Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Is there some way that I can convey to the membership that this incredible intrusion on their time is in no way the responsibility of the Financial Services Committee, that we are ready to go to a vote and we are as much the victim as anybody else of this--whatever it is?

Well, I don't want to inflict further excess on the body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, that speech would have been impressive--I might have disagreed with it--if it applied to all shareholder votes. The recommittal motion singles out the say-on-pay. And if you want to influence pay, you have to report everything. If you want to vote on a merger or an acquisition or if you want to vote on anything else, you don't have to do it. It's not a uniform requirement of a disclosure. It burdens the say-on-pay vote and leaves every other vote in the dark. If that's so important, why did we not have a broader version of it?

It also is quite burdensome.

If you want to spend money to oppose large bonuses, to oppose large salaries, to oppose a company paying 72 percent of its revenue, as recently happened, in compensation, if you are a pension fund, if you are a union, if you want to write to your own members and say this is a bad idea, if you hold shares, vote ``no.'' You have to give the identity of all persons or entities engaged in the activity and the activities engaged.

It is not simply a reporting of the amount of money. It is a very detailed one, and it burdens only those voting on say-on-pay. It clearly comes from a hostility of the notion of say-on-pay. Members who opposed it 2 years ago can't oppose it today, so they now have a new tactic. They are trying to aggravate it.

And while we are on the subject of aggravation, I hope to reduce the level here by asking people to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3139) to extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

I want to acknowledge the great cooperation we have had on a bipartisan basis here, the gentlewoman from West Virginia and I. We have, as Members know, a Flood Insurance Program. It does some good, but it's become somewhat controversial. There are Members who would like to see its future extended, and I tend to agree with them. Some of our colleagues from the gulf coast on both sides have talked about extending it to, for instance, other disasters and wind. There are Members who believe that the way it works now, it causes undue hardship without providing any serious protection. There are many others who believe--and I think we could argue--that it's time to examine the whole program.

This is an example, Mr. Speaker, where two groups that are sometimes in debate are on the same side; and that is, people concerned about excessive government expenditure and the environmental community. It's certainly our goal to try to discourage people from building where they shouldn't. On the other hand, we have people who years ago, in good faith built there; and they cannot be expropriated and shouldn't be. What we have decided on a bipartisan basis is that we have a program that expires in September. As Members know, the Committee on Financial Services, which has jurisdiction over this, has a fairly broad jurisdiction, including housing and, of course, the financial industry. We have been somewhat preoccupied with those other issues, mortgage foreclosures and financial regulation. We have not had the time to do the kind of thorough reexamination of flood insurance that it deserves. So what we have today as a result of an agreement is a 6-month extension of the program essentially as-is.

There is one change, again in a bipartisan way. The gentlewomen from California (Ms. Matsui and Ms. Speier) and the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) came together to ask us for a provision that they believed important for their districts and many others that does no harm and can provide some protection for them. With that inclusion, we are extending it for 6 months. This will now go across the Rotunda to the United States Senate. We expect that they will be able to enact it, if not in the next couple of days, when we come back in September. What this then does is gives us a chance, when we come back in 2010, to deal with this in a comprehensive way and to do the kind of reexamination that is called for. So that's exactly where we are. I note that the gentlewoman from California has joined us, the author of one of the provisions. I will yield to her after the other side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the aforementioned gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the author of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the coauthor of the amendment we have been discussing, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. And I would yield for a question to our colleague from Mississippi, who has been, with our support on our committee, a major proponent for protecting the people he represents in the area of wind and elsewhere.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, as the gentleman knows, there has been a request from the administration for a longer extension, but the gentleman conferred with the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and expressed his concern that that would put off further any chance to do this, and we agreed with that. That is why this is a 6-month extension. And the answer is, I believe the House remains committed to that. What happens in the Senate will be another issue. But it is certainly our intention, the leadership of the committee on the majority side, once again, to work with the gentleman to extend that protection, and hope that maybe things will change in the Senate.

I yield again to the gentleman.

Yes, it would be very appropriate.

As Members know, we have been a little busy with the financial material, but we are probably not going away for a while this calendar year. And yes, I know the gentlewoman from California, who chairs the subcommittee which has jurisdiction, is very interested in this and does plan to have some hearings.

I would just finish up by saying that the gentlewoman did talk about the problem of houses on stilts in an earthquake area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I will yield back after recalling for no particular reason the views of the British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, who said that he thought talk of natural law was nonsense and talk of natural rights was nonsense on stilts. That is irrelevant, but it just occurred to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2623) to amend the Federal securities laws to clarify and expand the definition of certain persons under those laws.

Mr. Speaker, this is another important bipartisan bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) took the initiative here, and we were pleased to work with him.

The Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), is dealing with a back problem, so he's not here. But he's not dealing with a backbone problem, because this bill puts some more backbone into the antifraud laws. And what it does is, in consultation with the SEC, enhances their ability to kick people, in effect, out of the industry who have a bad record. And it makes it very clear that a past bad record or a past affiliation would still be relevant in giving the SEC the right to protect investors.

We are all aware that too little has been done to protect investors. This is a step forward towards further empowering the SEC to do the job of protecting investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill and the preceding bill, H.R. 3139.

I congratulate the gentleman from California on his work.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the saddest and most important parts of our job is to attend funerals for the extraordinary young men and women of our districts who have lost their lives in the service of our country. A few years ago I attended such a funeral in the town of Raynham, Massachusetts, where I heard about a particularly impressive young man, Sgt. Jared C. Monti--of the U.S. Army, who died in Afghanistan in a valiant effort to save his comrades. I was struck then by the impact this young man had had on virtually everyone who knew him, and the magnitude of our loss as a community was clear. Last week we learned that he has been awarded the Medal of Honor for the bravery of this effort to save others.

Madam Speaker, to his family and others who loved and were warmed by this young man, the conferring of this award is, as his father said, ``very, very bittersweet.'' They relive now the pain they felt when they learned of his death, but they now have the knowledge that I hope will be comforting at some level at some point that the rest of the world now knows what a wonderful man he was, and the pride they felt in his accomplishments now become a matter in which our whole country takes pride.

Madam Speaker, to the family and friends of Jared Monti, I again extend my deepest condolences, and to his memory I extend the salute that is the least we as a grateful nation can do for a young man who quite literally gave his life in defense of others, and I ask that the article about Sgt. Monti from the Taunton Daily Gazette be printed here, so that his example can be widely understood and appreciated.

[From the Taunton Daily Gazette, July 27, 2009]

Department of Defense Report Details Raynham Soldier's Heroism

(By Jessica Scarpati)

Raynham--On Sept. 17, President Barack Obama will present

Army Sgt. 1st Class Jared C. Monti's parents, Paul and Janet,

with the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award.

Only five Medals of Honor have been bestowed, all

posthumously, for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The final act of courage by the Raynham man is retold

through a Department of Defense report and interviews with

his family:

Evening fell, but the desert sun had cooked the earth Army

Staff Sgt. Jared C. Monti traipsed with his soldiers and

their 70-pound packs.

Even at dusk, the air still boiled in the northeastern

mountains of Afghanistan and sweat streamed down Monti's

muscular 5-foot-5 frame.

They were out of water. They radioed for more.

North of where he stood on the plateau, Monti, 30, could

see the enemy compound he and the 15 other soldiers in his

group were sent to scout out June 21, 2006.

In his 12-year military career, the Raynham soldier had

been lauded by superiors in his military records for his

``endless potential'' and ``uncompromising courage.''

That day would be no different, except that Monti's final

act of bravery--running into a combat zone to save a wounded

comrade--would end with the ultimate sacrifice.

Monti, a member of the elite 10th Mountain Division, was on

his second tour in Afghanistan and that day was part of an

advance scouting group--sent ahead of a larger force pushing

into a valley in the Nuristan province, his father said.

More troops were coming behind them to rid the valley of

Taliban insurgents.

Staff Sgt. Patrick L. Lybert, 28, of Wisconsin, finished

filling his water bottle and was lying down behind a stone

wall with another soldier, according to the military report.

Monti slid down and sat behind a nearby rock and chatted

with two other soldiers. A third group collected behind

another rock wall.

No one heard the clicks and rumbles of the grenade launcher

above them 50 meters away.

The blasts began.

The first rocket-propelled grenade exploded on their

plateau, followed by a hurricane of bullets from assault

rifles and machine guns coming from in front of and behind

them.

The group ran to the rock where Monti sat, hesitating to

return fire. There were allies--possibly American soldiers--

in that direction.

He grabbed the radio and shouted back to the command

center. They were under attack and needed air support.

They couldn't climb down from the plateau--the way down was

too steep. It would kill them.

Behind Monti, one of his soldiers, a private, screamed. He

was shot in the back and his wrist was gashed open--probably

by a grenade fragment.

The private, whose name the Department of Defense redacted

in the report, crawled toward the group with Monti. He was

bleeding and disoriented. Another soldier put pressure on the

wrist wound while someone yelled for the medic.

Lybert leaned over the stone wall and fired back at the

insurgents and rockets exploded around them.

``You couldn't see anything but muzzle flashes and pops

through the trees,' said one staff sergeant, who was not

identified in the report.

Monti was firing back, positioning the men and shouting in

the radio, doing what he did best--commanding everything at

once.

He was their expert at calling in air attacks to precise

locations, which was what they needed--now.

Everyone was there except for Pvt. Brian Bradbury, a 22-

year-old from Missouri. He had to still be farther up--he

hadn't made it behind the rocks.

Monti and the soldiers shouted his name. The explosions

drowned them out.

Lybert rose again from behind the rock to fire. He was

shot. One bullet in his face. He collapsed.

Someone yelled that Lybert wasn't moving. Blood was pooling

beneath his body.

They continued firing, trying to ward off the insurgents

closing in on their team from the east and west.

Bradbury was still nowhere to be found.

Monti called for his men to cover him. He would not let the

young private remain out there alone.

Seconds passed. Bullets blasted the plateau.

Monti dropped back. He turned back into the fire.

Grenades exploded.

Monti screamed.

``Help me!'' he shouted.

Bradbury had been wounded when a grenade landed nearby

earlier, injuring his arm and shoulder.

Another grenade had hit Monti as he dashed across the ridge

to Bradbury, severely wounding his arm, leg and midsection.

He was 20 meters from his team. He screamed in pain. They

fired at the insurgents as a fellow sergeant tried to dash

toward him.

The sergeant ducked as more explosions came. He was 10

yards away.

He heard Monti gasp his last words.

``Tell my family I love them,'' he said.

Madam Speaker, the House Financial Services Committee last week voted out by a large margin a bill to improve the way in which people who rent are treated under our Section 8 Voucher Program.

Madam Speaker, I believe that one of the contributing causes to the housing crisis that led to the economic crisis we now face was an insufficient recognition of the importance of decent rental housing, and the consequent push of people who were not economically suited to the task into homeownership. On July 5th, in the New York Daily News, former New York Mayor Ed Koch and a former aide of his, Robert Weiner, wrote an excellent article about the importance of this program. We are not yet finished with trying to improve the way in which renters are treated by federal policies, and this very thoughtful article by Ed Koch and Robert Weiner reminds us of how important it is to continue that job.

[From the Daily News, July 5, 2009]

Renters Across America Need More Help From Congress

(By Ed Koch and Robert Weiner)

While the recent anti-foreclosure bill signed by President

Obama is of assistance to the homeowners affected by the

current financial meltdown, the bill and its $13.6 billion of

housing recovery money have ignored the nearly one-third of

American households who rent, including more than 2 million

households in New York City.

All these people also have a dream of having and staying in

a home--and they also need help from Congress, on the double.

Over the course of the last generation, things have gotten

progressively worse for renters--and the deep recession has

added insult to injury.

When Congress passed the Housing and Community Development

Act in 1974, the law included a goal of closing the gap

between the rising cost of housing and the slower rate of

increase in wages. The Koch Amendment to that bill--which

established that a family should pay no more than 15%-20% of

their income in federally assisted housing, and that a

voucher (we now call this a Section 8 voucher)--would cover

the difference. After a compromise with the Senate, the cap

was set at 25%.

Over the years, the successful program has been whittled

away by special interest groups and misdirected priorities.

In 1983, the percentage of a family's income that could go

towards rent was increased to 30%. That may sound like a

small but necessary increase given federal budgetary

constraints. However, many families that get Section 8 are

paying upwards of 40% and 50% of their income because they

cannot find an apartment that meets the established rent cap.

It's not just the size of the individual voucher that's the

problem; it is the overall scope of the program. The federal

Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that 3

million families will receive aid under Section 8 this year.

The number of individuals in need is far greater. The New

York City Housing Authority reports there are 127,825 New

York families on the wait list.

Their hopes for affordable housing are dependent on the

chance that their number is picked out of a hat.

The Federal Housing Administration advocates that a family

should spend no more than 30% of their income on housing. In

2006, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than half of

renters exceeded this guideline, with almost a quarter of

renters spending more than 50%. The situation is particularly

dire in New York, where nearly one in three New Yorkers use

half of their income on rent.

It shouldn't surprise us that one very immediate

consequence of all this is homelessness. New York City alone,

there has been a 65% increase in the use of homeless shelters

since 1998 and a 23% increase since 2002. Even at these

record numbers--36,218 were in shelters as of May 31--a

shelter, though a wonderful resource, is not a permanent

home, and shelters only house a tiny fraction of the

homeless. While a virtually immeasurable number, the New York

City Coalition for the Homeless believes homelessness this

decade is ``the greatest since the Great Depression.''

In Congress, Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) and Barney Frank

(D-Mass.), the chairs of the House Housing Subcommittee and

the full Financial Services Committee, are moving forward

with Section 8 housing reform after the July 4 recess. The

White House and Congress can help the third of Americans who

rent by going back to the guidelines set by the Housing Act

of 1974--increasing the availability of Section 8 housing

vouchers, assuring that families pay no more than 30% of

their income on housing and using the rent limit as a model

for other low income housing. This would not be a bailout for

renters, but a return to the protection needed to enable

people to pay their rent and remain in their homes.

Congress must make sure that all citizens, including

renters, who are often the poorest Americans, have roofs over

their head. That's not too much to ask in America.

Koch is a former mayor of New York City and member of

Congress. Weiner was legislative assistant to Koch.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a debate about when the world began; and there are some who think it began 4,000 years ago and some who think that it began earlier. We have a rare specimen today of people who think it began on January 20, 2009, who do not think anything happened before that, who do not remember the years of Republican rule where many things went wrong.

Now they're talking about the economic recovery bill. Ben Bernanke, who was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, appointed by George Bush--that happened before January 20, so you may not have remembered it, I would say to my friends on the other side--but he told the House Financial Services Committee that unemployment would be higher if it was not for the economic recovery bill. That was Ben Bernanke. In his report, he twice cited examples of it.

And as to this argument that the bill was of no use, I debated this bill in February with Republican Members of Congress when they scoffed at the notion that there was something in it for police and fire. I was very pleased today to be notified that 23 police officers will be added to two of the communities in my district, Fall River and New Bedford, directly as a result of the economic recovery plan. Magnify that nationally, it's 10,000.

I thank my colleague who does an excellent job in chairing the subcommittee.

While the author of this amendment and myself both serve on the Financial Services Committee, I think I can say that on a bipartisan basis over the years, the Financial Services Committee has shown a lot of support for this program and for improving it.

The gentleman cites some unexpended balances, but here's the problem. There's kind of a catch-22 here. If program money is spent too rapidly and it is then spent inefficiently, there is criticism. What has happened with HOPE VI is that in response to some legitimate criticism, some controls were proposed to slow things down. This money ultimately gets spent, but it gets spent in a way that is less likely to be abused.

It is also the case that there is a kind of ``you lose either way'' argument made against public housing. Often the criticism is in that public housing warehouses people in large projects that do not have the capacity to provide a decent living environment. HOPE VI is an effort to preserve the units, because we do have a shortfall for family public housing in many parts in the country, not in all, but by redoing the projects to remove the stigma that has attached. And if you get rid of the HOPE VI program, you then abandon the notion that you are going to go to existing public housing to try to make it more livable and less concentrated.

Now, that's not an easy thing to do. We've been working, again, in a bipartisan way on ways to improve that, to bring in other services, to coordinate how you do it. But to simply shut the program off is, I think, to say to the people who live in the public housing that was built inappropriately--the residents didn't build it, society built it and put them there.

It would say, We are abandoning any effort to improve the liveability of where you are, and also then make them more vulnerable to criticism and build opposition to the whole notion, when the alternative is to make the living conditions better for the people in the surrounding communities.

I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for his leadership on this issue, which has been sustained.

The question is not whether or not we should be working to see that public housing residents require the skills, et cetera, that will help them, but how to do it.

The community service requirement is a slapdash, honored in the breach. It's a mandate resisted and resented by the people who have to administer it. We have in the bill that we voted out of committee today by a large vote, bipartisan vote, the reform of the voucher system, which both the public housing and for vouchers includes the Moving to Work program, which is a sophisticated and balanced way to do this and provides funding for it.

Those who administer public housing want to do that. They want to help people do this. But imposing on them the requirement to do work, imposing on people who are already underfunded the obligation to mandate whether every public housing resident is doing 8 hours of leaf raking and snow shoveling doesn't help anybody. It advances nothing. And it gets in the way of efficient administration.

We will do this the right way. And this is the wrong way, according to everyone who has been involved in a serious way with it.

Would the gentleman yield?

I must have misplaced the bill. Should I look for a number that I hadn't seen? If the gentleman wants to do it, why haven't you?

Would the gentleman yield again?

The gentleman offered a resolution to the committee I chair. We passed it out unanimously. The gentleman knows he has always gotten a fair hearing in our committee. But I can't listen to what he doesn't say.

Would the gentleman yield? He wouldn't be in charge of the other one. You and I can work it out. So come to me about Wall Street and we'll make a deal.

Madam Speaker, Congress is currently facing the choice of whether to support or hinder the efforts of President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates to bring some sense of rationality to the military procurement process. In spite of the enormously difficult budget situation we find ourselves in, both short- term and long-term, this House recently approved legislation authorizing the procurement of twelve additional F-22 fighter planes at an initial cost of $369 million, which if completed would carry an expected final price tag of $2 billion. With President Obama threatening a veto should this provision remain in the final version of the Defense Authorization bill, this issue will likely require the further consideration of all Members in the coming months. In this regard, I am submitting into the Record an article written by Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson, published on July 9, 2009 in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

I particularly appreciate the stress that these writers place on two key points. First, that these additional fighter planes are entirely unwanted by Secretary Gates, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz. They are not even on the Air Force's list of unfunded requests, described in the article as ``items excluded from the budget for which [the Air Force] would nevertheless like funding--a wish list of sorts.''

The other important point, which explains the Department of Defense's lack of interest in further planes, is that the F-22 was ``designed to fight next-generation Soviet fighters that never materialized,'' and is of no help in addressing the air-to-ground challenges we are facing now and are likely to face in the future. For example, the F-22 is entirely unsuitable for the irregular warfare and counter-insurgency operations we are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why it has seen no action whatsoever in either of these conflicts. Furthermore, with no other rival to its air-to-air supremacy either existing or in development, there is no serious support for the claim that the 187 F- 22's that have already been approved would be inadequate for any reasonable contingency.

I strongly encourage Members to read this informative article.

A Jet Even the Military Doesn't Want

(By Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson)

Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22

Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009

supplemental war budget last month. But the very next day,

the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for

environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an

additional 12 F-22s. The Senate Armed Services Committee went

a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s

without clearly identifying the source of funds.

The F-22 costs nearly $150 million per plane--twice what

was projected at the outset of the program. Factoring in

development costs, the price tag increases to about $350

million per plane for the current fleet of 187.

It may look as if the House Armed Services Committee has

added ``only'' $369 million. But given that it would provide

funds for 12 additional F-22s, each with a price tag of $150

million (excluding development costs), the real cost to

American taxpayers would be about $2 billion.

The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air

Force inventory. Yet it has only limited air-to-ground attack

capabilities, which makes it unsuitable for today's counter-

insurgency operations. In fact, the F-22 has never been used

in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was designed to fight next-

generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and, as

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted, it is nearly

useless for irregular warfare.

The F-22 has no known enemy. It is the most advanced

fighter plane in the world, and there are no other planes

that could threaten its supremacy in air-to-air combat. The

United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order--a

silver-bullet force that is more than adequate to deal with

any likely contingency. In fact, Gates said that even if he

had $50 billion more to spend, he would not buy any more F-

22s.

The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports

continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael

Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have

publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not

in the Defense Department's proposed budget for fiscal 2010

(which begins in October). It's not even on the Air Force's

list of unfunded requests, which consists of items excluded

from the budget for which it would nevertheless like

funding--a wish list of sorts.

Why are congressional committees willing to override the

military and civilian leadership of the Pentagon on the F-22?

The latest in a string of arguments offered by proponents in

Congress is the need to protect our industrial base--as if

our technical capacity to develop and produce fighter planes

is in immediate, grave danger. This argument overlooks the

fact that the Obama administration's fiscal 2010 budget

includes 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--planes better suited

for air-to-ground combat.

Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing

manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points

out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft.

The F-22 is not an isolated case of unnecessary

congressional equipment purchases. Congress has added $2.7

billion to the 2009 supplemental budget to buy more C-17 and

C-130 aircraft--planes neither requested nor needed by the

Defense Department. It also added $600 million to the 2010

budget for an unneeded alternate engine for the F-35, which

will mean buying 50 fewer aircraft.

An administration policy statement issued on June 24 said

the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto of a

bill containing funding for more F-22s. If the entire

Congress approves either of the armed services committees'

recommendations on the F-22, President Obama should indeed

veto the bill. Only then will Congress get the message that

in this era of exploding national debt, we cannot waste

billions on unnecessary military equipment.

I thank the gentlewoman.

As I listened to the gentleman from Texas, I recall these ferocious debates we have had, led by a true fiscal conservative, the gentleman from Arizona, as he assailed earmarks. And I heard the gentleman from Texas's voice in the earmarks debate. But then I realized I was a little confused: he was defending his earmark.

So the gentleman's ferocity on behalf of fiscal conservatism does not extend, apparently, to every earmark, including his own. Now I understand that. But it did seem to me a little inconsistent with the uncompromising ferocity of his rhetoric. The gentleman does not come here with quite the credentials as, for instance, the gentleman from Arizona.

As to the money here being spent, I would say this: the gentleman said, Where will we cut? I would like to cut the F-22 spending which we no longer need. I supported the President's proposals for cuts in agriculture spending. This notion that it is always the liberals who want to spend and the conservatives who don't want to spend is fallacious. When it comes to unnecessary Cold War weapons and when it comes to American troops being stationed overseas in countries where they should be able to defend themselves, you know, we could save a lot more money overseas by telling our wealthy allies that it is time for them to defend themselves. That is a lot better, in my mind, than cutting a much smaller amount of money that goes to feed poor children and that goes to prevent preventable deaths in the health care areas. And it would also save us because there has been the correct perception by a whole range of people, including Secretary Gates, including Colin Powell, a number of distinguished Republicans who have served in national security positions, that it is far better to spend money sensibly to avoid the kind of social conditions that don't cause terrorism, the terrorists are sick people with no justification, but it makes support for them. It recruits for them, and we should be undercutting their recruiting by these kinds of things.

The gentleman almost sneeringly said, well, it is global environmental, let's be national. Well, it may pain the gentleman, but it is kind of hard to confine the environment to the borders of the United States. The environment does not respect borders. So if you want to deal with the environment, it has to be done globally. Many of us feel, in fact, that it would be a grave error for us to go ahead with tough climate issues here unless we also did them internationally.

I was very proud, along with Spencer Bachus and Jim Leach and Maxine Waters, at the urging of the late Pope John Paul the Second and others to do debt relief for the poorest countries in the world, to take money that would otherwise go to pay off debts and give it to the poor children and to health care, and this would threaten that kind of problem.

So the half a billion dollars here, it pales in comparison, not in general because it is a lot of money, but to money spent on unnecessary Cold War weapons, on money that goes for agricultural subsidies to farmers who do not need it, on sending human beings to Mars.

I don't know how the gentleman plans to vote on that. I plan to vote, if that comes up, against that.

I would yield.

I appreciate that. I take back my time to explain to the gentleman, I wasn't questioning his credentials except on his earmark. Everybody is entitled to a little earmark.

I'm sorry, I did not yield again. I said the gentleman made cuts elsewhere. I wasn't saying that the gentleman didn't vote for cuts; I was refuting his notion that liberals don't vote for cuts.

I have voted for many cuts, including to bring down the overall budget.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman need an instruction on the rules of the House?

The point is that the gentleman used up his time unwisely. He should have reserved a little time; he didn't do it. That is the way it goes.

The fact is that alleviating poverty overseas, going to the aid of children who will die of measles, who will die of diarrhea and who will die of these other illnesses, it is a far better use of our money morally and also in terms of national security because I repeat again what Secretary Gates and what

Colin Powell have said, what sensible military leaders have said, a much smaller amount of money spent in these ways on sensible efforts to alleviate the miserable conditions that lead to support for terrorism, not the terrorists themselves, is a very good way to preserve the national security much more cheaply in terms of human lives and in terms of money than a purely military solution.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

I welcome this amendment from the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from Illinois.

The Chair of the subcommittee, who does a great job, said that the administration says this is constitutional and not substantive, and I've been told by Treasury they intend to abide by them. That's not good enough. Let me give my constitutional friends over there another constitutional lesson: They won't have anything to put a signing statement to if we don't pass it.

I was asked by the administration and worked hard to get that money for the IMF with some reasonable conditions. There are some things in there that make sure that it ends the previous IMF practice of being unfair to low-income people.

The notion that the administration can take the money and pick and choose what it wants to do with the conditions is unacceptable. So let me say, as chairman of the committee that authorizes these and as someone who works closely with the appropriators in doing it, if the administration does not withdraw this claim that they can ignore conditions we put on it, then they will have nothing to ignore because there won't be any conditions and there won't be any money. And that's right there in the Constitution.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I would only make one correction. We do this--I'm sure he agrees with me, it's a wording change--we do this not on behalf of this institution, but literally on behalf of democracy, on behalf of the process by which people get elected and deliberate and do this. And there is a kind of a unilateralism, in an undemocratic, unreachable way, to these signing statements that is the opposite of what we do here. So I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the logic of this point of order being in order now is that in the alternative, those Members who suffer from Senate envy could write a 700-page nongermane amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my remarks which are that we have a--Mr. Speaker, let me amend what I said.

Let me amend what I said and refer to those thin-skinned Members with Senate envy.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the point of order is necessary to disallow filibuster by reading a nongermane amendment that could last for hours. That is why I speak in support of the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Madam Speaker, I will take back my time. You now have the answer, listening to the gentleman address myself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey and Mr. Peterson, to that age-old question of how many chairmen does it take to answer a colloquy?

I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts for 1 additional minute to finish the response to the colloquy.

And I want to say that the gentleman from New York has been a very articulate advocate for the very important functions of the financial community in New York in which many of the people in his district live, and he is very well informed about it. We agree with him, myself and members of the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Chairman Peterson, the gentleman from Minnesota, and I have worked with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). And we have the agreement he alluded to.

We are hard at work on a comprehensive, and I believe responsible, proposal for regulation of financial derivatives in their entirety. And it will, under the terms of this bill, become the operative word. So what we have here is a placeholder to tell Members we are aware of it.

Earlier today, Chairman Gensler of the CFTC and Chairwoman Shapiro, in case we didn't have enough chair people in this, met with Mr. Peterson and myself. I am optimistic that we will have a proposal that responsibly, appropriately and toughly regulates derivatives without doing them harm. The gentleman is to be congratulated for making sure that that will be what will be in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember the last time I was as deeply disappointed in the actions of people with whom I generally agree and continue to admire as I am by this rule.

President Obama, to his credit, has become the first President to try to put on to military spending the same kind of notion that resources are limited that people apply elsewhere. Military spending, in which old threats are continued to be dealt with while new threats are dealt with, make it impossible for us to talk about curtailing a deficit without doing damage elsewhere.

To his credit, President Obama and Secretary Gates said we do not need to build more F-22s. It was conceived to defeat the Soviet Union in a war. It's over. It's a wonderful weapon. It just has a terrible defect for a weapon--no enemy, no military mission. It will never be fired in anger.

It is bad enough that the committee, by only a 31-30 vote, undercut this President's effort to begin to apply fiscal discipline everywhere. Sure, military is important, but health care is important and highway safety is important and local police are important. All of those impinge on our life and all must be dealt with in discipline in the fiscal area, except military gets a pass.

I was particularly disappointed when the Rules Committee, because of some in the leadership, decided not even to allow us to debate it. A major initiative of the new President to curtail excess military spending is overturned by one vote in committee, and we are not even allowed to debate it.

And I have to say to my Republican friends, it is clear to me that their interest in open debate is very selective. They are for openly debating anything they want to debate, but they were opposed to this amendment coming on as well. So there's no consistency or principle of: Let's have open debate. It's: Let's get what we want and let's forget about the rest.

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. Apparently, intellectual integrity and logical consistency are the first casualties of a military bill.

I heard Members say a few months ago, Oh, an economic recovery program. Federal spending can't bring jobs. Federal Government spending adds to the deficit. It doesn't bring jobs.

Lo and behold, the F-22 became a jobs bill. It's what I call weaponized Keynesianism. Only if you're building weapons, particularly weapons that will never be used, is there a stimulative effect in the economy.

If the gentleman yields me time, I will.

Secondly, we are told that we have to deal with the deficit. The President made a beginning in trying to curtail military spending on weapons he said we do not need. If this bill goes through, as it apparently will, because we could not even debate it, his efforts will be undercut. The floodgates will be open, and any effort to have reasonable constraints on military spending, as we have on police and fire and emergency medical and other things that are important for health and safety, will be undercut.

This is a terrible decision and a terrible precedent. Of course, to add injury to injury, they did it by taking money out of environmental cleanup.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will acknowledge that. I was in error, and I apologize. It had been reported to me that there were votes against it, so I apparently got bad information. And I thank the gentleman for that futile gesture on my behalf.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 456, I take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 627) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, to begin the debate, I recognize the major author and chief advocate for the credit card bill, dating back several years, and it is her diligent effort that is paying off today for the American consumer, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman referred to money added to the budget. He talked about the bailout, et cetera.

I would remind Members that the $700 billion was asked for by the Bush administration, and it passed with Democratic support and the support of a significant minority on the Republican side, including the Republican leadership and a very heavy majority of Republican Senators. So, yes, that $700 billion was voted at the request of the Bush administration, with substantial bipartisan support.

There was, of course, also the matter of another $700 billion-or-so in the war in Iraq which I voted against. So I do regret some of these extra expenditures, but the responsibility is hardly that of one party.

And now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee who is one of the coauthors of this important bill, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by responding to the gentleman from Texas' reference to small business. The National Federation of Independent Business supports this bill. So the suggestion that this will somehow have a negative effect on small business is repudiated by the active support for the bill of the organization that has generally been identified as the major spokes-organization for that, the National Federation of Independent Business.

Secondly, there was a premise here that I find very faulty. The gentleman from Texas quoted the New York Times and others, and they have said--Mr. Speaker, I'm going to interrupt myself at this point, if I may. The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior has come in. I assume he wanted to speak.

I will now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I repeat, the National Federation of Independent Businesses says this is good for small businesses, this bill, because they have been victimized. It will in no way cause there to be a failure to offer a credit card to a business that can pay it back. Nothing in this bill remotely suggests that.

There was also, as I said, a somewhat implausible argument. The New York Times quoted people in the credit card industry saying, If you do this, we won't like it, and we may raise rates.

The notion that if we pass this bill rates will be raised on the great majority makes this mistake. The assumption is that there is money now laying on the table that the beneficent credit card companies voluntarily forgo. Under the principles of free enterprise, the business is legally entitled and motivated to charge as much as it can. That argument only makes sense if you think they are voluntarily reducing money that they could get from some of the customers. Of course, they're not. No one expects them to.

But the most important thing here is the conflict that I see in my friend on the other side. The gentleman from Alabama repeatedly said what we should do is stick with the Federal Reserve's rules. The gentleman from Texas, as I heard him, didn't say that.

There's a difference here. This is a case--and maybe they caught it, and maybe not. It may be one of those cases where the right hand doesn't know what the far-right hand is saying. Because to the extent that there is any restriction on rates, it is identical in the Federal Reserve's rules as in this bill.

So there is a fundamental difference between the approach taken by the

gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from Alabama says, Adopt what the Fed said. The gentleman from Texas specifically objected to that provision in our committee. And what the New York Times article is aimed at--the quotes from the credit card people--is that provision that's in the Federal Reserve.

By the way, it does nothing to cap interest rates going forward. That is a straw argument. The only restriction on rates here, on interest rates, is to say that you cannot raise them retroactively.

Now the Federal Reserve also says that. So the gentleman from Alabama agrees. The gentleman from Texas, who's an honest believer in no restrictions, says ``no.'' In fact, in our committee debate he cited an example of when he thought a company would be justified in raising rates retroactively.

He said, Suppose someone owes a company interest on debt already incurred and has been meeting the regular scheduled payments, but either goes to prison or loses his or her job. The gentleman from Texas said, If you have been paying the credit card company on a regular basis, and you lose your job, they should be legally allowed to raise the rates on what you already owe them.

We disagree. So does the Federal Reserve. So, apparently, does the gentleman from Alabama, because he supports what the Federal Reserve says.

I will yield to my friend from Texas.

The gentleman is quite wrong. I said--and he didn't listen, as he may not have listened to the gentleman from Alabama, because he didn't express disagreement with him--I said, If people are meeting their obligation under the bill that we put forward and under the Federal Reserve's rules, if you're meeting your obligations, if you're making your payments on time, they cannot raise your rates retroactively.

I see members of the staff checking it out. They will find out what I'm saying is accurate.

If you are meeting your obligations, you cannot have the rate raised. What the gentleman from Texas said is, Suppose you lose your job. Well, losing your job, if you are otherwise meeting your obligations, should not mean that they can raise your rate retroactively. We are only talking about in this bill retroactive raises. There is no limitation going forward.

Now the gentleman from Alabama also said, Well, if the Federal Reserve is right--the gentleman from Texas doesn't like what the Federal Reserve did--the gentleman from Alabama said, If the Federal Reserve is right, why don't you stop there?

Because we do some things the Federal Reserve doesn't do, one. Two, because many of us believe--and I have to say, my conservative friends flip-flop on the Federal Reserve issue with a speed that dazzles me. Sometimes the Federal Reserve is this undemocratic institution which people worry about. Other times we should delegate significant legislative authority to them.

I'm glad they acted. By the way, the Federal Reserve only acted after party control of the Congress changed. In 2007 we began to move on this, and then they acted.

There's another side point. Let me say this. Several of my colleagues said, Well, this has got good stuff in it. It's got disclosure. You know, if the Republicans, when they were in the majority, had broken out of this absolute slavish assumption that no regulation is ever any good, in effect--they don't say it quite like that, but that is the practical effect--if they had, when they were in power from 1995 to 2006, passed something that had the good parts of this bill, we might have not been here today on this bill because that might have chastened the companies. So they now find things in this bill that they like, but they refuse to do them. The gentleman from New York was pushing for some of this.

During their 12 years--and by the way, that's a pattern. During the 12 years of Republican rule, there were no financial regulations. There was some deregulation. There was nothing about the subprime or credit cards. We came to power and have begun to deal with it. We are dealing with the negative consequences of lack of regulation.

But to go back to the point, we go beyond the Federal Reserve. There is one area where, regrettably, we don't go beyond the Federal Reserve. The gentleman from Alabama correctly noted that our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Schock) had a good amendment involving your credit rating. Unfortunately, while we accepted that amendment, it was left out of the final bill because of the objections of the ranking Senate Republican, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.

I fought for the inclusion of the gentleman from Illinois' amendment. I spoke to him. I urged him to join in, but it was reported to me by the leadership of the committee that that amendment from the gentleman from Illinois was unfortunately rejected by the objections of Mr. Shelby. So we didn't get that one.

We did get a very good amendment that the Federal Reserve didn't have, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), to require that the estate of a decedent be correctly done. We also have some rules in here about not sending credit cards to people under 18.

By the way, the notion that this market works perfectly is somewhat rebutted by the fact that we're told that one of the crises now coming is credit card debt that's going to be a problem, securitized credit card debt because there were some imprudent things. So if this bill means that there will be some credit cards that won't be issued, good. Because they have been imprudent in doing that. But people who pay will not have a problem.

So just in summary, this bill does not restrict credit card interest going forward. Maybe that's what they did in the United Kingdom. It does not interfere with small business, in the opinion of the National Federation of Independent Business. It agrees with the Federal Reserve that you should not raise rates retroactively. On that one, it's the gentleman from Alabama, the Federal Reserve, and myself; the gentleman from Texas and some others who are on the other side, a legitimate difference of opinion. But we also have some consumer protections not in what the Federal Reserve did.

I would also say, this notion that we should leave public policy to the unelected Federal Reserve and that Congress should not step in also and act I think is one that underestimates the role of elected officials and democracy in our country.

Now I disagreed with the gun amendment. I wish it hadn't been in there. I don't control the rules in the Senate. I intend to vote against it. In my judgment, the value of the credit card bill outweighs the harm that I think that would do. I would say, some Members on the other side may have a dilemma. Many of them strongly welcomed the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma. But understand that unless both pieces pass, nothing passes. So no matter how strongly you support the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, if Members succeed in defeating the credit card part of it, that fails.

I do have to caution them that the Federal Reserve cannot come to their rescue, as they are prone to have it do. They may want to delegate legislative powers to the Federal Reserve. I don't. But I do not think the Federal Reserve, in the most expansive reading of section 13(3), can mandate that you carry a gun in a national park.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the credit card part passes, that the gun part does not; but in any case, I hope that this bill is sent to the President.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 627 and include extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, Alan Blinder is a man of great intelligence, excellent judgment, and considerable experience in both making and analyzing national economic policy. In this article from last Sunday's New York Times, he draws on all of these qualities to give us some excellent advice. I can think of no more relevant subject for my colleagues to contemplate as we deal with important economic choices.

[From the New York Times, May 17, 2009]

It's No Time to Stop This Train

(By Alan S. Blinder)

Contrary to what you may have heard from some doomsayers,

2009 is not 1930 redux. What we must guard against, instead,

is 2010 or 2011 becoming another 1936.

Realistically, there is little danger that the economy is

heading toward a repeat performance of the Great Depression--

when real gross domestic product in the United States

declined 27 percent and unemployment soared to 25 percent.

What we have is bad enough: our worst recession since the

1930s. But unless our leaders behave unbelievably foolishly,

we will not repeat the tragic slide into the abyss of 1930 to

1933--for two main reasons.

First, our economy has many built-in safeguards that did

not exist back then--like unemployment insurance, Social

Security and federal deposit insurance, to name just three.

These programs serve as safety nets that cushion the fall.

And while they are certainly not strong enough to prevent

recessions, they should be enough to prevent another

depression.

The more important reason is that Barack Obama, Timothy F.

Geithner and Ben S. Bernanke are not Herbert Hoover, Andrew

Mellon and Eugene Meyer. (Who's that? Mr. Meyer was the

Federal Reserve chairman from September 1930 to May 1933.) In

stark contrast to the laissez-faire crowd that ruled the

roost in 1930 and 1931, our current economic leaders are not

waiting for the sagging economy to right itself. Rather, they

have taken numerous extraordinary steps already--and stand

ready to do more if necessary.

That's the good news. But even if another depression is

next to impossible, there is still the danger that next year,

or the year after, might turn into 1936. Let me explain.

From its bottom in 1933 to 1936, the G.D.P. climbed

spectacularly (albeit from a very low base), averaging gains

of almost 11 percent a year. But then, both the Fed and the

administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt reversed course.

In the summer of 1936, the Fed looked at the large volume

of excess reserves piled up in the banking system, concluded

that this mountain of liquidity could be fodder for future

inflation, and began to withdraw it. This tightening of

monetary policy continued into 1937, in a weak economy that

was ill-prepared for it.

About the same time, President Roosevelt looked at what

seemed to be enormous federal budget deficits, concluded that

it was time to put the nation's fiscal house in order and

started raising taxes and reducing spending. This tightening

of fiscal policy transformed the federal budget from a

deficit of 3.8 percent of G.D.P. in 1936 to a surplus of 0.2

percent of G.D.P. in 1937--a swing of four percentage points

in a single year. (Today, a swing that large would be almost

$600 billion.)

Thus, both monetary and fiscal policies did an abrupt

about-face in 1936 and 1937, and the consequences were as

predictable as they were tragic. The United States economy,

which had been rapidly climbing out of the cellar from 1933

to 1936, was kicked rudely down the stairs again, and America

experienced the so-called recession within the depression.

Real G.D.P. contracted 3.4 percent from 1937 to 1938; the

total G.D.P. decline during the recession, which lasted from

mid-1937 to mid-1938, was even larger.

The moral of the story should be clear: Prematurely

changing fiscal and monetary policies--from stepping hard on

the accelerator to slamming on the brake--can be hazardous to

the economy's health.

Wow, we've learned a lot since the '30s, right? Well, maybe

not. For the echoes of 1936 are being heard right now, even

before the current recession hits bottom.

If you've been paying attention, you know that a number of

critics of the Fed are sounding alarms over the huge

stockpile of excess reserves it has created--more than $775

billion at last count. What these critics are fretting about

now is exactly what goaded the Fed into action in 1936: that

the vast pool of loose money will ultimately be inflationary.

The clear inference is that some of it should be withdrawn

before it's too late.

On the fiscal side, many of President Obama's critics are

complaining vociferously about the huge federal budget

deficits. Try to ignore, if you can, the sheer hypocrisy of

many Congressional Republicans who, having never uttered a

peep about the huge deficits under George W. Bush, are

suddenly models of budget probity. But whatever the motives,

the worries of today's deficit hawks sound eerily reminiscent

of Roosevelt in 1936 and 1937.

Fortunately, Mr. Bernanke is a keen student of the Great

Depression who will not allow the Fed to repeat the errors of

1936-37. But his critics, both inside and outside the Fed,

are already branding his policies as dangerously

inflationary, and no Fed chairman wants to be called an

inflationist.

Similarly, I hope and believe that President Obama will not

transform himself from the spendthrift Roosevelt of 1933 to

the deficit-hawk Roosevelt of 1936--at least not until the

economy is back on solid ground. That said, a growing flock

of budget hawks are already showing their talons. They will

have their day--but please, not yet.

To avoid a replay of the policy disasters of 1936-37, both

the Fed and our elected officials must stay the course. Mark

Twain once explained that, while history does not repeat

itself, it often rhymes. We don't want any rhymes just now.