Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to call attention to critical issues that Sudan now faces. More than 3 years ago, I was part of a congressional delegation to Sudan led by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who will speak shortly. Other members of that delegation are here to speak tonight as well.

This past January marked the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or the CPA, that ended more than 20 years of civil war between the north and the south of Sudan. That conflict was marked by northern aggression against the south. It resulted in the deaths of more than 2 million people, and more than 4 million people in Southern Sudan fled their homes, becoming ``internally displaced persons,'' or IDPs, in the jargon of relief efforts in conflicts around the world.

The CPA committed the northern-dominated National Congress Party and the southern-dominated Sudan People's Liberation Movement to govern jointly for 6 years, followed by a referendum on self-determination for Southern Sudan and Abyei. That referendum must happen as scheduled in 4 months, and the referendum must be free, fair, credible, and a true reflection of the will of the people. If not, the CPA will mark only a 6-year pause in Sudan's civil war, not an end to the war.

Secretary of State Clinton was right when she said a year ago that ``the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the north and south will be a flashpoint for renewed conflict if not fully implemented through five national elections, a referendum on self-determination for the south, resolution of the border disputes, and the willingness of the respective parties to live up to their agreements.''

Unfortunately, Sudan's elections in April 2010 certainly did not meet anyone's standards for a legitimate election. Those elections were marred by widespread violation of political rights, irregularities in voter registration, intimidation, and violence in some areas, and the continuing conflict in Darfur that suppressed voter participation.

Predictably, the National Congress Party has consistently delayed and reneged on its CPA commitments. Madam Speaker, this is a critical moment for Sudan. The CPA-mandated referendum is just 4 months away. The CPA has not yet been fully implemented. Voter registration for the referendum has not yet taken place, and key procedures have not even been established.

In addition, the violence in Darfur persists. The Bashir regime continues to restrict and disrupt United Nations peacekeeping, humanitarian operations, and human rights organizations in Darfur, leaving more than 2 million people still displaced and vulnerable.

The Bashir regime must know that the whole world is watching. We cannot divert our attention from Sudan. We must remain committed and insist upon the full implementation of the CPA to ensure sustainable peace in Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a huge step forward. Working and middle class families should not again have to worry that financial ruin lurks in the fine print of a contract that their bank's lawyer wrote. Families that qualify for prime mortgages that they can pay will not again get trapped instead in predatory subprime mortgages that they cannot pay. They can use a credit card without worrying about getting

gouged. They can have overdraft protection that is the convenience that their banks say it is, that it should be, not a trap to run up indefensible fees.

If this legislation is properly enforced, we can begin to believe again that our government is on the side of honest Americans trying to make an honest living. This bill is about our values. Our economy depends on our acting in our own self-interest and enjoying the rewards of our efforts, but every major religious faith forbids unrestrained greed.

On the stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai there is the commandment, ``Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's.'' And according to the First Book of Timothy, ``For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.''

When Franklin Roosevelt spoke in his first inaugural address about the practice of unscrupulous moneychangers in the temple, he spoke in language easily recognized by that generation. Roosevelt spoke of restoring ancient truths. ``The measure of the restoration,'' Roosevelt said, ``lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.''

The financial practices that this legislation seeks to reform have made a few Americans very rich, but by taking advantage of working and middle class families who needed to borrow money and honest investors who wanted to lend it, and by diverting too much of our economy from productive, honest work. We need to restore the faith from which we have erred. This bill is a start.

I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is the right idea. We will not have a strong recovery until small businesses can again get ordinary loans to expand and hire new workers. But this bill leaves out an important industry. In past recessions, the first industry to suffer from the recession and the first industry to come out of it was residential construction, home building. There's a reason that housing starts and building permits are leading economic indicators.

Home building will not lead us out of this recession, no matter what we do. Too much of the foolishness that led to the financial crisis was connected to housing. There are some markets that are hopelessly overbuilt. The inventory of new housing is at a 42-year low, but in many markets there is a substantial overhang of existing houses and a shadow inventory of homes destined for foreclosure. But there are many markets where there is a real demand for

new housing, and we won't have much of a recovery if we don't bring residential construction along.

Home building has been 16 percent of our GDP. We can't tell 16 percent of our GDP just to hang out until we get things figured out.

Because of foolish real estate lending a few years ago, many community banks were under great pressure from banking regulators to scale back on all real estate lending, including sensible projects where there is a market for new housing. Community banks are even calling in performing acquisition development and construction loans. We've gone from indiscriminate lending to an indiscriminate refusal to lend that is killing jobs.

We've lost 3 million jobs in home construction and related industries in the last 5 years. The jobs we lost are jobs for the working man-- carpenters, plumbers, electricians, masons, painters, landscapers, roofers, and on and on. We've got to put those Americans back to work. In the words of Alan Jackson, There's nothing wrong with a hard hat and a hammer, the kind of glue that sticks this world together.

Our amendment adds construction and land development loans to the loans that qualify as small business lending under the SBLF program so we can put the working man back to work. God bless the working man and woman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, for 30 years, the water that our former Marines and their families drank, cooked with, and bathed in at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune was contaminated with highly toxic chemicals, including benzene, TCE, and PCE.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, at the Centers for Disease Control is currently working on several health studies to determine just what effect this water had on the men and women serving at Lejeune.

For years the discussion about Camp Lejeune centered on TCE and PCE exposure, but recently the conversation turned to benzene. Benzene is a known carcinogen. This new emphasis on benzene has come about because new documents, recently discovered, show that marines' exposure to benzene at Camp Lejeune was far greater than previously thought.

And these documents are not the only ``newly found'' documents.

ATSDR's health studies must rely on having accurate data about what people were exposed to, as well as where and when these toxins were in the water. If you don't get the water modeling right, you can't do the rest of the studies. We are at a crucial point--we must get this right now.

In every memorandum of understanding between the Navy and ATSDR, the Navy was supposed to provide ATSDR with an inventory of all available data related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune; that inventory has never been provided.

Nobody disputes that the Navy has provided open access to their library and records to ATSDR, but access is not enough. The Navy is the expert on what documents they have and they must take responsibility for ensuring that all relevant documents are provided to ATSDR.

This amendment will ensure that no crucial documents will surface after these health studies have been completed.

Madam Speaker, today marks the one-year anniversary of the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, which is a reason to be hopeful about the future of Sri Lanka. However, I also rise to voice my concern for a community at risk. The viability of a traditionally Tamil region in Sri Lanka is under threat. Since the beginning of the war, one third of the Tamil population was driven off the island and many more were displaced. A large area in the north central part of the island that was a predominantly Tamil area is now almost devoid of Tamils. According to the United Nations, more than 60 percent of homes in the north have been seriously damaged by the fighting. To make matters worse, many Sinhalese families moved into traditional Tamil areas while Tamil inhabitants were kept in detention camps following the end of the war. Finally, Tamil homes, churches, temples and cemeteries were destroyed during the war with no assurance from the Sri Lankan Government that they will be rebuilt. Sri Lanka's Tamil population is in danger of losing their identity and their traditional homeland. The United Nations has warned that ``donor fatigue'' in Sri Lanka has resulted in the United Nations receiving only 24 percent of the donor funds it needs to help displaced Tamils. Madam Speaker, I urge the international community to renew their efforts and take action so the Tamil culture and history is not lost.

Madam Chair, if the next generation of Americans is to be as prosperous as ours, we must regain our edge in technology, innovation and education. Even before the Great Recession, the industries that North Carolinians long relied upon--textiles, tobacco, furniture--suffered one loss after another, and most of our lost jobs are not coming back. New jobs will either come from science and research, or they won't come at all.

New technologies create new jobs, and America must lead the way in developing new technologies and in bringing those technologies to the marketplace. This bill will provide loans to help small businesses keep their current employees and hire more. Universities and private companies in my district are already leaders in many emerging technologies, including advanced energy technologies; and we will greatly benefit from the provisions of this bill that will create regional economies around existing areas of expertise for innovation hubs. Finally, this bill's investment in basic research will create jobs that we cannot now even imagine.

On behalf of North Carolinians worried about what the future holds for their children, I urge support of this bill, and I thank Chairman Gordon for his tireless work.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009. As other Members have already said, for more than 20 years, the LRA has terrorized the Great Lakes region of Africa and continues to commit atrocities and abduct children across areas of northern Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Central African Republic, often targeting schools and churches. If the LRA ever sought to right some supposed wrong, if there was ever a grievance or cause that motivated the LRA, that has all long since been forgotten. The LRA's atrocities are barbarism for barbarism's own sake.

The United Nations estimates that 90 percent of the LRA's combatants are abducted children, often as young as 10. When the horrific conflict finally ends, those children must somehow return to civilized society after learning as children to kill innocent human beings without hesitation or remorse. Since the brutal Christmas Day massacres of 2008 in the Congo, the LRA has killed more than 1,000 people, abducted almost 2,000 others, and forced more than 300,000 others to flee their homes in vulnerable areas.

The LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act would support multilateral efforts to bring stability and peace to northern Uganda and to protect civilians from the Lord's Resistance Army. This legislation authorizes humanitarian funding for communities across central Africa victimized by the LRA and assistance to help with recovery and reconciliation efforts in northern Uganda. This bill will help end permanently the LRA's campaign of brutality and terror and help families rebuild their lives.

Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Senator McConnell said yesterday about Wall Street reform that ``as you look at the bill closer and closer, it is mostly about Main Street.'' Yes, Wall Street reform is about Main Street because Americans trying to make an honest living on Main Street are being bled dry by Wall Street.

The vulgar excesses of Wall Street, the bonuses, and the profits, and all the rest are at the expense of working and middle class American families. Ordinary Americans know that the fine print that big banks' lawyers wrote in their credit card contracts, and their mortgages, and their overdraft agreements were filled with traps to take their income, and their life savings, and who knows what worthless junk Wall Street unloaded on their pension funds.

Every issue I have worked on I've compromised, but there comes a time to pick a side. I pick the side of working and middle class Americans trying to make an honest living to support themselves and their families.

I will include in my revised and extended remarks the verbatim colloquy on the point, but Mr. Frank had asked that I

simply explain one committee amendment offered by Mr. Moore and by me and explain the revisions briefly here tonight on the floor.

The committee amendment and the revised amendment in the manager's amendment was originally a suggestion of Sheila Bair of the FDIC to get at one of the most infuriating episodes in the entire financial crisis. And the best example was the collapse and the rescue of AIG, which was not really about AIG but the counterparties to AIG. We have now heard that the counterparties, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, Deutsche Bank, refused to take anything less than 100 cents on the dollar on what AIG owed them. According to the Special Inspector General for the TARP program's report, they did that in part because they had grabbed collateral for their debts in the last days of AIG's collapse so that they knew they could get paid in full even if AIG went into bankruptcy.

The FDIC believes it is better to take into resolution companies that are failing sooner rather than later so they don't arrive and find that every asset of the company has been pledged as collateral, which leads to a more expensive resolution, a less equitable resolution, and a resolution that inevitably is more disruptive of the economy.

It gets at two problems: One, the collateral grabs by taking a concept from bankruptcy, avoidable preference, where the company was insolvent and pledged collateral for existing debts in the last 90 days before the resolution, the FDIC can disregard it altogether, disregard the security altogether.

Then, second, the short-term collateralized lending without any market discipline, based entirely upon collateral, without any regard to the actual condition of the borrower of the company. The amendment gets at that by allowing some portion of that to be set aside, 10 percent to be disregarded, and then in limited circumstances, only short-term credit, 1 month or less, where the security is not a Treasury or other government-secured debt. It will impose some market discipline.

Madam Chair, I offer this statement for the Record to clarify the intent of the portion of this amendment regarding haircuts for secured creditors to help establish a clear legislative record for its implementation, and to clarify Mr. Moore's and my intent regarding the extension of secured credit to systemically important financial institutions under the dissolution section of the legislation.

It is our intent to bring a degree of responsibility to the extension of collateralized credit to covered entities that may fail and fall within the resolution process this legislation creates. However we understand the importance of secured credit to a vital financial system and want to be clear on exactly what is and what is not covered by this amendment.

Only secured credit with terms of 30 days or shorter will be subject to the discretionary authority provided in the provisions of this section. FDIC's authority to apply up to a 10 percent haircut on secured credit positions is discretionary, but it may be applied only in the context of qualified financial contracts and then only if and when unsecured creditors and shareholders are wiped out. Further the authority does not apply to security interests in securities or debt issued, secured, or guaranteed by the Treasury, a federal agency, the Federal Reserve, or a Government Sponsored Enterprise.

Further this amendment makes clear that insured depository institutions, credit unions, and GSEs are not within the definition of a ``financial company'' for purposes of Subtitle G of this legislation. These institutions have a resolution process that is already firmly established in law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 100th birthday of Wake Forest, North Carolina.

The State legislature officially chartered the town on February 20, 1909; but the community really dates from 1832 when Dr. Calvin Jones sold 613 acres of land to the North Carolina Baptist Convention to establish the Wake Forest Manual Labor Institute to train future ministers. The institution later became Wake Forest College.

Dr. Jones described Wake Forest as ``one of the best communities in the State. The inhabitants, without, I believe, a single exception, are sober, moral, and thriving in their circumstances, and not a few are educated and intelligent.''

That is still true of Wake Forest. Although Wake Forest College moved to Winston-Salem in 1956, the Southern Baptist Convention located its new seminary in Wake Forest, maintaining Wake Forest's reputation as a town of higher learning and faith.

Wake Forest is now a progressive community of more than 27,000 residents. Forbes Magazine recently listed Wake Forest as the 20th fastest-growing suburb in America. The residents of Wake Forest now boast a vibrant town with more than 100 businesses and a rich and well- maintained historical district.

I join the residents of Wake Forest in their centennial celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this bill. A portion of this bill began its legislative life as separate legislation introduced by Walter Jones, my colleague from North Carolina, and by me to improve the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the SCRA. This legislation now provides real teeth and real remedy for the protections of the SCRA.

Someone who is serving in our military, who is defending our country, who is on active service, on active duty, should not have to worry about what is happening in court back home. They shouldn't have to worry if someone is getting a judgment against them or their home is being foreclosed on. Anyone who has a claim against someone who is in our military should not lose their claim, but their claim can wait, the lawsuit can wait, until the servicemember can come home, come to court and defend themselves, assert whatever right they may have, and tell their side of the story.

The law is now not entirely clear about whether a servicemember who has had that right violated, that right to get a little break while they are on military service, whether they can do something about it, and the legislation now makes very clear that they can. They can bring their own lawsuit. The Attorney General can bring a lawsuit, and the servicemember can join in that, and the servicemember can bring a lawsuit of their own.

A right that does not allow a remedy, a right that cannot be enforced is no right at all. This legislation now makes very clear that the rights under SCRA are real rights, and our servicemembers can devote their whole energy to defense of our country and not worry about what is going on in a courthouse back home.

Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the United Nations General Assembly designated the first Monday in October as World Habitat Day. This year, the theme is Planning Our Urban Future.

Approximately half of the world's population now lives in urban areas, and that number will rise to two-thirds in a generation. Cities can be engines for economic growth; but they can also become home to extreme poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and conflict. In many parts of the world, government policies do not adequately respond to the challenges of growing urban populations.

Nearly one-third of the world's population of people living in cities around the world now already live in slums, and that number will also rise to double what it is now in 30 years.

I rise today to honor World Habitat Day and the goal of improved urban planning. We can have a sustainable prosperous future, but only if we help the rural cities address the needs that come from explosive growth.

Mr. Chairman, it's astonishing that when unemployment in many parts of North Carolina is more than 13 percent that I have to defend an investment in community colleges.

Community colleges give students a chance to learn the skills that they will need to support themselves and support their families, and community college students move heaven and Earth to take advantage of that chance. Community college students often work full time, go to school full time, and for many, you can put on top of that, taking care of their children.

In North Carolina, about one adult in six is enrolled in the community college each year. All manner of workers depend on our community colleges for the skills they need for their livelihood: construction workers, law enforcement and other first responders, biotech workers, all manner of health care workers, and on and on. Talk to community college students and you will learn what industries are laying off and what industries are hiring.

North Carolina, like much of the Nation, was already going through a tough economic transition even before the recession, and millions of families depend on a community college education to make it through. And tough economic times have only made community colleges more important. Enrollment in North Carolina's community colleges increased by 8 percent just last year, and preliminary data shows that enrollment is increasing even more this year.

I welcome the Obama administration's recognition of the importance of community colleges to working families, to breadwinners willing to work hard to learn new skills. It is long overdue. And North Carolina's community college leaders welcome that, too, and strongly support this program.

I have a letter dated just yesterday from the President of North Carolina's Community Colleges strongly supporting this program. Help parents who will make any sacrifice to support their families. Vote for working families. Defeat this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I also rise to honor Congressman Bill Hefner, and I appreciate Mr. Kissell organizing this tribute tonight.

Congressman Hefner had a down-home style that never changed. Some folks in Washington thought it didn't really fit with their idea of what an influential Member of Congress, an effective Member of Congress is supposed to be like, but that was always their problem, not his problem. He never changed.

Everyone who spoke tonight has spoken of the Harvesters, his gospel music group that he continued to sing in. His political rallies continued to be gospel sings, the Harvesters performing. Now, that sounds like something out of the 1930s from the movie, ``O Brother, Where Art Thou?'', but this was still in the '90s that he was doing this. That was long past the era that was dominated by political consultants, smart guys who read polls and produced TV ads. And political rallies at that time were supposed to be three people who were sitting in front of their television when a political ad came on. During that period Bill Hefner was still doing political rallies that were gospel sings and packing large halls.

And it wasn't just at political rallies. He had the Harvesters come perform at veteran hospitals, including the one in Salisbury that is now named after him, and was very popular with the veterans who were in those hospitals. And he did become a great advocate for veterans, a great advocate for our men and women in uniform. He visited military installations, saw the conditions in which our military were living, and became a crusader for better housing for our troops.

Bill Hefner ran for Congress on the promise to be a spokesman, a representative, a voice for the common man. He remained faithful to that promise. He never changed. He was the same guy when he ended his service after 24 years, one of the most influential members of the Appropriations Committee, a subcommittee chairman, a cardinal. He was the same guy as he was when he was elected.

He understood working Americans because he was one. He may eventually have done very well, but that's where he started and that's where his heart always was. He always understood what life was like for ordinary Americans.

I am proud to be here tonight to honor Bill Hefner. And I am very grateful that he is an example for all of us who still represent North Carolina in Congress.

I look forward to working with Mr. Campbell on giving shareholders much more power over their own corporations. There is much more we need to do to reform corporate governance in this country. It has been one of many failings of our economy in the last year or so.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to run corporations, but someone needs to set some rules. We need the law to set some rules. We need someone to provide some oversight. We need someone to be a watchdog of what they are doing because we have found out what happens when there are no rules, when there is no oversight, when there is no watchdog. We are now in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and we have been perilously close to a financial collapse that would have left the Great Depression in the shade. And we know what caused it. It's essentially the same things that went wrong in the 1920s. Corporate executives were looting the country with predatory lending practices to make as much money as they possibly could without any regard for the consequences; and then corporate executives, in turn, were looting their companies to make as much money for themselves as they could. They weren't doing right by the American consumers. They weren't doing right by their own shareholders. They were only looking after themselves. The idea that the corporate executives were acting in the best interests of their own shareholders is simply a farce. We saw compensation for executives and other top officials who were doing very little of any value to society. In fact, their predatory lending practices were doing much more harm than good, and it wasn't even to the benefit of their shareholders because of the risks that they were creating for the corporation, that the short-term profits would lead to great risk in a very short while.

This bill is part of what we need to do. It is only part of what we need to do. This just scratches the surface. We need to make sure the financial collapse that we have seen in the last year never happens again. This bill is only part of it.

Mr. Speaker, it may be that the amendment was offered in good faith, but the explanation for the amendment had very little to do with what the amendment actually says. This amendment, Mr. Frank's amendment, does accomplish the reason or the argument in favor of the amendment.

We don't think that a regulator or regulation should require the recovery of incentive-based pay where the existing contract doesn't require it. We shouldn't change contracts retroactively, existing contracts retroactively, but we also don't need to undermine the existing law that may provide for that.

Mr. Frank mentioned the SEC. The SEC is now trying to recover money that was paid supposedly because transactions were profitable when, in fact, they weren't because of the accounting. So we don't want to reward accounting irregularities. Going forward, the regulators may well decide that an effective constraint on imprudent risk-taking is to require longer horizons for incentive-based pay.

That is the purpose of this amendment. It is what this amendment actually accomplishes. It is consistent with the reasons given in committee for the original amendment.