Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by what seems to me a mistaken focus in the debate about reducing the deficit. I do agree that it is important to reduce the deficit. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I now believe that I am more focused on reducing the deficit than many of my colleagues, including on the other side of the aisle, who have with great alacrity put deficit reduction aside in favor of a fairly indiscriminate degree of tax reductions.

A couple of weeks ago, we were told that reducing the deficit was the number one priority, but reducing the taxes, particularly on the wealthiest in America, rapidly overtook deficit reduction. I hope we will get back to it. What troubles me is the extent to which people, mainly on the Republican side, but elsewhere as well, have said that what we need to do most to get the deficit down, as we should, is to reduce entitlements. That's a polite way of saying they want to cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, even though Medicaid is not an entitlement. But those are the things that are on the agenda.

In fact, that is neither socially or economically the sensible way to begin with the short-term--near-term deficit reduction we need. We shouldn't say short-term. We do, I believe, need some stimulus. I'm glad we are extending unemployment compensation. I wish we were doing more to help cities and States keep people on the payroll. The private sector has added jobs in these past few months. Job growth has been held down because the public sector has been forced at the State and local level to fire people. But this focus on Medicare and Social Security is mistaken economically and politically.

Mr. Speaker, let me calculate; about 45 years ago, I took an economics course in graduate school from a young assistant professor named Henry Aaron. I was impressed with him then, and I've been impressed with him since. In the New York Times recently he had an article in the op ed page headlined: ``All or Nothing Equals Nothing,'' in which he argued that the focus on reducing the deficit by 2020, which is the time we've set ourselves, which is very important, is an issue that should not encompass a focus on Social Security and Medicare.

He is not saying ignore Social Security and Medicare, only that a rational way to go after the deficit in the near term wouldn't focus on them. And Social Security, as he points out, Social Security is not going to be contributing to the deficit at that point. Indeed, Social Security at this point is in such good economic shape that people have decided Social Security should be a contributor to economic stimulus because we are reducing the revenue that comes into Social Security for 2 years by reducing the payroll tax.

Now I think that's a useful stimulus, but I regret the fact that it was not accompanied by a binding piece of legislation that will return that money from elsewhere in the general fund so that we don't put Social Security further in the hole. But as Henry Aaron points out, yes, we should begin to look at Social Security and the problems of 30 years from now. My own view is that you do that mostly by increasing the level of income on which the tax is levied, but there is no need to begin doing that right away.

I should have said this earlier, Mr. Speaker. Two of the greatest accomplishments of America in the 20th century, Social Security and Medicare, accomplished an important goal. They made it the case that poverty was no longer going to be the rule for many older people. Prior to Social Security and then Medicare, poverty was too often the reward for living long enough if you weren't rich. We have brought older people on the whole--not entirely--out of poverty. There are still enough low-income older people that I greatly regretted the fact that this House and the Senate, which are apparently ready to give multimillionaires tax breaks, couldn't support $250 per person for Social Security recipients, some of whom were wealthy but many of whom are quite poor. And I have people saying, Well, you don't want to give Warren Buffett $250. Mr. Buffett, to his credit, has objected to a $250,000 grant that he is being offered--more than that--in the tax reduction that is being offered--tax reduction from what current law would be.

But Henry Aaron makes the point that focusing on Social Security is taking up a very controversial issue way prematurely. And as for Medicare, here is what he said, which is of great social and economic importance: ``To slash Medicare and Medicaid spending before reforms to the health care system bear fruit would mean reneging on the Nation's commitment to provide standard health care for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. The only realistic way to realize big savings in the two programs is to reform the entire health care payment and delivery system in a way that will slow the growth of all health spending.''

I am asking, Mr. Speaker, that Members read this. Henry Aaron is a great

economist. He has studied Social Security as well as anybody. He has studied Medicare. He makes the point that focusing almost exclusively on those--or primarily on those--as a way to end the deficit is bad social, economic, and political policy.

Let me say at this point, Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself, not for Aaron, there are things we can do in the near term. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, that terribly mistaken war in which so many brave Americans suffered, we would have a trillion dollars more than we have today. We are grossly overextended in having military presence all over the world where it is needed and where it isn't. We continue to spend tens and tens of billions of dollars a year protecting Western Europe when they're not in danger and can protect themselves.

So let's focus on reducing military spending, let's rationalize agriculture spending, let's put some restraints elsewhere. But as Henry Aaron correctly points out in this article, let's not make the mistake of focusing on Social Security and Medicare, prematurely in the case of Social Security, and in a socially destructive way with regard to Medicare and Medicaid.

Madam Speaker, earlier this month, America lost one of the outstanding people to have served in this House. Steven Solarz was a Member of the House from 1974-1992, and no Member either in my personal experience or in my reading of history was a more effective and constructive leader in foreign policy as a Member of the House. Too often, Members of Congress, especially the House Members, distinguish themselves in the foreign policy field mostly in a negative way. Sometimes that is a very good thing because these Members are preventing things from happening that shouldn't happen. But there is a tendency to demagogue and to play to public dislike of foreigners. Steven Solarz was a role model for those who think that Members of the House have a constructive role to play in foreign policy. Without ever having risen to the chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he made himself an extremely significant positive force in foreign policy, for human rights, and for constructive American relations with a wide range of nations. He understood the importance of our being strong when we had to be, and of our being open and generous when that was called for.

Madam Speaker, Steve Solarz was a personal friend of mine for many years, and I suppose that people could claim that I have exaggerated the greatness of the role he played because of that. So I was particularly pleased to see that one of the best students of Congress, Norman Ornstein, expressed eloquently and cogently the importance of the role Steve Solarz played in foreign policy as a House Member, in his December 8, 2010 article in Roll Call.

Madam Speaker, as an example that I believe all Members ought to aspire to, I ask that Norman Ornstein's deserved tribute to Steven Solarz's foreign policy leadership be printed here.

[From Roll Call, Dec. 8, 2010]

Rep. Solarz Was a Leader Worth Remembering

(By Norman Ornstein)

This is the season for farewell addresses from many

lawmakers leaving at the end of the 111th Congress. Some

speeches, such as those of Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) a few

weeks back and of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) last week, are

particularly poignant, reflecting decades of dedication to

the Senate and reverence for its traditions (if a touch too

much deference to its existing rules and too little concern

for how the contemporary abuse of the norms have distorted

those traditions and call for modest but meaningful tweaks in

those rules).

But their eloquence underscores how elections, while

bringing necessary change for a democracy and reaffirming

popular will, also result in the departure of some of the

most solid citizens of the Congressional village. The loss of

expertise, insight and institutional memory--not to mention

fundamental decency--that comes with the departures, some

voluntary and some not, of people such as Reps. John Spratt

(D-S.C.), James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Ike Skelton (D-Mo.)

and Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), among others, is painful to those of us

who care about Congress.

Then there are other losses. Former Rep. Steve Solarz (D-

N.Y.) died last week at age 70, after a four-year battle with

esophageal cancer. While he received prominent obituaries in

the Washington Post and the New York Times, chances are many

new and not-so-new Members of Congress who weren't around in

the 18 years that Solarz served in the House, from 1975 to

1993, were either unaware of his passing or paid little

attention to it. As a start, they should go back and read

those obituaries, and then make a note to read his wonderful

book, ``Journeys to War and Peace: A Congressional Memoir,''

which will be published next year.

I wrote a foreword for the book, in which I noted my

striking experiences on visits to the Philippines and

Cambodia; in each case, when I met with academics, high

government officials and others, I was asked frequently, ``Do

you know Steve Solarz?'' In the Philippines, actually, the

question was, ``Do you know Steve Solarz personally? He

helped save my country from dictatorship.'' In Cambodia, it

was whether I knew the Steve Solarz who was instrumental in

saving Cambodia from the murderous excesses of the Khmer

Rouge.

Solarz was not a secretary of State, a Senator or even the

chairman of a powerful committee. He was a rank-and-file

House Member who, by the force of his personality, a

remarkable work ethic, a political savvy, an articulateness

unmatched in contemporary politics, a commitment to democracy

and human rights mixed with hard-headed sense of reality, and

a willingness to work across the aisle to accomplish mutual

goals, had a greater effect on the world than most

secretaries of State, Senators and chairmen of powerful

panels.

Solarz traveled the world, but not with Congressional

delegations; he went alone. American embassy personnel

dreaded his arrival; they would not have to arrange trips to

the souk or the rug store, but would instead have to keep up

with 18-hour days choreographed by Solarz to include meetings

with the foreign minister, the defense minister, the

intelligence chief and the key opposition figures.

When he scoped out situations and found corruption, abuse

of power and worse, he used his skills and connections to

relentlessly push for change. Back in Washington, D.C., his

office became a home away from home for dissident leaders

from around the world who got short shrift elsewhere. As a

consequence, to pick one example, Solarz probably had better

ties with the Kurdish leaders in Iraq than any other

American.

Solarz's shining moment, perhaps, was on the House floor

during the stirring debate over whether to authorize the use

of force against Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait,

i.e., the first Gulf War. There were dozens of emotional and

wrenching speeches as Members struggled with the decision

about whether to send young Americans to war, and perhaps to

death; at the time, there were predictions of potential

mayhem in the desert. When liberal Democrat Solarz stood up

and spoke in favor of the authorization, it was truly a

riveting moment. Everyone stopped to listen. He was powerful

and eloquent, and he did as much as anyone to shape the

outcome. There are few examples in which an individual

lawmaker has any effect, much less one that is consequential,

from a speech on the House floor.

It is hard to imagine another Solarz emerging in a

political system that is now so polarized that a powerful an

opinion leaders and statesmen like Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)

cannot persuade his own party colleagues to vote for the new

Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It is even harder to imagine

a House Member throwing himself into peripatetic travel to

every corner of the globe and trying to shape events and

outcomes in the world without being shredded by cable news

and anonymously funded campaign attack machines, or finding

ways to build unlikely and persuasive partnerships across

every partisan and ideological divide. But it is not

impossible to imagine some new Members of both parties

persuaded by Solarz's example to take some trips abroad

despite the predictable criticism of junkets and the equally

predictable partisan flak, and to think about core values of

freedom, human rights and America's national interest as

transcending petty partisan interests. At least I like to

think is not impossible.

Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to the topic I plan to discuss, I do have to comment on the gentleman from Florida. It is

striking the extent to which Republicans are siding with the Central Bank of China and the Chinese Government in objecting to American Federal Reserve actions taken in our self-defense. There are some debatable aspects of this. I think what the Fed is doing is very wise. But what the gentleman just said we have seen from elsewhere. ``This could lead to trade disputes with other nations because of its effect on our currency.''

Yes, the major other nation making that argument is China, which deliberately undervalues its currency, and is objecting because a potential side effect of what the Fed is doing to stimulate employment could be to reduce our currency vis-a-vis theirs. This notion that taking the side of these other countries in trade disputes, given the extent to which many of them have unfairly abused trade rules, seems to me quite shocking. And I am continually surprised that my Republican colleagues side with China, with Germany, and with other foreign central banks in their criticism of the Fed because of the effect it could have on our currency.

But I wanted to talk about the censure of our colleague, Mr. Rangel of New York, because I voted for a resolution amendment that would have had him be reprimanded, and then voted against censure. And I think my constituents are entitled to know why.

Mr. Rangel did things he should not have done. And he should have been reprimanded. I do not believe, however, that they rose to the very severe level of censure. In my mind, a reprimand is the House telling a Member that he or she has done things that were wrong. But when you get to censure, and if you look at the historical precedents here, you are going beyond simple bad acts. You are talking about, at least in one instance, a serious character defect. You are talking about someone who was a bad person.

The Ethics Committee itself said that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) was not trying to enrich himself. He was careless, he was sloppy, he was too zealous in trying to get money at a public university for a center in his name, but it would not have redounded to him personally financially. So I do agree he should have been reprimanded. But I do not think, given the acknowledgment that he was not trying to personally enrich himself, that he should have been censured.

I was also struck that the Republican cochair of the Ethics Committee--and I honor the members of the Ethics Committee. They do a very difficult job. They were very fair about the procedures, and I honor them for that, the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Alabama. But he said that if Mr. Rangel had comported himself differently--go back and look at this--if Mr. Rangel had comported himself differently during these discussions, he might have been reprimanded instead of censured. That's inappropriate. The punishment voted by this House for behavior should not be affected by what goes before.

But there is another element of what goes before in the process, and there is another element of this that I need to address. I think I am the only Member still serving in the House who was in fact reprimanded. And I want to deal with those who consider reprimand a slap on the wrist, saying, well, a reprimand was no big deal.

Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal. I am very proud of my service in this House. I am about to start my 31st year of service. And I am very proud of many of the things I have done. But reports of my service will include the fact that I was reprimanded 20 years ago for things that were done 24, 25 years ago. And that is not something that anyone ought to consider simply a slap on the wrist. I bear the stigma of having been reprimanded. I am enormously proud of serving in this wonderful body that embodies democracy. It is an enormous source of pride to me that hundreds of thousands of my constituents choose to have me serve here on their behalf. And to have marred that record, of which I am generally proud, with a reprimand means a great deal to me.

So I would just say in summary that given what Mr. Rangel did, given that he did things that he should not have done, but not for the purpose of enriching himself, they were careless, they were occasionally overreaches, but not, again, for his personal enhancement financially, given what we have traditionally reprimanded people for and what we have censured people for, reprimand was the appropriate response. And I would have voted for a reprimand, and I voted for an amendment that would have made it reprimand.

But I did not think that you should trivialize censure by censuring someone for the kind of behavior Mr. Rangel engaged in. And I would remind people again, from my own personal experience--and by the way, while he is not here, I assume that former Speaker Gingrich, who was also reprimanded by this House, would share my view--that having been reprimanded is not some slap on the wrist. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, how anyone who shares the pride that I feel in serving in this body, and having been selected by American citizens to make the laws of this country, could trivialize something like a reprimand.

Madam Speaker, I continue to be appalled by the spectacle of much of the conservative political movement in America attacking the man George Bush first appointed to head the Federal Reserve for his efforts to promote faster economic growth and a greater reduction in unemployment. Ben Bernanke's role in trying to cope with the economic disaster that the Obama Administration inherited from the Bush Administration has been productive and courageous. Consistently, he has refused to listen to conservatives, mostly although not entirely from the right, objecting to his efforts to provide the financial support needed for economic growth to go forward. Predictions that this would lead to ruinous inflation have proven baseless; the notion that this would lead to enormous losses in federal funds have also been refuted.

Despite the record of success that the Fed has shown in these efforts, despite the fact that inflation is nowhere in prospect, despite the fact that when challenged by Republican Members of the Financial Services Committee in a series of hearings we held Mr. Bernanke was able to refute--easily--any suggestion that these measures could get out of control, documenting that he has thoughtful plans for containing them--despite all of this, leading conservatives have decided for reasons I cannot fathom, to join China, Germany, and other foreign nations in assailing Mr. Bernanke for efforts to improve our economic condition.

The notion that a fear of inflation, given the current statistics, should prevail over efforts to stimulate economic activity and reduce unemployment is baffling, and if fully understood by the American people, will be certainly rejected.

Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I inserted into the Record powerful arguments in defense of Mr. Bernanke from the New York Times Editorial Board and Martin Wolf of the Financial Times. I wish to add today to that list of thoughtful people who are defending the Federal Reserve Chairman against the China-German-right-wing Republican attack, an editorial from the Boston Globe, and a thoughtful article from one of our leading economists, Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton, himself a former Vice Chair of the Fed.

A Global Chorus of Kvetchers

The Federal Reserve's attempt to stimulate economic growth

by purchasing $600 billion worth of long-term Treasury bonds

over the coming eight months may not produe the hoped-for

spurt in lending and investment. Cash-rich banks and other

corporations seem worried more about anemic demand than the

cost of money. But whatever the domestic effects of Fed

Chairman Ben Bernanke's use of monetary policy to ward off

deflation, the vehement criticism of the move from other

countries is way off base.

China, Germany, and Brazil have led the complainers'

chorus. Tellingly, all three enjoy significant and growing

trade surpluses. During the run-up to the G-20 summit in

South Korea, they accused the Fed of a stealthy form of

currency manipulation. In the case of China, the pot is

calling the kettle black. China's propping up of the yuan in

currency markets has been flagrant.

The G-20 summit, which ended Friday, was justly panned for

the failure of the world's leading economic powers to agree

on measures to prevent each other from deliberately

undervaluing their currencies to promote exports and

discourage imports. Charges and countercharges abounded.

Nonetheless, it was a positive sign that Chinese President

Hu Jintao agreed to take specific actions to boost his

country's domestic consumption of goods. This could herald a

significant shift for an economy geared toward maximizing

exports. And President Obama got the better of the argument

about the Fed's effort to stimulate growth and create jobs in

the United States. No one could refute Obama's contention

that a ``strong recovery'' in America ``is the most important

contribution the United States can make to global economic

recovery.''

The disputes within the G-20 involve nettlesome matters and

cannot be resolved quickly, The most positive sign to come

out of the summit was a broad awareness of the need for

continued consultation and cooperation to avoid a repeat of

the protectionist

policies that exacerbated the Great Depression. In those

consultations, US officials are entitled to be unapologetic

about defending the Fed's effort to promote growth in the US

economy as an effort that serves the longterm interests of

China, Germany, Brazil, and many other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I should note that I am speaking on behalf of myself and my colleague with whom I share the honor of representing the city of Fall River, Mr. McGovern, who is at a doctor's appointment now. But he fully joins in these sentiments.

First, I want to thank the committee. As the gentlewoman noted, this bill was introduced at the request of the city government of Fall River in July of this year, so this is very prompt action by the committee, and I appreciate both sides moving so quickly.

As the gentlewoman reported, Sergeant Barrett was a 20-year-old patriotic American with a 2-year-old daughter and a loving family. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, because I attended this funeral, as I have tried to attend the funeral of every one of our service people killed in one of our wars, that he was widely respected, admired and in many cases loved by the people of the city of Fall River. There was great sadness in the city when the news came of his death in the service of his country and when the funeral was held. His high school classmates were deeply grieved by the loss of someone they greatly admired.

I was glad to respond when the city very appropriately asked that we name this post office in his honor. It is a central facility. As the address says, it is the Government Center. It is virtually adjacent to the city hall in Fall River. It is at the center of the town, right at the end of one our great bridges, the Braga Bridge, which spans the Taunton River. Anybody who drives from anywhere outside of Massachusetts to Cape Cod will drive along that road and will get to see this post office, and I hope will be reminded of the extraordinary sacrifice that the young father, son and brother made on behalf of this country.

So I want to again express my appreciation to the committee and send again my condolences to Sergeant Barrett's family and friends.

It is a sobering moment, Mr. Speaker. I will say this. I have tried, as I know many Members do, to attend, if it is at all possible, the funeral of those killed in our service. It is sometimes necessary for a Nation to go to war, there is no question about it. There is in the world evil that must be confronted. In Afghanistan, it was an evil that led to the murder of thousands of innocent Americans and hundreds of innocent Africans a few years before at the hands of a murderous thug named Osama bin Laden. But being reminded of the inevitable consequences of going to war, the death of among our best young people and the pain it inflicts on those who survive them, that is a very important part of the education we need to get.

So I will continue. I hope there won't be many more instances, but I will continue whenever I can, if there is a death of someone in the district I represent, to attend, to be reminded that war is both necessary and terrible. We will do it when we have to, but we should always be aware of those consequences.

Again, to those who survive Sergeant Barrett, there is nothing we can do to replace the enormous loss you have suffered with the death of this wonderful young man, but I hope you will know that your country at least understands the depth of that loss and appreciates it.

Madam Speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is playing an extremely valuable role in helping foster growth in our economy, and I am deeply disappointed at the extent to which many of our foreign allies--who have been such beneficiaries of America's goodwill--have attacked him not simply for the substance of what he was doing, but for even daring to take the interests of the American economy into account in his actions.

Apparently there is a view in many parts of the world, including among our European allies, that it is America's destiny to be their protector and benefactor, and that for American officials taking important and constructive steps to help our own economy prosper must take second place. And while many of our allies have exhibited this attitude, I have seen nothing more blatantly hypocritical than for the Chinese Peoples Republic, the poster country for economic moves that completely ignore any sense of international obligation whether in currency, trade or in any other way, to criticize the United States for daring to take our own interests into account.

I have also been surprised that a number of Americans, particularly on the conservative side, have failed to come to Mr. Bernanke's defense. This is a case where a man appointed to high economic positions by President Bush, and continued in that position by President Obama, and confirmed in that position by Senates under both Republican and Democratic control, is acting to promote economic activity in America. He is being criticized by a variety of foreign nations for this, and instead of coming to the defense of our right to act constructively on our own behalf, many conservatives have joined in the America-bashing that is going on.

Madam Speaker, fortunately the understanding of the value of Mr. Bernanke's work--and its legitimacy--is clear in many places where thoughtful economic thinking prevails, and that is not only in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I ask that the Record here reproduce an editorial from the New York Times, on November 9, 2010, entitled ``The Fed vs. the G- 20.''

Madam Speaker, the very fact that the title has to say that is a sad reflection on the failure of so many of those who have benefited from America's leadership and generosity to recognize our right to take responsible action to deal with our economy.

In addition, I ask, Madam Speaker, that the Record also contain here an article from the Financial Times entitled ``The Fed is right to turn on the tap,'' by Martin Wolf, one of the most thoughtful and justifiably respected writers on economic affairs.

[From the New York Times, Nov. 9, 2010]

The Fed vs. The G-20

When President Obama arrives in Seoul, South Korea, on

Thursday for the summit of the Group of 20 leading economies,

he will be met by blistering criticism of the Federal

Reserve's plan for ``quantitative easing''--pumping $600

billion into the weak American economy over the next eight

months.

Many nations are worried that a weaker American dollar

would harm their export sectors and overheat their economies

as more capital flows in, in search of better returns. Their

fears are understandable but shortsighted. The Fed's move is

a much-needed attempt to stimulate the American economy and

head off deflation here. Prolonged stagnation, or worse, in

the United States would turn off one of the main sources of

global demand and global growth.

By buying Treasury securities, the Fed aims to lower long-

term interest rates and increase expectations of future

inflation. This would spur households and businesses to spend

and invest rather than hold on to money that will fall in

value.

The approach is not ideal. It would be better if fiscal

policy were carrying some of the load of economic stimulus.

Building new rail links and roads or other large job-creating

projects would do more to promote growth than lowering the

price of debt, as the Fed is doing. Republican Party leaders

in Congress--for political and ideological reasons, rather

than sound economics--have vowed to block all stimulus

spending.

China, eager for someone else to take the heat, is trying

to equate the Fed's attempts at stimulus with its own long-

term manipulation of its own currency. That may play well in

some quarters, but it also makes no sense. Beijing has a

policy to cheapen its currency to grow through exports, on

the back of other countries' demand, while slowing its own

domestic demand. The Fed's policy also weakens the dollar,

but its objective is to boost demand at home.

The pain caused by the falling dollar on the export sectors

of many economies is real enough. Yet rather than criticize

the Fed, the G-20 should focus on working out complementary

policies. Washington should back plans by developing

countries like Brazil to impose capital controls and slow the

inflow of money fleeing low interest rates in rich countries.

Europe and Japan, where growth is anemic and inflation

virtually nonexistent, could try the same approach as the

Fed.

They need more stimulus than the United States.

China should take this opportunity to shift course, allow

its currency to rise against the dollar and rely more on

consumption at home. That will be good for China and good for

the global economy.

Madam Speaker, attached is a Wall Street Journal article noting that the lack of credit was hurting many small businesses in our country.

[From the Wall Street Journal]

Loan Squeeze Thwarts Small-Business Revival

(By Mark Whitehouse)

Ypsilanti, MI.--Thomas Harrison, chief executive of

Michigan Ladder Co., has a plan that would contribute to the

U.S. economic recovery: Expand the 108-year-old company,

adding at least 20 jobs in the process. His chances of

getting the loan of $300,000 or more he needs to do so,

though, depend in part on what happens to folks like home

builder James Haeussler.

Both are customers of the same community bank, the Bank of

Ann Arbor. Mr. Haeussler is struggling to repay $8.3 million

he and a partner borrowed to build a residential community in

nearby Saline, Mich. In this economic environment, the bank

doesn't want to take a chance on what it sees as a risky new

loan to Mr. Harrison.

``In a world where Jim Haeussler makes it, Tom Harrison

will make it,'' says Timothy Marshall, the bank's president.

``But it's not prudent to do both loans at this point in

time. We're in a more risk-averse mode.''

Mr. Marshall's reluctance sheds light on a problem looming

over the economy. A year and a half after the financial

crisis hit, the U.S. credit machine is still malfunctioning.

During the boom, credit was too abundant. Now the pendulum

has swung. With an eye toward limiting such swings, Sen.

Christopher Dodd is expected to unveil a bill Monday that

would be especially tough on big banks while preserving the

Fed's regulatory role, but the bill's prospects remain

uncertain.

For a recovery to take hold, hundreds of thousands of small

businesses must find the confidence to expand and create

jobs. But when they get to that point, the local banks they

depend on--worried about borrowers' financial strength,

scrutinized by regulators and slammed by souring real-estate

loans--might not be willing or able to provide the credit

they need.

While big companies have been able to borrow in bond

markets, smaller companies rely mainly on bank credit, which

has been shrinking. In 2009, total lending by U.S. banks fell

7.4%, the steepest drop since 1942. In all, the credit pulled

out of the economy by banks since the downfall of Lehman

Brothers in September 2008 amounts to about $700 billion,

more than double the amount so far distributed under

President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus program.

``It's a dismal situation,'' says Diane Swonk, chief

economist at Chicago-based financial-services firm Mesirow

Financial. ``Banks won't lend to businesses because they're

afraid they'll go bad, but that can become a self-fulfilling

prophecy.''

The dearth of credit for small businesses could have a big

effect on prospects for restoring the 8.4 million jobs lost

since the recession began. From 1992 through the beginning of

the latest recession, companies with fewer than 100 employees

accounted for about 45% of net job growth, according to Labor

Department data.

Policy makers have been looking for ways to reopen the

spigot. President Obama has proposed creating a $30 billion

fund to support small-business lending. Last month, in an

unusual show of solidarity, the Federal Reserve, the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corp. and other state and federal

regulators issued a joint statement urging banks to continue

lending to credit-worthy small enterprises.

Making sure small firms get access to credit ``is crucial

to avoiding a Japan-type scenario of persistent stagnation,''

says Mark Gertler, a New York University economist who has

done seminal research with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, then a

Princeton University professor, on how troubles with bank

lending can aggravate economic downturns.

Getting banks to lend more won't be easy, given the rising

tide of defaults on loans made to finance housing

developments, office buildings, shopping malls and other

commercial real estate. Deutsche Bank expects banks to suffer

at least $250 billion in losses on such loans, with about

half coming in the next few years. Together with an estimated

$250 billion in further charge-offs on home mortgages, that's

more than double banks' current reserves against losses on

all types of loans.

The stakes are particularly high for community banks, which

tend to be much more active in commercial real estate than

their larger counterparts. As of December 2009, such loans

comprised about 42% of all loans held by the 7,344 banks with

less than $1 billion in assets, compared to about 17% for the

hundred or so banks with more than $10 billion in assets.

Some bankers say policy makers' desire to encourage lending

isn't always reflected on the ground, where they say bank

inspectors are getting tougher about lending standards. ``For

the first time in my 37 years in banking, we're having to say

to our clients that we're not sure this will pass muster with

the regulators,'' says Larry Barbour, president and chief

executive of North State Bank in Raleigh, N.C. ``That's not

healthy.''

Washtenaw County, Mich., which includes Ann Arbor,

Ypsilanti and Saline, offers a glimpse of how the cycle of

economic malaise and shrinking credit is playing out across

the country. The county includes the Willow Run plant, where

Ford Motor Co. once produced the B-24 Liberator bombers that

helped win World War II, the University of Michigan football

stadium, and hospital complexes and high-tech start-ups in

Ann Arbor. As of December, Washtenaw's unemployment rate

stood at 9%, close to the national average.

Michigan Ladder's Mr. Harrison, 44 years old, remembers

vividly the day in September 2008 when the recession hit

home. The company, which manufactures wooden ladders and

distributes imported aluminum and fiberglass models, had been

doing well despite the financial crisis. Sales were up 6%

over the previous year, and Mr. Harrison had expanded the

company's staff to about 28, from 20 at the beginning of the

year.

But during the week of Sept. 15, the company's largest

supplier of aluminum and fiberglass ladders suddenly refused

to deliver ladders unless it was paid in advance. Within

days, says Mr. Harrison, Michigan Ladder lost as much as $1

million of the supplier credit on which it relied to pay for

raw materials and maintain its inventory of ladders. At the

same time, its customers started failing to pay for ladders

it had already delivered.

``Literally overnight, the whole world changed for us,''

says Mr. Harrison. ``It was simply too much of a shock--too

much of a change, too quickly.'' He laid off eight workers in

December 2008 and another eight in 2009 as sales fell 40%.

Mr. Harrison has since lined up new credit from suppliers,

and he says sales are on track to rise 15% this year. He

thinks the time has come to implement the expansion project

he shelved when the crisis hit. The plan: Produce in Michigan

the aluminum and fiberglass ladders he currently imports from

places such as Mexico and China. He already has the

customers, and he calculates that manufacturing in Michigan

will actually boost his profit margins, in part because the

savings on shipping will offset the higher cost of U.S.

labor.

``We can do this,'' he says. ``We can be a low-cost

producer, and we will have a made-in-USA product, which we

think will have some appeal to people.''

The Bank of Ann Arbor is Mr. Harrison's best bet to finance

his project. Larger banks typically don't deal with companies

the size of Michigan Ladder. Also, Bank of Ann Arbor, which

has $543 million in assets, has weathered the crisis much

better than most of its peers. It turned profits every year,

expanded overall lending and declined the support of the

government Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The bank has made loans to finance expansions for some of

its stronger customers, such as Solohill Engineering, which

makes products used in the manufacture of vaccines and more

than doubled sales in 2009. Nonetheless, says its president,

Mr. Marshall, fears about a weak recovery are prompting even

healthy banks to be careful, a trend he recognizes could help

make those fears a reality.

``It's kind of a vicious cycle,'' he says. ``Anytime you're

in an economic environment like we are, bankers are going to

be more conservative.''

One of bankers' main concerns is the damage the recession

has done to many companies' finances. Values of real estate

and other things small business owners can put up as

collateral for loans have fallen so far, so fast, that many

businesses have little to offer. Also, a year or more of

losses have eroded the value of owners' stakes in companies,

leaving less of a cushion against bankruptcy.

Mr. Marshall says such financial concerns are a big reason

he's not ready to lend to Mr. Harrison, who says his company

took heavy losses in 2008 before returning to profitability

in 2009. Mr. Harrison says he's exploring ways to raise new

money from investors, but so far to no avail. ``It's not

reasonable to expect that [the Bank of Ann Arbor] can make up

for all the credit companies like ours have lost,'' he says.

Mr. Harrison's credit difficulties also are linked to the

travails of other borrowers such as Mr. Haeussler, the 51-

year-old president of Peters Building. In 2005, he and a

partner began developing a 625-acre piece of land known as

Saline Valley Farms, the site of a cooperative farm in the

mid-1900s.

The downturn hit Mr. Haeussler hard in 2007, when home

builder Toll Brothers called with bad news: It wouldn't

exercise its option to purchase 93 luxury-home lots, the

entire first phase of the Saline Valley Farms project. When

the $8.3 million loan he and a partner had taken out to grade

the lots and build infrastructure came due in late 2008, they

still owed $6.7 million and had 76 empty lots, the estimated

value of which had fallen to about $1.4 million.

``It was perfectly wrong timing,'' says Mr. Haeussler.

Losses on loans to developers such as Mr. Haeussler have

taken a toll on community banks, eroding their capital and

limiting their capacity to make new loans. Bank of Ann Arbor

has moved more quickly than other banks to recognize losses,

charging off nearly one-quarter of its construction and

development loans in 2009. That compares to about 5% for all

banks. In its remaining portfolio of such loans, about 6% are

delinquent, compared to about 16% for all banks.

Many community banks are renegotiating troubled real-estate

loans. In Mr. Haeussler's case, the Bank of Ann Arbor cut a

deal: In return for a four-year extension, Mr. Haeussler and

his partner more than quadrupled the amount of collateral

backing the loan, putting up the entire Saline Valley Farms

project and more. Even with the added collateral, the bank

charged off $2.1 million of the loan, effectively recognizing

that it may never get the money back.

The bank figures that giving Mr. Haeussler more time

increases the odds he will pay off his loan. But such deals

tie up cash on what essentially are bets that existing

borrowers will make it through. That leaves banks, including

Bank of Ann Arbor, with less appetite to make new loans to

customers like Mr. Harrison, who doesn't have the resources

Mr. Haeussler and his partner used to secure their loan.

Mr. Haeussler, for his part, says he's trying not to think

too much about all that's hanging in the balance, which could

include his entire business. ``It's a little unnerving at

times,'' he says. ``But you just have to put your head down

and work through it.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I substitute for the gentlewoman from Illinois on managing our 10 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say that this is a bill that passed the House in May; it was over in the Senate; it was subject to a filibuster; that filibuster was broken; and the Senate has sent us back the bill. It is not everything we wanted, but it is a significant improvement and will, I think, be helpful.

No one has alleged any possible negative consequences. Some have said it might not be as helpful as we believe, but we think it will enhance the lending capacity of small banks for small businesses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to one of the leading advocates and architects of this bill, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Yes, the gentlewoman is exactly correct. It is intended that this be treated as tier 1 capital in a way that is consistent with other capital securities issued to Treasury.

The gentlewoman is correct.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me inform my colleague that I intend to close with my remaining 4 minutes, and I'm my last speaker. I will close; so I reserve the last 4 minutes to close.

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

First, this bill deals with the particular needs of minority women and veteran-owned small businesses. I want to point out that we have had hearings documenting the barriers and the discrimination that face small businesses that are owned by minority women or service-disabled veterans. There were hearings on this. There is evidence that they have a harder time and get less value for their loans. I want to make clear that we have looked at that, and our inclusion of provisions for that is based on our evidence.

Secondly, I have to say that my colleague from Texas is to be congratulated on his selectivity. He manages to do more partial quoting of people's positions than I get on my cell phone in a bad reception area.

For example, he talked about the Independent Community Bankers. You might have had a hard time, listening to the gentleman from Texas, figuring out that they wrote us a letter dated September 22. Maybe they changed their mind overnight and talked to the gentleman from Texas, but I am skeptical. In the letter they say this bill: ``. . . is a bold, fresh proposal that would provide another option for community banks to leverage capital and expand small business credit.''

The Independent Community Bankers, whom he sought to quote denigrating this bill, are very much in favor of this bill.

The National Association of Home Builders likes the concept, although they were upset with one of the things that the Senate left out.

The Financial Services Roundtable--and here is the problem when taking a partisan stance: You have to over-argue your case. If you listen to the gentleman from Texas, there are no small businesses anywhere that would like to get a loan but can't find it from their bank. Now no one, including the gentleman from Texas, believes that is true.

I have to say that my advice to my colleagues is, even in the heat of a political debate, try to refrain from saying something that no one will believe because it is not helpful to your argument.

Yes, there are cases where there are banks that have enough capital. There are cases where there are companies that are afraid to lend. But what the gentleman has said goes far beyond that: There are no significant number of small businesses in America that are encountering problems because there are banks that don't have enough capital. No one believes that.

Now here is the problem. We have people who do not want to see anything get better. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), I will credit him because he didn't talk much about this bill. He complained about a lot of other bills. I understand that. He, I think, quite honestly realized there was not a lot of bad things to say about this bill. The worst they can say about this bill is it might not be used as much as we think. I disagree. In this vast economy, $30 billion is not a huge amount of money from the standpoint of the small business borrowers.

Now, this bill is not what I would like it to be. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee, improved this bill significantly in the House. And this is not as good a bill as it came back from the Senate as it was before. I am going to be working with her. I intend to vote for this bill to give the Senate another chance. I don't like to give up on people or institutions. I believe in redemption, and we will give the Senate a chance to get it right.

But let's be clear. The Independent Community Bankers are for this. Other small businesses are for this. The argument that no small business anywhere in America has capital that they need and can put to use and can't find a bank, that simply isn't valid.

On uncertainty, I understand the problem of uncertainty in taxation. You know what the uncertainty is? What's going to happen to the Bush tax cuts. And whose fault is that uncertainty? President Bush and his Republican allies, who passed a manipulative, book-cooking tax cut that they said would last 10 years. I didn't say that it should last for 10 years and then expire. I didn't say that the estate tax should be a dipsy-doodle that went up and down and up and around. That is what the Republicans did because they were trying to hide from the American people the full budgetary impact of their taxes.

Let's pass this bill, do what we can for small businesses, and go on to other work.

Independent Community

Bankers of America',

Washington, DC, September 22, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Madam Speaker, earlier today while the House was voting, I was presiding at a meeting with the Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Locke, and several people from the fishing industry, as well as some of our colleagues from the Senate and later from the House. It was a very important meeting affecting the future of our fisheries, and it was impossible to get another time when we could all get together with Secretary Locke, and there were people from the fishing industry and the mayor of New Bedford who had come up.

For that reason I missed five votes. I missed the votes on H.R. 5307, 5756, 3199, 1745, and 5710. I would have voted ``yes'' on all of them, and fortunately, I wasn't needed because they all passed handily without me.

But I did want to explain that I missed those votes because of my need to be at this very important fisheries meeting.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3717) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to provide for certain disclosures under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this matter and to insert therein extraneous material.

Madam Speaker, this is a bill that reflects cooperation not just between the parties but, sometimes even harder to achieve, between committees. This is a joint product of deliberations among the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee; myself; and other members--Mr. Campbell of California, for example, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Mr. Towns and Mr. Issa.

This goes back to 2006. In that year, Christopher Cox, then the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission and our former colleague, sent to the Congress a request that we give an amendment to the SEC law dealing with freedom of information. And it was an entirely reasonable request.

What they said was, the SEC from time to time obviously gets information from private entities that they are investigating. What they were afraid of was the company saying, But, you know what, if you take our data, it will then be a matter of public record, and we may have proprietary information; we may have information that we have every legal right to keep confidential, competitive reasons to keep confidential; and, therefore, unless you can assure us that this will not be made public, we're going to fight you. And that made it harder for the SEC to get this. So it was particularly the enforcement arm of the SEC that asked for it.

When Mr. Cox asked for it in 2006, no action was immediately taken. But in 2008, the House did unanimously pass the bill on a voice vote in a suspension granting that power. It never got acted on in the Senate.

Last year, 2009, both the House and the Senate included that provision in our versions of the financial reform bill. Although the financial reform bill was obviously heavily debated between the parties, no one on either side raised any objection to that provision, which had been out there in plain sight, because it was seen as enabling enforcement.

Subsequently, a lawsuit was brought by Fox Business News against the SEC involving information as to how they handled the Madoff case. Of course, the answer, as we all know, is the way they handled the Madoff case is they didn't until far too late. What happened then was Fox News brought a lawsuit. And someone at the SEC inappropriately cited this provision, which had been enacted in the financial reform bill, as a reason why they couldn't go along with the lawsuit.

As I noted, this had been in both Houses' versions. It was in the conference report. It sat there. So I want to be very clear nothing about the adoption of this exemption from FOIA was underhanded or secretive. It was out there and publicly debated. None of us knew, perhaps could have known, what the implications were.

Once that became clear, a consensus developed that this was an exemption that was far too broad. We then talked about what to do about it. But as Members know, we are in a short session now, with only another week after this to go. Doing this right is somewhat complex because there are some subtleties.

Here is the point we want to make clear: we don't want the SEC at any point to be able to shelter information about what it's doing. On the other hand, we don't want a situation where if company A is suing company B because company B's data had been requested by the SEC for some unrelated purpose, we don't think company A should be able to get easy access to that data when they otherwise could not have gotten it under our law.

We all talked about this, but we also thought it was very important to set the principle that there were no exemptions from the SEC. In defense of Chairman Schapiro, she promulgated rules that made it very clear that the SEC would never invoke it. And when she testified before our committee, she made a point of saying that it would never be used in the Fox lawsuit. But it was not enough for us. Even those who agreed with the guidance subsequently pointed out it could be changed in a further period.

So we all agreed it was important to act. While we were deliberating, something which we are not used to, frankly, happened. The Senate moved quickly. Let me repeat that: the Senate moved quickly. Last night, the Senate adopted a version of a fix for this, an amendment substantially narrowing it, sponsored by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Over there the Judiciary Committee did it.

The bill he got the Senate to pass is substantially similar to a bill that was drafted by, or introduced by, our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the chairman of the Government Reform Committee. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) had another very vigorous approach to this.

We had a useful hearing in which it became clear to us that the exemption went much too far, but there was this issue that we talked about of not allowing this to be a way around legitimate protections for business A and for business B. Making it very clear that the SEC would never be protected by it, that whistleblowers would not be harmed by it, but we had that narrow fix.

What we decided to do, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) are here, Mr. Towns has agreed with us, the four of us agreed, of the two committees of jurisdiction, that the best thing to do in this climate was to accept the Senate bill. Yes, we would make some changes if we could, but this is a very important issue for public confidence. We did not want to risk this bill dying in a House-Senate disagreement.

So what we are proposing to do here today is to accept the bill that Senator Leahy put forward, send that to the President, which we hope he will sign. We will then begin, among the two committees, and in a totally bipartisan way and involving both committees, come up with language that will do the one thing that we think needs to be done to prevent this from being a pawn in an intercompany lawsuit, and at the same time that will, we think, serve the SEC's legitimate purpose of not engendering resistance to their request.

I note we have been joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think on that you will get cover from the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and coworker on this, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

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

Madam Speaker, I am from time to time asked to write to help explain why a particular organization is giving an award to a particular individual. In this case, the reverse would be in order: that is, if an organization dedicated to providing first-rate housing for older people was not to honor Ellen Feingold that would demand an explanation.

After a distinguished career as an advocate and administrator, Ellen took on the job of running Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly. And I can think of no better career move--not for Ellen, but for the thousands of people who are the beneficiaries of her enormous talent, great compassion, and inexhaustible supply of common sense.

At a time when the whole notion of an important public sector role in improving the quality of our lives, especially in cooperation with private sector activity is under attack, the great work Ellen did at JCHE becomes even more important than the work itself. That is because it stands as an example of what can be done when talented people use the resources of both the private and public sectors to achieve great results.

Ellen is entitled to take great comfort in the fact that so many thousands of people live better lives than they otherwise would have had she not done her work.

Madam Speaker, the Financial Services Committee continues to work hard throughout the 111th Congress; fulfilling the pledge our New Direction Congress has taken, with your leadership, to restore fiscal discipline and accountability in the stewardship of the Federal budget.

I am pleased to provide an update since my letter on May 26, 2010, on what our Committee has specifically done to promote efficiency and prudent government reforms while reducing waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement with respect to government programs and agencies within our jurisdiction. As of this week, we will have held over 65 oversight hearings that achieve these objectives.

A list of recent oversight hearings that fully comply with the Rules of the House, as required by H. Res. 40 sponsored by Representative John Tanner, is attached. These hearings have directly resulted in stronger transparency and protections for U.S. taxpayers, including increased returns from the TARP warrants program, vigorous oversight of the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the future of housing finance, and other key areas where taxpayer dollars are at stake.

As you know, this Committee played a key role in fully protecting taxpayers and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse with our work producing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which the President signed into law on July 21, 2010, P.L. 111- 203. This historic new law overhauls

and strengthens the financial regulatory system, ending the need for taxpayer-funded bailouts while better protecting consumers, investors, and taxpayers. For example, with the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the law consolidates and strengthens consumer protection duties by streamlining powers previously scattered across too many agencies.

From an oversight perspective, the Wall Street Reform Act will help curb waste, fraud, and abuse by creating a new Council of Inspectors General on Financial Oversight, which will improve coordination of financial agency Inspector's General and help them identify any gaps or weaknesses in financial regulation. Additionally, with the inclusion of a version of Representative Steve Driehaus' legislation--H.R. 3330, the Improved Oversight by Financial Inspectors General Act--the law provides Inspectors General with more flexible and reasonable reporting requirements so that vital financial agency programs, such as foreclosure mitigation and anti-terrorist finance efforts, will be properly monitored to fully protect taxpayers. The law also grants these Inspectors General with more independence and accountability, ensuring taxpayers have the best watchdogs monitoring financial regulatory activities. Finally, over 40 mandatory Government Accountability Office reports and studies were included in the law so that the implementation is closely monitored and will maximize efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse throughout the reformed financial regulatory apparatus. A full list of those GAO reports is attached.

In addition, in July the House initiated and the President signed into law, P.L. 111-229, statutory authority for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to raise loan fees to help shore up the FHA Fund. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that this could save taxpayers at least $250 million a month. The House has also adopted the ``FHA Reform Act of 2010'', H.R. 5072, which gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development increased powers to impose sanctions and terminate FHA lenders which are not following program rules or otherwise increasing risk to taxpayers on FHA loans they originate. This bill is pending in the Senate.

We look forward to continue working with you and the rest of our colleagues in the 111th Congress to strengthen accountability, transparency and taxpayer protections through future oversight efforts.

Attachments.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE10.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE10.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH15SE10.003

Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the achievements of Mr. Robert L. Cammarata on the occasion of his retirement as Director of the City of Taunton Department of Human Services.

A tireless and dedicated community leader, Robert Cammarata's career epitomizes public service. He has distinguished himself with his hard work for the people of Massachusetts, and I congratulate him on his accomplishments.

Mr. Robert L. Cammarata was born in 1948 in the village of Ossining, New York. His family moved to the City of Taunton in 1955. Mr. Cammarata served his country as an Army Reservist. He received his Bachelor's Degree in Human Services from New Hampshire College. He is the proud father of Robyn Cammarata Bryant and Thomas Cammarata.

Mr. Cammarata began employment with the City of Taunton in 1974 as the Director of the Taunton Council on Aging. Following a merger of City Departments in 1982, he became the Director of the Department of Human Services. During his tenure, Mr. Cammarata has developed and instituted a variety of programs and services for the citizens of Taunton. He was instrumental in expanding services for seniors of Taunton, including but not limited to, transportation, health programming, nutrition programming including both home delivered meals and site meals, in-home mental health services, bilingual services, nursing services and social and recreational programs. Notable programs that Mr. Cammarata instituted or facilitated include the Elder Outreach Program, Dial-A-Ride, Home Delivered Meals Program, the Elder Mobile Outreach Team for mental health services, Computer & Internet Center for Elders and the UMass Community Nursing Program.

As Human Services Director, Mr. Cammarata also helped conceive, provide and expand many programs for all citizens of Taunton. Noteworthy programs include: the Taunton Safe Neighborhood Initiative, which includes the Community Policing Program, Crime Watch Program, Graffiti Removal Program and was instrumental in assuring communication between policing entities, probation departments, school departments, human services and clergy; Jobs for Youth Program; provision of Basic Needs that included food pantries, emergency utility assistance, emergency rental/mortgage assistance and the establishment of the first homeless shelter in Taunton.

Robert Cammarata was a member of many local, regional and statewide organizations and committees. Locally and regionally, he served as Board Member, Chairman, coordinator and/or as a general member of the Taunton Safe Neighborhood Initiative, Taunton Emergency Task Force, Greater Attleboro/ Taunton Regional Transit Authority, Bristol Elder Services, Inc., Advisory Council, Greater Taunton Health and Human Services Coalition, St. Francis Samaritan House, Bristol Plymouth Regional High School Council, Italian Social Club and the Kiwanis. Statewide, Mr. Cammarata was a Chairman/Board Member of the Massachusetts Councils on Aging, Cape and the Islands Regional Councils on Aging, Local Officials of Human Services Council and a member of many committees through the Executive Office of Elder Affairs. In 2006, Mr. Cammarata received the Council on Aging Director of the Year from the Massachusetts Councils on Aging.

Over his thirty-four years of public service, Robert L. Cammarata has assisted many elders, individuals and families in accessing needed services to assure that they live safe, healthy, happy and productive lives. He has mentored many human service professionals during his life and we honor Mr. Cammarata for who he is and what he has accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5981) to increase the flexibility of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with respect to the amount of premiums charged for FHA single family housing mortgage insurance, and for other purposes.

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

We have for these couple of years now had a bipartisan effort that began in the Bush administration and has been continued in the Obama administration--and it's been bipartisan on the Committee of Financial Services--to make sure that the FHA is both an effective and an efficient means for housing finance. Having a reliable way to provide the funding needed for housing finance in its various aspects is important both for the citizens who benefit from it and for the economy.

The FHA had not been in a great shape. We have a package of measures and we have had administrations--and as I say it's been bipartisan on the two administrations in our committee--to improve the FHA's capacity, to increase its capacity, but also to provide that it will be done in a reasonable way.

This House passed earlier this year overwhelmingly, by a bipartisan vote, a comprehensive reform of the FHA. It may shock the Members to know, Mr. Speaker, that the United States Senate has not acted expeditiously on this noncontroversial measure, and there are a couple of pieces of it that cannot wait.

It is my intention--and I want to assure the gentlewoman from West Virginia, the ranking member of the subcommittee who put a lot of good work in this bill and who was responsible for some of its most important provisions and safeguards--that we do not intend to let those die. We will continue to press the Senate for the rest of this bill; and we will also, in accordance with what we have said, have the administrator of the FHA before us to talk about how this is being done.

But what we need to do now is to take the authority we gave the FHA to raise the fees--this is a bill when it had the CBO certification they say doesn't result in any direct spending. In fact, it will save money. It will price the FHA appropriately. People have been worried about the FHA's fiscal solvency. This helps it.

So it's a bill--and I will say finally, it's taken from the larger bill we have passed. We are reenacting today a small piece of a comprehensive bill because while I am still fully committed and I know others are to the comprehensive bill, it's important we do this now. We're about to be without legislative capacity for 6 weeks.

So I urge that the House pass the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

My answer is absolutely, we will have the commissioner. I have to say HUD, the Secretary and the commissioner have been very cooperative, and we will have such a hearing in September.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material with regard to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5872) to provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 2010 for guaranteed loans that are obligations of the General and Special Risk Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials on this bill.

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

The FHA has become a very successful program. It has taken up a lot of the slack that was created by problems elsewhere in the housing area. It is being run very well. Secretary Donovan and Administrator Stevens deserve a great deal of credit.

In a bipartisan way, the Committee on Financial Services has cooperated with them. We recently passed a bill, again a bipartisan bill, and the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) is here, to enhance their authority to allow them to do a better job statutorily of guarding against abuse and fraud.

The program's been sufficiently successful so that they have now run out of commitment authority. This bill would give them $5 billion more in commitment authority. But it is not an expenditure. Indeed, it is the opposite. This will save $94 million because we have structured the FHA today, and it's being run in a way that it makes a small profit for the Federal Government.

If we do not pass this bill before the end of next week, us first and then the Senate, the FHA program will stop until October. That will deny people housing, and this is housing, homeownership and other forms of housing, that is responsibly done. It will be a further shot to the housing sector of the economy which is so important.

I add letters from the American Bankers Association and a joint letter from virtually every organization that deals with housing from the standpoint of consumers, or from the standpoint of financing, also from the standpoint of people in the business of providing housing. So providers of housing, financers of housing, sellers of housing, consumers of housing all agree that we need this bill.

It should not be controversial because it extends a very successful program, stops it from being interrupted between now and October, and it will present savings of $94 million.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to say that some of the homeownership parts will continue, but there are very important pieces here involving health care facilities, involving multi-family housing, and there is some homeownership which would be lost if we were not able to do this. So I am glad to be joined by my colleague from West Virginia, and I hope that the House will promptly pass this bill and that the Senate will even promptly pass this bill, although that's always a greater hope.

July 28, 2010.

Hon. Barney Frank,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Frank: Our organizations would like to

express strong support for H.R. 5872, The General and Special

Risk Insurance Funds Availability Act of 2010. Recently, the

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) notified Congress that

it had exceeded 75 percent of its commitment authority to

insure mortgages under the General Insurance and Special Risk

Insurance (GI/SRI) Fund. FHA Commissioner David Stevens

further warned that without an additional $5 billion in

commitment authority, the agency's current limitation would

be fully exhausted by late August or September.

FHA is now facing the real possibility that it will have to

shut down the multifamily and health care insurance programs.

Without swift passage of H.R. 5872, needed affordable rental

housing and health care facilities could be at risk of losing

time-sensitive financing and subsidy commitments as a result.

Properties with maturing loans that must refinance could be

at risk of losing the only source of refinancing available in

the market at this time. The consequence is the delay or loss

of bringing affordable housing to those people who need it so

much.

As you know, during this period of significant turmoil in

the credit markets, FHA's multifamily and health care

programs have been a critical source of stable and affordable

financing. We cannot afford a suspension of these important

programs now.

We strongly urge Congress to act expeditiously to provide

FHA with the additional commitment authority it is seeking.

Failure to do so before Congress recesses this summer will

cause significant disruptions to financing for apartment,

hospital, and health care facilities that serve millions of

Americans.

We thank you in advance for your support for H.R. 5872.

Sincerely,

American Health Care Association; American Association of

Homes and Services for the Aging; American Seniors

Housing Association; Assisted Living Federation of

America; Coalition for Seniors Health Care Reform;

Council for Affordable Rural Housing; Committee on

Health Care Financing; Housing Partnership Network;

Institute of Real Estate Management; Institute for

Responsible Housing Preservation; Mortgage Bankers

Association; National Apartment Association; National

Affordable Housing Management Association; National

Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; National

Association of Home Builders; National Association of

Realtors; National Council of State Housing Agencies;

National Leased Housing Association; National Multi

Housing Council; New York Housing Coalition; Settlement

Housing Fund; Stewards of Affordable Housing for the

Future; Volunteers of America.