Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the House Resolution celebrating May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

As we continue to struggle through one of the deepest economic crises in recent history, we must not forget to recognize and appreciate the contributions of the Asian Pacific Islander American (APIA) communities of our great country.

If one looks at the long history of the Asian American experience, they will undoubtedly see a collective story of perseverance and triumph. They will also see that this story is ongoing, and is defined by the tremendous contributions that Asian and Pacific Islander Americans continue to make.

They will see the earliest Asian immigrants, who in spite of being completely excluded from American citizenship and its basic protections, shouldered the labor to build a railroad system and support a growing agricultural sector that changed the face of America.

They will see the countless Japanese Americans, who despite being interned, stripped of their hard-earned wealth and forced to rebuild their lives, served their country faithfully and without question.

They will see the numerous Asian Pacific Islander Americans, who despite all that has been endured, now serve as exemplary public servants leading our county. From city councilors, to the President of the United States, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, the APIA community deserves recognition and has much to be proud about.

Finally, they will see that despite all that has been accomplished, despite everything that there is to be proud of, we cannot lose sight of the fact that much remains to be done. We must continue to help the many Asian Pacific Islander Americans who endure racism, struggle against poverty and are fighting for equal access to the fundamental institutions of our country.

America has always been a reflection of its people. As we recognize May as Asian American Heritage Month, let us recognize that America would not be the grand nation it is today without our friends in the Asian Pacific Islander American communities.

Mr. Chair, I spoke on the floor earlier today in support of H.R. 2187: The 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act and the amendment that I cosponsored with Mr. Bright (AL), Ms. Kosmas (FL) and Mr. Cuellar (TX).

Because my time on the floor was limited, I was unable to explain my reasons for supporting this legislation in detail. Since this legislation will have a profound and positive impact on school districts and school children in my district, I would like to take this opportunity to cover the details regarding its merits.

Our schools should be safe and healthy learning environments for our children. H.R. 2187 gives us a chance to upgrade our school buildings and boost student achievement while creating good local jobs in new, clean energy industries.

In particular, this bill provides $6.4 billion in Federal funds for school modernization projects that will make schools safer, more energy-efficient, and up-to-date technologically. According to estimates from the House Education and Labor Committee, Texas schools

will receive approximately $605 million and school districts in my congressional district, TX-09, would receive approximately $66 million in total. Houston Independent School District (HISD) is estimated to receive $54,109,000; Alief ISD will receive $8,482,000; Fort Bend ISD will receive $3,262,000; and Stafford MSD will receive $155,000. Title II of this bill also authorizes separate funds--$600 million over 6 years--for schools that were damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Schools in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama trying to recover from the devastation caused by these two hurricanes would be eligible to apply for funding under this section.

In addition, since this funding does not extend to schools impacted by Hurricane Ike in 2008, I am cosponsoring an amendment along with Representatives Bobby Bright, Suzanne Kosmas and Henry Cuellar that will set aside 5 percent of the $6.4 billion (or about $320 million) for schools impacted by, natural disasters other than Katrina and Rita and for schools experiencing significant economic distress. This amendment will allow schools in my district that were devastated or destroyed by Hurricane Ike in 2008 to be eligible to receive funding for new construction, modernization and repairs. For example, Houston Independent School District (HISD) had damages that cost $30-$60 million. In fact, while 14 of HISD's schools are designated as ``shelters of last resort'' by the City of Houston, none of HISD's facilities are designed to sustain winds in a storm above Category 2. To ensure safety in future natural disasters, facility upgrades are needed to shore up roofs and replace windows that can withstand Category 3+ winds. Generators are needed, as well, in the event of power outages. Federal funding is especially needed in light of the fact that 80 percent of students in HISD schools are economically disadvantaged. Additional reports indicate that over 40 buildings within the Alief Independent School District (Alief ISD) experienced some level of damage from Hurricane Ike and eight facilities endured significant damage totaling $5.8 million in costs.

All told, schools in my district and in districts across the Nation that have experienced natural disasters and significant economic distress will benefit from our amendment to this legislation. More importantly, it is the children and teachers in these adversely affected communities that will benefit the most once funding from this amendment is used to fix their schools.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

I thank the chairman for yielding. This is a great piece of legislation that you have allowed me to cosponsor with you.

This is going to help the schools in my district. Many of them have suffered enormous damage.

This Member has done us a service. I salute him for what he has done. I also thank the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, for agreeing to the amendment.

I thank the chairpersons for the stellar job that they have done. I especially thank you, Mr. Frank, for the fine work that you have done in leading us.

Mr. Chairman, this is not just a good deal, it really is a great piece of legislation. Because after the exotic products that were placed in the marketplace--3/27s, 3 years of fixed rates, 27 years of variable rates, 2/28s, prepayment penalties that coincided with teaser rates--after these exotic products, this bill is necessary. This bill addresses these exotic products. It makes sure that lenders are making loans to people who can afford the loans, they can afford to pay the loans back. A relationship between borrower and lender was fractured.

This bill seeks to restore that relationship, but it does something else that is exceedingly important, and it was mentioned very briefly. It addresses the concerns of people who are paying their rent. Their rent is paid and they find themselves being evicted because the property they are living in is being foreclosed on.

The foreclosure was no fault of the tenant, yet the tenant now has to move away from the school that the child attends. They have to move from the job where they work, the community that they reside in, simply because the owner was foreclosed on, and the tenant did not have anything to do with the foreclosure.

This bill addresses it. It gives either a fair amount of notice or it allows the tenant to continue with the lease that has been in place. This is a good piece of legislation.

I am going to ask that all of my colleagues please support it. Mr. Watt, I thank you for the fine job you have done. Chairwoman Waters, I thank you for the fine job that you have done. I beg that that legislation pass.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

The bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent deterioration of the economy revealed fundamental weaknesses in our mortgage and financial industries. Predatory lending and discriminatory practices coupled with a lack of regulation and oversight resulted in many people being steered towards loans that they could not afford, or being given higher cost loans than they qualified for.

Fraud, by definition, is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them--usually to obtain property or services unjustly. The practices that I just discussed certainly fit this definition.

Mr. Speaker, during the height of the housing bubble, many were blinded by greed, and their actions played a large role in bringing about the economic hardships that we hear about on a daily basis. We must never allow such practices to happen again, and those guilty of mortgage fraud should be sought out and prosecuted.

This bill would do precisely that. It would expand the definition of ``financial institution'' to include mortgage lending businesses or any person who makes federally related mortgage loans. It also extends the prohibition of providing false information for mortgage documents to employees and agents of the mortgage lending business.

This bill also takes a comprehensive approach to investigating and enforcing mortgage fraud. It authorizes monies for a wide swath of government agencies to strengthen their individual efforts and therefore strengthening their collective efforts.

Mr. Speaker, much work remains to be done as we move forward, and while this piece of legislation is not the be-all-end-all solution, it is a meaningful first step, and I support it in full.

I thank my friend and colleague Representative John Conyers Jr. for introducing this legislation.

Thank you so much, Congressman Cleaver. I greatly appreciate the history that you have afforded us. It is meaningful for us to understand history, because in understanding history, we can understand the benefits that have been accorded by way of the CRA. The CRA has clearly been of great benefit to all Americans, because when you help some Americans, you really do help all Americans. Dr. King reminded us that ``life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny.'' Whatever impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. So by directly helping some, we have indirectly helped all Americans.

And I regret that there are many who contend that the current credit crisis is based upon some of the actions that the CRA might have mandated, which is totally not true. It really is not. And there does come a time, there really does come a time when every woman and every man must on truth stand. So tonight, I appreciate what you have said because I think we have to take the ax of truth and slam it into the tree of circumstance. And we just have to let the chips fall wherever they may, because there really is some truth in the notion that the truth will set you free. So let us see if we can free some souls as it relates to the CRA and its benefits to all Americans.

You see, the truth is that the Community Reinvestment Act that Congressman Cleaver has given us a great recitation of its history, of the history of the act itself, the Community Reinvestment Act did not cause the current credit crisis. Now if you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe the Honorable Mark Morial. I have in my hand a copy of his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, October 16, 2008. In his testimony, he indicates that the CRA is not the cause of the current crisis. This may not be enough for some people. If you don't believe Mark Morial and you don't believe me, then maybe you will believe the Honorable Ben Bernanke, who is, of course, the head of the Fed. He has a letter that he has written to the Honorable Robert Menendez, who is a member of the United States Senate. And he indicates that the CRA is not the cause of the crisis and that there is no evidence to support this.

And if this is not enough, then perhaps a summary from the analysts over at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system. They have indicated by way of a report that the CRA is not at the root of the current crisis.

So the truth, you see, is this, that the CRA has been of great benefit, that it does not regulate lending, that it does not legislate and that it does not mandate. The CRA does not even apply to all financial institutions. And I can really understand how some people might conclude, based on some of the propaganda that I have heard, that the CRA regulates lending worldwide. But it really does not. It doesn't apply to all institutions within this country. For example, it doesn't apply to financial institutions like the defunct Countrywide, which at one time was one of the largest lending institutions with reference to mortgages in this country. It does not apply to financial institutions like the ruined Bear Stearns. It doesn't apply to AIG. It did not apply to Lehman's.

The CRA has been an institution and, if you will, it requires lending institutions to lend money into areas that had been redlined, as you indicated, and had literally been locked out of receiving the financial bootstraps that many communities receive so as to lift themselves out of poverty by way of wealth building through home purchases, as well as some other things that transform houses into worthwhile neighborhoods to live in.

Approximately 70 percent of the foreclosure filings from January 6 to September 8 took place in middle to high income, non-CRA-related neighborhoods. Now it is important to note that the CRA, while it does encourage lending, it doesn't mandate it. And the lending that did take place with reference to foreclosures, 70 percent of this lending that took place between September of 2008 and January of 2006 was in higher income neighborhoods, income neighborhoods that the CRA did not address. I will call them non-CRA neighborhoods.

The CRA doesn't regulate. It simply says that banking institutions are encouraged to cover and relate to and lend to all segments of the communities that they serve. And they are to do so without goals, they are to do so without targets, they are to do so without quotas. The CRA doesn't encourage

bad lending. It doesn't mandate bad lending. It doesn't condone bad lending. It doesn't generate any loans. The CRA does not regulate nor does it create any of these exotic loans that we are aware of. And many of them are at the root of this subprime crisis.

So I'm honored to tell you, Mr. Cleaver, and I thank you for your history, that the CRA has been of great benefit to us. And I regret that there is a distortion of the facts that relate to the CRA and what it has meant to us. I think that we have an opportunity tonight to clear up some of the confusion and to make clear what the benefits of the CRA are and to also talk about some of the areas wherein the other institutions, other than the CRA--and I call it an institution, it is really an act of Congress--but wherein other institutions have created products that have created a lot of the subprime crisis that we suffer from today.

So I will yield back to you and trust that as we go through this process tonight, we can talk about some of these products. And I'm prepared to talk about a few of them. I will go ahead and talk about just a couple if I may.

I will talk about the exploding ARMs that were not created by the CRA and not regulated by the CRA. You're aware of them, the 327s and the 228s wherein persons literally had 2 years of a fixed rate and 28 years of a variable rate. They had a teaser rate that would, at the end of 2 years, an entry level rate that was usually low, at the end of 2 years would increase to sometimes 30 to 40 percent of what that teaser rate was. And there were many other products like this that the CRA had nothing at all to do with that have helped to create this crisis that we have to contend with.

You are exactly correct. Poor people did not create this crisis, and people living in areas covered by the CRA did not create this crisis. Let us take a look at the yield spread premium. The yield spread premium says that if you are a seeker of a loan for a home mortgage and your originator can qualify you for a 5 percent loan, by way of example, if that originator can get you to take a loan for 8 percent when you qualified for 5 percent, that originator will get a lawful kickback by causing you to go into a higher mortgage than you qualified for, and never have to tell you that you qualified for the 5 percent premium.

That premium that is paid to the originator is a part of this process which we now call the yield spread premium.

This was invidious, and it did cause a lot of persons to take out loans that were much higher than the loans that they qualified for. But to further evidence the fact that poor people didn't create this problem, negative amortization, many people received loans that were negative in the sense that you could pay your principal, pay your interest, but if you didn't pay enough interest, you would find that that which you didn't pay would be tacked on to your principal.

So you had a loan where your principal was growing, and it was growing such that you could literally never pay for the loan and always owe more than you actually decided that you wanted to have as a mortgage amount.

We also had the situation with the no-document loans. Poor people didn't get a lot of no-document loans, loans wherein you didn't have to prove that you were working. Usually these were persons said to be associated with some sort of business and they had difficulty verifying income, but no-document loans were made and they were usually in the subprime market, they were either the Alt-A loans or subprime because they were said to be riskier. But these loans were not originated because of the CRA. They loans were not mandated because of the CRA.

I would also call to your attention prepayment penalties. There were loans that had prepayment penalties that coincided with these teaser rates. None of this was mandated by the CRA. The CRA did not require teaser rates. It did not require loans to have prepayment penalties at all. When these prepayment penalties coincided with the teaser rate, it simply meant that the person who wanted to refinance the loan when you were getting to that period or that time when the loan would adjust, would have to pay a large penalty just to get out of the loan into another loan. These teaser rates and prepayment penalties became a detriment to many people who were locked into these 327s and 228s.

I would call to your attention also the fact that there were loans that were interest only. The CRA did not mandate interest-only loans. These loans were loans created by mortgage companies. They were loans that were originated by entities that were not covered by the CRA for the most part. And these loans, if they were covered by the CRA, institutions that were regulated by the CRA, the CRA did not mandate an interest-only loan which means you would simply pay interest, not pay the principal and you would continually owe after some period of time what you started out with as your loan amount.

The CRA did not require credit default swaps wherein one party would agree to pay a second party if a third party defaulted. This is what AIG was infamous for, these notorious credit default swaps, not mandated by the CRA.

The CRA did not cause us to conclude that hedging was a good means of managing risk. The CRA didn't have any mandates with reference to hedging and hedge funds.

It did not require outsourcing as a risk management means.

Some of these large institutions were literally allowing credit rating agencies to manage their risk because they would ask a credit rating agency to give them an opinion about a certain instrument, and they were relying on that as their risk management tool. The CRA did not mandate any of this.

One really important thing, CRA did not create the circumstance wherein the lender was no longer concerned about whether the borrower could repay his or her loan. This was not in any way mandated by the CRA. It wasn't regulated by the CRA. It had nothing to do with the CRA. When this occurred, lenders no longer had to concern themselves with the liability associated with the loan if there was a default.

So originators started simply originating loans so they could put them in the secondary market, and by getting them out in that market, they would get payment for the loan itself. Somebody else was now responsible for the loans, and the loans were bundled. The CRA did not mandate nor did it require that these loans be placed in these bundles called securities and sold to investors. The CRA had nothing to do with any of these things. The CRA simply said if you are a lending institution covered by the CRA, you must lend to all persons within your area of influence.

And thank God the CRA did this because there are many persons who but

for the CRA wouldn't have homes. There are many communities that would not have been revitalized by dollars that were actually made available to communities to revitalize them. Nursing homes received CRA moneys by way of loan, and the elderly, homes for the elderly received CRA moneys. The CRA has been a benefit to all Americans, and I just regret there is this notion afoot by many that the CRA somehow created a crisis that it had absolutely nothing to do with. The empirical evidence is completely contrary to this notion that the CRA created the crisis.

Thank you. I ask that you yield to me.

Well, I thank you, my friend. I will pick up where you left off because I happen to have a copy of the letter that Chairman Bernanke sent to the Honorable Robert Menendez. This ties into what you said as well, Congressman Cleaver.

In this letter he indicates, ``A recent board staff analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and data sources does not find evidence that CRA caused high default levels in the subprime market.''

He also goes on to say, ``The CRA statute and regulations have always emphasized that these lending activities be consistent with safe and sound operation of the banking institutions,'' clearly indicating that the CRA is not at fault.

I would like to do this just for a moment and then we will come back to more of why it's not at fault. But I'd just like to say this. Assume for just a moment for the sake of wholesome argument and helpful debate that the CRA is at fault, just for a moment.

Then we have to ask ourselves: As those who, by the way, have been saying and continue to say that it's at fault, we would have to ask ourselves if they had control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate. They had control of the executive branch of the government, even had control of the Supreme Court, and they had all of this at the same time. If the CRA posed the hazard that they contend it poses, and they said that they made statements at the time that the CRA was not functioning as it should, then why didn't they do something when they had control of the House, the Senate, the executive branch of government as well as the Supreme Court?

It would have been easy to generate legislation that could have gone from one House to the other. It would have been very easy to get the President, who apparently would have been in

agreement, to sign it. But the truth is that the CRA was functioning well and has functioned well.

In times of crisis, it is very unfortunate that the least among us will sometimes be blamed for what others have done. This is not the time to blame the CRA or the persons that the CRA might benefit for what has happened. Why? Because if we do this, we will allow ourselves to be distracted from the real causes--these exotic products.

And not all exotic products are bad, but many of them are harmful and hurtful. These exotic products like these 3/27s and 2/28s that we talk about, exotic products that allowed people to get into homes, but it didn't enure to their becoming homeowners.

We developed a society wherein people became homebuyers such that they could simply get into a home with no assurance that they could pay for the loan that they were purchasing.

So we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted with this CRA stalking horse, if you will. We must focus on the real causes so that we can come up with real solutions.

I would yield to you, Mr. Cleaver.

Let me say, before I make my comment, Mr. Ellison, I want to give you a note of appreciation for some legislation that you have recently introduced to help us cope with some of the problems that we are contending with as a result of this crisis, some of your work in the area with tenants and helping tenants who are being evicted, rent paid but still being evicted because a person who purchased property is in default. You are to be highly commended for the efforts that you are making to help out these tenants.

But I wanted to make this comment with reference to the evidence that is out there. The empirical evidence all supports the notion that the CRA is not at fault. It is unfortunate, as has been indicated, that there are many who would contend that the CRA is at fault; that the CRA ought to somehow now be eliminated because it is at fault.

I think that what we should be doing, in addition to pointing this out, we should also point out that the banks that have been good stewards, that have been making good, decent loans using sound banking policies in areas where persons traditionally could not acquire loans, these banks ought to be commended. We should not allow the distractions from the other side to prevent us from giving kudos when they are deserved.

So to all of the banks, those who have been making these loans and doing so with a good degree of safety and soundness, we want to compliment you.

But we also have to remember as we do this that, in addition to making some of these loans, we had other things that were happening that were not in the best interest of good banking, and these are the things that the legislation that we passed today out of the House, or that we put before the House today, is going to address this predatory lending that took place. It was the predatory lending that was a part of the problem, people having to get the loans that they did not want. Because no one wants a 9 percent loan if you qualified for 7 percent or 5 percent. You want the loan that you are qualified for. Steering people into the higher loans, higher interest rates, so as to make more money for the originator. These are the kinds of things that we have to deplore. These are the kinds of things that happened chiefly with originators that were not regulated by the CRA.

I will yield back to the gentleman, and thank him again for yielding to me.

It is important to point out, also, that this credit default swap market was not regulated; that AIG had about $440 billion plus of credit default swaps.

It is also important to point out that the AIGs of the world, in an effort to cover themselves, would go to bond rating agencies and they were paying those agencies to rate these bonds. And, in so doing, they were getting products that were not totally reliable because of the way the payment system was working.

That is exactly right.

It also promoted, as a result of this, this new industry that AIG became sort of the father of, in a sense, or at least the biggest benefactor of this credit default swap industry, such that they could capitalize on what became a form of gambling, if you want to know the truth. It really was a means by which one person was willing to bet that a default wouldn't take place on something that a third party was ultimately going to have to pay for at some point in time. It really was a lot of confusion that was created.

I would like to say this and digress for just a moment, because I think it is important. Our chairperson, the Honorable Barney Frank, has been wrongfully accused in this process. And I want to stand and say before the world that this is absolutely untrue that he is in any way associated with the ills that we find ourselves having to cope with.

I say this because at the time when all of this was taking place, the persons across the aisle who had the opportunity to do something about it, they had the House, they had the Senate, they had the Supreme Court, they had the executive branch of government, yet they didn't do anything about it. But now that the Honorable Barney Frank happens to have some influence because he is the chairperson of Financial Services, but all of this took place before he became chairperson and, as a result, he is trying to clean up something that took place on someone else's watch.

He is dutiful and mindful of his watch, and I think we ought to let the world know that he has been a fine chairperson who has tried to clean up the problems that have been created.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commemorate Cinco de Mayo, or the Fifth of May, in honor of the historic day that Mexico defeated France at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Cinco de Mayo is a national holiday that symbolizes courage, honor, liberty, unity and the struggle for freedom for millions of Mexicans and Mexican- Americans.

Cinco de Mayo has a deep history that all Americans should recognize and remember. Shortly after Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1810, internal political takeovers and wars destroyed the Mexican economy causing Mexico to borrow money from France and other creditors. Mexico was unable to pay back the debt they owned to France; thus, the French invaded Mexico in an attempt to force repayment. The Mexican troops were outnumbered by the French--the French army had 6,500 soldiers while the Mexican army only had 4,500 soldiers. The odds were stacked against the Mexican soldiers: they were outnumbered, untrained and ill-equipped, fighting against an army deemed as one of the best trained and equipped in the world. The French soldiers were confident that their attacks against Mexico would leave the struggling nation on its knees, bowing to a European crown once again. Much to their dismay,

at the Battle of Puebla, the Mexican soldiers fought bravely and died with dignity for their countrymen's freedom. Each Mexican soldier fought valiantly with one common goal. In the end, it was the French army that surrendered on Mexican soil.

In addition to its historical significance in Mexico, Cinco de Mayo is significant to all Americans because it marks the last time that any foreign power threatened to conquer North American soil.

Cinco de Mayo is also a celebration of the rich cultural heritage people of Spanish and Latin American descent have shared with the United States. They have shared their music, art, language and traditions and these elements are sewn into the colorful fabric of ``American'' culture.

I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in commemorating Cinco de Mayo--a day that reflects the core principles that America was founded upon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Declaration of Independence. All persons are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not some people, not people of a particular race, not people who just happen to be heterosexual; all persons are created equal.

And for the record, I support the rights of gay people. Gay people have the same rights as any other Americans, and they have the right to pursue happiness. I support this--the Declaration of Independence speaks of it--and but for the grace of God, we all ought to realize, There go I. Any one of us could become the victim of a hate crime regardless of your race, your creed, or your color. We should support people and the rights of people.

For those who say that we are creating a separate class of people, we already have a class that we've distinguished in the State of Texas for peace officers. If you assault a police officer, your punishment is going to be enhanced.

That is what this is all about: enhancement of punishment.

I thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Frank. I thank Mr. Gutierrez, our chairperson of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee. I would like to thank the ranking member, whom I have a great relationship with and I look forward to working with. And I would like to move quickly now to why I am supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the right time to do right is right now. We do not want to allow ourselves to become victims of something known as the paralysis of analysis. We have analyzed this bill for years. It is now time for us to act.

It is right for us to do something about retroactive rate increases. This bill does something about it. If you have a balance and the rate goes up, should the interest rate increase apply to your previous balance or should it apply to balances going forward? That's what this bill does. It does not allow it to apply to charges that you've already made.

Should a person who is not emancipated, who is younger than 18 years of age receive a credit card? I don't think so. This bill prohibits this.

Should persons have adequate notice to deal with rate increases? Forty-five days is really not unreasonable if you get a rate increase on your credit card. This bill accords 45 days' notice of rate increases.

Should a person have the right to have the payment go to the lowest interest rate so as to pay off that rate

first as opposed to the highest interest rate? Well, I think that we ought to let people pay off the highest interest rate so that they can make sure that they are not going to have higher bills in the future.

The right time to do right is right now. Let's not become a victim of what's known as the paralysis of analysis. Let's move forward. Let's pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge and honor Equal Pay Day, a national day of recognition instituted by President Clinton in 1998 to raise awareness about the wage disparity and discrimination between men and women.

America has made some strides in narrowing this discrepancy in the workplace, but the fight for equal pay for equal work still remains prevalent and pertinent today. Thirty-five years ago, when President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women who worked full-time, year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. In 2006, women earned 77 cents for every dollar earned by men; the figures are even more unsettling for women of color. This data demonstrates that the wage gap has narrowed by less than half a cent per year. An 18 cent increase over 35 years indicates a significant wage discrepancy between working men and women that leaves a great deal of work for the employers and decision makers of today. The day on which Equal Pay Day falls represents how far into the year on average a women must work to receive the same amount of pay that a man earned during the previous year.

In the state of Texas, between 2004 and 2006, the average annual salary of men with a college degree or more was $63,000, while their female counterparts only received an average annual salary of $45,000 with the same credentials. In comparison, during that same time frame, the national average annual salary for men with a college degree or more was $66,000, while their female counterparts received only $50,000. In fact, the state of Texas is about 5% below the national average in narrowing the wage disparity between men and women.

A great woman and former congresswoman from Texas, Barbara Jordan, once said that, ``If the society of today allows wrongs to go unchallenged, the impression is created that those wrongs have the approval of the majority.'' To take the late Ms. Jordan's advice: we who live in today's society must not allow the wrongs created by wage discrimination to continue to undermine the civil liberties of minorities and women. On January 29, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to ensure that victims of pay discrimination can effectively challenge unequal pay, marking a significant step forward in the struggle for equality in pay and fair treatment in the workplace for all Americans. Though great progress is being made, significant challenges remain in the struggle against gender-based pay discrimination.

I urge my colleagues and employers nationwide to take up the fight to eliminate the unfair wage discrepancy between men and women as we all honor Equal Pay Day.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in support of H. Res. 320, a resolution recognizing the life and achievements of one of our country's most preeminent historian, scholar and humanitarian: Dr. John Hope Franklin.

Dr. John Hope Franklin, the grandson of a slave and the son of one of the first black lawyers in the Oklahoma Indian territory, graduated from Harvard with a Ph.D. in history and later became the Chairman of the Department of History at Brooklyn College making him the first African American to run a department at a predominately white institution. He was also the first African American professor to hold an endowed chair at Duke University, as well as the first African American to serve as President of the American Historical Association.

Franklin's many contributions include writing numerous publications; among them is his seminal work, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, which is considered by many to be an unsurpassed history of the African American experience in the United States. In addition to his writings, Franklin was also a prominent figure in the arena of politics and social activism. He provided important historical research to NAACP Legal Defense

Fund lawyer Thurgood Marshall in the historic Brown v. Board of Education case that outlawed school segregation.

Over the course of his career, Franklin served on the National Council on the Humanities, and the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, as well as being the chair of President Clinton's Race Initiative Advisory Board. He has also been the recipient of many prestigious awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the inaugural W.E.B. DuBois Award from Fisk University Alumni Association, and the Organization of American Historians' Award for Outstanding Achievement Society.

During his life, Franklin saw his challenge as being ``to weave into the fabric of American history enough of the presence of blacks so that the story of the United States could be told adequately and fairly.'' Franklin's life, achievements and contributions has had a profound influence on the field of history, in particular, African American history. With this resolution, Franklin's legacy and spirit will endure for years to come.

I commend Representative Melvin Watt for introducing H. Res. 320, a resolution that honors the life and achievements of Dr. John Hope Franklin, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, today I am honored to recognize the life and contributions of a distinguished member of my Houston staff, a constituent and more importantly a friend who was honored on Saturday, March 21, 2009 with the naming of the Bessie Swindle Community Center in Houston, Texas.

A respected leader and activist, Ms. Swindle has committed her life to serving her community. Over the course of more than thirty years, she has endeavored to serve as the voice for those who have, over the years, found themselves in unfortunate and difficult circumstances. I believe her record of unselfish dedication to her city and community will serve as a bright light for those who dare to follow in her footsteps.

Ms. Bessie Swindle was born in Loreauville, Louisiana and transplanted to Houston. Currently, she is the Outreach Coordinator for Congressman Al Green of the 9th Congressional District of Texas. Ms. Swindle was appointed by Mayor Bill White to his Phone Tower Commission and is a former member of the Police Officers Civil Service Commission- City of Houston, which is responsible for reviewing HPD criminal activities.

During her distinguished lifetime of service, Ms. Swindle has earned numerous awards and honors. In 2004, she was a recipient of an Honorary Associate in Arts Degree from Houston Community College System.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank Mayor Bill White, City Controller Annise Parker, and the distinguished members of the Houston City Council, including the Honorable Wanda Adams who sponsored this special tribute, for their foresight in honoring my friend, Ms. Bessie Swindle.

Madam Speaker, I wish to commemorate the month of March 2009 as Women's History Month in honor of the female trailblazers and unsung heroes in American history.

H. Res. 211, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month, is intended to increase awareness and knowledge of women's involvement in history, as well as recognize and honor the women and organizations in the United States that have fought for and continue to promote the teaching of women's history.

In the United States, Women's History Month has been celebrated during the month of March since 1987. The National Women's History Project petitioned Congress to increase awareness and knowledge of women's contributions to our great society, because women's history was a practically unknown topic in schools and public awareness.

Women from all different backgrounds, races, social classes, and ethnicities have contributed significantly to the greatness of our nation, and have transformed and revolutionized politics, law, business, social service, civil rights, education, music, athletics, science and technology, as well as the military. Women have been leaders in numerous movements throughout history, such as the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement, and the women's movement in the struggle to obtain suffrage and equal rights. The contributions of notable women such as Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Harriet Tubman, Dorothy Height, Coretta Scott King, Sally Ride and numerous others have sparked an unstoppable momentum for women's rights and others. Their dedication, perseverance and courage have generated a wave of opportunities for entire generations of women.

It is essential that all Americans continue to learn about the many ways women have assisted in the progress of our nation, and acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of women throughout history.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues and all Americans to commemorate women for their significant involvement and participation in our nation's history, by recognizing and supporting March as Women's History Month.

Mr. Chairman, Gandhi reminds us that we should be the change we wish to see.

I want to thank the President, President Obama, for sounding the clarion call for volunteerism such that we can see this change that we all desire to have in our country. I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for answering the clarion call from the President with this bill, H.R. 1388.

This is a good piece of legislation. And, if I may be so bold as to say so, we are doing, Mr. Chairman, God's work today. This is what we are called upon to do, to be our brother's keeper, and we can do so by utilizing this army of volunteers to go out and make the change we wish to see in society.

Mr. Chairman, I especially thank you for including language in this legislation that will allow volunteers to help in the area of housing. You know and we know that we have an affordable housing crisis. We have lost more than 600,000 units in affordable housing since the mid-1990s that are subsidized. It is time for us to restock our affordable housing. These volunteers will help us to do so.

I will close with this. I thank you and all of the Members who have supported this legislation, and I trust that Gandhi would be proud of us today because we are affording people to transform neighborhoods into brotherhoods, and to make sure that we can see the change in our society and bring it about by virtue of our own hands and our creation.

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, as well as Chairperson Waters and Chairman Frank.

I thank the Member from Florida for yielding the time. I am honored to be associated with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the words that come to mind, as we debate this issue, the words that comes to mind are, ``at last.'' At last we are now embracing help for homeowners. We have worked for Wall Street, we have worked to do something for Main Street; it is now time to do something for ``Home Street,'' the street where people live, the street where people have their greatest investment.

Let's talk for just a moment about the concerns with reference to allowing bankruptcy to become a part of this process. My dear friends, bankruptcy is already a part of the process. If you own two, three, four or five homes, you may modify those homes in bankruptcy. If you only own one home as your principal home, that home is excluded from bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process ought to embrace people who have not been as fortunate as those who have five homes to the same extent that it embraces people who have but one place to call home. It is time to bring some equity into the process.

This equity is not prospective, it is retrospective. It only applies to homes that were closed on prior to the bill being enacted. It does not go forward. So this argument that it embraces interest rates into the future is not a correct argument. It only embraces the past, not the future.

And finally, I would say to you, as this is done, the homeowner has to attempt a workout before there can be judicial modification.

The safeguards are there. The opportunity is before us. The question is, do we want to protect Home Street to the same extent that we want to protect Main Street and Wall Street? There are people who are suffering, this is the opportunity to help them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Issa, Subcommittee Chair Lynch, the manager of the resolution on the floor from Ohio, Congressman Jordan, and I also thank the many cosponsors of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, how appropriate it is that this resolution would come to the floor of the House of Representatives on the day that the newly elected President of the United States of America would address a joint session of Congress. How appropriate it is because the newly elected President of the United States of America is a significant manifestation of how important black history is in the United States of America. It is on this day that he will address this joint session of Congress, and he is a person of African ancestry.

While it is true that we should remember the horrors of history, it is equally as true that we should celebrate the successes of history. And I believe that this resolution is a means by which we can engage in the celebration of good deeds accomplished and great things done that can engender the inspiration to do that which must be done.

So let us today celebrate the fact that African Americans were able to overcome involuntary servitude with the help of Americans of good will of all hues, of all colors. And because they were helped and they were able to overcome involuntary servitude, we should allow this to engender the inspiration necessary to go forward and deal with some of the problems that African Americans are confronting today, the problems of housing that finds African Americans without homes many times and being evicted from homes on too many occasions.

Let's celebrate the many successes in the area of education, from Phillis Wheatley, to many other great educators, Dr. Benjamin Mays, for example. And as we celebrate their successes, let this engender within us the inspiration to deal with the dropout rates around this country that can be in excess of 50 percent in some quarters of the African American community.

Let's celebrate the successes in the civil rights movement that enabled us to overcome the indignation and humiliation of segregation. But as we celebrate this, let it engender within us the inspiration to help the many who are still suffering around the world, who have not had their human rights and human dignity respected by their governments.

Let us celebrate the many political accomplishments that we have right here in the House of Congress. We have Member Charlie Rangel, who happens to chair Ways and Means; Member Bennie Thompson, African American, who happens to chair Homeland Security; Member Maxine Waters, African American, who happens to chair the Housing Subcommittee of Financial Services.

And as we celebrate the accomplishments of these great and noble Americans here in the House of Representatives, let it provide the inspiration for us to understand that we are here not because of our color, not because we are of African ancestry, we are here because the people of America expect us to do the great work that has to be done.

So this is a time for celebration that engenders inspiration, and I am honored to be inspired to move forward and support this resolution. And I beg that all of my colleagues would vote for it.