October 2, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H10681 

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana addressed 

the House. His remarks will appear 

hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.) 

f 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a 

previous order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. SHERMAN) 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

(Mr. SHERMAN addressed the House. 

His remarks will appear hereafter in 

the Extensions of Remarks.) 

f 

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H10682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 2, 2008 

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
October 2, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 21⁄2

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. 

b 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H10684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 2, 2008 

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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
October 2, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 moneylosing 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 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE
H10686 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 2, 2008 

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. 

f 

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE 

SENATE 

A further message from the Senate 

by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate has passed 

with an amendment in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a 

bill of the House of the following title: 

H.R. 7222. An act to extend the Andean 

Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes. 

The message also announced that the 

Senate has agreed to, with an amendment in which the concurrence of the 

House is requested, a concurrent resolution of the House of the following 

title: 

H. Con. Res. 440. Concurrent resolution 

providing for a conditional adjournment of 

the House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO 

HOUSES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair lays before the House a privileged message from the Senate. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

In the Senate of the United States, October 

2 (legislative day, September 17), 2008. 

Resolved, That the resolution from the 

House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 440) 

entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution providing 

for a conditional adjournment of the House 

of Representatives and a conditional recess 

or adjournment of the Senate.’’, do pass with 

the following amendments: 

1. On page 1, line 3, strike ‘‘from Monday, 

September 29, 2008, through Friday, October 

3, 2008,’’ 

2. On page 2, line 2, strike ‘‘that’’ and all 

that follows through line 9 and insert ‘‘the 

Senate may adjourn or recess at any time 

from Thursday, October 2, 2008, through January 3, 2009, on a motion offered pursuant to 

this concurrent resolution by its Majority 

Leader or his designee until such time as 

specified in that motion, but not beyond 

noon on January 3, 2009, and it may reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

resolution.’’ 

3. On page 2, line 15, strike ‘‘time’’ and insert ’’respective time’’ 

The Senate amendments were agreed 

to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

AWARENESS MONTH 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a 

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MORAN) is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, 

many things are going on in our country tonight and this week, and the Congress faces difficult decisions. But the 

death of a son or daughter, a family 

member, all these other things can pale 

in the tragedy that encounters many 

families across this country. 

Tonight, I want to recognize the 

month of October as ‘‘National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.’’ Most 

years that I’ve been in Congress I have 

come to the floor in October to try to 

raise the awareness of the death and violence that occurs in our homes across 

America. I think significant progress 

has been made in calling the attention 

to domestic violence and helping victims and families recover from abuse; 

however, so much remains to be done 

because senseless acts of violence are 

still taking place in homes and communities across America. 

Tragically, I was reminded of the 

need for greater efforts to combat domestic violence this past July when 

tragedy struck in my home State of 

Kansas. Tonight, I’d like to share with 

you the story of Jana Lynne Mackey. 

On July 20, 1982, Jana was born in 

Harper, Kansas. Jana was raised primarily in my hometown of Hays, Kansas, where she was an active member of 

4–H, an athlete, and a very talented 

musician; but most of all, she was a vibrant and caring young woman who 

fought for those whose voices would 

not otherwise be heard. 

Following high school graduation, 

Jana completed a bachelor’s degree 

where she discovered her passion, advocating for those who needed her help. 

She went on to pursue a law degree at 

the University of Kansas with the goal 

of using that education to further the 

cause of others. 

Jana tirelessly fought for equality 

and social justice through her many 

local and national organizations that 

she belonged to and worked for. She 

was an active volunteer in the Lawrence Safe Center, a facility that aids 

victims of sexual assault and domestic 

violence. But on July 3, 2008, Jana’s 

body was discovered in an ex-boyfriend’s home. Her own promising life 

prematurely ended at the age of 25 by 

an act of domestic violence. 

All too often, we think domestic violence doesn’t occur in our own communities or to people that we know or 

families that we care about, but Jana’s 

story is evidence that no State, no 

community, no family is immune to 

the far-reaching presence of domestic 

violence. 

b 1915 

Domestic violence is a problem that 

does not discriminate on race, gender, 

age group, education, or social status. 

It wreaks havoc on our increasingly 

stressed health care network, our overflowing criminal justice system, and, 

of course, on our daily lives. 

Domestic violence continues to impact communities in Kansas and across 

America. Each year nearly 4 million 

new incidents of domestic violence are 

reported in the United States. Of those 

4 million cases, nearly 100,000 Kansas 

women fall victim to domestic violence 

each year. Each day in America, over 

53,000 victims receive care through domestic violence programs, the programs that Jana volunteered and advocated for. 

Despite the harsh realities, there is 

hope for tomorrow. It’s my belief that 

with continued education, resources, 

and support, the victims of domestic 

violence can overcome their condition. 

In the 69 counties I represent, it’s the 

same belief that maintains and encourages the nine domestic violence centers 

in that district. These agencies are 

vital to our communities as they raise 

awareness, advocate for victims, and 

provide support to those victims with 

resources and the care they so desperately need. 

Jana made a greater impact in her 25 

years than many individuals do in a 

lifetime. And while Jana’s story is 

tragic, her example is a lesson and an 

inspiration for all of us to be more active in the fight against violence. This 

is why her family started the 1100 

Torches campaign. 

At Jana’s funeral 1,100 people were in 

attendance, which indicates the magnitude of the impact of her live on others. In the aftermath of her death, her 

mother, Christie Brungardt, and her 

stepfather, Curt, along with family and 

friends launched the 1100 Torches campaign to serve as Jana’s call to action; 

that despite our personal politics, we 

can make a difference in the world and 

in turn make it a better place to live. 

It is the campaign’s hope that through 

Jana’s story, 1,100 people will be inspired by her to serve others and to 

make a difference in their communities. I encourage my colleagues and 

all Americans to learn about Jana’s 

story and the impact of domestic violence by visiting the 1100 Torches campaign Web site at www.1100torches.org 

and by learning more about this issue 

in your local community. 

We’re making progress and drawing 

attention to domestic violence this 

month in October; yet this problem 

continues to impact our communities 

and their families. We must not forget 

about those violent crimes that destroy homes and families and devastate 

lives. This October let us remember the 

victims of domestic violence and learn 

from their courage as we do our best to 

ensure that our communities are safe 

places to live, to work, and to raise our 

families. 

Mr. Speaker, I ask for continued support and assistance of domestic violence prevention programs, and tonight 

I pay tribute to the young life of Jana 

Mackey. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with HOUSE