[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10681-H10686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE RETIREMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DAVE WELDON

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  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.

                              {time}  1815

  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. WELDON of Florida. I will be brief. I want to thank you for 
rising as you have tonight and acknowledging this time for me, my 
retirement from the U.S. Congress. It is extremely kind and very nice 
of you to do this. We couldn't be busier than we are today, and for 
you, John Mica, to take a moment to acknowledge me and as I understand 
it, you are also going to say a few words about some of the other 
retiring Members, I think it speaks very well of you.
  I want to thank you for you being my big brother. I got elected in 
1994. I came right out of my medical practice. The delegation or Newt 
Gingrich assigned you to make sure that I would be able to find the 
restroom and things like that. Of course I am being silly on that 
point. You gave me a lot of excellent advice on how to be a good 
servant

[[Page H10682]]

of the people. I want to thank you for that.
  Certainly I am going to be missing people such as yourself, obviously 
a man very dedicated to fighting for good Republican conservative 
principles here in Washington; but really more importantly, American 
principles of freedom and democracy. So you have been an outstanding 
role model for me.

  There will be a replacement for me in a few short months, and perhaps 
you can take that new congressman under your wing and provide them 
continued leadership as you have done in the past.
  I also want to thank you for all you have done for the State of 
Florida on the Transportation Committee. Your work has been very, very 
helpful to my constituents and I really think to the entire State. So 
thank you, John Mica, for all you do. Certainly I extend my thanks to 
your wonderful wife, Pat. It has been great getting to know her over 
the years. I am hoping this is not good-bye, that I will be in some 
capacity involved to the degree I will be able to see you and your 
family in the months and years ahead.
  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.

                              {time}  1830

  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

[[Page H10683]]

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. WELDON of Florida. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
wanted to stay and linger and listen to the direction of your special 
order here. And I couldn't help but feel the need to come down here and 
ask you to yield time, and I thank you for doing that.
  I sat on the Financial Services Committee from 1996 through to 2002. 
And one of the first things that was brought to my attention, once I 
got on the committee, was the concern that many of us had on the 
committee about the rapid growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two 
very, very large government-sponsored entities--they call them GSEs. It 
was sort of a mongrel creation that was somewhat free market, selling 
stocks and bonds. And then, nonetheless, it had a Federal backing to it 
creating an impression that it was an arm of the Federal Government.
  And the concern was, essentially, that it was not a properly 
regulated entity. There was this very small agency within Treasury 
called OFHEO, which was given the responsibility, very small staff, 
very limited number of examiners, to monitor these two gigantic 
entities that had assets into the trillions--not billions--but 
trillions of dollars. And the concern that many of us, many of the 
Republicans had on the committee was that if one of these entities had 
significant problems, that it could be a major, major hit to our 
economy.
  And we got tremendous resistance from the left, from the Democrats. 
They were telling us there is nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. 
Indeed, what I found to be particularly objectionable whenever we would 
bring up the thing that we were most concerned about, which was giving 
loans to people who had limited ability to pay back their loans and the 
potential systemic effect that that could have on our economy, we were 
accused of being racists. And low and behold--and thank you for 
mentioning President Bush.
  President Bush repeatedly brought bills forward saying Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac represented a significant risk to our economy and that we 
needed to regulate them better. Of course, the President was rejected 
by the other side of the aisle in his initiatives, and you can never 
get anything like this through Congress if you can't get Democrats in 
the Senate on board because of the cloture rule over there. So we were 
essentially never able to really move forward in this.
  And low and behold, it was discovered in 2004 there were significant 
problems with fraud, abuse, executives getting--cooking the books, 
getting huge multimillion dollar payoffs. Some of these--a lot of these 
people were former Clinton administration people. And then low and 
behold, we come to today where we have this huge meltdown in the real 
estate market and the Federal Government literally has to step in and 
take over both of these entities.
  And the important thing that is worth mentioning, we now have a 
credit crisis, and the reason we have a credit crisis is we have all of 
these banks holding stocks and bonds in Freddie and Fannie, a lot of it 
which is now worthless, and so they're seeing their balance sheets very 
negatively affected by that. And banks, of course, lend out money on a 
10-1 ratio. For every $1 of deposits they have, they can loan out $10.

                              {time}  1845

  They're seeing hundreds of millions of dollars of their holdings in 
mortgage-backed securities collapsing in value, and so, therefore, of 
course, we have a systemic credit crisis and, as a result, one of the 
toughest economic times that we've had in years and years and years, 
and a lot of it goes back to failure.
  And I really appreciate the gentleman doing this because there were 
many Republicans on that Financial Services Committee, and I was one of 
them, who wanted to get better regulation, strengthen OFEO so that they 
would become a better regulatory agency and actually reduce the size of 
Fannie and Freddie.
  And I will say this, those two entities should never be allowed to be 
resuscitated. The good assets they have

[[Page H10684]]

should get sold off to private investors. The money, the revenue that 
comes in from that should be used to repay the taxpayer for the lost 
taxpayer money that's going to result from us having to bailout Fannie 
and Freddie, and they should never be allowed to occur again.
  I'm all for helping lower-income people who have the resources to pay 
for a mortgage to get into a mortgage, but we shouldn't be doing it to 
the extent that we did do, and the result now is some of the economic 
problems we're having today.
  So thank you, John Mica, for bringing this up. This is an important 
issue, and I again applaud you for your work on the Government Reform 
Committee because I know you have been working this issue as well for 
years.
  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

[[Page H10685]]

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.

                              {time}  1900

  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

[[Page H10686]]

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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Perlmutter). The gentleman from Florida 
has 3 minutes 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.

                          ____________________