Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member yielding on this.

Everybody deserves as much notice as possible when their obligations in life are going to change. Every mortgage describes the terms of how the note and the loan will change.

One of the problems I see with this bill is when you are required to give a borrower 6-months' notice on what their interest rate is going to be, my understanding is that some mortgages are triggered off dates that may be only 3 or 4 months in advance of the reset date. For example, does a lender have to guess high? Does a lender have to estimate 3 or 4 months out rates are going to go up so they are going to basically send the borrower notice 6 or 7 or 8 months ahead of time so they comply with this very burdensome notice regulation, and they are basically going to stick a borrower, perhaps, with a higher interest rate if the market actually lets interest rates come down than they would have otherwise been able to do.

I don't know whether you have to send a new notice or an adjusted notice also in terms of the alternatives that we have to describe. There are lots of alternatives if you are going to have trouble making your mortgage payment. You could hit the lottery, I suppose. You could hope that a rich uncle passes away and endows you. There are all sorts of potential alternatives.

Now, if we had a form list of three or four potential things that a borrower could do, that might make sense. But I think this is very subjective.

And speaking of the subjectivity, something I wanted to get to earlier, one of the big problems with this bill is that it has all sorts of subjective requirements, for example, that lenders cannot make loans that are not the most appropriate loans. Who knows, other than 20/20 hindsight, whether a loan was appropriate in specific circumstances? Supposing that a family gets divorced? A loan that might have been appropriate one day may be inappropriate. Suppose somebody loses their job or gets sick?

And the other huge subjective part of this entire bill is the net tangible benefits test. Supposing I go take out a loan for $100,000. I decide to go down and decide to play the ponies and I win a 10:1 payment, I become a millionaire. Well, that loan after the fact turned out to have huge net tangible benefits to me.

On the other hand, supposing I take out a $100,000 loan and put it in investments in the stock market and the market gets jittery because Congress is talking about all sorts of tax hikes. Supposing my stocks decrease from $100,000 to $50,000. Well, it turns out after the fact that my taking out that loan to put the money in the stock market did not have much net tangible benefit.

These subjective tests are a nightmare for people trying to provide credit in America.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1064, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my regret for missing votes on the House floor on Monday, October 22, 2007 and Tuesday, October 23, 2007. I was in my district for the launch of Shuttle STS-120: Discovery.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 716 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his advocacy on behalf of this resolution. Information technology has become an integral part of our lives. It shapes how we communicate, how we entertain, and how we work with one another. Computers route our phone calls, print our paychecks, constantly tune our Nation's power plants and transmission lines to meet our energy demands. The extent to which our Nation's infrastructure, economy and way of life depend on computers is simply astounding.

Unfortunately, this reliance on information technology has also left us vulnerable to cyberattacks, viruses and worms, as well as identity theft. The National Cyber Security Alliance is a public-private partnership whose mission is to improve the safety of our computer networks at home and at work against those threats.

Mr. Speaker, the NCSA has declared October National Cyber Security Awareness Month and is sponsoring events throughout the country to raise awareness of the significant cybersecurity issues that we face as a Nation. There are straightforward steps we can take as individuals on our personal computers to help protect ourselves.

The NCSA has a Web site to help consumers and small businesses to prevent or respond to cyberattacks at StaySafeOnline.org. It includes tips such as how to create strong passwords, how to protect your children online, and what to do if you think something goes wrong. As part of Cyber Security Awareness Month, we should all visit StaySafeOnline.org and consider how we can better protect ourselves, such as by ensuring antivirus applications are installed and up to date.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the organizations and agencies involved in the National Cyber Security Awareness Month for their efforts to help us all become more responsible and safer computer users. With that, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

I want to thank my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Texas, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 225, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 225 honoring the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the Space Age and the ensuing 50 years of productive and peaceful space activities.

Fifty years ago, only 12 years after the end of World War II, America was enjoying the unprecedented peace and prosperity that characterized the 1950s.

But on October 4, 1957, America was shaken out of its technological complacency. The Soviet Union launched a beeping 180-pound aluminum satellite into orbit. Sputnik's capability was a wake-up call because it represented a threat to America's national security and technological preeminence.

Our early space program was born out of a clash of ideals between civilizations and systems of government, but it reinvigorated our interest in science and technology leading to increased investment in both research and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

These investments contributed to a technologically skilled generation of Americans that has led the world in innovation and accomplishments.

Our leadership over the last 50 years has encouraged international partnerships that allow us to harness the imaginations and technical talents of many nations for the benefit of all mankind. There is less direct competition and more cooperation.

Today, about 60 percent of NASA's science missions and 100 percent of its human spaceflight activities are done in partnership with other nations. In the growing world economy, developing countries are imitating many of the values and traits that have made America successful, and we are adopting policies that promote education and investment in research and technology.

They clearly understand the link between an educated workforce, technological innovation and economic preeminence. The new global competition for preeminence in science and technological innovation must be met with a renewed American commitment to research and to science, technology, engineering and mathematics education akin to that which followed the dawn of the space age 50 years ago.

Over the next 50 years, it will be more critical, and not less, that we remain world leaders. Our ability to shape our destiny and influence others will depend upon it.

Mr. Speaker, as we mark the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the space age, Congress recognizes the value of investing in America's space program and declares that it is in America's interests to continue to advance knowledge and to improve life on Earth through a sustained national commitment to space exploration in all of its forms, led by a new generation of well-educated scientists, engineers and explorers.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lampson, and I yield the initial 7 minutes of my time to the prime sponsor of the resolution, my friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, along with Mr. Lampson, that Mr. Rohrabacher is the prime sponsor of, and it does a number of important things.

It congratulates the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and their test pilots. This was the successor agency to what we now know as NASA. It honors the bravery of Chuck Yeager and all of the many other test pilots that took on such risks, and it basically emphasizes a strong and robust aeronautics research program for America.

As both Mr. Lampson and Mr. Rohrabacher have pointed out, Mr. Yeager's historic flight on October 14, 1947, breaking the sound barrier was a very dangerous and precarious experiment. At that time, pilots routinely risked losing control of their aircraft or, sadly, lost their lives due to extreme forces on the airplane.

But it's not just that great flight that made Chuck Yeager such a great test pilot in America. Chuck Yeager was only 24 when he flew the Bell X-1 on the famous flight above the Muroc

Army Air Field in California. Two days prior to his record-breaking flight, Mr. Yeager broke two ribs after falling off a horse. Fearing that knowledge of this injury would disqualify him from the scheduled flight, he hid his injury from his superiors and, as a result, had to improvise a way to close the latch on his plane.

Having successfully broken the sound barrier, others soon followed in Mr. Yeager's footsteps, flying newly designed aircraft at higher and higher speeds to help scientists and engineers gain critical knowledge about transonic and supersonic flight.

Only 6 years later, Chuck Yeager flew another Bell-designed rocket plane at more than twice the speed of sound.

A veteran of the Second World War, General Yeager flew P-51 Mustangs in the European theater. He ended the war credited with 61 missions and 11.5 shootdowns of enemy aircraft, including five kills in just 1 day. He was himself shot down over France, and with the help of the French Resistance, was able to make his way back to England where he continued flying against the Axis powers.

In the years following his historic flight, General Yeager continued an illustrious career in the Air Force. Among other accomplishments, he was the first commanding officer of the Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School and a commander of fighter wings and squadrons in Germany and southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. He also continued to work for NASA as a consulting test pilot.

On the 50th anniversary of his supersonic flight in 1997, General Yeager, then 74, piloted an Air Force F-15 Eagle past mach 1.

General Yeager is a native of West Virginia and today resides in California. He's a gifted pilot who spent his career in service to his country, sometimes at extreme risk, defending our shores and advancing our understanding of aeronautics.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor and supporter of H. Res. 736, commemorating the 60th anniversary of General Yeager's first flight exceeding the speed of sound. And with that, I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Lampson, from Texas. I yield the first 4 minutes of our time to the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. Thelma Drake.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I would like to rise in support of H. Con. Resolution 222, commending NASA on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Langley Research Center, located in Hampton, Virginia.

This legislation was introduced by our friend and colleague, Representative Jo Ann Davis, just a week before she succumbed to cancer; and it is with mixed emotion that I stand here today to talk about this resolution.

Mrs. Davis was proud to represent the engineers and technicians at NASA Langley Research Center who have made the United States aeronautics research and testing the envy of the world for 90 years.

First established as the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in 1917, it was the Nation's first civil aeronautics research laboratory under the charter of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the precursor to modern-day NASA. It was created at a time when the United States was clearly lagging behind its European counterparts in the development of aircraft capable of controlled powered flight.

Our country's leaders well understood that the future economic and military well-being our country demanded development of advanced aeronautics capability, and Langley's founding was motivated in part by the evolution of aircraft used in the first World War and by our desire to match and exceed these capabilities.

The center is named after one of America's earliest aeronautical pioneers, Samuel Pierpont Langley, who began his research into aeronautical

machines in 1886. Perhaps inauspiciously, Samuel Langley's final crewed test flight ended in failure when his aircraft, launched from the top of a houseboat, immediately plummeted into the Potomac River. Just 9 days later, on December 17, 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully achieved the first flight on the dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.

During the ensuing decades, Langley Research Center's research and development activities advanced the science of aeronautics from simple propelled-driven aircraft into the jet age.

Their accomplishments are too numerous to mention here, but it is no exaggeration to state that Langley was the nexus from which fundamental technological breakthroughs in propulsion, aerodynamics, materials, aircraft and wing designs propelled our Nation to become the world's preeminent designer and builder of high-performance military and civil aircraft.

In 1958, responding to the launch of Sputnik, Congress passed legislation creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and with it the Langley Research Center's mission was expanded to lead our Nation's earliest efforts in manned space flight.

Many of the initial planning, design, test, and development activities related to Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were conducted at Langley. Langley was the first of 10 research centers that now comprise NASA, and a number of highly talented engineers and scientists who began their careers at Langley eventually helped establish the other NASA centers.

Langley's role in space continues to this day, contributing its talents to testing the design of the new Ares One Launch Vehicle and the design testing of the Orion Launch Abort System. The Langley Research Center is home to 3,600 civil service and contractor employees, and it houses several of the world's most advanced wind tunnels and aeronautics laboratories.

Mr. Speaker, Langley's record of achievements in aeronautics and aerospace research is without comparison; and it is a testament to the creativity, dedication, hard work, and technical excellence of the men and women who contributed their talents to the agency's mission.

But as a word of caution, it bears mentioning that U.S. aeronautics research and testing programs are declining, no matter that countries in Europe and elsewhere are investing heavily in aeronautics research. The health of the U.S. aviation industry depends upon aeronautics research and development, especially long-term research that private industry cannot perform itself, in order to compete in the world market. NASA is the only Federal agency that supports research on civilian aircraft. Their researchers are working to make our planes and our skies safer, and Mrs. Davis believed that this is a worthwhile investment of taxpayers' money.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues to commemorate the Langley Research Center on its anniversary, and I urge members to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

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

Madam Speaker, last year, I cosponsored legislation with Congressman Bob Goodlatte to help stop the widespread growth of gambling over the internet. Though Federal law already prohibits gambling over telephone wires, the passage of this legislation was necessary to maintain the original intent of the law while also bringing it up to speed with the explosion of current and future technology. However, this update of the law made clear that it would only affect interstate commerce, respecting the rights of States by leaving to them the decision whether and how to regulate gambling within their own borders. New legislation before the Financial Services Committee attempts to undo all of this previous work, instead granting the Federal Government the expansive and exclusive right to regulate all online gambling. This new legislation would represent the first time in history that the Federal Government would be given power to issue gambling licenses, and it marks a significant shift away from allowing States to determine for themselves what type of policy is best. Proponents of this legislation state that the bill offers States the right to ``opt out'' of this regulation, but the truth is that the States already have the right to determine their own policy towards gambling without any broader Federal regulation that threatens to undermine their control over licensing standards and enforcement actions.

September 28, 2007.

Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: We, the

Attorneys General of our respective States, have grave

concerns about H.R. 2046, the ``Internet Gambling Regulation

and Enforcement Act of 2007.'' We believe that the bill would

undermine States' traditional powers to make and enforce

their own gambling laws.

On March 21, 2006, 49 NAAG members wrote to the leadership

of Congress: We encourage the United States Congress to help

combat the skirting of state gambling regulations by enacting

legislation which would address Internet gambling, while at

the same time ensuring that the authority to set overall

gambling regulations and policy remains where it has

traditionally been most effective: at the state level.

Congress responded by enacting the Unlawful Internet

Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), which has

effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the

American marketplace.

But now, less than a year later, H.R. 2046 proposes to do

the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal

licensing program that would permit Internet gambling

companies to do business with U.S. customers. The Department

of the Treasury would alone decide who would receive federal

licenses and whether the licensees were complying with their

terms. This would represent the first time in history that

the federal government would be responsible for issuing

gambling licenses.

A federal license would supersede any state enforcement

action, because 5387 in H.R. 2046 would grant an affirmative

defense against any prosecution or enforcement action under

any Federal or State law to any person who possesses a valid

license and complies with the requirements of H.R. 2046. This

divestment of state gambling enforcement power is sweeping

and unprecedented.

The bill would legalize Internet gambling in each State,

unless the Governor clearly specifies existing state

restrictions barring Internet gambling in whole or in part.

On that basis, a State may ``opt out'' of legalization for

all Internet gambling or certain types of gambling. However,

the opt-out for types of gambling does not clearly preserve

the right of States to place conditions on legal types of

gambling. Thus, for example, if the State permits poker in

licensed card rooms, but only between 10 a.m. and midnight,

and the amount wagered cannot exceed $100 per day and the

participants must be 21 or older, the federal law might

nevertheless allow 18-year-olds in that State to wager much

larger amounts on poker around the clock.

Furthermore, the opt-outs may prove illusory. They will

likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization. The

World Trade Organization has already shown itself to be

hostile to U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. If it

strikes down state opt-outs as unduly restrictive of trade,

the way will be open to the greatest expansion of legalized

gambling in American history and near total preemption of

State laws restricting Internet gambling.

H.R. 2046 effectively nationalizes America's gambling laws

on the Internet, ``harmonizing'' the law for the benefit of

foreign gambling operations that were defying our laws for

years, at least until UIGEA was enacted. We therefore oppose

this proposal, and any other proposal that hinders the right

of States to prohibit or regulate gambling by their

residents.

Sincerely,

Douglas Gansler,

Attorney General of Maryland.

Bill McCollum,

Attorney General of Florida.

Madam Speaker, last year, I cosponsored legislation with Congressman Bob Goodlatte to help stop the widespread growth of gambling over the internet. Though Federal law already prohibits gambling over telephone wires, the passage of this legislation was necessary to maintain the original intent of the law while also bringing it up to speed with the explosion of current and future technology. However, this update of the law made clear that it would only affect interstate commerce, respecting the rights of states by leaving to them the decision whether and how to regulate gambling within their own borders. New legislation before the Financial Services Committee attempts to undo all of this previous work, instead granting the federal government the expansive and exclusive right to regulate all online gambling. This new legislation would represent the first time in history that the Federal Government would be given power to issue gambling licenses, and it

marks a significant shift away from allowing states to determine for themselves what type of policy is best. Proponents of this legislation state that the bill offers states the right to ``opt out'' of this regulation, but the truth is that the states already have the right to determine their own policy towards gambling without any broader federal regulation that threatens to undermine their control over licensing standards and enforcement actions.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask on the last vote, myself from Florida, the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Georgia be permitted to cast their vote.

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey would vote ``no.'' I would vote ``no.'' The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, would vote ``aye.''

I thank the gentlewoman.

I would suggest that the real math is that this amendment would still anticipate a $6.5 billion increase, yet it is being called a cut.

I had to come down from my office, because I heard that if you were an advocate for taxpayers, you are now part of the fringe of this Congress. If you are an advocate for fiscal responsibility, suddenly you are part of the fringe. Sadly, I would have to acknowledge, if you care about fiscal responsibility and taxpayers in this Congress, you are becoming part of the fringe.

Increasing the budget expenditures by 4.3 percent is somehow going to lead to the end of civilization and the death of all of the children out there and throwing people out of hospital beds.

I would remind all of my colleagues, we have a 10th amendment in this country. Over the years, we now have a $150 billion-plus annual budget to deal with things like labor, health care and education. It isn't a question of whether or not we are going to spend money in America on health care and education. It is a question of who does the spending and who gets to control it.

I would ask every American, as the Federal budget has skyrocketed and we have taken control and micromanaged their health care and education, has public education gotten cheaper? Has it gotten better? Has America's health care system, as we spend so much money on health care, gotten cheaper and gotten better?

Winston Churchill once famously said, there is nothing one government learns so readily from the last as how to spend other people's money, i.e., the taxpayers.

Sadly, this new majority did not learn the lesson that some of us learned in the last several Congresses: we are spending too much, we are abusing American taxpayers, and the notion is that if you care for children, if you care for people that need health care, you have to confiscate as much money out there from taxpayers and working people as possible and you have to micromanage the way it gets spent on so-called ``their behalf.''

The bureaucrats are happy. The regulators are happy. The politicians in Washington are fat and happy. But the American taxpayer and the people that need real education services and need choices in health care are not happy.

With that, on behalf of the fringe that cares about taxpayers in this Congress, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Gordon for bringing this resolution successfully through his committee, and I rise in support of House Resolution 487, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 487 recognizes that modeling and simulation technology is a national critical technology essential for America's long-term national security and her economic prosperity.

As a member of the House Modeling and Simulation Caucus, and representing one of the largest modeling and simulation clusters in the United States, I urge that the House pass this resolution to help retain America's lead in this high-technology field.

Your child's or your grandchild's video game represents one product of the modeling and simulation industry. Aircraft training simulators provide another well-known example.

Simulation uses combinations of sound, sight and motion to make you feel that you are experiencing an actual event. Modeling involves the complex computer models used to create these artificial environments.

For training purposes, modeling and simulation places people in an artificial, but seemingly real, environment and puts them through their paces. Unlike live training, if you make a mistake, you get to live another day and learn valuable lessons.

In the latter part of the 20th century, the U.S. military revolutionized warfighting by emphasizing this high-fidelity training that simulates the stress and decision-making of actual combat. Servicemen and -women gain experience and judgment previously only earned on the actual battlefield, often through serious injury and death.

Substantial amounts of that simulation and training come from my congressional district where representatives of all service branches collaborate with the University of Central Florida and private contractors of all sizes to produce these training systems. As other speakers will note, other clusters of modeling and simulation excellence exist throughout the United States.

But such training expands beyond military uses. Commercial aviation's

enviable safety record is due in part to aircraft simulator training that prepares cockpit crews to handle complex and fast-paced emergencies.

In that vein, medical simulation is an especially promising and emerging field. By creating artificial, but seemingly real, environments, doctors and nurses can hone their skills in using sophisticated and invasive medical technology or in treating severely injured patients.

Beyond training, modeling and simulation replicates complex environments, allowing planners and designers to ask various ``what if'' questions.

Transportation planners simulate highway networks to determine how best to alleviate congestion. Emergency management experts simulate large-scale natural or manmade disasters to better improve coordinated emergency responses. Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to better use modeling and simulation in order to protect life and property during such disasters.

Because of these growing numbers of uses, the modeling and simulation industry is rapidly growing and demands the best students with extensive math and science backgrounds including psychology, medicine, computer science, mathematics, engineering and physics.

In addition to the cluster in Central Florida, there's a great cluster of modeling and simulation in the Fourth Congressional District represented by Congressman Randy Forbes, and I'd like to indulge my colleagues to paraphrase some important comments by Congressman Forbes and then would like to insert his comments, the original text, in the Record.

Representative Forbes points out that we can test a new airplane in a wind tunnel without risking human life and without building full scale airplanes. The benefits and applications of this technology are immediately obvious. We can learn a system in a more cost-effective, timely and safer manner. And, furthermore, we can simulate thousands of scenarios over and over again on a computer when it is too hazardous, expensive, or impossible to perform real world tests.

So, in short, modeling simulation tools allow us to understand complex interactions that would otherwise be impossible to comprehend using other means. If modeling and simulation sounds like it has the promise to dramatically change the way we apply science in our world, the fact is that it has already done so.

This resolution seeks to recognize the countless efforts of professionals who have taken this technology and applied it to make the United States a safer and more prosperous Nation.

The impact of modeling and simulation technology is felt in the private sector, academia, government, and across disciplines. Modeling and simulation tools have streamlined the design and manufacture of cars, homes, boats and airplanes, to name a few devices.

Modeling and simulation software designed in Illinois, for example, assists automotive engineers in designing engines that are more efficient, while reducing emissions that impact adversely our environment. Modeling and simulation analysis is also used in the engineering of major roads, bridges, harbors, railways and airports, all of which lead to increased transportation capacity and safety.

At the United States Joint Forces Command in the Fourth District of Virginia, represented by Congressman Forbes, modeling and simulation tools have accelerated the effectiveness of joint interagency exercises run by the command. One of their experimentation projects is to enhance our national security by running scenarios in an urban combat environment. The goal is to provide lessons learned for our troops in theater before they encounter the same situation on the ground.

Because of these kinds of valuable contributions, this resolution honors modeling and simulation by recognizing it as a national critical technology. National critical technology refers to those technologies essential to develop long-term national security and economic prosperity for our country. One example of the success historically of modeling and simulation is the famous Manhattan Project. It was early models and simulators that allowed scientists to develop an understanding of nuclear chain reactions that ultimately led to the end of World War II.

America's military have used simulators to train personnel for flying aircraft, ships, and we now use simulators to train soldiers and marines to detect roadside IEDs.

Additionally, in the past, medical malpractice insurance rates have included artificially high premiums because it was difficult to reduce the number of medical errors for certain medical procedures that were not routinely performed. Today, insurance discounts are being provided to anesthesiologists and obstetricians who include simulated procedures in their biennial training requirements.

Madam Speaker, the advantages that we have reaped from modeling and simulation go across all congressional districts and benefit all Americans in ways that are often unseen. I am thrilled to be a cosponsor of this resolution today.

I want to thank the chairman. The future is very bright and modeling, simulation and training will lead the way to make it a safer, brighter future for all Americans.

Central Florida represents one of the larger if not the largest Modeling and Simulation clusters in the United States. The Navy's NAVAIR Orlando and the Army's PEO-STRI are based in my District. Over 100 Modeling and Simulation companies directly employ over 6,000 people. Having reached a critical mass in Central Florida, the Modeling and Simulation industry continues to expand.

Central Florida achieved critical mass by leveraging relationships among military, academic, industry, and government entities. Locally, we refer to this rich and complex web of cooperation, collaboration, and partnerships as Team Orlando.

Over 50 years before ``jointness'' and ``transformation'' became favored concepts in the Department of Defense, the Navy and Army demonstrated these traits in Orlando by starting a partnership for the development of training systems. The Air Force and Marines joined as full partners during the 1990s. All military services use a common infrastructure of facilities, contracting, administration, and technology.

Collaboration with academia is demonstrated by the University of Central Florida and its Institute for Simulation and Training.

The private sector is represented by a portfolio of Modeling and Simulation companies. Recognized and established entities are present such as Lockheed Martin and SAIC. But Central Florida is also home to scores of innovative, entrepreneurial start-ups such as IDEAL Technologies and Vcom3D.

The lessons learned from Central Florida's experience can be applied nationally. Modeling and Simulation isn't a zero-sum game where success in one geographic area comes at the expense of another. This technology holds so much promise that everyone benefits from national cooperation and collaboration.

Today's resolution will help create a unified national identity for this technology. And it will raise this technology's profile within the Department of Defense, other government agencies, and the private sector.

Modeling and simulation allows us to better understand and control complex systems ranging from highway systems, manufacturing and processing facilities, and emergency management systems. Modeling and simulation also trains people to handle complex and fast-paced situations ranging from warfighting to emergency medical care.

So I urge support of this resolution recognizing modeling and simulation as a National Critical Technology.

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

I too want to thank Congressman Flake and the cosponsors of this amendment. Our friends on the Democratic side have two arguments. Number 1, they say this is a superfluous, it's a red herring because nobody's talking about it. But we've already had two of our colleagues on the Democratic side say that they like talking about and maybe rehabilitating the fairness doctrine, which is a bad misnomer. In fact, this is the leftist censorship doctrine, and we ought to refer to it as such.

The second argument that they give us is that Republicans ought to like the fairness doctrine because we're always complaining about liberal bias in the media. And to that I would say this: The difference is that Rush Limbaugh knows and admits he's a conservative.

Dan Rather and Katie Couric don't know and they don't admit that they are liberal. That is the difference. Rush will get regulated; the others will not. And I would tell you that the first amendment, freedom of speech, means nothing if it means the government can tell you what you must say or what you must publish. The freedom of speech inherently means the freedom not to say certain thoughts or certain words.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, no conservative, once said: ``Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.''

In China, North Korea, and elsewhere, they have their ``fairness doctrines.'' We don't need one.

I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) because he has a great amendment here. And I also want to recognize my chairman, Mr. Frank, because he is a passionate advocate for doing the right thing and balancing markets and freedom versus the social good.

By the way, we are not renouncing everything that the Bush administration has done. Tax cuts and pro-growth issues, the fact that we have not had a terrorist strike since 9/11 are all a few things that we ought to recognize about the Bush administration.

But look, Congress messed up before Congressman Garrett and I got here. We are now outsourcing because of section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley America's 100-year lead in world capital markets. Like it or not, this was never debated in the House. It was added in the Senate; 264 words, section 404 was added. Nobody knew what the cost of this would be.

By the way, the Securities and Exchange Commission testified in the Senate that it would cost the average company $92,000 a year. It turns out to be more like 30 times that. Being off by 30 times is bad work even by government standards. It's amazing.

I will tell you that one study published by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institute says that the drag on the American economy is equivalent to a $1.1 trillion regulatory tax on the U.S. economy. That is about an 8 percent tax on everything we do. It is unbelievable.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Jersey each be given an additional minute.

I will tell you this, before Sarbanes-Oxley, foreign initial public offerings raised 90 cents of every new dollar in America. Now 90 cents of new dollar raised by international public offerings is raised overseas. We are outsourcing America's 100-year lead in capital markets.

If we want Shanghai and Hong Kong and London to be the leader in capital markets, so be it. But we are fiddling while the capital markets burn. I admire my chairman, Mr. Frank. I think it is too little too late to let the SEC fiddle while the capital markets of America burn to their death.

I believe my friend from Massachusetts, who is a great chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, I would ask him: Is it true or is it not true that America's market share of capital formation and capital control has declined since Sarbanes-Oxley has been enacted?

I thank the gentleman.

The chairman is very sophisticated. He understands free markets more than anybody even though he doesn't always believe in free markets. But the truth of the matter is we have lost our capital market leadership for the first time in 100 years. There may be other variables, and I would agree with the chairman. But one of the variables is Sarbanes- Oxley is discouraging investment in America. By the way, American investors are sending their money overseas.

And I would ask the chairman very briefly: Do you agree or not agree that overtaxation, overregulation through Sarbanes-Oxley, and section 404, by the way, was never debated in the committee that you now chair. It was done in the Senate.

Would the gentleman yield?

Was section 404 ever debated in the Financial Services Committee that you now chair?

Wait a minute, you didn't answer the question.

Was 404 ever debated?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

When Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, America had roughly 48 percent of the world capital market formation. We're down to about 39 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you, because you're a good friend and you're smart about this stuff, at what point will you say that there's a problem?

Offered By: Mr. Feeney

Amendment No. 222: Page 108, beginning on line 9, strike

section 414.