Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I don't intend to take 3 minutes, but I do want to weigh in. In 1993 or 1994, the assault weapon ban passed the House by one vote, and it resulted in the defeat of a number of powerful Democrats and may have resulted, in fact, in the Republican Party gaining the majority. This is not an easy vote for Members to take, and I had some Members suggest I won't be the next chairman or ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform if I step up and speak in favor of something I believe in. Obviously that is not a sensible thing to tell any Member. The bottom line for me is this: I believe that people have a constitutional right to bear arms and the government has a constitutional responsibility to regulate that right. That's what I believe. I believe it has to conform to the Constitution of the United States. I believe the Supreme Court has declared what the District of Columbia has outlined in banning handguns. They declared it as unconstitutional and they said come back with a law that is constitutional. It seems very reasonable to me that we would give the District of Columbia an opportunity to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court without our bringing our own particular views to this issue. During that debate I was in good company. Leading the debate for the Republicans on the assault weapon ban was Henry Hyde, a revered Member of this House. So there are obviously differences of agreements on what we should do. But what we should do is speak our mind as we see it and obviously live with the results of that as it impacts individuals. People have a constitutional right to bear arms. The government has a constitutional responsibility to regulate that right. The District of Columbians are Americans. They don't have a full-fledged Member of Congress, though I would say Ms. Norton is full-fledged with me but she does not have all of the powers she deserves. I hope some day she has those powers. I agree with the majority leader when he said you can't favor Federalism for only the ideas you like. The bottom line for me, in the spirit of Henry Hyde, I believe that the District of Columbia should have the right to make this decision and abide by the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, 9/11 was a wake-up call from hell. We all know how we reacted to it, but the weeks that followed for those of us in the greater New York area had special meaning. It was a very poignant time. I think of the family of Joe Coppo, whose son Joseph, at the time a college student, said goodbye to him at a service in New Canaan. He talked about his dad and said, ``Dad, you wanted me to become an adult. You taught me so many things.'' This is a young man who is now a marine and served in Iraq. He told us of all the things that his dad wanted him to learn. And then he said, ``Dad, I have learned from you. Don't worry, I'm an adult now.'' And then looking at his mom he said, ``I'll be there to take care of mom.'' The next week in the same church, Frank Fetchet, in talking about his son Brad and all the things he wanted him to learn, said, ``Son, I learned far more from you than I learned from me.'' I think of a service in Easton, at a small New England church that was built hundreds of years ago and was so small that most people couldn't fit in. It was a beautiful sunny day, and most of the congregation was outside. They were talking about a young father, a young mother, and a precious 3-year-old child who were on the plane that brought down the second Twin Towers. They talk about Peter Hanson, his wife Sue Kim, and their daughter Christine. They talked about the father and the mother, and then they had the nursery school teachers where their 3-year-old child attended school, speak about precious Christine. They ended by asking us to hold hands and sing Christine's favorite song, ``The Barney Song.'' When I left, Peter's parents wanted to see me and said, ``This can't be about anger and hate.'' They were sweetly telling me about what it couldn't be, and I was thinking I needed to comfort them. On this day, September 11th, I think of a family, Neal and Jean Coleman, and with their only remaining son, who the next day were saying goodbye to their two sons who perished, Scott and Keith. It was a candlelight vigil, and they were talking about their beautiful young sons who had so much to live for. When the service was over, the parents insisted on seeing me. They said to me the same thing, the exact same thing, the Hansons had said ``This can't be about anger and hate.'' I think about Beverly Eckert, who met her husband years ago in junior high school, Sean Rooney. She called him on the phone because she thought he might be in one of the Twin Towers, and he was. He told her, ``Honey, I can't get out of the building.'' And she said, ``Go upstairs. Go to the top and you get to the observation floor and be rescued.'' So she spoke to him as he went to the top floor but the door was locked. She spoke to her husband for more than a half an hour knowing it was the last time they would ever speak, and said goodbye to him as the building collapsed. Well, we know it can't be about anger and hate, but it is a wake-up call. There is more than one inconvenient truth that confronts us. The one the 9/11 Commission talks about, Islamic terrorists, who would do us harm at home and abroad. We are confronting Islamic terrorists in Iraq and in Afghanistan, in Europe, in Asia, in North and South America. We are confronting them not out of anger and hate, but with the steely resolve that Americans are known for. God bless the 9/11 families. God bless those who tried to save them. God bless all who live in this great country. We will prevail!

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1069, a resolution condemning Hamas for using a children's television program to incite hatred, violence, and anti-Semitism towards Israel and its citizens. This hateful propaganda targeted at children by Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, cannot be tolerated and must be stopped. Further, unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist, ceases incitement of hatred, and permanently disarms and dismantles its terrorist infrastructure, the United States will not work with it, nor can we expect Israel to. Israel is our best ally, and our relationship is all the more important as our nations share a common interest in defeating the threat posed by radical Islamist terrorists, whether it is Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel has stood bravely in the face of threats by Hamas and Hezbollah, and has the right and obligation to defend its citizens and its nation. Israel has the right to exist free from terror, and we will help defend this right. The actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, or any other Islamist terrorist organization, to incite hatred and violence in the young will doom any real chance of peace, and it will doom citizens in the future to a continued life in hell. We have to recognize that if there is going to be peace in the Middle East, it is going to emanate from the young. We allowed my daughter, Jeramy Alice, to watch TV only on a Saturday morning. When she watched cartoons, she was absolutely fixated on them. It is stunning to see the impact television has on the young. And to think that young children would be seeing cartoon figures that would teach anger, hate and anti-Semitism is astonishing. It strikes me as strange that eventually Hamas and Hezbollah and the people that have supported it don't get it. If they want a better life, if they want a better future, if they love and care for their children, they will do everything to fill their children with images of love and peace, not hatred and anger.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 4137, the College Access and Affordability Act. Higher education is not a luxury. It is a public good. Today, we have an opportunity to expand college access, increase student aid, and make institutions and lenders more accountable to the students they serve. I believe quality education is the foundation of our nation's ability to compete in a global economy. Unfortunately, the skyrocketing cost of college has created a significant barrier for many students. It is unacceptable that in 2005, the price of college was equal to 71.3 percent of household income for the bottom fifth of the population. I am especially pleased H.R. 4137 will incrementally increase the maximum Pell award for students to $8,000 in 2014. Two-thirds of four-year undergraduate students graduate with debt, and the average student loan debt among graduating seniors is $19,237. I am also grateful this conference report includes an amendment offered by Representative Jim Moran and myself, to study how student debt levels impact a graduate's decision to enter into a public service career. In the next ten years, 90 percent of our nation's federal executives will be over the age of 50 and nearing retirement. The study will include: an assessment of current recruiting and retaining challenges; an evaluation of existing federal programs and whether additional programs could increase recruitment rates; recommendations for pilot programs that would increase recruitment rates. The time to recognize and encourage an increased commitment to public service is now. According to the Higher Education Research Institute, two-thirds of the 2005 freshman class at institutions of higher education expressed a desire to serve others, the highest rate in a generation. Furthermore, applications to Teach for America and City Year have increased, and religious missions involving young Americans have increased dramatically. Congressman Moran and I have also introduced the Public Service Academy Act, modeled after our existing military academies, to create the first national civilian institution of higher education in the United States. The public service academy would provide students a competitive, federally subsidized, public service-driven undergraduate education. In return for a 4-year liberal arts education, students would be required to serve our country for 5 years in the public sector after graduation. The Public Service Academy would strengthen and protect the United States by creating a corps of well-trained, highly-qualified civilian leaders willing to devote themselves to leadership through patriotic public service. It is alarming to think, in this period of economic uncertainty, we would be willing to provide anything less than the highest quality education to citizens of our Nation. Access to higher education is critical to maintaining our global competitiveness.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues for introducing this resolution. It is a pretty stunning to think that the United States, with all its obligations around the world, has to step into the void and provide 70 percent of all the funding, in spite of the fact that Europe has a gross domestic product basically equal to the United States and a population greater than the United States. Given that Europe isn't doing the heavy lifting it needs to do in Afghanistan and wants nothing to do with Iraq, you would think at least in Darfur Europe would say we should provide far more assistance. And what about wealthy Middle East countries that would have the capacity in a heartbeat to provide all the money necessary, why aren't they stepping in as well? In my only visit to Darfur, I get down on my knees in gratitude to the non-government organizations that are there to distribute the food, paid for in large measure by the United States; providing education to young people so when they can eventually go back to their homes they will not have lost 3, 4, or 5 years. This is genocide in Darfur. Europe doesn't want to acknowledge it. The United Nations wants to be silent about it, but this is the wiping out of people. We need to be there providing the assistance for domestic help, the financial aid that needs to be provided for not just food and education but for the troops who are trying to maintain security. I appreciate that Africa is waking up to this need, willing to send more troops, but they need the equipment to make sure that they can do the job they have to do. This is a human tragedy of gigantic proportions. I appreciate those in the United States, particularly in our universities, that have been pushing this issue, and frankly, many in the Jewish community who have stepped up and said ``never again'' applies to what happens in Africa. The world community needs to wake up and do more. The United States can't do everything. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1351, a resolution expressing support for the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur, UNAMID, and calling upon United Nations Member States and the international community to contribute the resources necessary to ensure the success of UNAMID. The attack on the UNAMID peacekeepers is deplorable and I want to express my condolences to the family and friends of those killed and wounded. Resolving the crisis in Darfur must be one of our Nation's highest priorities. The world collectively agreed to ``never again'' allow genocide after the 1994 mass murders in Rwanda. Tragically, genocide is again taking place. I believe the United States must take all reasonable steps to end the killing, including pressuring others in the international community to do more. The security, human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur has continued to deteriorate since the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in May 2006. We must do a better job supporting the mission of the UNAMID who, despite being critically under-funded and under-equipped, are serving an important role in protecting. It is also hugely important we continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Darfuri people. I will continue to advocate for tough sanctions, humanitarian aid, and for an international peacekeeping force that can effectively stop the violence.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I rise to support H.R. 6604 because I believe the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, must investigate speculation in the energy futures market and respond to any manipulation and price distortions. While my view is not unanimous, I believe the increased positions of institutional investors, such as pension funds, endowments and sovereign funds, are contributing to the escalating price of oil at an alarming rate. The CFTC should help level the playing field and apply position limits to the institutional investors, just as the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX, has required of its members for many years. I also believe the CFTC must work with the British Financial Services Authority, FSA, to establish position limits on oil futures traded on the London Intercontinental Exchange, ICE, similar to those established by the CFTC for traders on the NYMEX. In overseas markets, such as ICE, U.S. investors can buy as much oil as they want, helping to drive up demand with little to no oversight. It is essential the CFTC work with the FSA in London to limit positions and gather accurate information on the impact that speculation has on oil prices. Rising gas prices are indicative of the United States' need to affirm its commitment to renewable energy research and development, and reduce our demand for energy by focusing on conservation. We also need to increase our domestic supply of nuclear power, oil and gas. In addition, transparency in the futures market is needed and very appropriate.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I appreciate the willingness of Mr. Waxman to incorporate changes and address concerns that were raised about the bill as it was initially introduced, and for the work both he and Mr. Davis have done to bring this bill to the floor today. The simple fact is our society as a whole is negatively impacted by smoking, and more needs to be done to curb smoking among our youth. Bringing tobacco under the authority of the FDA will help ensure the laws on our books are enforced and will help ensure information about the dangers of smoking is adequately disseminated. In the past, I have opposed FDA regulation of tobacco, believing that oversight should be conducted instead by an agency such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). The FDA already has too many products under its jurisdiction and has trouble responding in a timely and effective manner as a result. I have always believed, however, that tobacco should be regulated, and with the support of a diverse group of organizations, H.R. 1108 has a real opportunity to become law and the potential to significantly limit the damaging effects smoking has on our society. I urge its adoption.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, in compliance with Republican Conference earmark disclosure requirements, I would like to submit the following statement for the Record. Bill Number: H.R. 6599, The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs FY09 Appropriations bill. Account: Military Construction/VA; Department of Defense; Air National Guard. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Connecticut Air National Guard located at Bradley International Airport, Connecticut. Address of Requesting Entity: Bradley International Airport, Schoephoester Road, Windsor Locks, CT 06096. Description of Request: Along with the entire Connecticut House Congressional delegation, I received a $7,200,000 earmark for construction of an engine shop at Bradley International Airport to support the unit's assigned mission of providing an engine Centralized Immediate Repair Facility capability and also provide the capability for a Joint Cargo beddown. The engines maintained will support the mission operations of A-10 aircraft equipped units in the Air Force and the Air National Guard. Federal funding will be used to construct the new engine facility, which is required to support 78 PAA equivalents, in addition to parts storage, additional engine storage, shipping and receiving, personnel training and administrative support areas. The current facility lacks adequate space and engine docks to conduct intermediate engine repair. It does not have adequate parts storage areas, shipping and receiving capabilities and administrative and training areas for the increased manpower necessary to handle the over 3-fold increase in assigned workload. The existing facility also lacks adequate parking and existing base road violates the anti-terrorist force protection standoff requirements.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, though I also support drilling. I rise in support of H.R. 6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, which would release 70 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil currently from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and replace it with the same amount of heavy crude oil within 6 months. That is approximately 10 percent of the 701 million barrels currently in the reserve. As our demand for oil increases, it is important the SPR reflects our refining capacity. Forty percent of our refining capacity is heavy crude oil, and 60 percent is light crude. This legislation allows us to better manage the SPR by making sure we are saving some heavy crude oil. This measure, however, does not replace our need to develop a comprehensive energy plan. We must increase conservation and energy efficiency--increasing the fuel economy of cars, minivans, SUVs and light trucks and improve the efficiency of appliances; build a market for renewable energy--solar, wind, geothermal, biomass; increase our domestic supply of oil, natural gas and nuclear power and reduce speculation in the oil futures market. The Consumer Energy Supply Act will improve the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and, in fact, make it more strategic, ensuring we have the type of crude that better reflects our refining capacity. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 6578.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. I am pleased the committee named this bill after two great leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairmen Lantos and Hyde, who guided the original 2003 act into law. An estimated 38.6 million people are infected with HIV/AIDS throughout the world today. The majority of them are women and girls. In sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls make up 60 percent of those infected with HIV/AIDS. It is impossible to overstate the importance of ensuring we are doing all we can to address the spread of this dreaded disease around the world. It is heart breaking to think of children going to school with no teachers, coming home to no parents. H.R. 5501 would authorize $48 billion over 5 years to treat AIDS and other global diseases and another $2 billion for Native American health care, law enforcement, and drinking water programs. America faces a new generation of threats in the 21st century, including global health pandemics, terrorism, and climate change. Today's legislation and other critical foreign assistance programs are absolutely vitally important to our national interests and security. Legislation like this helps make our country more secure and, just as importantly, more humane.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 93, which would reauthorize the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. The devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis in May has been heart wrenching to watch. Despite the significant progress that has been made over the last three months with the support of the international community and numerous non-governmental organizations, the junta has frustrated our efforts to do more to help the people of Burma. We must continue to assist the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable communities. As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I am particularly concerned about human rights in Burma. The violence against thousands of protesters led by Buddhist monks last September, which was triggered by the unannounced decision of the Burmese military junta to remove fuel subsidies, should be of great concern to everyone. We must call on the Burmese junta to end its human rights abuses against members of Burma's ethnic minorities immediately, and until then, we should continue to impose tough economic and diplomatic sanctions against Burma. I urge the support of H.J. Res. 93.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, for yielding to me. I have deep respect for people on both sides of this issue but no one knows this issue better than Mr. Blumenauer in my judgment. We need to rebuild and renew America. We have a huge problem with our water infrastructure, our energy infrastructure and our transportation infrastructure. I was part of balancing the federal budget in 1997. I was on the Budget Committee for 10 years. And it is a fact. We took $29 billion to help balance the budget. It came from the Highway Trust Fund. We need to be putting that money back. Certainly, $8 billion should go back. These are American jobs creating a long-term investment. We don't have a capital budget in this country. And so we don't start to think in the ways we need to about investing. Roads and bridges are investments. The Mianus bridge in Connecticut collapsed down and three people died. It was a huge disaster on I-95. We need to not only continue to maintain our highways, roads and bridges, but we need to upgrade them as well. And, in fact, just to maintain what we have, we need to rebuild. We need this money. It must go back into the trust fund. And I would just say for those who talk about a stimulus package, there is no better stimulus package than putting American construction workers back to work, rebuilding our infrastructure.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been a long time coming, and I'm grateful for the work of my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee in bringing this legislation to the floor today. Like Congressman John Campbell from California, I believe this is imperfect legislation, but needed. I am hopeful passage of this bill will give required liquidity and credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, restore some confidence in the housing market, provide stronger regulation over the GSEs, keep more American families in their homes, and protect the value of the homes of their neighbors. The past year has been a tumultuous one for the mortgage market, and we are now in the midst of a significant housing crisis. It is absolutely essential we take action. Now is not the time to raise taxes, cut spending, and stand by idly like former President Herbert Hoover and let an imperfect market work its wonders.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, American families are struggling to fill their gas tanks, feed their families, heat their homes and stay current on their mortgages. I am hopeful today's passage of this legislation will bring some stability to the volatile subprime mortgage market by providing liquidity and credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, restoring investor confidence in the housing markets, and keeping American families in their homes. Our economic strength is dependent upon the resiliency of our housing market. Today, Congress will send a message of hope to families and a message of confidence to the market place. Regulatory overhaul of the GSEs is long overdue and frankly could have helped prevent the uncertainty we are experiencing now. I have long fought for the proper regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Back in 2003, I introduced the No Securities Left Behind Act to bring these two companies under the 1933 and 1934 Securities laws. It is time we shed sunlight on all securities trading and demand accountability. What is concerning to me is the inclusion of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in urgent legislation attempting to shore up the financial stability of the GSEs. It doesn't seem to make sense to siphon off capital from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the same month shares of the companies have fallen 45 percent and 58 percent, respectively. While I support the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and believe our Nation faces a significant shortage of affordable housing, we need to reevaluate if the establishment of this fund is logical in the current market climate. Despite my concern, I intend to support this bill today because we must open up credit availability to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The failure of these entities far outweighs the concern I have about some aspects of this legislation. While I hope this credit window will never need to be accessed, this backstop will reassure Wall Street of the health and liquidity of these two companies. Additionally, I have heard all too often of homeowners prevented from modifying the terms of their mortgage until they default. Expanding the FHA-secure program to allow families the opportunity to refinance into safe and affordable mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration will provide additional relief from foreclosures. There is no doubt in my mind we are facing a serious challenge. Families, investors, lending institutions and communities all risk significant losses. Given the 71,000 outstanding subprime loans in Connecticut alone, this legislation is long overdue to bring relief to struggling homeowners, greater oversight to the industry, and to ensure the continued viability of the mortgage market.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. The amendment would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to determine factors that contribute to bridge construction and rehabilitation delays and make recommendations about how to reduce or mitigate these delays. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimated major highway projects take an average of 13 years to complete. The bottom line is it takes too long for transportation projects to go from concept to reality. As our infrastructure continues to age and our growing population puts additional strain on our bridges, projects will need to be completed faster to ensure bridge safety and efficiency and to reduce costs. The study's findings will tell us where we need to encourage better efficiency in bridge rehabilitation and construction. Information provided by this GAO report will also be useful in the larger context of the Federal transportation spending bill, which is due for reauthorization next year. I held a transportation forum in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District on June 16, 2008 where I convened local, State, regional, and national transportation stakeholders to discuss key transportation needs. At the forum, several stakeholders, including the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Regional Planning Association and the Fairfield County Business Council, agreed that infrastructure construction often takes an unnecessarily long time to complete, and given the rising cost of construction materials, it often winds up reducing the value of Federal funding for a project. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association reported the purchasing power of the Federal gas tax has fallen significantly due to the rising cost of materials used in highway and bridge construction. By 2010, the purchasing power of the 18.4-cent-per-gallon Federal gas tax will be 10.8 cents per gallon. By 2015, this purchasing power is estimated to fall to 9.6 cents per gallon. Additionally, the cost of highway and street construction materials was up 15 percent in May 2008, compared to May of 2007. Between 2003 and 2008, the price of street and highway construction has increased 70 percent. Some factors contributing to the high expense of construction projects, besides overly lengthy project planning and implementation, are lengthy environmental impact assessments. Environmental impact assessments of bridge construction and rehabilitation are essential, but do they need to take so long? The Federal Highway Administration has estimated the average time to complete environmental impact statements varies between 54 and 80 months. In 2007, the Federal Highway Administration set a target of 36 months for the completion of these assessments. I mean, good grief, that's 3 years. I'm interested to see what factors the GAO determines present significant delays for these assessments. We need to get a hold of this problem now. By identifying barriers to more timely completion of these projects, we will be able to more effectively use Federal money to rehabilitate and maintain current infrastructure and build new to accommodate increased capacity. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for all of your good work on these issues. We're very grateful that you would accept the amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and congratulations to Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica and Members LaTourette and Taylor. I rise in support of H.R. 5949, the Clean Boating Act, which would exempt recreational boats from a permit requirement for normal operational discharges of ballast water. In September of 2006, a U.S. District Court decision overturned the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to exempt recreational boats from having to obtain a permit for operational discharges. As a result, the EPA is required to develop and implement a permitting system for all boats by September 30, 2008. Under this new rule, all boaters will be required to apply for pollution permits regulating ballast water, which includes deck runoff, engine cooling water, gray water and bilge water from engines, laundries, showers and sinks. While I believe large quantities of ballast water, primarily from commercial ships, adversely affect marine habitat, runoff from recreational vehicles does not come close to posing the same water pollution challenges. The Clean Boating Act defines recreational vessels as those used primarily for pleasure, or those leased, rented or chartered to a person for recreational purposes. Under H.R. 5949, these vessels would be exempt from the new permit requirement, just as they had been before the U.S. District Court decision. Recreational boating plays an important role in many of the communities in Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, and I have found many boaters to be among the most concerned for our marine ecosystems. Boating is an important factor in tourism and the prosperity of local economies all along our coastline. I urge support of the Clean Boating Act to exempt recreational boaters from this necessary permitting process. Our laws should be logical, workable, and fair. Requiring all boats to obtain permits for normal discharge of ballast water is not logical, workable, or fair. H.R. 5949, the Clean Boating Act, ensures pollution permits regulating ballast water will cover those vessels that it should apply to, commercial boats, and not those vessels that it shouldn't apply to, recreational boats. Again, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill out and making sure that we don't have to go to conference so we can send it directly to President. Congratulations to both of you.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding again. Mr. Oberstar, thank you, and, Mr. Mica, thank you for working together. When we see energy prices going through the ceiling, it is logical we would think in much different ways than we have in the past. Obviously, we want conservation. We want to see that our minivans, SUVs, cars, and trucks get better mileage. We want to see alternative forms of energy: wind, solar, geothermal. We want to see more efficiencies in electric generation, and we want to see greater production and more increase in supply. I happen to think we need to be drilling off our coasts, much like Canada does, and supply natural gas for the New England area from its off-the-coast drilling off of Canada. But we also need public transportation. We need high-speed transportation. It is a mystery to me how Amtrak could have built a high speed, a faster train that doesn't work properly. The Acela can't be used for what it was intended to be used for. It doesn't go faster because it can't tilt. It's three inches too wide. That speaks, I think, to Mr. Mica and others who suggest that we need to bring the private sector in to assist Amtrak. More money for Amtrak makes sense. More public transportation for the American people makes sense. High-speed trains are long overdue. And I thank my colleagues for their efforts.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4049, the Money Service Business Act of 2007, and ask for its immediate passage. We do need to pass this legislation. Madam Speaker, this legislation is important and long overdue. Despite expressions of concern by Members of this Congress asking both regulators and financial institutions to ensure fair treatment of money service businesses, or what we refer to as MSBs, financial institutions continue to be uncomfortable offering accounts to MSBs, and, in fact, most banks have discontinued offering such accounts, which is the issue. Madam Speaker, the banks have good reason to be concerned. MSBs provide a valuable service to consumers, and in some instances are the only financial service providers available to them. But the regulatory regime that ensures that MSBs comply with all applicable laws to prevent the laundering of money or the financing of terror is muddled, to say the least. After a series of regulatory actions in which banks were fined millions of dollars in connection with the accounts they offered MSBs, most banks felt they had to make a choice, either do their own on-site investigation of an MSB's anti-money laundering program, or live with the liability of not knowing how good or bad that particular program is. Madam Speaker, banks are not regulators. And we should not expect them to act like regulators for a different industry. No one disagrees that banks and the MSBs should comply with all applicable anti-money laundering guidance; nonetheless, terminating account services to an entire industry could end up forcing its customers into the underground financial service. That in itself creates a significant money laundering risk. The measure before us, drafted with a great deal of bipartisan cooperation by the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney), one of the stars of this institution, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), would set up a system in which the Treasury Secretary posts a set of guidelines MSBs would need to meet to satisfy anti-money laundering requirements. When they comply, MSBs would self-certify their compliance to their bank. This self-certification function is balanced by strict penalties for those MSBs that misrepresent their compliance, and in no way would excuse banks from reporting any suspicious activity under the laws and regulations of the Bank Secrecy Act. But it would relieve banks of the requirement to be the de facto regulator of MSBs, which is not the bank's job or obligation. In reviewing this bill, the Department of Justice has raised a good point that I would like to emphasize. The bill requires the MSBs to certify, to the satisfaction of the Treasury Secretary, that they are in good compliance, but only requires them to file their certification with their banks. Madam Speaker, I think that among the regulations the Treasury Secretary posts to ensure compliance, the Secretary should require the MSBs to file a duplicate form with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at Treasury where it would be studied for compliance and would be available for the DOJ to view as well. Madam Speaker, while we are on this subject, I would like to make an additional point. Regulation of MSBs is a complex and not very effective patchwork of effort between the States and the Federal Government. While some States do a terrific job, some really don't. In the future I hope Congress can work to find a good solution to make thorough, uniform, and effective regulation of MSBs a reality. I know they would appreciate it. In the meantime, let's let the banks get back to providing accounts and doing what they do best. Madam Speaker, this legislation is supported by both the MSBs and the banking industry and would benefit those who work hard and have limited resources. I urge my colleagues to agree to this commonsense solution to the bank discontinuance dilemma.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and will yell a hearty ``yea'' when asked for those who support this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2008, I missed 1 recorded vote. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 514.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6545, the National Intelligence Assessment of Energy Security Act. This bill would require the National Intelligence Director to submit to Congress a national intelligence assessment on the national security and energy security issues related to energy costs. Our national security is threatened by our dependence on foreign countries that do not share our views on democracy or our commitment to combat radical Islamist terrorists. By relying on oil from OPEC in the Middle East and countries like Venezuela and Nigeria, we place our national security in the hands of authoritarian governments. I believe our energy policy should be a bipartisan approach that reduces our demand by increasing conservation, including getting better mileage from cars, minivans, SUVs and trucks, and making electric appliances and lighting more energy efficient, increases the use of renewable fuels such as solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels, reduces speculation in the oil futures market, and increases our domestic supply of oil, natural gas and nuclear power. The national intelligence assessment required under this bill will show us the national security threats likely to increase should a long term, bipartisan plan not be implemented. It is critical we understand the consequences of our increasing energy demand and take strong action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Well over half of our energy derived from oil and natural gas comes from foreign producers. Our energy consumption not only fuels our homes, our transportation and our industry, but also transfers our wealth to countries and foreign interests that would do us harm. Our national security requires us to be energy independent, and I urge support of H.R. 6545.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution, but recognize that three Republican amendments were made in order and three Democratic amendments. But what troubles me is that this House, over so many years, continues to avoid meaningful debate. I was at the NAACP Convention in Cincinnati this week. Before Barack Obama spoke that night, they had a debate between college students from Stockton, California and Detroit, Michigan, about health care. They had three speakers for the pro position and three speakers for the con. It was a fascinating experience. It was electric. We were witnessing a debate on an issue with 10,000 people listening. And I thought, I haven't experienced this in years. I haven't heard such a meaningful debate in years. And yet I serve in Congress, and we haven't had that kind of debate. And we're not going to have a meaningful debate on the authorization bill on intelligence today. The amendment Mr. Castle talks about deserves to be debated. It was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. My Democratic colleagues won this House in part by saying we need to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but they won't allow a debate on something so fundamental. Why shouldn't there be a Joint House and Senate Committee on Intelligence, or, why shouldn't we establish a House and Senate Committee on Intelligence with authorization and appropriation powers; or, at least have a separate Appropriations Committee on Intelligence because now the defense subcommittee of appropriations decides what goes in the intelligence bill. Why shouldn't we have a debate about that? Why shouldn't we educate ourselves about the pros and the cons of it? Why shouldn't the American people be allowed to hear such a debate? Why is Congress failing to live by the recommendations--or at least debate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle professed to want to do before the election? Not to even have a debate is hard to understand. There was a second amendment that was not allowed in order. This one was to declassify the bottom line of the budget on Intelligence. In other words, we would know what it is. The remarkable thing is our adversaries know. I won't talk about recent numbers, but I will tell you this: Ten years ago, when you read about the numbers in the New York Times, we couldn't say the number was accurate, but it was the number. The Times was right 10 years ago, 11 years ago and 12 years ago and 13 years ago and 14 years ago. The New York Times knew, but the American people are not allowed to know. Our adversaries knew. The Soviet Union knew. Who didn't know? The American people. It's not just that. Another problem is we have to hide tens of billions of dollars in our budget that are going to the Intelligence Committee. So there are things throughout the budget that really aren't going to the things we say they are. They're not going there. They're going to the Intelligence Committee. So we have to distort our budget by tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars and tell people the money is going there when it isn't. We even have Members come on the House floor who want to take out money from those appropriations, and they don't know that they're not taking it out of what that says it's going to go to, because it's going to go to the Intelligence Committee. So let's just step back a second and think. Our adversaries know what the bottom line of our budget is and the American people don't, but when my constituents look at expenditures and say ``why are you spending money here or there?'' I can't tell them we're not. I can't tell them it's really going to the Intelligence budget, but we don't want you to know the bottom line in the Intelligence budget. All we would have to do is just say, ``X'' billion of dollars is going to Intelligence. Then we wouldn't have to fit in ``X'' billion of dollars throughout the budget and hide it. We would just give the bottom line, and then the other parts of the budget would be honest. Now, some members may not be concerned with this, but the sad thing is we're not going to have a debate on it because this amendment was not allowed by the Rules Committee. I don't know if it's ever going to happen. When I ran for Congress, I thought we would have a debate about real things. We're not having that and we haven't for a long time.