John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, though I found several provisions in this bill today to be good, I am afraid that in the long-run this legislation will hurt credit card consumers, so I reluctantly voted against it. Some worthwhile provisions of note include consumer protections. Raising interest rates without fair and timely notice is wrong, as is applying a penalty interest rate to your existing debt. Another good provision provides for adequate time to receive and pay your bill on time using the mail. I particularly liked the section that protects young people from getting in over their heads before they even start adult life. My concerns are that there will be fewer credit cards and less credit to individuals and businesses that need it. Fees will go up on those who tried to pay on time. I am afraid this bill in the end will extend our recession, cost those who currently hold cards more and deny those seeking cards access to the credit they need very badly.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, due to mechanical problems relating to US Airways flight #859, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to vote on rollcalls 267, 268, and 269. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I have known Jack Kemp for more than three decades. First of all, I want to join the House and my colleagues and every Member of Congress in supporting this resolution to honor both Jack Kemp's life and accomplishments. We all have our stories about Jack Kemp. Anyone who met Jack Kemp cannot be left without the memory of the special sparkle in his eye. All you had to do was see Jack Kemp and see that special sparkle. There was also a special warmth in his greeting. When you met Jack Kemp, you met someone special. And he greeted you warmly whether you were just an average person on the street or held the highest office in this land. We will all remember Jack Kemp for his sharp mind, and always with his new ideas. Jack Kemp was a man of his time and a man ahead of his time. We have lost, Mr. Speaker, a great American. He cared about people. The quote in this resolution, as Jack Kemp said, and I quote from Jack, ``There are no limits to our future''--

Mr. MICA. In conclusion, again, Jack Kemp's own words about people, ``There are no limits to our future if we don't put limits on our people.'' He believed in people. He believed in this country. He will be missed by all of us. It is fitting, again, that we celebrate and recognize the accomplishments of a great American's life. To Joanne and his family, we send our sympathies and condolences.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I want to express my concern regarding the $3.5 trillion Federal budget, S. Con. Res. 13, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. The size of the deficit in this budget, some $1.7 trillion for one year, is almost beyond comprehension. This could be a prescription for future debt disaster for our Nation's finances. Even the United States can go bankrupt if we continue spending at this rate. In the first 100 days of the new administration, Congress and the administration have run up more debt than the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. The spending in the first three months includes a $787 billion so-called stimulus, $406 billion Omnibus increasing discretionary spending by 10% this year and hundreds of billions in TARP dollars. Not only does the 2010 budget represent astronomical deficit spending, it also raises taxes by $1.5 trillion (that's trillion) dollars. At some point soon this deficit spending, taxation and increased national indebtedness will have dramatic and negative consequences for our Nation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank you so much. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding to me. I thank him for his leadership and also for calling this Special Order tonight to talk about the Fair Tax and about the subject of taxation which has sort of gotten brushed under the carpet and not been considered in the 111th Congress, or for that matter in the past Congress. The Fair Tax has not been given a fair hearing or a fair chance. I can't come before the House and talk about the subject without complimenting the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). Mr. Linder certainly is an inspiration for moving this proposal forward, not only in Congress, but across the Nation. We were pleased to have him in my Congressional district to speak on the Fair Tax and other matters before Congress. There is no question that without John Linder, this topic would be totally forgotten both in the Congress and across the country. I come before Congress at a time when we have a new administration, and I think we all wish the President well. We wish him success. The country is hurting economically, and we don't want one person without a job. We don't want one person who has a problem paying their mortgage or losing their home. We don't want people to suffer because they don't have health insurance or an opportunity for education or the great opportunities that this Nation provides. Unfortunately, this new administration also has not considered the Fair Tax. I think they have considered or are considering just about every other tax. I don't have enough time to cite all of them, but if you ever want to see new taxes, look at the budget that has been rolled out by the new administration. Some are hidden. Some have fancy, clever names. There is the cap-and-trade which would impose higher costs for energy users. Someone told me it is over $3,128 annually in higher cost for every household. That is a new tax. It has a clever name, but they have no problem imposing another tax on people who are already hurting and having difficulty in paying their energy bills. The new administration is looking at again a host of other ways to tax people, but not looking at the Fair Tax, which would probably be the simplest, one of the fairest means of assessing costs to run our government. Now they are talking about new taxes on small business, taxes for anyone who makes $250,000 a year, taxes on charitable giving, taxes on certain housing and financial transactions, bringing back the death tax, and there are some taxes that under the Bush administration needed to be extended and they will let them expire. So I think they are finding every way to tax but not looking at probably the simplest, most honest approach to again raising revenue, and that we think is the option of the Fair Tax. It is kind of interesting, too, in the new crowd we have folks we find don't mind raising new taxes because a lot of them haven't been paying those taxes or are having difficulty explaining both to congressional committees and the American public and others that they couldn't figure out the taxes, or their highly paid CPAs or accountants couldn't figure out the morass of regulations and all of the terms in the thousands of pages of Tax Code that everybody has to comply with. This is not a laughing matter, folks. We have buried ourselves in tax law that again would probably reach higher than me if it was all stacked up here on these desks at which I am pleased to speak tonight. But again, I think that it is vital and I would appeal to the leadership of the House and those on the Ways and Means Committee and other committees in the Congress to give the Fair Tax a fair chance. Give it a fair hearing. Give it a chance to be debated in committee and here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Instead of this long list of new taxes that we hear coming out almost daily from the new administration to raise revenue, to look at a means of a very simple, economical, efficient reasons of raising revenue, eliminating the red tape and eliminating the questionable thousands of pages that people are having difficulty with, whether they are high Wall Street smart executives being considered for the highest posts in our land, or the average taxpayer who is struggling to compile their taxes. I know that people are saying that Mr. Mica made this up, but I came from my office and almost tripped over a little stack that I have on the floor that I have to get to this week, and that is my taxes, to prepare that complicated--and thank goodness I have been out of business and the private sector for some time--so what used to be probably 2 or 3 inches of tax returns and sitting down for some time with my CPA and accountant is a much smaller, less complicated affair; but nonetheless, it is complicated. And many people, obviously, have difficulty complying with the thousands and thousands of pages and rules and regulations that are interpreted differently. So this is the time, I think, to give this proposal which has been developed by some here in Congress a fair chance, a fair hearing. Let's not sweep it under the carpet for another 2 years, but let's give it an honest hearing and look at how we can eliminate a huge bureaucracy and red tape. And so important today in creating jobs, whether it is in my district which is hurting for jobs, or across the country, the issue of competitiveness in the world markets, and nothing would allow us to compete more than a fair and equitable tax system that many other nations in the world have turned to, and many of our competitors have turned to, which make us less competitive in our jobs and products, and ability to compete in this global market. I am here tonight to join my colleagues in asking that we give the Fair Tax a fair hearing and a fair chance and fair consideration in the Congress rather than the host of taxes that are being cast upon us and the Nation to pay by the administration at this time. I thank you for the opportunity to join you tonight for a few minutes in this Special Order. And again, I praise your work and hope that we get a fair hearing on the Fair Tax.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding, and appreciate his leadership. As our ranking Republican leader on the Water Resources Subcommittee, I also want to thank Mr. Oberstar, my chairman of the full committee, who I am pleased to work with on our side of the aisle in what has been I think an example for the Congress, a bipartisan relationship, during the last 2 years. I want to compliment him on the water resources bill that we did together, when we sat down and we said we had not reauthorized water resources legislation for some 7 years, and we made a commitment together that we thought was in the best interest of the Nation. Previously, the authorization levels were $4 billion or $5 billion. The bill that we offered, and there had been a backlog of projects and need for investment in our water resources infrastructure, was a $24 billion measure which, unfortunately, got vetoed by the former President. But I helped in leading the 107th veto override in the history of the Congress, because both Mr. Oberstar and I, Democrats and Republicans, agreed. There were some disagreements with the administration, but we agreed that we had to invest in this Nation's infrastructure; that our sewer systems, our water systems, the basic infrastructure of this country needed that investment. We can't have in the United States Third-World water and sewer systems or storm drainage systems or antiquated municipal systems that serve our people, and essential public services that are outdated, aging, crumbling. So we made that commitment together. Now, I was noticing that this legislation here, we passed five bills last time. Four of the bills, and I have the votes here, were all over 360 votes, a very small number of people in opposition to four of the votes. I think I supported all four of the measures. We did combine, however, in here an important bill that the chairman led, the provisions of House Resolution 720, that reauthorized State resolving funds and provides $13 billion over 5 years in Federal assistance to further capitalize the funds for these projects, and this is a very important fund. Now, let me just say that while I am supportive of the overall legislation, even the level of funding that we put in here, I do have one reservation about the extension of the requirement for prevailing wage. And this is not a union-set wage; that is not the issue; it is a prevailing wage, and the way it is assessed in some of our areas. We have 18 States that will be penalized by having their funds that previously weren't subject to this, and they are State funds, and funds that come back into their fund are now also made subject to this prevailing Federal wage provision. And that is the one objection I do have to this legislation. Another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) will offer an amendment, which we all agreed should be fully debated and heard. But that is my issue. Now, if that provision comes out of the bill, I would support the entire measure. I am sorry that this small point that I disagree on would cause me not to support this bill on final passage if it is included. But this is basically a good piece of legislation. It does have a question about extension of some of these things, these prevailing wage issues and, again, the way they assess this prevailing wage; and maybe we should go back and change this. First of all, I have no problem with prevailing wage, and we should have it in our large urban areas. We should also give States discretion to set levels of wage even beyond the Federal requirement, and some of those jurisdictions do. We do have a Federal minimum wage, so no one is trying to make people work for less than the Federal minimum. But sometimes the area in which we assess that prevailing wage does expand into some of the smaller communities. So they are going to be paying more and getting less, or marginal projects will get left behind because they don't have the resources that they can expend. And it does, again, diminish the amount of money that they can have available by this new requirement. So that is the one area of disagreement we have. I compliment the staff, the ranking member's, Ms. Johnson--I don't see her here today--Mr. Oberstar, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for their leadership on this issue, and I hope we can proceed. And I hope that even if this does pass today with that provision, that we can work with the other body and make the basic provisions of this legislation the law of the land and improve our infrastructure.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Energy and Water section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account for the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, FL. I have received $4.019 million in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Florida Inland Navigation District, 1314 Marcinski Road, Jupiter, Fl 33477. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the maintenance dredging of the IWW in portions of the IWW in St. Johns, Duval, St. Lucie, Martin and Indian River Counties. The Intracoastal Waterway in Florida annually: transports over 1.7 million tons of commercial cargo and over 500,000 recreational vessels; increases property values by $38.4 billion, and; provides $18 billion in economic output which includes $6 billion in personal wages and 203,519 jobs. Studies have shown that these benefits would be reduced by over 50% if the waterway is not properly maintained. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Buses and Bus Facilities for the Seminole County, Florida. I have received $1,425,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Seminole County, 1101 East First St., Sanford, FL 32771. The FY 2009 funding will be used to construct bus stations in Seminole County, Florida in the cities of Altamonte, Lake Mary, Longwood and Sanford. The cities have received the necessary environmental clearances to move forward with land acquisition. This project is eligible under SAFETEA-LU program authorization. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, 1 am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Highway Administration Account for TCSP-Transportation and Community and System Preservation for Flagler County. I have received $237,500 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Flagler County, 1769 East Moody Blvd., Bunnell, FL 32110. The FY 2009 funding will used for the construction of the Colbert Lane to Belle Terre segment of the Lehigh Trail in Flagler County, Florida. No previous federal funding, eligible for funds under SAFETEA-LU program authorization. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Highway Administration Account for the Central Winds Park Water Taxi Project, Winter Springs, Florida. I have received $190,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Winter Springs, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, FL 32708. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the design, permitting and construction for a water taxi launch site to provide transportation between communities located on Lake Jesup in Seminole County. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Central Florida Commuter Rail System Project. I have received $13 million in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee St., Tallahassee, FL 32399. The FY 2009 funding will support purchasing right of way for the station properties and conduct final design for Phase 1. The project is a 61-mile, 17-station commuter rail system being built on existing right-of-way from the DeLand Amtrak Station in Volusia County to Poinciana Industrial Park in Osceola County, through downtown Orlando, Florida. The project was approved by the Federal Transit Administration to enter preliminary engineering in March 2007 and anticipates beginning revenue operations in 2011 (Phase 1) and 2013 (Phase 2). The Central Florida Commuter Rail System is authorized under SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), Section 3043(b)(3). Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Winter Park Intermodal Facility Project. I have received $950,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is City of Winter Park, Fl, 150 W. Morse Blvd., Winter Park, FL 32789. The FY 2009 funding will be used for construction and facility improvements to the Amtrak Station in Winter Park, Florida to accommodate additional public transit and the Central Florida Commuter Rail system due to start in 2010. This project is eligible under SAFETEA-LU program authorization. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Transportation, HUD section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Federal Transit Administration Account for the Buses and Bus Facilities for the St Johns County Council on Aging. I have received $1,472,500 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is St Johns County, 180 Marine St., St. Augustine, FL 32084. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the construction of new transit facilities and fleet replacement in St Johns County, Florida. This project has received federal funding in FY04, FY05 and FY06 and is eligible under SAFETEA-LU program authorization. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, HHS, Education section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Administration Account for the Catholic Charities of Central Florida Mobile Health Unit. I have received $190,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Catholic Charities of Central Florida, 1771 N. Sermoran Blvd., Orlando, FL 32807. The FY 2009 funding will be used toward the purchase and equip a Mobile Health Unit (MHU) to serve the most vulnerable uninsured residents in Central Florida. A medically equipped 35 ft. MHU is a critical tool that will provide immediate basic health to the uninsured men, women and children with the most urgent needs who lack access to transportation, child care, inability of working poor to take time off from their jobs and at-risk seniors without Medicare Part B in underserved communities. The Mobile Health Unit will serve an estimated 4,000 people per year equaling a taxpayer/hospital savings of $1,980,000 in indigent care costs. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Labor, HHS, Education section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Administration Account for the School of Nursing at the Bethune-Cookman University. I have received $330,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Bethune-Cookman University, 640 Dr. Mary McCleod Bethune Blvd., Daytona Beach, FL 32114-3099. The FY 2009 funding will be used for toward the completion of the $3.5 million renovation of a 37,000 sq. ft. facility to house the expansion of the School of Nursing. The building will include Smart Classrooms, Simulation and Skills Laboratories, a Lecture Hall, Seminar and Conference Rooms, Administrative and Faculty Offices and the innovative, community focused Wellness Center. The University received federal funding for this project in FY08 in the HUD account. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Interior and Environment FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Account for the Volusia County Integrated Water Resources Project. I have received $500,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the St. Johns River Water Management District, 4049 Reid Street Palatka, FL 32178-1429. The FY 2009 funding will be used to integrate alternative water supplies in Volusia County, to serve the collective water supply needs of the local governments. These alternative supplies will reduce the projected regional groundwater deficits. This project will develop up to 30 million gallons per day of additional water supply from the St. Johns River and potentially other alternative water sources. This funding is needed in order to ensure the availability of an affordable supply of water for use by public water supply and possibly by wastewater utility customers in the Volusia County area, to avoid competition among users of traditional groundwater sources for the limited groundwater supplies in the project area and to reduce the significant threat to water resources and related natural systems that would result if withdrawals of groundwater were allowed to occur beyond their sustainable limits. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Interior and Environment FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Environmental Protection Agency, STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Account for the Potable Water System Improvement Project, City of Crescent City, Florida. I have received $500,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Crescent City, Florida, 3 N. Summit St., Crescent City, Fl 32112. The FY 2009 funding will be used for the replacement of asbestos cement lines with PVC water lines, existing asbestos cement lines have been cracking and corroding and adversely effect water service to local residents. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Energy and Water section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account for the Flagler Beach Shoreline Protection Project. I have received $263,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Flagler County, 1769 East Moody Blvd, Bunnell, Fl 32110. The FY 2009 funding will complete the feasibility study of the Flagler County shoreline which was begun with funding provided in FY 2004. The shoreline of the City of Flagler Beach has experienced critical erosion that threatens State Road A1A, which serves as an emergency evacuation route. For example, A1A was closed in Flagler Beach for the month of January, 2006 as the road was completely washed away due to erosion. The erosion also has caused a severe loss of public recreation opportunities and a degradation of environmental habitat. The beach is so narrow that the high tide line extends into the existing revetment, making it unsuitable as nesting habitat for sea turtles and almost unusable for recreational purposes. The City believes that restoration of the beach is a primary component of preserving safe passage along A1A while also providing public recreational opportunities and environmental habitat. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Justice, OJP-Byrne Discretionary Grants Account for Putnam County for the Children's Advocacy Center. I have received $330,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is Putnam County, PO Box 758, Palatka, FL 32178. The FY 2009 funding will assist Putnam County, FL to renovate and equip a new 2500 sq. ft facility to address child abuse cases in this affected area. This new facility will provide children, their families, case workers, detectives and advocates a safe central location where they can meet in a nonthreatening environment. This project has not received federal funding previously, but is authorized under P.L. 109-162--the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The purpose of the Children's Advocacy Center in Putnam County provides an environment for multiple agencies to interview, examine, investigate and treat cases of child abuse in Putnam County. These funds will be used to renovate and staff a new 2500 sq. ft facility. This new facility will provide children, their families, case workers, detectives and advocates a safe central location where they can meet in a non-threatening environment. Providing this space for concurrent interviewing and interagency conferencing enhances the communication between agencies on mutual cases. Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Commerce, Justice, Science section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Department of Justice, COPS Law Enforcement Technology for the City of Maitland. I have received $170,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is City of Maitland, 1776 Independence Ln, Maitland, FL 32751. The FY 2009 funding will assist the City of Maitland in the purchase of an upgraded computer aided dispatch system that will better coordinate law enforcement and of first responders. This project has not received federal funding previously, but is authorized under P.L. 109-162--the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The funding will form a multi-agency radio interoperability system comprised of the City of Maitland, City of Orlando and the University of Central Florida, and for critical technology upgrades for the Maitland Police and Fire Department. Funding is for Maitland's portion of the multi-agency radio interoperability system. Additionally, the need for timely records, Drivers License, Criminal History, and photo identification information is critical for public safety. Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) provide immediate access to this critical information and funding will allow for their full provision to Police, Public Safety (Fire EMS), and connection to the Public Safety Records Management System (RMS). Pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the Energy and Water section of the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Account for the St. Johns County Shore Erosion Control Project. I have received $263,000 in the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The entity to receive funding for this project is St. Johns County, 4020 Lewis Speedway, St. Augustine, Fl 32084. The FY 2009 funding will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to lessen down drift shoreline impacts caused by the federal navigation channel at St. Augustine Inlet, and to provide storm damage protection to the shore. St. Johns County is located on the East Coast of Florida, approximately 30 miles south of Jacksonville and 200 miles north of Miami. The ocean shoreline of St. Johns County is approximately 42 miles long. Due to tropical storms and major hurricanes, particularly Hurricane Floyd of 1999, the shorelines of St. Johns County have been subject to significant erosion prompting a request to the federal government for assistance. The feasibility study area will include all of St. Johns County, including the South Ponte Vedra Beach area.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I rise in strong support of the Oberstar amendment. This is a very simple amendment to understand. Chairman Oberstar and I have worked, as he said, we have worked together since last fall to create a stimulus package of infrastructure projects that are ready to go and in which we can employ people as soon as possible. That is the objective of Oberstar amendment. We need to pass this amendment because we are not interested in funding projects or providing a stimulus package and not have the money into our States and our communities to build that infrastructure that will be real and not employ people. This stimulus package is all about employing people. Whether it's Minneapolis, the great State of Minnesota, which Mr. Oberstar represents, or my State, look at the statistics. Look at the newspapers and the people who are losing their jobs. We need to get this money out as soon as possible so people who want to work, have a choice of work, have that opportunity. This amendment, the Oberstar amendment, puts that money out there and it employs people immediately. No games played in this. This is not a bailout-to-financial-institution fiasco. This is putting people to work now that are crying out for jobs and stimulating our economy. I am pleased to rise in support. I have been pleased to join with Mr. Oberstar, who's been doing everything possible to get jobs and our infrastructure and our economy moving forward.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. I am spending all my afternoon supporting some of the amendments from the other side; but let me tell you, the Nadler amendment is one we have to support. Mr. Oberstar as the chairman and I as the ranking Republican, we have been working on an infrastructure proposal since back in September last year to try to get infrastructure going and jobs started in this country, and we are still delayed. And what is most offensive is they took one of the most important parts for rail and transit out of the bill, or actually cut it down, and he is restoring that money. Let me tell you, that is just a little bit of money. These projects are expensive. Transportation projects in New York, the tunnel across Long Island, $7 billion; the Second Avenue subway tunnel is over $7 billion. Infrastructure projects are expensive, and we are only putting in a small fraction. Support the Nadler amendment.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Again, folks, this is about creating jobs. And every billion dollars we put in jobs, ready-to-go projects, is 28,000 to 35,000 jobs. So it makes a big difference. Mr. Nadler is going to make a decision on how many people will go to work, and it may be in your communities throughout the United States. So they give you a choice right now of a few jobs; he gives you a choice of many jobs with sound investments. Support the Nadler amendment.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And I don't feel uncomfortable over on this side. But let me say that this is the wrong amendment at the wrong time here. We just finished, after 11 years of not having an Amtrak reauthorization, in a bipartisan manner we put together reforms for Amtrak that have been called for. Now we have an opportunity--and we've worked together to reform it--to actually get it moving to provide a difference in transportation alternatives, to provide a difference in energy-efficient transportation, to provide a difference in the environment. So why would we want to stop projects that need the funding now and are ready to go and we've made the reforms? So I do not support the Flake amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. And let's get Amtrak transportation and infrastructure moving in this country.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. MICA. We are going to be asked the question, What did we do? And I wanted to have the opportunity. I have worked my heart out with Mr. Oberstar. You all should thank Mr. Oberstar for what he has done in a bipartisan fashion. But, again, we have got to go back and say there is 7 percent of this on infrastructure out of $825 billion. We have an opportunity to double the amount of infrastructure money. No games being played. I didn't single out or deride any program. I just said any new or unauthorized project or program in this would be eliminated. You have the votes to do those later on if you want to do them. Right now, we have got to get the most people we can to work as soon as possible. And I know you believe that in your heart too. So this isn't some game, some political charade. I came across the aisle, asking you to support a measure that will put our people--your people and my people--to work sooner rather than later. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, in the last few hours, our new President reached out across the aisle and he came to the Republican conference and he asked us not to be Republicans, he asked us not to be Democrats, but he asked us to be Americans. He cited the urgency of the time and the challenge that we face. And that is why I am over on this side right now. I have done this one other time. It may have been after 9/11. My colleagues, we face an economic 9/11. My side gave me the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. I didn't want to play any games with that because I know that there are men and women out there, fathers and mothers, people who want a job and deserve a job and need a job, and what are we going to offer them? These are the headlines: Top Companies Slash 70,000; Job Cuts Deepen Across America. You have seen them. You have seen them in your own State, in your own district. Now you're going to have to go back tomorrow or this week and look those people in the face and say, I had an opportunity to vote for more jobs. And that is exactly what this motion does. I didn't play games picking out or I haven't criticized any project. In fact, I came here and I spoke for two Democrat amendments and against one Republican amendment so far on this legislation, because this is about creating jobs. Whether we are going to create--we are going to take $825 million.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I wanted to join others in congratulating the University of Florida on winning the recent National College Football Championship. As a 1967 graduate of the university, I am proud of the athletic accomplishments of my alma mater. Fellow Gators have much to be proud of in the many achievements and honors gained by students, faculty, staff and graduates of this great institution of higher learning. While we salute this athletic win it is important that our university, the State of Florida and all those interested and supportive of quality education programs work together to improve and restore our College of Education Historic Norman Hall. As a graduate of the U.F. College of Education, I urge our State legislature and Congress to aid in renovation of this principal building and center of our College of Education. While numerous other colleges have restored important campus structures Norman Hall remains neglected. If one of our major institutions devoted to training educational professionals remains in tatters how can we accommodate the faculty, staff and future quality teachers for our State and Nation? So let's not sit on our athletic laurels but recommit to winning one for quality education at the University of Florida and go Gators!

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself against the Hamas terrorist attacks. Until Israeli citizens can live without fear of these attacks, Israel is justified in its effort to maintain national security for its citizens. While we all hope for peace in this region, it must not come at the expense of Israel's sovereignty or right to exist. The Gaza Strip, from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005, poses a growing security threat to Israeli civilians. Over 10,000 rocket and mortar shells have been fired from Gaza since 2001, and this indiscriminate bombardment has escalated since Hamas seized power in their violent coup in 2007. About 860,000 Israeli civilians, or more than 12 percent of Israel's population, live in daily fear of a Hamas rocket attack. Hamas ended the 6-month cease fire on December 19th by increasing its random rocket bombardment of Israeli civilians. Israel was compelled to take on the responsibility of defending its citizens against these terror tactics. In response to being attacked, it launched a defensive air attack against Hamas' terrorist rocket launchers and their terrorist infrastructure. Israel responded with a ground assault to minimize collateral losses in the civilian neighborhoods the Hamas terrorists hide in to launch these rockets. Critics of Israel demand it sit down with Hamas to negotiate a lasting peace. I ask them all, how do you find a diplomatic solution with an enemy that will not recognize your right to exist? What terms can you offer that will bring peace with such an enemy other than outright capitulation? Madam Speaker, let us stand together as an institution to show our Nation's support for Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and pledge our continued commitment to Israel's right to defend itself as a free, independent and sovereign state.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House and my fellow Americans, this is an interesting time in the history of our Republic and in the history of Congress. It is probably one of the most contentious issues and difficult issues I've seen in my almost three decades in the Federal arena. Tonight, before I get into a couple of comments that I want to make about the situation we have facing us with the financial crisis, I want to take just a minute--and I know some of my colleagues are going to join me, particularly those from Florida--to insert into the Record a statement relating to the retirement of one of our colleagues, the Honorable Dave Weldon of Florida--Dr. Weldon as he is known and also as he is professionally titled. I've known Dave since he decided to run for Congress. He is one of, I think, at least 30 individuals on our side--and we have some incredibly dedicated and distinguished Members who have served many, many years in the House of Representatives--who is retiring. It's a little bit of a concern to me. You know, maybe this has become a very difficult job. It's not one for the faint of heart. It's a job to which people must devote all of their time awake--their hours in the days and on the weekends. Sometimes when they say they're going back to their districts on recess, those Members go back and have much more full schedules than we have even in Washington. Dave is one of the Members who is retiring, Dave Weldon. This concerns me. It is going to be a loss to this Congress. Very often, we see people come to Congress from many different backgrounds. Dave Weldon is the kind of guy who we should encourage others with his qualifications and background to come to Congress. He is a physician, and he probably can make four or five times as much as he has made in the service to the United States House of Representatives, but he has been in service to our Nation. This isn't the first time Dave Weldon served our Nation. Dave was also, besides being a practicing physician and Army veteran, he served our Nation in the United States military. So on behalf of my colleagues from Florida, I want to thank him for stepping out of his role as a physician. The time he spent since I first met him working with all of us devoted to this institution, if you look at the Space Center and the space coast that he represented, David has always been a tireless advocate to the space coast and the space program. Dave, again since I met him, I have watched his children, Katie, and his son, David, grow up over the years of his service. I know the time and commitment he has extended to this House of Representatives, this country, for the good of all people. He is a shining example of the kind of devoted people that we have serving here. His lovely wife, Nancy, again, people have no idea how many days and nights, weekends and occasions Dave has had to leave his wife and be in service to the House of Representatives. We are really blessed. The good Lord sends us people like Dave Weldon and his family who have been devoted to this House for 14 years. And it does make a difference. I know right now everybody is critical of the Congress. And I find people, you know, making hostile remarks about Members of Congress, but they have no idea what a great institution this is. And the people like Dave Weldon who come here and serve, again, selflessly serve, sometimes leaving their family aside, but always meeting their responsibilities. But Dave after 14 years is going to leave us, and the House will not have his service or his knowledge. One of the things I would love to do with Dave Weldon was listen to him speak. He would come to the floor, and very often there are well- intended folks who talk about subjects, and sometimes they know the subject fairly well and sometimes they have no idea. People expect Members of Congress to know everything, and most of us are generalists when it comes to legislation. And we are also products of our experience. Dave is a product of great professional experience and background. The thing I loved about Dave Weldon, he could come here and talk about issues that are near and dear to my heart. He would talk about medical procedures. We have had debates about abortion and debates about different procedures. Some people sort of talk, again, on sort of their general knowledge. But Dave Weldon is someone who can and has stood up here in the House of Representatives and spoken from knowledge, experience, from professional medical training, a very smart individual whose talents again we are going to lose. I hope this isn't the case that the good get going in the House of Representatives because this institution, with all of its flaws, is just reflective of the United States of America. Representatives come, all 435, from all corners of our land. They are reflective of the land, and sometimes we get some exceptional Members like Dave Weldon who leave, and I am hoping again that this is not the case, that others choose to leave. It is tough duty, particularly in a time of financial crisis when you pick up the phone and people say I may lose my retirement, my business won't function, my opportunities are becoming limited for financial avenues. But there are folks who do step up to the plate and try to do the best they can. What is neat is Dave has been not only a hero for the unborn, but also a hero for the taxpayers. Sometimes when you get through all of this, people think there are a lot of special interests running the place. And sometimes you see again people spending lots of money lobbying Members of Congress and people get disgusted with that process. But I think for the most part, and particularly on the part of an individual like Dave Weldon, you see someone who votes from his heart and also from his mind and also from his experience and knowledge. That has been a great thing for the House of Representatives. I will miss Dave. I will miss some of the others on both sides of the aisle who have been part of this institution and have contributed in a positive fashion. Again, I just come before the House tonight, and I am going to talk in a minute about some other issues, but I see Dave Weldon has come to the floor. I didn't know whether or not he would be here. But, Dave, on behalf of the whole Florida delegation, many who will be submitting statements to the Record as a part of our tribute to you and thanks for your service, I thank you on behalf of all of not only the Members of the Florida delegation and not just the Republican side of the aisle, but those on both sides of the aisle, I want to thank you for your years of service to your district, the State and the Nation. I yield to Dave.

Mr. MICA. Well, reclaiming my time, I do thank my colleague Dave Weldon for his comments and also for his institutional recollection. And that's something we're going to lose with him departing from the Congress, and that's why it's so important--and I know people think there should be a turnover in Congress, but it is very important that we keep people here who have been through some of these hearings, heard some of the so-called song-and-dance and get sort of, as Paul Harvey says, ``the rest of the story.'' But Dave Weldon brought up several points. First of all, again, with Mr. Davis, the ranking member, I intend to ask that we, our committee, Government Reform and Oversight, conduct extensive review of all those who walked away with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. We need to start with Franklin Raines, the former OMB Director under the Clinton administration, who headed up the agencies that, again, Dave Weldon spoke about, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And I am told that just Mr. Raines alone walked away with $100 million. I know there have been some proceedings, and he got a slap on the hand, but Mr. Raines had accomplices in the cleaning out of that agency. Not only did they inflate, as I understand it, their returns so that they could get huge bonuses, but they were only slapped on the hand for their misdeeds, and now some of their misdeeds are becoming the responsibility or the potential responsibility of hardworking Americans who are going to have to pay for that. So I will demand hearings, and we will find the individuals that allowed themselves to take advantage of these agencies and these activities and walked away with tens of millions and left us in the straits that we are in today. Additionally, again, I think it's important for folks to know that some of the changes that were made, again, back in the 1990s with these agencies were to encourage homeownership. If I came to the Congress 4 years ago and gave a speech that said that people with limited incomes, people from certain areas of the community that may be blighted shouldn't get loans, or if I said we should limit the amount that we would lend to folks, there would probably be an outcry. And what we saw was the creation of financial instruments, and we now know them to be called subprime, which assumed again some of the debt and responsibility, and these mortgages ended up being cast throughout and interwoven throughout our entire financial system and assumed as solid assets or assets that had some value. Many of them may have value, but my point here is that the Congress and others in different administrations also encouraged homeownership. No one called for a breaking of loaning to marginal borrowers, and so this situation that we're all familiar with now was created. And we do have a responsibility, one, to hold people accountable who made errors not only in judgment but also fudged their books and walked away with huge amounts of profits, commissions, and salaries. I know that everyone's concerned about the $700 billion that is proposed by Secretary Paulson and also passed by the other body, and they've tried to say that folks who took advantage of the situation previously should not actually have an opportunity in the future to participate. And I think there's no question that that restriction has to be placed there, but I think what's even more important is to make certain that those responsible for the situation we're in are held accountable, the people that, again, ran away with hundreds of millions of dollars and fled with the commissions and bonuses. And I, again, will call on the Chair of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Mr. Waxman, and I think Mr. Davis will join me, in asking for those additional hearings and to hold those people's feet to the fire. Again, we have gotten ourselves into a difficult situation. We have interwoven into banks and financial institutions these subprime instruments and paper. Suddenly no one wants to trade them. The value is a zero on balance sheets. We do have a credit crisis in the country. I took some time to review how we got ourselves into this mess and tried to outline it as objectively as I could and what occurred, and we have pretty good documentation for what I offered here tonight and also for what Dr. Weldon offered here tonight. The question now is how we work ourselves out of the mess without leaving the taxpayers at bay. I represent tens of thousands of hardworking folks, and every day they're doing their job, raising their family, going to work, paying their taxes, paying their mortgage, paying their bills, and now I'm being called on as a Representative to ask those folks to subsidize someone's bad judgment, bad investment or risk that they took, or someone who made bad decisions that allowed people to produce that now worthless paper. I might say that that paper is not necessarily worthless. Some of it may not have any value. Some of the borrowers may be deadbeat, the properties may be defunct, but there are many properties that will have value, and there are people who do pay these loans. And what I believe the Congress has to do is work to get the credit market back in order to establish some value for paper that does have some value, and some of that subprime does have value. I was the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and I recall the responsibility I had as chairman to try to bring some order to the financial stability of our aviation industry. Today, we're some 7 years away from that horrendous time when the entire industry collapsed, planes were halted from flying, markets totally ran away from the aviation industry, airlines. And I look back on the history of that. In 11 days, working in a bipartisan manner, we were able to get to the President a bill that helped stabilize the finances for the industry. Most people don't know this story. We didn't provide loans. We didn't provide direct cash, although, we did pay airlines for auditable damages that were done by failure of the United States Government in protecting those aircraft. And I think that also stemmed a lot of the potential for suits and carrying the results of that disaster and terrorist attack on. But what we did was we provided loan guarantees. We had about $10 billion worth of loan guarantees, and we required also very tight parameters in which those loan guarantees would be granted. It's interesting that about 2 months ago every one of those loans-- now, several of them were rescheduled but every loan was paid back. The taxpayer made $323 million, a third of $1 billion, and the fund was closed out. It would be my hope that whatever measure we take--and I would prefer either backing with insurance or with some guarantee that paper that's there. Quite frankly, I do have a problem with the Paulson proposal. The Paulson proposal the Secretary brought us initially was to give us $700 billion and we'll buy these mortgages up, this bad paper or this paper doesn't that have worth right now, and sort of trust me. Now, the House of Representatives, again being reflective of this Nation, did not want to allow that to happen, and we saw a vote in this House that did not allow that to happen. There were modifications and some protections and some improvement from the Paulson original proposal. The Paulson proposal was number one. The measure voted on in the House, at the insistence of many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle to improve the package, was proposal number two. I don't know if proposal number three will make it or not in a vote that we may have here in the House tomorrow. I think we're going to. I have not seen all the details of it, and I hope to tonight before I cast my vote. But, again, we have to think of the people that we represent out there, hardworking folks who have met their obligations. Some of those folks are retired and want their retirement funds secured. Some of the folks I represent are businessmen and -women who are having trouble getting credit, expanding business or even meeting payroll. So we do have an obligation to do something, but that should be based on a sound plan. Again, I would prefer some sort of insurance backing or guarantee backing by the government for those instruments to give them some value, and if they have value, then they can be assessed on the balance sheets of all those who are holding them, and also for that guarantee or for that insurance, the lenders or those who have acquired that paper would have some financial obligation. That obligation and money could be pooled and also help absorb any losses for bad investment or bad paper. That would be my approach. I'm one of 535; I don't necessarily get my approach. I'm not sure I'll get that opportunity to vote on that proposal. But any proposal that we do have, in my judgment, will be based on how it treats the taxpayer and the person who has met their responsibility, not the individuals who have taken advantage of the system, who have taken business risks or investment risks or gone beyond what should be reasonable caution with investment of either their depositors' money, their investors' money, or, in this case, if we give it to them, taxpayers' money or backing. I know the House will work its will. We've had tough times in the United States. The Congress has always risen to the occasion. And as I said, this is a great body. People, again, have been very critical of it this week, but it is a system that does work, that does allow for debate, does allow for opportunity to participate. And the public, each one of the public who have called my office or other offices to express their opinion are also participating in the development of hopefully what will be a positive outcome here. Do we know if whatever we pass will work or what I suggested will work? I don't know. You do your best. And I think people will try to do their best when we have that vote here tomorrow. But again, I think that if we all calm down, approach this from a rational standpoint, from a business-like and commonsense standpoint, and also for the true benefit of those people we represent, the American taxpayer, the American citizens across our great land. And finally, I believe that there isn't any challenge that we can't tackle. While everyone is focused on the financial challenges that we face and the credit crunch crisis, I'm very pleased that I learned today that the President intends to sign the first Amtrak Reauthorization bill in 11 years, which also has a Rail Safety bill incorporated in it. I've been the harshest critic of Amtrak. I've ordered more investigations and Inspector General reports, GAO reports of Amtrak; not that I oppose passenger rail service, I think it's needed in this country, but I had problems with the way our government--I call it ``Soviet-style'' Amtrak--operation ran. And, unfortunately, for many years, 11 years now, Congress has given Amtrak money without setting policy and parameters and reforms that are long overdue. I'm pleased that, as the Republican leader of the House Transportation Committee, myself, Mr. Shuster, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, our ranking Republican member, Ms. Brown, the Chairwoman from Florida of the Rail Subcommittee, and Mr. Oberstar, my Democrat counterpart, the chairman of the T&I Committee, Transportation Infrastructure Committee, did work in a bipartisan fashion. We took Amtrak apart. We included reforms that are long overdue. We have opened the door for historic participation by the private sector in developing, financing, constructing, and also operating--for the first time across our country, where it makes sense and where it can be used in some 11 corridors that have been designated, high-speed rail. One of Mr. Shuster's ideas was to take some of the money-losing routes, put them up for private bid competition, which is also included in the legislation that's headed for, we hope, the President's signature soon. We saw the opportunity to expand passenger rail service because our Nation is facing an energy crisis, and there is no better way to move people. Unfortunately, the United States has become somewhat of a third-world country when it comes to rail passenger service and we have no true high-speed rail service, passenger service in the United States. So within that legislation we've incorporated dramatic changes, some opportunities for expanded service with partnerships, not with the Federal Government paying the whole tab, with a set out formula for participation; and again, expecting some accountability from the investment that we're making in passenger rail service in this new legislation. Finally, in that bill, we did incorporate some needed rail safety measures. One of those measures relates to positive train separation, trying to get technology where we have passenger service that's mixed with freight lines and have the latest technology to ensure that we don't have a repeat of what we saw in California with the loss of lives several weeks ago. That was a horrible accident that possibly could be prevented. And by 2015, according to this legislation, with a little bit of help from the Federal Government, our freight and passenger partners--many of them who provide public transportation--will make certain that they have the latest safety train separation equipment in place. Also in the bill are other measures to improve safety; crossing improvements and rail safety inspections that will be enhanced. So I think when you hear some of the bad news--Congress can't get it done, Congress doesn't do its work, you guys up there just don't have a clue--there are many things happening that are positive, that are done in a bipartisan fashion. Now, the story I just told you, the story about the aviation so- called ``bailout,'' that won't be in the paper tomorrow. No one wants to print those stories; they want to print the story that the Congress is not doing its job, Congress is not acting responsibly, Congress is in a fight and this one is calling that one something. That's not what it's about. Sometimes that does occur, and probably in this Chamber. If we look at the history, they've almost had some duels and fisticuffs in the past and some very harsh language exchanged. But it is, again, a reflection upon our society, upon human nature. And these are all human beings, with all their pluses and minuses; for the most part, they're good folks and they do their best to represent people across this great land. Finally, again, I just want to say that, in my years of service here--and I'm kind of unique in the Congress in that my brother served here as a Democrat Member, I'm a Republican, we're the only two brothers or siblings to serve here since 1889 from different parties, but we've seen it on both sides of the aisle, so to speak. But you do see the magnificence of the structure and the system created by our Founding Fathers, and it somehow does work. It probably shouldn't work with all the diversity of opinion and people and places and folks that they represent, but it does work, and that's what has made it a great Nation. And the Union has prevailed, even in some very difficult times. So if it requires 24/7, if it requires us staying here through November, December, we need to get the job done for the American people and for the opportunity for those who come behind us, our children and our grandchildren and future generations, to have, again, the same opportunity that we've had. So I'm sorry I can't come tonight and just condemn everybody and throw bodies around and create some difficulty that would set the House on fire, but I thought it would be better to come tonight and talk a little bit about the greatness of the institution and the ability of the Members that are here to solve any task that confronts them and do it in an honorable fashion. So those are my comments tonight. I came originally to honor one of those Members from the Florida delegation that's leaving, Dr. Dave Weldon. There are many others that are departing of their own volition, there are some that will be taken out by the voters; but they all, in my estimation, have done their best to serve their representatives, each and every one of them, in their own way. So with that, Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. MICA. Well, again, with that, Mr. Speaker, I do conclude my remarks and thank those of you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues who have listened tonight. And I thank the American people for the trust they place in this institution, and once again reassure them that this is a great Congress and a great country, and we will do the right thing. Sometimes it takes one or two times to get it right, but we'll be there.

Mr. MICA. Again, we are so proud of Dave Weldon and to his service to the House of Representatives. He is the first medical doctor to serve from the State of Florida. He is also one of the first Representatives from Florida's east central coast to serve on the Appropriations Committee, and we will certainly miss his presence on that committee. On the Appropriations Committee, Dave Weldon served on various subcommittee, including the Science, State Justice and Commerce Subcommittee. He also currently has served on the Labor, Health and Human Services as well as the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittees. Dave has been a very active advocate for the cause of autism. He has worked also with those interested in finding a cure on cancer, and it is great that we have had a physician to be part of the Cancer Caucus. He is also a strong advocate for renewable energies, and he has been active in that caucus and the Tourism Caucus that is so important to the State of Florida, and the Military and Veterans Caucus. Dave Weldon is a veteran, and he is also a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 453 known as the Rocket Post in Rockledge, Florida. I know they share my pride and everyone's pride in Dave's service, not only to our country in uniform, but also here in the House of Representatives. In previous years Dave Weldon has served on the House Science Committee, the House Banking Committee, and the Government Reform Committee. He was also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee during the 104th Congress. One of his leadership positions has been on the Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for 8 years. And again, I don't think Florida or our space coast could have a better advocate. Again, to Dave Weldon, thank you for your 14 years of service to our Nation. I thank Nancy Weldon and his wonderful two children. We are very proud of Dave Weldon and his departure from this House will be a loss. Our Financial Crisis You know, tonight I want to speak a minute in addition to saluting a leaving colleague to the question of where we are in this country today. I have heard a lot of comments, some pretty rough comments this week, and Members have been under siege on the financial crisis. I respect some who have spoken here. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) said how important it is that Congress stay here and get the job done. We do face a very serious financial crisis. We have had several proposals. Of course Mr. Paulson brought one out, and I will talk about those in a second. But I want, Madam Speaker, the people of the United States to know that for all the disparaging comments made about Congress, this in fact is a great institution. It is in fact representative of the people. Sometimes people say that special interests run the place, and I don't see that to be the case. For every issue there is a lobbying side on one side and an equal and opposite lobbying force on the other side. We have seen incredible public concern about legislation and proposals that have been brought by the administration and passed by the Senate. That's interesting because the public actually, I believe, is the biggest lobbying factor. The Founding Fathers were incredibly wise some 200 years ago to devise a system of having Members run every 2 years, and it doesn't matter who gives them campaign contributions and where they are from, they must listen to the people and be held accountable. They are the only elected Federal officers who must be elected by the people, and they know that. So the Founding Fathers created a great system 200 years ago. And, of course, we have the Senate, which was the other body which was originally appointed by the State legislatures, and that body has a 6- year term and their own way of doing things. But this is an incredible institution, our government. And the people who serve are no different than the rest of the population. Of course, we've got a few bad eggs in Congress. And the great part about our system is they get sorted out either by our incredible judicial system, criminal justice system--some of them, I always tell students who come to the Capitol, that they are held accountable and they must--and whether you're a student or you're the President of the United States or a Member of Congress, in our society--and this is the great difference--you are held accountable. If you do wrong, you will be held accountable. And for the most part, again, I believe that this body is reflective of the population that they represent and try to do the best they can in representing folks. I have been married for 36 years, and I tell folks that there is not a day that goes by that my wife and I don't disagree on something. Now, usually, she wins the argument. But the House of Representatives is no different. We have 435 very diverse individuals who come from very diverse parts of this great land and come together. So we have had a very difficult week or two. We face a crises in the financial markets. And as Marcy Kaptur said, our job is to stay here; it's not to go out and campaign. Our job is to stay here if it means 24-7. And there are many folks that we represent that are hardworking Americans. Some of them triple up on jobs to make ends meet. I did that at one time, had to struggle financially to make ends meet. There are folks who are working day and night to provide for their families. There are retirees who have worked their whole lives and have their savings at stake and their retirement at stake. But I truly believe that the institution does somehow work its will-- and it is amazing with 435 people--and it will work its will. And I think it's great that people take the time to call. I sat in the office the other night--and we were there quite late--and I picked up the phone and started answering calls during that evening and several times during the day picking up the phone. I have, fortunately, very capable staff who also assist me. Otherwise, I would just be on the phone 24-7. But it was great to hear from people, and that's what this process is all about is this House and this Congress should and must be reflective of people, and that process is taking place right now. How we got ourselves into this situation is sort of an interesting thing. I heard a number of comments, and I went back to review some of the history. And again, whether we're talking about Dave Weldon, a medical physician who came here with certain knowledge, we're all a little bit different. I came here. I was in business. I had a small development and real estate investment business activities. I had my own personal experiences with banks and with financial institutions which led me to certain actions. Part of the reason I think we got ourselves into this--and I will just review some of the history for those who may not be familiar with it--is a bill that was passed after the Great Depression and the bank failures after the depression was called Glass-Stiegel. And that law prohibited banks and financial institutions from making speculative investments, taking depositors' money and investing it in speculative ventures. In 1999, a proposal came to Congress, and I think under the guise-- the name of the bill was the Financial Modernization Act of that year--they proposed that the provisions on the restrictions of speculative investments by banks and financial institutions be lifted. I thought long and hard about this, and based on my personal experience, I made a decision in 1999 not to vote to repeal those restrictions, again allowing banks to get into some speculative activities. That was based on my experience, again, in the private sector and in business and some of the development in real estate activities I've been involved in. I felt that financial institutions, particularly those with depositors' money, should not be in competitive activities or speculative activities competing with, again, folks that they are really set up to provide financial services to. I was one of a handful of Members, both in the House when the bill came here, final passage some months later, the end, I believe, of 1999, when the Financial Modernization Act passed. Now, under that guise--again, I think it was another door that opened for folks to, in the banking industry, to put some of the money into more speculative activities and investments. Now, one of the things that we're going to do next week, and I enjoy my service on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee--that's our investigative committee of Congress--we're going to hold hearings beginning Monday and Tuesday, and I appreciate Mr. Waxman calling some of these hearings. We're going to look at the failure of Lehman Brothers, we're going to look at the failures of AIG. And I'm hoping-- and Mr. Davis, who is our ranking Republican member of that important investigative committee--I'm hoping that he and I can convince Mr. Waxman to go further. Unfortunately, I don't think there was proper oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We saw during the 1990s a movement towards allowing, unfortunately, speculative investments in lowering the reserve under, again, unfortunately, under Franklin Raines, the former Clinton OMB director who became the head of that important agency. There was a change in rules--not a change by law--but a change in rules that allowed them to lower their reserves from 10 percent down to 2\1/2\ percent. I think that was another fatal mistake. And also another fatal mistake that led to the current banking crises was the decision to allow even that agency, which was backing up our mortgages nationally, to get into the subprime area. So, we had sort of a mentality that we should be allowing banks and financial institutions, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, to get into speculative adventures. And the situation, as I recall, we could see the beginning of problems back in 2002. In 2002, I have to say that one of my colleagues who pays close attention to some of these financial issues--I'm not on the Financial Committee--is Chris Shays, a gentleman from Connecticut. Chris asked me to cosponsor legislation to bring Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac into some regulatory regime. I believe at that time we were looking at the SEC or something to get a handle on the agency that, again, was backing our mortgages who was going overboard in some of these areas. Repeatedly, attempts to pass that legislation, to put some curtailment on getting into speculative investments were blocked. This isn't the time to point fingers, but many on the other side of the aisle unfortunately got into stymieing those efforts. No less than some 17 times has this administration brought to the Congress in the last number of years, several years, proposals to deal with regulation. And even back in the time when everyone was focused on terrorism in 2003-- and national security and international terrorism were the prime issues--this administration also proposed dramatic overhaul and reform; every time brought to Congress and turned down. There are some interesting recordings I've seen of some of those hearings. If anyone wants to access them, I have seen them on YouTube. I think that they're very telling of how people turned a blind eye towards bringing this situation under control. I see my colleague that I paid tribute to, Dave Weldon, has come out. And I am pleased to yield to him for a minute as I continue this little review of how we got ourselves into this tough situation.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to U.S. Congressman Dave Weldon, M.D. who I have had the privilege to serve with over the last 14 years in the House of Representatives. Congressman Weldon, Florida's doctor, will be retiring at the end of the 110th Congress after being first elected to the House in 1994. He has been a great example of a citizen legislator--giving up successful professional careers in the U.S. Army and in medicine and in sacrificing time with family to serve our nation. Not only is Rep. Weldon a brilliant physician, but throughout his tenure in Congress, he has been a provider of leadership in representing Florida's Space Coast. When Dave spoke on the floor, he spoke with knowledge, insight and understanding. Not only did he contribute to the legislative process, but he also improved the legislative product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to salute Rep. Weldon and his wife Nancy for their public service. Madam Speaker, I ask all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Congressman Weldon's service to our nation through all aspects of his life. To Dave and his family, we extend our sincere thanks and well wishes for the future.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2382, the FEMA Accountability Act of 2008, which would enable the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to better manage the thousands of excess trailers in its inventory since Hurricane Katrina. First, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton for working with me in a bipartisan manner to make an important revision to this bill. I would also like to thank Congressman Mike Ross from Arkansas who has been working with me to cleanup FEMA's trailer mess for several years now. In 2006 and 2007, several neighborhoods in our districts were devastated by tornados, and numerous families were left homeless. After the Christmas Day 2006 tornados in my district it took almost 2 months to receive a federal disaster declaration and authorization for housing assistance. In the meantime my constituents had no place to turn for help after the temporary shelters closed. At one point I had half a dozen of my congressional committee lawyers and FEMA lawyers on the telephone trying to figure out how FEMA could take a few of the hundreds of excess trailers it had stored near Orlando and use them to house these homeless tornado victims. Ultimately we received a federal disaster declaration and several trailers before FEMA could figure out how to make some of its excess trailers available without a federal disaster declaration. In Congressman Ross's case, his district was never declared a federal disaster area after several tornados struck his district, and it took months for FEMA to come up with a way to transfer excess trailers to the State and help his homeless tornado victims. The ridiculous part of this story is that FEMA had over 60,000 excess trailers at the time and it was spending over $3 million a year to store them in 17 storage areas across the country. In typical government fashion, the taxpayer spent almost a billion dollars on trailers after Hurricane Katrina. Tens of thousands of them were never used. And FEMA was unable to provide them to states to house homeless tornado victims. In response to this mess, Congressman Ross and I introduced legislation to provide FEMA authority to transfer excess trailers to state and local governments and voluntary disaster relief organizations to house disaster victims even if a federal disaster has not been declared. These are trailers that FEMA does not need for its own purposes and that FEMA is spending millions of dollars a year to store and maintain. I am pleased we were able to include language addressing this problem in the bill we are approving today. Again let me thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton for working with me in a bipartisan manner, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, today, September 27, 2008, 100 Volusia County veterans from the Second World War visited our Nation's Capital as part of the Honor Air program. The trip was made possible through the Rotary Clubs of Volusia County and with the support of sponsors and the 49 Guardian escorts. It is my pleasure to assist in hosting the veterans during their visit to our Nation's Capital. This morning they will visit the World War II Memorial to pay tribute to their fellow patriots. This is the first visit for most of the servicemen, and it will be a moving occasion. I look forward to visiting with these heroes as they stand among the stone columns, fountains, and pools that comprise the Memorial. This afternoon, the Volusia veterans will pay their respects at Arlington National Cemetery. Veteran leaders and I will have the privilege of laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns in a solemn tribute to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. The day will conclude with visits to the Woman in Services Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial and the Iwo Jima Memorial. As the Congressman from Florida's Seventh Congressional District, it is my honor to play a part in our Volusia County heroes' visit. I ask that the U.S. House of Representatives join me in expressing our appreciation to the 49 Guardians, who through a sense of duty and at personal expense will escort the World War II veterans on this memorable day. The September 27, 2008 Volusia Honor Air Guardians included: Robert Blackwell, Floyd Brewer III, Bernadette Britz- Parker, Frank Coe, Linda Edwards, Howard Fisher, Raymond Fletcher, Robert Gast, Wayne Gordin, John Harting, Todd Heffington, Angela Heffington, Sharon Hill, Victor Hindery, David Hinshaw, James Houck, Francis Irza, Barbara Irza, Mathew Jemison, James Jemison, Jeffrey Lau, Charles Matousek, William McGhee, Kenneth Naser, Patti Ostermann, Charles Paiva, Daniel Parker, Christopher Rego, Diana Santos, Robert Sullivan, Lorraine Sullivan, Daniel Thorne, Walter White, Jr., Bonita Winn, Michael Brooks, Geof Felton, Dave Brannon, Gloria Denston, Judith Hensley, John Hill, Raymond Heffington, Derek Mears, Robert Apgar, Phillip Martin, Roger Baumgartner, Leslye Lorenz, Timothy Biggs, Edward Malloy, Morgan Gilreath.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, today, September 27, 2008, 100 Volusia County veterans from the Second World War will visit our Nation's Capital as part of the Honor Air program. For most of these central Florida veterans this will be their first opportunity to see the World War II Memorial. As the Congressman from Florida's Seventh Congressional District, it will be my privilege to assist in their visit. As part of their mission to Washington, DC, I will join them in laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation. This will be a special occasion in the lives of our World War II veterans. I ask that the United States House of Representatives join me in recognizing Our Greatest Generation from Florida's Seventh Congressional District and wish them well as they gather in America's Capital City. It is my privilege to honor the service and sacrifice of those veterans who will be visiting our Nation's Capital on September 27, 2008: Rhea Adams, Leonard Ballesteras, Raymond Behrens, Seymour Berman, Michael Bloch, William Brown, Bernard Bruns, Dan Brunson, James Brussow, Robert Burrough, Mildred Cavanaugh, Tervence Cavanaugh, Jr., Kenneth Chapman, Robert Chase, William Clark, Kenneth Coe, George Crippen, Robert Deline, Robert Dinda, Rabun Dittmar, Jr., Richard Douglas, Arthur Dreves, Dorothy Dreves, Leland Eamest, Albert Edwards, Donald Ellwein, Delbert Erickson, Albert Erwin, Ben Fabian, Jr., Dominick Ferrarini, Louis Figliuolo, Victor Frank, James Galloway, Edward Gariano, David Garland, Edward Gartland, Richard Goodwin, George Gornatti, Leroy Gwaltney, Authur Harriman, Daniel Harting, Richard Heard, Frederick Hering, Clarence Hershberger, Stanley Hiers, Marvin Hinshaw, George Holden, James Holsapple, Jack Honaker, George Hood, James Houck, Francis Johnson, Helen Jurewicz, William Kautz, William Kernstock, Howard Koons, Adolph Koury, Phyllis Lee, Earl Leone, David Levenson, Claude Lindquist, Jr., Eric Loveland, Albert Luckett, Jr., Russell Macomber, Gabriel Maioli, Howard Meyers, Navy Meyers, Daniel Miller, Robert Miller, Boris Nekrassoff, William Parker, Frank Parsons, James Patterson, Ivey Poe, Jr., Harry Price, Donald Priddle, Marion Reid, Mary Rickerson, Edwin Rieger, Wilfred Rook, William Schildecker, Herman Schmidt, Ethel Schuemann, Juanita Semsky, William Shiepe, Lester Shontz, Jr., Vincent Sindelar, Jack Singleton, Charles Skeels, Eugene Swarbrick, Robert Thousand, Sr., Charles Underwood, Jr., Wilbert Varley, Alfred Vogel, Bertran Wallace, Keith Weihermiller, Walter White, JD Womack, Walter Ziamik. I know I join countless Americans who continue to recognize their heroism and their families' incredible sacrifice to our Nation.