Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I join with the gentleman from Texas in urging the House to pass this bill. It is an example, I think, of how we should be flexible in our approach to regulation. Regulation plays a very important role in a sensible, capitalist economy, but it can only play that role if it is flexible and appropriate, and overregulating does damage in ways different, but still quite tangible, than underregulating.

We are in particular here responding, our committee is, in a bipartisan way to a very important group of officials, the State bank supervisors. In fact, it was the Conference of State Bank Supervisors who most pushed for this because what they have asked us to do is to give the Federal regulators with whom they work the flexibility that most of them have on their own.

As Members know, Mr. Speaker, some banks, depending on how they are chartered, are entirely Federal in their

regulation but some are State-chartered and are regulated by both State and Federal regulators in various ways. This bill will allow better coordination between State and Federal regulators. It will give the regulators the discretion, not the mandate, to be more flexible in the timing of regulations.

It is an example of how we should make regulation appropriate, not unduly burdensome, and therefore, I am glad to join with the gentleman from Texas in urging passage of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is very gracious of the gentleman from Texas. I guess I should note that this may be the first of many collaborations between myself as chairman and his role, and I congratulate him as the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee, but he is absolutely right.

The parting chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), set a very good tone for this committee of bipartisan cooperation. As I have said often, bipartisan cooperation does not mean that legitimate differences between the parties disappear. It means that we pursue those where they exist in a civil manner so that differences there do not poison our ability to work together on areas where there is no partisan difference as this one.

The gentleman from Texas has been a part of that tradition and I look forward to working with him and the other Members in that way, and I appreciate very much his kind remarks.

Madam Speaker, my congratulations to the two gentlewomen who are presiding over this bill. I think this is one more example, as this Congress draws to a close, of the way in which the Committee on Financial Services under the leadership of our retiring chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, was able to deal in a very bipartisan way on issues that deserve to be bipartisan.

I always want to point out that partisanship is a good thing in a democracy and there are issues where the parties legitimately ought to be presenting different viewpoints. The important thing is not to allow those legitimate differences to spill over and poison the ability to work together where there aren't differences of an ideological sort. This is an example.

Indeed, I want to thank the Members on the majority side for accommodating many of the concerns that we had here. The gentlewoman from New York who took the lead in forging this compromise from our side correctly mentioned some of them.

But in particular we have always felt that it is important to promote engines that help the economy grow but to recognize that growth does not automatically produce fairness. In our job, we have seen it as when we deal with these pro-growth engines, as I believe the Export-Import Bank can be when it is done right, that we put in some elements of fairness, and that is what has been done here with regard to smaller businesses, with regard to women and minorities.

Indeed, our colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, who will chair the Small Business Committee in the next Congress, had some particular concerns, some of which have been accommodated, and I want to take this opportunity to say that if I become the chair of the committee, and the gentlewoman from New York will still be on the committee and will still be playing a major role, we intend to further work with the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Velazquez, to make sure that small business gets a piece of this.

Let me say, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have an Export-Import Bank. If there were no interventions in the market by other countries, there would be no need for this entity. But neither in economics nor in the military area do I think that unilateral disarmament makes sense; and I would hope, and we did this with regard to China, that this would be regarded as an instrument to be used in the legitimate self-defense of American industry. And to the extent that we can ever negotiate a disappearance of this kind of export subsidy everywhere, then I would be in favor of our dropping it. But until then, we need to be able to deal in this world, and I think this bill does this in the best possible way, and I thank the gentlewoman.

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

I congratulate the delegation from Iowa on bringing forward this very important symbol honoring a very great man, a man who has performed enormous service for humanity. It was first called to my attention by the gentleman from Iowa who is I believe now the dean of the majority of the Iowa delegation, and I am delighted to be the first to recognize him in that context, my very good friend and a very good leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time and as much corn as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Madam Speaker, in this Congress I run out of Iowans before the other side does. So I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to express my appreciation. Those words coming from someone I admire as much as I admire the gentleman from Iowa, they mean a great deal. I guess I would say I have never been less happy to see my side win.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the typically thoughtful intervention by the gentleman from Iowa who often brought to our deliberations more than was there before he did, it is just one reason why I will miss him. And as the gentleman knows, I have previously been an advocate for the country making great use of his services. I am torn now, Mr. Speaker, between expressing my hope that the administration will find a way to use his services for the country, and my fear that my saying so will make that less likely.

Given that dilemma, I guess that is as much as I will say.

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 23 one of the most accomplished and distinguished people to serve in this House was the recipient of a wholly deserved high honor from one of the leading law schools in this country--Georgetown Law School. On that day, Georgetown Law School, where Father Drinan has taught since leaving the House twenty-six years ago, established the Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights. The establishment of this Chair--a very significant honor in academia--recognizes the pioneering work that Father Drinan did as a Member of this House for ten years, and his continued commitment to that great work. Few people in our history have had as great a dedication to the cause of human rights and have been so consistently effective in advocating for this cause. Unlike many who have tried to make this a partisan issue, Father Drinan was equally fierce in his objection to human rights violators of the left, right and center, and accepted no excuses from those who would deny the basic rights of others.

Mr. Speaker, Father Drinan served here in this body for ten years as one of its intellectual leaders, having been elected in 1970 as one of the most effective opponents at that time of the war in Viet Nam. He also played a very significant role in the impeachment of President Nixon, insisting that appropriate legal standards be applied in that matter. He was also a leader in matters that did not divide the House on either partisan or ideological lines, for example in the field of copyright, where he made contributions during that period that remain important foundations of our law today.

Mr. Speaker, when Father Drinan declined to run for reelection in 1980 at the direction of Pope John Paul II, I was elected to succeed him. While I had been aware previously of the great respect and affection in which he was held by his colleagues, I came to appreciate that even more fully when I took the seat he had so ably filled in 1981.

In the years since leaving this body, Father Drinan has continued to be a leader in the application of religious teachings to important moral issues; in lecturing and teaching about the law; and of course in continuing his great work in the field of human rights. Georgetown Law School deserves recognition, Mr. Speaker, for establishing this Chair in Father Drinan's name. I congratulate Professor T. Alexander Aleinikoff, who will be the first holder of the Chair, and I ask that the discussion of Father Drinan's work included in the program announcing the event be printed here so that people will understand how important his impact has been on the best traditions of our country.

Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights Law

Today, Georgetown Law proudly announces the creation of the

Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights. Priest,

scholar, lawyer, politician, activist, ethicist, and one of

the nation's leading advocates for international human

rights, Father Drinan has dedicated his life to humanitarian

causes and to improving the legal profession.

A member of the Law Center's faculty since 1981, Father

Drinan teaches courses in international human rights,

constitutional law, civil liberties, legislation, legal

ethics, and professional responsibility. During his tenure at

Georgetown, he has taught over 6,000 students.

Father Drinan earned his B.A. degree in 1942 and his M.A.

degree in 1947 from Boston College and his LL.B. in 1949 and

LL.M. in 1951 from Georgetown University Law Center. He

entered the Society of Jesus while at Boston College, and in

1953, he was ordained a Jesuit priest. From 1956 to 1970, he

served as Dean and Professor of Law at Boston College Law

School. During the ten years between his deanship and joining

the Georgetown Law faculty, he served in the United States

Congress as a Representative from Massachusetts, where he was

a member of various committees and chair of the Subcommittee

on Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee.

Throughout his career, Father Drinan has stood as a leading

voice in the human rights movement. He serves on the boards

of numerous organizations devoted to the furtherance of human

rights, including the International League for Human Rights,

Human Rights First, the Council for a Livable World Education

Fund, Americans for Democratic Action, and the NAACP Legal

Defense and Education Fund. He was a founder of the Lawyers'

Alliance for Arms Control and the National Interreligious

Task Force on Soviet Jewry. Father Drinan has traveled the

globe, both as a member of Congress and as a private citizen,

on human rights missions to Chile, the Philippines, EI

Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Argentina, France, and

Vietnam to document human rights abuses and to work for their

eradication. He is the author of several notable works on

human rights, including The Mobilization of Shame, of which

Elie Wiesel said, ``Anyone interested in human rights will

read Robert Drinan's informative, passionate and challenging

book with deep concern and hope.''

In 2004, Father Drinan joined such American legal

luminaries as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Thurgood Marshall, and

Sandra Day O'Connor when the American Bar Association awarded

him its ABA Medal--the organization's highest honor--which

recognizes exceptionally distinguished service to the cause

of American jurisprudence. The award citation notes, ``For

more than half a century, Father Robert F. Drinan has been an

esteemed and beloved leader of the bar and a fearless

advocate for the powerless and oppressed around the world. .

. . Throughout his career, Father Drinan has heeded the call

for human rights and social justice. With unparalleled

passion and dedication, he has strived to improve the plight

of the disadvantage and oppressed, and to advance the rule of

law throughout the world.''

Through the generosity of alumni and friends, Georgetown

now recognizes and honors one of its greatest sons, Robert F.

Drinan, S.J., L'49, L'51, with the creation of the Robert F.

Drinan, S.J., Chair in Human Rights. This meaningful and

lasting tribute will enable the Law Center to attract

teachers, advocates, and scholars who share Father Drinan's

passion and concern for liberty, equality of opportunity, and

human dignity and who will inspire the next generation of

Georgetown Law students to become leaders, protectors, and

defenders of human rights.

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

It is especially appropriate for us at a time when we are celebrating or trying to give due recognition to the importance of innovation in our economy that we take this action to make sure that we properly memorialize Thomas Edison in whose honor this whole project has been conceived.

I appreciate very much the majority accommodating us in this, and I want to say especially that the staff on the majority side was particularly helpful. We had a little glitch in terms of how this was drafted and whether or not it was a private bill, and everybody worked very hard to make sure we could do this promptly, since, obviously, we don't expect or hope to be here a whole lot longer. So I am glad we are able to go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the author of the bill and the man who represents the area affected, our friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what he said, particularly about the staff members he named who really took care of this for us and made it very easy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the substantive discussion of this bill from the gentleman from North Carolina. His comments on bipartisanship seem to me rather odd, and I will not dwell further on them. It does seem to me if you were trying to promote bipartisanship, as we all are, beginning by attacking the sincerity of those who will be in charge of it is not a good idea. But the gentleman is free to speculate as he wishes.

The bill itself is, as he described it, a good idea. We originally passed it with an amendment from the Judiciary Committee. Frankly, I was not in favor of that amendment. I think what the Senate has done has improved the bill; and that is not a sentence I always get to say, but I do want to say in this case. I think it is now a good bill and more consumer friendly.

The gentlewoman from Florida was very much interested in this, and quite right to push for it. Our colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) had some concerns about some potential negative effects on consumers. It has all been worked out, so it is now a bill that improves the administration of the system, and I generally support it.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

When the gentleman from North Carolina says he hopes this is a new direction that will lead to bipartisanship, does that not mean that he believes that under his party's rule there was none?

That the old direction was partisanship?

Will the gentleman yield further?

I will confess to sometimes starting slow, and I am getting old. It would probably be helpful in the future if the gentleman would find some way to signal when he was being sarcastic. That would help my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare in the post- election session to deal with legislation involving the management of our fisheries, particularly the bill cosponsored by the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo, and myself, it is important for Members to get information on these issues from people who fully understand them.

I know of no one in the country who is better informed or has better judgment on how to proceed than Dr. Brian Rothschild. He is the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, and the former head of the school's School of Marine Science and Technology. Indeed, UMass lost a little bit of his time and his administrative leadership of that school when the newly elected mayor of New Bedford, Scott Lang, understandably prevailed upon Dr. Rothschild to come to work for him as a policy advisor. Mayor Lang is an energetic and thoughtful mayor dedicated to among other things, protecting the important fishing industry in that city, and it is for that reason that he wisely chose Dr. Rothschild as his advisor.

In my own work on fishing I have relied heavily on his advice because it has proven accurate in a number of cases. He points out here that better information is an essential element in sensible regulation. As Dr. Rothschild says in the article recently published by him on this subject in the New Bedford Standard Times, we need significant improvements in the data we gather about fish, in part to ``send a signal to Congress that the real conservation and management of fishery stocks lies in developing the technical underpinnings to determine major uncertainties that we have on how fish interact with fishing and the changing ocean environment. This would be so much better than the cant characterizations of the fishing industry by some conservation groups. And finally, consideration of uncertainty points toward the need of investing fishery management regulations with the flexibility contemplated in the Pombo-Frank bill.''

Mr. Speaker, Brian Rothschild's experience, wisdom and judgment are greatly needed as we prepare to return in November to debate the important issues involved in the fishing legislation, and I ask that his thoughtful analysis be printed here. It originally appeared in the New Bedford Standard Times, which has done a very good job of covering these issues, on September 21.

The fisheries of Massachusetts are economic engines for the

ports of New Bedford, Gloucester and Cape Cod. New Bedford is

the number one port in the nation. In this respect, the

future is bright.

Yet clouds loom on the horizon. While many stocks are

increasing in abundance or are at historically high levels,

other stocks have declined. The management actions undertaken

to conserve the stocks seem lax to some, but to others the

actions seem overly stringent and difficult to understand.

There is no question that regulations are generating economic

hardship (losses of tens of millions of dollars) and waste,

even in the number one port in the nation. Evidently, no

stock is optimally fished. Stocks are either overfished or

underfished and a substantial bycatch is thrown overboard

because of regulations that mandate waste.

Improving management decisions, building confidence in

regulations, and reducing bycatch in a biological and

economically sustainable way require better information on

the status of the stocks. At least three areas require

significant improvement:

(1) understanding the interactions among species or stocks,

(2) understanding the role of the ocean environment in

causing fish stock fluctuations, and (3) systems technology

to develop new sensors for counting fish and accelerating the

flow of data.

Regarding the interactions among species, all fisheries are

in a sense multi-species fisheries. The groundfish or dragger

fishery encounters perhaps fifty species of fish. It is not

unusual to have ten species on deck in a single tow. The

scallop fishery appears to be a single species fishery, but

in reality scallop fishery is regulated to some extent by the

amount of yellowtail flounder taken in the scallop dredges.

Haddock appear occasionally in herring nets. Some scientists

believe that herring eat cod eggs. Rebuilding predatory

species like striped bass affects their prey species.

Interactions such as these need to be better understood.

Until we do, our options for management will be limited as we

continue to assume that all species can be rebuilt to their

historical maximum abundance at the same time, which flies in

the face of standard ecological theory.

The effects of the environment are ignored in developing

management decisions. It is clear from the historical record

that the ocean environment plays a powerful role in

modulating the abundance of fish populations. Ignoring this

leads to the mistaken notion that any time a stock decreases,

the cause is overfishing, while any time a stock increases,

the cause is successful management. The role of the

environment is typically ignored in fishery stock

assessments. Without such understanding, it is misleading to

set rebuilding schedules and to think about mid- to long-term

management strategies that match the scale of capital

investment time horizons used in the fishing industry. There

is even a greater imperative now that climate variability

must be affecting the population of stocks even though we

do not understand, even in an approximate way, the nature

of this impact.

Given the substantial shortfalls in scientific

understanding, the present system for obtaining data from the

fishing fleets and the technology used to measure the

abundance of fish is archaic. New systems need to be

developed to deliver data to scientists and managers as well

as the development of techniques to measure fish abundance

that depend on electronics and optics rather than outmoded

prone-to-error fishing nets.

The articulation of these concerns has a function beyond

catharsis. It identifies areas that National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries needs to address to

improve fisheries management as NOAA and 21 other federal

agencies move forward in an attempt to develop a coherent

ocean plan for the nation. The articulation also sends a

signal to Congress that the real conservation and management

of fishery stocks lies in developing the technical

underpinnings to determine major uncertainties that we have

on how fish interact with fishing and the changing ocean

environment. This would be so much better than the cant

characterizations of the fishing industry by some

conservation groups. And finally, consideration of

uncertainty points toward the need of investing fishery

management regulations with the flexibility contemplated in

the Pombo-Frank bill.

Having said all of this, it is important to remember that

the regulation of fisheries is not analogous to designing a

better governor for a gasoline engine or a valve to regulate

water flow. A critical element is the livelihood and well

being of the men and women that catch and process the fish.

It is important to them of course, but it is as important to

the welfare of the entire community.

Significant steps forward are being made in developing the

ideas of cooperative research. The UMass Dartmouth School for

Marine Science and Technology has pioneered cooperative work

with the fishing industry on cod tagging, scallop stock

assessments, and study fleets all with incredibly strong

support from the fishing industry. These efforts are now

bearing fruit at the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute

that includes the partnership between the University of

Massachusetts, principally SMAST, the state Division of

Marine Fisheries, and NOAA Fisheries. Fostering the next

generation of fishery scientists in an educational

environment of cooperative research will promote the

advancement of our science through collaboration with

fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the lack of compassion for terrorists. I share much of it. But this is not about terrorists. This is about people accused of terrorism. And there may be human realms where infallibility is a valid concept, not in the arresting of people and certainly not when this is done in the fog of war.

Have we not had enough examples of error, of people like the recent case, to our embarrassment, of a man sent to Syria to be tortured by the United States wrongly; of Captain Yee; of Mr. Mayfield in Oregon?

Have we not had enough examples of error to understand that you need to give people accused of this terrible crime a way to prove that the accusations were not true? That is what is at risk here.

I believe that the law enforcement people of America and the Armed Forces of America are the good guys. But they are not the perfect guys. They are not people who don't make mistakes, particularly acting as they do under stress.

It is a terrible thing to contemplate that this bill will allow people to be locked up indefinitely with no chance to prove that they were locked up in error. We should not do it.

Mr. Speaker, just as the ranking member, I want to say that the leadership shown both by the gentleman from Kansas and the gentlewoman from Florida on this has been very important. Particularly I would say the gentleman from Kansas has been a very steady contributor to our deliberations regarding the importance of balance; and given the physical conditions that have occurred in Florida and the reaction thereto, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) has been a real leader in trying to get an appropriate Federal response to the insurance crisis, and I am glad we were able to take this step today.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I just wanted to note the good work that we have been able to do in our Subcommittee on Housing. There are some differences between the parties, and I have to say that we on our side regret that we were not able to get into the increased production, but that disagreement, and it is an important one, being what it is, hasn't kept us from working together in a number of other areas, including some efforts to preserve.

And the leadership that the gentlewoman has shown, and the chairman of the full committee has worked there, and I must say the former chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, who is not with us now but good work should be

recognized no matter what circumstance has followed, in working together, we have managed to do, I think, a good job in the housing area. And the gentlewoman from California has been an excellent ranking member. This is another good piece of it, and I am very glad that we were able to do this today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the description given by my colleague from Ohio.

I am a liberal. I believe that regulation is important if we are going to have the kind of society that preserves the quality of life. And, as a believer in regulation, I feel obligated to make sure that we do not have more regulation than is required and that we should not have inefficient regulation.

I was very pleased to participate in this bipartisan effort to strip away unneeded regulation and to reform regulation that has a role to make sure that it does the job right.

I regret the fact that our colleagues in the Senate did not fully accept what we offered, but this is a compromise. We want to get something done. This represents our best effort to send them something that they will accept, and I am glad to do that.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to engage the Chairman in a colloquy or two.

Mr. Chairman, in this bill, the amendment to section 305 seems to change the community development investment standard for banks. Will this invalidate or otherwise affect any investments or written commitments that banks may have made under the law that is now in effect?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Thank you.

I would point out that here we are working closely with those who are in the business of making loans for affordable housing. Those are the ones who have particularly been interested in these kind of changes. We were glad to do it.

Let me also note, Mr. Chairman, that section 405 of the original bill, which is now section 702, which leads me to wonder why we ever mentioned section 405 in the first place, but we are now talking about section 702. It was included at the request of the regulatory agencies to clarify that written conditions and applications and written agreements with institution-affiliated parties are enforceable in order to protect the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions.

Institution-affiliated parties, a wonderful phrase that trips off the tongue, institution-affiliated parties can include bank directors, officers and principal shareholders. Some concerns have been expressed that the regulatory agencies may use this language inappropriately to require personal guarantees from bank directors and officers.

Mr. Chairman, would you clarify what section 702 is intended to do?

My spontaneity is always rehearsed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. He is the chairman. That is why he has to say more than me.

But I would like to add that it is my understanding that the regulatory agencies, specifically the Officer in Control of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision, agree with the interpretation the gentleman has just given, as does the Senate.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am in substantial agreement with my colleague from New Jersey, but, first, and most of all, in expressing our best wishes to our colleague, the gentleman from Delaware, who has been such a constructive Member and whom we hope to see back with us very soon.

Secondly, I think the gentleman has accurately portrayed the situation. About a month or so ago, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the SEC had twisted a statute further out of shape than is permissible to get some jurisdiction over hedge funds.

I think the Circuit Court made the correct legal interpretation. The SEC had been reaching, and I think the decision was a correct one. I then, however, filed a bill to change the statute, not because I or I think anyone else is able to be sure right now exactly what we should do about hedge funds, but because I would agree with the gentleman from New Jersey, this is an important, relatively new phenomenon. It has a major impact in our economy.

At the rate at which they are growing, it may be we will reach the point in which there is more money in hedge funds than there is money; and that at least ought to call up some attention. I simply did not think we should adjourn for the year with some people thinking that we have now decided that the appropriate action is nothing at all. That may in the end be a decision, but I do not think it is one that we have yet had a chance to look at.

So there were various ways that we were looking at this. I had a bill, the gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the subcommittee, had a bill. The gentleman from Delaware, a very thoughtful Member, suggested this as an approach. It has the advantage, I think of saying, look, we believe there is something that has to be looked at.

The gentleman from New Jersey correctly mentioned one of the things that has a number of people particularly concerned, which is the increasing interface between hedge funds and pension funds. That is something that we want to look at. So I think that we have an appropriate vehicle today, legislatively, to say this is something we want to look at. We will come back next year and deal with it further. I think this is the appropriate way to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

The gentleman from North Carolina has more than adequately explained it. I do just want to comment on the procedure.

A version of this is included in the earlier bill we passed today providing regulatory relief. We have two versions. This is the way it should be. What we did earlier is what the Senate will accept. So it was important for us to show what it should be. The Senate will go apparently part of the way. There have been negotiations and conversations. There were things in there, like including thrifts, that the Senate was not willing to accept; but there will be another legislative session.

It seems to me the better part of wisdom and better part of public policy is to take what we can now, and that is what we have done. I think this will prove to be a good thing and that it will help us make the case for, in fact, doing everything that we wanted to do.

I just at this point, Madam Speaker, include into the Record letters in support of the original bill, but also obviously in favor of the other version that we did because that is all we could get through on the other side from the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Comptroller of the Currency.

Office of Thrift Supervision,

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, September 25, 2006.

Hon. Barney Frank

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Frank: I want to thank you for your work

on H.R. 6062, the ``Community Development Investment

Enhancements Act of 2006,'' and offer my support for your

bill. Originally included as Sections 202 and 112 of H.R.

3505, the ``Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of

2005,'' which passed the full House of Representatives, this

legislation is especially important to supporting important

community development programs.

In particular, your bill increases the ability of federal

thrifts to make investments primarily designed to promote the

public welfare of low- and moderate-income communities and

families through the provision of housing, services, and

jobs. H.R. 6062 accomplishes this by raising the limits on

the ability of federal thrifts to invest in entities

primarily engaged in making these public welfare investments.

While we are encouraged that the original Regulatory Relief

Act, H.R. 3505, may be enacted in the next few weeks, we

strongly support passage of H.R. 6062 as a freestanding bill

if it is not included in the broader package. Just as it is

important to reduce burdens on financial institutions in

order to remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles that hinder

profitability, innovation, and competition in our financial

services industry, it is equally important to remove barriers

to the growth and stability of low- and moderate-income

communities.

Thank you for your leadership and continued interest is

this issue. We applaud your efforts and urge swift action on

H.R. 6062. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate

to contact me or Kevin Petrasic, Managing Director of

External Affairs, at 202-906-6452.

Respectfully yours,

John M. Reich,

Director.

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

The gentleman from North Carolina has explained one of the provisions. There is another provision, and it deals with the preemption of a provision in the article of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, if we were talking about a provision that was statutory in the State of Arkansas or elsewhere, I would not be supportive of preemption. I do not think we should do what legislatures can do, but things have found their way into State Constitutions which it can be difficult to deal with it, and it does seem to me that this particular preemption that I understand is fairly widely supported in Arkansas, which would modify but not completely repeal restrictions on interest that can be charged, is a reasonable one. I think it would be allowed for reasonable transactions.

It would not, and is so worded, is not to allow things that are now abusive like payday loans, and this will now go to the other body and the Senators from Arkansas who decided this.

But it does seem to me that responding to this request from our colleagues to deal with something that is inappropriately, in my judgment, wedged in a Constitution because it is something that should be a matter of legislative policy, not constitutional, that it is okay.

Let me say this: if after we were to do this, if the people of that State or any other State wanted to reassert a certain limitation by legislation, I would agree that would be their right. So I do agree that we should not deal with this constitutional problem, but if they were to decide they wanted to do it legislatively, I would then be prepared to modify this.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a cliche of the unsung

hero. Cliches can be tiresome, but generally they have to be true to become a cliche. One such unsung hero in the history of this House recently died. His name was Leo Diehl.

Tip O'Neill was a great Speaker, and we have seen before and since that it is not as easy to be a successful Speaker as it may look. One reason Tip was so good at his job was the friendship and partnership he had with Leo Diehl.

Leo Diehl was a man of integrity, vision and intelligence. He had lost the use of much of his body, but his brain worked, and his eyes and ears and mouth. Because of the great friendship with Leo Diehl, because he could so clearly rely on a man of such strength of character and wisdom, that was one of the reasons that Tip O'Neill's speakership, as he was free to acknowledge, was so successful.

Leo Diehl recently died at the age of 92. He was a great figure in the history of this House, and I think it is appropriate that those of us particularly who served under Tip O'Neill's speakership with Leo Diehl mourn him today.