Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 896) to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, this is our sending back to the Senate a version of a bill which we passed earlier this year. They then passed the bill in a form very close to ours, but in a couple of areas where we felt it important to insist on our original position and also to include some things that came up in the interim from the administration.

It has several purposes. One, it enhances the ability of the executive branch to reduce the number of foreclosures. Last year Congress passed the HOPE for Homeowners program, which we hoped was going to reduce foreclosures. We didn't get it right. We had a good general idea, but it was passed in a form that was not very usable.

We have learned from the experience, and we have a version here that we think is going to work much better. It includes, for instance, at the request of HUD, a provision that will allow them to deal with the problem of second mortgages, which has been an interference in our ability to get foreclosures. It also includes, as it did originally, a very good version of the safe harbor for services. That was a bipartisan idea of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to encourage those who are in charge of the mortgage process to act when it makes more sense to write down the mortgage and avoid foreclosure. It gives them the legal ability to do that and withstand frivolous lawsuits.

It also has some provisions in here that are very important to those smaller financial institutions that are the lifeblood of our communities and which have been unfairly tarnished in this most recent debate over financial institutions.

Community banks and the Independent Community Bankers of America have a letter here, which I will put into the Record, which supports this bill.

Community banks were facing a significant increase in the assessment they get for deposit insurance. That was true. And this bill will extend the deposit insurance, which was temporarily at $250,000, and makes it permanent. That's very important for the smaller banks. It has to be paid for. But also there were problems with the larger banks who got in trouble.

Absent this bill, community banks would have been facing a very significant increase in their assessment. Because this bill gives the FDIC borrowing authority, standby authority in case it's needed, they will not have to raise the assessment. The FDIC has to be ready to act. And if there was not the borrowing authority, they would have to raise the assessment to have a pool of money available. They have been, under Sheila Bair's leadership, a very thoughtful and responsible organization. Borrowing authority we will do. It's in here.

Similarly, there was a problem that threatened a significant increase in the assessment that our local credit unions would have to pay because of the failure of some large credit unions. There's a pattern here of the larger institutions' failure imposing costs on the smaller. It's our job to prevent that from happening.

What we have here is a provision that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) has worked on. We worked with the National Credit Union Administration. It provides a mechanism by which the significant increased assessment on the credit union can be avoided. That's why the National Credit Union Association has sent in a letter in support of this.

We will, as I said, be reducing foreclosures and helping the mortgage market. So the National Association of REALTORS has sent in a letter in support of this. And because it is good for the banking industry in general, the American Bankers Association has supported this.

Our major financial institution representatives support this bill. As I said, it enhances our ability to reduce foreclosures. It averts significant increases in assessments that would go to the credit unions and the community banks. It also includes language which we have been working on and this House had passed, and it was bipartisan in our committee, improving the programs for the homeless.

We made several important compromises on that. The gentlewoman from West Virginia who is here as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee on our committee worked on this. We incorporated that in this bill. So it is widely supported by people who are in the field of the homeless. It is, in general, an important piece of legislation that responds as well as we can to this foreclosure crisis.

Myself and a majority of the House clearly would have preferred if it had included the authority of bankruptcy courts to reduce mortgages on primary residences. We passed that in the House. It failed in the Senate. Our colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and others made a very valiant effort to resuscitate it. It was not possible. I regret that. I hope we won't give up on that. I think it's a glaringly illogical and unfair part of the law, but it would be a

mistake, in my judgment, to allow that failure to get the votes that we tried to get in the Senate to stop the very many other important parts of the bill.

So, as I said, I move to suspend the rules. I hope we can send this soon to the President. If we pass this bill, it will go to the Senate; and I believe that the Senate will adopt it and send it on to the President.

Independent Community

Bankers of America,

May 18, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I did want to respond, and I appreciate the support from the gentlewoman for the bill.

With regard to the FHA, I just want to read from the National Association of REALTORS letter because they, as much as any entity in this country, have an interest in a strong FHA.

Contrary to the wishes expressed by the gentlewoman from West Virginia, the REALTORS approve of the fact that we are improving the HOPE for Homeowners program. It says, ``The bill reforms the HOPE for Homeowners program, preserving benefits to homeowners while limiting risks to the FHA fund and the taxpayer. The bill also strengthens oversight of FHA-approved lenders to protect the FHA Fund and taxpayers from fraud and abuse.''

At the hearing that we had earlier this year--and that was when the Bush administration was still in power--career employees of the FHA noted that they do not have, and will not have until this bill becomes law, the power to prevent applicants for FHA funding who have a record of abuse from applying again.

So at the initiative of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), we added that to this language.

So what this bill includes is a very important power for the FHA to debar, to use the appropriate legal term, people who have had a record of fraud. That's one of the reasons why we think that the FHA is strengthened by this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee which played a major role in our efforts to deal with this crisis.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 70 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 49 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I have long believed that people who denounce partisanship in general fail to understand the role that responsible political parties can and must play in a functioning democracy. But there are cases when partisanship gets a bad name because of the kind of advocacy it receives, and those of us who believe that partisanship can be a constructive force have an obligation to dissociate ourselves from this.

The most recent example of this I have seen was reported in CQ Today on Thursday, May 7, in the article on the front page headlined ``Luntz Shapes GOP Messages on Health Care.''

In the article, which summarizes Mr. Luntz's message and in some cases quotes him directly, the writer summarizes part of his message as follows: ``While Republicans might not be able to get their own ideas enacted, he went on, they could at least stop Democrats from achieving the political victory created by a successful revision of the healthcare system.''

Note, Madam Speaker, that these words are not directly attributed to Mr. Luntz, but I have no reason to think that Mr. Armstrong in any way distorted the essence of Mr. Luntz's message in his summary. And later in the article, in a direct quote, describing the words that Republicans should use in carrying on their effort to stop the Democrats from a successful health care policy, Mr. Luntz is directly quoted as saying ``I could care less about matching the words to the policies . . .''

Madam Speaker, obviously Republican Members of the Congress are free to accept or reject Mr. Luntz's partisanship of the wrong sort, but it does seem to be relevant that he was invited to address a Republican gathering and was, according to the article, warmly received by many. For example, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is quoted as saying ``We look to him for how do we express the things that we believe in ways that are effective.''

Madam Speaker, the notion that a significant number of Republicans would have as their central purpose in the healthcare debate not adopting a policy or even modifying one, but rather simply preventing the Democrats from being successful in meeting the nation's healthcare needs, is sufficiently disturbing that I believe this article should be reprinted here so that people can fully understand the dimensions of the debate in which we now find ourselves.

[From CQ Today, May 6, 2009]

Luntz Shapes GOP Messages on Health Care

(By Drew Armstrong)

Republican message guru Frank Luntz is back--this time to

help Republicans try to win the war of words as they battle

Democrats on overhauling health care.

Speaking at a closed-door session with House Republicans on

Wednesday, Luntz said the GOP needs to get away from

``markets'' and focus on ``patients.'' And while Republicans

might not be able to get their own ideas enacted, he went on,

they could at least stop Democrats from achieving the

political victory created by a successful revision of the

health care system.

For example, he said, the GOP should throw private health

insurance companies under the bus.

``For 10 years we were carrying the water of the insurance

companies because they were backing us on health care,'' he

said. ``Well, they're not anymore. They've sold out, so now

you can go right back at them, because the American people

blame the insurance companies more than almost anybody else

for why health care is such a mess in this country right now.

So you don't have to be nice to them at all.''

A detailed account of the presentation was given to

Congressional Quarterly by multiple people who attended the

session.

Luntz, the author of the book ``Words That Work,'' about

the political effect of specific phrases and words, offered

Republicans a detailed presentation on what language to use

when talking about health care and how to attack Democratic

proposals, along with a long list of ``don'ts.''

Republicans will get little chance to present their own

vision, Luntz warned, but they will have plenty of

opportunities to stand in opposition to Democrats.

``You're not going to get what you want, but you can kill

what they're trying to do,'' he said.

Republicans need to start defining specific words on

favorable terms in order to win, he said, specifically

pointing out President Obama's promises of a high-quality

health care system. And they need to make sure that voters

think ``quality'' means getting the health care they want

whenever they want it.

``Don't let them define it. If you define it this way, they

can't do well,'' he said of Democrats. ``They can't provide

that treatment. They can't provide that health care.''

From ``Private'' to ``Patients''

Much of Luntz's presentation was an attempt to correct the

way Republicans talk with voters about health care. He urged

them to stop using economic terminology like ``free market''

and ``private'' and to talk instead about ``doctors,''

``nurses'' and ``patients.''

``If you use the phrase ``private health insurance market

competition,'' you deserve to be down to 160 seats in the

House, because nobody understands that language,'' Luntz

said.

He also had advice for choosing the photos in mailers sent

to constituents: ``Get pictures of seniors that look like

they make apple pie every day forever, and the children who

look so angelic that it just makes you feel compassionate,

which I know is sometimes tough for people in this room,'' he

said.

And he called on Republicans, when describing the

consequences of the Democratic proposals, to use language

that would scare voters.

``What's the word that people are afraid of?'' Luntz said.

``Deny.''

``The idea that a doctor or a hospital would deny care that

they need is what frightens them the most about a Washington

takeover,'' he said.

Luntz came to the presentation with polling data, all done

in the last few months, to back him up.

``Each of these words has been carefully chosen. This is

not random, this is not gut. I could care less about matching

the words to the policies, I have no investment in the

words--except that these are the words that the American

people want,'' he said.

Luntz, who helped craft Republican messages through the

1990s, was a fixture in Washington GOP circles until 2005,

when he left for Hollywood after an alleged falling-out with

House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio.

He returned to Capitol Hill Wednesday, at the invitation of

the House Republican Conference, to try to focus the message

on health care.

Gathered in a meeting room of the Cannon House Office

Building, lawmakers and aides applauded as Luntz was

introduced. ``Welcome home!'' shouted one attendee.

``We've reached out to Frank,'' said House Republican

Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind. ``I would say,

enthusiastically, Frank is back.''

Republicans who attended the meeting said they were glad to

have him back. ``We look to him for how do we express the

things that we believe in ways that are effective,'' said

Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

``He told us to stop talking like a bunch of wonks and

politicians and start talking like people,'' said Michael C.

Burgess, R-Texas, who has become a prominent voice on health

care issues.

Recommending a Change in ``Tone''

At times, Luntz badgered the members, castigating them for

their failures of political acumen--and for the ringtones on

their cell phones.

At one point, he was clearly angry over leaks to the media

earlier in the day that described parts of his presentation.

When an audience member asked if Luntz would e-mail the

slides he was using, he fired back, ``I will forward you the

PowerPoint so that way I can then read it in some newspaper

two days from now. What the hell?''

And as Luntz urged members to focus on healthy lifestyles

and wellness, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, piped up: ``I don't

want to live that kind of life.''

``You don't want to live that kind of life?'' Luntz asked.

``Yeah, you're eating your BBQ. Clearly you don't want to

live that kind of life,'' he went on, to some laughter.

``Hey, ribs are a food group,'' an unidentified member

called out, to which Luntz responded: ``His ribs could

actually get up and walk out of the office.''

When a cell phone belonging to F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,

R-Wis., started ringing, Luntz told a young aide that

Sensenbrenner needed to change the ringtone. ``That's gonna

be your job, when Sensenbrenner comes back in here,'' Luntz

said to the aide, though Sensenbrenner had not actually left

the room--and let Luntz know it.

``You need to get him a telephone ring for the 21st

century,'' Luntz continued, ``Like `Play that funky music,

white boy.' Something much more interesting.''

Yes, in 2003, I said I didn't see a crisis. What I didn't see was at that time the Bush administration was engaging in activity that helped us get to a crisis.

I refer Members again to page 183 of the bill, the amendment authored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), which notes that in 2004, the year after I made the statement, the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac substantially to increase the number of mortgages it bought from low-income people. It went from 42 percent to 56 percent--a very significant increase in mortgages of people below median income--and set up a special category for low-income mortgages.

As Mr. Hensarling's amendment also shows, from 2001 until 2006 there was an enormous increase in subprime mortgages.

So, yes, in 2003, I was not aware of what was going on in that context, and I certainly didn't predict what was going to happen in 2004. When the Bush administration made that decision in 2004, according to the amendment from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), I objected to it. I said they were going to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in danger and give people mortgages they couldn't pay back.

I then decided that we did need to do legislation. So I joined the chairman of the committee, Mr. Oxley, in trying to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more.

In 2005, I voted with him for a bill that passed the committee to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I disagreed with the version on the floor because it cut affordable rental housing, not homeownership.

But the bill passed the House. It then died because, according to Mr. Oxley, the Bush administration opposed it for ideological reasons.

So, yes, in 2003 I didn't see a crisis, because I didn't see what was happening in the subprime market; by 2004, I did; and, in 2005, I joined in trying to restrain that. It is also the case that, in 2003, two of my colleagues, Mr. Miller and Mr. Watt of North Carolina, began pushing for subprime reform because they were informed about what was happening. I joined them. So we did try to legislate. So the answer is yes, in 2003 we didn't see what was happening.

I commend Members again to page 183 of the bill. Mr. Hensarling from Texas had given you the statistics. Subprime mortgages were skyrocketing in that period. Fannie Mae

was being pushed by the Bush administration to do something, and we then tried to deal with it.

The last point that I find very surprising is that conservatives say here, as some of them said on credit cards: Oh, no, do not have the elected representatives of America decide this; let the Federal Reserve make public policy. I had thought there was some concern about undemocratic decisions by the Federal Reserve.

The gentleman from Texas has said today, as others said last week: Oh, the Federal Reserve has done it. There is no need for the elected officials to do it. Well, in fact the Federal Reserve hasn't done anything because they cannot change statute. But even if they had, they could change it in the future. But the notion that we should defer on major policy decisions, not technical monetary policy issues but major policy decisions about credit cards or about what kind of mortgages we issue to the Federal Reserve, and not legislate is surprising.

I admire the people at the American Bankers Association, and they do some useful things. But I am surprised that Members would think that, on the question of mortgage relief and regulating the mortgage market, the bankers of America are the ones to listen to. I am pleased that the Realtors, who do not have an economic interest in what kind of mortgages are there but have a genuine interest in promoting home ownership, are on our side and strongly support this bill.

So I would say to my friends and the American bankers, I understand that there are things here that we are telling you that you can't keep doing, but I think the answer is that they were things you shouldn't have done in the first place.

I offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, this is a somewhat bigger than usual manager's amendment because, frankly, we are responding to the interest of the Members in trying to leave. I prevailed on some Members who had amendments to put them in the manager's amendment. They are not 100 percent agreed to, I think, in every case, but none of them are major changes. There are some major changes that we will be dealing with separately. So my intention during the time that I have will be to yield to those Members who very graciously have agreed to have their amendments put in the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will begin by yielding 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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

The gentleman from Texas is correct. I did tell my friend Mr. Miller from California we will work on it. It slipped. But I have spoken to him. The gentleman presented things very accurately. As I talked to Mr. Miller, I think what we have to do, and we will do this before this bill becomes law, is spell out exactly what's allowed. I think we have conceptual agreement on what should be banned and what should be allowed. Sometimes people want to leave too much implicit. I'm a great believer that redundancy is better than ambiguity. So I have given the gentleman from California my commitment that before this bill becomes law, if it does, we will spell out what is permitted, much of what the gentleman said.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following correspondence:

Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2009.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank: This is to advise you that, as a

result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R.

1728, the ``Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act,''

that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on

the Judiciary, we are able to agree to discharging our

committee from further consideration of the bill in order

that it may proceed without delay to the House floor for

consideration.

The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the

understanding that by foregoing further consideration of H.R.

1728 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over

subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. We

appreciate your continued willingness to consider further

clarifications and refinements to the provisions in our

jurisdiction as the legislation moves forward. Finally, we

reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate

number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving

this important legislation, and request your support if such

a request is made.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request,

and for the cooperative relationship between our two

committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's my fault it wasn't done. I guarantee to you it will be done before the bill, and I appreciate the indulgence. And I have apologized to Mr. Miller.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to one of the Members of the House who has been most concerned with stopping this abuse, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, first I would say to my friend from Texas that we wanted some protection to States that don't have the option of seceding. States that could secede don't need this protection. But those that plan to stay in the Union, we thought we would try to recognize it to try to protect them.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.

Mr. Chairman, I am here to correct a mistake I made in my haste to get the markup concluded so we could have plenty of time to get the reports done, the bill on the floor. I agreed to an amendment that I had not read carefully.

The amendment would ban any organization, any organization in America, from receiving housing counseling funds if anybody in that organization is indicted by any prosecutor anywhere for Federal election or voter fraud.

So I rise to vindicate an important principle of American law that indictment should not be a cause of serious penalty, that people should continue to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

To allow any prosecutor, anywhere in America, to tell any organization that it is ineligible for these funds, simply by an indictment, is, it seems to me, inappropriate.

I would point out that while there is an effort to claim that somehow this is specific to one organization, that may be the intent, but this bill earmarks no funds for any organization.

And it says, here is what it says about the funds: The Secretary shall make financial assistance available to HUD-approved housing counseling agencies and State housing finance agencies. So we have HUD- approved counseling agencies--these are approved now on the list from the last administration--and State housing finance agencies.

I have some confidence in them and those who are worried, my amendment says if there is a conviction and the person isn't fired, you cut off the funds.

But to cut off funds that were given by an approved HUD counseling agency because once persons anywhere in America were indicted by some prosecutor, is a violation of the basic principle of fairness.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time remains to me, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Minnesota said, ``Do we want to allow funding for people who employ people who are under investigation?'' Yes. I don't want to live in a society where the mere instituting of an investigation by any prosecutor anywhere shuts down lawful activities.

Now, she said an organization that's under indictment, but the amendment

goes far beyond that. Any individual member of an organization, no matter how far flung, apparently, according to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, if an investigation begins of anybody, you shut them down.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota mentioned someone who has been convicted. Under the amendment I offered, that would end it. We would either have to fire that person or lose the funding.

No. The conviction triggers it. No question. That's what is in the amendment. My amendment says if you are convicted, it's triggered. But to say that any individual who works for any organization who's indicted, shuts it down. The gentlewoman said, Are you on the side of ACORN?

No.

The issue is this: the gentlewoman, I think, inaccurately says, Are you for ACORN or the American people? This bill says nothing about ACORN. This bill says that approved HUD counseling agencies and State financing agencies can make the choice.

What I think the amendment says is this: Are you for the principle of American justice that says the mere institution of an indictment by any prosecutor anywhere, at any level?

Mr. Chair, I have told the gentlewoman I would not yield. Could she be instructed that that is the answer that she's going to get, and to stop interrupting?

There are some basic rules like the ones of debate. Also, the fact that I said that to empower any prosecutor anywhere, at any level. And this isn't about ACORN. We don't sit here to judge on this or that organization. The gentlewoman said we don't judge guilt or innocence. Well, the amendment tries to do that.

The amendment says: a guilty finding by statute; in the absence of a guilty finding, in a court of law. Because if there's a guilty finding in a court of law, under my amendment, then this denies funding to people.

There are a lot of prosecutors. And it's not just ACORN. There are a lot of organizations, including political parties in the State of New Hampshire, near me. The Republican Party operatives were convicted of election fraud. I don't think that means you go after everybody else. It certainly didn't mean pending indictment you do this. There ought to be a bright line between penalties for indictment and for conviction.

Now if the amendment had said a pattern of indictments, that's a different story. It might have been a better argument. But this says a single indictment of any individual by any prosecutor for any organization anywhere in American has these negative consequences.

I think we have seen enough of prosecutorial misconduct, whether it was Senator Stevens or whether it was Members on both sides of the aisle, whether it has been organizations that have been prosecuted. I don't think we want to set that principle. Remember, this is precedential. Once we set as a body the legal principle--apparently, it was in the earlier bill. It shouldn't have been. If I missed that, I apologize.

I want to now repudiate the notion that the action of a single prosecutor who may be politically motivated to indict anybody anywhere for election fraud, disables that organization, forces the organization to fire an individual who may later be vindicated.

Yes, the gentlewoman said one of the employees of the organization that has motivated her amendment was convicted. My amendment says: in that case, you either fire the person or you lose the money.

Conviction ought to be the standard. But a single indictment by a single prosecutor anywhere, I do not think that is the rule of law under which Americans wants to live.

I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield, he said he is sorry the other body didn't move. There's a lot of that going around

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of anyone else, I will claim this time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama has very accurately stated this. He worked with us until we got an amendment that did some good, that avoided some problems we thought we would have. So I hope the amendment is agreed to.

I yield to the gentleman for 30 seconds.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

First, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's description of the safe harbor refers to an earlier version of the bill. In the committee, a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) significantly increased the safe harbor so it is not a 30-year fixed mortgage only that is allowed. Variants of time, certain ARMs, it is much more flexible.

The gentleman's comments apply accurately to a provision that is no longer in the bill; but it does not apply to what is in the bill.

My second point is that I am surprised at the back-and-forth attitude some of my most conservative colleagues have toward the Federal Reserve system. On the one hand, there has been a great deal of concern, which I share, about the unlimited power of the Federal Reserve in some areas. But time and again we are being told, as in this amendment, we should yield to the Federal Reserve our constitutional power to legislate.

This amendment says we will vote, but the bill will not go into effect until the Federal Reserve gives us permission. Now I have a good deal of confidence in Mr. Bernanke, but the notion that we would cede to the Federal Reserve the power to enact legislation, where is Ron Paul when we need him? When did the Federal Reserve become the constitutional equal of the Congress of the United States?

So on that ground alone, I would oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first I guess I have to apologize to the gentleman from Georgia after listening to what he said. He chided me, mildly, in a friendly manner, for mentioning the dimensions of the safe harbor, he said it wasn't part of the bill, but I was only responding to his description of it. So I listened to him; he said the safe harbor was too narrow, it would push people into a 30- year. I responded. I thought when he raised it that it was relevant.

Beyond that, though, we do have this issue: do you tell the Federal Reserve that it will decide whether or not this goes forward? It also says, and there is a lack of balance here. If it says it will reduce the availability by any amount. Well, to some extent the purpose of

this bill is to reduce the availability of credit.

If Members believe that people got mortgages who shouldn't have been able to get them, then they ought to support a bill that will reduce the availability of credit. Frankly, the profligate availability of credit is a major reason for the current problem. So, yes, there are people who used to get mortgages who won't get them under this bill. Some lenders don't like that. There are lenders who made loans and they won't be able to make the loans under this bill, but that is precisely the point. The point is not to allow credit to be as loosely granted as it was even for qualified mortgages. People got mortgages who shouldn't have gotten them.

Now if you believe that not everyone who got a mortgage in the past should get a mortgage now, then it would seem to me you want to reduce the availability of credit. The question is: how do you do it? Do you do it in a sensible way? What is the balance? That is what we think is achieved in this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Yes, that is exactly the issue. The gentleman says, surprisingly to me, we want to increase the availability of credit.

Let's understand the problem. Too many loans were made to people who shouldn't have gotten them. In some cases it was the fault of the borrower; in some cases it was the fault of the lender; and in some cases the fault lies elsewhere. Yes, one of the important purposes of this bill is to reduce the pattern of people getting loans who shouldn't have gotten them because they couldn't repay them.

So to say that the purpose of this bill is to increase the availability of credit, is it to have more subprime loans, more borrowers who can't pay back?

Now you want to do it with balance and you want to do it in a reasonable way. I believe we deal with that. If there are questions do we go too far one way or the other, those are legitimate. We discussed a lot of those in committee. There were a lot of amendments that were adopted.

But I accept my colleague from Georgia's definition as the heart of the matter: Does this bill, if it is enacted, mean that fewer mortgage loans will be granted going forward than were granted in that period from 2002 to 2006, as the gentleman from Texas' amendment shows, when subprime mortgages shot up? I hope so. I hope that we will have fewer mortgages granted to people who couldn't have paid them.

Now other people, we hope things will go better. With the FHA piece, we hope to do even more in making credit available.

Yes.

No, it says ``qualified mortgages.'' But part of the problem has been that people got mortgages with bad judgments by the people who made them.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, in the absence of any other claimant, to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I commend this bipartisan effort to address an issue that is particularly important in their district.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reconsider my hasty action and take back my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

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

The gentleman is correct. This does resolve the PAYGO issue. It makes it clear that this is not mandating, it's encouraging and that solves the problem.

The gentleman is correct.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman accommodating my objection. I support the recommit, and I hope it is adopted.

Madam Speaker, I believe it was premature to ask for a recorded vote because I had not yet been given my time and maybe cooler heads will prevail.

Yes, in the absence of any other Member, I will seek the time in opposition.

We are going to support the amendment. I am puzzled as to what a rollcall would accomplish, except some missed planes.

So I will now yield back the balance of my time and promise to vote ``yes'' very loudly.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 1728, back to the House with an amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 1728, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this very clear delineation of the Republican philosophy, ``do nothing about subprime mortgages.'' Now, the gentleman from Texas did say, well, the Federal Reserve is doing it. Understand that in 1994, a Democratic Congress gave the power to the Federal Reserve to promulgate those regulations. Alan Greenspan refused to use them. From 1995 on, he refused to use them.

At some point in the late 1990s and the early part of this century, it became clear to many of us, led by my colleagues from North Carolina, Mr. Miller and Mr. Watt, that we had problems in the subprime area. And people tried to get Mr. Greenspan to do it, and he wouldn't do it. So we then said, ``okay, we had better act legislatively in the absence of the Federal Reserve doing it.'' We were blocked from doing it by the Republican leadership of the House.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) and I tried to get some legislation. Some Republican Members were ready to cooperate with us. But the decision came from the Republican leadership ``no.'' So from 1994, when Congress voted authority to the Federal Reserve, until 2007, after the Democrats had come back into the majority, nothing was done to block subprime mortgage abuses. Nothing. And not a single piece of legislation came forward when the Republicans were in control.

Now, I would add, by the way, that in 2007 we did a bill, we had some bipartisan cooperation, not a majority of Republicans, the bill passed the House but failed in the Senate. It didn't come up. Now we are doing it again. At no point have we seen a Republican alternative. The gentleman from Texas had some criticisms. We have never seen a Republican proposal to deal with subprime mortgages. Now they might say, ``well, we are in the minority, what is the point?'' But they were in the majority, Madam Speaker, from 1995 to 2006.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) submitted an amendment to the bill which talks about how subprime mortgages skyrocketed in percentage from 2002 to 2006 under the Bush administration and under Republican control of Congress. Members on the Democratic side said, ``let's do something it about it.'' The Republican answer was ``no.'' So we have here the clearest demonstration of the Republican approach of ``do nothing.'' But then the gentleman said, ``oh, no, the Federal Reserve has done it.'' Well, first of all, understand the inconsistency between conservative attacks on the undemocratic nature of the Federal Reserve in some context and the decision to allow Congress to let them legislate instead of the Congress.

The notion, we heard it on credit cards and we heard it today, the notion that the elected officials of this country should not intrude when the Federal Reserve has proposed legislation turns democracy on its head and is wholly inconsistent with other arguments we get. Beyond that, while I appreciate what Mr. Bernanke has done----

Mr. Bernanke, to his credit, repudiated the no-regulation, extreme conservative philosophy of Mr. Greenspan and promulgated rules, but only after a Democratic Congress began to act on this. And I think he did a good job and deserves credit.

The problem is that there are things he cannot do. The Federal Reserve cannot change statute. So, yes, this bill goes beyond what the Federal Reserve did. I'm glad the Federal Reserve is doing it. I'm glad that Mr. Bernanke reversed the Greenspan position which had been supported by the Republicans to do nothing. We will debate individual cases of this. As to legal services, yes, we have had examples of individuals being evicted, being foreclosed inappropriately. What this does is to say that they can get some legal help.

This is a defensive measure for people who are going to be losing their homes. And we found that there were some problems there.

As to securitization, we will get into this. But, yes, I do agree we have people who have come to us and said, ``you know what? We don't have any money. Why don't you let us make loans?'' Well, we don't think people should be lending money they don't have and immediately selling the loans. Here is the point, Madam Speaker, we will get into it later. The extension of loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them, partly the fault of the borrowers, partly the fault of the lenders, whatever the reason, that was the single biggest cause of the subprime crisis.

And the record of the Republican Party, from taking office in 1995 until today, is to oppose overwhelmingly any effort to do anything about it, from Mr. Greenspan's refusal to use the authority he was given to the failure of the Republicans to this day to come forward with any constructive legislative alternative. So, yes, there might be room for debate, but as between doing something to prevent this and doing nothing, I believe ``something'' wins.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is wrong to say we didn't want action. Yes, in the early part of the century we thought there wasn't a crisis. We tried to get Alan Greenspan to use the authority we gave him.

In 2003 I said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in crisis, as I didn't think they were, as Wachovia wasn't and Merrill Lynch.

In 2004, the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac significantly to increase the subprime mortgages and low-interest mortgage rates. At about that time, and as Mr. Hensarling's amendment shows, it was around that time that the Bush administration presided over a great increase in subprime mortgages.

Beginning in 2003, we tried to get legislation adopted, and the Republicans said no. The Republicans wouldn't do it. It wasn't until 2007 that there was any action at all. And it is not a coincidence that the Fed was given authority under a Democratic Congress in 1994 and didn't exercise it until a Democratic Congress came back in 2007. Yes, I was in the Congress. I was in the minority, and I was frustrated by the failure of the Republicans to do anything.

Now under Mr. Oxley, he did try to amend the rules to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a bill passed the House in 2005. I voted for it in committee, but opposed it on the floor because it restricted organizations like the Catholic Church from participating in affordable housing. But the bill failed after 2005. The bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which passed the House, where I served, it died later on in part because, as Mr. Oxley has made clear, the Bush administration and he got into a disagreement.

So the Republicans had authority to pass bills on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and subprime lending for 12 years and did nothing. We, in 2007 when we came into the majority, very promptly passed a bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to regulate subprime lending over consistent Republican opposition.

Mr. Speaker, first I reiterate, yes, I did say

in 2003 I didn't think we had a crisis. As the Bush administration increased the number of subprime loans that it required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take, and as we saw the subprime crisis, I said we did have one and pushed for legislation. But most importantly, the gentleman referred to what is called the SAFE Act. It did not pass as a standing bill. First of all, during the period when the Republicans controlled the House for 12 years, they passed no such legislation. It never even came up in committee. When the Democrats took power, we passed a subprime bill. The provision he is talking about was the section of the subprime bill that was passed over the objection of a majority of the Republicans.

My guess is that the gentleman from Texas probably voted against the bill he has just hailed. We can check the Record.

But, yes, there was an amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama that we worked on. It became a part of the Democratic bill that was passed over the objections of a majority of Republicans, and the gentleman from Alabama was severely criticized by most Republicans for voting for the bill.

During the period of Republican rule, nothing happened. When the Democrats took over, we did pass a subprime bill of which the SAFE Act was a part. It was opposed in final passage by a majority of the Republicans. The author, Mr. Bachus, was criticized by many Republicans for supporting the bill. And I would be interested in knowing whether the gentleman from Texas voted for the bill which he has just hailed.

Mr. Speaker, the record is relevant because when you----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the notion that the differences between the parties is irrelevant, I understand why, given the Republican's record, they want to argue this.

The fact is, yes, the gentleman from Alabama had a good idea. He was chairman of the subcommittee during the 12-year period and could have brought it to the floor. But because of the Republican position that no regulation was appropriate, he couldn't do that. The gentleman from Texas said this was a very good idea. I agreed; that's why I supported it.

By the way, the gentleman from Texas voted against the bill, along with two-thirds of the Republicans that embodied it. So we wouldn't have had it if he had carried his way.

But the fact is that for 12 years after the subprime crisis broke, the Republican Party wouldn't allow the gentleman from Alabama, who was then chairman of the subcommittee, to bring his bill up. We did bring the bill up, yes, in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Alabama was then criticized by Members of his party on the conservative side and has been forced to withdraw it a little bit.

Differences between the parties are relevant. For 12 years, the Republicans wouldn't allow the gentleman from Alabama to bring his bill to the floor. In our first year, we did and I was glad to work with him, but it was a minority position opposed by the great majority of the Republicans, including the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I would say this: I note my Republican friends tell me they are opposed to predatory lending. At no point, however, have they taken any initiative in bringing any legislation to the floor to deal with it or to urge that it be done in a regulatory way.

For 12 years they were in control, not a single bill came forward. My friend from Alabama did have a sincere interest here, and he had a good proposal. It wasn't until the Democrats were in the majority and we brought a bill to the floor that he was able to offer his bill, which we embraced. And even then, while he voted for the final bill, two- thirds of his colleagues voted ``no.''

Now, some have said this is going to do terrible damage to the mortgage market. I think Members would agree that no organization is more interested in having that well functioning than the National Association of Realtors.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from the National Association of Realtors dated May 5, 2009.

National Association of Realtors,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2009.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.2 million members

of the National Association of REALTORS (NAR), their

affiliates, and property owners, I strongly urge Congress to

vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1728, the ``Mortgage Reform and Anti-

Predatory Lending Act of 2009''.

REALTORS are acutely aware that there is a need for

mortgage reform, and NAR believes that H.R. 1728 strikes an

appropriate balance between safeguarding the consumer and

making sure consumers have access to mortgages at a

reasonable cost. NAR is a strong advocate of protections for

consumers in the mortgage transaction, and REALTORS support

the general principle that all mortgage originators should

act in good faith and with fair dealings in a transaction, as

well as treat all parties honestly.

REALTORS have a strong stake in preventing abusive lending

because it erodes confidence in the Nation's housing system,

and citizens of communities, including real estate

professionals, are harmed whenever abusive lending strips

equity from homeowners. As consumer abuse in mortgage lending

increased, REALTORS sought to protect consumers and the

housing market by establishing a set of ``Responsible Lending

Principles'' that form the basis for our advocacy with

Congress. Since their creation in 2005, REALTORS have shared

these principles with Congress during discussions of current

and past anti-predatory lending legislation. NAR is extremely

pleased that H.R. 1728 embodies the REALTORS ``Responsible

Lending Principles''.

Therefore, NAR strongly supports H.R. 1728, and asks that

you indicate to consumers and the housing market your support

for them by voting ``yes'' for this legislation. I thank you

for the opportunity to voice our support for H.R. 1728. And

as always, NAR remains at the call of Congress, and our

industry partners, to help in the recovery of the housing

market and the overall economy.

Sincerely,

Charles McMillan, CIPS, GRI,

2009 President,

National Association of REALTORS.

The National Association of Realtors strongly urges people to vote for this. The National Association of Realtors--knowledgeable and committed to homeownership--strongly supports this.

My friend from Alabama alluded to some consumer groups, labor groups that had some problems. They have since largely been alleviated. I must say, if we would alleviate them further, he would hate the bill more. But the fact is that the groups he alluded to are, on the whole, pleased with the bill now.

But, finally, I want to address the question of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. My colleagues have said, well, how can you do this without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation? Again, during the 12 years of the Republican rule, no bill passed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and became law. In our 2 years, one did.

Yes, I think further action is needed there. Where is their bill, Mr. Chairman? No Republican has offered, in the 2 years that I am aware of, as an amendment to this--or in any way--that bill. So they say you can't do predatory until you do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They offered no such amendment. So it simply becomes as an excuse not to do things.

Now let's talk about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who is responsible for what. There have been some quotes. Let me quote from here.

``In 2004,'' Bush administration, Republicans in Congress, ``the Department of Housing and Urban Development revised these goals, increasing them to 56 percent of their overall mortgage purchases by 2008, and additionally mandated that 12 percent of all mortgage purchases by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be `special affordable' loans made to borrowers with incomes less than 60 percent of an area's median income.''

In 2004, the Bush administration mandates this. This is under Republican control.

Then, let me go to line 20 on page 183. ``After this authorization to purchase subprime securities,'' which had come from the Clinton administration in 1995, ``subprime and near-prime loans increased from 9 percent of securitized mortgages in 2001 to 40 percent in 2006,'' during the Bush administration.

Yes, there was a great explosion in subprime mortgages brought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, in general, under the Bush administration. Earlier in that decade, I said I didn't think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in crisis.

By 2004, I agreed that they were pushed, in part, by the Bush administration. And in 2004, I criticized the decision that is mentioned here on lines 6 through 14 to increase what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, if people think I am quoting selectively, I want to pay tribute sincerely, because it works out good for me in this case, to the illogical integrity of the gentleman from Texas.

Because I am quoting from the amendment put in this bill by the gentleman from Texas, I urge people to read page 183 of the bill. It is language that was offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling-- not Mr. Green, not Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Hensarling--and we accepted it.

It clearly documents that the explosion in subprime loans came under Republican control. The increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subprime loans came then.

Yes, I was wrong to say earlier in the decade there wasn't a problem, because I didn't anticipate the extent to which the Republicans were going to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the hole. I then did join with Mr. Oxley in trying to get legislation through.

In 2005, I voted for a bill in committee that Mr. Oxley had.

My colleague, Mr. Hensarling, voted against it in committee. Then we flipped on the floor because we had a disagreement about housing. And I got my way on housing in the committee, he got his way on housing in the floor, and we flipped. But the fact is that the bill then failed in 2005. Not until 2007, when we had the majority, was any legislation dealt with, in an effective way, on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was any bill even considered on subprime lending.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer the amendment.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, at the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) offered a proposal for a study. I did not agree with it at the time because it seemed to me to be talking about the potential negative. Subsequently, the administration asked us to support a study which seemed to me to be incomplete because it was only talking about potential positives.

So what I decided made the most sense was to amalgamate the two and to offer a study which asked the Federal Reserve to do both sides of this. I am sometimes skeptical of studies. I will say that I have, from time to time, thought about an amendment that said that any Member who moved to create a study should be required to take a public test on the results of that study once it was completed because we too easily put in the extra work here; but I do think, in this case, it is a new area of policy. It is entirely reasonable to have both the potential pluses and minuses studied, and that is why I offer this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be able to say today that the gentlewoman from New York, the author of the bill, and the gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of the subcommittee, are doing an excellent job.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very nominal opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed only in that by bringing forth this amendment, the gentleman from North Carolina has revealed the imperfection of our product. We should have included this in the first place.

But it is a very good idea, and I congratulate him for his diligence. And this is the process at its best, a specific issue which was called to the attention of a Member in a concrete way, and he responds not simply in terms of that specific situation but with a broader solution.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I will reclaim my time to say the gentlewoman has been a staunch advocate of this. She was thinking about an amendment. I regret that we were in a situation where we weren't able to move the date up for a variety of reasons.

I will say this: if the banks, the credit card issuers, use the time between now and the effective date in a way that is abusive of customers, if they use the time not simply to get ready for the change that they say they need, but if they use the interim period to raise rates on people retroactively and to do other things that are abusive, to me that will be a very strong argument for speeding up the date. Now, the Senate hasn't acted on this bill yet, and it doesn't become law until they do and we go to conference. If we see a pattern of the credit card companies using the time lag to engage in practices that this bill seeks to stop in an excessive way, then I will urge my Senate colleagues to speed up the date and we will acquiesce.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield on this issue to one of the main advocates here, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I will yield again to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the handwriting on the wall becomes graffiti, in our view, then out comes the whitewash brush. So we'll be very clear. We were told they needed time to get things ready. If it appears that that time is being used to take advantage of consumers and to try to get in some

last licks before the rule goes into effect, then I and I believe the overwhelming majority of the committee and of the House will urge our colleagues in the Senate to speed up the date in their version and we will acquiesce with that.

Well, I heard my friend from Texas with mixed emotions. I liked the part of it where he said to trust the individual to make his or her economic decisions and to not interfere, and I hope when the bill I am sponsoring to repeal the ban on Internet gambling comes up that that sentiment doesn't die, because some people don't like the choices people would make. I would like to empower consumers. Congress passed a law that said, if you want to gamble with your own money on the Internet and you're 53 years old, you can't do it. So I welcome this kind of consumer choice, but that's, I think, a more clear-cut choice than this one.

The gentleman from Texas confidently says that, if you have this, there will be no teaser rates for a lot of people. I do not think there is any basis on which he can say that.

I am reminded of what Lord Melbourne said about Macaulay in the 19th century: ``I wish I could be as sure of anything as he is of everything.''

There is no basis for saying there will be no more teaser rates. As a matter of fact, a rate that only lasts 2 months or 3 months is likely to be a confusing thing to people, and he says that a consumer can tell. There still will be disclosure, but it will still come with a blizzard, and it will still come in ways that may not be clear to people.

The fact is that a 6-month minimum is a way to make sure that the product being offered is a sensible and thoughtful product that will not mislead some people. The fact is that not all consumers are of equal education, of equal ability to discriminate, of equal financial literacy. Yes, I think we should work to the point where people are as well educated as they should be, but that's not the case now.

You have to ask yourself, Mr. Chairman: Why would someone offer a 2- month teaser rate other than to try and bait and switch people into a higher rate?

I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia. This is a very thoughtful amendment. He has been working with the Obama administration. It comes with their strong support, and he is to be congratulated for an important consumer protection motion.

My thanks to the gentleman from Michigan, who has been such an extraordinary moral force in his leadership in the Judiciary Committee and under whom I was proud to serve.

Let me begin by saying apparently we have in Philadelphia one of the longest pending criminal cases in history because the gentleman from Indiana mentioned that people were arrested and charged in 2004. But he didn't tell us what happened to them. Well, he said it was terrible, they were charged. One would assume that people would be interested in knowing what happened.

I will tell the House what happened. The charges were dismissed. Now, the gentleman from Indiana apparently forgot to say that. Those arrests were false. They should not have taken place. But let me say this: If we were to repeal every criminal statute because some police officer may have made an improper arrest, things would be pretty anarchic.

I also do think if you're going to talk about an incident, certainly would be my practice, and if you talked about criminal charges and they were dismissed that you would say so, that you wouldn't leave people wondering. So I do want people who are worried about the fate of those poor people in Philadelphia who, if you listened to the gentleman from Indiana, these last 5 years have been facing felony charges, please don't worry. Those charges should not have been brought and they were dismissed. Now, you hear about that often because it's apparently the only case we do have. No one has been successfully prosecuted, nor should they be, for this.

Now, I do want to say this: I'm delighted to hear some of the most conservative Members of this House expressing support for free speech in this context. Only in this context. They have not been conspicuous in demanding the right of free speech, but I'll take it when I can get it.

There was a statute proposed here that interfered with the free speech of

a member of the clergy. Now, he is a lunatic member of the clergy named Phelps, and he was going and standing out at cemeteries and denouncing them on his religious grounds. I did not think people should be allowed to disrupt funerals, but I voted against the bill, along with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Paul) and my colleague from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and all the rest of these great defenders of free speech on the other side said he couldn't stand half a mile from the cemetery an hour before with his anti-gay sign. Now, I will confess that when he heard that I had come to his defense, that caused him more aggravation than anything else; so it was for me a twofer. I got to defend free speech and aggravate a lunatic. But I don't remember a lot of free speech defenses then because it wasn't popular.

Now, in addition to free speech, there is one other thing that's very interesting. You would think this is the first time hate crimes ever came up in American history. There are on the books statutes that increase the penalty for crimes depending on the motivation. And people say everybody should be treated equally. By the way, I assume Members know that there was a special statute that makes it particularly egregious in terms of sentencing if you assault a Member of Congress.

I assume nobody knew that on that side because they would have moved to repeal it. They apparently are perfectly comfortable getting a greater degree of Federal protection against crime than the average citizen.

Did they forget to repeal that? Where was that motion? Mr. Chairman, did that come up in the committee? Well, apparently not. But there were other categories, age and race.

Let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not the concept of hate crime protection that is controversial. We have had it and it has been administered. It is extending it to people like me, to those of us who are gay, to people who are transgender. And the assertion that there is no basis for protecting transgender people against violence, that's Marxist in its oddity.

And I mean by that, of course, Chico Marx, who said at one notable point when Groucho caught him red-handed, ``Who are you going to believe--me or your own eyes?''

The fact is that crimes against people who are transgender have been very serious. I know they are not always prosecuted as well as they should have been. But I do want to stress, the notion of hate crimes, of increasing the penalty because of the motivation for certain characteristics of the victim, has not been controversial on the Republican side. They have made no effort to change it.

If they were really motivated by what they claim to be saying, or what they are saying, then they would be for repealing hate crimes in general. They would be for repealing hate crimes based on race and age and other categories. It's only when it deals with gay people. And because in some people's minds saying that it's wrong to assault someone who is transgender may mean that you have to show some respect for that person.

Well, let me reassure them. I do think that there ought to be hate crimes protection against gay, lesbian and transgender people. By that I mean that if there is a physical crime, actions that are otherwise criminal, the fact that it is based on that prejudice should count.

I thank the chairman.

I want to make it very clear. Yes, I do want there to be protection against violence committed against people like me, but let me reassure those, some on the other side. In asking that transgender people or people like me or people like my colleague from Wisconsin be protected against violence, I am not seeking your approval. Your approval of the way in which I live is not terribly important to me, I would say to them, Mr. Speaker, so I do want to differentiate.

Those of us who think that violence should be prevented are not asking for approval from people with whom we are perfectly prepared not to associate any more than necessary. This is not a request for acceptance. We don't want it. We don't need it from those people. What we are talking about is a protection against violence.

The last point is this. Why a hate crime? Because when someone is assaulted as an individual, that individual is put in fear. But when a group is assaulted because of race or religion or sexual orientation, members who aren't assaulted, if there's a pattern to this, are also put in fear. That's the rationale, and it applies here as well as elsewhere.

Madam Speaker, from time-to-time Members insert into this Record articles which are of particular relevance to current policy debates, and we often add a commentary. Today I do not add any words because this compelling, insightful column by Richard Cohen on the willingness of far too many in the world to give a pass to Hamas while being harshly critical of Israel needs no gloss.

Madam Speaker, I add only that I am in very strong agreement with virtually everything Mr. Cohen has to say in this piece and I hope it will be read and reflected upon.

Hamas's Bloody Hands

(By Richard Cohen)

Some residents of Gaza were taken from their homes and shot

in the legs or feet. Some were brutally beaten, and some were

simply murdered, sometimes after hideous torture. If you are

expecting--based on everything that has happened--tha the

awful Israelis did this, guess again. It was Hamas, the

authentic and genuine government of Gaza. Well, no one's

perfect.

The information about the shootings is taken from a report

issued yesterday by Human Rights Watch and available on its

Web site. It says that ``Hamas security forces or masked

gunmen believed to be with Hamas'' executed 18 people, most

of whom were accused of collaborating with Israel, sparing

the expense and bother of a trial. Others were shot, maimed

or beaten, not for allegedly collaborating with the enemy--

or, as is often the case, having a house or woman that a

snitch covets--but for belonging to the opposition political

party, Fatah.

Many of these murders and assaults took place during

Israel's recent pummeling of Gaza. Yet, as Human Rights Watch

goes to some pains to document, at no time did Hamas's

security forces lose control of Gaza, so the murders and

maimings were not a consequence of chaos but of government

policy. Whatever the case, the murders, shootings and

beatings continued even after the hostilities ended. Since

then, at least 14 more people have been executed

extrajudicially, which is to say murdered. Some were also

tortured.

You can only imagine what would happen if Israel dealt with

its internal political enemies or dissenters in such a

fashion. Last month, for instance, Israel got a heap of

criticism and abuse when it was reported in the Israeli media

that some Gaza civilian had been unjustifiably shot by

Israeli soldiers. The report was widely cited, not just for

its shocking allegations but also because it was supposedly

indicative of the sort of place Israel has become. The

government said the allegations were based on hearsay. We

shall see.

No doubt the Human Rights Watch report will be ignored or

dismissed in the greater cause of demonizing Israel. This has

been the trend of late. No doubt, too, some will excuse

Humas's criminality as the inevitable result of Israeli

actions--the Officer Krupke School of Behavior made famous by

the singing gang members of ``West Side Story.'' But as much

as some would like to criticize Israel--and I have done so

myself--they still have a minimal obligation to acknowledge

the difference in core values between Israel and its enemies.

This does not mean that Israel is above criticism. After

all, it has made life unbearable for some Palestinians,

supported illegal settlements in the West Bank, been too

harsh in squeezing Gaza, and, maybe most important, it ought

to get out of the West Bank--for reasons of justice and for

its own sake. Still, it remains unimaginable that Israel

would murder its domestic critics or silence dissent with the

occasional kneecapping. These are the tactics of thugs.

Read the Hamas charter. It is not some uplifting cry of a

downtrodden people seeking its freedom but a repellent anti-

Semitic screed. It sees the Jews behind every major world

event since the storming of the Bastille: ``They were behind

the French revolution, the communist revolution and most of

the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With

their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons,

Rotary Clubs, the Lions . . . for the purpose of sabotaging

societies and achieving Zionist interests.'' The Rotary? The

Lions? Why not Welcome Wagon?

When Israelis talk of the practical difficulties of pulling

out of the West Bank, they mean the likelihood that Hamas

will oust Fatah and launch rockets into Israel. They are both

concerned and appalled by a Hamas charter that, in part,

reads like it could have been written by Hitler. Withdrawal

is necessary and right, but it cannot be done naively and

without the participation of the United States. It's going to

take American peace-keepers. It is that simple. No Israeli

can trust Hamas to keep the peace.

Human Rights Watch is to be commended. It does not have one

standard for Israel and another for Hamas, Hezbollah or the

other despotic regimes of the Arab world. That is more than

can be said, though, for critics who vilify Israel,

romanticize Hamas and clearly have never had the

inexpressible pleasure of living in a place where a chance

remark can get your legs riddled with lead. Say what you

will, but that place could never be Israel.

Madam Speaker, our jobs as Members of Congress are sources of great satisfaction to us, but there are occasional downsides. For me, the worst is the fact that I cannot literally be in two places at one time on certain occasions. One of those is coming up. On Friday, May 1st, at a time when I already committed myself irrevocably to be elsewhere, the Arnold M. Dubin Labor Education Center at the University of Massachusetts/Dartmouth will be celebrating the life of the late Nicholas Roussos.

Madam Speaker, at a time when we are trying to pass legislation that will restore to American working men and women the right to be fairly represented in the workplace through unions of their choosing, it is poignant that Nick Roussos passed away. No one I have ever worked with has been a better, more dedicated, tougher, and at the same time gentler crusader for the rights of working people than Nick Roussos. As a leader in the Southeastern Massachusetts branch of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and as a prominent member of the leadership of the labor movement in general, both in Southeastern Massachusetts and in the Commonwealth, Nick Roussos embodied the best in that activity.

I first met him in 1981, when congressional redistricting sent me to the City of Fall River to look for support. I found a strong supporter. But more importantly, I found a great friend and a source of inspiration. No one who worked with Nick Roussos--no one exposed to his infectious humor even in the face of the greatest adversity--could become jaded for too long. At the tensest moments I had to deal with. I would find excuses to call Nick and get the encouragement and energy that he could dispense as well as anybody else, and far more than most.

Economic trends, especially trade policy, have been unkind and unfair to the people that Nick represented. But he never gave up fighting hard for justice for them.

Madam Speaker, Nick Roussos was an American hero. He did as much as was humanly possible to improve the quality of life for his neighbors and for the people he represented.

And it's important to note that those whom he dealt with on the industry side shared the

great respect for him that I have expressed here.

Madam Speaker, the Arnold M. Dubin Labor Education Center is an institution in which he vigorously participated, and it does a great deal to carry on the best traditions of American labor policy. I very much regret that I cannot join so many of my friends in honoring Nick Roussos on May 1st, but I do want to take this opportunity to remind people of the spirit that he embodied and of the need for us to enact legislation that will allow people like Nick Roussos to continue the work that they have done on behalf of those most in need of assistance.

Madam Chairman, I admire the work that's been done by the leadership of the Progressive Caucus and the staff.

Before getting to that I would like to make two, I think, corrections to my friend from Texas. First, I know people on that side have a propensity to see socialists everywhere. But the people who are most lecturing the American Government are the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, two conservatives. So his invocation of socialists lecturing us is a further example of the propensity to see socialists where they are not. In fact, we have not heard that from the British Government, which is run by the Labor Party. But the Gaullist president of France and the Christian Democratic chancellor of Germany would object to being called socialists by my friend from Texas.

Secondly, he says this would be the first administration in history to hand on to the next generation a lower standard of living. No, it won't even be, if that happens, the first administration to do it in this century because the Bush administration has done just that. If you look at what the standard of living was after this terrible economic crisis that came under the Bush administration, we've already hit that goal.

Now, as to spending. A riddle, Madam Chairman. When is government spending not government spending? And on the other hand, when does government spending which, according to the conservatives, destroys jobs, in fact creates jobs? The answer is when it's for weapons.

We have, on the other side, a form of weaponized Keynesianism. When it comes to spending money to build roads or improve medical infrastructure or do other things that are enhancing the quality of life, they tell us that government spending doesn't create a job. But when we are talking about continuing to produce weapons that have the admirable purpose of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and we're still producing the weapons, then somehow we have to keep them going because of its job creation capacity.

Military spending. George Bush, in his exit interview with the Wall Street Journal, hardly a harsh critic for him on the editorial page, said the main reason he had to spend so much was the ramp-up in military spending. I just disagree with him that it was necessary. The wholly unnecessary, in fact, damaging Iraq war has cost us hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.

I am amazed that people can lament spending and forget the elephant in the room. And when the elephant forgets the elephant in the room, I suppose it's even more surprising, because it is massive military spending now and for the future that is the problem.

We're worried about entitlements. I am less concerned about a 73- year-old woman getting a cost of living increase than I am about building the F-22 when we no longer need it.

And we have missile defense. Now, I don't keep up, since I became chairman of the committee I've been a little diverted, with the news as much as I used to. And I haven't reviewed all the fatwas out of that lunatic regime in Iran. But I do not remember them threatening to destroy Prague. I do not remember the pronouncement in which Iran said, you Czechs better watch out; we're going to bomb you.

Despite the absence of any such threat, the budget that my friends on the other side would like commits us to spending billions of dollars to defend Prague against Iran. I'd rather protect old people against poverty.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, the people I mentioned were Nicolas Sarkozy, who is the non-socialist, Gaullist president of France and Angela Merkel, the non-socialist chancellor of Germany.