Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we know we are going to have to cut down some of the trees to see the facts. In the year in which Harvey Pitt was appointed chairman of the SEC in late August, September 11 followed only days behind with destruction of the New York SEC offices. Despite that, in the first 7 months of his term, for officer and director bars sought, and that is to keep officers and directors from continuing in a professional responsibility, he has sought 71. In the entire year preceding his appointment, only 51. Disgorgement of compensation, bonuses, and stock options sought, 17 in a 7-month period, versus 18 in the entire year preceding. Temporary restraining orders in all categories, 42 sought in 7 months, 31 in the preceding year. Asset freezes in all categories, 50 in 7 months, versus 43 in the entire preceding year. Trading suspensions, 10 versus 2 in the entire preceding year. Subpoena enforcement proceedings, 18 versus 13 in the preceding year. Chairman Pitt has not only acted, he has acted forcefully. Today this Congress will act. It is appropriate, and the people of America are waiting.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise to support the adoption of the resolution which he has brought to the House this afternoon and wish to speak to the issues raised by the gentleman from Virginia earlier in the afternoon. The House did act last year to reduce the fees on transactions relating to stock transfers, and secondly, in the content of this resolution, does make provision for pay parity, both of which do bring about expenditure of Federal resources. Even after the consideration of both those effects, the adoption of pay parity and the reduction in the fees collected for SEC transactions, the projected budget receipts next year for the SEC from all fees will exceed $1.5 billion. Even with the pay parity provisions contained in this resolution, the expenditures for the agency, once enhanced at this new operational level, will only equal $776 million. The difference is still an $800 million surplus in fees received versus expenditures made. Obviously, it is the 302(b) allocations which are causing the difficulty for the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary's Chair; but it has nothing to do with there being a lack of revenue coming from SEC activities. I think it was perfectly appropriate through the Congress to reduce fees and certainly essential that we adopt the pay parity provisions which will enable the SEC to keep qualified, professional regulators on the level of compensation of all other financial regulators. So to that end, I think it is extremely important for the House to act to adopt this resolution and provide the SEC with the important needed resources; and we will address those appropriations concerns as we move into the fall, and hopefully our chairman will be able to reconcile these differences with the Committee on Appropriations members so that the provisions made available to the SEC today will enable them to act appropriately on any and all complaints. If there is anything significant and important this Congress can do with regard to the current market instability, it is to provide closure with regard to the investigatory capability to get to the bottom of wrongdoing, to hold those accountable responsible; and I think this action today, enabling the SEC to have all the adequate supervisory staff they need, is an essential step in helping bring back confidence and customer confidence in making investments in our capital markets, which are the strongest, deepest, broadest of any in the world; and I think this action is extraordinarily important to bring about that resolution. I thank the Chair for yielding me the time.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, after considerable work and consideration by the Financial Services Committee, the House considered and passed FDIC reform legislation, H.R. 3717. 1 supported and voted for the bill; however, I am concerned about the potential effects of possible FDIC actions to develop and implement risk-based assessment standards under sections 4 and 7 of the legislation. My concern is that the FDIC may give excessive weight to Federal Home Loan Bank advances in the assessment process so that insured institutions with certain amounts or percentages of such advances would be classified as more risky and, therefore, pay higher deposit insurance premiums. My concern arises from the FDIC's report on deposit insurance reform, issued in April 2001, which indicated that, under a risk-based assessment system, the FDIC could use a sample risk ``scorecard'' that would result in institutions with increased amounts of FHLB advances paying higher risk-based insurance assessments. In my opinion, the use by the FDIC of risk-based assessment authority in this way would be contrary to Congress' clear intent to broaden access to FHLB advances in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. In the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, we wanted to ensure that community institutions and housing lenders would be able to obtain adequate, reasonably priced FHLB advances as a source of funds to serve the borrowing needs of their customers. Providing this source of liquidity may actually reduce risk. I would anticipate, should the FDIC place undue weight on FHLB advances for its risk-based assessment system, the agency will likewise account for the risks associated with depository institutions holding U.S. agency debt and securities. As the principal House sponsor of the FHLB provisions in the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act, I will follow very closely the FDIC's implementation of any new risk-based assessment standards to ensure such standards do not adversely affect the prudent use or cost of advances.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Cathy Vittoria who has recently taken command of the 773rd Maintenance Battalion, Louisiana Army National Guard. LTC Vittoria is to be commended for her unselfish and outstanding service to our country and is deserving of our sincere gratitude. LTC Vittoria began her career defending our country by enlisting in the Connecticut National Guard. After achieving the rank of Staff Sergeant, she attended Officers Candidate School. In January 1985, she received her commission and served as a Platoon Leader in the Virginia National Guard until June, 1986. Upon her transfer to the 123rd Maintenance Company at Fort Irwin, California, she served as the Material Service Officer, Maintenance Control Officer, and Company Commander. In September, 1993, LTC Vittoria was transferred to the 529th Forward Support Battalion in Virginia. In February, 1998, LTC Vittoria was transferred to Detachment 1, Headquarters STARC where she served as the Administrative Chief until October 1999 when she became the Deputy Commander for the 62nd Weapons of Mass Destruction Team. From August 2000 until January 2002, LTC Vittoria served as the Operations Officer for the 199th Leadership Regiment, LTC Vittoria is a full-time member of the Louisiana National Guard and works as the Operations Officer at the Gillis W. Long Center in Carville, Louisiana. I am proud that LTC Vittoria is a constituent in Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District and I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize her achievements. Mr. Speaker, I know you and all my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in congratulating LTC. Cathy Vittoria upon her promotion as Battalion Commander of the 773rd maintenance Battalion, Louisiana Army National Guard.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wish to express my deep appreciation for his leadership in helping the committee construct what I think is one of the most significant reform pieces of legislation in financial markets in this Congress. In listening to the debate, many would assume that we have done nothing. In listening to the debate, many would assume there are those in the Congress who would like to sit on the board of every board of directors of every corporation in America, because that is the only way we could possibly have protection for individuals and consumers. In listening to the debate, one would believe that some think it is inappropriate for a corporation to make a profit. In the free enterprise system, it is clear, people invest, they work hard; if they convince consumers and they are successful and beat their competition, at the end of the day we hope people make a profit. Some think profit is gained only by ill-conceived, manipulative, backdoor deals at the expense of working people. Where are we? This is America. We are taught if you work hard, invest, that it is okay to make a profit, and one day if you work hard you might be able to keep some of it. That was the basis of our tax relief program: You work hard, you pay your taxes to the Federal Government. Some say, ``Let's not give them their money back. They might spend it. We ought to keep it here in Washington and regulate them.'' Some people watch business and they say, ``If it's making a profit, let's first regulate it. If it's still making a profit, let's tax it. And if that doesn't stop it, let's sue it.'' I think we have had enough of that. This bill is about common sense. It is not lawful for a corporate executive to withhold material facts about the financial condition of his corporation. And we go further and say, if you do, there is a penalty to pay. We provide for auditing independence by saying the audit committee works for the shareholder and has an obligation to report the true and accurate financial condition of the corporation, or there are consequences. Some have suggested we are doing nothing with the analysts. Let me point out that last fall before the Enron matter became public knowledge, this committee, the Committee on Financial Services, was working on these sets of rules to provide new standards for analysts' conduct that go far beyond anything I have heard suggested in the debate in the committee today. We have taken action. We have taken action to preserve our free enterprise system, the ability to govern a corporation and make a profit, employ individuals and provide opportunities for millions of investors to participate in the dynamic growth of this economy. In 1995, no one could invest online. Today, there are over 800,000 trades a day where working men and women take $100, $200, and invest it for their child's education, to purchase their first home, and maybe their retirement. That is the American way. Are these the large institutional investors who are making backroom deals with analysts and Wall Street CEOs? No, they are people who are working as we debate this bill this morning to try to make a few extra dollars to enhance the quality of their children's future. This bill makes sure that the financial statement they read, that the analyst recommendations they research on the Internet, that the corporate executives' representations about the future of corporate profitability are true and accurate. We cannot guarantee success. Of all the companies listed on the New York Exchange in the early 1900s, there is only one that is still listed there today. The dynamic free enterprise system is going to cause changes in our market that no one can predict and we cannot guarantee success or failure, but what this Congress can guarantee is that no one is misled or mistreated and all have equal opportunity. What shall we do? Some would say this bill is insufficient. At the end of this process, after all the amendments are considered and the gentleman from New York's motion to recommit is finally disposed of and defeated, as I hope it will be, you will have a decision to make. Do you vote for this bill on final passage or do you say ``no'' and turn your back on the most meaningful reform effort you will ever have?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The Kucinich amendment is an interesting one in its practical effect. We are going to create a government entity that is going to have the sole and specific authority to evaluate the financial condition of 17,000 public corporations. Now, if anyone has tried to read a single financial statement and understand it and then evaluate its accuracy, one can pretty quickly determine that this is a responsibility beyond any magnitude that anyone could possibly comprehend. The amendment, I am sure, is based on a good-faith effort to be responsive to the Enron crisis, but this would be the crisis of all crises. We would have a complete inability to have a free flow of information from the corporation to their investors without this intervening government regulatory body giving its stamp of approval. I do not know how many of you have ever had any difficulty, let us say, with the IRS in trying to work through its maze of regulatory constraints and get a direct answer overnight on whether or not you are filing the form properly. This is like taking the IRS and sticking it in the corporate board room of every corporation in America. This will not work. I understand the gentleman's concerns and share those concerns. Many innocent third parties were harmed by the failure of Enron, Global Crossing, and perhaps others yet to be disclosed. And I feel for those individuals who likely will never get any of those funds back in their retirement accounts or who have lost their jobs. But let us make it clear, there are ongoing criminal investigations, and prosecutions certainly to follow, because under the simplest of rules, under rule 10(b)5 of the SEC's regulations, there was fraud committed. People are going to jail. What we are trying to do is to create a manner in which a free flow of accurate information can be given to investors to make quality decisions. That is what the underlying bill will do.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would join him in recognizing the importance of the preceding speaker's remarks in characterizing the legislation now pending before the House, as in free enterprise, as buyer beware. We should carefully evaluate and analyze any representation made by some salesman as to his product. I think it is also an advisable warning to those listening to speeches by Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, let me turn for a moment to the criticism of the bill with regard to analysts' conduct. Some would have us believe that this Congress has turned its back, protecting the Wall Street interests, walking away from the working families of America, letting the pillaging continue without restraint. They seem to fail to remember just last year this committee, with bipartisan help, spent hours in evaluating the approach to take in resolving inappropriate conduct by analysts on Wall Street. Let me explain. When a company wants to raise money on Wall Street, they have to hire a firm to go sell their stock. In order to sell that stock, they need to have a research department that says, is this a good investment or not? And investors rely on that research, understanding that the investment bank is separate from the research. Well, unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Apparently, in some limited instances, the research was held out by the investment bank sort of as a marketing tool, to say, if you give us a good research product, the investment bank gets the business, and huge profits were made. Here is the change: Research integrity is restored by having analyst independence from investment bankers. The investment banker cannot talk to the research analyst anymore. They have to be maintained in separate divisions of the business, and there are consequences if they do collude. It restricts the ties between analysts' compensation and investment banking transactions. If there is any connection, if there is, it must be stated publicly in a report for all to see, or else there is a violation of the law. It prohibits promising favorable research for the investment bank to get the work in compensation for the firm. So they cannot go out and use the research department information for the investment bank to go make the deal with the corporation. That is illegal. They cannot do it anymore. It limits analysts' own purchasing and trading of stocks on which they issue research, and prohibits trading against their recommendations. It would be wrong if I were an analyst to say, go buy, gobble it up, America, this is a great stock, and privately I was in the back room selling my own interest to protect my financial position. This prohibits such conduct, and there are penalties, including up to disbarment from the profession. We require potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed clearly. If we have missed something, if there is something inappropriate that an investor should know, they have a professional obligation to disclose it, and if they do not, there are penalties for that inappropriate conduct. We have taken action. We have stood up to Wall Street. We are protecting working families across this country. To vote against this bill would be in their disinterest.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It was 1896, and the Dow Jones industrial average was constructed. Today, 106 years later, only one United States corporation remains in existence that was included in that publication of that first Dow Jones average. Capital markets, free markets, are difficult because of the enormous competition that exists to succeed, but it yields tremendous benefit for us all. Today, we are about a debate in how to best regulate those aberrant actors in the marketplace. Let it be understood, the vast majority of professionals who conduct their business in all sectors of the marketplace today, are that, professional. We are acting today to identify those few aberrant actors who have brought about great harms to innocent third parties. And act we shall. It is important to recognize that in constructing this regulatory or legislative oversight that we not go too far. In evidence of the point, this bill came out of our committee by a 16-to-12 vote by Democrat Members. They see it as reasonable. They see it as an appropriate first step. We have a higher obligation. All those working families today who struggle to make ends meet and invest either in their 401(k) by payroll deduction or by putting that $200 online investment through their computer at home expect fairness. That is what this bill is about: honest, transparent disclosure, so you can make informed decisions for your family to buy that first home, invest for your children's education, or for your own retirement. Inscribed on this wall behind us is an admonition to Members of the House that I read every day. ``Let us develop the resources of the land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also in this hour, day, and generation may perform something worthy to be remembered.'' Daniel Webster is telling us what our job is. Let us make a difference. Let us stand for the working people of America today. Let us not let the Wall Street interests take away people's future by disclosing inappropriate information. That is what this bill is about. It is about standing in the face of those who have abused their corporate and business opportunities to the disinterest of their employees and their investors. We can make a difference. Vote down the motion to recommit and pass this bill.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the nine Louisiana residents who put fear aside and risked their lives to recover those lost on September 11, 2001, during the tragic attack on the World Trade Center. The Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), administered through USPHS and funded through FEMA, provides assistance upon request of local authorities in the event of a mass fatality incident. Regional VI consists of participants hailing from Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. This team was deployed to New York City several days after the terrorist attacks to assist the New York Medical Examiner. Subsequent to this assignment, Region VI was then transferred to the American Aircraft crash in Queens, New York. Mr. Speaker, Deputy Commander Charles D. Smith, Jr., led Louisiana residents Anthony Buras, Jordan Charlet, Arbie Goings, Shelly Roy, James Brett Smith, Mark Stewart, Dee Wilde and Mike Armanini, of the Disaster Medical Assistance Team, in their mission to recover those lost in the World Trade Center. Smith, who has been in New York for a total of two months, noted that ``every member distinguished themselves on this difficult deployment and served the country and the National Disaster Medical System with honor . . . I am proud to report that the state was represented in a splendid manner.'' At a time when tragedy was at its greatest, Region VI responded swiftly with deep compassion for those they had never met. Their effort represents not only the spirit of Louisiana, but the spirit of our nation as well.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, Jessica Caroline Aiton of Greenwell Springs, LA died on Monday, December 17, 2001, at the age of 18, following a tragic car accident. Jessica served as the 2000-2001 Youth Leadership Council Representative from her state for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. This means that she was one of the best and brightest students from rural America and from Louisiana. Every year, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), through its nearly one thousand member cooperatives, hosts the Washington, DC Youth Tour. This program brings 1,300 high school students from across rural America to visit their Nation's Capital to learn about their heritage, and about their electric cooperatives. On average, Louisiana brings 25 students each year. From this group, the state association selects one outstanding individual to be its youth spokesperson for the year and to serve on the NRECA national Youth Leadership Council. Jessica was selected as the representative for the 2000-2001 school year. She was one of just 41 nationally appointed to this honor. Jessica had been an honor student at Central High School where she graduated third in her class. This past fall, she started her freshman year at LSU. She began as an Accounting major and then changed to Chemical Engineering. Next spring, she had planned to take some political science classes, with an eye toward law school and politics. As she once said of her future in an email to one of her former YLC counselors, ``All I know is that I want to go to law school and eventually become a Senator. That much is clear.'' Jessica was also an active member of the Denham Springs Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, loved to run and ride horses, and had just recently joined the College Republicans. With a heart for God, an incredible desire to serve, and the poise, charisma, and dedication rarely seen in a young woman of her age, Jessica was well on her way to being a great Senator. The State of Louisiana, her electric cooperative family, and America will miss her. As her high school graduating class motto said: The past is but the beginning of a beginning, and all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. (H.G. Wells) May the light of that dawn shine upon Jessica Caroline Aiton forever more.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and wish to express my appreciation to both gentlemen for their courtesies in facilitating such prompt consideration of this important matter. For those not familiar with the fine institution in Louisiana, in Carville, known as the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center, it is in fact a very historic facility which has provided immeasurable service to many people throughout its longstanding history. It is important that the Congress favorably act on this important name change today, for a very simple but important administrative reason. The National Hansen's Disease Programs have been relocated from the Carville facility to a new institution at the Summit Hospital within Baton Rouge. However, under the current regulatory provisions, that secondary site must also be designated as the Gillis W. Long Center, therein creating problems for the patients of the new Hansen's Disease Programs in Baton Rouge. Even simple matters such as delivery of mail now is necessitated to go through the Carville Academy site, as opposed to going directly to the National Hansen's Disease Center Programs. This name change facilitates that. However, it in no way diminishes the importance of the Gillis W. Long Center, where there has been an extraordinary change over the past several years in the scope and direction of that valuable property. For well over 100 years, it was the target for treatment and research for Hansen's disease. But in an act passed by this Congress a few years ago, ownership of the facility was transferred to the State of Louisiana and a youth at-risk education program has been created there. In this brief time since the program's initiation, the Youth Challenge Program has seen 3,582 students graduate from this new programmatic activity. What is remarkable is the likelihood of these individuals completing their high school education was seriously in question. After exposure to this fine program, 3,500 students have successfully completed the educational curricula. Twenty-four percent of our graduates have gone on to engage in military service, while another 50 percent have been employed or are in some job training program, while the remaining 20 percent have gone on to higher education pursuits. Some 13 percent have gone on to college. It is a remarkable program which carries on in the random tradition of Congressman Gillis Long, a tireless servant of the American public, and his spouse, a former Member as well, Cathy Long, who is well aware of this name change. This programmatic activity is in the highest of American principles. We give nothing away except a chance; and young people from across our great State who are unlikely to be successful in any other endeavor, come here to find renewed hope and opportunity through discipline, education, and job training. It, in fact, is carrying on the mission of the Sisters of Charity who served countless numbers of hopeless social outcasts for many years at the Hansen's Disease Center. They too have signed on to the program at Carville Academy, seeing the hope and vision that this opportunity creates for the innumerable graduates of this fine program. To both chairmen, I ask that the House do concur in this recommendation.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy and generosity with the time. I wish to extend my appreciation and commend the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his perspicacious leadership on this matter; to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his visionary legal acumen; and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for their critical suggestions at important steps along the way to craft a proposal which, in essence, solves, to a great extent, the potential exposure for further liability as a result of future terrorist attacks. I cannot, however, today stand without responding to the remarks of the minority leader who said, ``We don't get it.'' I am appalled that in this instance, when faced with legislation of such magnitude, he would suggest that Members of Congress do not know people who are without medical insurance. I have a family member this morning in the hospital without private medical insurance. To suggest that there are those of us in Congress who do not know people who are unemployed, that we do not get it because we do not know the unemployed, I would just advise that in my extended family there have been people on unemployment through no fault of their own. We are here today to respond to a crisis, a national crisis of proportion this Nation has never seen. The vision of the morning of September 11 will never vanish from our minds, and what are we to do in response to this? To say we should postpone, delay, or otherwise obfuscate the ability to respond to this crisis when it is so clear, I cannot conceive that any Member of this Congress, despite their objections to the elements contained in this legislation, would say no to this process. This is a process. We all know there will be a very difficult conference committee at which all of these issues will be visited at length. And let us speak to the one point of contention which brings us to this difficult moment, that is of liability reform. This House has adopted the provisions contained in the proposal before us today not once but twice. This House. I would point to the fact that the Price- Anderson Act was renewed by this Congress by a voice vote last week, which contains similar provisions. Some have said we should not buy this pig in a poke because we do not know what is in it. I would point out this Congress has adopted the Swine Flu Act, which has the same liability provisions that this act contains. There is no legitimate platform from which a Member can stand on this floor and say we should not act. Member after Member has said the base elements of this legislation are, indeed, acceptable to respond to the crisis we potentially face. But if we do not act, the concerns expressed for those unemployed and uninsured will only be aggravated, to a great extent, because there will be more unemployed and uninsured as economic opportunity is snatched away from the American economy by our failure to act. Let us make this clear: this is not an insurance bailout. I do not care if an insurance company makes a profit or not. That is not my job. I do not care whether a trial lawyer gets his 30 percent cut off an unfortunate victim as a result of loss. That is not my problem. What I care about is how American taxpayer resources are used to meet a crisis of this magnitude, and to ensure that every penny extended in times of crisis are repaid to the American taxpayer. That is what this bill does. It is an extraordinary first step. It is to say we will respond timely and appropriately. But when an insurance company is making a $10 or $20 or $30 billion annual profit, they are going to pay us back. Now, what is wrong with that? And my colleagues are going to tell me today that they do not want to act to preclude the possibility of economic calamity because we have a dispute whether the trial lawyers get 20 percent or a third or half? We will hash that out in conference committee. We will, in all likelihood, have a bill my colleagues can support with enthusiasm. But to say no today is to walk away from our responsibility as a Member of the United States Congress to respond to terrorist assaults on the United States sovereign Nation. Did the firefighters, responding to the call on September 11, check their employment forms or see what possibility there might be for some liability provision? Did they think about what wage they were going to get paid? No. They responded. They acted. There was a crisis, and they put their lives on the line. We are not even close to considering such a heroic act. We are simply being asked to be stewards of the American taxpayers' resources and to provide for a method of response should, should, some untoward heinous act occur in the future. To fail to take this modest step would be a serious disappointment to the American taxpayer. I hope this House can rise above that.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank Mr. Sessions, Chairman Dreier and all the members of the Rules Committee for responding to the need to act swiftly on the Terrorism Risk Protection Act by crafting a fair rule that paves the way for our consideration of the Bill on the House floor today. I also wish to thank Chairman Oxley for his leadership on this issue and to recognize the efforts of Ranking Members LaFalce and Kanjorski. The attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, resulted in a large number of deaths and injuries, the destruction and damage to buildings, and the interruption of business operations. These consequences of the attacks were not only a human tragedy, they were also a financial disaster. The attacks inflicted possibly the largest losses ever incurred by insurers and reinsurers in a single day. Estimates of losses start at about $40 billion and vary significantly upward from there. Fortunately, the insurance and reinsurance industry have the capital capacity to cover such losses and have committed to pay the losses due to the attacks. However, with the events of September 11, 2001, there is great uncertainty from an underwriter's perspective. Commercial property and casualty insurance companies have little to no experience in underwriting for the types of terrorist attacks that we experienced in New York City and Washington, D.C. The attacks set a new and very high level for potential severity. Additionally, there is an inability for underwriters to forecast the frequency or nature of future attacks. As a result of this uncertainty, many commercial property and casualty insurers and reinsurers have begun excluding terrorism risk coverage from their policies or providing very limited coverage at high costs. The potential unavailability of terrorism risk coverage for businesses comes at precisely the time when there is the greatest demand for the insurance. Moreover, insurance coverage is almost universally a requirement of any commercial lending contract. Lenders will simply not provide financing for new or existing construction or other operations without certainty that the properties and businesses that they are funding have adequate insurance to protect the lenders' investment. Thus, the lack of available insurance for terrorism risk has adverse consequences that would spread throughout the entire economy and stifle if not halt its growth. That is why I come before you today in strong support of H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. The temporary risk spreading program established by this Act is a bridge to allow the private market to develop the mechanisms to provide terrorism risk coverage at reasonable cost and sufficient levels, while guaranteeing that any federal assistance from the U.S. taxpayer in the interim is paid back by the insurance industry and those that benefit from the program. I urge my fellow colleagues to support this rule and to vote yes on the bill to prevent any further slowdown of our dynamic national economy.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his courtesy. I think it appropriate at this point in our debate to talk simply about what is it that this bill does and on what issues are there agreement. It is very clear that through the extensive hearings and work of the committee that much agreement was reached. First, that if there is another unfortunate terrorist attack on this great Nation, that we should not let the secondary effect of that attack to bring terror to our national economy, and that we must respond quickly. Some have criticized, for example, the concept of first-dollar participation at the moment the event occurs. There are other views that we should wait until perhaps some $5 billion of damages have been paid out by the industry before getting government involvement. In other words, after the terrorist event has occurred, let us make sure the economy suffers for a while before we respond. This bill takes a different approach and says, we should get that assistance immediately, not 6 months, not 60 days, but immediately upon validation that there has been an event for which there have been losses that can be substantiated. Secondly, since we are providing this immediate assistance, there should be some guarantee that this is not viewed or, in practice, turns out to be a bailout of the insurance industry. So this bill provides for repayment. Yes, we have a crisis. Yes, there are people who are suffering. So we say, insurance company, go help the insureds. Make sure they get the funds necessary to repair those businesses, to get the economy going again, to make sure we do not have the unemployed or we do not have those who are without medical insurance because their company doors are closed. But when you are profitable and when you are making money, we expect you to give the taxpayers their money back. That is what this bill provides for. It is a new approach. We will help, but we expect you to be responsible when you are profitable. We give the Secretary of the Treasury large discretion in how to implement the requirements of this legislation. If we find ourselves in the very unfortunate event after a terrorist attack that our general economic condition is poor, the Secretary of the Treasury may use his judgment as to when and how to recoup repayment to the taxpayer. But there is a guarantee that there will be a repayment to the taxpayer. So first and foremost, there is bipartisan agreement that this legislation is not an industry bailout. It is necessary, an absolutely necessary step to maintenance of our economic survival. Secondly, it is not going to be a gift, that this money will not go out the door of the United States Treasury never to be seen again. Third, we act to help not only the big insurance companies; this proposal's effect is to help all insurance companies. It is true that the top 25 percent of all insurance companies out there write 94.6 percent of all property and casualty premiums in this country. There are very large companies providing the bulk of coverage in this country, but there are an extraordinarily large number of very small corporations that could not withstand $5 billion industry-wide loss without going insolvent themselves. The bill provides immediate assistance for small companies. It provides immediate assistance for small businesses by not requiring terrorism insurance to be part of the property and casualty coverage. Why is that important? Our bill provides that one can stipulate what the cost of the terrorism component is separate from the underlying property and casualty bill. So if one is a business owner today who wants to make sure his property and casualty insurance premiums have not been jacked through the ceiling by some irresponsible insurance executive, one can look at what they paid last year and look at what they are asking to be paid this year, and then out over to one column to the side will be a little line that says ``terrorism risk premium'' and you can identify it. If you happen to be in Wyoming or on the great Gulf Coast of Mississippi or somewhere where you make the judgment that you do not wish to pay that terrorism premium, you do not have to. We do not believe we should dictate to every business owner in America, you must buy terrorism insurance regardless of what the cost may be, or what the risk may be to you. So we provide market opportunity. You can buy the property and casualty, you can buy the terrorism component from company A, you can buy property and casualty from company B, and the terrorism component from company C. It is free market at its best. It is a responsible solution to the problems we face. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this proposal.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Terrorism Risk Protection Act. I also wish to thank Financial Services committee Chairman Oxley for his leadership on this issue and to recognize the efforts of committee and subcommittee Ranking Members LaFalce and Kanjorksi. While economic uncertainty can lead to stock market volatility and wide fluctuations in value--a phenomenon we are now witnessing daily-- uncertainty in the operation of a business can be downright halting or fatal. This is why insurance plays such a vital role in our economy, providing security in calamity and the promise of liquidity necessary for the smooth functioning of the wheels of commerce. Fortunately, property-and-casualty insurers were able to cover obligations for the estimated $40 billion in damages related to September 11. But that may not be the case should any subsequent and comparably costly events take place. Worse still, the availability and affordability of terrorism insurance itself will become increasingly less likely. The primary cause for the terrorism coverage crunch is the fact that reinsurance companies, which back up the insurers by helping them spread risk, say they will not renew terrorism-related coverage by December 31, when some 70 percent of policies expire. Insurers and reinsurers cannot underwrite infinite risks with finite capital. Without the ability to spread risk through reinsurers, insurance companies face constraints against covering businesses against acts of terrorism. Here's the result, as one magazine recently put it: ``With no coverage, lenders won't lend, builders won't build, and business will grind to a halt.'' With an already weakened economy, many in Congress understand that, like it or not, the Federal Government must take action quickly to avert such a systemic catastrophe. But there have been differences over the scope and form of this government intervention in the marketplace, and, it now appears, over just how urgently action is needed. The Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly passed the House's legislative response, H.R. 3210. Today I come before you to impress upon you the need for passage of this important bill and why, on three points in particular, it will be important for us to maintain the integrity of the bill. Time is of the essence. Commercial property and casualty insurance is usually written on a 1- or 2-year basis, with approximately 70 percent of reinsurance contracts up for renewal on January 1, 2002. The potential unavailability of terrorism risk coverage for businesses comes at precisely the time of greatest demand for the insurance. Moreover, insurance coverage is almost universally a requirement of any commercial lending contract. Lenders will simply not provide financing for new or existing construction without certainty that the properties and businesses that they are funding have adequate insurance to protect the lenders' investment. Thus, the lack of available insurance for terrorism risk has adverse consequences that would spread throughout the entire economy and stifle its growth. There is a high probability that the economy as a whole would suffer tremendously without meaningful and affordable terrorism coverage. To say that these policies expire on December 31 is not to say that we, as policymakers, have until that time to take decisive action. In fact, in many cases we have already crossed the threshold into that time when businesses begin their search and make their arrangements to secure coverage for next year. Even under normal circumstances this process, in itself, takes time, typically a month or even more. We have worked closely with the Financial Services Committee Democrats to address many of their concerns regarding the insurance mechanism established by the bill. Furthermore, we have cooperated with the other committees of jurisdiction, specifically, the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees to ensure that this legislation represents the best efforts of this body as a whole. I believe that the Armey bill introduced today reflects this bipartisan achievement. Unfortunately, the other Chamber of Congress has not even begun serious consideration of this issue. Already, with each passing day of congressional inactivity in providing assistance for the affordability and availability of terrorism insurance, we run the risk of being held accountable, and deservedly so, for fiddling while Rome burned. We must limit government exposure to actual losses and provide timely and efficient adjudication of claims. Acts of terrorism give rise to very unique sets of facts and a complexity of interested parties that is uncommon in tort law. It is essential that the administration of the program established by this legislation is performed in a consistent and timely manner. Additionally, the exposure of the Federal Government as an insurer for anything other than actual losses should be avoided. To these ends this bill creates an exclusive Federal cause of action and limits the venues in which claims can be brought. We do not want to see a situation like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing where cases are just now going to trial. H.R. 3210 also prohibits claims for punitive damages arising out of terrorist acts and does not allow joint and several liability for noneconomic damages caused by terrorist acts. The sovereign immunity provisions of this bill will help ensure the fair and prompt distribution of the enormous public and private resources that would be needed to respond to terrorist acts of any magnitude. We must maintain provisions of repayment of taxpayer dollars. Unlike all other proposals, H.R. 3210 protects taxpayers, requiring insurers, when they're again able to stand on their own two feet, to pay back over time whatever taxpayer dollars they received during their short-term time of need. Without this I personally don't see how any proposal could be called anything but a bailout--an open checkbook, drawn out of taxpayer pockets. Paying back government assistance is neither a liberal nor a conservative concept. Or more precisely, it's both liberal and conservative, because it values common sense and, above all, our common concerns of fairness for both consumers and taxpayers--two groups rarely, if ever, afforded the opportunity to skip out on their bills. Not surprisingly, both the Consumer Federation of America and the Citizens Against Government Waste, two prominent grass-roots advocacy groups, have come out in support of the ``loan-based'' over the ``giveaway'' approach to the insurance industry. Changes in the Tax Code are our only mechanism to provide an exit strategy for taxpayers. Again, unlike other proposals, our bill points toward how--not just when--the Federal Government can end its market intervention. It includes a study of tax-free reserving of insurance funds for terrorism risk to assist the private market that, at the end of the day, will be made healthier, stronger, and more independent than it was when we began. The reason we're in this bind to begin with, remember, is that reinsurance companies, mostly located offshore in Europe, will no longer make their pool of resources available for backing terrorism insurers. In the long run, the strongest answer to the reinsurance vacuum, and the surest way to avoid having the government serving that function indefinitely, is to take away the barriers that keep American insurers from filling it themselves. We can accomplish this quite easily by simply deferring taxation on reserves that insurance companies can set aside and build up exclusively for protection against future terrorist attacks. Hardly a ``tax break'' for insurance companies, which wouldn't be able to use the money for any other purpose, it would serve as a catalyst and incentive for an industry to end its own dependence on government. What we certainly don't need is a situation in which taxpayers unendingly subsidize an industry while it continues posting very healthy profits. And, if we have a plan that provides market stability without simply giving away the taxpayers' money--one that temporarily backs insurers without indefinitely bailing them out--what else, really, do we need?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important at the close of debate on this important substitute to go through quickly the elements that are of concern to those of us looking for appropriate resolution on the question of terrorism insurance. First, mandatory coverage. Think about it for a moment. The property and casualty premium will now include an undisclosed terrorism premium. How do we know how that pricing was done? How will we make a judgment as to whether or not it is appropriate, given the risk we think we perceive to our business interests from a terrorist attack? Under H.R. 3210, we have a separate pricing of the terrorism premium so we can see it off to the side, as against the property and casualty premium, which we can compare with last year's. And so we clearly identify; we do not mandate. They can shop, the taxpayer can make the decision, the consumer can make the decision, Where do I go, and further, Do I really need terrorism insurance? Second, with regard to the first $5 billion worth of loss, there has been some suggestion that there is no deductible, no payment by the industry under our approach, and that their approach, having a $5 billion deductible is somehow going to fix that problem. There is no mechanism in the bill for distributing that $5 billion worth of loss across the industry. So if there are two, three, four, five big companies who take the $5 billion hit, they absorb that hit unfairly against all other companies. There is no mechanism to distribute the loss across all companies. Translation: small businesses get hit. They attempt to spread the risk, however, by having a complicated process that equals 7 percent of gross premium collected. When we read through it and understand what they are trying to do here, they do not recognize that a direct insurance company who insures our business turns around and lays off part of that risk to the reinsurance industry. When we lay off that risk, we have to give them the premium. But we are going to set the criteria by which they get taxpayer assistance on 7 percent of the total premium. To translate that: small business gets nailed. This is not a good approach. It is not a sound approach. Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are protected first, small businesses are protected second. We help the claimants by making sure that liquidity is provided to the insurance company to help the victims of a heinous act in a timely and prompt manner. It is the only way in which we should proceed. Finally, with regard to the contentious issue of liability reform, it really is very simple: we are using taxpayer money to help avert an economic calamity as the result of an act of terrorism. The modest reforms contained in this bill limit the amount of money that will go to the trial lawyer. If we are trying to help people in times of real duress and crisis, is that an unreasonable thing to do? Should we not make sure that taxpayer dollars get to the pocket to which they were intended? I think it highly appropriate to do so. If Members want a bill that says that we are going to respond to a crisis without creating unnecessary bureaucracy; we are going to do it quickly; we are going to make sure if we extend the credit of taxpayer dollars, that they get the money back; we are going to give the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to administer the program to make sure we do not disrupt a fragile economy by saying, If this does not make sense, Secretary of the Treasury, you have the right to administer to the best economic interests of the citizens of this country and collect the repayment later, but collect it you must. Now, if Members want a bill that will ensure that big insurance companies, as opposed to small, get helped; that trial lawyers get more money out of the taxpayer; and that there is no guarantee of taxpayer repayment, the substitute is the plan. But if Members want to help victims of heinous acts of violence in a timely, prompt, professional, accountable manner in which taxpayer resources will be repaid, in which only those who need it receive the assistance, the underlying H.R. 3210 is a piece of work that is not perfect, but it is good. We will be back next year to change it. I am sure the market will tell us the changes we need to make. But failing to act today is the most irresponsible act one could engage in.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by aligning myself with the statement of Chairman Oxley regarding the LaFalce substitute. The LaFalce substitute has many of the same components of H.R. 3210 because H.R. 3210 represents, in large part, the cooperative efforts of Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member LaFalce, Mr. Kanjorski and me. However, the differences in the substitute from H.R. 3210 demonstrate exactly where Chairman Oxley and I diverge from our Democratic colleagues. The LaFalce substitute includes provisions that we simply would not agree to, which is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' First, the amendment is anti-consumer in that it mandates commercial property and casualty insurers to include terrorism risk coverage on all policies on the same terms and amounts as their other commercial coverage. This precludes businesses from creating risk management solutions that meet their particular needs. For instance, many small businesses may not feel that their size, location or exposure merits the additional cost of terrorism insurance--but they would have to pay for it regardless under the LaFalce proposal. By further example, the LaFalce plan would not permit a business to buy only standard commercial property and casualty coverage from one insurer and terrorism coverage from another if there is a pricing advantage in doing so. The plan also denies the insured the ability to self-insure for a certain amount of terrorism risk or to purchase multiple layers of terrorism coverage. In addition to the problems that mandated coverage creates for consumers, it also unnecessarily preempts state law on form regulation by having the Federal government mandate the terms and conditions of coverage. The certainty provided by the exposure limits in our Bill and the assessment system in our Bill provides the proper incentives for commercial property and casualty insurers to provide terrorism risk coverage. Another problem with the LaFalce substitute is that the insurance mechanism that it creates does not effectively spread risk, prevent gaming, provide adequate protections to small insurers, or encourage the spreading of risk through reinsurance. While both Bills require that industry pay the first $5 billion in losses due to terrorism in the first year and the first $10 billion in subsequent years, the LaFalce plan does not effectively spread this risk throughout the industry. By having a $5 billion deductible with no provision of how these losses are calculated or paid, his plan competitively disadvantages small insurance companies who would not be able to absorb the tremendous losses that would be incurred by those small insurers before the industry assistance kicks in. To try to respond to the small insurer disadvantage, the LaFalce plan has an individual insurance company exposure limit of 7 percent of gross premium--not net premium as stated in his summary. This is a very important point in that gross premium numbers do not give credit to the insurer for the reinsurance that it has purchased. Thus, before federal assistance kicks in, the insurer would have to suffer losses equaling over 7 percent of its gross premium even though it has already spread much of the risk that it cannot cover to reinsurers. The result: insurers are not able to write as much insurance and assistance will not kick in for them until they have already been put into financial duress. Additionally, the LaFalce plan encourages gaming of the system. Insurers will delay claims and loss reports for months or years so that they occur after the industry deductible is reached. That way, they avoid having to absorb any of the losses themselves. Our plan does provide first dollar coverage once the triggers are met to prevent such gaming; and while the LaFalce plan does not require the industry to retain any losses after his proposal starts to provide assistance, our Bill always requires that the insurer absorb at least 10 percent of the losses at all times, regardless of federal assistance. Finally, the LaFalce substitute strips out the sovereign immunity provisions of H.R. 3210. Acts of terrorism give rise to very unique sets of facts and a complexity of interested parties that is uncommon in tort law. In the administration of the program established by this Act, it is essential that there is consistency and timely response. Multiple state forums awarding immense damage awards underwritten by federally supported insurance companies would result in a patchwork of inconsistent state court decisions all over the country that would impede the effective and fair implementation of this program. The lack of limited federal forums for claims would result in the kinds of tragic delays in the prompt compensation of victims as we have seen in other mass tort cases, such as the 1993 WTC bombing where cases are just now coming to trial. Equally as important are the prohibitions on punitive damage awards and joint and several liability for losses caused by terrorist attacks. Acts of terrorism differ fundamentally from other losses that the tort system is designed to deal with in that the overwhelmingly culpable party, the terrorists, will either not be before the court or their assets will be limited or unreachable. To subject effected parties of a terrorism attack and the United States taxpayer to punitive damage awards for the acts of suicidal and maniacal terrorists is a poor allocation of limited resources and simply unfair to the group of victims as a whole. Furthermore, to suggest that an effected party that is found to be 1 percent at fault for a negligent omission of some minor sort could be held responsible for 100 percent of damages due to a terrorist attack is beyond reason. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, all too often we pick up the telephone and dial a 1-800 number or dial a business enterprise and we are, by computer, referenced from department to department to department, and often are not even able to communicate with another human being to get an answer to our very simple question. Most of us see that simply as an aggravation, but when it happens to a veteran of military service when calling on his country to have a question answered, it is an insult. That is why I am grateful for the inclusion of a pilot program for 2 years which makes an effort to have a 1-800 veterans number. Amazingly, we will have a human being on the end of that phone. It is a long overdue service, and I think we should explore the potentials. It may be fraught with difficulty and difficult to perfect, but there is one thing that is for sure: The veterans who have given to this country are at least deserving of respectful treatment. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for taking this step towards what I think is an appropriate action for the veterans of our country.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 2505, ``The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001.'' Let me begin my saying that I am unequivocally opposed to the cloning of human beings either for reproduction or for research. The moral and ethical issues posed by human cloning are profound and cannot be ignored in the quest for scientific discovery. I intend to support this legislation and will vote against the Greenwood amendment. Let me be clear. Passage of H.R. 2505 will not stop medical research on the promising use of stem cells. This is an exciting area of research and I am confident this technology will produce results the significance of which we cannot fathom. Stem cell research will continue, but it does not have to continue at the expense of our human ethics or our religious morals. There is not ever a time, in my opinion, where it is proper for medical science to wholly create or clone a human being. The ethical and moral implications of such an act are staggering, and I believe my colleagues understand that. So if we can agree on the human cloning issue, we must now address the fears some of my colleagues have expressed on the future of stem cell research. The scientific objective in today's debate over stem cell research is having the ability to produce massive quantities of quality transplantable, tissue-matched pluripotent cell that provide extended therapeutic benefits without triggering immune rejection in the recipient. It has come to my attention that efforts have been underway for companies to conduct stem cell research using placentas from live births. I have become aware of at least one company that has pioneered the recovery of non-adult human pluripotent and multipotent stem cell from human afterbirth, traditionally regarded as medical waste. Importantly, the pluripotent stem cells discovered in postnatal placentas were not heretofore known to be present in human afterbirth, and can be collected in abundant quantities via a proprietary recovery method. These non-controversial cells are known as ``placental'' and ``umbilical'' stem cells, because they come from postnatal placentas, umbilical cords, and cord blood, from full-term births, and are classified separately and distinctly from those stem cells recovered from adults and embryos. The strength of this option is that it meets both the policy and scientific objectives while transcending ethical or moral controversy. We can solve the dilemma by building bipartisan coalition and simply turning the argument from ``What we oppose'' to ``What we all support.'' What I'm suggesting is a non-controversial, abundant source of high- quality stem cells that will significantly accelerate the pace at which stem cell therapies can be integrated into clinical use. They would offer the hope of renewable sources of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities, including ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, liver diseases and cancers. I would say to all of my colleagues, let's move forward to stop human cloning before it starts. Let's move forward with stem cell research using a source of stem cells that is both in abundant supply and in conformity with our respective ethical and moral beliefs.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation to provide additional Federal funding for the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program and invite all my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation. Our Nation is facing an epidemic in juvenile crime and education delinquency of historical proportion. Over 2,806 students drop out of high school each day, while another 17,297 students are expelled. Dropping out of school and failing to identify or working toward achieving personal goals is leading young people down a path of self- destruction. The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program was created in order to help these young people enhance their life skills, increase their educational levels, improve their employment potential, and provide tools and experience for success. Since 1993, over 27,800 at-risk youth have graduated from the program, and more than 19,170 of the graduates received their high school diploma or GED. The Youth ChalleNGe Program helps 16 to 18 year- old male and female high school dropouts complete their high school education; prepare for employment, higher education, or a career in the military; and obtain the skills necessary to succeed in life. All troubled youth should have an opportunity to turn their lives around and realize success. Unfortunately, because of federal funding restraints, only 24 states and Puerto Rico can offer this program. In addition, of the states that offer the program, only 37 percent of interested young adults who have applied have been able to participate because of the lack of funding. Currently, federal law caps federal spending for the Youth ChalleNGe Program at $62.5 million. States must share 35 percent of the cost while the federal government assumes 65 percent. By lifting the cap and adjusting the matching requirements, thousands of youths could be given the opportunity to participate in this program annually. The legislation I have drafted will completely eliminate the $62.5 million cap on Youth ChalleNGe Program spending, remove the mandate that directs excess Youth ChalleNGe Program funding to JROTC, and adjust the federal/state match from 65/35 to 75/25. I believe this is the right thing to do to help America's at-risk youth. This program is a success, and its performance outshines virtually every other federal program that targets at-risk youth. The benefits are proven and substantial. I invite my colleagues to review my legislation, and I respectfully request their support.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, in early August 1990, Iraqi military forces illegally invaded Kuwait, a neighboring sovereign state. Immediately, American military forces began deploying to the area to deter the Iraqis from further aggression. During Operation Desert Shield, the build-up phase for the later operation, Desert Storm, troops and supplies were put into motion and decisions were made about who, when, where, and how for the possible coming conflict should diplomatic efforts prove unfruitful. During this buildup period, it was decided there would be participation in this campaign by the reserve forces of the United States military; and the unit to represent the United States Air Force Reserve would be the 706th Fighter Squadron, along with supporting personnel, of the 926th Fighter Wing from New Orleans, Louisiana. Approximately 500 members of the 926th Fighter Wing were recalled to active duty and placed on military orders on Dec. 29, 1990. (Personnel of the 926th Security Forces Squadron had already served a tour of duty in Saudi Arabia in the fall of 1990 during the build-up phase of Operation Desert Shield.) On the evening of Jan. 1, 1991, the University of Tennessee was participating in the Sugar Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans as 18 combat-loaded A-10s took off from the Naval Air Station at Belle Chasse, Louisiana, and turned eastward toward Saudi Arabia. By Jan. 6, the 18 A-10s and the approximately 500 maintenance and support personnel would arrive at King Fahd International Airport to support the military operation. This was the first U.S. Air Force Reserve fighter unit to be activated by a presidential recall and then sent to serve in a combat military operation. The members of the 926th Fighter Wing were in country less than two weeks when, early in the morning, on Jan. 17, the first combat sorties were launched to strike military targets in Iraq and Kuwait. The war had begun. The early intent was to take down the enemy's communication ability, followed closely by removing their artillery assets, and demoralizing the ``elite'' Republican Guard. The air campaign that ensued was a complete success, resulting in a swift four-day ground war and a victory by allied forces. On Feb. 28, 1991, the war was over. Amid the joy of victory work continued, and preparations began for the demobilization of deployed American forces, including the return of the members of the 926th Fighter Wing who distinguished themselves in combat and served with honor alongside their active-duty counterparts. On May 17th, the last of the 18 A-10s and 500 people originally deployed to the region, returned safely to Naval Air Station, New Orleans, Louisiana. Mission Accomplished! All personnel and all aircraft deployed returned safely to home station. Since that time, members and aircraft of the 926th Fighter Wing have continued to answer the call to duty whenever and wherever needed. In 1995, approximately 300 members deployed to Aviano Air Base, Italy, in support of Operation Deny Flight. Members have also deployed in support of humanitarian missions in the Americas. Again, in 1998 members of the unit deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in support of Operation Southern Watch to support and help enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq instituted after Operation Desert Storm. In September and October 1999, A-10s and personnel from the wing returned to Kuwait to participate in Aerospace Expeditionary Force (AEF) 1. This tradition of service and sacrifice continues into the 21st century as in mid-January, 2001, members of the 926th Fighter Wing began deploying to Southwest Asia for the wing's second rotation on the AEF. Their mission this time being combat search and rescue for Operation Northern Watch. The successes of the 926th Fighter Wing during combat operations in Operation Desert Storm, and throughout all of the on-going missions since then, are due to the outstanding leadership, devotion to duty, and sacrifice of the men and women of the unit; and, the valuable support of their families. As a nation, we give thanks to the members of the 926th Fighter Wing, New Orleans, Louisiana, and their families, as we salute and honor them, during this 10-year anniversary of Operation Desert Storm, for their service to our country in the cause of freedom.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, Commodity Exchange Act reform is long overdue. The CEA has become an obstacle to the competitiveness of the US futures industry. It prohibits US futures exchanges from offering single stock futures while the same products are being created in London for international investors. It burdens futures exchanges with regulation that amounts to micromanagement, and that increases the cost of managing risk for American companies and financial institutions. Even worse, some at the CFTC have tried to apply CFTC regulations-- which don't even work well for the futures business--to banking activities, including bank deposits and swaps. Banks don't need a second regulator, not for their deposits and not for their swap business. CFTC regulation for swaps is so inappropriate that, if swaps were ever found to be futures contracts regulated by the CFTC, many of them would be illegal and unenforceable under CFTC rules. Swaps aren't futures and swaps aren't securities, and we must make that clear in federal law. The House Banking Committee, under the able leadership of Chairman Leach at our July 27 mark-up of this bill, added provisions to the House Agriculture Committee version that dealt with many of these problems. Our approach wasn't the most clear and straightforward, and I'll be the first to admit it. I would have preferred--and I still prefer--to simply add a definition of futures contracts to the Commodity Exchange Act so the questions of legal certainty for swaps would be completely resolved. But the Banking Committee approach was still effective, and it was included in the compromise version of this bill that was agreed to by Committee Chairmen from the House and Senate last week. In the bill going to the floor today, those protections for swaps are gone. This bill does not create legal certainty for all swap participants. It does not protect banks from duplicate regulation by the CFTC and SEC. It is not good enough to become law. Furthermore, the CFTC, an agency in search of a mission, will become an unwanted and unneeded regulator of e-commerce, particularly in the realm of financial services. The Bill contains a definition of electronic trading facility, and while it rules out CFTC regulation of some electronic trading, it opens the door to CFTC regulation of other electronic facilities. I wonder whether the e-commerce community is even aware of how this legislation might constrain the growth of electronic finance. We should not build a regulatory structure before it even exists, especially whether other countries are promoting unrestricted growth of such financial e-commerce platforms. We should not build a regulatory structure for e-commerce before we even know what it looks like. It is evident that these problems will not be solved on the House side. They must be tackled by the House working together with the Senate, and in particular with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Phil Gramm. I look forward to productive discussions with the Senator that will enable the Congress to adopt responsible guidelines for financial products.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as a recent high school graduate many, many years ago, I had the occasion to open my mail and there in the mailbox was a letter from my Congressman. I was so shocked to think that he first knew that I had graduated high school and that he would send me such a nice congratulatory note. Many years later, I was at the dedication of a new building project in the congressional district and in the audience was Congressman Jimmy Morrison. And I reminded him of his kind act of courtesy in sending me this congratulatory letter in which he not only said ``Congratulations on your fine academic achievement. But should you ever have occasion to come to Washington, I certainly want to invite you.'' In that context, I extended my appreciation for that offer and accepted his kind invitation to come to Congress. Congressman Jimmy Morrison was more than just a good political figure. He had exemplary courage. In fact, he was a leader in the civil rights fights of the 1960s. And many believe it was his belief and conviction in the action of civil rights that brought his long and distinguished congressional career to an end. But it was also exemplary of the core of what Congressman Morrison's strengths really were. He was a courageous person. Serving in office from 1943 to 1967, he was never afraid to take a stand whether controversial or not. Many might say about many Louisiana politicians that at times they can be flamboyant. Certainly Congressman Morrison was no exception to that observation. But throughout it all, he was a leader. He is a leader who is known in the State for his accomplishments but also as a political legend. But he is known as a legend for all the right reasons.