Jim Marshall

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 699, recognizing the service and sacrifice of the members of the 139th Airlift Wing of the Air National Guard. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), for bringing this resolution before the House. Units of the Air National Guard play a critical role in America's wars and major contingencies as well as provide valuable assistance to their States in times of crisis. I'm extraordinarily proud of Georgia's Air National Guard and the 116th blended wing that's housed at Robins Air Force Base. The 139th Airlift Wing has roots in one of the federally recognized Air National Guard units in the United States, and it continues to be an important part of defense efforts at home and abroad. The unit deployed in support Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and assisted in troop deployment during Operation Desert Storm. In the 1990s, the 139th supported humanitarian operations in Bosnia, Sarajevo, Africa, and Haiti. In addition to their efforts overseas, in 2005, they assisted with disaster relief efforts in response to Hurricane Katrina. Today, thousands of civilian and military personnel from northwest Missouri and northeast Kansas serve selflessly in the unit. The 139th Airlift Wing provides essential support to maintenance and growth of the armed services. The unit is home to the Advanced Airlift Tactics Training Center that trains U.S. airlift crews and support personnel as well as NATO air forces in advanced tactics training. House Resolution 699 recognizes the dedication and courage of not only the members of the 139th Airlift Wing and their families and service to the Nation, but also all of the members of the Armed Forces who have served or are currently serving in support of the United States military contingency operations. All our servicemembers and their families deserve our deepest gratitude and respect. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifices of the 139th Airlift Wing by supporting House Resolution 699. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I certainly hope that the House will support House Resolution 699. I just want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all members of the Armed Services Committee and all Members of the Congress, to thank the men and women of our National Guard, whatever branch, for the service that you provide this country and particularly the service that you are providing this country in our contingency operations. It's a strain on you. It's a strain on your families, and we're grateful. The Nation owes you. We appreciate your service. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 812) recognizing the significant contributions of the Military Working Dog (MWD) Program to the United States Armed Forces, as amended.

Mr. MARSHALL. I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to honor one of Georgia's greatest citizens, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to recognize the efforts of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Banquet Committee, the North Georgia Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Central Georgia Federation of Trades and Labor Council. It is on this 22nd Annual Martin Luther King, Jr., Banquet and Awards Ceremony that we all pause to remember Dr. King's life and legacy and to reflect on what a profoundly positive impact he has had on each and every one of us. Dr. King's impact was not limited to the South or even to the United States. His nonviolent struggle for the equality of all people enriched our entire globe, a fact acknowledged by his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Dr. King's message throughout the struggle of the Civil Rights movement was clear and simple. All people should be equal before the law and all should have the opportunity to make the most out of their lives in a free and democratic society. Dr. King contributed enormously to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark in the struggle for racial equality. Unfortunately, that struggle continues today, almost 42 years after Dr. King was murdered by an assassin. Our nation's annual celebration of Dr. King's birth reminds us that we have more to do to assure the equality of all people before the law. Madam Speaker, the work of the North Georgia Building and Construction Trades Council and the Central Georgia Federation of Trades and Labor Council continues the work begun by Dr. King. Their efforts for Georgians in gaining meaningful and quality employment in the construction industry deserve our thanks. Their endeavors are in keeping with Dr. King's simple message that all deserve the chance to succeed and I again wish to congratulate them on all the outstanding work they do for all Georgians and for the important work they do to honor Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chair, this is an amendment which is identical to a bill passed by the House earlier this year, in March. The bill permits what is referred to as ``cramdown'' in chapter 13 with regard to private home mortgages. It is intended to address this foreclosure crisis without taxpayers having to put money into the deal. It essentially forces the parties to deal with their problems without having vacancies and foreclosures in our neighborhoods. In that sense, it helps all lenders with real estate portfolios. It helps the individuals whose homes might be foreclosed upon. It actually helps the creditors, who are forced into the chapter 13 process because, in almost every instance, their portfolios are improved by not having as many houses in foreclosure, and in almost every instance, they get better deals in the chapter 13 process than they would in the normal foreclosure process. We should have done this long ago. It would have helped the housing crisis and, consequently, the economy of the country. I compliment Mr. Miller from North Carolina. This was originally his bill. He has been pushing this for several years. I also compliment Ms. Zoe Lofgren from California, who couldn't be here today because of family matters, because she has been a real stalwart in moving this forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, let me just make a couple of observations. If, in fact, you are jobless and don't have income, you are not eligible for chapter 13. Consequently, you won't be able to cram down. It is those who do have jobs and who do have income who could survive if they had the opportunity to restructure their debt. They would be eligible. It's only those folks. As far as increasing the cost of credit is concerned, this bill provides that it is retroactive. It doesn't apply to future credit. Many, many experts have looked at this and have concluded that it will not increase the cost of future credit. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, to other homeowners, we should say that your home values won't decline as rapidly, because there won't be as many vacancies. We are not asking you to put a dime into the deal. No taxpayer dollars go into the deal at all. To those who cannot afford chapter 13, obviously, some other remedy is called for than this; but for those who can afford a chapter 13, you are helping everybody by filing a chapter 13. Having spent years in this business, creditors will not be harmed, and the cost of credit will not go up. That is particularly true because, in this bill, it only applies to existing mortgages. It doesn't apply to future mortgages, so it is widely conceded that the cost of credit will not go up. This is truly a win-win. I was originally opposed. I've been in this business for a long time. I had a change of heart. The change of heart focuses on the crisis that we are in right now. You can go to my Web site. On the front page of the Web site, those who are interested will find a detailed explanation of why this is absolutely the right thing to do. With that, it seems to me I've responded to everything that the gentleman from Virginia has said. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I will simply repeat: Since this is only applicable to existing mortgages, it will have no effect on the cost of future mortgages. The beauty of it is we will have fewer foreclosures. So, to the gentleman from California and to those in California who are in neighborhoods which are really struggling with this phenomenon of housing prices collapsing because of all of the vacancies, all of those folks will be helped by this without putting a single dime of taxpayer dollars in the deal. It seems to me that is a complete justification for doing this. We should have done it long ago. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Chair, there is a thing called the ``tragedy of the commons.'' It is a theoretical concept that applies in this particular case. It refers to the opening of common areas for grazing. Then those who have sheep come in and overgraze that area, and the effect is not that everybody gets wealthier; it's that everybody gets poorer. As an individual creditor, I am not interested in having somebody fool around with me in bankruptcy court or something like that. Yet, combined, creditors are advantaged by having fewer foreclosures on the market in a situation like this. Having represented an awful lot of banks, having spent an awful lot of my life as a bankruptcy lawyer, law professor, and commercial litigator, I am absolutely convinced that I was wrong to initially reject this concept. We should have done it a couple of years ago. If we apply it now, we will catch what appears to be an ongoing wave of foreclosures. It will help the individuals who can rescue their homes. It will lessen the number of foreclosures, consequently helping all other homeowners. No taxpayer dollars are involved, and creditors are assisted by this with no threat whatsoever to an increase in mortgage prices. We passed this before. We should pass it again. It is appropriate to this particular piece of legislation because the work we are doing right now is prompted as a result of the credit crisis that was caused initially by housing issues. So housing should be addressed as part of fixing the overall financial situation.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I thank the gentlewoman from Guam. I just want to add my 2 cents here. I am the sponsor of the bill. Locally, in the middle of Georgia area, when we refer to the Ocmulgee National Monument, almost everybody says the Mounds, we are going over to the Mounds. That's the most significant archaeological and physical aspect of this particular facility. The facility is actually virtually in downtown Macon. It's right at the junction of two interstate highways. It's the most frequently visited monument, museum, et cetera, in middle Georgia. We believe, by adding the word ``mounds'' to the name, we will increase the visibility of the Mounds. This site has had continuous human habitation for over 12,000 years. It may be the site, the longest site of continuous human habitation in North America. The Mounds were added circa 600 to 900, if I recall correctly, A.D., but the site is of historical significance that goes well beyond simply the Mounds. We encourage the House to unanimously support this request.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I don't think it will take me 5 minutes to cover this one. The resolution simply congratulates the Warner Robins Little League girls softball team on winning the 2009 Little League Softball World Series. Their victory follows fairly hard on the heels of a victory in 2007 by the Warner Robins Little League boys team in the Little League Baseball World Series, and so it's really quite a treat that Warner Robins now is the only city in the United States that has had teams successful on both the girls side and the boys side as Little League world champions. I think it's particularly poignant that not only do all members of the Georgia delegation cosponsor, as original cosponsors, this bill, but many Members of Congress are also cosponsors of this bill. And I want to specifically recognize Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She, at the time that she signed on to the bill, was suffering from an injury that she incurred playing softball in the, I hope to be annual, but it was the first annual softball game to raise money for charity among women here in the House of Representatives. So we're all softball fans, we're baseball fans. We're delighted that the Warner Robins girls team was successful this year. We hope they have great success in the future in their individual lives. No doubt they value their education very highly, and they're focused on school as much or more so probably than athletics.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, the bill includes authorization for $300 million to the Energy Department for programs that will establish demonstration grants for solar technology projects. What my amendment does is include a requirement that the Department use some of this money to evaluate the potential benefits of very large solar projects. The amendment is prompted by a January 2008 article that appeared in Scientific American, part of their Big Ideas series. Folks out there who want to read the article, I think you could probably just Google ``Solar Grand Plan,'' Scientific American, January 2008, and you would see an excellent discussion by three scientists of the possibility that we could create in the Southwest a 3,000-gigawatt facility that delivers solar power to the Nation. It would produce enough solar power by 2050, according to these scientists, to meet 69 percent of our electricity needs and 35 percent of our overall energy needs. The idea is that some 30,000 acres, or square miles, I am not sure which, but a large hunk of land in the Southwest would be covered by solar facilities. The energy would be collected during the day, distributed nationwide on an improved grid, a lot of that grid would probably be direct current, stored during the day underground in high pressure underground caverns, with the pressure released overnight in order to provide the power overnight. One of the beauties of the suggestion is that it feeds back into the existing distribution facilities that we have, so we would not have to change, if we were using DC transmission, to DC power, but instead would continue using AC power in our existing facilities. I don't know whether something like this will work, but if these scientists are right, the costs seem quite reasonable for the reward that we would realize. The energy is completely clean, it essentially frees us from dependence upon foreign sources of energy, and consequently meets both the security need and environmental need at the exact same time. Big ideas like this require study and evaluation before they are put together in some sort of implementation project, and consequently we only contemplate in the amendment that there will be an evaluation of this kind of concept as opposed to actual demonstration projects. The $300 million that has been given to the Energy Department for these demonstration projects, no doubt they are going to be smaller projects, much smaller projects, than something as large as this. What we contemplate is that there be an evaluation of whether or not a 100- gigawatt solar facility makes sense and should be supported somehow by the Federal Government. The authors of this Scientific American article printed in January of 2008 estimated that the Federal investment to accomplish what in essence would free us altogether from foreign sources of energy, the estimate of the Federal investment over a 20-year period of time, would be $450 billion. Spread over a 20-year period of time, a $450 billion investment that would actually give us energy independence and an awful lot of clean energy seems to me to be something that we ought to be evaluating, and that is why I suggested the amendment. With that, I request the adoption of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas. It could well be that some of these facilities wind up in your State. I have spent a fair amount of time in your great State, and I have observed many of the times that I have been there that you have a lot of land available that could be put to good use for this kind of purpose. Another thing in this article that these scientists point out is that once a solar facility like this is created, it requires a lot less continuing maintenance and care, unlike a lot of our other facilities that create power, and consequently it is just a win-win, and perhaps it will wind up being a win-win for Texas. I yield whatever time I have left to the chairman.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I want to second what the gentleman from New Jersey said just a minute ago. I'm not going to get into the details of the Armed Services authorization part of this bill except to simply say that we do an awful lot of very important good things for our soldiers, their families and for the defense of this country in this bill. It would take an awful lot, an awful lot for me to vote against the bill because something that is nongermane has been included in the bill. Now I did vote to keep hate crimes out of the bill. That didn't work. I can't tell you how often in this Chamber I have had to vote on bills that included things I didn't want in the bill. It is rare that we have a bill, a large bill, that doesn't include all kinds of things I would prefer to not be in the bill. There is something that I think is very important to point out about the hate crimes legislation that is in the bill. It's language that was added by Senator Sam Brownback on the Senate side, and it's language which addresses the principal concern that I hear from my constituents about hate crimes legislation. My constituents don't mind putting people in jail for being violent with other folks. They don't have a problem with that at all. They don't have a problem with increasing sentences, not one whit. The longer the better. If you're a criminal, you do the time, and as far as my folks are concerned, you can do more time. The worry was that somehow the right of individuals, of pastors and others to criticize behavior, to talk about sin, that somehow that right would be infringed upon, that free speech would be chilled. And I have to thank Senator Brownback because in the bill we have language that takes care of that issue.

Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On pages 1366 and 1367 of the bill, it states: Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Nor shall anything in this division, or an amendment made by this division, be construed or applied in a manner that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, or association, unless the Government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another. My folks don't want people planning or preparing for physical violence. They don't want people inciting physical violence against other folks. They want people to be free to criticize, to argue, to speak and to condemn sin. I think Senator Brownback has hit it exactly right.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to honor one of Macon, Georgia's great citizens, Ben G. Porter, someone who has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life in Middle Georgia and throughout the State of Georgia. Ben and his wife Hazel have lived in Macon for over 50 years. He is an avid outdoorsman and his passion for the natural beauty of our land punctuates his business and charitable endeavors. As a former Chairman of the Board of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources, Ben advocated for the conservation and preservation of our natural and cultural resources so that current and future generations can take pleasure in the unique history, diversity and great beauty found in every region of our state. As a founder and member of the Ocmulgee Land Trust, as Chairman of the Jekyll Island Authority as well as in his service as on the Advisory Council of the Trust for Public Land, Ben actively encourages property owners across our nation to conserve and protect land that has natural, recreational, scenic, historic, or productive value. In his hometown of Macon, Ben Porter's vision and leadership has anchored a number of organizations including the Chamber of Commerce, where he served a term as President, the Macon Heritage Foundation and Mercer University's School of Medicine, where he currently serves on the Board of Governors. But, his most lasting and--I believe he would say--his proudest accomplishment in Macon is the leadership he provided along with a handful of others in the creation of the Ocmulgee Heritage Trail. More than 15 years ago, Ben and a small group of civic and public leaders in Macon began to envision a walking trail that would connect some of Macon's historical and cultural gems--the Ocmulgee National Monument, Rose Hill Cemetery and the historic water treatment facility--to its great natural asset and the lifeblood of our community, the Ocmulgee River. What made this idea special was the reason behind it: most of the land abutting the Ocmulgee River in Macon was owned by private citizens and therefore not accessible to the public. There were few places where the everyday person in Macon could touch the river, could sit beside it in quiet contemplation or enjoy the beauty of its banks. The gift of river access to the Ocmulgee River is the enduring legacy that Ben has helped to give to the citizens of Macon. Today, the Ocmulgee Heritage Trail extends 10 miles, but Ben Porter and the other leaders of the Ocmulgee Heritage Trail executive board dream big, and eventually the Trail will connect landmarks and towns throughout Middle Georgia. I'd like to close my comments today on a personal note. I have known Ben for many years in both a professional and personal capacity. Ben is a man of faith, a generous giver, a caring mentor and an exceptional visionary whose perseverance and quiet yet influential leadership style has been an example to us all. He is savvy, strong and involved. And he is someone I am proud to call a friend. Please join me in celebrating the life and legacy of Ben G. Porter, a great and influential citizen of Macon, Georgia.

Mr. MARSHALL

Mr. MARSHALL. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides that the Secretary shall conduct research. It actually mandates that the Secretary conduct research that's designed to improve the efficiency of vehicles that are used in transportation and the infrastructure that refuels or recharges those vehicles. Mr. Chairman, it does not specifically, as it now stands, direct the Secretary to consider the unique challenges that face rural areas with regard to these issues. The population is not as dense. It can be more expensive to develop the infrastructure. The distances typically that have to be covered by those who are using vehicles are greater. The infrastructure is probably going to have to be a little denser to take that into account, relatively speaking. In rural areas you will find that many people use larger vehicles. Pickup trucks are very common, and it's not simply because folks like pickup trucks, it's because folks have heavy things to carry, large loads fairly regularly. These are unique challenges that face rural America. And rural America is also that portion of America that really doesn't have a lot of extra money in its pocket to meet transportation costs. So I think it's particularly appropriate that we specifically direct the Secretary to take into account the unique challenges facing rural America when it comes to transportation issues generally, and when it comes to our attempts to improve, make more efficient, make more cost efficient, make cleaner our use of transportation across the country. I think the amendment should be noncontroversial. I certainly hope so. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARSHALL. I thank the gentlelady for her support. I think all rural Americans thank the gentlelady for her support. What I would like to do right now, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask, is yield some time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) whose amendment was just considered and adopted. Mr. Holt couldn't be here at the time the amendment was considered, and I know he wants to speak a little bit about his amendment.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the chairman of the committee, who continues to regularly beat me in every running race we have, the gentleman from Tennessee.