Tom Feeney

Mr. FEENEY

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

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

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

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, last year, I cosponsored legislation with Congressman Bob Goodlatte to help stop the widespread growth of gambling over the internet. Though Federal law already prohibits gambling over telephone wires, the passage of this legislation was necessary to maintain the original intent of the law while also bringing it up to speed with the explosion of current and future technology. However, this update of the law made clear that it would only affect interstate commerce, respecting the rights of States by leaving to them the decision whether and how to regulate gambling within their own borders. New legislation before the Financial Services Committee attempts to undo all of this previous work, instead granting the Federal Government the expansive and exclusive right to regulate all online gambling. This new legislation would represent the first time in history that the Federal Government would be given power to issue gambling licenses, and it marks a significant shift away from allowing States to determine for themselves what type of policy is best. Proponents of this legislation state that the bill offers States the right to ``opt out'' of this regulation, but the truth is that the States already have the right to determine their own policy towards gambling without any broader Federal regulation that threatens to undermine their control over licensing standards and enforcement actions. September 28, 2007. Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: We, the Attorneys General of our respective States, have grave concerns about H.R. 2046, the ``Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007.'' We believe that the bill would undermine States' traditional powers to make and enforce their own gambling laws. On March 21, 2006, 49 NAAG members wrote to the leadership of Congress: We encourage the United States Congress to help combat the skirting of state gambling regulations by enacting legislation which would address Internet gambling, while at the same time ensuring that the authority to set overall gambling regulations and policy remains where it has traditionally been most effective: at the state level. Congress responded by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), which has effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the American marketplace. But now, less than a year later, H.R. 2046 proposes to do the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal licensing program that would permit Internet gambling companies to do business with U.S. customers. The Department of the Treasury would alone decide who would receive federal licenses and whether the licensees were complying with their terms. This would represent the first time in history that the federal government would be responsible for issuing gambling licenses. A federal license would supersede any state enforcement action, because 5387 in H.R. 2046 would grant an affirmative defense against any prosecution or enforcement action under any Federal or State law to any person who possesses a valid license and complies with the requirements of H.R. 2046. This divestment of state gambling enforcement power is sweeping and unprecedented. The bill would legalize Internet gambling in each State, unless the Governor clearly specifies existing state restrictions barring Internet gambling in whole or in part. On that basis, a State may ``opt out'' of legalization for all Internet gambling or certain types of gambling. However, the opt-out for types of gambling does not clearly preserve the right of States to place conditions on legal types of gambling. Thus, for example, if the State permits poker in licensed card rooms, but only between 10 a.m. and midnight, and the amount wagered cannot exceed $100 per day and the participants must be 21 or older, the federal law might nevertheless allow 18-year-olds in that State to wager much larger amounts on poker around the clock. Furthermore, the opt-outs may prove illusory. They will likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization has already shown itself to be hostile to U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. If it strikes down state opt-outs as unduly restrictive of trade, the way will be open to the greatest expansion of legalized gambling in American history and near total preemption of State laws restricting Internet gambling. H.R. 2046 effectively nationalizes America's gambling laws on the Internet, ``harmonizing'' the law for the benefit of foreign gambling operations that were defying our laws for years, at least until UIGEA was enacted. We therefore oppose this proposal, and any other proposal that hinders the right of States to prohibit or regulate gambling by their residents. Sincerely, Douglas Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland. Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida.

Mr. FEENEY

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

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would ask on the last vote, myself from Florida, the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Georgia be permitted to cast their vote. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey would vote ``no.'' I would vote ``no.'' The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentlewoman. I would suggest that the real math is that this amendment would still anticipate a $6.5 billion increase, yet it is being called a cut. I had to come down from my office, because I heard that if you were an advocate for taxpayers, you are now part of the fringe of this Congress. If you are an advocate for fiscal responsibility, suddenly you are part of the fringe. Sadly, I would have to acknowledge, if you care about fiscal responsibility and taxpayers in this Congress, you are becoming part of the fringe. Increasing the budget expenditures by 4.3 percent is somehow going to lead to the end of civilization and the death of all of the children out there and throwing people out of hospital beds. I would remind all of my colleagues, we have a 10th amendment in this country. Over the years, we now have a $150 billion-plus annual budget to deal with things like labor, health care and education. It isn't a question of whether or not we are going to spend money in America on health care and education. It is a question of who does the spending and who gets to control it. I would ask every American, as the Federal budget has skyrocketed and we have taken control and micromanaged their health care and education, has public education gotten cheaper? Has it gotten better? Has America's health care system, as we spend so much money on health care, gotten cheaper and gotten better? Winston Churchill once famously said, there is nothing one government learns so readily from the last as how to spend other people's money, i.e., the taxpayers. Sadly, this new majority did not learn the lesson that some of us learned in the last several Congresses: we are spending too much, we are abusing American taxpayers, and the notion is that if you care for children, if you care for people that need health care, you have to confiscate as much money out there from taxpayers and working people as possible and you have to micromanage the way it gets spent on so-called ``their behalf.'' The bureaucrats are happy. The regulators are happy. The politicians in Washington are fat and happy. But the American taxpayer and the people that need real education services and need choices in health care are not happy. With that, on behalf of the fringe that cares about taxpayers in this Congress, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Gordon for bringing this resolution successfully through his committee, and I rise in support of House Resolution 487, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 487 recognizes that modeling and simulation technology is a national critical technology essential for America's long-term national security and her economic prosperity. As a member of the House Modeling and Simulation Caucus, and representing one of the largest modeling and simulation clusters in the United States, I urge that the House pass this resolution to help retain America's lead in this high-technology field. Your child's or your grandchild's video game represents one product of the modeling and simulation industry. Aircraft training simulators provide another well-known example. Simulation uses combinations of sound, sight and motion to make you feel that you are experiencing an actual event. Modeling involves the complex computer models used to create these artificial environments. For training purposes, modeling and simulation places people in an artificial, but seemingly real, environment and puts them through their paces. Unlike live training, if you make a mistake, you get to live another day and learn valuable lessons. In the latter part of the 20th century, the U.S. military revolutionized warfighting by emphasizing this high-fidelity training that simulates the stress and decision-making of actual combat. Servicemen and -women gain experience and judgment previously only earned on the actual battlefield, often through serious injury and death. Substantial amounts of that simulation and training come from my congressional district where representatives of all service branches collaborate with the University of Central Florida and private contractors of all sizes to produce these training systems. As other speakers will note, other clusters of modeling and simulation excellence exist throughout the United States. But such training expands beyond military uses. Commercial aviation's enviable safety record is due in part to aircraft simulator training that prepares cockpit crews to handle complex and fast-paced emergencies. In that vein, medical simulation is an especially promising and emerging field. By creating artificial, but seemingly real, environments, doctors and nurses can hone their skills in using sophisticated and invasive medical technology or in treating severely injured patients. Beyond training, modeling and simulation replicates complex environments, allowing planners and designers to ask various ``what if'' questions. Transportation planners simulate highway networks to determine how best to alleviate congestion. Emergency management experts simulate large-scale natural or manmade disasters to better improve coordinated emergency responses. Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to better use modeling and simulation in order to protect life and property during such disasters. Because of these growing numbers of uses, the modeling and simulation industry is rapidly growing and demands the best students with extensive math and science backgrounds including psychology, medicine, computer science, mathematics, engineering and physics. In addition to the cluster in Central Florida, there's a great cluster of modeling and simulation in the Fourth Congressional District represented by Congressman Randy Forbes, and I'd like to indulge my colleagues to paraphrase some important comments by Congressman Forbes and then would like to insert his comments, the original text, in the Record. Representative Forbes points out that we can test a new airplane in a wind tunnel without risking human life and without building full scale airplanes. The benefits and applications of this technology are immediately obvious. We can learn a system in a more cost-effective, timely and safer manner. And, furthermore, we can simulate thousands of scenarios over and over again on a computer when it is too hazardous, expensive, or impossible to perform real world tests. So, in short, modeling simulation tools allow us to understand complex interactions that would otherwise be impossible to comprehend using other means. If modeling and simulation sounds like it has the promise to dramatically change the way we apply science in our world, the fact is that it has already done so. This resolution seeks to recognize the countless efforts of professionals who have taken this technology and applied it to make the United States a safer and more prosperous Nation. The impact of modeling and simulation technology is felt in the private sector, academia, government, and across disciplines. Modeling and simulation tools have streamlined the design and manufacture of cars, homes, boats and airplanes, to name a few devices. Modeling and simulation software designed in Illinois, for example, assists automotive engineers in designing engines that are more efficient, while reducing emissions that impact adversely our environment. Modeling and simulation analysis is also used in the engineering of major roads, bridges, harbors, railways and airports, all of which lead to increased transportation capacity and safety. At the United States Joint Forces Command in the Fourth District of Virginia, represented by Congressman Forbes, modeling and simulation tools have accelerated the effectiveness of joint interagency exercises run by the command. One of their experimentation projects is to enhance our national security by running scenarios in an urban combat environment. The goal is to provide lessons learned for our troops in theater before they encounter the same situation on the ground. Because of these kinds of valuable contributions, this resolution honors modeling and simulation by recognizing it as a national critical technology. National critical technology refers to those technologies essential to develop long-term national security and economic prosperity for our country. One example of the success historically of modeling and simulation is the famous Manhattan Project. It was early models and simulators that allowed scientists to develop an understanding of nuclear chain reactions that ultimately led to the end of World War II. America's military have used simulators to train personnel for flying aircraft, ships, and we now use simulators to train soldiers and marines to detect roadside IEDs. Additionally, in the past, medical malpractice insurance rates have included artificially high premiums because it was difficult to reduce the number of medical errors for certain medical procedures that were not routinely performed. Today, insurance discounts are being provided to anesthesiologists and obstetricians who include simulated procedures in their biennial training requirements. Madam Speaker, the advantages that we have reaped from modeling and simulation go across all congressional districts and benefit all Americans in ways that are often unseen. I am thrilled to be a cosponsor of this resolution today. I want to thank the chairman. The future is very bright and modeling, simulation and training will lead the way to make it a safer, brighter future for all Americans. Central Florida represents one of the larger if not the largest Modeling and Simulation clusters in the United States. The Navy's NAVAIR Orlando and the Army's PEO-STRI are based in my District. Over 100 Modeling and Simulation companies directly employ over 6,000 people. Having reached a critical mass in Central Florida, the Modeling and Simulation industry continues to expand. Central Florida achieved critical mass by leveraging relationships among military, academic, industry, and government entities. Locally, we refer to this rich and complex web of cooperation, collaboration, and partnerships as Team Orlando. Over 50 years before ``jointness'' and ``transformation'' became favored concepts in the Department of Defense, the Navy and Army demonstrated these traits in Orlando by starting a partnership for the development of training systems. The Air Force and Marines joined as full partners during the 1990s. All military services use a common infrastructure of facilities, contracting, administration, and technology. Collaboration with academia is demonstrated by the University of Central Florida and its Institute for Simulation and Training. The private sector is represented by a portfolio of Modeling and Simulation companies. Recognized and established entities are present such as Lockheed Martin and SAIC. But Central Florida is also home to scores of innovative, entrepreneurial start-ups such as IDEAL Technologies and Vcom3D. The lessons learned from Central Florida's experience can be applied nationally. Modeling and Simulation isn't a zero-sum game where success in one geographic area comes at the expense of another. This technology holds so much promise that everyone benefits from national cooperation and collaboration. Today's resolution will help create a unified national identity for this technology. And it will raise this technology's profile within the Department of Defense, other government agencies, and the private sector. Modeling and simulation allows us to better understand and control complex systems ranging from highway systems, manufacturing and processing facilities, and emergency management systems. Modeling and simulation also trains people to handle complex and fast-paced situations ranging from warfighting to emergency medical care. So I urge support of this resolution recognizing modeling and simulation as a National Critical Technology. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. I too want to thank Congressman Flake and the cosponsors of this amendment. Our friends on the Democratic side have two arguments. Number 1, they say this is a superfluous, it's a red herring because nobody's talking about it. But we've already had two of our colleagues on the Democratic side say that they like talking about and maybe rehabilitating the fairness doctrine, which is a bad misnomer. In fact, this is the leftist censorship doctrine, and we ought to refer to it as such. The second argument that they give us is that Republicans ought to like the fairness doctrine because we're always complaining about liberal bias in the media. And to that I would say this: The difference is that Rush Limbaugh knows and admits he's a conservative. Dan Rather and Katie Couric don't know and they don't admit that they are liberal. That is the difference. Rush will get regulated; the others will not. And I would tell you that the first amendment, freedom of speech, means nothing if it means the government can tell you what you must say or what you must publish. The freedom of speech inherently means the freedom not to say certain thoughts or certain words. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, no conservative, once said: ``Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.'' In China, North Korea, and elsewhere, they have their ``fairness doctrines.'' We don't need one.

Mr. FEENEY

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

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentleman. The chairman is very sophisticated. He understands free markets more than anybody even though he doesn't always believe in free markets. But the truth of the matter is we have lost our capital market leadership for the first time in 100 years. There may be other variables, and I would agree with the chairman. But one of the variables is Sarbanes- Oxley is discouraging investment in America. By the way, American investors are sending their money overseas. And I would ask the chairman very briefly: Do you agree or not agree that overtaxation, overregulation through Sarbanes-Oxley, and section 404, by the way, was never debated in the committee that you now chair. It was done in the Senate.

Mr. FEENEY. Would the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. FEENEY. Was 404 ever debated?

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FEENEY. When Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, America had roughly 48 percent of the world capital market formation. We're down to about 39 percent. Mr. Chairman, I ask you, because you're a good friend and you're smart about this stuff, at what point will you say that there's a problem?

Mr. FEENEY. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) because he has a great amendment here. And I also want to recognize my chairman, Mr. Frank, because he is a passionate advocate for doing the right thing and balancing markets and freedom versus the social good. By the way, we are not renouncing everything that the Bush administration has done. Tax cuts and pro-growth issues, the fact that we have not had a terrorist strike since 9/11 are all a few things that we ought to recognize about the Bush administration. But look, Congress messed up before Congressman Garrett and I got here. We are now outsourcing because of section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley America's 100-year lead in world capital markets. Like it or not, this was never debated in the House. It was added in the Senate; 264 words, section 404 was added. Nobody knew what the cost of this would be. By the way, the Securities and Exchange Commission testified in the Senate that it would cost the average company $92,000 a year. It turns out to be more like 30 times that. Being off by 30 times is bad work even by government standards. It's amazing. I will tell you that one study published by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institute says that the drag on the American economy is equivalent to a $1.1 trillion regulatory tax on the U.S. economy. That is about an 8 percent tax on everything we do. It is unbelievable.

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

Mr. FEENEY. I will tell you this, before Sarbanes-Oxley, foreign initial public offerings raised 90 cents of every new dollar in America. Now 90 cents of new dollar raised by international public offerings is raised overseas. We are outsourcing America's 100-year lead in capital markets. If we want Shanghai and Hong Kong and London to be the leader in capital markets, so be it. But we are fiddling while the capital markets burn. I admire my chairman, Mr. Frank. I think it is too little too late to let the SEC fiddle while the capital markets of America burn to their death.

Mr. FEENEY

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

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 448, 449, and 450 I would like to express my regret for missing votes on the House Floor on Monday, June 11, 2007. My flight, which would have gotten me in town before votes, was delayed 3 hours. I did not get in until 9 pm. Votes: H.R. 2356--the resolution acknowledging Father's Day; S. 676-- Inter-American Foundation Board; H. Res. 418--recognizing and welcoming the delegation of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from the Caribbean. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FEENEY

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

Mr. FEENEY. I'm very grateful. This is very important. As Congressman King just told you, we have a problem on our border most Congressmen and few Americans know about. I'm a skeptical guy, even when a good patriot and friend of mine like Steve King tells me something. So I went down personally and inspected a machine gun nest 75 miles inside the Arizona border run by coyotes. It was the 13th in a list of machine gun nests where they were armed with surveillance techniques, where they were armed with radios, and they used these facilities inside our border to facilitate drug trafficking and illegal immigration. I do not believe that our government is enforcing our own security. There's nothing more important we can do than to support symbolically the King amendment to send a message we want to take these machine gun nests out. It was the Bureau of Land Management that took me up there. Why? Because they are cleaning up the mess that these coyotes leave behind them as they are smuggling poison drugs and illegals across our border. I saw it with my own eyes, or I would not have believed it. Please support the King amendment, if nothing else than to send a message we want our borders secure and our laws enforced.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would say that I really miss the grand old days of the liberal tax-and-spend party, because the great liberals in our Nation's recent history were never ashamed about being honest with the American people that they wanted to raise taxes and they wanted to increase spending. In fact, they campaigned on increasing taxes and they campaigned on increasing spending. One of the problems we have with the hypocrisy in what is going on in the last 6 months is that we are dramatically increasing taxes, $392 billion, secretly and surreptitiously, through the budget bill that repeals the most pro-growth tax cuts since Ronald Reagan was President. And now we have a process by which American taxpayers' money will be spent in secret, behind closed doors and in the dark. I really admire the grand old liberal days, when raising taxes and increasing spending was something that was done just right out in the open, where everybody could see it and debate it. I have heard in the last 10 hours of debate that Republicans have been accused of being repetitious. It is better to be repetitive than disingenuous or hypocritical, in my view. Winston Churchill once famously said that there is nothing that one government learns so readily from another as how to spend other people's money. I would tell you that there is a critical process that is being undermined here that is important to a functioning Congress and that will embarrass this institution if we don't stop it right now. That is why this debate is so important. It is not about $1 million or $1 billion here or there. It is about how we go forward in spending the people's money in a transparent, honest and open fashion. We have had our Democratic colleagues point out, I think fairly, that Republicans maybe aren't in the best glass house to throw stones when it comes to the issue of spending money or earmarks. I will tell you that it is very important that we acknowledge Republican failures. Not all of us were happy with some of the things that happened in my last 6 years. For example, I voted against numerous GOP-led appropriation bills. I voted for virtually all of Congressman Jeff Flake's amendments. I was on occasion punished by having my own priorities stripped out of bills. I voted for cuts in every GOP appropriations bill in my first 6 years. I criticized our Republican President for overspending and for not exercising his veto to discipline Congress. I criticized my own leadership. I supported every reform effort I can think of in the methods of opening up earmark processes to transparency and honesty. I even went on national TV and said that the Republican-led Congress was spending money like drunken sailors. I have to tell you, a Navy captain in California admonished me. He said Congress was not spending money like drunken sailors; that drunken sailors spend their own money, and, when they run out, they quit spending. And I have to give it to him. So I want to tell you that not all of us are coming here and ridiculing things that we have not ridiculed in the past. I applauded the Democratic reforms that were promised in terms of transparency and earmarks. As soon as we were told back in January that the reform- minded Democrats were going to open up the process and make it transparent, I said publicly that that would be one good thing about a Congress that I otherwise disagreed with its priorities. But here I am 6 months later ruing the day that I ever said something nice about intentions, because the intentions never materialized. In fact, we have gone dramatically backwards. We are now going to have 434 of us give our proxy to the appropriations chairmen, all the cardinals and Chairman Obey, and we are going to let them decide how to spend the people's money. We did away with proxy voting decades ago in Congress, and now we are going to have spending by proxy. That is wrong. It is fundamentally an affront to the American people, and it undermines the entire legislative process. I can tell you that I was Speaker of the Florida legislature, and when there was trouble because of poor spending, it was almost always due to lack of honesty, openness, and transparency. And the Democratic leadership will rue the day, sooner than later, that it put a cloud of secrecy around spending the taxpayers' dollars. They will regret going back on their word.