and Congressman Weldon will not be running for office again anytime soon, at least not the House. We appreciate Dave Weldon's leadership. He's been a terrific advocate for space in general and Kennedy Space Center and human spaceflight in specific.

So it's been terrific to work with two great leaders that will not be working with us in all likelihood next year.

NASA was created in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957. The space age had begun. Fifty years have now passed. America is still the world's preeminent spacefaring Nation. NASA helped lead us to that status.

Today, we build on that foundation. We have laid out a comprehensive blueprint for sustaining a healthy and vigorous NASA during the next administration, and as Chairman Gordon pointed out, we don't know who the next President will be. We don't know who their next NASA administrator will be, but the starting point for the next administration's space program has been designed right here in the House of Representatives, thanks to the leadership of the people that you are hearing from.

Considerable care has been devoted to all elements of NASA's portfolio, human spaceflight, earth and space sciences, and aeronautics. I look forward to continued success and excellence in all of these endeavors. Each success sustains America's technical prowess and brings enormous prestige to the American people.

Because I represent the Kennedy Space Center, I want to particularly note this bill's unambiguous endorsement of America's human spaceflight program. By the way, all of our human spaceflight program has an international component to it.

Five years ago, America was stunned by the loss of the Shuttle Columbia. We had to re-examine our objectives for human spaceflight and articulate a more sustainable vision for our future spacefaring. We have done so, and this bill continues that progress by providing much- needed stability, on a bipartisan basis, in our strategy and architecture for human spaceflight.

The shuttle has resumed flight. We are having a successful mission as we speak today. We will complete the International Space Station and then strive to utilize its enormous potential. And we will also set forth to explore beyond lower orbit, starting with the moon and then beyond, for the future of humankind.

These are ambitious goals, but Americans are a strong, optimistic people willing to take up and meet any challenge. And as this bill highlights, America invites others throughout the world to join us in this journey. It is done on behalf of all mankind.

NASA's human space exploration and satellite programs publicly demonstrate America's spacefaring prowess. Other Nations are striving to achieve what America has already accomplished.

In prior generations, mastery of the sea and air brought global power and prestige. Today, such power and respect accrues to those mastering space. This bill sustains America's prowess in space, and I urge its passage.

I thank Ranking Member Hall, and I thank Chairman Gordon for this amendment. I did want to take a moment or two to point out a very important aspect of this manager's amendment. It directs the White House Office of Science and Technology to establish an interagency committee to study issues related to locating a commercial space launch range in close proximity to a Federal launch range.

In order to have viable commercial launch operations in the United States, effective coordination and cooperation must exist between potential commercial ranges and existing Federal ranges. Federal agencies have to endeavor to assist and not choke off commercial space ranges. The interagency committee will focus on these agencies and the importance of this issue.

Let me say that for the last 50 years, space has been really a bipolar world. Either you were a part of the former Soviet orbit and space power, or you were part of the American-led free nations in space power.

Today it is a very different world. I just recently came back from the first ever global space summit in Beijing, China, where over 15 nations were represented, some six or seven major spacefaring powers. It is not just people that have to come ask the United States to get permission to get commercial opportunities in space today. There are some 50 different international agreements, many of which don't even involve the United States of America.

In some ways, our competitors are beating us to the punch in commercial launch opportunities. It is not just bad for business. Let me say, for example, the Chinese have launched over 33 satellites from other countries. They are doing this to help countries we would consider troublesome, for example, Venezuela or Nigeria. They are also using it to buy influence with our friends, like Japan or Brazil. America cannot shoot itself in the foot in developing and maintaining our historic leadership in commercial opportunities any more than we can give up predominance in the civilian side of human space exploration.

And so this manager's amendment contains a very important aspect. I sincerely applaud the chairman and others, including John Culberson, for advocating for this specific piece of the manager's amendment.

I am claiming time, without objection, for the minority side. We have no further speakers and would urge support and adoption of the manager's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment under the name of Mr. Rohrabacher at the desk.

Madam Chairman, on behalf of this amendment, as Congressman Rohrabacher explained earlier, this amendment is a sense of the Congress provision stating the U.S. should seek to obtain commitments for cooperation from other nations in the search for near- Earth objects.

Mr. Rohrabacher has been an ardent advocate in our committee for the potential threat posed by asteroids and comets having orbits that bring them close to Earth and the devastation they could create should one of them impact us.

By the way, I have sat through hearings, along with Congressman Udall and others, and we have incredibly sophisticated technology and capabilities one day to protect Earth if we know we are going to be targeted by an asteroid or comet, for example. In fact, the testimony was that some 99 percent of the resources today globally to prepare for this eventuality are American tax dollars. It seems seeking cooperation on behalf of all humankind only makes sense.

Our committee held a highly informative set of hearings on near-Earth objects late last fall. It is clear to me that the entire world community needs to be much more vigilant in finding, tracking and characterizing near-Earth objects and developing deflection capabilities and technologies.

I urge support for this amendment.

I will be glad to.

Reclaiming my time just to close on behalf of Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment, he is a great advocate, but I felt more comfortable after I heard from a bevy of the world's best astrophysicists that this is not only a real threat, but a real potential way to solve a threat to humankind.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the Rohrabacher amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I do not rise in opposition to the amendment. I should say I have no objection to the amendment. I have read it very carefully, and I appreciate the language ``when appropriate.'' Of course, it would be the United States that determined, in my view, when international confidence-building measures would be appropriate.

I should say there are times when, for example, sharing sensitive technologies with certain countries may be inappropriate, if we don't have confidence what they may use those technologies for or what their long-term intentions are. On the other hand, there are things we ought to clearly explore sharing with every spacefaring Nation; for example, a common docking device with the Shuttle, perhaps, so any nation in the event of emergency may be able to help rescue our astronauts.

I should also suggest, as I talked about earlier, that space is developing. It is no longer a bipolar world. Historically, people have out of habit and out of practicality had to rely on asking the U.S. if they wanted to send a satellite, for example, into orbit, to see whether or not that satellite would safely orbit the Earth without colliding into another country's satellite. That is not true because of any international treaty or convention. Anybody can send anything into space. The truth is, in terms of space law, we have really sort of an international anarchy, just as originally when we with had travel by navy or by commerce through the seas and ultimately international air travel.

There has to be some way to communicate ultimately in terms of maintaining space traffic. Stopping the creation of space junk or debris that would threaten all peacefaring uses of space would be another example of appropriate times the U.S. should lead in confidence-building measures to advance long-term initiatives for international cooperation.

With that, again, I have no objection to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in order to address the amendment, to claim the minority time.

For purposes of debate, I may well be opposed, yes.

Madam Chairman, I have carefully read the amendment, and while I may not press my objection, I will state that the amendment, in my view, is unnecessary, that NASA has a policy in place that goes to the very same points expressed in the amendment, and perhaps unintentionally this amendment implies that NASA cannot be trusted to factually in an unbiased manner publicize research results conducted by agency scientists.

Several years ago, NASA's Public Affairs Office was accused with inappropriately choosing which NASA scientists participated in specific interviews with the press. Once this interference was brought to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's attention, he quickly and forcefully intervened, assuring Congress, NASA researchers and employees, and the public that NASA will never seek to censor agency scientists.

In a letter dated March 30, 2006, and this issue has been addressed over and over again, addressed to former Science Committee Chairman Sherry Boehlert, Mr. Griffin stated, ``I will not tolerate any policy or action where any NASA employee may filter, alter or

censor scientific findings and facts, and I want to reaffirm that NASA has always been and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.''

Mr. Griffin then formed a policy development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal and public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways to improve them, and develop agency practices to maintain NASA's commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and safety issues. The result of their work was a series of revisions to 14 Code of Federal Regulations, section 1213, which guides the agency's public affairs policies, which all Americans can visit.

Mr. Griffin then formed a policy development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal and public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways to improve them, and develop agency practices to maintain NASA's commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and safety issues. The results of their work was a series of revisions to 14 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Section 1213, which guides the agency's public affairs policies.

More recently, the NASA Office of Inspector General concluded an investigation in response to a Congressional inquiry dating back to 2006, requesting a formal investigation about ``political interference'' by NASA public affairs officials.

The IG's investigation found that ``. . . during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control. We also concluded that the climate change editorial decisions were localized within the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs; we found no credible evidence suggesting that senior NASA or Administration officials directed the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs to minimize information related to climate change. To the contrary, we found that once NASA leadership within the Office of the Administrator were made aware of the scope of the conflict between the Office of Public Affairs and scientists working on climate change, they aggressively implemented new policies with a view toward improved processes in editorial decision- making relating to scientific public affairs matters.''

The IG's report also stated: ``With respect to NASA's climate change research activities, we found no evidence indicating that NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate change scientists . . . (W)e found that NASA systematically distributed its technical climate change research throughout the scientific community and otherwise made it available through a variety of specialized forums, such as scientific journals, professional conferences, and public appearances by NASA scientists.''

Additionally, a May 2007 GAO report found ``that NASA policies are generally clear and should help facilitate the dissemination of research results. For example, NASA's recently revised media policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff; details steps in the process for dissemination via press releases and interviews; and describes a process to resolve disputes about agency decisions regarding press releases.''

In closing, while I have no objection to the gentleman's (Mr. Wu) amendment, I don't want Members to surmise that NASA science findings are being manipulated by agency management. That is not what the NASA IG, or GAO reports found.

Madam Chairman, I don't specifically object to the language of this amendment, because I think it is consistent with NASA policy and Michael Griffin's great efforts to explain to the public that he will insist and has insisted on this policy. But I will remind all of us that a May 2007 GAO report found ``NASA policies are generally clear and should help facilitate the dissemination of research results. For example, NASA's recently revised media policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff, details steps in the process for dissemination of press releases and interviews, and describes a process to resolve disputes about agency decisions regarding press releases.''

In closing, while I do not object to Mr. Wu's amendment, I don't want Members to surmise that NASA science findings are being manipulated by current agency management. That is not what NASA, IG, or GAO reports found.

Again, we have no objection to the language that Mr. Wu offers.

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

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

I don't know whether, candidly, I support or oppose the amendment, because it has some very technical effects in its interplay with other portions of Federal statutes and requirements and regulation.

Just one of the many questions I have would be that it seems, as I read the amendment, that it establishes different conditions on contracting fuel versus those established in section 526. So I guess one of my questions, maybe the most important, since we don't have a lot of time, do the conditions in your amendment supplant the greenhouse gas emission criteria found in 526, or do they remain in effect, and are these conditions in addition to the 526 regulations?

If the gentleman will yield.

If I have any. I don't know that we have any more time.

Could I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional 2 minutes?

Actually if I could suggest, rather than taking up your 2 minutes, I would be grateful if you yielded, but I will yield back to you and claim my own 2 minutes so that you can use yours since you were gracious enough not to object.

I thank the gentleman.

This amendment may be very positive. The problem is that it conflicts with other statutes and regulations. It is very complicated as we read it.

What my friend says is a clarifying amendment actually creates a lot more ambiguity in our minds about the interplay of these different standards.

I talked about the interplay with 526, and I still don't know which set of rules will govern, the set of rules in the gentleman's amendment or section 526.

We also seem to cite a section of the Energy Independence and Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 17142. There is currently no section 526(a) nor a 42 U.S.C. 17142(a) in the law, and yet I believe the gentleman's amendment cites these sections, as I read it, that do not exist in current law.

I have a concern about the amendment's intention. Do you want to create an exemption under 526 for generally available fuel that is not predominantly produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, or does it create a broader exemption for all alternative or synthetic fuels as referenced in section 526?

So I guess I have a number of very complex questions. I wish this is something we might have dealt with in committee where we have a number of experts, both members and staff. While I don't know that I object, it is because I just don't understand all of the different regulations and statutes and the interplay, and this seems to be one more additional attempt at dealing with whether NASA can or can't do things, and I really have no idea whether this is in addition to, or whether it is consistent with, or whether it may be mutually exclusive with provisions in other portions of the law, and I wish we could spend some time with technical staff to iron out these difficulties.

With that, having expressed concern and not necessarily opposing the amendment because I don't really understand all of the ways it will be enforced given other statutes and regulations.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

We appreciate that. Having said that, on a technical issue like this, it sure would have been great to take a more technical look at this at the subcommittee or committee level. Having said that, I appreciate the chairman's gracious offer to help clarify for those of us who think more ambiguity, not less, is being created by this amendment, and what the ultimate impact will be.

Madam Chairman, I rise, at least for purposes of debate, to be recognized in opposition.

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I think it is very well-intentioned. I do not intend to object to the language. I do believe it is designed to help NASA distribute its space images and multimedia records to the public. I share that goal; but I should say that I think this amendment is superfluous. I think it is already contained in the bill language itself. Now superfluity is not necessarily an awful thing. Sometimes the best thing we do here is just to repeat what we have already done, and it probably does very little harm.

But I would point out that section 407 clearly instructs NASA to develop a plan, to identify opportunities to leverage the very same technologies Mr. Arcuri references in his amendment.

The gentleman's amendment seeks NASA to develop a plan and examine the feasibility to ``broadcast electronically, including via the Internet.'' The language in the bill talks about already ``rapidly delivering the content through extended high bandwidth communications networks.''

So I think Mr. Arcuri's concerns are already adequately addressed in the bill. I would simply argue that they are unnecessary. Having said that, I would not object to them being included.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate and I don't dispute the intentions that the gentleman has. I agree with that, and I believe that the current language in the bill requires NASA to rapidly deliver this content that you are talking about through high bandwidth communications networks, and I think that includes universities in the private sector, et cetera.

Having said that, because the intent of the language clearly is not something I object to, I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not necessarily in opposition to the amendment.

I think all of us want to know the cost of every government project. That certainly includes Constellation.

As Mr. Wu pointed out, on behalf of Mr. DeFazio, the GAO just gave us a very comprehensive report. We had a full hearing on the matter of the progress of the Constellation program.

I can tell you that there are some 56 annual reports that NASA has to give to Congress, and dozens of others that it has to give to other agencies, regulatory agencies and other governmental agencies. This is not a request that NASA add to their 100 or 150 reports an additional report. It's asking CBO to take an outside look. And I'm never opposed to transparency in government, especially cost.

I should point out that the amendment singles out Project Constellation for particular scrutiny. Project Constellation is our follow up to the Space Shuttle Human Space Flight Program which is clearly a top priority for NASA, and has been established in this Congress as a top priority.

The shuttle will be retired roughly at the end of this decade. Without Constellation, NASA will have no choice but to buy assets from other nations if we intend to maintain access to our own international space station.

We're going to be dependent on the Russians right now under a very bad plan, but the only plan we have for 5 years. Without Constellation, all hopes of accessing, through American capabilities, the international space station or venturing the moon or other planets or asteroids will simply disappear.

Not all of our colleagues pay as much attention as those of us that are on the floor here today to space. I think one of our colleagues recently suggested that the first manned lunar outpost in space be named after Neil Armstrong, the great first American ever on the Moon.

My question, in response, was why would the Chinese, who are going to get back to the Moon before us, give us permission to name their lunar outpost after an American? We've got to remind our colleagues that this is now an internationally competitive environment in more ways than one.

Constellation is a technology-driven program that will achieve its initial operational capability roughly in the Year 2015, hopefully earlier. NASA has worked hard to maintain their schedule. They give us reports every day. We had a GAO report.

Having said that, if the gentleman feels compelled to support the DeFazio amendment, and we have one additional report on the budgetary status, I don't have any objection to transparency in government. But at some point you're doing so many reports that it's hard to send people back to the moon if you're doing 150 or 200 reports for Congress and other agencies and spending all your time filling out paperwork.

These are really bright engineers. I want to get into the business of flying rockets and not doing more paperwork.

With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not necessarily in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, not only am I not in opposition, but I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse the Harman-Ehlers amendment. And I should point out as she mentions the trouble in getting new people into the workforce and an aging and retiring workforce. By the way, one of those young engineers that works in the space field is my wife, and she remains eternally young. But she's the exception.

I've talked extensively about the competition, both civilian and commercial, coming from China. I can tell you that I recently visited CASC, which is the Chinese Civilian and Commercial Space Agency. They have 160,000 employees. About half of those are dedicated to space. And we asked the question, what the average age, because we were startled by the engineering manager that addressed us on their program, what the average age of the managers were in the Engineering Department. The average age of the managers was 40. We were stunned.

We asked, what's the average age of your engineers that are doing space work. And the answer is 30.

Madam Chairman, nothing could be more important to science and technology.

And with that, I want to yield the balance of my time, to, as the gentlelady said, a great advocate for science and space and technology, and for young people getting into these fields, Mr. Ehlers.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not necessarily opposed.

This really is an amendment that we're enthusiastic about. NASA currently conducts weather research in cooperation with NOAA, although through the U.S. Weather Research Program, the gentleman's amendment emphasizes the importance of this research as we cope with predicting and dealing with the aftermath of violent weather systems.

It's a terrific amendment, and with that, I would urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not necessarily opposed.

Again, this is an amendment we enthusiastically support. NASA does a great deal to incentivize education programs for women engineers and scientists, but a lot of us Americans remember exactly where we were the moment that Ms. McAuliffe and her colleagues perished. It reminds all of us that human space flight is an inherently risky venture and especially for teachers throughout America and school children who were contemporaries of the Challenger disaster.

I think the gentleman's amendment makes a really good point and with that, I would support the amendment and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not necessarily opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I will not necessarily oppose this amendment. I will point out that I think the amendment provides some confusing requirements on NASA.

On the one hand, for example, it says, ``The administrator shall work to ensure that NASA's policies on the sharing of climate-related data respond to the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office report on climate change research and data-sharing policies.''

But then the amendment goes on to direct the administrator to also align the agency's policies to recommendations contained in a National Academy report on Earth Science Applications and ``other relevant National Academy reports.''

It doesn't seem to provide any discretion at NASA to determine amongst a whole bevy or multitude of academy reports from all over the place as to which ones are meritorious or more meritorious than others. There seems to be some confusion here in terms of what NASA ought to determine.

Most importantly, I think we want NASA to make determinations based on good science. That's what they've been charged with. NASA has long been a leader in promoting both domestically and internationally the full and open access to science data to all.

I would also point out that NASA data and information are accessible to the public, on the Web through the NASA Web site.

And finally, we've already discussed the fact that NASA has a set of policies about data and information sharing that I think are comprehensive and are working today quite well.

With that, I would indicate again that I have no objection to the language; although I do think it creates some ambiguity and confusion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition; although I'm not certain I oppose the amendment.

I guess at the outset, I'd like, if she would yield, to ask my friend a question because, as I understand the amendment, what it does is to require NASA to contract with a company or companies that have a demonstrated ability to do business and to work with certain companies. Right now, the language gives essentially a requirement that we find small businesses that we can cooperate and work with. I think all of us support that.

I don't understand the language in her amendment. It will substitute for small business, substitute the language in quotes, small, minority- owned and women-owned businesses, end of quote; is that conjunctive or disjunctive? If a company has a great record, for example, in its area of working with minority-owned businesses or women-owned businesses or small businesses or, for example, if a contractor has one subcontractor, do they have to demonstrate that they will be able to have three different contractors, one that's a small business, one that's a minority-owned, and one that's a women-owned business?

If it's a disjunctive, if they can demonstrate ability really to reach out to smaller companies or minority or women, that's terrific, but it may present a real host of problems if it is conjunctive.

I would be happy to yield to my friend to explain whether it's disjunctive or conjunctive.

Reclaiming my time, I should point out that the minority happily worked on a manager's amendment, where we enthusiastically endorsed the concept that the administrator ought to contract with external organizations to facilitate new technologies for NASA to new businesses.

And we were sort of provided this at the last moment. We don't really have a chance to examine what the effects are. There may be a contractor out there that only has one subcontractor. There may not be specific types of the businesses.

Though I don't necessarily oppose the amendment, I would suggest that there may be practical problems depending on how this becomes interpreted, and suddenly, we're adding additional requirements.

I think all of us want to help women-owned businesses. We've already done a scholarship today. I think minority-owned businesses are part of Federal contracting law. I think this specific language was designed to help all small businesses, without regard to what specific gender or ethnicity or background they had. We certainly support assistance in helping recently returned or long-standing veterans organizations.

We don't object to the intent of the gentlelady's amendment. I guess we have some real concerns as a practical matter. Small contractors, we're trying to encourage, by the way, NASA not just to pick the Goliaths that then get to divvy out the work. We're trying to encourage NASA to get down and help do business directly with small contractors that are capable.

This may become impossible for small businesses to comply with if they only had one or two contracts and one or two subs.

So, with that, I will not oppose the amendment. I will be happy to yield to my friend to respond.

Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentlelady's intent, and actually, I agree with her, given the explanation.

I mean, we've got a NASA Web site. NASA does data sharing. Hopefully, they don't exclude anybody that the gentlelady's talking about. I'm not sure what requirements that contractors that have access to NASA data, that may not be publicly shared, have now got to do that they're not doing. But with that, sometimes we just hope that the details get worked out later in the process, as Chairman Gordon has already reminded me earlier today.

With that, I will not oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady. I thank my good friend, Mr. Donnelly, and Chairman Frank.

Manufactured housing, as has been said, plays a vital role in meeting the needs of families to get affordable, attractive and safe housing throughout our country. There are some 18 million Americans that live in manufactured housing in America. And as the gentleman from Indiana just said, the quality and the attractions just get better every day. It is an important source of quality affordable housing, and it helps new entry-level buyers as well as retirees trying to downsize on both ends of the housing spectrum, whether getting in for the first time or they're living perhaps in the last home that they will own.

It is a responsible means of homeownership that can play a major role in the solution to America's affordable housing problem. The average price of today's manufactured housing hovers somewhere around $48,000, and in a challenging mortgage market where fewer and fewer people have access to credit, this is one way to solve the problem that many homeowners have.

There are lots of homeowners today throughout America that are losing their homes in foreclosure. And yet because of the affordable nature of manufactured housing, they have not seen a dramatic rise in most places as we have in some communities in the rate of foreclosure throughout the country. Manufactured housing is an important component of the solution for affordability and access to the American Dream for every American.

June is designated as the National Home Ownership Month. One of the great choices Americans have is for quality manufactured housing. Again, I thank the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''