Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in response to the unspeakably terrible acts of murder perpetrated on innocent people by a handful of vicious, hate-filled fanatics in Mumbai. the Asian American Commission of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts convened a candlelight vigil on December 4 at 6 p.m. in Boston and provided an opportunity for people of good will to express their horror at these terrible events and their determination to work together to prevent them from happening again.

The Commission composed a moving, eloquent statement in response to these terrible acts and because its message is so necessary at this time, I ask that it be printed here.

A Candlelight Vigil--Remembering Friends, Family and All Those Lost and

Hurt in the Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai, India November 26-29, 2008

The Asian American Commission of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts invites Americans of all faiths to join in a

Candlelight Vigil on December 4, 6 p.m. at City Hall Plaza,

Boston, Massachusetts.

We are saddened by the loss of so many in Mumbai, India

this past week because of the actions of a few terrorists. We

offer our deepest condolences to their families and pray for

the speedy recovery of those who were hurt. We applaud the

heroic actions of the police, firefighters, armed forces and

the staff of the hotels, restaurants, train stations and

hospitals and all concerned citizens who helped to stop the

terrorists and rescue and guide people to safety.

In this global village, like the United States, India is a

democracy with rights for every man, woman and child,

regardless of religious or ethnic origin; a secular country

with tolerance for many faiths; and a strong tradition of

cooperation among its many ethnic, religious, and linguistic

communities. India also serves as a positive influence for

many people here and in countries around the world through

its strong traditions, contributions to culture, political

leadership, trade and world economic development.

As the world's largest democracy, India's represents a

religious cross-section of Hindus, Muslims, Christians,

Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and people of every faith that have

traditionally lived in harmony. Unfortunately, there are a

few who seek to sow divisions and cause harm to its people,

its economy, to all those who visit or wish to do business

with India. We believe that terrorism affects us all and we

must all unite and act to defeat this common enemy.

As Asians and Americans we are all part of a global village

and strongly condemn these heinous acts. No matter where

terror raises its ugly head, it impacts all the citizens of

the world. We believe that by coming together as a community

to show support to the bereaved and by fostering greater

bonds between all peoples and faiths here at home and across

the globe that we will be able to stop such hate.

Madam Speaker, I have for many years had the benefit of learning from Jack Authelet, a journalist and the town historian of the town of Foxborough--an important town in my district known for a number of things, including being the home of our New England Patriots.

Recently, Mr. Authelet wrote to me about a group that he accurately describes as ``very appreciative and dedicated French citizens who have . . . made a solemn vow'' that the Americans who gave their lives in the defense of freedom in France will not be forgotten. The organization of French citizens who have dedicated themselves to this is Les Fleurs de la Memoire, or The Flowers of Memory.

Madam Speaker, what they have done and are doing is an inspirational example of international cooperation, and I ask that the very thoughtful and informative letter from Jack Authelet describing the work that they do be printed here, along with the essay entitled ``A Tribute,'' written by Claude Lavielle, who is president of Les Fleurs de la Memoire. This essay was written for Memorial Day 2002.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Authelet asked that I do this on Veterans' Day, but since we were not in session on that day, I have chosen the next day in which it is possible to insert this into the Record as an appropriate way of acknowledging their great work.

Foxborough Historical Commission,

Foxborough, MA.

Congressman Barney Frank,

Newton, MA.

Dear Barney, thank you for your dedication and leadership

role in resolving the fiscal crisis that grips this nation.

In the midst of all the uncertainty, I would like to call to

your attention a living tribute to the fallen of World War II

that I pray will move you to call for national recognition of

this unique volunteer effort on Veterans Day.

In the aftermath of World War II, some 15,000 American

military personnel who made the Supreme Sacrifice remain on

French soil in the Normandy and Brittany Cemeteries where

there families seldom--if ever--have an opportunity to visit

their graves.

We as a nation have honored the pledge we would never

forget their sacrifice in part by properly maintaining the

military cemeteries there and around the world.

There are some very appreciative and dedicated French

citizens who have also made a solemn vow: these brave

Americans will never be forgotten because they know that

every day they live in freedom, they become even more

indebted to those who lie buried in the countries they came

to liberate. They belong to the organization Les Fleurs de la

Memoire (The Flowers of Memory) and each volunteer is

assigned the grave of an American to decorate at every

opportunity and especially on the American Memorial Day. Many

volunteers adopt more than one grave, and also make every

attempt to locate family members of the deceased that they

might know someone is there looking over the grave of their

loved ones.

I became aware of The Flowers of Memory when Vincent

Robillard, the French volunteer assigned to the grave of

Airman Clinton Davison (Class of 1939, Foxborough High

School) was finally able to contact Clinton's brother, 93-

year-old Lewis Davison of Walpole, himself a World War II

veteran. I have been handling the correspondence for Lewis,

for whom contact with the French volunteers has brought the

comfort of knowing there are many who appreciate the family's

loss. Through Vincent, the family now has had many of its

questions answered about the death of Clinton, even to an eye

witness account of what happened that fateful day at the

height of the war when his plane failed to return following a

bombing run over Germany. I have attached a story I published

in The Foxboro Reporter about the French volunteers and what

this has meant to the Davison family.

The commitment by these French volunteers to honor those

brave Americans is both heartwarming and extraordinary.

However, most Americans don't even know the group exists.

I have provided background on The Flowers of Memory in

hopes that you would use your considerable influence by

taking the initiative to afford this group and its volunteers

some national exposure this Veterans' Day that the people of

America would know about this magnificent tribute being paid

every day to those who gave their lives when their Nation

called.

The attached information provides background on The Flowers

of Memory and their mission and I think it would bring

comfort to the American people to know that so many people in

France living in freedom today attribute that gift to those

whose graves they decorate as an outward symbol of an inner

vow that they will never be forgotten.

Thank you for your consideration and again, my personal

appreciation for your inspired leadership in a time of

crisis.

Jack Authelet,

Town Historian.

Madam Speaker, during the recent campaign, motivated I believe by an effort to stave off much-needed legislation establishing appropriate regulation for currently unregulated aspects of the financial industry, a number of people launched a concerted effort to blame the Community Reinvestment Act for our current financial crisis. Their argument--wholly inaccurate--was that the Community Reinvestment Act was the reason that a large number of irresponsible subprime loans were made.

I was very pleased--although not surprised--that Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, an appointee of President Bush, took the time on November 19th to refute these accusations. Comptroller Dugan is as well qualified to discuss this as anyone in the country, because he has a prime responsibility for the regulation of the safety and soundness of banks and the banking system. Given that, I believe it is essential that all Members have the benefit of his analysis.

Comptroller Dugan is characteristically forthright in addressing the question of the role that CRA has played:

``There are even some that suggest that CRA is responsible for the binge of irresponsible subprime lending that ignited the crisis we now face. Let me squarely respond to this suggestion: I categorically disagree. While not perfect, CRA has made a positive contribution to community revitalization across the country and has generally encouraged sound community development lending, investment and service initiatives by regulated banking organizations.

``CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA . . . (B)anks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas.''

Madam Speaker, to make it clear that the forceful defense of CRA that I have just quoted is taken fully in context, I ask that those portions of Comptroller Dugan's speech that discuss the CRA be printed here in their entirety. This firm statement by President Bush's appointee with prime responsibility for the safety and soundness of the banking system should help us end the inaccurate, politically-motivated misrepresentation of the role that CRA has played.

Remarks by John C. Dugan--Comptroller of the Currency Before the

Enterprise Annual Network Conference--November 19, 2008

``. . . Indeed, all of these efforts are fully in keeping

with the OCC's mission and the way that we approach our

regulatory and supervisory responsibilities, including those

under the Community Reinvestment Act. CRA supports banks

doing what they do best and what they should want to do

well--making viable lending and investment decisions, with

acceptable rates of return, consistent with their business

plans, I their own communities.

Given recent public discussion, it is appropriate to ask

about the role that CRA plays in the credit challenges we

face on so many fronts. In my view, it plays a very positive

role. Unfortunately, however, current market disruptions have

clouded the accomplishments that CRA has generated, many of

which we recognized last year during its 30th anniversary.

There are even some who suggest that CRA is responsible for

the binge of irresponsible subprime lending that ignited the

credit crisis we now face.

Let me squarely respond to this suggestion: I categorically

disagree. While not perfect, CRA has made a positive

contribution to community revitalization across the country

and has generally encouraged sound community development

lending, investment, and service initiatives by regulated

banking organizations.

CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending

abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the

marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated

with subprime mortgage lending abuses

and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA.

A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data

showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates

originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high

cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA

assessment areas.

Over the last ten years, CRA has helped spur the doubling

of lending by banking institutions to small businesses and

farms, to more than $2.6 trillion. During this period, those

lenders more than tripled community development lending to

$371 billion. Overwhelmingly, this lending has been safe and

sound. For example, single family CRA-related mortgages

offered in conjunction with NeighborWorks organizations have

performed on a par with standard conventional mortgages.

Foreclosure rates within the NeighborWorks network were just

0.21 percent in the second quarter of this year, compared to

4.26 percent of subprime loans and 0.61 percent for

conventional conforming mortgages. Similar conclusions were

reached in a study by the University of North Carolina's

Center for Community Capital, which indicates that high-cost

subprime mortgage borrowers default at much higher rates than

those who take out loans made for CRA purposes.

Of course, not all single-family CRA mortgages performed

this well, because these loans have experienced the same

stresses as most other types of consumer credit.

Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that when these

loans are made in conjunction with a structured homebuyer

counseling program, mortgage performance is substantially

improved. Affordable CRA multi-family projects utilizing low-

income housing tax credits have also performed well, with an

average foreclosure rate through 2006 of 0.08 percent on the

underlying mortgages.

During the community tours I have taken over the past three

years, I personally witnessed the positive impact that CRA

partnerships have had in transforming communities, expanding

homeownership, and promoting job creation and economic

development. These partner ships between communities and

financial institutions have also helped house senior citizens

and people with special needs, built community facilities,

and assisted small businesses serving low-income areas.

In the Anacostia community of D.C., an area of economic

resurgence that I have toured on several occasions,

Enterprise's Wheeler Creek project was a critical link in

stabilizing a neighborhood that had been plagued by a

troubled public housing project. Wheeler Creek involved

development of for-sale homes in conjunction with a bank

community development corporation, as well as a bank's

purchase of low-income housing tax credits for rental

housing.

CRA projects also act as catalysts for other investments,

job creation, and housing development. Such infusion of

capital into these markets leverages public subsidies,

perhaps as much as 10 to 25 times, by attracting additional

private capital. Many of these CRA equity investments can be

made under national banks' public welfare investment

authority. These bank investments have grown significantly

over the years--totaling more than $25 billion over the past

decade. Indeed, the OCC recently held its Managers Conference

at the Grand Masonic Lodge on North Charles Street here in

Baltimore, a public welfare investment funded by a national

bank. To meet the demand to invest in similar types of

projects, OCC successfully sought legislation last year to

raise the cap on public welfare investments from 10 to 15

percent of a bank's capital and assets. This rise will enable

the amount of such investments to increase by as much as $30

billion.

Interpreting national bank public welfare investment

authority, OCC recently issued an approval related to energy

conservation that may be of interest to Enterprise. This

approval clarifies that such authority extends to bank

investments in renewable energy tax credits primarily

benefiting low-and moderate-income individuals and areas,

government revitalization areas, rural underserved and

distressed middle-income areas, and designated disaster

areas. The investing bank can claim the credits and, in some

instances, receive positive CRA consideration under the

investment or community development testes.

Your Green Communities initiative, and others like it, may

be able to take advantage of these tools to obtain additional

resources under the public welfare investment authority, CRA,

and other available incentives to build many more sustainable

homes and communities across the country. The research and

examples described on your Web site demonstrate that moving

to a green economy can generate a significant number of jobs,

stimulate economic growth, and create a healthy environment

in communities that Enterprise serves.

As the credit market stabilizes, CRA-driven initiatives can

also help us tackle challenges such as the preservation of

homeownership opportunities and rental housing development.

Opportunities also lie ahead for bank partnerships with

Enterprise affiliates and other nonprofits to help mitigate

the impact of foreclosures in communities across the country.

. .

Our nation has accomplished much since CRA's passage.

Perhaps even Jim Rouse could not imagine how much the flow of

CRA-related capital and credit has contributed to affordable

homeownership, jobs and business development, and healthy

neighborhoods. In today's challenging economy, the need for

the positive results that CRA has generated are even greater,

and the same is true for organizations like Enterprise.

Thank you very much.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1525, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1424) to amend section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require equity in the provision of mental health and substance-related disorder benefits under group health plans, and offer the motion at the desk.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we have limited time here, and I want to explain to the Members that I will be devoting most of my time to colloquy with Members who have serious concerns about this bill.

I believe this bill has a great deal more in it in a number of areas, including in particular avoiding foreclosures, than people have recognized. I at this point will insert into the Record under General Leave a letter from the American Banker, in which Sheila Bair, who is one of the best regulators we have ever had, who has been using her authority over the mortgages she inherited through the IndyMac failure to really provide foreclosure relief, and she says in this: ``The provision would allow the Treasury Department to provide credit guarantees and enhancements on whole loans.'' Ms. Bair said in an interview Thursday, ``They can have so much bigger bang for their buck.'' She asked us to put this in. We put it in. It may be obscure, but it in and of itself will lead to a great deal of help for people with mortgages.

What I will be doing, Madam Speaker, during this debate is yielding time for colloquies to Members who are seeking clarification of points in the bill, many of them involving what is very powerful language, although not everything we would have liked, to mitigate foreclosures. I will say that I have spoken to the people at the Department of Treasury, including yesterday morning the Secretary himself, and I will be making commitments today about how we believe this bill will be interpreted, and I will be making no commitments that I have not explained to the Treasury, that the staff of the Financial Services Committee which has done such wonderful work has not discussed with the Treasury. So we will be, as I said, working with Members to clarify some parts of this bill because I do not think it is fully appreciated that it has a good deal more in it for the foreclosure issue and some other issues than has been recognized.

[From American Banker, Oct. 3, 2008]

Bair: How to Get More Bang for Bailout Buck

(By Rob Blackwell)

Washington.--Of all the provisions in the bill designed to

stabilize the financial markets, one of its most potent is

not getting enough attention, according to Federal Deposit

Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

The provision would allow the Treasury Department to

provide credit guarantees and enhancements on whole loans. If

it were used, it would allow the government to increase

modifications and stabilize home prices at a much smaller

cost than buying the loans themselves, Ms. Bair said in an

interview Thursday.

``They can have so much bigger bang for their buck,'' she

said. ``You don't have an initial cash outlay, you can leave

them in the private sector, you can do the servicing in the

private sector, and you can condition them on some type of

modification protocol, which would get the mortgages

restructured faster.''

The provision, a single sentence in the 451-page bill, has

attracted little attention from analysts and industry

representatives. Instead, they have focused on the crux of

the bill, which would allow the Treasury to buy and hold up

to $700 billion of troubled assets.

The bill would give the Treasury secretary the power to

``use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate

loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.''

How that would work remains unclear. In theory, the

Treasury could guarantee certain types of loans--option

adjustable-rate mortgages, for example--and require lenders

that want to use the insurance to engage in loan

modifications first. If the reworked loan performed, the

government would never be involved, but if the loan later

defaulted, the government would take a certain amount of the

loss.

Though she is supportive of the $700 billion buyout

facility, Ms. Bair said the provision, added at the behest of

the FDIC, could provide a critical alternative.

``It will be another tool they have in their toolkit, and

it will be cheaper,'' she said. ``You can provide credit

support to $100 billion worth of mortgages with no up-front

cash outlay. The exposure would be less than buying those

mortgages directly.''

During her two-year tenure, the FDIC has moved from the

background to the forefront of the housing crisis. In the

past week alone it has handled the largest failure of all

time--the $309 billion-asset Washington Mutual Inc.--with no

cost to the government. It also invoked the systemic risk

exception for the first time in the agency's history to

facilitate a deal to sell most of Wachovia Corp. to Citigroup

Inc.

Ms. Bair said regulators had no choice but to use the

exception, which was created in 1991 and required the

approval of the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury.

``We all felt that preventive action was needed,'' she

said. ``It was a potential failure, driven primarily by

market confidence issues.''

Ms. Bair has also been working to help pass the bailout

bill. After the House unexpectedly defeated the legislation

Monday, lawmakers scrambled for provisions to bring more

Republicans on board. The most notable addition would

increase deposit insurance to $250,000 per depositor per

institution.

That provision would reassure nervous depositors that the

banking system is stable, Ms. Bair said, and it gets to the

heart of the problem: a lack of confidence among consumers,

bankers, and businesses.

``Raising the deposit insurance limit to $250,000 is

designed to address that problem

of public confidence,'' she said. ``Expanding that safety net

for a period of time, I think, will help with the Main Street

depositor and also provide help for banks.''

The coverage hike would take effect immediately and would

expire Dec. 31, 2009. The bill explicitly says banks should

not face a premium hike as a result. Analysts argue that

Congress would have to make the higher limit permanent. Ms.

Bair would not take a position, except to say the FDIC should

have the power to raise premiums if the increase becomes

permanent.

``It's a question for Congress,'' she said. ``It could be

destabilizing if they lift it in 2009, but the trade-off

would be that banks would have to start paying premiums.''

Overall, she said, she hopes the legislation will help ease

fears among financial institutions, some of which have become

worried about lending to each other.

``There is a confidence issue,'' Ms. Bair said.

``Originally, liquidity issues were tied to capital adequacy.

Now I think liquidity issues are tied to just uncertainty. .

. . We are asking Main Street to have confidence in the

banking system. Well, I would ask the banks to have

confidence in the banking system and lend to each other.''

She said a freeze on credit is only making the situation

worse.

``We acknowledge that some individual banks have

challenges, but overall they still have strong capital, and

they've built up their loan loss reserves,'' she said. ``We

shouldn't be freezing up and panicking.''

Though some have argued the bailout bill does not go to the

heart of the issue, Ms. Bair was unequivocal in saying she

thought the buyout facility would help the situation.

``The reason for the liquidity issue is you have an asset

on the balance sheet where the cash flow suggests one

valuation, but if you have to sell it, you will be taking a

steep loss because the market is seizing up,'' she said. ``So

we will be providing a vehicle for moving those assets off

balance sheet for a price other than a rock-bottom distressed

price. We are capable of letting the government hold the

asset for a while before it's sold which will help ease

downward pressure on asset valuations. It absolutely should

help.''

But she acknowledged some concern that the legislation did

not do enough to help struggling borrowers.

Ms. Bair was at the forefront last year in warning that

lenders and servicers needed to systematically lock in low,

starter rates so that borrowers could continue making their

mortgage payments on time. More defaults would lead to

increased foreclosures, which would cause further

deterioration in the housing market. Few took her advice, and

the housing market continued to sink.

If more lenders had modified loans, she said the situation

would still be bad, but not as dramatic.

``We were going to have these problems no matter what, but

I do think it would be less of an impact,'' she said.

But Ms. Bair said she did not understand why Congress is

not doing more to assist borrowers in the bailout

legislation. Lawmakers debated forcing more servicers to

engage in systematic modifications, but ultimately did not do

so.

``I don't understand it,'' she said. ``The borrowers here

that are losing their houses have been this politically

powerless group. From the get go, politically, for whatever

reason, they were put in a category of they got over their

head and were an unsympathetic group to deal with. That is

not the case with all of them.''

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I can affirm that. As the gentleman knows, the Treasury Department is in agreement with this, and we should be clear, this is one of the things that this House and the Senate added to the bill, the authority to buy equity. It is not simply buying up the assets, it is to buy equity, and to buy equity in a way that the Federal Government will able to benefit if there is an appreciation.

I thank the gentleman for this important clarification. He is absolutely right.

In implementing the powers provided for in the Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, it is the intent of

Congress that Treasury should use Troubled Asset Relief

Program (TARP) resources to fund capital infusion and asset

purchase approaches alone or in conjunction with each other

to enable financial institutions to begin providing credit

again, and to do so in ways that minimize the burden on

taxpayers and have maximum economic recovery impact. Where

the legislation speaks of ``assets'', that term is intended

to include capital instruments of an institution such as

common and preferred stock, subordinated and senior debt, and

equity rights. Also, it is the intent of this legislation

that TARP resources should be used in coordination with

regulatory agencies and their responsibilities under prompt-

corrective-action and least-cost resolution statutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of our leading attorneys in the House, who, representing the State of California, has a particular knowledge about much of what we are trying to do in this bill in the foreclosure area, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, ever mindful of the danger that George Bush will lead us down the road to socialism, we will be monitoring this very closely.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to a gentleman from Ohio who has been very seriously engaged on this issue.

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

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Committee on Financial Services, who has been very much concerned with the question of foreclosure, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

If the gentleman would yield back to me briefly, I thank him very much. He has been working hard on this, and has also not just professed this in general, but has made some specific suggestions.

Of the four points, two will take separate legislation, and I will work with the gentleman because I am in agreement with him on them, in concept. Two of them, however, are, I believe, able to be accomplished in this bill. I have spoken to the Secretary of the Treasury and, I believe, working together with the gentleman, we can make sure.

Let me just say specifically. Asset managers to support loan modifications will be very important for this success. The bill encourages the Treasury to consider the FDIC, which has been superlative in this regard, to play this role. Also, Treasury, under this bill, can buy virtually any mortgage asset, and we direct them to coordinate with the other agencies, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and to maximize modifications through the program we just adopted.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

We will expect the Secretary to use both direct assets and design--to provide special considerations for assets where HOPE for Homeowners or other programs have been used. In other words, we are directing the Treasurer to use his authority to maximize, exactly as the gentleman has proposed. We will continue to press the Secretary, and I believe we don't have to press too hard. He is ready to do this. And we will work with the gentleman on the other issues.

I will yield myself 15 seconds to say that the gentleman can tell his brother-in-law, Hank Aaron, he hit .500 today, and that's pretty good in any league.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the chairman of the Commerce Committee, very knowledgeable in these subjects.

If the gentleman will yield, yes, it is. And I believe, as he and I have discussed, that the danger to the purchase of automobiles is one of the great ones that we face here, and it is an important reason for moving this bill. Yes, I very much agree with what he just said.

If the gentleman would yield, I would say absolutely, because this is one which would have a double positive effect: It would help with the credit crisis, and it would help one of our most important industries in the United States from facing difficulties.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) has been one of the hardest working members of our committee, and I yield him 2 minutes.

If the gentleman will yield, the answer is yes. The bill fully authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to do that, and I and others, including the gentleman from Colorado, will be working to make sure that he does, and I have every intention to believe that they intend to.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) from the Ways and Means Committee.

If the gentleman will yield, I agree completely. It would be a distortion of the clear meaning of this provision, widely supported, to do anything else but, and we will work to make sure that happens.

I now yield 1 minute to the Chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, who has been very carefully watching this situation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

I now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I would note that one of those whose names would be listed is John McCain, who voted for this bill in the Senate. So Mr. McCain's name would be at the head of that list of the 20.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to our newest member, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

If the gentlewoman will yield, the answer is, absolutely. And I can tell you that I have spoken to the Treasury, to the

Secretary, to tell him that it is very important; that many Members will be voting for this bill only with the understanding that he will use that authority. And I believe he accepts that fact and will act on it.

If the gentlewoman would yield again, I thank her for prodding us because thanks in part to her efforts, this is going to be the best we can do. And I appreciate that.

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas, a member of our committee, very much concerned with improving economic literacy, Mr. Hinojosa.

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

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a former member of the committee who deserted us for better things.

I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, who has done as much as anyone in this House to try to stave off the foreclosure crisis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to an alumna of our committee who has been a dedicated defender of working class people, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, no Member of Congress in my memory has worked harder and more constructively to improve and pass a bill than the majority whip has.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Madam Speaker, I think I have the honor of speaking on behalf of the body in wishing our friend well.

I now yield for a unanimous request consent to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

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

Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the committee.

And I will take 10 seconds to say, yes, I understand that this is not everything that needs to be done. We will be back next year to do some serious surgery on the financial structure. But at this point, we have the EMT function. There's an emergency, and we have to avert serious harm. This is step one.

Step two will be the serious work that we will do to prevent this from occurring.

(Mrs. Maloney asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, given the concern about the fiscal implications, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to a man who has done as much for fiscal responsibility as anybody with whom I have ever served, the chairman of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Madam Speaker, I am now proud to yield 1 minute to the majority leader from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) who has done a superb job of leadership in its best sense on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island for a unanimous consent request, with the reminder that the vehicle for this is the mental health parity for which he has worked so hard.

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

Madam Speaker, to close with a burst of redundancy, which is not inappropriate for what we've been through on this bill, I yield to Madam Speaker for 1 minute.

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

Madam Speaker, on November 23rd, the congregation of the Myrtle Baptist Church, joined by many of the citizens of Newton, and indeed of the greater Boston area, will pay a bittersweet tribute to the Reverend Howard Haywood, commemorating the exemplary service he has provided to that congregation--and to the community at large--for more than two decades.

Reverend Haywood took over as pastor of the Myrtle Baptist Church in 1985. His formal role ended in July of this year, and the many people that he served, comforted and inspired are gathering to honor him. At a time when questions of the appropriateness of the size of compensation have been an important topic in this House, I think it worthy of noting that Reverend Haywood took no compensation at all for the extraordinary work that he has done.

Under his leadership, the Myrtle Baptist Church has become a source of help for people from all generations and walks of life. In the terrible aftermath of Katrina, when the Federal Government failed so many people, under the Reverend Haywood's leadership the Myrtle Baptist Church did an extraordinary amount to provide the assistance that people needed. From this relatively small congregation, two truck loads of food, clothing and gifts were dispatched and noncongregate students from the surrounding colleges were so inspired by this that they joined the effort.

While Howard Haywood's works are truly impressive, the greatest gift he has given all of us is the example of a man of considerable talent dedicating that talent to bettering the lives of others and providing a wonderful example of religion and religious service at its best.

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hold out to the Nation the example of Howard Haywood, and I look forward to participating in the event in which I and many others will tell him how much we appreciate his work.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1517, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes, and offer the motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3997.

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

Madam Speaker, rarely have the Members had so many reasons for wishing we weren't here.

First, it's a couple of days into what was supposed to be the time when Members can return to their districts to engage in campaigning. Members had a number of important events scheduled with their constituents, with their families, with others that have already had to be cancelled, and we are into the third day of that.

Secondly, Members would rather not be here because this is a tough vote. This is a vote where many of us feel that the national interest requires us to do something which is in many ways unpopular because what we are talking about, to many of us, is the need to act to avoid something worse from happening than is already happening.

It is hard to get political credit for avoiding something that hasn't yet happened but you think is going to happen.

Most of all, though, we regret being here because we all deeply regret the economic conditions which have made this decision day necessary. No one is happy that we have seen the failures that we have seen in our economic system. We differ as to whether or not those failures, as they have had a cumulative effect, require us to act. I believe it is possible to debate whether or not 2 weeks ago it was necessary to act quickly. I believe that it was. The bad news continues. There has been a lack of confidence in the financial system that is pervasive. Unfortunately, a lack of sensible regulation allowed the financial system to get itself into a position where so many people owe other people so much more money than they have or can reasonably be expected to get, that as confidence ebbs and people are called upon to make good on promises they should never have made, we face a declining cycle of activity.

People have said, well, you're bailing out Wall Street. The people in the financial industry who made a lot of money still have it. Their institutions may not have it, but they do. No high executive of a failed institution will be showing up soon at the unemployment office. None of them will be hurting. They will be fine personally. The people who will be hurt, in our judgment, are those who are trying to buy or sell cars, because there won't be credit for the automobile industry. There won't be ability to refinance your house or buy a house because there won't be any money there for any purchase that requires credit of any size, people will get hurt and it will have a cumulative effect.

Now you might have argued that the tremendous lack of confidence that is causing this over-leveraging to be a problem would not have had to be addressed a week ago. But let's remember what happened. Ten days ago, on Thursday, not far from here, in the office of the Speaker, the bipartisan congressional leadership and those of us who have leadership roles in the Financial Services and the Banking Committees were asked to meet with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In our country, under our system, the executive has a lot of the initiative. We have an ability to shape. We have an ability to respond. But in emergency situations--let's be clear--the initiative is inevitably with the executive. And the two leading appointees of President Bush concerned with economic activities, the people the financial community looks to, came to us and said, you need to give us this authority, and if you don't give it to us very quickly, there will be a disaster.

We have not given it to them as quickly as they asked because we felt that we needed, even if we agreed with the premise of the need for action, that we had to make some improvements. And we have made many of them, not as many as I would like, but we have made many of them. But we were able to do that, I believe, because we have been able to show progress.

At all times from the time they came on Thursday night, this body has been engaged. I have been here 27, 28 years. I have never seen a piece of legislation which was so open to Member participation in which there has been so much discussion. People have said, not enough time is being spent. Well, let me say this. The hours spent on this bill exceed the hours spent on most bills. And the staffs of the committee I chair, of other committees of Members, have done extraordinary work. What we have done is substantially change what they have done, but we have been able to say at all points that we're making progress.

Today is decision day. I wish it weren't the case. But I am convinced that if we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy. And the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and the top corporate executives, but average Americans. They don't see it yet. And pain averted is not a basis on which you get a lot of gratitude. But that is what is coming if we do not do something today, in my judgment, positive. If this bill dies, I think we get negative.

And again part of the reason is this--and I disagree with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke on some policy issues. I regard them both as men of high integrity and total commitment to the national interest. And I believe they are absolutely and legitimately convinced about this. And by the way, they cannot, in my judgment, be accused of excessive pessimism. If anything, they can be accused of being too optimistic. Because you will recall that beginning with the Bear Stearns intervention, they have tried a series of interventions much less intrusive than this and they haven't worked. These are not men whose first impulse was to do something this broad. These are men whose experience was that something systemic was required because, again, of the depths of the problem.

Let's not forget the cause as we debate the consequence. The cause was too little regulation and the financial market getting itself into serious trouble. And now we have to, through government action, work with them to clean this up. And by the way, we have committed, I think almost everybody in this Chamber, certainly a large majority, that next year we will put in place the kind of regulations that we wish we had had before so this won't recur. So nobody needs to worry that we do this once and we will have to do it again another time and another time. We know how, I believe, to prevent this from recurring. But that doesn't help us as we deal with it today.

And the point is this: No matter what you thought about the crisis 10 days ago, when these two internationally respected highest officials of the Bush administration of the greatest economic power in the world come up and say, if you don't do this, we will have a crisis, then even if that hadn't been true before, they have made it more true. And I don't accuse them of doing it for that reason. That is just the reality.

If we repudiate George Bush's Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Federal Reserve, joined as they were by previous Secretaries of the Treasury, if we repudiate them and say, nah, calm down, we'll get over it, I believe the consequences will be severe.

So I hope that this bill is passed. It is a first step. We have a task next year to do with regulation. We have oversight that must be done about how we got here. But here is the choice: George Bush's two chief economic officials have said to us, if you do not act, there will be terrible, negative consequences for the financial sector, and they will very soon exacerbate an economy that is already troubled, that already has 6 percent unemployment and is on track already to lose more than 1 million private sector jobs in the year. If we add to this weakened economy, and this is the headline, ``The House Repudiates Top Economic Advisers,'' there is nothing, I believe, that will then stand between us and--it's not the end of the world, this is a strong country, people will still get up the next morning and still send their kids to school, but fewer of them will be going to work. And fewer of them will be buying cars. And fewer of them will be able to refinance their homes. And the consequences will be a much more dismal near economic future for the United States.

So I hope the bill passes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to one of the most thoughtful members of our committee and a gentleman who represents in North Carolina one of the banking centers and has a great deal of knowledge of the subject under discussion, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

I thank the gentleman for his words, and I now recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for 2\1/ 2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Yes, this reaffirms existing law, but we did it explicitly to underline its importance. There is very legitimate concern in this body on both sides of the aisle for the community banks. They are, in many cases, victims of practices from which they, themselves, abstained.

There is language in here that tries to give them some relief that they would get from the preferred tax situation with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Other Members have raised the question of increasing the FDIC insurance limit next year, and this one in particular on the accounting, obviously none of us want the legislative accounting. But the gentleman has raised a very important point, and yes, we agree absolutely with how he has framed it.

The gentleman is again correct. It does not require it, but we would clearly hope that they would look at this very seriously.

Yes. There are two separate things here. One is the mark to market accounting due to the consequences that follow that.

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

One thing we talk about as you study what the appropriate accounting ought to be, not legislative but as they study it, there is room for flexibility in how quickly various consequences attach to that, and we are discussing that with the regulators.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Chair of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, a very creative legislator, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Members will be relieved to learn that I have no matching metaphor.

I recognize for 3 minutes the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of a colloquy, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Will the gentleman yield?

I think the gentleman makes a very good point. It's not anything obviously that we would legislate. I know he knows better than most, and he's not asking for that. But it is something I will join him in urging on the Federal Reserve.

The community banks are the innocent victims overwhelmingly of this. They were regulated. They didn't make subprime loans. By the way, they were

the ones covered by CRA. The bad loans were made by the institutions not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act.

But the gentleman is right. These banks play a vital function that will be even more vital as other sources dry up, and I will work with him to try to get that kind of relief.

Madam Speaker, there's been reference in this debate to very good provisions that help community banks and others that are tax provisions.

I now want to recognize for 3 minutes the author of those, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the very able Chair of our Capital Markets Subcommittee, a man who has played a very important role in our trying to stabilize this situation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

If the gentleman would yield, he is absolutely correct.

By the way, one of the points in the original bill the Treasury Secretary gave us inappropriately freed him from a number of judicial restraints. We have restored those, and we have taken away no existing legal right whatsoever in this bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, one of the most valuable members of the Finance subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), is recognized for 2 minutes.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Representative from one of our great urban quarters, the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Fattah.

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

Madam Speaker, while I believe the gentleman is a little bit too harsh on the Bush administration, I understand his point of view.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan, the dean of the House, for purposes of a colloquy.

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

I thank the gentleman, who comes to us with great authority here because of having chaired the committee for years and had some of this jurisdiction, and having been right when other people were resistant, he speaks with a great deal of credibility. And the answer to his question is, yes, it does require that there be consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but the Treasury Secretary is empowered to do exactly that.

And I would add, as the gentleman knows, in my judgment, one of the major areas of damage we will see if this bill fails is that we will start to see a real contraction in credit for automobiles. So the automobile makers and the people who sell automobiles will all be hurt. And the answer is yes to the gentleman's question.

If the gentleman would yield, yes. Again, that is well within the legal authority that this Federal Reserve Chair has described to us that he has under the statute from the Depression.

And given the centrality of the automobile industry--and we're talking, I want to again stress, not just making cars, but selling them and servicing them and repairing them, and of course providing great mobility to the American people. Clearly, this a worthy subject for the Federal Reserve to intervene with, when appropriate.

If the gentleman would yield, that would mean a great deal to me coming from anyone, but from the gentleman from Michigan, with his long record here in these areas, it means a particularly great deal.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, no one in this House has done more to fight for affordable housing and to prevent foreclosures and no one has had more of an impact and is trying within this bill to do the maximum that political constraints allow. So I now recognize for 3 minutes the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to correct an egregious misrepresentation of history.

The gentleman just said that the Democratic leadership, I'm sorry, he said the Democrat leadership, I wouldn't want to misquote his adjective. He said the Democrat leadership, a point of great rhetorical significance to the large-minded on the other side, says that the Democrats fought GSE reform.

The Republicans controlled this Congress from 1995 to 2006. No bill passing GSE reform went through. The Democrats took over in 2007. Within a couple of months this House, 4 months, this House passed----

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

The House passed the GSE reform that the Bush administration requested. We then asked the Secretary of the Treasury to put that into the stimulus. He said no. The Senate then did it in July--and the bill became law. So 12 years of Republican rule, zero action on GSE reform, a year and a half of the Democrats being in power and GSE reform was passed.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. On page 58 the gentleman was right to object to the provision in the original bill sent to us by the Secretary exempting him from judicial review. We have disexempted him. If Members will look at page 58, he is now subject to appropriate judicial review.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, our committee was joined this year by an extremely thoughtful Member who brings a wide range of relevant experience, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster). I yield him 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I ran for Congress because of the widespread feeling that Washington was broken. I believe that what is needed to fix it is a little less pandering to the ideological extremes, and a lot more compromise by reasonable people in both parties--particularly in this time of national crisis.

So, will the spirit of bipartisan compromise carry the day? In less than an hour, I guess we will find out.

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion about the budgetary implications. No one in my experience here has had a better mastery of that process and had a more responsible approach to it than the current chairman of the Budget Committee, and I recognize for 4 minutes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) is a member of this committee who brings great business experience. I am delighted to yield her 2 minutes at this point.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

(Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Acting Speaker, the leadership that we have been given throughout this crisis by the permanent Speaker of this House has been extraordinary, and I am honored to yield her 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a

Member who has played a leading role in bringing us together, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield 1 minute to a very committed member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee who has been playing an important role here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 1 minute.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a member of our committee, 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I know this has been as difficult for the ranking member as it has been for me, and I appreciate the generosity of spirit he has brought to this.

I now yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts, who has one of the best records in dealing with this set of issues in the Congress, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I have mostly appreciated the kind words directed at me. I say ``mostly'' because it has been my experience here that there is often an inverse ratio between the nice things people say about you and their inclination to vote for your bill. I hope we can overcome that in this situation.

But I want to talk now--and we've worked on this in a compromise way, and I am proud to have worked with the whip and my ranking member counterpart and others across the ideological spectrum. And meeting a national crisis does not give any of us the luxury of doing everything we want.

I hope we will come back here with more votes. And if we have more votes, the next time we negotiate I'll be tougher, but you have got to accept reality.

I wish this was a bill that reflected more of my priorities. I wish I could eat more and not gain weight, but I have learned that acting imprudently on my wishes that cannot be realized is not helpful. But I do want to address those who share with me a commitment to dealing with people who are low on the economic spectrum.

Madam Speaker, I do my work, and I work on a lot of the general issues. But if there weren't poor people in this world and if we didn't have discrimination, I wouldn't be here. That's why I'm here.

What I have tried to do every time we've had a major bill, I'll be honest, is to use the leverage I get as chairman because there are things that everybody needs to put in for the poor people, to put in something for the people who don't otherwise get a fair shake. And sometimes there's a lot of other things in there. But I will tell my colleagues this, particularly my fellow liberals, if we aren't prepared to accept some of the things we don't like, we will not have the power to deliver for the people we care about. We do not unilaterally have the power to impose policies we would like, and therefore, a compromise is required.

What do we have in this bill? I've got a letter I'm putting in the Record from every liberal advocacy group--not ACORN, I want to assure my colleagues over there before they have a conniption--but every other group, the Low-Income Housing Coalition, the Legal Aid Society, National Coalition for the Homeless. And it says: ``We are writing to thank you for the inclusion of measures to protect renters.''

People all over this country who rented, who didn't make an imprudent decision to buy a house, found themselves being evicted because somebody didn't pay the mortgage. We try to protect them against this. We try to keep subsidies. I tell you this, the lower-income people, the poor people, they will get nothing if we're not prepared to compromise some.

Secondly, we have in here--and I understood what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) was saying--very good language on foreclosure. Is it everything I wanted? No. But I'll tell you this, if this bill passes, we will have a Federal Government empowered to do, for the first time, significant reductions in foreclosures. Now, I don't know who's going to win in November, but I will tell you this, this will put in the hands of whoever the President is

the power to do a great deal of good. Please don't throw it out because you're unhappy with some other provisions.

September 29, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chair, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank, we are writing to thank you for the

inclusion of measures to protect renters in this Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The provisions that will

allow renters with leases to stay in place and that provide

for the continuance of existing protections for tenants,

including rental subsidies, are very important to ensure that

this financial crisis does not disrupt the lives of some of

our most vulnerable citizens.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Yours truly,

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; City of New York;

Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio; Community

Economic Development Assistance Corporation; Community

Service Society of New York; Jesuit Conference USA; Housing

Preservation Project; Legal Aid Society; and National

Coalition for the Homeless.

National Housing Conference; National Housing Law Project;

National Housing Trust; National Law Center on Homelessness &

Poverty; National Low Income Housing Coalition; National

Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness; Stewards for

Affordable Housing for the Future; The Community Builders--

DC; and Urban Homesteading Assistance Board.

Madam Speaker, I now have the privilege, to the regret of absolutely nobody, of closing out this debate by yielding 1 minute to the very able majority leader, who has played such a constructive role, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, one of the most important organizations in the district I represent in terms of providing needed service to people who deserve our help is the Southeastern Massachusetts Veterans Housing Program, Inc. This group of dedicated and compassionate individuals maintains the Veterans Transition House and the Women's Veteran Transition House. One of the things they do annually as part of their overall program is to present a Southeastern Massachusetts Veteran of the Year Award. On November 6 of this year, that award will be presented to an extremely deserving individual-- Nelson Ostiguy. Mr. Ostiguy is now the Senior Executive Aide to the very able Mayor of New Bedford, Scott Lang. The leaders of the veterans program correctly describe Mr. Ostiguy as a ``behind the scenes type of person who is always there helping out but never seeking the recognition or limelight.''

I am glad that his friends, admirers and the beneficiaries of his many good works have decided to give him a little limelight whether he likes it or not. And I am especially pleased to be able to add this tribute to him so that all of my colleagues can read about him because he is a very fitting model for others to emulate.

Nelson Ostiguy joined the Marines when he was 18, and served for 4 years, including combat service in Vietnam. He was the recipient of a number of medals in recognition of his courage. After a job in the private sector, he joined the Massachusetts State Police in May 1969, and served there for 27 years, and, as in his Marine service, he received frequent decorations for his bravery and good works. Since his retirement as Lt. Colonel/Assistant Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, he was the Associate Director of the Harvard University Police Department, put his dedication to young people to work as a substitute teacher in the school systems of New Bedford, and, again, is now an important aide to Mayor Lang.

The list of Mr. Ostiguy's affiliations is impressive, but even his resume does not convey the benefit those who know him derive from being his friends and associates. Nelson Ostiguy is an outstanding citizen who very well deserves the title of Veteran of the Year that has been bestowed upon him by his fellow veterans--which I know makes the honor particularly meaningful to him.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join in celebrating the life and work of Nelson Ostiguy on this occasion of his being honored.

I thank the gentlewoman who has been the spark plug here. I think it is an important day, that we are dealing in a rational way with credit card legislation.

I appreciate the reasonable tone of my friend from Delaware. We disagree some. I don't think anyone could reasonably characterize this as some assault on the free enterprise system. It

understands the importance of credit cards and tries to work within that framework.

It is important to note that what this bill does is essentially protect consumers against retroactive unfairness. When it comes to rate setting, this bill, to the disappointment of some, doesn't limit future rates. As far as the future is concerned, if proper notice is given, this bill is not restrictive. It does deal essentially with retroactivity and with honoring the consumers' wishes.

The thing I want to address is one thing which seems to be a little upside down, and that is we should defer to the Federal Reserve. I want to say to some of my Republican friends, that sounds a little odd to me after hearing for years that the people must be allowed to decide, that we shouldn't defer to unelected bureaucrats. The notion that we, the elected Representatives, should defer to the Federal Reserve not on monetary policy but on a public policy matter involving what institutes fairness with credit cards, it is not an argument that I have often heard on that side.

Now I understand there is nothing in the Constitution or the rules of the House that requires consistency, but I would hope we would at least note there is an element of convenience in the invocation of this argument at this point, let's defer to the Federal Reserve. No, let's exercise the powers given to us under the Constitution. And there has been a lot of talk about the Federal Reserve doing too much. Well, I think sometimes they have to act because we don't. But here we are willing to do it.

But again, I want to stress the reasonableness of these proposals. They deal with retroactivity and unfair billing practices. If a credit card company follows the rules set here, they are not prohibited or restricted going forward with setting whatever conditions they think ought to be set. That, I think, is the essence of fairness, and I hope the bill is passed. I again congratulate the gentlewoman from New York for taking the lead.

Madam Speaker, I have had the honor for many years of sharing with the Members information about awards being presented to individuals who have performed extraordinary service to others in the field of medical services.

These awards are presented by ``ROFEH International--New England Chassidic Center,'' under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Y. Horowitz, which provides help across the world in giving access to the first-class medical treatment that we in the Greater Boston area are fortunate to enjoy. Rabbi Horowitz himself has been a distinguished leader in the field of medical ethics, and his dedication to seeing that access to the medical services he has helped support and defend is a great asset to us all. On November 23, 2008, at the Grand Ballroom of the Boston Park Plaza Hotel, the Annual Dinner of ROFEH International-- New England Chassidic Center will honor, as it always does, two individuals who have distinguished themselves by their dedication to others, and the great skill they bring to those tasks. The ROFEH International Award goes to Dr. John B. Mulliken, and the Man of the Year Award is being presented to Mr. Herbert M. Gann.

Madam Speaker, the work in the medical area organized and inspired by Grand Rabbi Horowitz is a superb example of how Americans can best work together to enhance the quality of all of our lives. To Dr. Mulliken, to Mr. Gann, and to Rabbi Horowitz and his fellow and sister workers in this endeavor, I extend my congratulations, but even more important, my thanks for what they do for all of us.

Madam Speaker, I ask that these remarks be printed here along with the relevant biographical information about Dr. Mulliken and Mr. Gann.

Mr. Herbert M. Gann, ROFEH International New England Chassidic Center

Man of the Year Award

Mr. Herbert Gann lived in Chelsea, Massachusetts until 1946

when he and his parents, Joseph and Rae Gann, and his two

sisters, Beverly and Shirley, moved to Newton, Massachusetts.

He graduated Newton High School in 1951 and Boston

University with a BS and BA in 1955. Mr. Gann served in the

United States Army in Germany from 1956-1958.

Herb started working part time in Joseph Gann Inc., while

in high school; continued in college and started working full

time after graduating in 1955. He worked together with his

father, Joseph Gann, until his father retired in December

2000. Mr. Herbert Gann has been the owner of Joseph Gann

Jewelers, in Boston since 1987.

He learned charity from both his parents and is a very

philanthropic person in his own right. His interest in Jewish

Education started when his oldest daughter, Elisa, enrolled

in Solomon Schechter Day School, in 1970. He continues to

support that school along with Rashi Jewish Community Day

School, Metro West Day School, and Gann Academy. He also

supports the work of Combined Jewish Philanthropies.

Herb and Rita Gann are members of Temple Emanuel,

Congregation Beth El Atereth Israel and Congregation Agdus

Achim-Anshe Sfard.

Mr. Gann started going to the Rebbe's Dinners at the time

they honored Reverend Louis Lourie, over 28 years ago. His

interest in the Rebbe's work evolved and Mr. Gann has been on

the dinner committee for many years.

Herb Gann married Rita (Kaplan) Gann in 1964. Rita was

hired in 1962 as the bookkeeper at Joseph Gann Jewelers and

continues to work alongside her husband. They have four

children and five grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, a great deal has been written and spoken, understandably, about various efforts by the Bush administration--with and without Congressional authorization--to rescue major financial institutions. Unfortunately, a great deal of that analysis has been distorted, inaccurate, and ill-informed. In the Washington Post, Wednesday, September 10th, Steven Pearlstein once again provides a thoughtful, balanced analysis of the public policy issues involved here. I urge all Members, Madame Speaker, to read Mr. Pearlstein's analysis and keep it in mind as we deliberate going forward on these issues. As he very sensibly puts it, ``In the end, the right way to think about these rescues is not to simply ask how much they are likely to cost, but how the rescue compares to the cost of doing nothing.'' Mr. Pearlstein's insightful approach to the current economic crisis is one of the most important assets we now have, and it is one that is not being impaired by current trends.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2008]

Don't Like Bailouts? Consider the Alternatives

(Steven Pearlstein)

First came the rescue of Bear Stearns and the Fed loans to

cash-strapped investment banks. Then the government stepped

in to fill the financing gap left when private lenders

retreated from the college loan business. Last weekend

brought the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And now

the Not-So-Big Three are headed our way looking for $50

billion in retooling loans.

When is this going to end?

The honest answer: With stock markets swinging 300 points a

day and the economy diving into recession, not anytime soon.

Indeed, the chances are pretty good that by year's end,

Washington will have to bail out another big bank or

investment house along with a bond insurer or two. And

taxpayers will be called on to replenish the coffers of the

federal agencies that insure private bank deposits and

private pensions.

Already, there's been plenty of grumbling from editorial

writers and market-oriented conservatives that the country is

on a slippery slope toward socialism. They also fear that

these rescues will encourage reckless risk-taking in the

future, creating the expectation that if bets go bad, Uncle

Sam will always be there with a bailout.

From the left, meanwhile, come populist complaints that

government has committed enormous amounts of taxpayer money

to bail out corporate fat cats and rich investors while

ignoring the plight of millions of Americans facing personal

bankruptcy and foreclosure.

While there is validity to these concerns, they are also

based on a number of false assumptions, chief among them that

vast sums are expended on these rescues.

History shows that rather than costing taxpayers, the

rescues have often wound up making money.

That was the case with the Home Owners Loan Corp., a New

Deal agency that bought

mortgages from banks and wound up with a small profit by the

time all the loans were paid up in the early 1950s. The same

was true of the controversial loan guarantees made to

Lockheed and Chrysler in the 1970s. More recently, following

the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the government set up an Air

Transportation Stabilization Board that offered loans and

loan guarantees to a handful of cash-strapped airlines. The

agency now expects to close out its books in the black.

In the case of the $29 billion that the Federal Reserve

loaned J.P. Morgan Chase to take over Bear Stearns, the final

cost won't be known until the Fed sells the asset-backed

securities it took as collateral for the loan. So far, so

good: As of June 30, those assets had an estimated market

value of $29 billion.

It's anyone's guess what the Fannie and Freddie rescue will

cost, but at this point it looks to have been structured on

terms quite favorable to the government. Although the

government is yet to put a dime into the companies, it has

received $1 billion worth of preferred stock and warrants for

80 percent of both companies' common stock simply for

agreeing to provide backstop financing.

Over the next few years, however, the Treasury will almost

surely have to invest tens of billions of dollars to keep

Fannie and Freddie adequately capitalized, and how much of

that money will ultimately be recovered depends on how things

turn out with the millions of mortgages the companies hold or

have guaranteed. But if it is willing to wait until housing

markets finally recover, there's a good chance the government

will recoup most of its investment, along with a 10 percent

annual dividend and a hefty guarantee fee.

In the end, the right way to think about these rescues is

not to simply ask how much they are likely to cost, but how

the rescue compares to the cost of doing nothing.

It's not hard to imagine, for example, that if nothing had

been done, Fannie and Freddie would have been forced by

nervous bondholders to hunker down and throttle back its

housing-finance activities, further destabilizing financial

markets and accelerating the housing market's downward

spiral. Those, in turn, could have easily turned a short

recession into one that was longer and deeper--one that cost

Americans an extra $200 billion in lost income, several

hundred thousand additional lost jobs and a net loss to the

Treasury of $80 billion. Suddenly, a Fannie/Freddie rescue

begins to look like a bargain.

Aside from the money, of course, there is also the problem

of moral hazard--the concept that unless markets are allowed

to inflict the full measure of punishment on investors and

executives for their bad judgments and undue risk-taking, it

will only invite bad judgment and undue risk in the future.

But using moral hazard to argue against the carefully

structured rescues of Bear Stearns or Fannie and Freddie is a

bit likely arguing that any sentence short of capital

punishment is insufficient to deter bank robbery.

Remember that even with the rescues, top executives at Bear

Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost their jobs, their

reputations and most of their net worth, while long-term

investors lost all but a tiny fraction of their money. It's

hard to imagine that anyone will look back on those

experiences and see anything but a cautionary tale.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts: Committee on Financial

Services. H.R. 1746. A bill to require disclosure of

Holocaust-era policies by insurers and establish a federal

cause of action for claims arising out of a covered policy,

with an amendment; Rept. 110-820, Part I; referred to the

Committee on Judiciary for a period ending not later than

September 26, 2008, for consideration of such provisions of

the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of

that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X. Ordered to be

Printed.

Would the gentleman yield?

I have a minor correction to the leader. There will be no more votes on the floor, but there will be five more votes in the Committee of Financial Services so we can get it done. So please come back.

I thank my friend from Michigan who then and now has been a leader in the effort to protect the civil liberties which are so important to us.

I had the distinct honor of standing on this floor and presenting that bill as chairman of the subcommittee, and I remember today the emotion I felt then and feel now when I read the words ``on behalf of the Nation, Congress apologizes.''

The ability to admit a mistake is a sign of greatness, and I felt privileged then that we did it.

People have talked about the lessons, and they are important. And we should draw on some of them.

One is that abandoning your principles in the face of a threat is a temptation which ought to be resisted. It's easier for us today than it was in 1948 to be very critical of those who locked up our former colleagues Bob Matsui and Norm Mineta and many, many other totally innocent Americans, Americans of Japanese descent, but we're talking about Americans, people born in this country, American citizens.

But at the time, the notion that the security of the Nation trumped everything else looked like a pretty good argument. J. Edgar Hoover was right, but he wasn't running for office; Earl Warren was. Franklin Roosevelt was. Very few elected officials stood up against that. And that's one of the lessons we ought to draw.

It is much too easy to give in to the temptation to say, ``Well, we're in trouble. Protections of individual rights, civil liberties, they're for the good times.'' And obviously, there are some analogies to today. Now, things are much better today. We haven't done today anything like that. But there are lessons still that we have to look at.

Another is that if you are going to try to protect yourself, as you have a right to do, don't do it en masse, don't say there is this whole group of people, and we're not going to stop and decide whether this or that individual did something wrong; we're going to look at some essential characteristic of their being, and on that basis we're going to penalize them. We're going to restrict them. We're going to segregate them.

Now, obviously, being locked up in a camp for years is a far, far greater wrong than not being able to fly on an airplane. But the fact that it was much worse to lock people up doesn't justify us restricting people's travel rights because of the ethnic group they belong to or because of a mass fear.

So yes, we should be proud of having realized this mistake. Talk about history. I was in college in the 1950s when I read the case, I think it was Korematsu, in which the U.S. Supreme Court said it was perfectly constitutional to do what was done. And I was

appalled. I was a college junior, and I said, ``Boy, this is my country. I didn't know we did things like this.''

And I came here eager to participate in its undoing, and I felt I was very lucky to be chairman of the subcommittee, along with my colleague from California who was then on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lungren, to be able to bring that bill forward. But I also understand that I had the benefit of hindsight. I had the easy decision to make.

As we legitimately congratulate ourselves today for having recognized 20 years ago a mistake that we made 65 years ago, let's leave a little energy for resolving that we don't do it again. Let's, as we talk about the folly of 1943, be very determined not to repeat it even in a smaller measure and with fewer people.

I believe that we have had government policies in the past couple of years since the terrible mass murders of 2001 that have also failed to live up to our ideals of protecting individuals. Not on the same scale, I acknowledge that, and I think it's a mark of progress. But let's do what we can from this day forward so that no one 20 years later or 40 years later has to apologize to any extent because we let our legitimate need for self-defense diminish us from our principles.

Madam Speaker, one of the gravest errors that political leaders can make is to let politics get in the way of fundamental health needs. The clearest example of this that I know of in today's world is the insistence by the People's Republic of China on blocking membership for Taiwan in the World Health Organization.

During the bird flu epidemic, the exclusion of Taiwan from the WHO was an interference with our ability as a global community to provide maximum protection for people against this terrible disease. There is of course a strong moral reason against excluding the millions of people from Taiwan from the benefits that they would receive from WHO participation. But for those for whom morality and respect for other human beings is not enough reason to overcome an effort to gain political advantage, self-interest should dictate to the PRC support for Taiwanese accession to the World Health Organization.

This is especially the case now that travel between Taiwan and other places, including those under PRC rule has greatly increased. Ideology and sovereignty are no defense against germs and viruses. The World Health Organization does very important things in defense of humanity against illness, but its ability to perform that role is hampered by the exclusion of Taiwan from the World Health Organization and in all of our interests, I believe that our Government should be taking every possible step to ensure that the World Health Organization extends to Taiwan full membership.

You have heard about the merits; let me talk about the personal politics.

I just ran over here from a hearing that I called at the request of the Republicans on the Financial Services Committee because I was trying to accommodate them.

To have this brought up attacking our district as an ambush with no notice, with no discussion when we are trying to do business, when I spent all week trying to work with this administration, and I know all the people on that side didn't like it. I am about to go to conference on the flood insurance bill, and a number of Members on both sides of the aisle have come to me and said we have this issue and that issue. I have promised to give every consideration.

To have this kind of a political attack on an important issue to our district with no notice in the midst of our trying to conduct other business is not worthy of the traditions of this House. And I would be glad to discuss this at other times.

But I would just advise that if this is the precedent that we are setting, that we no longer decide that a Member knows best what is in his or her district, I will be glad to learn that today.