Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 498, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on H.R. 2642, the appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans affairs. I intended to vote ``yes''. This is an important piece of legislation. H.R. 2642 will be the vehicle for appropriating the funds directed to the new VA hospital, authorized in the FY 07 appropriations process, that will be located in central Florida.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 448, 449, and 450 I would like to express my regret for missing votes on the House

Floor on Monday, June 11, 2007. My flight, which would have gotten me in town before votes, was delayed 3 hours. I did not get in until 9 pm.

Votes: H.R. 2356--the resolution acknowledging Father's Day; S. 676-- Inter-American Foundation Board; H. Res. 418--recognizing and welcoming the delegation of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from the Caribbean. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the gentleman's amendment.

I want to share with you I'm a skeptic even when my friends tell me things. When Congressman King told me about the problem on the border, I thought he was exaggerating. I went down last summer, sat 75 miles inside the American border, saw a machine gun that's run by coyotes.

I'm very grateful. This is very important.

As Congressman King just told you, we have a problem on our border most Congressmen and few Americans know about.

I'm a skeptical guy, even when a good patriot and friend of mine like Steve King tells me something. So I went down personally and inspected a machine gun nest 75 miles inside the Arizona border run by coyotes. It was the 13th in a list of machine gun nests where they were armed with surveillance techniques, where they were armed with radios, and they used these facilities inside our border to facilitate drug trafficking and illegal immigration.

I do not believe that our government is enforcing our own security. There's nothing more important we can do than to support symbolically the King amendment to send a message we want to take these machine gun nests out.

It was the Bureau of Land Management that took me up there. Why? Because they are cleaning up the mess that these coyotes leave behind them as they are smuggling poison drugs and illegals across our border.

I saw it with my own eyes, or I would not have believed it. Please support the King amendment, if nothing else than to send a message we want our borders secure and our laws enforced.

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

Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would say that I really miss the grand old days of the liberal tax-and-spend party, because the great liberals in our Nation's recent history were never ashamed about being honest with the

American people that they wanted to raise taxes and they wanted to increase spending. In fact, they campaigned on increasing taxes and they campaigned on increasing spending.

One of the problems we have with the hypocrisy in what is going on in the last 6 months is that we are dramatically increasing taxes, $392 billion, secretly and surreptitiously, through the budget bill that repeals the most pro-growth tax cuts since Ronald Reagan was President. And now we have a process by which American taxpayers' money will be spent in secret, behind closed doors and in the dark. I really admire the grand old liberal days, when raising taxes and increasing spending was something that was done just right out in the open, where everybody could see it and debate it.

I have heard in the last 10 hours of debate that Republicans have been accused of being repetitious. It is better to be repetitive than disingenuous or hypocritical, in my view.

Winston Churchill once famously said that there is nothing that one government learns so readily from another as how to spend other people's money. I would tell you that there is a critical process that is being undermined here that is important to a functioning Congress and that will embarrass this institution if we don't stop it right now.

That is why this debate is so important. It is not about $1 million or $1 billion here or there. It is about how we go forward in spending the people's money in a transparent, honest and open fashion.

We have had our Democratic colleagues point out, I think fairly, that Republicans maybe aren't in the best glass house to throw stones when it comes to the issue of spending money or earmarks. I will tell you that it is very important that we acknowledge Republican failures.

Not all of us were happy with some of the things that happened in my last 6 years. For example, I voted against numerous GOP-led appropriation bills. I voted for virtually all of Congressman Jeff Flake's amendments. I was on occasion punished by having my own priorities stripped out of bills.

I voted for cuts in every GOP appropriations bill in my first 6 years. I criticized our Republican President for overspending and for not exercising his veto to discipline Congress. I criticized my own leadership. I supported every reform effort I can think of in the methods of opening up earmark processes to transparency and honesty. I even went on national TV and said that the Republican-led Congress was spending money like drunken sailors.

I have to tell you, a Navy captain in California admonished me. He said Congress was not spending money like drunken sailors; that drunken sailors spend their own money, and, when they run out, they quit spending. And I have to give it to him.

So I want to tell you that not all of us are coming here and ridiculing things that we have not ridiculed in the past. I applauded the Democratic reforms that were promised in terms of transparency and earmarks. As soon as we were told back in January that the reform- minded Democrats were going to open up the process and make it transparent, I said publicly that that would be one good thing about a Congress that I otherwise disagreed with its priorities.

But here I am 6 months later ruing the day that I ever said something nice about intentions, because the intentions never materialized. In fact, we have gone dramatically backwards. We are now going to have 434 of us give our proxy to the appropriations chairmen, all the cardinals and Chairman Obey, and we are going to let them decide how to spend the people's money.

We did away with proxy voting decades ago in Congress, and now we are going to have spending by proxy. That is wrong. It is fundamentally an affront to the American people, and it undermines the entire legislative process.

I can tell you that I was Speaker of the Florida legislature, and when there was trouble because of poor spending, it was almost always due to lack of honesty, openness, and transparency. And the Democratic leadership will rue the day, sooner than later, that it put a cloud of secrecy around spending the taxpayers' dollars. They will regret going back on their word.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Oregon for his resolution. I want to rise today in support of House Resolution 421, which honors the accomplishments of the so-called Mercury 13 women whose efforts in the early 1960s demonstrated the capabilities of American women to undertake human space exploration.

At a time when there were many prejudices against women, the Lovelace Clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, began testing female pilots to undertake human exploration of space under the same rigorous, physical and psychological standards as NASA's male astronauts.

In 1960, the first of the Mercury 13, Geraldyn ``Jerrie'' Cobb went to Lovelace Clinic, and by the end of 1961, 13 women had successfully completed this rigorous training. Following their testing program, the 13 women were prepared to continue their contributions to America's space program at the Naval School of Aviation Medicine in Pensacola, Florida and undergo advanced aeromedical examinations using jet aircraft and military equipment, but their program was canceled.

The careers and accomplishments of these great American women served as an inspiration for many other young women that followed in their careers in aviation, astronautics, science and engineering.

This resolution recognizes the accomplishments of Myrtle Cagle, Geraldyn ``Jerrie'' Cobb, Jan Dietrich, Marion Dietrich, Mary Wallace ``Wally'' Funk, Jane Briggs Hart, Jean Hixson, Gene Nora, Stumbough Jessen, Irene Leverton, Sarah Lee, Gorelick Ratley, Bernice Trimble Steadman, Geraldine ``Jerri'' Sloan Truhill, and Rhea Hurrle Allison Woltman.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 421 and again thank the gentleman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my friend from Oregon that I have no further speakers and am prepared to reserve my time until it is appropriate to close.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank my colleagues for their support for the great history of the Mercury 13. I should say since that Mercury 13 program, there have been 34 women that have flown aboard the space shuttle, including four who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Challenger and Columbia accidents.

In order to honor such dedication after the Columbia accident, America committed to a vision for space exploration that will return Americans to the Moon. Undoubtedly, several women will make that journey. I look forward to that moment when the first American woman steps on the Moon and shares her experience with the rest of the world.

This resolution by the gentleman from Oregon and others recognizes the first 13 women that helped propel an entire gender and an entire nation into space.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank Mr. Wu, my friend from Oregon, for this resolution and want to speak in favor of H. Res. 446, which honors the life and accomplishments of an extraordinary man, astronaut Walter Marty Schirra. Wally Schirra, as he was known to nearly everyone, was truly a great American and a terrific human being.

Wally Schirra was born in Hackensack, New Jersey, on March 12, 1923, and was perhaps best known as an accomplished NASA astronaut and human spaceflight pioneer, with the distinction of being the only astronaut to fly aboard the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts. He was named one of NASA's original Mercury 7 astronauts in April of 1959 and became the fifth American to fly into space. Then, as the commander of the Gemini 6A spacecraft, he completed a dramatic rendezvous in space with the Gemini 7 spacecraft.

Schirra then served as commander of the Apollo 7 mission, which was the first Apollo flight after the catastrophic 1967 launch pad fire that killed the original Apollo 1 crew. At the conclusion of the Apollo 7 mission, Schirra had logged 295 hours and 15 minutes in space.

Before his service with NASA, Wally Schirra had already served his country with honor as a pilot in the 154th Fighter Bomber Squadron during the Korean War. Schirra flew over 90 combat missions in F-84E jets and was credited with downing at least one enemy MIG fighter.

What is perhaps less well-known about Wally Schirra is his personal warmth, his contagious sense of humor and his tireless dedication as an advocate for discovery. After his retirement in 1984, he spent many years working to inspire children to pursue their dreams by connecting them to the amazing possibilities of space exploration.

Schirra captured the pride of our entire Nation when he wrote, ``We shared a common dream to test the limits of man's imagination and daring. Those early pioneering flights of Mercury, the performances of Gemini and the trips to the moon established us, once and for, all as what I like to call a spacefaring nation. Like England, Spain and Portugal crossing the seas in search of their nations' greatness, so we reached for the skies and emboldened our Nation.''

I am deeply saddened by Wally Schirra's passing on May 2, 2007. He was truly an American hero. I am proud to support this resolution honoring such a prominent American citizen, military veteran and astronaut.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 446.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a terrific resolution. Mr. Bilbray is rightfully proud to call Wally Schirra a neighbor and a friend. I think America can call him a neighbor and a friend as well.

I expect to be proudly this Friday evening down at Cape Canaveral where we will hopefully send the next shuttle flight into space with some good luck and good fortune. And as I am down there I will join many Americans in thinking about Wally Schirra and the other great heroes that have come forward and made these great feats today possible and the many more opportunities in space that would not have happened without heroes like Wally Schirra.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not need that much. I thank the chairman. I thank Congressman Donnelly.

I think it is important as we get people into counseling to give them the best advice about how they can qualify for good loans and how can get good credit and how they can take care of their financial needs as they move into housing that we not allow counselors to be biased in the forms of the housing that they may like or not, but give all of the options out to the customers.

I want to applaud the gentleman for his good amendment. I want to encourage my colleagues to join in supporting it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. I can tell you that we dealt with this issue in committee on a bipartisan basis, and we decided that we wanted to take away the political operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We believe that you cannot serve two masters and do a good, faithful job to both masters.

One of the reasons that Fannie and Freddie got in accounting problems in the first place is because of a complacent board of directors that was populated with political employees.

We believe in a post-Enron era that it becomes very, very important that we take advantage of corporate governance standards that are second to none. Even those of us that have criticized certain portions of Sarbanes-Oxley like section 404 as being overzealous believe deeply that Sarbanes-Oxley had some good corporate governance and conflict of interest rules that has imposed. That is why we decided that the trustees should owe a duty to the shareholders and to good corporate governance, not to the political people that may have appointed them.

And I think Mr. Kanjorski has an understandable sympathy for having some public-oriented representatives, but the truth of the matter is you end up with members of the board of trustees that are going to have to decide between whether they owe loyalty to the person that appointed them, or to good, tough corporate governance and to the shareholders that are seeking their best wisdom.

I would ask that we strongly defer to the considered opinion on a bipartisan basis of the Financial Services Committee on this one, and that we reject the Kanjorski amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to respond, I would say that, as has been pointed out earlier, this Congress has already provided some $3 billion in housing relief, and I have an amendment coming up that would put the first year's funding into Hurricane Katrina relief for housing.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, my amendment up next, will help veterans in the long run, and in the short run will go to Hurricane Katrina relief.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, picking up where we left off, we've had a considerable amount of debate about the affordable housing fund concerns that many of us in the minority party have about this fund. And I'm not going to put words in the chairman's mouth, as some people did. I promise not to do that to Chairman Frank.

But there has been an ongoing debate from about 5 o'clock on about whether or not the affordable housing fund amounts to a tax. The truth of the matter is, government only gets money one of three ways. It either prints money, and there's nothing in this bill that tells the Treasury Department or the Mint to print any money. It borrows money, as in Treasury bonds, and nothing in this bill suggests that anybody's going to be repaid the $3 billion that the GAO says this will cost over the next 5 years. Clearly, the only other way government gets money is a tax. Whether we are taxing the shareholders, whether we are taxing ultimately the consumers of low income, middle income mortgages, or a combination of both, this is a tax.

Now, the question is what to do with this tax money. A lot of us have concerns about the fact that we're going to dump this $3 billion into a fund that has not been created, does not have a specific mission, does not have guidelines and does not have any controlling organization or entity. It may turn out to be a wonderful way to spend $3 billion. But we are very concerned with what we see.

I have fashioned a compromise here because some of the amendments on the minority side get rid of the fund or don't fund the fund. I actually fully fund the fund with the Feeney amendment. And we fund it to deal with housing issues for people that are needy. We've heard a lot of talk about lack of compassion for the needy.

What my amendment does is to take the first year's $500 million plus and send it to the victims of Katrina. We heard passionately from the gentleman from Mississippi, from my friend from Louisiana about the needs in the aftermath of Katrina. We keep that funding in place in year one.

But beyond that, in the balance of the years, what we do is to fund necessary housing for disabled American veterans. We use a system to make sure that disabled American veterans who are homeless have access to an opportunity to have a home and a place to live through rental assistance.

I spoke to Secretary Nicholson today of the VA. He tells me that we estimate there are 195,000 homeless veterans. Many of those veterans are disabled, either mental disabilities that come from their battle scars, their battle wounds or physical disabilities. What better way to honor the commitment that the majority has made. We're going to deal with the truly needy in America. But also rest assured that we're going to be dealing with people that have earned the right to get housing assistance, than to suggest that after we take care of Katrina hurricane victims in year one, that we are going to take care of those veterans that are disabled, that are needy and that need a roof over their head.

Mr. Chairman, I commend this as a compromise between the majority's compassion for the needy and the minority's concern that the trust fund that has not been established and has no guidelines may go wayward with this $3 billion.

Would the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman show me in my amendment where we refer to the voucher program? I would express to him our intent clearly is not to participate in the voucher. This is a new program.

It's a modification. With the permission of the chairman and unanimous consent, we have a modification.

Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Well, thank you. And when the gentleman had yielded previously, I had made a motion for unanimous consent to use the modified amendment which does not refer to the voucher program. And so I had made that motion and had not got a ruling.

Will the gentleman yield?

Now we're back on the voucher program that the chairman has a problem with. But I still suggest that the voucher program is better than putting it back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered by: Mr. Feeney

Amendment No. 16: Line 16 on page 127, strike the dash and

all that follows through line 10 on page 128 and insert the

following: ``to provide housing assistance, in 2007, for

areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005 and,

after 2007, to provide housing assistance for supported

rental housing for disabled homeless veterans.''.

Page 130, lines 23 and 24, strike ``establish a formula to

allocate'' and insert the following: ``provide for the

allocation''.

Page 131, line, 1 insert ``of'' before ``the''.

Strike line 4 on page 131 and all that follows through line

2 on page 132 and insert the following: ``The funding shall

be distributed to public entities and allocated based on the

formula used for the Continuum of Care competition of the

Department of Housing and Urban Development.''

Page 136, lines 7 through 9, strike ``For each year that a

grantee receives affordable housing fund grant amounts, the

grantee'' and insert ``Each grantee for 2007 that receives

affordable housing fund grant amounts''.

Page 138, line 1, strike ``the'' and insert ``any''.

Page 138, line 5, before the period insert ``, if

applicable''.

Page 138, line 7, after ``grantee'' insert ``for 2007''.

Page 140, after line 6 insert the following:

``Affordable housing fund grant amounts of a grantee for any

year after 2007 shall be eligible for use, or for commitment

for use, only for rental housing voucher assistance in

accordance with paragraph (19) of section 8(o) of the United

States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19).''.

Page 140, line 22, strike ``or''.

Page 140, line 25, after the semicolon insert ``or''.

Page 140, after line 25, insert the following:

``(E) administer voucher assistance described in the matter

in subsection (g) after and below paragraph (3);''.

Page 142, line 3, strike ``each year'' and insert ``2007''.

Page 142, line 10, strike ``each year'' and insert

``2007''.

Page 147, line 20, before ``the manner'' insert ``for each

grantee in 2007,''.

Page 151, line 15, before ``requirements'' insert ``with

respect to affordable housing fund grant amounts for 2007,''.

Page 153, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the

following:

``(F) for the grantees for 2007, requirements and standards

for establishment, by the grantees, of per-''.

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my regret for missing votes on the House floor on Thursday, April 26, 2007. A close childhood friend died and I had to return home. I left directly after the vote on the Conference Report for H.R. 1591 vote on April 25, 2007.

I am very grateful to the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, hate is an awful thing, but we cannot punish people for what is in their hearts. We cannot punish people and make it a crime for what people are thinking. We punish acts in this country.

Unfortunately, I think this bill is badly misnamed. This bill should not be called the hate crimes bill, this should be called the unequal protection bill, because what it does is to say that the dignity and the property and the person and the life of one person gets more protection than another American. That is just wrong. With respect to my friend from Illinois, who just said hate crimes can tear this country apart, that is what this bill does. It gives different people the protection of their life, their property, and their person based on their special status.

We need to treat all Americans equally. Justice ultimately must turn on the fundamental word of each and every human being as equal before God and before the law. This bill undermines both of those principles.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Stephen McKenney Steck for his 40 years of service to the WMFE public broadcasting stations that serve the greater Orlando area.

An Orlando native, Steve began his only career in 1959 at WFTV (then WLOF) as a television director and later as senior producer/director for news and public affairs programs.

Steve started a 40-year run at WMFE in 1967 as production manager and was appointed operations manager in 1970. In 1972, Steve was elected President of WMFE and held that position with distinction for 34 years.

Steve's major accomplishments during his tenure include moving WMFE's physical plant to a multi-million dollar broadcast center in East Orlando, the activation of public radio station 90.7 WMFE-FM, expanding both station's programming to a full 24-hour per day schedule, overseeing a program schedule viewed each week by more than 485,000 Central Florida households and a radio schedule listened to each week by more than 194,000 Central Florida residents.

Steve concluded a $4 million expansion of the Public Broadcasting Center in 1992, a $2 million reexpansion in 2003, and a $10 million Campaign for Program Excellence in 2002 generating funds directed to local programming that connected the community in a manner not duplicated by local electronic media.

Steve recently concluded WMFE's $7 million Campaign for Digital Television that activated WMFE-DT/Channel 23 in 2003. He has launched the creation of a new $2.4 million program vision for these stations. A transition to digital radio broadcasting rests in the short-term future. Under his leadership, WMFE's annual budget has grown from $250,000 to more than $8 million.

At age 63, Steve attained a 10-year goal: starting in and finishing a marathon in all of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and on all 7 continents--including Antarctica! Steve is married to Desta L. Homer, a former teacher at Winter Springs High School in Seminole County. They have three adult children and five grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Steve for his years of service and dedication to his Orlando community. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Steve on his retirement and wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit clarifies that this nonbinding vote is in fact nonbinding: no court may consider the board's refusal to follow the shareholders' advisory vote as a breach of that board's duties of care or loyalty to the shareholders. It clarifies that although such a vote is compulsory, the result cannot be, and it cannot force a board of directors to act in a way that contravenes its best interest.

Mr. Shays offered an important amendment during the markup process to clarify that nothing in this bill imposes any new fiduciary duties on boards that the majority of the committee accepted. However, I am concerned not only about whether this statute imposes new, additional obligations on a board; I am concerned that a court might construe a board's decision to disregard the advice of a shareholders' advisory vote as prima facie evidence of a board's failure to satisfy its existing duties.

The chairman has frequently said, ``This bill does not do what this bill does not do.'' I hope he is right, because in the Financial Services Committee hearing and markup, in the Rules Committee, and on the floor, he has stressed that this bill is purely advisory. Rather than hope, though, I offer this motion to recommit in order to be certain and to protect the directors in their discretionary exercise of their duties.

If this provision is redundant, that is fine. We do a lot worse here than redundancy. As Chairman Frank often advises, the law is filled with redundancies, and when Members oppose language in language in bills because they are redundant, they are typically being disingenuous.

So if this bill really does bar frivolous litigation by activist shareholders, then the majority should have no trouble accepting this motion to recommit. However, if it does not preclude private rights of action, as I fear that it does not, then this motion is critical. If the majority cannot support an amendment that limits frivolous litigation, then their motives are suspect.

This motion to recommit protects America's competitive position vis- a-vis international capital markets. If a court can weigh a vote intended as noncompulsory when evaluating whether directors have breached their fiduciary duties, the real beneficiaries of this bill will be trial lawyers racing to the courthouse. The losers will be American enterprise, American stockholders, and, ultimately, American workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my regret for missing votes on the House floor on Monday, March 26, 2007. I was delayed in my district as a result of a canceled flight.

Madam Speaker, I find almost a surreal debate going on with my friends on the left side of the House saying to us don't you like democracy. We have got soldiers fighting for democracy throughout the world, while we are saying to our friends on the left, don't you like the Constitution?

The question is are we a pure democracy or a constitutional republic? The Constitution is made up of powers delegated by the States, and the States alone, to the Federal Government. The States and the States alone, according to the language of the Constitution, are represented in the U.S. House.

If you believe in democracy, use the constitutional amendment process, use the retrocession process. If you have a quarrel with the Constitution, it is not because you don't like the position of the Republicans and the minority in this House. It is because your quarrel is with the Founding Fathers.

Hamilton tried to get this provision in the Constitution, representation for D.C. The Founding Fathers considered it and they rejected it.

So, again, we are for democracy within a constitutional republic status. We are not an unadulterated democracy. We are a constitutional republic.