Wild Monongahela Act: A National Legacy for West Virginia's Special Places

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

I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding us the time on this rule, and I also want to say that I thank very much the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his help yesterday in the Rules Committee meeting on incorporating a suggestion that I made into the manager's amendment. It didn't make it in this bill in the form of an amendment, but he was very kind to include that, and I think it made this bad bill a little bit better.

I want to say that my colleague from Florida has made some very eloquent comments about why this rule should be adopted and why the underlying bill is such a good bill. However, those of us on this side of the aisle have some clear concerns about this rule and about the bill and what it is going to be doing to our economy.

We heard yesterday a lot of numbers that were very, very difficult to pin down. In fact, I tried very hard, knowing I was going to handle this rule this morning, because I wanted to try to get a handle on the number of people that we are talking about.

We heard the number 14 million. We heard 14 million now and more later. But we also heard that what this bill will do will be to allow the bankruptcy system to handle about 30,000 new cases per year. My guess is that while this bill claims not to be needing a lot more money in that area, that eventually our colleagues across the aisle are going to come back asking for more money to deal with this issue.

But what I want to talk about today a little bit is both the process and about the reason why the rule should not be adopted and the bill should not be adopted. 94 percent of the people in this country are now paying their mortgages and paying them on time. What's going to happen if this bill is passed is that those people, and people in the future, are going to be punished. We are continually punishing the people who play by the rules and rewarding the people who don't play by the rules. It is a real shame that we have come to that place in our society because we don't want to set that as the norm for what we're doing in this country, because we've always had the rule of law and we've operated very well. What separates us from most other countries is that.

And yet, now we're going to say to people, it's okay if you go out, misrepresent your position in terms of being able to pay for your mortgage or do any kinds of things like that, and then we'll bail you out. It will be okay for us to do that. And that, basically, is what this bill is, the message that we're sending.

But let me talk just a bit about the process that was involved in bringing this rule to us. We had a very lively debate in the Rules Committee yesterday. The chairman of the Financial Services Committee told us that he was very willing to accept some of the amendments that had been offered. They might not exactly fit in the Financial Services Committee, but he was willing to work with some of our Members to make those fit.

We had 20 amendments offered, Republicans did. Only one of those amendments was accepted to be offered today, and it looks like we may have a problem with that amendment once it is offered.

We are trying very hard to be bipartisan. We want to work with the majority on helping the people in this country who are truly hurting, who have played by the rules and who are being hurt by the economy, through no fault of their own. However, what this bill, again, is going to do is it is keeping us from being bipartisan. We have to be opposed to the rule and opposed to the bill because they've put together bills that should not be put together. Many of us could probably support the Financial Services part of this bill, but we would be very concerned about the Judiciary part of it. But no, the majority has to lump them all together and create a situation that denies our ability to be bipartisan.

A couple of the rules that were offered yesterday and in the various committees that Chairman Frank said he was willing to have a debate on was a rule offered by Representative Neugebauer which would amend the servicer safe harbor provisions to provide that unsuccessful plaintiffs would pay all the attorney's fees and any legal costs incurred by the defendant.

Another one by Congresswoman Capito would exempt the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration Loan Guaranty Program

and Guaranteed Rural Housing Loans from adjustments to the terms of the loan in bankruptcy. These already are very, very lenient programs and, supposedly, all the work has been done so that there would not be the need to go to bankruptcy.

Also, Congressman Hensarling offered, I offered on his behalf, three excellent amendments that would, I think, help with the issue of responsibility and accountability. The President talks a lot about that, but when it comes down to implementing those things in legislation, we see nothing coming from the majority on those issues.

Let me mention the Hensarling amendments which were denied, and we can't even vote on them. One would exclude from participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower whose original loan was a zero down payment loan. Many of these people are treating these homes that they bought like rental property. They have no investment in them, and so when the economy goes south or the home is not worth as much as they thought it was worth, they just walk away from it. That's no sense of responsibility. We're just, again, rewarding irresponsibility.

Another amendment by Congressman Hensarling would exclude from participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower whose original loan documentation did not include verification of the amount and source of income. A lot of these loans were given out to people who did not bring information on their income. That seems a logical thing to do. Most people, again, who are paying their mortgages are people who paid something down and then were able to show that they could pay for the home ultimately.

And then the third one would have excluded from participation in the HOPE for Homeowners Program any borrower who has a family income that exceeds 125 percent of the area median income for where they live. Republicans are usually the ones criticized for helping wealthy people, but this bill is going to allow millionaires to be able to get help. We don't think that that's the right thing to do.

Those were three very logical amendments that were turned down. As I said, only one out of 20 of our amendments was accepted. So we think that this is a bad rule. We think it's a bad bill and we're going to urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize for 5 minutes my distinguished colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) to discuss the amendment that he had written that I offered last night in the Rules Committee, which was rejected. And I think he will share some very enlightening comments with us.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before that 94 percent of the American people are paying their mortgages and are paying them on time, and they don't understand why this is happening and why they should be burdened with having to pay off the mortgages of people who are not being responsible and who are not being held accountable.

I want to share with you an article that came out in The Washington Post last December about the HOPE Program and about the situation that we're dealing with. When I read the article, it made me realize that our colleagues across the aisle are simply not in touch with reality. They don't have any idea about how the real world works. Most of them have not been in business. Most of them have not had to meet a payroll. They're living sort of in a Never Never Land, and I'm going to quote some things from this article that, I think, will help the public understand what that is.

There is criticism about the bill from the HUD Secretary. Now, that HUD Secretary was in the last administration, and there is a lot of blame back and forth between Congress and the executive branch. This is what the HUD Secretary said:

``What most people don't understand is that this program was designed to the detail by Congress.''

So that bill was passed. The bill setting up the HOPE Program was passed under the Democratic Congress. It also shows how off their numbers are in so many cases when they make predictions. They said the 3-year program was supposed to help 400,000 borrowers avoid foreclosure, but between October and December of last year, only 312 applications had come into the program.

Let me tell you a little bit about why that is the case and why, I think, people who irresponsibly got mortgages to begin with continue to look for bailouts and continue to look for welfare. This is basically expanding the welfare program in our country by passing this bill. Here is what one of the people said who is working with those people who might benefit from the program:

``Getting the lenders to agree has been our biggest challenge,'' said Peyton Herbert, director of the foreclosure services at HomeFree-USA, a housing counseling firm in Hyattsville.

This is what he says. This is the ridiculous way that these folks respond to this. He says, ``The lenders want dollar for dollar what's owed on that loan or something close to it. That's the fly in the ointment.''

Imagine that. People who loan other people money want them to pay it back dollar for dollar. Isn't that an unusual situation? But that's the way most of us operate in this country. However, most of these people who got these loans and who are in trouble now got them because they never expected to pay them back. They expected somebody to bail them out. They weren't honest when they got the loans, and now they're going to be bailed out by this legislation.

The other thing, which is just mind-boggling to me, is how the press writes these. Okay. ``The number one impediment is the lenders will redo their loans if the people promise to pay them back.'' Now, that's the way it usually operates, but the article goes on to say, ``The list of impediments goes on.''

That's the attitude of The Washington Post. There is an impediment given out there to the people who want to redo their loans. Do you know what that impediment is? That the people who are getting these loans, if their home increases in value, they have to split that value with the Federal Government, which is underwriting their loan, if they sell the home; and the people don't want to do that.

Again, there is no sense of responsibility. We didn't hear the President the other night talk about personal responsibility, personal accountability. He uses those words a lot, but he never pins them on anybody. It's just unbelievable that that's the attitude that people have. They could be getting help that already exists out of the HOPE Program, but they don't do it because

they don't want to pay the money back, and they don't want to share the increase in value with the Federal Government, which is underwriting their mortgage, if they ever sell the home.

Again, I think they're living in a Never Never Land. They think that they're due this money for free. They've been taught to live in a welfare society. We're continuing the welfare mentality. We're going back to welfare that was done away with when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995. That is not what the American people want.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say there is another issue here related to process that, I think, we need to talk about.

Many people say that the American people's eyes glaze over when we talk about the process here and that they don't really care, but I think we showed a couple of weeks ago that they do care and that they're watching and that they're paying close attention to what's going on in Congress, because the American people believe in fair play, and they believe that we should play by the rules.

So often, Congress passes bills and exempts itself. It often passes rules, and the majority exempts itself. One of the ways that Congress is exempting itself or that the majority is exempting itself right now on this bill, on this rule, is with something they call PAYGO. Now, the majority party 2 years ago made a big splash and got a lot of great publicity, saying, ``Everything is going to be pay as you go.'' It's abbreviated PAYGO. ``We're not going to do any more spending unless we cut spending somewhere else. We want to be diligent.''

They criticized Republicans for years on the deficit. They criticized Republicans for spending too much money. They were going to show that they were different. Yet what have they done every time they've gotten a major bill they've wanted to pass? They've just waived the PAYGO rules. It's real simple, and it usually doesn't get a lot of publicity because they got all that great publicity for saying that they weren't going to do that, but that's what's happening here, ladies and gentlemen. The PAYGO rules have been waived on this bill.

They don't want to show the American people how again they're abusing their own rules, how they're being unfair to the American people because they're saying one thing and they're doing another. They say, We want to bring down the deficit. We want to curtail spending. What they're actually doing, as I said earlier, is bringing back the old welfare system. We saw that with the stimulus bill. We saw it with the appropriations bill. It's back to the old style of welfare. We don't have to ask people to work to draw welfare payments. No. Let's just get rid of that. Let's extend the payments. Let's increase the payments. Let's put more people on welfare. That's exactly what this bill does. We're simply going to be increasing welfare.

The way they do that is to say, By passing this bill, we don't have to show how we're not increasing the deficit, so we'll just waive that rule, and nobody is going to notice it. Well, I think the American people are noticing that. I think they are paying attention.

Again, the majority of the American people who are paying their mortgages, who are playing by the rules, who are going to work every day, and who are doing their jobs are getting sick and tired of the increase in the welfare system again. Here you go. The Democrats have been in charge of the Congress for a little over 2 years, and what do we see but a massive increase in welfare.

I appreciate my colleague talking about the President saying he was going to be responsible, that he was going to be held accountable, but you know, we've not seen anything written into legislation so far. I've asked about that. Again, I appreciate very much Chairman Conyers putting a little piece in this bill about accountability. I think that was good.

We're going to look at bankruptcy judges, see if they're abusing their power, make sure we have some idea of what they're going to be doing. We give them 2 years to make that report--it's plenty of time-- but I have great concern over the fact that the majority party has waived the PAYGO rules on this bill. That's a part of what they're doing, and I think the American people are concerned about that, too.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know, we hear all this talk about bipartisanship. Bipartisanship to the other side, to the majority party, means do it my way. That's what bipartisanship means to them. Bipartisanship to us means how about we have a discussion? How about we bring up some amendments and have some votes on them? If you're so sure that your position is right, bring those amendments up for a vote. Let's see what kind of votes they're going to get. No. They won't even allow amendments to be voted on. That's not bipartisanship.

We had 20 amendments offered for this bill. Only one was accepted. That's not bipartisanship. Bipartisanship would be, again, bringing up lots of Republican amendments. Let them be voted on. Again, people who are sure of their position aren't afraid of having votes on alternative points of view.

Again, the American people are watching us. They're watching this Congress, and we know the Congress is putting off some tough votes they don't want to deal with right now because they know the American people are watching. And you know, that's one of the best things that I think has come out of last year's election and, perhaps, the economic uncertainty.

People are suffering. Republicans are concerned about that. We want to do everything we can to help those people who are suffering. But what this Congress has done so far hasn't helped those people who are suffering. It hasn't helped the people who are working and lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

We want bipartisanship, but it should be true bipartisanship. It's not ``do it our way or do it not at all.''

You know, I respect my colleague from California who just spoke and said that this bill doesn't cost taxpayers anything; it only costs the lenders. Well, who are the lenders? They're banks that are owned by stockholders. Those, the last time I looked, were taxpayers. They're the real taxpayers. That, again, is part of the out-of-this-world mentality that the people on the other side of the aisle have. It doesn't cost anybody.

I had people in my office and they said, ``Oh, this bill doesn't cost anything.'' I said, ``Pardon me? You mean they're going to cram down the mortgages, they're going to reduce the amount of the mortgages? Who's going to pay the difference between the original amount and the cramdown amount?''

``Oh, those are the bankers. But it just means they won't be as rich as they were before.''

That's not the way this country operates. ``Cramdown'' is the right name for the people talking about part of this legislation. That's exactly what it is. And what are we doing here?

You know, the New York Post--not exactly known as the most conservative newspaper in the world--calls it the Foreclosure Five. What we are doing is we are bailing out people in five States. And is it any surprise that those five States are California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Michigan? Where is the leadership in the majority party? California and Nevada. Is it surprising?

This is just more earmark legislation, ladies and gentlemen. More earmarks. We're bailing out these five States.

This is not a crisis of a national proportion. This is a personal matter, not a national crisis.

Falling home prices are not the problem. Home prices went up tremendously for several years. Everybody knew that was going to have to come to a halt. Again, people living in this world knew that. People who had a real-world mentality understood that. But if you're living in Never Never Land, if you're living on the welfare mentality, then you assume you can behave any way you want to and somebody is going to bail you out. And that's what this legislation does.

Lots of newspaper articles and magazines have said, ``What this plan is doing is undercutting the banking and private sectors, and hurt many honest, hardworking people.'' That's a commentary from the Street. Over and over and over again we hear, ``we're subsidizing bad behavior,'' an article in the National Review. And that's exactly what this legislation does, it subsidizes bad behavior.

This is a sham. It is hurting average Americans who pay their bills, who do their work. You know, I think that the majority party has an addiction to spending other people's money, and that's what this does. Again, saying it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything is ridiculous. It's going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, both directly and indirectly. And I want to say that this is a bad bill, it's a bad rule, and I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 190 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 190 provides for consideration of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, under a structured rule. While the rule waives clause 10 of rule XXI regarding PAYGO, there is only a technical violation of clause 10 by section 204 of the bill. Because of the timing of cash flows of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the provision increases direct spending in the first 5- year period, but more than offsets that increase in the 10-year period.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, takes a vital step toward reviving our housing market, stemming the tide of home foreclosures and putting our Nation's economy back on track.

This bill would first give bankruptcy judges the ability to modify, at their own discretion, mortgage loans on a homeowner's principal residence if the homeowner meets specified, stringent criteria. Further, this legislation would also help veterans and other homeowners avoid foreclosure by allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Agriculture to guarantee and/or insure mortgage loans modified either out of court or in a bankruptcy case.

This bill would also provide a safe harbor from liability to mortgage servicers who engage in loan modification workouts or other loss mitigation. Many services, Mr. Speaker, have claimed that fear of litigation or uncertainty about what modification actions may be permitted under their agreement have kept them from partaking in loan modifications or other workouts. With the safe harbor provisions in this legislation, they will no longer have any excuse.

Additionally, this bill makes much-needed changes to the HOPE for Homeowners program in order to encourage greater lender participation. It puts the HUD Secretary in charge of running the program, reduces fees and eliminates other administrative burdens, and changes the profit-sharing

provisions to induce more loan writedowns.

Finally, this bill makes permanent the temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage for both the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund and the National Credit Union Administration Share Insurance Fund. This provision will enhance the liquidity and stability of our banking institutions and help restore confidence in our financial system.

Some have criticized the bankruptcy cramdown provisions in this bill, and I share some of their concerns, claiming that they will cause massive losses to financial institutions, increase the cost of borrowing for other homeowners or lead to a sudden surge of bankruptcy filings. I am not certain that this is the case. Modifications will be at the individual discretion of a bankruptcy judge who will make the determination of whether a borrower has acted responsibly and their claim has any merit.

This provision will maximize, not lessen, the value of troubled mortgages for the lender, and will avoid the decline in property values in neighborhoods where homes have been foreclosed on. It is preposterous to think that individuals would willingly submit themselves to the arduous process, negative stigma and long-lasting effects of filing for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will remain as it has always been, a last resort.

Under current law, bankruptcy judges already have the authority to modify loans on virtually every secured claim, including vacation homes, investment properties, private jets and luxury yachts, except for primary family residences. This loophole is outdated and in my view absurd, and it must be rectified.

Some may also argue that we are bailing out reckless borrowers at the expense of those who were prudent and responsible. However, many individuals who have duly made every single monthly payment and lived within their means are seeing their home values drop and no longer have the ability to refinance due to the rapidly declining market. Some who are being swept up by the foreclosure crisis are victims of bad lending practices and some who played by the rules and acted responsibly are now finding themselves underwater through no fault of their own.

Throughout this Nation, Mr. Speaker, millions of families are in danger of losing their homes. And while it is easy to think that the foreclosure crisis affects no other than those directly involved, the truth is this crisis has had and will have a rippling effect all across the country. Not only are individuals' livelihoods gravely impacted, but as foreclosures go up, surrounding home prices go down, tax revenue for vital public services falls, financial institutions are saddled with losses, access to credit shrinks and our economy grinds to a halt. This legislation helps put a stop to this deadly spiral.

In my home State of Florida, Mr. Speaker, estimates show just in Florida alone that approximately 160,000 homes can be saved as a result of court supervised modifications. Additionally, a recent report by Credit Suisse estimates that the safe harbor provisions alone will lessen foreclosures by 20 percent.

Just this past Wednesday, President Obama announced his comprehensive homeowners' affordability and stability plan. This legislation is the first step toward putting this plan into action.

Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend that implementing this legislation will prevent every single foreclosure. In fact, there are some cases for which foreclosure is the correct action. However, this bill will help ensure responsible individuals stay in their home and will mitigate the destructive impact of foreclosures on families and communities.

This bill addresses our Nation's foreclosure crisis in a meaningful and responsible fashion by reforming our bankruptcy laws, clearing legal impediments to loan modifications, improving the HOPE for Homeowners program and ensuring confidence in our banking system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Florida, the gentlewoman, Ms. Castor, an immediate past member of the Rules Committee that left us for greener pastures.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from North Carolina refers to the President's constant statements five or six times during his joint resolution speech of calling for responsibility and accountability, and what she says is that he never pins it on anybody.

My recollection of his speech was he said, ``including me,'' when he was talking about responsibility and accountability. If that's not pinning it on somebody, I don't know what is.

Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, my colleague and former member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, please, as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, my fellow Floridian and classmate, my good friend, Ms. Brown.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

If the gentlelady will yield.

I'm not in a position to speak for the Judiciary Committee, but the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee obviously will be one of the conferees, and if such an opportunity exists, then I would urge the gentlelady to speak with he and the Chair of Financial Services.

I think the gentlelady brings up an outstanding point that's true throughout the Nation where people are in need of appropriate legal representation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute.

If the gentlelady would yield.

I'd have you to know that this won't be the last vehicle in straightening out financial services.

But you cite to the credit unions correctly. I, too, have had meetings with them. They're very concerned about the cramdown provisions allowing that it may very well cause increases, and they have been extremely responsible in our respective communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee who has worked tirelessly in producing this particular document along with Chairman Conyers and Chairman Frank and other members of their respective committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

I do have one more speaker, and I will be prepared to close.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

This is a good rule for a critically important bill that addresses our current housing market crisis.

My friend from North Carolina speaks of the leadership of this committee being from California and Nevada, the Democratic majority. It is true that Speaker Pelosi is from California and it is true that Senator Harry Reid is from Nevada, but they are two people. There are other people in the leadership in the majority, Senator Durbin from Illinois, Mr. Clyburn from South Carolina, Mr. Larson from Connecticut, the distinguished majority leader, Steny Hoyer, from Maryland.

What we are talking about here is a universal problem insofar as this country is concerned. And I'm just back from an anti-Semitism conference in England, where I read, very actively, regarding their home crisis in the United Kingdom. We are also experiencing a whole global set of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, in today's Daily Summary, the quote is made from the majority whip's office that Confucius said, ``The strength of a nation is derived from the integrity of its homes.'' I can think--and I'm sure every Member here can think--of all of our families through the years that among the things that they wanted was an opportunity to have a home. When my good friend from North Carolina speaks about returning to welfare, I didn't, when I was a boy, think that it was welfare after the Second World War when the Federal Home Administration, old FHA, and the Veterans Administration built a monument to middle class homes in this country, many of them still standing, many of them giving the foundation, a safe and inhabitable environment for people to raise their children as a result of those particular programs, followed by their successor, the Housing and Urban Development Department. I, as a young lawyer, participated in a variety of methods that gave low and moderate income families an opportunity to have a safe and inhabitable environment under programs such as 221D-3, 221H, a variety of programs rehabilitating properties, building homes for seniors, and giving everybody a chance.

I would like to add an anecdote. The value of my home in my neighborhood in Miramar, Florida, has decreased substantially. Other Members in this body are experiencing the same thing. I have paid my mortgage for 11 years every month on time. If my home value decreases another 6 percent, I will have an upside down or underwater mortgage, having done nothing but the right thing. But there are seven of my neighbors that I know of that are in foreclosure. And fortunately our homeowners association is mindful of the need that we have to work together.

This is a collective thrust, this piece of legislation. This is something to help us all. That's what Americans do. It is not a giveaway. It is not welfare when I look out for my neighbors and they look out for me, it is the potential to lay the foundation for us to get out of a crisis that is in an enormous one for this entire Nation.

Nearly 6 million households in America face foreclosure. My State of Florida has the second highest foreclosure rate after California. It's just plain old common sense for Congress to pass a bill that will help working families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly to stay in their homes and to continue to pay off their mortgages. We can't run away from this crisis. We must rebuild. And we must help those in need.

Neighborhoods in the district that I'm privileged to represent, as well as around this Nation, are struggling, homes are being foreclosed, and we have an opportunity to mitigate the destructive impact of those foreclosures on families and communities. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that we may support a bill that will give millions of Americans the opportunity to stay in their homes and not be forced out on the streets.

In defense of some of the services, in my district, Ocwen Financial Services has been doing loan modifications on their own, and their return rate for foreclosures is substantially less than the norm. There just are some good ones out there. The credit unions and the community banks have been doing responsible lending. They did not take advantage of people who may not have known what they were doing or who should have known and took advantage of the system to buy homes that they should not have bought. It's just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. And I beg of us all to understand the critical need that we have to work together in this country, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Everybody in this Nation must face this problem. And, yes, we must act responsibly; and yes, we must act with accountability. And that's what this measure, as authored by the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee and the distinguished Chair of the Financial Services Committee, working in conjunction with their colleagues--I might add in a bipartisan way. There are few people here that have had as many markups as they had in Judiciary and Financial Services. And when they come before the Rules Committee, all I hear of them is the fairness of Congressman Conyers and the fairness of Congressman Frank. So to say that these measures are not bipartisan or that others are not being listened to is just absolutely wrong.

Let us pass this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following Information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1109, The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Project Name: Police Department Photography Lab Upgrades for the City of Miami

Amount Funded: $400,000

Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology

Contact: Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, City of Miami

Address: 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida 33143

Description: The City of Miami Police Department Photo Lab Upgrades Project will upgrade and digitize the City's police department photo lab. Funds will be used to incorporate digital cameras, memory card readers and a digital photographic laboratory system which will replace the antiquated film technology that is currently in use. Funding for photo lab upgrades will facilitate the investigative and prosecutorial efforts of the law enforcement community in the City of Miami, with national crime fighting implications that extend beyond Southern Florida in circumstances when fugitives flee the City to avoid prosecution.

Project Name: Miami Beach After School Gang and Drug Prevention Program

Amount Funded: $200,000

Account: OJP--Bryne Discretionary Grants

Contact: Kevin Crowder, City of Miami Beach

Address: 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Description: Continued After-School and summer programs ensure youth ``growing-up'' within the system. These youth are less likely to entertain outside and detrimental participation in other unsupervised activities, such as

involvement in gangs and/or drugs. Participation in the recently created Teen Intervention Program in North Beach has increased dramatically during the past year, as have the various programmatic offerings by the City. City of Miami Beach local funding is $642,167, or 23% of the program cost. Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars.

Project Name: Life-Management Skill Intervention Program for At-Risk Youth

Amount Funded: $300,000

Account: OJP--Juvenile Justice

Contact: Susan Benson, ARISE Foundation

Address: 824 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 420, North Palm Beach, Florida 33408

Description: During 2006-07 Florida committed 7,187 juvenile offenders to residential delinquent treatment facilities. The Department of Juvenile Justice wants to increase their life chances according to the Models of Change (Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice). ARISE provides juvenile, justice facilities with specialized staff training and its unique curricula designed specifically for populations reading at approximately a third grade level. With over 260 easy-to- administer ARISE life-management lessons, ARISE materials contain vital information necessary for reducing recidivism. The ARISE program provides both staff training and educational materials for teaching life lessons to incarcerated youth through interactive methods and help develop critical thinking skills needed to break the cycle of violence and crime that would otherwise doom many of these juvenile offenders to tragic lives of gang involvement, crime, drugs, disease and poverty.

Due to inherent problems staff have in dealing with incarcerated high risk youth, ARISE will expand its training program for Juvenile Care and Detention Officers in Florida's Juvenile Justice facilities, by introducing additional training topics such as anger management, non- judgmental listening and conflict resolution. This training will be directed at reducing staff on youth conflict, and severe turnover of staff.

Project Name: City of Coral Gables Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements

Amount Funded: $500,000

Account: EPA-STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Contact: Alberto Delgado, Department of Public Works, City of Coral Gables

Address: 405 Biltmore Way, Coral Gables, Florida 33144

Description: The project meets the STAG match requirement. Funding would be used to make state-mandated upgrades to the City's wastewater infrastructure.

Project Name: Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements

Amounted Funded: $2,392,000

Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction

Contact: Clyde Burnett, City Manager, City of Marathon

Address: 9805 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050

Description: The Florida Keys are required to meet rigid wastewater and stormwater management restrictions as well as near shore water quality and environmental protection standards.

Project Name: Miami Museum of Science Renewable Energy Research Project

Amount Funded: $713,625

Account: Department of Energy, EERE

Contact: Gillian Thomas, President and CEO, Miami Museum of Science

Address: 3280 S. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33122

Description: Funding is requested for a research and development program aimed at enhancing understanding by Miami-Dade residents of programs related to alternative energy and energy efficiency technologies, with a special emphasis on Hispanic and Haitian communities.

Project Name: Miami Harbor Channel Dredging

Amount Funded: $478,000

Account: Corps of Engineers, O&M

Contact: Eric Olafson, Assistant Director, Miami-Dade County

Address: 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

Description: This funding request is for the first phase of implementation, which includes the design, preparation of plans and specifications for bidding. Miami-Dade County is also seeking an additional source of PED funds through utilizing the funds that will be restored to the project, once the Port of Miami reimburses the Army Corps for its share of the costs of the General Reevaluation Report (GRR). The Chief of Engineers has recommended the deepening project to 50-52 feet and Congress has authorized the project (Title I, Water Resources Development Act of 2007).

Project: Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida

Amount Funded: $4,019,000

Account: Corps of Engineers, O&M

Contact: David Roach, Executive Director, Florida Inland Navigation District

Address: 1314 Marcinski Road, Jupiter, Florida 33477

Description: Funds would be used to dredge the IWW in two locations: (1) Matanzas Inlet (St. Johns County) and in the vicinity of St. Augustine. In addition, funds would be used to (1) restore a Dredged Material Management Area in St. Johns County and (2) construct a Dredged Material Management Area in Indian River County. The organization does not have a local match requirement with the Corps of Engineers.

Project: Miami River Maintenance Dredging Project

Amount Funded: $10,043,000

Account: Corps of Engineers, O&M

Contact: Eric Olafson, Assistant Director, Miami-Dade County

Address: 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

Description: This request is for the final phase of the Miami River Dredging Project to restore authorized depth and width to the navigation channel. This project, funded by the US Army Corps of Engineers with a coalition of local sponsors led by Miami-Dade County, removes contaminated sediments from the Miami River, Florida's 4th largest port with an economic value of $4 billion. The local sponsor has exceeded all match requirements.

Project: Lower Keys Shuttle Bus Facilities

Amount Funded: $950,000

Account: Transportation, Bus and Bus Facilities

Contact: Jim Scholl, City Manager, City of Key West

Address: 525 Angela Street, Key West, Florida 33140

Description: Federal funds will assist the City in its efforts to improve the City's bus facilities. Specifically, funding will provide a modern maintenance facility to assist in improved bus facilities as well as passenger amenities such as waiting areas, bus transfer areas and ticketing areas

Project: Atlantic Greenway Corridor Netowork

Amount Funded: $570,000

Account: Transportation, TCSP

Contact: Kevin Crowder, City of Miami Beach

Address: 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Description: Through the development of the Atlantic Corridor Greenway Network, the City of Miami Beach is creating a regional alternative transportation network which will interconnect key intermodal centers, area business districts, cultural/tourism centers, residential neighborhoods, parking facilities, parks, schools and the beaches. The Network will be comprised of a citywide system of bicycle/ pedestrian accessways, enhanced public transit facilities, expanded bus service and innovative regional parking improvement programs.

Project: Little Venice Road Improvement Project, Phase II

Amount Funded: $95,000

Account: Transportation, TCSP

Contact: Clyde Burnett, City Manager, City of Marathon

Address: 9805 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050

Description: The proposed project includes the installation of drainage and retention structures to minimize the destructive impacts from serious weather events. Additionally, the project proposes the installation of an asphaltic overlay for all road surfaces in the immediate area. This area constitutes 95th Streets to 117th Street south of the highway and connecting cross streets.

Project: Pedestrian Bridges in Coral Gables, Florida

Amount Funded: $142,500

Account: HUD, EDI

Contact: Maria Jimenez, Interim City Manager, City of Coral Gables

Address: 405 Biltmore Way, Coral Gables, Florida 33144

Description: The requested federal funding will be used to build pedestrian bridges next to the Hardee, Granada and Maynada bridges where vehicular traffic has created safety concerns for crossing pedestrians and cyclists. These new bridges will allow for more efficient and safer traffic flow throughout the City. Improved pedestrian safety along busy roadways in the City of Coral Gables will be the benefit of this project.

Project: Barry University Community Health and Minority Medicine Project

Amount Funded: $95,000

Account: DOE-Higher Education

Contact: Ann Paton, VP for Institutional Advancement

Address: 11300 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores, Florida 33161

Description: Funding will be utilized to expand current lab facilities at Barry University's center for community health.

Project: Jackson Health System Facilities and Equipment

Amount Funded: $190,000

Account: HHS-HRSA

Contact: Jeanette Nunez, VP

Address: 1611 NW 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136

Description: Funding will be used to upgrade Jackson Health System's information

technology infrastructure. Jackson is a fully integrated health care system with 3 major hospitals, 12 primary care centers, 16 school-based clinics, a mental health facility, 2 mobile health vans and a major health plan. Jackson is also the primary safety net provider in Miami- Dade County.

Project: Mercy Hospital Equipment Upgrades

Amount Funded: $95,000

Account: HHS-HRSA

Contact: Lois Blume, Grants Coordinator, Mercy Foundation

Address: 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33133

Description: Mercy Hospital in Miami is seeking funding to upgrade equipment in three key healthcare areas: advanced cardiac video imaging technology, cardiac mapping technology, anesthesia machines, and a sterilization machine for surgical equipment.

Project: Miami-Dade College Medical Center Nursing Program Equipment

Amount Funded: $95,000

Account: HHS-HRSA

Contact: Joe Pena, Director of Federal Relations

Address: 300 NW 2nd Avenue, Suite 1402, Miami, Florida 33132

Description: To address a growing demand for healthcare professionals, Miami Dade College (MDC) School of Nursing requires additional programs and advanced training equipment in order to expand their successful nursing program.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding, and also for her diligent endeavor on the Rules Committee to try to hold together the integrity of this system and this process.

On this cramdown legislation, the amendment that I offered in the Judiciary Committee was an amendment that would have, and I'd just take the language right out of it, it would have allowed the court to find that there had not been misrepresentation, false pretenses or actual fraud on the part of the lender if there's going to be a change in this contract ordered by a judge.

Now, we don't want to reward people who are lawbreakers, or those who are disingenuous, or those who, by fraudulent or misrepresentative means to take advantage of a lender under these circumstances. This is new territory we're in. It's a narrow standard in a significant way.

This was an amendment that not only I thought was a good proposal, Republicans thought it was a good proposal, but the Democrats also thought it was a good proposal. And this amendment is an amendment that I negotiated across the other side of the aisle in committee. It's an amendment that the chairman voted for. It's an amendment that passed, the bill passed on a recorded vote in committee, 21-3, Mr. Speaker.

So when that happens in this process, the people who took government class all over America and read the Constitution believe that's the language that comes to the floor, that the language that's approved by the committee on a final markup is the language that comes to the floor.

But what happened was, H.R. 200 was switched out for H.R. 1109, or whatever this bill is that we're working with. The language of this cramdown was to be transferred into that, but it was changed in that process. It was changed after we had a committee markup, a committee markup that apparently doesn't have any value when the will of the committee can be usurped by the staff of the committee. And I say the staff of the committee, because when I asked the chairman about this yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, he didn't seem to be aware that my language had been changed. And so we talked to their staff, and their staff said, well, there were Democrats that had some second thoughts. Wouldn't that include the chairman of the committee? And so they reconsidered and they rewrote the bill after the fact. And the final answer that came from the staff, the unelected staff, probably still employed, not if they were working for me, is ``it is what it is.'' In other words, tough. You can pass an amendment. You can negotiate

an amendment. You can get a 21-3 vote. You can have the support of the chairman. But if they decide when the sun comes up the next morning that they want to change their mind, they will change the language in the bill without even having the courtesy of contacting the sponsor of the amendment, the ranking member of the committee or, apparently, the chairman of the committee.

And so I brought an amendment request to the Rules Committee last night. And thankfully, Dr. Foxx offered that amendment to the Rules Committee. It was voted down on a party-line vote.

So what we have now is a process that does not reflect representative government. It doesn't reflect the will of this Congress. It reflects the will of somebody's staff.

And there's plenty of means to change the language if there happens to be some kind of flaw in it. And I'll argue there is not. But there's plenty of means. That means would be come to the Rules Committee, bring your own amendment. Or bring this out on the floor for an up-or-down vote, or lobby the Senate to amend it over there, or seek to get something amended in conference. None of those avenues were followed, Mr. Speaker. And I think it brings a sense of shame upon this Congress that the integrity of a Member, of the entire Republican side of the aisle and many of the Democrats has all been usurped by what appears to be a staff decision, because I can't find a single elected Member that will say yes, I took responsibility and I didn't think you ought to know when I changed your language. That's what's going on.

I urge this body to vote down this rule. Take this thing back to the Rules Committee, bring us the language that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee, or at least let's have some dialogue on why it was changed in the dark of the night by staff without a single Member that will take accountability for what's happened here.

Mr. Speaker, just 2 days ago--and I know one of the Members said can we do this after votes--but some people, like Mike Sheehy we talked about the other day, have put in extraordinary weeks and months and years serving this institution and every one of us. They make this institution run in a way that accommodates not only the contention but the compromise and the action. They do so as well with a spirit that makes this a better place in which to work. As surely as each of us who are elected, they serve our country and serve it well.

I have particular honor to rise on behalf of all of us, not just the majority party. I will yield to my friend, the minority leader, the Republican leader in just a minute, but I am particularly pleased to rise because this particular person lives in my district. I've known her for a long period of time.

She has served the House of Representatives for 32 years. She must have started at 9 or 10 years of age, I think. She is the retiring clerk to the Parliamentarian. She will retire tomorrow. It will be her last day. All of you have seen her, if you don't know her. If you've seen her and talked to her, you know that she is a warm and gracious person who greets all of us of whatever party, whether we're first-year Members or, in my case, a 29th-year Member.

She will be retiring tomorrow. She lives in Upper Marlboro, and she graduated from Frederick Douglass High School, which is in my county and the county represented by my colleagues Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen.

She started working in the House of Representatives in 1977 as an official reporter where she worked until 1986. She began working for the Office of the Parliamentarian in 1987 and has worked there for 22 years.

The Office of the Parliamentarian is an absolutely critical office, nonpartisan, knowledgeable, focused on assuring that the business of the American people is done in a way that reflects fairness and reflects well on the

House as an institution. And each and every one of those who work with our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, make it a better service organization, not just for the House of Representatives but, as I said, for the American people.

Before I close, I want to yield to my friend, the Republican leader, John Boehner of Ohio.

I now want to yield to a Member, senior to me, very good friend from Michigan who has served this institution so well, Congressman Kildee.

I yield to my friend.

Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. Speaker, I will close on behalf of the Speaker and myself; and I know that the Speaker, on behalf of all the House, irrespective of party, Gay, wants to thank you for the service you have given to us, the friend you have been to us, the fairness you have displayed throughout 32 years of your career, and wish you Godspeed.

Thank you very much.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore