Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to speak to the issue of FASB's independence and their track record on matters of financial accounting standards. It was in the fall of 1998 when FASB issued a statement relative to concerns about earnings manipulations by registrants in a number of industries, specifically banks, in the treatment of what was called loan loss reserves. The allegation was that executives were exacerbating the amount of reserves necessary in order to offset potential volatility in financial institutions' earnings. Suffice it to say, it is a technical issue, again beginning in fall of 1998. I reference testimony of Governor Lawrence Meyer, member of the Federal Reserve, speaking on behalf of the Federal Reserve and all finance regulators. Six years later a letter issued then by the FDIC indicated that institutions should continue to determine the appropriateness of all their loan loss reserves on the basis of existing guidance set forth in GAAP and in the agency's supervisory guidance. Translation: they should ignore what FASB started 6 years earlier as an ill-conceived modification of safety and soundness provisions. The point of this historic analysis is to provide the Congress with the understanding that FASB does not always get it right. I join with many Members of Congress in that era in expressing concerns about the unintended consequences of the implementation of FASB's rule should it be implemented. Let us talk about what FASB has done in the course of the consideration of the issue currently at hand. The board announced their positions before a single comment from the public was solicited. The board disinvited comments on key issues of the current matter. The board disregarded the overwhelming majority of comments solicited. The board created an option valuation group to discuss valuation. After all was said and done, apparently FASB did not find the board's work to be of much use since it decided to revert to the same valuation models before appointing the board. FASB refuses to conduct road tests of actual valuation models, meaning it is not trying out to see what the real-world consequence is of its valuation methodology. It has refused to respond to industry presentations on the existing valuation methodologies. It has refused to respond to recommended alternatives and compromises. What has the board done? I alert the Members who have not yet received it to an e-mail distributed by a representative of FASB's foundation, I assume an independent arm of an independent agency prescribed with the responsibility of engaging in political correspondence. What is a sad note about this particular e-mail, if one goes to the two phone numbers listed at the bottom of the e-mail, which is probably in all Members' offices, and they call those numbers, they can then refer themselves to directory assistance and ask for FASB's telephone numbers. The two numbers cited in this independent political correspondence are numbers listed as FASB's official phone numbers. If one were to apply their own standards of financial transparency to their own e- mail, it should say FASB is now lobbying the Congress and using our phone numbers for ones to respond and make significant inquiry into the matter. It would appear although they find political interference a sullied and tawdry business, they have now engaged in such practice in attempting to influence the Congress on the direction of appropriate conduct. What is an option, and what does it mean to our economic direction? Assume for the moment we are trying to gather a half dozen young bright people into a garage at someone's home to construct a new innovative product and we bring these people in without sufficient cash to pay them salary; but we offer them the opportunity, should their intellectual prowess be sufficient in building value to a company, to one day cash in on the options we are giving them as a piece of their investment. Assume for the moment the value of the options are $20. Things go awry. Things go poorly. Six months hence the stock price may be worth $10. The employees will not cash in their right to those options because they are called, in the terms of the industry, underwater. They are not worth what they were when they were granted. The employee may leave and go elsewhere. Without the passage of this bill, what would FASB require them to do? To expense that option at the time of granting even though it were later not exercised. The result: an underreporting of financial value of corporate value. That seems to me to be just as big a problem as what those opponents allege is some grand misrepresentation of current financial condition. Options are reported today in the footnotes. One who persists can find out the dilutive effect on other shareholders. Translation: one can find out the facts about accurate financial condition if they choose to seek it out in currently published information. It is quite clear that many have accused the current administration and others of finding ourselves in a jobless economic recovery. Were that to be the case, which I certainly dispute, there is no dispute that the granting of options to a broad base of employees has been and remains a very strong component of job creation within our economy. Does it make sense for those who criticize a jobless economic recovery to take away one of the proven tools that does create jobs when they are so badly needed? I think not. So where are we to go? The identified problem was that a handful of executives were manipulating the granting of options for their personal financial gain. I, frankly, do not think the bill before us is a perfect remedy. I think it is a flawed remedy because the valuation of the option cannot be accurately predicted. But in response to the critics, we have said those top five must expense their options. Let us make them accountable for the reported wrongdoings of the past, but please do not affect adversely the broad-based stock option plans for the vast numbers of employees who have gained from their hard work, shared in the dynamic capital enhancement of corporations, and, yes, made money. I am one of those staunch advocates in the Congress who believe that money is the cure to poverty. And by allowing employees to invest and work and believe in the great American Dream that one day they can have a part of it, stock options represent a magnificent tool of economic opportunity. I urge this Congress to adopt H.R. 3574 as balanced; fair; transparent; and, most importantly, important for our economy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the committee and an outspoken advocate for the bill.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, under the current FASB proposal, one would either use the binomial or the Black-Scholes methodology to determine the valuation of a stock option. During the intervening period, staff has calculated the remaining debate time available to me to close through both Black-Scholes and binomial, and the result has come out anywhere from zero to an hour and a half. Recognizing we have a commonsense limit of 1 minute, I shall proceed diligently. The current proposal under H.R. 3574 would lead us to a transparent disclosure regime. It would continue a very important job-creation tool to our free enterprise system. It would allow employees to share in the free-enterprise dream of participating in the growth and ultimate financial profitability in the corporation for which they work. Make no mistake: this bill nails those executives who have been held up as the abusive forces within our system by requiring the top five to expense their options granted. The solution is not perfect; frankly, I would not require expensing at all. But it is a response to the critics who said executives have abused their privilege. For commonsense job creation and reform, I urge this body to support H.R. 3574.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This, of course, is an important amendment, and we should not forget for a moment that the lawmaking business is a very difficult course to follow. If one introduces a measure in the House of Representatives, it may be subject to numerous hearings and, of course, examination by many people over the course of many months, in some cases, years. It then must go to the United States Senate, where it goes through a similar process. Assuming the House and Senate may disagree, there is an extensive conference committee process. Ultimately, if passed by both Houses as a conference committee report, it goes on to the President of the United States, either for his signature or for his veto. What is contemplated by the gentlewoman's amendment is to dramatically alter the course of public policy consideration. If one were to take, for example, the 1934 Securities Act, considered after many, many months of deliberation and debate, I would point out that we start in the United States Congress or in the United States Senate. Both Houses meet, deliberate, hear witnesses, stakeholders, public comment, lobbyists abound, even FASB running around through the halls, and ultimately we pass a bill out that makes its way to the White House, and the White House may or may not sign or choose to veto such a proposal. The effect of the gentlewoman's amendment from New York would be to say after that lengthy process which, by the way, in the case of the stock option expensing debate has raged now for some time, after considerable hearings within the House Committee on Financial Services, even the cursory examination in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, now this public debate on the House floor. And might I remind you we are now officially in an open public comment period by FASB, which we all of course know is closed, but for the sake of public discourse, we have an open public comment period. I would suggest the Congress is getting ready to comment on the matter. What some are proposing with the Maloney amendment in the last circling at the end of the chart is that it would be the ``oops'' provision. The SEC could say, ``Oops, the Congress got it wrong. The President got it wrong. We are simply going to disregard the actions of our public policymakers and decide we are going to do it differently.'' Nowhere in the text of the public policy is there an arbitrary and capricious grant of authority for any bureaucratic enterprise to set aside the public policy determinations of the United States Congress. This, in fact, would be a first. Now, I understand the dispute over the underlying reform proposal; but this, I suggest to Members of the House, is not an appropriate remedy for the concerns expressed by Members opposed to this H.R. 3574. Should you be opposed to it, I suggest you vote against this measure and simply vote against the bill on final passage. However, I, for one, think it an extremely well-crafted remedy to the identified problem and urge my colleagues to support it on final passage.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Since 1969, the current debate has been in some form or fashion engaged by FASB, 1969, 35 years. You would not think that that would be considered a new and innovative strategy to begin expensing or not expensing options. In 1995, the current methodology was adopted as a compromise. Yes, you can expense, if you so choose, determined by your board, driven perhaps by your shareholders, but you may also disclose in the footnotes. What are footnotes? They are notes in the annual report to shareholders. If you are a shareholder and you are worried about diluted effect, in other words, they are giving an option to someone, what does that do to my asset in the company, you can find that out with an examination of the annual report. To suggest that this is a new tactic developed by some executive in a back room to cheat shareholders or Americans out of value gained in their corporate investment is simply not accurate. This has been a practice common in the business world for many, many years. Now, at question is whether or not a handful of executives who are identified as abusing their privileges ought to be brought to some account. The answer with the passage of this bill is ``yes.'' If you are one of the top five executives who, by some accounts, hold the majority of options granted, you will now be required to expense those options at the time they are granted to the employee. It does not, however, require the large number of employees who benefit from investment, showing up early, staying late, investing their intellectual and personal capital into the business, who ultimately benefit from the overall growth and value of that corporation by seeing their shares increase in value. Forty-five percent of the venture capital in this country goes to the Silicon Valley, 45 percent, and the bulk of that goes to these new technology start-up companies. If my colleagues wish to see them in the future, please vote for H.R. 3574. It is rational reform headed in the right direction.

Mr. BAKER

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

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Federal Wetlands Jurisdiction Act of 2004. Joining me in cosponsoring this important legislation are the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Don Young, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment John Duncan, former Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, Western States Caucus Chairman Chris Cannon, and fellow conservationist Congressmen Marion Berry, Rob Bishop, Butch Otter, John Doolittle, Randy Forbes, and Doug Ose. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today does two things. First, the legislation clearly defines the areas over which the Federal government has jurisdiction as ``wetlands'' or ``waters of the United States'' under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Second, the legislation concentrates the implementation of the Section 404 ``wetlands'' permitting program in one Federal agency: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The legislation does not affect any part of the Clean Water Act other than Section 404. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held that the Clean Water Act does not provide the Federal government jurisdiction over areas known as ``isolated wetlands.'' The Supreme Court case dealt with an area that was found to be jurisdictional to the Section 404 program under an Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers interpretation of the Act known as the ``migratory bird rule.'' The ``migratory bird rule'' made jurisdictional to the Section 404 program any wetland that migratory birds could inhabit. The Supreme Court found that this interpretation was beyond the bounds of the Act. However, the Supreme Court was not specific concerning the exact areas that are ``isolated wetlands.'' The uncertainty about the jurisdiction of the Section 404 program that resulted from the SWANCC decision has not been resolved by interpretive rulings by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Applications of SWANCC by the Corps and the EPA in determinations of Section 404 jurisdiction have resulted in a range of judicial decisions that are not consistent across the Nation. The resulting uncertainty is causing difficulty for my constituents and I am sure for the constituents of many Members of this House. In fact, it is not impractical to say that there are literally hundreds of agency interpretations of SWANCC's impact because the Corps and EPA have essentially allowed individual personnel to make their own judgments on a case-by-case basis. Could you imagine the speed limit being set by individual police officers on a case-by-case basis? I believe that Congress must end this uncertainty by stating as clearly as possible the areas that we intend to be jurisdictional to the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act. While the SWANCC decision involved a Section 404 matter, the judicial decision can be interpreted to apply to the entire Clean Water Act. The legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today, however, only applies to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Indeed, there may be sound policy reasons to have different jurisdictional limits for other sections of the Act. The legislation that I am introducing today provides Federal Section 404 jurisdiction over the territorial seas, traditionally navigable waters, tributaries that flow into traditionally navigable waters and the wetlands adjacent to these waters. Excluded from jurisdiction are man made connectors, such as ditches and underground culverts, and the wetlands connected thereto. The legislation also makes clear that the Section 404 program does not apply to so-called ``ephemeral streams'' or underground water. Finally, the legislation provides a mechanism by which landowners expeditiously can obtain a determination of whether wetlands areas on their property are within the jurisdiction of the Section 404 program. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will exclude from areas of Federal jurisdiction areas that Congress clearly never intended to be jurisdictional to the federal government. For example, on March 30, 2004, one of my constituents testified about this problem at an oversight hearing of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. On his land were some puddles of water, which is very typical of our part of the country. A tractor had driven through one of the puddles on a rainy day and down to and through a small drainage ditch on the property. Because the tractor left a rut that filled up with water from the puddle down to the stream, Corps field officials asserted jurisdiction over the puddles. The only connection between these puddles, which I believe are true ``isolated wetlands,'' and the small drainage ditch was this man- made rut accidentally left behind by the tractor. Surely, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will agree with me that Congress never intended to assert Federal jurisdiction over such areas of land. This legislation will exclude these areas from Federal jurisdiction. I believe that the definition of jurisdiction contained in this legislation is consistent with the SWANCC decision, the intent of Congress in enacting Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the traditional division of jurisdiction between the Federal government and the States and local governments. This legislation also addresses a problem that has confounded my constituents since the original enactment of the Section 404 program in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. When the Section 404 program was enacted, there was a disagreement between the House and Senate regarding whether the newly created Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should have jurisdiction over the program. The conferees settled this disagreement by giving both agencies jurisdiction over the program. The result for my constituents often has been chaos. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implements the Section 404 program, but must also apply rules adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency; the Corps of Engineers makes jurisdictional determinations in the field, but the EPA, under a 1979 Attorney General's Opinion, has final say in this area; and, finally, the EPA can veto a decision by the Corps of Engineers to issue a Section 404 permit. No other Federal regulatory program that I know of is implemented by two Federal agencies. My legislation resolves this inherent conflict by placing responsibility for the implementation of the Section 404 program solely in the hands of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which I believe has incomparable expertise in wetlands management. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Section 404 wetlands permitting program is a very controversial program. In general, Americans want to see wetlands preserved. However, this general objective hits close to home when the wetlands in question are on privately owned property--as are 75 percent of the Federal jurisdictional wetlands. The Section 404 program can prevent or severely restrict the private use of privately owned property. Unfortunately, many of my constituents face these consequences under the Section 404 program. Mr. Speaker, the very least we can do for the citizens of this Nation is to define clearly those areas that are subject to the jurisdiction of this regulatory program and to designate one Federal agency to implement the program. The legislation that I am introducing today does just that and no more than that. I believe, also, that our bill is pro- environment because it will diminish the number of individual landowners who unknowingly disturb or destroy wetlands. If a constituent knows ahead of time that a parcel of land is a wetland, they will refrain from buying it or developing it. Isn't precaution an effective medicine? I believe it is, and I believe this bill is the right prescription. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure its timely enactment.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is apparent we have three different perspectives on taxes. There is one group, when talking about giving back programs or benefits, that says when we give. Well, that comes from the assumption that the money they are giving is actually their money, like the Congress has this big bank and we are just going to give it away because we are doing good things for the American people. They do not really think this through, that that money comes from working families and the Congress is just the middleman who just kind of passes it along based upon the votes that the majority might get on a particular issue. There is another group, too, that troubles me in Washington when they look at taxes. First, they look out across the economic landscape and they see people doing something very bad. They are actually making money, you know, it is a terrible thing. So, first, we are going to regulate it, make sure we kind of slow that pace of making money down. If that does not work, then we are going to tax them and, by George, if they are still moving after we regulate and tax, let us just sue them. It is a three-step recovery plan to keep an American from having anything in their pocket. There is a third group. We happen to believe that the 52 or 53 percent of Americans who pay all the taxes in this country, who are working families, who work hard every day, ought to have the opportunity to do something radical. If you make money, we think you might ought to get to keep it. I know, that is out there on the edge, but I think we ought to give it a try because going into the future, as we worry about the economic prosperity of this country, this is a country of small businesses, family-owned businesses, people who get up very early in the morning and work hard all day just to pay their taxes, keep the kids in school, keep the car running and keep the blue jeans on. It is not easy. Will this tax benefit reverse the economic fortunes of our country? No, but I will tell my colleagues what, there are a whole lot fewer dairies in Louisiana and a whole lot less farmers today than there were a decade ago, and it is primarily due to government regulation and taxes. This may keep some family farm operating. It may keep another dairy door open, and it may make some small business that we do not know about tonight operate for 3, 4 or 5 years, but let us give it a chance. Let us let people who work, who are the engine of our economy, 52 or 53 percent of all working families pay all the taxes, is it not time we give them a break?

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, the most important duty that we have is to protect the safety and well-being of the American people. However, the grim reality is that our broken immigration system is preventing us from fulfilling this most important obligation. The increasing numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal, threaten our national security and weigh down our already over-burdened economy. Every day, illegal immigrants cross our borders and take advantage of taxpayer funded benefits available to them in the U.S. We must act now and reform our immigration policy so that we may protect the safety and financial prosperity of our citizens. We know what the problem is, but how do we solve it? Amnesty is not the answer. Rewarding illegal immigrants with jobs and benefits at the expense of the American people is not the answer. Allowing more immigrants into America is not the answer. H.R. 775, which would end this harmful ``Visa Lottery'' program, is a solid first step in the right direction to limit the number of immigrants allowed to enter our country. Only through narrowing the stream of immigration can we begin to be able to take back control of our borders. One of the many lessons of September 11th is that we cannot be too careful when it comes to our national immigration policy. It was only after these horrific attacks that we learned that most of the terrorists should not have been admitted into our country in the first place. The first step in solving this crisis is simple: we must limit, not expand, the number of people allowed into this country and the SAFE Act does just this.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send a heartfelt thanks to both Commander Roy G. Orgeron and the entire American Legion, Nicholson Post #38 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for helping us ``Honor and Remember those who Served and Sacrificed'' on Veterans Day, November 11, 2003. Mr. Speaker, originally chartered by the United States Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization, the American Legion is best described by the Preamble to its Constitution: For God and Country we associate ourselves together for the following purposes: To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America; To maintain law and order; To foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism; To preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the great wars; To inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state and nation; To combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses; To make right the master of might; To promote peace and good-will on earth; To safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy; To consecrate our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness. As the facilitative host of a Veterans Day breakfast, and on a day where as a country we paused to reflect on the sacrifices of all those who have put on the uniform to serve in the United States military, the members of Nicholson Post #38 honorably upheld these words, demonstrating their endless commitment to south Louisiana's veterans. Mr. Speaker, although we can never adequately repay their service to our great Nation, as a senior Member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I ask that you and my colleagues join me in saluting and congratulating Nicholson Post #38 on this outstanding achievement.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time for the majority leader or his designee to call up House Resolution 496; the resolution be considered as read; and the previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion except (1) one hour of debate and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from North Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 496) commending the Louisiana State University Tigers football team for winning the 2003 Bowl Championship Series national championship game, and commending the Southern University Jaguars football team for winning the 2003 SBN Black College National Football championship, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), for purposes of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 496.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a particular note of pride to speak on behalf of two fine athletic achievements from institutions both domiciled within the great city of Baton Rouge. It began last fall when LSU set eight school records during the 2003 season. They won 13 games during that season, more games than in any other season in Louisiana State University history. They won the Southeastern Conference championship, defeating the University of Georgia by a score of 34 to 13 in the Southeastern Conference championship game at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta on December 6, 2003. This was followed by a terrific game and a victory in the 2003 Bowl Championship Series for the national championship, defeating Oklahoma University by a score of 21 to 14 in the Nokia Sugar Bowl on January 4, 2004. Let me say a word about the excellent Oklahoma team and the manner in which their athletes competed. There was no giving up until the final whistle blew. It was a terrific game to watch. But I want to express great appreciation to the young men of the LSU football team for their commitment to excellence and their hard work in pursuit of this championship. As a result of this effort, they were first in the Nation in total defense, allowing only 252 yards per game, and scoring defense, allowing only one team in a game to score more than 20 points. As a result of this outstanding effort, Coach Nick Saban was named the National Coach of the Year by the Associated Press and the Football Writers Association of America, and Chad Lavalais, Corey Webster, Skyler Green and Stephen Peterman were all named first- team All-Americans. At the same time, as amazing as this accomplishment was for any athletic program, located just across the city is the great Southern University, also within the Sixth Congressional District of Louisiana. They ended their football season, finishing with a 12 and 1 record, defeating Grambling State University in an exciting game, 44 to 41, to win the 2003 State Farm Bayou Classic and the right to go to the Southwestern Athletic Conference championship game. On December 13, 2003, in front of 31,617 fans in Birmingham, Alabama, the Southern University team defeated Alabama State by a score of 20 to 9 to win the Southwestern Athletic Conference championship game and Southern University's 19th Southwestern Athletic Conference title, consequently were named the 2003 SBN Black College National Football Champions. This is an extraordinary occurrence, when two programs of such excellence achieve national prominence and bring home the national championship. Although there has been some discussion about the manner in which this championship was arrived at, I would be quick to point out that this resolution is the first such resolution to be considered on the House floor, and appropriately so, because I believe, without doubt, LSU and Southern University are first in the Nation in football excellence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.