National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1525, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1424) to amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, and offer the motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and add extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we have limited time here, and I want to explain to the Members that I will be devoting most of my time to colloquy with Members who have serious concerns about this bill.

I believe this bill has a great deal more in it in a number of areas, including in particular avoiding foreclosures, than people have recognized. I at this point will insert into the Record under General Leave a letter from the American Banker, in which Sheila Bair, who is one of the best regulators we have ever had, who has been using her authority over the mortgages she inherited through the IndyMac failure to really provide foreclosure relief, and she says in this: ``The provision would allow the Treasury Department to provide credit guarantees and enhancements on whole loans.'' Ms. Bair said in an interview Thursday, ``They can have so much bigger bang for their buck.'' She asked us to put this in. We put it in. It may be obscure, but it in and of itself will lead to a great deal of help for people with mortgages.

What I will be doing, Madam Speaker, during this debate is yielding time for colloquies to Members who are seeking clarification of points in the bill, many of them involving what is very powerful language, although not everything we would have liked, to mitigate foreclosures. I will say that I have spoken to the people at the Department of Treasury, including yesterday morning the Secretary himself, and I will be making commitments today about how we believe this bill will be interpreted, and I will be making no commitments that I have not explained to the Treasury, that the staff of the Financial Services Committee which has done such wonderful work has not discussed with the Treasury. So we will be, as I said, working with Members to clarify some parts of this bill because I do not think it is fully appreciated that it has a good deal more in it for the foreclosure issue and some other issues than has been recognized.

[From American Banker, Oct. 3, 2008]

Bair: How to Get More Bang for Bailout Buck

(By Rob Blackwell)

Washington.--Of all the provisions in the bill designed to

stabilize the financial markets, one of its most potent is

not getting enough attention, according to Federal Deposit

Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

The provision would allow the Treasury Department to

provide credit guarantees and enhancements on whole loans. If

it were used, it would allow the government to increase

modifications and stabilize home prices at a much smaller

cost than buying the loans themselves, Ms. Bair said in an

interview Thursday.

``They can have so much bigger bang for their buck,'' she

said. ``You don't have an initial cash outlay, you can leave

them in the private sector, you can do the servicing in the

private sector, and you can condition them on some type of

modification protocol, which would get the mortgages

restructured faster.''

The provision, a single sentence in the 451-page bill, has

attracted little attention from analysts and industry

representatives. Instead, they have focused on the crux of

the bill, which would allow the Treasury to buy and hold up

to $700 billion of troubled assets.

The bill would give the Treasury secretary the power to

``use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate

loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.''

How that would work remains unclear. In theory, the

Treasury could guarantee certain types of loans--option

adjustable-rate mortgages, for example--and require lenders

that want to use the insurance to engage in loan

modifications first. If the reworked loan performed, the

government would never be involved, but if the loan later

defaulted, the government would take a certain amount of the

loss.

Though she is supportive of the $700 billion buyout

facility, Ms. Bair said the provision, added at the behest of

the FDIC, could provide a critical alternative.

``It will be another tool they have in their toolkit, and

it will be cheaper,'' she said. ``You can provide credit

support to $100 billion worth of mortgages with no up-front

cash outlay. The exposure would be less than buying those

mortgages directly.''

During her two-year tenure, the FDIC has moved from the

background to the forefront of the housing crisis. In the

past week alone it has handled the largest failure of all

time--the $309 billion-asset Washington Mutual Inc.--with no

cost to the government. It also invoked the systemic risk

exception for the first time in the agency's history to

facilitate a deal to sell most of Wachovia Corp. to Citigroup

Inc.

Ms. Bair said regulators had no choice but to use the

exception, which was created in 1991 and required the

approval of the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury.

``We all felt that preventive action was needed,'' she

said. ``It was a potential failure, driven primarily by

market confidence issues.''

Ms. Bair has also been working to help pass the bailout

bill. After the House unexpectedly defeated the legislation

Monday, lawmakers scrambled for provisions to bring more

Republicans on board. The most notable addition would

increase deposit insurance to $250,000 per depositor per

institution.

That provision would reassure nervous depositors that the

banking system is stable, Ms. Bair said, and it gets to the

heart of the problem: a lack of confidence among consumers,

bankers, and businesses.

``Raising the deposit insurance limit to $250,000 is

designed to address that problem

of public confidence,'' she said. ``Expanding that safety net

for a period of time, I think, will help with the Main Street

depositor and also provide help for banks.''

The coverage hike would take effect immediately and would

expire Dec. 31, 2009. The bill explicitly says banks should

not face a premium hike as a result. Analysts argue that

Congress would have to make the higher limit permanent. Ms.

Bair would not take a position, except to say the FDIC should

have the power to raise premiums if the increase becomes

permanent.

``It's a question for Congress,'' she said. ``It could be

destabilizing if they lift it in 2009, but the trade-off

would be that banks would have to start paying premiums.''

Overall, she said, she hopes the legislation will help ease

fears among financial institutions, some of which have become

worried about lending to each other.

``There is a confidence issue,'' Ms. Bair said.

``Originally, liquidity issues were tied to capital adequacy.

Now I think liquidity issues are tied to just uncertainty. .

. . We are asking Main Street to have confidence in the

banking system. Well, I would ask the banks to have

confidence in the banking system and lend to each other.''

She said a freeze on credit is only making the situation

worse.

``We acknowledge that some individual banks have

challenges, but overall they still have strong capital, and

they've built up their loan loss reserves,'' she said. ``We

shouldn't be freezing up and panicking.''

Though some have argued the bailout bill does not go to the

heart of the issue, Ms. Bair was unequivocal in saying she

thought the buyout facility would help the situation.

``The reason for the liquidity issue is you have an asset

on the balance sheet where the cash flow suggests one

valuation, but if you have to sell it, you will be taking a

steep loss because the market is seizing up,'' she said. ``So

we will be providing a vehicle for moving those assets off

balance sheet for a price other than a rock-bottom distressed

price. We are capable of letting the government hold the

asset for a while before it's sold which will help ease

downward pressure on asset valuations. It absolutely should

help.''

But she acknowledged some concern that the legislation did

not do enough to help struggling borrowers.

Ms. Bair was at the forefront last year in warning that

lenders and servicers needed to systematically lock in low,

starter rates so that borrowers could continue making their

mortgage payments on time. More defaults would lead to

increased foreclosures, which would cause further

deterioration in the housing market. Few took her advice, and

the housing market continued to sink.

If more lenders had modified loans, she said the situation

would still be bad, but not as dramatic.

``We were going to have these problems no matter what, but

I do think it would be less of an impact,'' she said.

But Ms. Bair said she did not understand why Congress is

not doing more to assist borrowers in the bailout

legislation. Lawmakers debated forcing more servicers to

engage in systematic modifications, but ultimately did not do

so.

``I don't understand it,'' she said. ``The borrowers here

that are losing their houses have been this politically

powerless group. From the get go, politically, for whatever

reason, they were put in a category of they got over their

head and were an unsympathetic group to deal with. That is

not the case with all of them.''

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I can affirm that. As the gentleman knows, the Treasury Department is in agreement with this, and we should be clear, this is one of the things that this House and the Senate added to the bill, the authority to buy equity. It is not simply buying up the assets, it is to buy equity, and to buy equity in a way that the Federal Government will able to benefit if there is an appreciation.

I thank the gentleman for this important clarification. He is absolutely right.

In implementing the powers provided for in the Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, it is the intent of

Congress that Treasury should use Troubled Asset Relief

Program (TARP) resources to fund capital infusion and asset

purchase approaches alone or in conjunction with each other

to enable financial institutions to begin providing credit

again, and to do so in ways that minimize the burden on

taxpayers and have maximum economic recovery impact. Where

the legislation speaks of ``assets'', that term is intended

to include capital instruments of an institution such as

common and preferred stock, subordinated and senior debt, and

equity rights. Also, it is the intent of this legislation

that TARP resources should be used in coordination with

regulatory agencies and their responsibilities under prompt-

corrective-action and least-cost resolution statutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of our leading attorneys in the House, who, representing the State of California, has a particular knowledge about much of what we are trying to do in this bill in the foreclosure area, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, ever mindful of the danger that George Bush will lead us down the road to socialism, we will be monitoring this very closely.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to a gentleman from Ohio who has been very seriously engaged on this issue.

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Financial Services, who has been very much concerned with the question of foreclosure, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

If the gentleman would yield back to me briefly, I thank him very much. He has been working hard on this, and has also not just professed this in general, but has made some specific suggestions.

Of the four points, two will take separate legislation, and I will work with the gentleman because I am in agreement with him on them, in concept. Two of them, however, are, I believe, able to be accomplished in this bill. I have spoken to the Secretary of the Treasury and, I believe, working together with the gentleman, we can make sure.

Let me just say specifically. Asset managers to support loan modifications will be very important for this success. The bill encourages the Treasury to consider the FDIC, which has been superlative in this regard, to play this role. Also, Treasury, under this bill, can buy virtually any mortgage asset, and we direct them to coordinate with the other agencies, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and to maximize modifications through the program we just adopted.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

We will expect the Secretary to use both direct assets and design--to provide special considerations for assets where HOPE for Homeowners or other programs have been used. In other words, we are directing the Treasurer to use his authority to maximize, exactly as the gentleman has proposed. We will continue to press the Secretary, and I believe we don't have to press too hard. He is ready to do this. And we will work with the gentleman on the other issues.

I will yield myself 15 seconds to say that the gentleman can tell his brother-in-law, Hank Aaron, he hit .500 today, and that's pretty good in any league.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman of the Commerce Committee, very knowledgeable in these subjects.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, it is. And I believe, as he and I have discussed, that the danger to the purchase of automobiles is one of the great ones that we face here, and it is an important reason for moving this bill. Yes, I very much agree with what he just said.

If the gentleman would yield, I would say absolutely, because this is one which would have a double positive effect: It would help with the credit crisis, and it would help one of our most important industries in the United States from facing difficulties.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) has been one of the hardest working members of our committee, and I yield him 2 minutes.

If the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes. The bill fully authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to do that, and I and others, including the gentleman from Colorado, will be working to make sure that he does, and I have every intention to believe that they intend to.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) from the Ways and Means Committee.

If the gentleman will yield, I agree completely. It would be a distortion of the clear meaning of this provision, widely supported, to do anything else but, and we will work to make sure that happens.

I now yield 1 minute to the Chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, who has been very carefully watching this situation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

I now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I would note that one of those whose names would be listed is John McCain, who voted for this bill in the Senate. So Mr. McCain's name would be at the head of that list of the 20.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to our newest member, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

If the gentlewoman will yield, the answer is, absolutely. And I can tell you that I have spoken to the Treasury, to the

Secretary, to tell him that it is very important; that many Members will be voting for this bill only with the understanding that he will use that authority. And I believe he accepts that fact and will act on it.

If the gentlewoman would yield again, I thank her for prodding us because thanks in part to her efforts, this is going to be the best we can do. And I appreciate that.

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas, a member of our committee, very much concerned with improving economic literacy, Mr. Hinojosa.

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a former member of the committee who deserted us for better things.

I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, who has done as much as anyone in this House to try to stave off the foreclosure crisis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to an alumna of our committee who has been a dedicated defender of working class people, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, no Member of Congress in my memory has worked harder and more constructively to improve and pass a bill than the majority whip has.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Madam Speaker, I think I have the honor of speaking on behalf of the body in wishing our friend well.

I now yield for a unanimous request consent to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the committee.

And I will take 10 seconds to say, yes, I understand that this is not everything that needs to be done. We will be back next year to do some serious surgery on the financial structure. But at this point, we have the EMT function. There's an emergency, and we have to avert serious harm. This is step one.

Step two will be the serious work that we will do to prevent this from occurring.

(Mrs. Maloney asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm happy that the House is able to complete today the Congress' consideration of this bipartisan legislation. As we have stated at every turn, Republicans strongly support the mission and appreciate the sacrifice of our dedicated Reservists and Guardsmen. We continue to agree that Reservists and Guardsmen who are plunged into bankruptcy by the demands of their service should be given a helping hand under the Bankruptcy Code.

Earlier this session, Judiciary Committee Republicans labored long and hard to achieve a workable compromise that would help these willing warriors. The merger issue for us was simple--that the bill respond to bankruptcies attributable to a Reservist's or Guardsman's service. The Senate has returned a bill to us that preserves the balance that we struck. The Senate has added one amendment, but it is technical in nature and was sought by the Administrative Office of the United States courts.

I urge all Members to support the passage of this legislation, and I look forward to the bill's implementation as law. I also look forward to the results 2 years from now of the GAO study contained in the bill. This study will tell us for sure whether Reservists and Guardsmen are using the relief granted by the bill when it is their service that leads to bankruptcy--not other factors. With this study in hand, when the bill reaches its 3-year sunset, we will know for sure whether it's being abused in cases lacking the necessary link to service. If it is being abused, we will be able to address that abuse at the time that reauthorization is considered.

In light of these considerations, I'm pleased to support passage of the bill.

I would also like to thank others who have worked on this bill, in particular Congressman Rohrabacher from California. I made, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law that has oversight of the Bankruptcy Act, a promise that we would reconsider this bill that was done some years ago. Mr. Rohrabacher has done an amazing job, given leadership and determination to bring this bill to where it is today and, by doing so, has redeemed my promise and his and that of many other people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

The American people are enraged by this bailout, or rescue as we're now calling it, and I think justifiably so. And they ought to be enraged that the real cause here--or the real cause of what I think should be the rage is that this has been done in a way that has been mandated, directed, expected that we would respond without much involvement. The rage of the American people reminds me of a bull often goes after the cape rather than goring the toreador. And what we need to do here, I think--I hope the American people recognize the opportunity to demand a transparent government.

There was no reason why the administration couldn't have made its three-page proposal available not as a legislative demand but as an outline of what the discussions should have been. There is no reason why we here in Congress have not done an open rule and had a debate on this. We could easily have taken this measure, debated it openly, amended it, adjusted it, and done things that make some sense.

Now the problem as I see the bailout--and the gentlelady and I have talked about this at some length--is that it pumps liquidity into banks and takes paper. That paper we hope is good. We hope it will be more valuable than what we have spent on it.

I thank the gentlelady. We have plenty of time on my side. If the gentlelady would like to yield back temporarily, I would be happy to use my time to talk about that point.

I thank the gentlelady, and if she wishes to remain, perhaps we can have a colloquy at some point.

Let me make a couple of points. We have had a long and intense discussion about what we can do to help solve, not the problem of the banks with their toxic loans which we hope we will buy at a reasonable price in a reverse auction, but what we do on the other side of this problem, which is homeowners who can't afford the loans that they got on property that was often misappraised or appraised fraudulently and therefore left in a box without being able to pay, with mortgages that are resetting at higher interest rates, sometimes with higher balances because of the way the mortgages were arranged.

So how do we help Americans stay in their homes in a reasonable fashion? And we've talked about bankruptcy as one way to do that.

Now in the bill that we did not pass here in the House recently, the Secretary had wide authority. I'm expecting that authority to be continued; and what I would hope is that the Secretary will not just put $700 billion into paper which may or may not be useful, but also something like $50 billion or $100 billion into funds that are intended to help people stay in their homes by creating the opportunity to buy mortgages at a discount, then renegotiate those mortgages with the people who are in those homes or others, and thereby avoid the downward spiral of housing costs.

I don't know that we're going to be able to do much with bankruptcy if this bill that passed the Senate passes the House today, I don't know that we're going to be able to deal with it. But I think that we ought to demand as the House that the Secretary recognize that this is not just a matter of buying paper and saving banks, but it's rather a matter of keeping a downward spiral on housing prices from continuing so that Americans can maintain the value on their homes, can keep their homes, and we can get this economic crisis behind us and perhaps even save some money.

I recognize the gentlelady is standing there. I would be happy to yield to her.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. The nice thing about being clear in your principles is that it's possible to negotiate and come up with compromises that work. It's been a pleasure to work with the gentlelady and also the chairman of the full committee who is also here with us, Mr. Conyers. It's not possible to be farther apart on the political spectrum than I think Mr. Conyers and I are, but we have had a very pleasant, and I think profitable, working relationship on many issues where because of his clear principles, and I hope my clear principles, we've been able to reach compromise.

Going back to what the gentlelady was saying, I fervently hope that I will not be part of any further negotiations on bankruptcy. I hope that we solve this problem today or tomorrow, I suppose, and then make the American people more safe by us being out of town and then letting the next year's crop of people come back and deal with the issue.

Let me just reiterate a couple of things the gentlelady has said. $2.1 trillion of subprime and Alt-A loans are in trouble. If we don't do something about that, those loans, as they fail--to the degree that they fail, and many are likely to fail--are likely to draw down to create a suction that will pull down the prices of all the other houses in America, creating chaos in our market.

It's imperative that the Secretary recognize his authority under, I think, the current language, and make it clear that he intends to do something not just about the paper because, as the gentlelady has pointed out, we don't own all of the fractions of the interests in these mortgages, and therefore we don't have the ability, by pumping money into paper, to solve the underlying problem. You have to do that in another way. And certainly where you have a second or a third, there is no ability by the Treasury, under the current program, to deal with that suction on prices.

So I am hoping that the Secretary of the Treasury will today make it clear that he intends to use part of this bailout money for which he has I think the discretion. I think it is important that he be clear that he has that discretion, that he intends to use the money that way so we can create a floor not just under the banks but also under the prices of our homes.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) had worked diligently on this bill, and I talked about his intelligence and determination and the fact that he has redeemed his promise and mine by bringing this bill to the floor today. I would like to yield as much time to him as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

We're now at a point where we're going to be voting very quickly on this bill. I think you heard the colloquy between the gentlelady from California and myself. I'm wondering if the gentleman can be satisfied if the Secretary takes a position publicly that he is going to use some of this bailout money under the discretion that he's given in the bill to do what I suggested earlier, which is, to put money into funds that would buy mortgages and keep people in their homes. Is that the kind of thing that we can do--

Recognizing the gentleman's limited time, we have I think more time on our side, and I would be happy to yield some to Mr. Conyers if he would like more.

Would the gentleman yield for a colloquy on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman at this point.

The problem we're facing, or course, is the urgency of what's going on. And the gentleman has heard my concern with the failure of the administration to have this aired transparently; but that said, we do have some urgency. If the Secretary is very clear in what he says, can we move forward, as opposed to, say, amending the Senate's bill--which will come over to us--and then sending it back to the Senate for further votes. Personally, I don't think that that is likely to happen; it's your leadership that will control the Rules Committee. But I suspect that we're not going to get the perfect here with the good, that is, a commitment by the Secretary that is clear and open and patent.

Would that serve to resolve the gentleman's concerns?

Mr. Kucinich, if you would like to continue, we don't disagree, and I think by having a further colloquy, I think we actually can come to an understanding.

As I understand your concern, the Secretary does not have the ability--or it would be difficult for him to buy up all the fractionated interests in any given mortgage, and therefore, he is incapable, in his current position--unless he does something remarkable and spends more money than we intend him to spend, he can't provide relief on individual mortgages.

What I'm suggesting the Secretary has the authority to do is to put money into private funds that can then go to the servicing agent of a nonperforming loan, where the person is in an anti-deficiency State, or otherwise can walk away from that loan without recourse to the bank. At that point, the servicing agent has the ability to sell a mortgage, or a package of mortgages. In that event, what I suggest is that if the Secretary will pump some significant resources into the private sector to buy mortgages from servicing agents, and from banks and others, in a market where we are having deterioration of prices, that would tend, dramatically, to solve the problem. It goes a long way toward, I think, the gentleman's concerns.

Reclaiming my time, let me just say the gentlelady is absolutely accurate in her portrayal of the problem. Let me just clarify one thing, because a lot of people listening to us today don't understand what a reset is.

You have mortgages that are at a fixed rate which will then pop up to a market rate in the future. It is that pop up that is a problem. If you have a mortgagee who is behind in his payments, he may be able to stay in the mortgage when it goes up, but he may not be able to afford it. If he's behind, he can't refinance. He's stuck in a world where he can't get out of that mortgage, and the market will drive him. And the bank that wants him to renegotiate can't do it because of the fractionated ownership of that mortgage.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady because she has made exactly the point. What we're trying to do here is avoid the collapsing values of houses.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume, and it won't be much.

Madam Speaker, a little over 20 years ago, I made my first speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Today could very well be my last speech on the floor of the House. I hope it's not. I hope we come back in a lame duck session to consider pending trade legislation, but this could be my last speech. And I had a real stemwinder prepared, Madam Speaker, but unfortunately, we only have 15 minutes of time that Ways and Means controls, and I have many more speakers than I have time.

So, with the Speaker's indulgence, I will submit my remarks for the Record.

Madam Speaker, on May 5, 1988, during Floor debate on a defense authorization bill, I rose as a freshman Member to address this House for the very first time, urging my colleagues to support an amendment in the name of fiscal responsibility. My very first words on the Floor that day warned of the dangers of the growing national debt. Over the two decades since, I've made scores of speeches and cast more than 11,000 votes in this historic chamber, representing the hardworking taxpayers of Louisiana to the best of my ability.

While I certainly hope we can return in November to complete action on our unfinished trade agenda, Madam Speaker, I rise today for what may be my final Floor speech as a Member of this body. As someone who has spent his entire career fighting for smaller government, freer markets, and greater economic liberty for all Americans, it is sadly ironic that I speak today in favor of a plan that, on its surface, appears to run counter to those principles.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, this proposal seems to undermine the very foundations of capitalism, upending the economic incentives that drive entrepreneurial risk-taking. In America, we rightly celebrate our freedom to succeed in economic ventures. But in America, we're also supposed to be free to fail in those ventures, without expectation of a bailout from fellow taxpayers.

By rushing in with $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to address the current crisis, I fear we are greatly increasing the moral hazard associated with economic risk-taking. I resent the level of government interference in the private market we see in this bill, and I hope it does not set a precedent that Congress follows in the future.

Despite my grave concerns about this proposal, Madam Speaker, the weight of the evidence says we need to act--not to bail out the Wall Street titans, but instead to stabilize the credit markets upon which Main Street depends.

Over recent weeks, I have listened carefully to experts on all sides of this issue, to constituents with a variety of strongly-held views, and to the voice of the U.S. Senate, which passed this emergency plan on Wednesday by a 74-25 vote. On balance, I am convinced that the Treasury Secretary needs to have appropriate authority to halt our Nation's slide into what could become a profound and extended economic downturn. If that were to occur and our financial markets were to collapse, I believe it could open the door to even more government interference in the private marketplace and to even less economic freedom for all Americans.

We must not let that happen. The stakes are simply too high, and the risks to our economy, and our freedoms, are just too great. The circumstances are exigent, Madam Speaker, and, in my judgment, we need to act now.

In addition to three tax provisions contained in the financial rescue portion of the bill--provisions dealing with the treatment of executive compensation, capital losses incurred by banks holding preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the tax exclusion for forgiven debt on home mortgages--the bill before us also includes the Senate's comprehensive tax extenders package. This is a positive development, Madam Speaker, because the Senate's tax package provides more than $107 billion in net tax relief to U.S. families and businesses.

With enactment of this bill, we will finally resolve the tax dispute that has divided Republicans and Democrats for the entirety of the 110th Congress, delaying action on the AMT patch and other tax extenders, including a variety of energy-related tax incentives.

Over the past 2 years, Republicans have insisted that we should not have to raise taxes to prevent the tax increases that would result from the scheduled expiration of existing tax law. Democrats, meanwhile, have insisted that the House's paygo rules require us to find offsets for extensions of expired or expiring tax law.

This comprehensive package--previously approved as a free-standing bill by the other body by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 2--represents a bipartisan compromise, much like the financial rescue plan to which it has been attached. It contains extenders provisions that are not fully offset--as many Democrats would prefer--but contains more offsets than many Republicans would like, including some on domestic oil and gas producers that I find particularly troubling.

It is certainly not a perfect package, Madam Speaker, but with adjournment looming, it is the only package that can pass both chambers and actually be enacted into law.

Specifically, this package will protect millions of middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the AMT in 2008. It provides more than $48 billion in tax relief by extending through

2009 various expired and expiring provisions affecting U.S. families and businesses. And it contains an $18 billion package of energy- related tax incentives, including the creation of a new tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles.

The package also contains a set of disaster-related tax relief provisions, including both nationwide tax relief and targeted tax relief for the victims of this summer's Midwestern storms and for victims of Hurricane Ike in Louisiana and Texas. Finally, the Senate's comprehensive tax package contains several non-tax provisions of significant interest to many Members on both sides of the aisle, including mental health parity and a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program.

All in all, this is a good, bipartisan package of tax proposals, Madam Speaker, and I think its inclusion improves the overall financial rescue package before us by providing important tax relief to our nation's families and businesses at a critical time for our economy.

So today, I will cast my vote for this economic stabilization plan, sobered by the reality that our failure to act could have unprecedented, catastrophic consequences for our country and the economic freedoms for which I've long fought as a Member of this great institution.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I want to first say how much I appreciate the very kind words of the gentleman from New York and appreciate very much the opportunity to have worked with him over the last couple of years. He has been more than gracious to me and to all the members of the committee, and so his words were heartfelt, and I very much appreciate them.

With that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Nunes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a distinguished Member of this House, Mr. Wamp.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, certainly the tax portion of the bill today, represents a compromise. These extensions of expiring provisions of the Tax Code have been bandied about here in the House back, over in the Senate, back and forth all year long, including the patch on the alternative minimum tax. I'm gratified that we were able to come together to present the tax extenders in this package because I believe very strongly in the overwhelming majority of those provisions. I think they're good, sound tax policy. Members of this House have voted for all of them many times over.

So, Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this bill, especially for the tax extenders.

I rise in opposition to this bill.

The public is being led to believe that Congress has reconsidered its position because we have before us a better bill than we had a few days ago. It is the same bill plus hundreds of new pages for hundreds of millions of tax breaks. What does this have to do with the troubles of Wall Street?

Driven by fear we are moving quickly to pass a bill, which may produce a temporary uptick for the market but nothing for millions of homeowners whose misfortunes are at the center of our economic woes. People do not have money to pay their mortgages. After this passes, they will still not have money to pay their mortgages. People will still lose their homes while Wall Street is bailed out.

The central flaw of this bill is that there are no stronger protections for homeowners and no changes in the language to ensure that the secretary has the authority to compel mortgage servicers to modify the terms of mortgages. And there are no stronger regulatory changes to fix the circumstances that allowed this to happen.

We should have created a mechanism for our Government to take a controlling interest in mortgage-backed securities and use our power to work out a new deal for the homeowners. We could have done this. We should have done this. But we didn't.

Now millions of Americans will face the threat of foreclosure without any help. And the numbers will soon rise for a number of reasons. Not only because of the Alt-A, jumbo mortgages which will soon be reset at higher interest rates, but because the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is pushing up rates on adjustable mortgages and more than half of the U.S. adjustable mortgage rates are tied to LIBOR. Homeowner defaults will grow in significant numbers. Let's see if Congress will be as quick to help homeowners on Main Street as they were to help speculators on Wall Street.

Now the Government will have to borrow $700 billion from banks, with interest, to give banks a $700 billion bailout, and in return the taxpayers get $700 billion in toxic debt. The Senate ``improved'' the bailout by giving tax breaks to people in foreclosure. People in foreclosure need help paying their mortgage, they do not seek tax breaks.

Across our Nation, foreclosures continue to devastate our communities, people are losing their jobs, and the prices of necessities are skyrocketing. This legislation, just like the one we defeated last week, will do nothing to solve the problems plaguing American families or help them to get out from underneath the oppressive debt they have been forced to take on.

Unfortunately, there has been no discussion of the underlying debt- based economy and the role of our monetary system in facilitating the redistribution of wealth upwards.

It is not as though we had no choice but to pass the bill before us. We could have done this differently. We could have demanded language in the legislation that would have empowered the Treasury to compel mortgage servicers to rework the terms of mortgage loans so homeowners could avoid foreclosure. We could have put regulatory structures in place to protect investors. We could have stopped the speculators.

This bill represents an utter failure of the democratic process. It represents the triumph of special interest over the triumph of the public interest. It represents the inability of Government to defend the public interest in the face of great pressure from financial interests. We could have recognized the power of Government to prime the pump of the economy to get money flowing through out society by creating jobs, health care, and major investments in green energy. What a lost opportunity! What a moment of transition away from democracy and towards domination of America by global economic interests.

Years ago, in a Cleveland neighborhood, I saw a hand-scrawled sign above a cash register in a delicatessen. The sign said: ``In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash.'' The sign above the Speaker's rostrum reads ``In God We Trust,'' but today we are paying the cash to Wall Street.

It is not as if we had no other choice but to pass this bill.

[From Ohio.com, Oct. 3, 2008]

Foreclosure Victim, 90, Apparently Shoots Self

(By Phil Trexler)

At the age of 90, Addie Polk found herself in foreclosure

this week, about to be forced from the home she's lived in

for nearly 40 years.

So, with a gun in her hand, the Akron widow apparently shot

herself in the chest Wednesday afternoon as deputies were

knocking on her door with eviction papers in hand.

While a nation reels in financial crisis from years of

mortgage abuse, Polk is recovering at Akron General Medical

Center, awaiting word on where she will live when she's

released.

Meanwhile, city leaders say Polk has become Akron's

``poster child'' for victims of predatory lenders.

``I think this is a case where we need to step in and help

this lady if she is so desperate to shoot herself because she

can't pay her mortgage,'' Akron Councilman Marco Sommerville

said.

Court records show Polk took out a 30-year, 6.375 percent

mortgage just four years ago for $45,620 with a Countrywide

Home Loan office in Cuyahoga Falls. She took out a line of

credit that same day for $11,380.

Her La Croix Avenue home was appraised by Summit County in

2004 at $31,230.

The Countrywide branch did not return a call for comment

Thursday.

Polk essentially owed the same $45,000 when the Federal

National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) filed for

foreclosure on her home in 2007. Fannie Mae assumed the

mortgage from Countrywide.

Following foreclosure this year, Polk's six-room, 101-year-

old home was bought by Fannie Mae at sheriffs auction for

$28,000.

Her house now belongs to the lender.

Summit County sheriffs deputies say Polk ignored multiple

notes and letters leading up to Wednesday's eviction. She

also ignored the foreclosure action filed in court.

It wasn't until Tuesday that she called the sheriffs office

in disbelief. The next day was eviction day.

``I'm positive she believed the deputies were going to come

in, clean out the house and set her and her things on the

curb, because they did that decades ago. But that's not what

happens nowadays,'' sheriffs Lt. Kandy Fatheree said.

``I'm sure she had to be thinking back to the Great

Depression when people were set out on the street. She had to

be scared to death.''

Deputies Dave Bailey, Jason Beam and Don Fatheree went to

the home about 1 p.m. Wednesday to meet with a Fannie Mae

representative and escort Polk from the house. They said they

had no idea the woman was 90 years old.

The deputies' knocks were unanswered, and they were about

to leave because the Fannie Mae representative failed to

show. Then, they heard a banging noise coming from the home's

second floor.

Next-door neighbor Robert Dillon heard it, too. More bangs

followed.

Dillon borrowed a neighbor's ladder and climbed through

Polk's second-floor bathroom window and walked into her

bedroom. She was lying on her side, a gun next to her on the

bed.

``I'm thinking to myself, `Why does Mrs. Polk got a gun?'

'' Dillon said. ``After looking around, I touched her

shoulder and saw the blood and I said, `Shucks, she done shot

herself.' ''

Dillon, 62, shouted to the deputies, who alerted Akron EMS.

Polk apparently shot herself more than once with a small-

caliber handgun, police said.

Polk and her late husband, Robert, a Goodrich retiree,

moved into the home in 1970. He died in 1995, but Polk

continued to live independently, but alone, still driving her

late model Chevrolet to the grocery store and church.

She appeared to be struggling financially, Dillon said, but

he said she never spoke of the foreclosure action looming for

more than a year.

She had no children of her own and few visitors, he said.

``She didn't need no help. She got around good,'' he said.

It is unclear how Polk used the loan money. Dillon said he

didn't notice any work being done on the property, and

deputies said her front porch was soft from years of neglect.

``Where'd the money go?'' Dillon asked.

Sommerville said he is working with the city and the county

to assist Polk with housing, once she is released from the

hospital.

He said the city has been awarded more than $8 million in

federal grants in the wake of the mortgage crisis to help

cope with the crush.

Sommerville said Polk's fate humanizes the problem for the

rich and poor. And he urged those facing foreclosure to seek

assistance through various local and county agencies.

``It's a sad situation,'' he said. ``She's the poster child

for this foreclosure crisis we are facing.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008. This bill would enhance the research programs established in the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 and reauthorized in 2004, which have greatly enhanced our ability to predict outbreaks of harmful algal blooms and the extent of hypoxic zones. But knowing when outbreaks will occur is only half the battle. By funding additional research into mitigation and prevention of HABs and hypoxia, and by enabling communities to develop response strategies to more effectively reduce their effects on our coastal communities, this legislation would take the next critical steps to reducing the social and economic impacts of these potentially disastrous outbreaks.

I am proud to continue my leadership on this important issue and I particularly want to thank my counterpart on this key piece of legislation, Senator Bill Nelson. My partnership with Senator Breaux on the first two harmful algal bloom bills proved extremely fruitful, and I am pleased that the Gulf of Mexico--whose coastal residents are severely impacted by both harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, and hypoxia--will continue to be so well represented as this program moves into the future. I also want to thank the bill's additional co- sponsors, Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Vitter, Voinovich, Boxer and Levin for their vital contributions. We all represent coastal States directly affected by harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and we see first hand the ecological and economic damage caused by these events.

In New England blooms of Alexandrium algae, more commonly known as ``red tide'', can cause shellfish to accumulate toxins that when consumed by humans lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), a potentially fatal neurological disorder. Therefore, when levels of Alexandrium reach dangerous levels, our fishery managers are forced to close shellfish beds that provide hundreds of jobs and add millions of dollars to our regional economy. Red tide outbreaks--which occur in various forms not just in the northeast, but along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline--have increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years, with major blooms occurring almost every year.

In 2005, the most severe red tide since 1972 blanketed the New England coast from Martha's Vineyard to Downeast Maine, resulting in extensive commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting closures lasting several months at the peak of the seafood harvesting season. In a peer-reviewed study, economists found that the 2005 event caused over $2.4 million in lost landings of shellfish in the State of Maine alone, and more than $10 million throughout New England.

In May of this year, scientists once more predicted an abundance of Alexandrium off the New England coast, marking the onset of yet another severe harmful algal bloom in the area. Just yesterday, Maine's Department of Marine Resources announced the closure of additional shellfish beds covering many areas from Cutler east to the Canadian border, and today the Food and Drug Administration asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a closure of a section of Federal waters near George's Bank to the harvest of ocean quahogs and surf clams.

Still, while this year's bloom has tracked the pattern of the 2005 event, thanks to previous investments in HAB programs, localized testing has led to fewer closures. Unlike 2005 when nearly the entire coast of Massachusetts and much of Maine was declared off-limits to shell fishermen, in this year's bloom, some unaffected areas remain open despite being directly adjacent to contaminated beds. These detailed forecasting and testing measures will greatly reduce the economic impact such outbreaks impose on our coastal communities, and is directly attributable to the efforts authorized in previous HAB legislation.

Mr. President, while we have made great strides in bloom prediction and monitoring, it is clear that these problems have not gone away, but rather increased in magnitude. Harmful algal blooms remain prevalent nationwide, and areas of hypoxia, also known as ``dead zones'', are now occurring with increasing frequency. Within a dead zone, oxygen levels plummet to the point at which they can no longer sustain life, driving out animals that can move, and killing those that cannot. The most infamous dead zone occurs annually in the Gulf of Mexico, off the shores of Louisiana. In 2007, researchers there predicted the biggest hypoxic zone ever recorded, covering more than 8,500 square miles. Dead zones are also occurring with increasing frequency in more areas than ever before, including off the coasts of Oregon and Texas.

The amendments contained in this legislation would enhance the Nation's ability to predict, monitor, and ultimately control harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Understanding when these blooms will occur is vital, but the time has come to take this program to the next level--to determine not just when an outbreak will occur, but how to reduce its intensity or prevent its occurrence all together. This bill would build on NOAA's successes in research and forecasting by creating a program to mitigate and control HAB outbreaks.

This bill also recognizes the need to enhance coordination among State and local resource managers--those on the front lines who must make the decisions to close beaches or shellfish beds. Their decisions are critical to protecting human health, but can also impose significant economic impacts. The bill would mandate creation of Regional Research and Action Plans that would identify baseline research, possible State and local government actions to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of HABs, and establish outreach strategies to ensure the public is

informed of the dangers these events can present. A regional focus on these issues will ensure a more effective and efficient response to future events.

Mr. President, if enacted, this critical reauthorization would greatly enhance our Nation's ability to predict, monitor, mitigate, and control outbreaks of HABs and hypoxia. Over half the U.S. population resides in coastal regions, and we must do all in our power to safeguard their health and the health of the marine environment. The existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has done a laudable job to date, and this authorization will allow them to expand their scope and provide greater benefits to the Nation as a whole. I thank my cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this vital legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.