Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, amendment 106 to the Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 2647, requires a justification for the use of factors other than cost or price as predominant factors in evaluating competitive proposals for defense procurement contracts. The intent of this provision is to mandate that officials of the Department of Defense weight cost or price as the predominant factor in solicitations for defense procurement contracts, with only occasional and well-justified exceptions.

This amendment requires quantification of the relative weight of evaluation factors in the evaluation scheme, insofar as this is necessary to ensure compliance with the amendment.

The purposes of this amendment are two-fold. First, the use of cost or price as the predominant evaluation factor will result more frequently in the selection of the low-cost or a lower-cost offeror, which will save the Government money. Second, the use of cost or price as the predominant evaluation factor will encourage and incentivize offerors to submit ``lean'' proposals that will save the Government money.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently criticized military systems that ``have grown ever more baroque, have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever-dwindling quantities.'' This amendment combats that trend.

Another recent reminder of the risk of ``gold plating'' comes from the ``Marine One'' Presidential helicopter procurement program. It would be difficult to identify any commercial helicopter that costs as much as $40 million, but the VH-71 helicopters being purchased are likely to cost ten times that much. This is more than the cost of the Boeing 747s employed in the ``Air Force One'' program, even when that cost is adjusted for inflation.

Agencies may avoid the use of cost or price as predominant factors in solicitations only if the procurement officer or agency head determines that employing cost or price as predominant factors would--

(1) Materially increase the risk of failure of the mission or missions in which the item being procured will be employed, in an ascertainable manner specific to the mission or missions involved;

(2) Demonstrably threaten the safety or health of members of the Armed Forces or persons in their custody or care;

(3) Result in foreseeable and quantifiable additional defense expenditures outside the context of the procurement at hand that exceed any savings expected from employing cost or price as predominant factors;

(4) Deprive the Government of post-performance rights or property, such as warranties or intellectual property, the quantifiable value of which exceeds any savings expected from employing cost or price as predominant factors; or

(5) Violate an international agreement.

Justifications that are not satisfactory include:

(1) Preexisting law, other than international agreements;

(2) A generalized preference for quality, reliability, experience or high performance;

(3) Evolving technical requirements;

(4) Concerns about contractor responsibility; and

(5) Any other reason not enumerated as a valid justification above.

The justification required by this provision generally should follow the same procedures as the justifications required for other than full and open competition, as currently set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation sections 6.303 and 6.304. In all cases in which extrinsic savings or risks are the justification, they shall be described in detail, with a description of how they were derived.

I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman.

My attention today is to draw attention to the need for further research and work concerning the effect of ongoing changes in climate and on the frequency and intensity and effects of hurricanes.

As you know, damages from hurricanes--in terms of human lives, infrastructure, and property--have grown in scope and cost; and it is critical that we continue to make progress in furthering our understanding of the science behind hurricanes. Doing so will ultimately help vulnerable communities in my district, in Florida, and elsewhere in the United States prepare for and reduce the impacts from hurricanes.

I ask that a portion of the allowance value in H.R. 2454 be directed towards research on hurricanes at a new $50 million National Hurricane Research Center in my district in Orlando. The National Hurricane Research Center in Orlando will be a worldwide center of expertise in the 21st-century science of meteorology.

In a world already affected by global warming, it will help to develop both short-range and long-range hurricane forecasting, conduct practical research on mitigation of hurricane damage, disseminate to the public realtime information on hurricanes----

Advise policymakers and the public, and expand knowledge on what can and should be done to impact the frequency, course, and human and property consequences of hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that H.R. 2454 includes provisions directing allowance value towards State adaptation. I hope that we will be able to work together as this bill moves forward to make certain that hurricane research receives full funding and that we are able to ensure that the work of the National Hurricane Research Center will be supported.

I thank the chairman for his support of our efforts to ensure that our hurricane research efforts are adequately supported.

I want to thank the chairman of the committee for allowing these amendments to go forward. This is a great bill; and in particular, I am happy to say that we have a good amendment in here that will finally get ahold of the subject of cost overruns.

I worked in defense procurement for 20 years. I worked fighting war profiteers in Iraq for 5 years before I came here; and one of the dirty dark secrets of defense contracting is the fact that contractors buy in. That's a term that is used by contractors to explain the situation where they compete for a time and materials contract or they compete for a cost reimbursement contract. They propose a certain cost or price, knowing full well they cannot meet that price. They get the contract, and they overcharge the government. It's a cost overrun. It happens every day of the week, and we need to get a fix on it so we can end it.

The first amendment that I have offered on this bill, which is the subject of my current statement, is to have the GAO identify cost overruns on a systematic basis and report to Congress in 90 days. I'm hopeful that that will give us a good fix on the scope of this problem and explain to us what we can possibly do to end this terrible tragedy which ends up cheating the taxpayer and cheating the troops.

I am pleased to have proposed, and have the support of the chairman, an amendment for a specific purpose, to improve Defense procurement. That purpose is to identify for the contracting agencies the correct tradeoff between costs and price and technical factors. As it stands right now, our statutory scheme for Defense procurement does not identify what the tradeoff should be.

For the sake of saving money and eliciting from contractors more cost-effective proposals, we are saying that the agencies must allow cost or price to be at least 50 percent of the evaluation scheme or explain why not. That is the purpose of this amendment. I anticipate it will save a great deal of money for the taxpayers and for the troops.

Mr. Chairman, I had the experience of going to Afghanistan a couple of years ago.

This bill has to do with whether we should try to keep track of our policies in Afghanistan on Afghan women. And when I went to Afghanistan 2 years ago before I was elected here to Congress, I saw some interesting things.

One thing is if you're on the street of Afghanistan, everywhere you look there are children--because hardly any of them are in school any time of the year--and as a result of that, you see more children on the streets of an Afghan city or town than you would almost anywhere else in the world. And I noticed something interesting about the girls. If you see an 8-year-old Afghan girl, she looks just like an 8-year-old boy dressed the same way, playing the same way with the same friends. If you see a 9-year-old Afghan girl, her arms are covered. If you see a 10-year-old Afghan girl, her arms and her head are covered. And you don't see 12-year-old Afghan girls or 13- or 14- or 15- or 16- or 17- year-old Afghan girls. They're just not there.

And if you look around the streets at the adults, you'll see maybe 10 men for every woman that you will see on the streets. And the reason for that is that in Afghanistan, women are forbidden to leave their homes unless they're accompanied by a husband, a brother, a father, or a son. And the women who do leave their homes in Afghanistan are covered head to toe. They can barely see you because their faces are covered and eyes covered with a grill like this so they can just barely see out. They're covered from head to toe, and all you can see of their bodies are their shoes, nothing else.

That is the life of women in Afghanistan. It is a living hell. And I think it's fitting and appropriate that we who have occupied the country militarily for years now should take a look at the effect of our policies on Afghan women. I'm very much in favor of this amendment because it's a matter of human rights.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I introduce legislation today to award the Congressional Gold Medal to four brave and exemplary Americans: Commander Neil A. Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr.--the crew of the 1969 Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. Additionally, this legislation would award a Congressional Gold Medal to John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth and the man who helped set NASA firmly on the path of human space exploration. Forty years ago, five hundred million people watched as Armstrong took those fateful steps onto the Moon's surface, the first time humans had set foot on another world. In words that were as poetic as the occasion was meaningful, Armstrong said, ``That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.'' He was shortly followed on the Moon's surface by Aldrin, as Collins circled overhead.

I was eleven years old that day, and I watched the Moon landing, joining much of humanity in celebrating this tremendous collective accomplishment. My family was on vacation, but I had persuaded my parents to let me stay in the hotel room alone all day and watch television, so I could see these giant men take those giant steps. Their mission was a landmark for America, for the world, and for all time. Americans are still inspired by these men, and their mission to travel over 250,000 miles of dead space to reach our closest celestial neighbor. I remember at the time thinking that humankind as a species is capable of true greatness. While wolves howl at the moon, humans visit it.

On this journey, the Apollo 11 crew showed remarkable bravery protected for days from the lifeless vacuum by only a thin metal shield. They collected more than forty pounds of lunar samples, took photographs, and deployed experiments to study the solar wind, lunar dust, enable laser ranging, and forever carry out passive seismic measurements. Their footprints remain on the Moon today. The entire endeavor was the culmination of an intensive effort by tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, and other dedicated individuals to meet the challenge laid down by President John F. Kennedy eight years earlier. President Kennedy encouraged Americans to rise to challenges, like this one, and the American people responded with ingenuity, discipline, and a spirit of cooperative effort. This journey took political will, scientific and technological risk-taking, inspiration, and the heart and soul of millions of Americans supporting the space program. And it took the competence and courage of Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins to make Apollo 11 the success that it was.

As the culmination of the U.S.-Soviet space race that commenced with the Soviet's launch of Sputnik in 1957, Apollo 11's success signified the United States' ability to establish preeminence in space. It also helped inspire a generation to pursue careers in science and engineering, and to believe in the power of American society. Alone in that hotel room, watching TV, I certainly felt a lasting sense of meaning, that connection to those three brave astronauts. These astronauts represented in that moment America's destiny, a destiny shared by the thousands of men and women who worked to make it happen. This includes John Glenn, of course, another brave pioneer of human space exploration who had made their journey possible.

Madam Speaker, I thus think it is only fitting that in this fortieth anniversary year of the

Apollo 11 mission, we grant these four brave Americans the recognition that only this Congress can bestow--the Congressional Gold Medal. That is why I am introducing legislation to that effect today. I'm pleased to be joined in this initiative by the Chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, Bart Gordon; the Chairwoman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Gabrielle Giffords; Committee Ranking Member Ralph Hall; Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Olson; and Florida Members Suzanne Kosmas and Bill Posey. I believe this recognition is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that it can be enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I introduce legislation today to award the Congressional Gold Medal to four brave and exemplary Americans, Commander Neil A. Armstrong, command module pilot Michael Collins, and lunar module pilot Edwin ``Buzz'' Aldrin, the crew of the 1969 Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. Additionally, this legislation would award a Congressional Gold Medal to John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth and the man who helped set NASA firmly on the path of human space exploration.

Forty years ago, 500 million people watched as Armstrong took those fateful steps on the Moon's surface, the first time that humans had ever set foot on another world. In words that were as poetic as the occasion was meaningful, Armstrong said, ``That is one small step for man and one great leap for mankind.'' He was shortly followed thereafter on the Moon's surface by Aldrin as Collins circled overhead.

I was 11 years old that day, and I watched the Moon landing, joining much of humanity in celebrating this tremendous collective accomplishment. My family was on vacation, but I persuaded my parents to let me stay in the hotel room alone all day and watch television so that I could see these giant men take those giant steps. Their mission was a landmark for America, for the world, and for all time. Americans are still inspired by these men and their mission to travel over a quarter of a million miles of dead space to reach our closest celestial neighbor. I remember at the time thinking that humankind as a species is capable of true greatness. And while wolves howl at the Moon, humans visit it.

On this journey, the Apollo 11 crew showed remarkable bravery, protected for days from the lifeless vacuum by only a thin metal shell. They collected more than 40 pounds of lunar samples, took photographs and deployed experiments to study the solar wind, lunar dust, enable laser ranging and forever carry out passive seismic measurements that remain measurable to this day.

Their footprints remain on the Moon today and forever. The entire endeavor was a culmination of an intensive effort by tens of thousands of scientists, engineers and other dedicated individuals to meet the challenge laid down by President John F. Kennedy 8 years earlier. President Kennedy encouraged Americans to rise to challenges like this one, and the American people responded with ingenuity, discipline and a spirit of collective effort. This journey took political will, scientific and technological risk-taking, inspiration and the heart and soul of millions of Americans who supported this space program.

And it took the competence and courage of these men, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, to make Apollo 11 the success that it was.

As the culmination of the U.S.-Soviet space race that commenced with the Soviet's launch of Sputnik in 1957, Apollo 11's success signified the United States' ability to establish preeminence in space.

It also helped to inspire a generation to pursue careers in science and engineering, and to believe in the power of American society and American culture. Alone in that hotel room watching TV, I certainly felt a lasting sense of meaning, that connection to those three brave astronauts.

These astronauts represented in that moment America's destiny, a destiny shared by the thousands of men and women who worked to make it happen.

This includes John Glenn, of course, another brave pioneer of human space exploration who had made their journey possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fitting that on this 40th anniversary year of the Apollo 11 mission, we grant these four brave Americans the recognition only this Congress can bestow, the Congressional Gold Medal. That's why I am introducing legislation to that effect today.

I am pleased to be joined in this initiative by the chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, Bart Gordon; the chairwoman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Gabrielle Giffords; Committee Ranking Member Ralph Hall; Subcommittee Ranking Member Pete Olson; and Florida Members Suzanne Kosmas and Bill Posey.

I believe this recognition is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so it can be enacted into law.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that from the Congressman from Ohio. I will tell you that one of the most hard-hit areas of our entire country in terms of foreclosures, dropping housing values, and a general destruction of the economy, is Florida. In particular central Florida, which I represent.

In central Florida, the economy is based on three things: Tourism, housing, and senior services. Tourism is not doing well. Senior services is just barely getting by. But housing has been crushed by the dramatic decline in property values and this plague of foreclosures that we see all over central Florida, but in particular, in the epicenter of that earthquake, which is Orlando.

In Orlando, we have the highest home vacancy rate in the country. Almost 10 percent of the homes in Orlando are vacant. We have had extreme overbuilding and a problem that has been exacerbated terribly by foreclosures, which destroy entire neighborhoods.

What you have to understand about foreclosures is that they are fundamentally, economically irrational. As we heard before, every foreclosure results in losses of tens of thousands dollars to the mortgage holder, as well as putting a family out on the street. So you have to ask yourself: Why are the mortgage companies acting this way, and what can be done about it?

For those of us perhaps on the other side of the aisle who worship the free market, the god of the free market, you can look at the situation happening right now and you can see for yourself that our economic actors are acting irrationally by tossing people out on the street when there is an economic motivation to keep them in their homes and keep them paying. And that's what we saw over and over again in Florida.

We saw 30 percent, 40 percent losses being taken on houses, when people in those houses were employed, when people in those houses had income, when people in those houses had savings and the ability to keep paying, although they had missed a few payments already. In a situation like that, what do we gain by throwing people out on the street?

What benefit is that when the mortgage company takes a 30 or 40 percent loss, the homeowner has to move in with relatives or live in a car, and beyond that, the entire neighborhood is destroyed by foreclosure after foreclosure after foreclosure pervading the real estate market? What good is that?

Well, in Orlando, we have reached a solution that is at least a temporary solution for this problem. What we did is I asked our local State court chief judge to institute mandatory mediation in all foreclosure cases. So for 45 days, foreclosures in Orlando just stopped, stopped cold. We put everybody on timeout. The banks, the borrowers, the homeowners, everybody

was on timeout for 45 days. And you know what? People found a solution to their problems. In 45 days, we got the borrower, the homeowner and the bank together. We put them all together in a room with a mediator paid for by the bank.

Under this program, many people were able to keep their homes. All they needed, some of them, was just an extra couple of months to pay their bills, a little breathing space. That's all they needed. In some cases they needed a longer term on their loan, in some cases they needed to refinance and they hadn't cleared the paperwork yet, but time after time after time what we found is that with a little bit of breathing space people could end up keeping their homes--at least those that had an income, at least those that still had a job.

We did an enormous amount of good by this simple fix on foreclosures in Orlando. But it evokes a deeper question. The deeper question is, How did we get in this situation in the first place? What is it that led to this plague of foreclosures in the first place? And we all know the answer; the answer is predatory lending and housing fraud.

And for those across the aisle who want to cast the blame in this direction, I ask a simple question. The Bush administration was in charge of enforcing the law in this country for 8 years. Can you name me one person in that 8 years that was convicted of Federal housing fraud, just one? And I see a blank stare in response. Not one. Not one case can they identify of a single person who was enforced criminally in this country with violation of our housing laws, not one.

Now, our job is to pass the law. Our job is to pass a bill, send it to the Senate, take a Senate-passed bill, vote on it ourselves, and ask the President to sign it. That is what we do here, and we do oversight as well. But can we enforce the law? No. That is the responsibility of the executive branch. And I am telling you right now that for 8 years they did nothing. Nothing. And now they have the nerve to come to us and blame us for the problems that they created?

Mr. Chairman, we offer H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act. The Pay for Performance Act is based on two simple concepts: 1, no one has the right to get rich off taxpayer money, and 2, no one should get rich off abject failure.

The U.S. Government spent $170 billion to stabilize AIG, and it now owns 80 percent of that company. Yet recently AIG paid more than $165 million in bonuses to 73 employees with this taxpayer money. We should not be paying an arsonist to put out his own fire, and we should not be paying an executive to ruin his own bank.

Mr. Chairman, an economy in which a bank executive can line his own pockets by destroying his company with risky bets is an economy that will spiral downward to failure. And a government that hands out money to such executives is a government that fails to protect its own taxpayers.

H.R. 1664 is designed to allow responsible compensation to those who work for companies running on taxpayer money. The bill freezes current bonus payments for executives and employees of companies that have accepted capital investments from the TARP program until that investment capital is paid back to the government. It allows for new compensation and bonus arrangements to be made, as long as they are based on performance standards and are not excessive or unreasonable. These standards must be crafted by the Treasury Secretary within 30 days and approved by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

Our job is to act on behalf of taxpayers to fix our economy, and we do so today with this bill. The restrictions in this bill apply only to financial institutions that have taken capital investments from the taxpayer, and they are commonsense restrictions. Pay cannot be excessive or unreasonable, and bonuses must be based on performance standards. If the banks want to avoid, for some reason, these commonsense restrictions, there's a very simple way for them to do so. Just pay the bailout money back to the government, and that's what the banks say they want to do. I know that taxpayers in my district will happily take it back.

I asked the CEO of AIG when he came to testify before the Financial Services Committee, is it more important to protect bank executives who have lost billions of dollars and still get millions of dollars worth of pay, or to protect us? The answer to that question is now before this body, and I know which side I'm on.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month.

As March comes to a close, I would like to commemorate Women's History Month on the House Floor by highlighting the accomplishments of the many courageous women who, throughout history, have worked to improve the lives of all of the citizens of our great nation.

Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize those women whose hard work and dedication have directly impacted the state of Florida, and to commend them for their accomplishments. I would also like to recognize the Florida Women's Hall of Fame, whose mission it is to highlight and preserve the legacies of such women.

A native Floridian, Representative Carrie Meek paved the way for both women and African Americans in Florida by serving in the state House from 1979 to 1982. She was then elected as the first African-American woman in the State Senate, and in 1992 she went on to become the first black woman elected to Congress from Florida.

A champion of gender and racial equality throughout her career, Representative Meek sponsored legislation that created the Florida Commission on the Status of Women, which is tasked with identifying and studying issues that affect women. The Commission also maintains and facilitates the permanent Florida Women's Hall of Fame display, in the State Capitol.

Madam Speaker, another Florida-born trailblazer is former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Ms. Reno has achieved many firsts, and done much for women in her storied career.

She was named staff director of the Judiciary Committee of the Florida House of Representatives in 1971, and is credited with helping to reform the Florida court system during her time there. In 1978, she was appointed as the first female Dade County State Attorney, a position to which she was elected six consecutive times. During her tenure as State Attorney, she developed programs for drug courts and domestic violence.

Following her time serving the State of Florida and as a result of her leadership in the area of criminal justice, Janet Reno was appointed the first female Attorney General of the United States in 1993--a position she held until 2001.

Madam Speaker, another pioneering woman with Florida roots is Ms. Zora Neal Hurston.

In the 1930s anthropologist, folklorist, and writer Zora Neale Hurston collected information on Florida folk life while working for the WPA's Federal Writers Project. As a result of her extensive anthropological research, her writings have become invaluable sources on African American life during the Harlem Renaissance. In all, Hurston wrote four novels and more than 50 published short stories, plays, and essays, and she is best known for her 1937 novel ``Their Eyes Were Watching God.''

Madam Speaker, I would also like to recognize Dr. Gladys Pumariega Soler. Dr. Soler was born in Cuba in 1930 and earned a medical degree from Havana University in 1955. In 1961, Dr. Soler moved to the United States and devoted her career to caring for indigent children in Jacksonville, Florida. Because of her role as director of the Pediatric Clinic at the University Medical Center from 1964 to 1992, for over 25 years Dr. Soler was widely known as ``the Pediatrician.''

These women have dedicated their lives to improving the status of women, and have encouraged people of all genders, races, and ages to reach higher and dream bigger.

As a son, husband, and father, it is a great honor and privilege for me to stand before you and recognize just a few of the many great women throughout history that have contributed their lives to better the lives not only of their peers, but of future generations, as well.

It is important that we continue to honor such women, not just during Women's History Month, but throughout the year, because they have done so much to improve the lives of women and the United States of America.

I rise today to bring attention to the fact that there is increasing evidence to support the idea that taking vacations is necessary for your health.

Your health. In times of economic uncertainty, it may seem hard to justify taking a vacation, but more than ever it is important to do so for your health.

The United States is a Nation of hard workers, but research shows that about a third of us in this country don't take all of the vacation days that we're entitled to. But according to Take Back Your Time, which is a nonprofit organization that studies issues related to overwork, there are 137 different countries that mandate paid vacation time, and the reason, typically, is health. The United States is not one of them.

With the number of Americans who said they would take a vacation is at a 30-year low, we need to take a look at the benefits of making that vacation that people have dreamed of a reality.

It is abundantly clear that individuals who take vacations are at a significantly lower risk for illness and disease. Likewise, those who do not take vacations are at a heightened risk of illness and disease. Even individuals without health problems can benefit from taking a vacation because it helps them to sleep better and it helps them to relax.

So it is sleeping afterward to make up for that.

A 2006 study was conducted to measure the benefits of taking vacations, and after a few days of vacation, the study found each participant was averaging more sleep and better quality sleep every night. There was also an 80 percent improvement in reaction times. And these benefits continued after they returned home. There is evidence that individuals who take vacations perform better at their jobs and they have higher job satisfaction.

The research has made such an impression that there is legislation being proposed here that would require a paid vacation time in the United States. It is currently called the Minimum Leave Protection Family Bonding and Personal Well-Being Act, and it would mandate 3 weeks of vacation every year.

I think that Americans need to relax. They need to consider this evidence about what is good for their health and their well-being, and they need to take time off. And as the Congressman from Orlando, I recommend they take a few days off at Disney World.

Thank you, too. I was in Las Vegas last year. I had a great time.

Madam Speaker, tonight I am proud to introduce the Pay for Performance Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, this bill is based on two simple concepts. One, no one has the right to get rich off taxpayer money. And two, no one should get rich off abject failure.

An economy in which a bank executive can line his own pocket by destroying his company with risky bets is an economy that will spiral downwards. And a government that hands out money to such executives is a government that fails to protect the taxpayers.

Our job is to act on behalf of taxpayers to fix our economy, and we do so tonight with this bill.

Madam Speaker, the U.S. Government spent $170 billion to stabilize AIG, and it now owns 80% of that company. Yet recently, AIG paid more than $165 million in bonuses to 73 employees with this taxpayer money. That is like paying an arsonist to put out his own fires.

The restrictions in this bill apply only to financial institutions that have taken capital investments from the taxpayer, and they are commonsense restrictions. Pay can't be excessive or unreasonable, and bonuses must be based on performance standards. And if the banks want to avoid these common-sense restrictions, there's a very simple solution--just pay the bailout money back to the government, as so many banks claim they want to do. I know the taxpayers in my district will take it back happily.

As I asked the CEO of AIG when he came to testify before the Financial Services committee, is it more important to protect bank executives who have lost billions of dollars, or to protect us? The answer to that question is now before this body.

I know which side I'm on.

I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill.

Do you want to know why AIG went broke, threatening to bring down the whole U.S. economy? It's actually easy to find out. All you have to do is wade through 500-plus pages in the form 10-K that AIG filed 2 weeks ago. It's all in there, and I read it.

Now, derivatives certainly contributed to the problem. That's why the ``stress test'' on Page 178 says that AIG owes $500 billion, yes, $500 billion, if long-term interest rates go up by just 1 percent, as opposed to only $5 billion, according to Page 183, if San Francisco is destroyed in an earthquake. So now we know why the Federal Reserve has been buying long-term bonds just as fast as the Chinese sell them: to keep its ward AIG from being liable for $500 billion, because $500 billion is a lot of money, even to the Federal Reserve.

And to whom would AIG owe that money? The answer is on Page 176. AIG's largest credit exposure, which is 160 percent of its shareholder equity, is to ``Money Center/Global Bank Groups.'' In other words, Wall Street. And almost half of that amount is owed to only five banks.

But the real AIG losses have come not from derivatives but rather from AIG's basic business model. In a news release last Monday, AIG said that it had to make payouts of $43.7 billion to ``securities lending counterparties.'' That's the phrase: ``securities lending counterparties.'' The news release doesn't explain what that is, but AIG's 10-K does.

The standard insurance business model is as follows: You make money from minimizing your claim payments, and you make more money from your investments. Warren Buffett has explained this countless times in Berkshire Hathaway's 10-Ks. It's a stable, steady business. Indeed, AIG's insurance subsidiaries took in premiums, AIG invested them, and AIG paid out on claims.

But that's when things went horribly wrong. According to AIG's 10-K, AIG's parent company sucked the investment assets out of its insurance subsidiaries and lent them to Wall Street and foreign banks in return for cash. AIG then took this borrowed cash and invested it--are you ready for this?--in mortgage-backed securities.

It's not in AIG's 10-K, but the counterparties, that is, its friends on Wall Street, undoubtedly took the stocks and bonds borrowed from AIG and sold them short. That's why institutions borrow securities: to sell them, buy them back later at a lower price, return them, and claim the profit. So as the markets dropped, AIG's counterparties laughed all the way to the bank. Except they are banks.

And what about AIG? According to the first few pages of AIG's 10-K, when the counterparties returned the securities to AIG, AIG had trouble coming up with the cash because, first of all, the mortgage-backed securities market had blown up, and, secondly, the securities that AIG had lent out were actually worth far less at that point. Hence the Federal bailout at $150 billion and counting. And this money, by the way, this money that the Federal Government is giving to AIG, AIG implausibly lists that money as ``shareholders' equity'' and not loans on its own financial statements.

Now, why would AIG do something as convoluted and nutty as this? To goose its profit a few points by counting both the returns on the lent securities and the returns on the mortgage-backed securities both as its profit. In other words, the motive was greed.

Obviously, AIG shouldn't have done this, and no insurance company ever should be able to do it in the future. This is the kind of financial innovation that brings into focus why we need to regulate in order for this country to survive. The choice is not between regulation and freedom; the choice is between regulation and chaos.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for working with me on increasing the number of volunteers trained and available for immediate deployment to States with high vulnerability to hurricanes and various natural disasters, like my State of Florida.

As you know, the National Civilian Community Corps is a full-time team-based residential program for men and women aged 18 to 24 that helps meet critical community needs. The mission of the NCCC is to strengthen communities and to develop leaders through direct, team- based national and community service.

Drawn from the successful models of the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s and the U.S. military, the NCCC is built on the belief that civic responsibility is an inherent duty of all citizens. These members have been instrumental in assisting communities with relief and recovery needs during times of natural disasters.

According to the Corporation for National and Community Service, more than 2,900 NCCC members have served on disaster-related projects in the Gulf Coast region since September 2005, in

coordination with such groups as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, the Army Corps of Engineers, and various State service commissions.

In all, NCCC members have contributed more than 1.4 million hours of service and have completed nearly 13,000 damage assessments, refurbished more than 6,500 homes, put tarps on thousands of homes, served 1.3 million meals, and distributed more than 2,200 tons of food.

Given the critical needs that this program provides, I would like to work with you on exploring potential options to establish an NCCC campus in Florida.

Madam Speaker, I have five children, two of them are 3- year-olds who were born prematurely. They were in the hospital for a long time. They were on respirators for a

long time. They were on 24-hour monitoring for a very, very long time.

If a doctor had come to me and said to me, Mr. Grayson, we can save your children but it will cost a million dollars, I would have said okay.

If a doctor had said, Mr. Grayson, we can save your children, but it is going to cost your right arm, I would have said okay because the life of a child is more important than money. And yet in America we have 25,000 children who die every year without reaching their first birthday.

This bill will cover 4 million children with health care who otherwise won't have it. I turn to the other side of the aisle and I say: Let's save those lives, let's choose life.

Madam Speaker, there is a power that we have as legislators that we don't often discuss, but it's there nonetheless. It is the power of life and death. The power is most apparent when we vote on wars, but it is apparent here today as well.

Today, we vote on life versus death. There are 50,000 American children who died last year. More children in America die every month than the number of Americans who were lost on 9/11. Half of those children never reached their first birthdays. Thousands of them died from cancer. We need to do everything that we can to save them.

I was a very sick child. I had to go to the hospital four times a week for treatment. If it weren't for my parents' union health benefits, I would not be here today for this vote.

Study after study shows that, for life-threatening conditions, uninsured people are three times more likely to die than those who are insured. At this time, there are many, many parents in our country who cannot afford health care for their children, but we cannot let the problems of the parents descend on the children.

By voting ``yes'' today, we save thousands of innocent lives. We won't know who they are. In fact, they won't know who they are, but they will owe their lives to our conscience. Please vote for SCHIP today. Vote for life.