Floor Statements

I want to applaud Mr. Turner for bucking his party in introducing a bill on something other than gas prices. I have frequently worked with Mr. Turner on historic preservation issues. It has never been difficult to work across partisan lines. But rising to support this bill is somewhat more difficult for me.

Mr. Turner described Dayton, Ohio, as the birthplace of aviation in his remarks a minute ago. Mr. Speaker, that is stretching the truth a bit. But after sitting on the floor for about an hour and hearing our energy problems blamed on environmentalists, not the fact that ExxonMobil made $40 billion in profits in the fourth quarter of 2007, it seems like a fairly minor stretching of the truth.

As every school child in America knows, with the exception of school children in Dayton, Ohio, the first powered flight was in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in December, 1903, or at least it was the first photographed, the first documented powered flight. There is still some dispute about where the actual first powered flight was. But the photograph of the Wright brothers plane above the dunes, just a few feet above the dunes at Kitty Hawk, was probably the most important photograph in history to that point, and remains one of the most famous photographs in all of history. That photograph, Mr. Speaker, was taken by a North Carolinian.

After that first flight, which lasted just 12 seconds, and even with the soft sands of Kitty Hawk to land in, the landing almost destroyed or badly damaged the balsa wood plane. Progress was very rapid. Within just a decade, the airplane proved to be a very effective weapon of war in the First World War, and in another decade, just another decade after that, Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic alone.

Mr. Turner is correct, flight has been an important transformational invention in human history. We are now a connected world, largely because of flight. The Wright brothers and Dayton, Ohio, did have a role in that, Mr. Speaker. So I do rise to support adding Hawthorn Hill, the Wright family home, and the Wright Airplane Factory to the national park in Dayton, Ohio highly.

I do this, taking the lead of my party's nominee for President, who has urged that we put aside all the old animosities, that we reach across all divisions of society. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented high school choir in my district, Enloe High Sclool Chorus of Raleigh, NC, which was chosen to perform at New York City's world- renowned Carnegie Hall on March 10, 2008.

The Enloe High School Chorus was selected out of dozens of high school choruses from across the country to perform in this concert. The event featured 200 students from four States, and was the capstone of Carnegie Hall's yearlong National High School Choral Festival. The concert was conducted by Dr. Craig Jessop, esteemed Music Director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who has been working with the choirs and their conductors throughout the year. I am thrilled that these Enloe High School students have been given such a remarkable opportunity to showcase their talent.

Led by Ann Johnson-Huff, the Enloe High School Singers is made up of the Chamber Choir and the Advanced Women's Ensemble, two of the five choirs of the William G. Enloe High School Choral Department. The Chamber Choir and the Advanced Women's Ensemble study a wide array of repertoire and perform at numerous local and national events throughout the school year. Past tours included performances at the Olympics in Barcelona, the Vatican, Carnegie Hall, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, and St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. In 2006, the Chamber Choir and Advanced Women's Ensemble were chosen to perform for a special event at the North Carolina Music Educators' Association Conference. Both ensembles also represented the State of North Carolina at the Founding of Jamestown Settlement Celebration in May of 2007, featuring guest speakers Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and President George W. Bush.

I am privileged to have in my district one of the four schools in the Nation chosen for the Carnegie Hall National High School Choral Festival. I commend these students and their leaders for their accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Greensboro's Bicentennial Celebration.

Since 1808, the citizens of Greensboro have been pioneers in manufacturing, education, and civil rights for North Carolina and our Nation. Greensboro has been and remains a leader in economic and cultural development within North Carolina.

Greensboro became the ``Gate City'' at the turn of the last century, as North Carolina's rail trade and manufacturing center. Greensboro soon became a leader in North Carolina's textile industry. Henry Humphreys opened the state's first steam-powered cotton mill, and by the 1940s, Greensboro businesses were flourishing. Rayon weaving from Burlington Industries, denim from Cone Mills, and overalls from Blue Bell became some of the biggest manufacturers in the world for their products. In the late 1980s, the Piedmont Triad International Airport reestablished Greensboro's place as a travel and transportation hub for North Carolina.

Greensboro has always been at the forefront of education in North Carolina. Greensboro College, the first state-chartered college for women, opened its doors in 1833. In 1837, Quakers founded the first co- educational school in the state: Greensboro's ''New Garden Boarding School,'' known today as Guilford College. Greensboro Technical Community College has provided training and education since 1958. What began as Women's College and is now The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, a historically black land grant institution, are state leaders in university research, development, and art. With such a strong concentration of academia, Greensboro has naturally developed a thriving cultural scene, particularly renowned for theater, music, and film. The last few decades have seen an expanded public library system, a children's museum, the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, and work in historic preservation.

Greensboro has played a pivotal role in the struggle for racial equality. Greensboro was a stop for the Underground Railroad, as citizens both black and white helped slaves escape to the North. In 1873, Greensboro founded the Bennett College for Women to provide education to newly emancipated slaves. On February 1, 1960, four North Carolina A & T students sat down at the Woolworth's white-only lunch counter. Ezell Blair, Jr., now Jibreel Khazan, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, and David Richmond remained seated until the store closed, and returned the next day. The ``Greensboro Four'' inspired similar civil rights protests all over the South. The sit-in protest in Greensboro was the moment the civil rights struggle became a movement. Later, Greensboro's peaceful public school integration was a model for other communities all over the Nation. Today, Greensboro celebrates a diverse population, with citizens from Southeast Asian, Eastern European, Latin American, and African communities. Honoring the tradition begun with the Underground Railroad, Greensboro welcomes refugees from conflicts around the world in Sudan, Myanmar, Liberia, and on and on.

I am proud to honor the Bicentennial Celebrations of the City of Greensboro. And honored to represent its people in the United States Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Greensboro's Bicentennial Celebration.

Since 1808, the citizens of Greensboro have been pioneers in manufacturing, education and civil rights for North Carolina, for the South and for the Nation. Greensboro has been and remains a leader in economic and cultural development within North Carolina.

Greensboro became the ``Gate City'' at the turn of the last century as North Carolina's rail trade and manufacturing center. Greensboro soon became a leader in North Carolina's textile industry. Henry Humphreys opened the State's first steam-powered cotton mill, and by the 1940s, Greensboro businesses were flourishing. Rayon weaving from Burlington Industries, denim from Cone Mills, and overalls from Blue Bell dominated world markets for their products. In the late 1980s, the Piedmont Triad International Airport again established Greensboro's place as a regional travel and transportation hub.

Greensboro's always been at the forefront of education in North Carolina. Greensboro College, the first State-chartered college for women opened its doors in 1833.

In 1837, Quakers founded the first co-educational school in the State, Greensboro's ``New Garden Boarding School,'' today known as Guilford College, my wife's alma matter.

Greensboro Technical Community College has provided training and an adult education since 1958.

What began as Women's College, and is now the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina Agriculture and Technical College, A & T, is a historical black land grant institution, are leaders in university research, development and art.

With such a strong concentration of academic institutions, Greensboro has obviously developed a thriving cultural scene, particularly renowned for theater, for music and film. In the last few decades there's been an expanded public library system, a children's museum, work in historic preservation, including an effort to save the Woolworth's where the sit-in movement began, as well as the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, which is known for the arts, as well as for college basketball. It's frequently the host of the Atlantic Coast Conference's Men's Basketball Tournament.

Greensboro has also played an important role for racial equality. Greensboro was a stop on the Underground Railroad, as citizens, both black and white, helped slaves escape to the North.

In 1873, Greensboro founded Bennett College for Women to provide education for newly emancipated slaves.

On February 1, 1960, four North Carolina A & T students sat down at the Woolworth's white only lunch counter. Ezell Blair, now Jibreel Khazan, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil and David Richmond remained seated until the store was closed, and returned the next day and the next day and the next day, joined each day by more and more who were protesting segregation. The ``Greensboro Four'' or the ``A & T Four'' inspired similar civil rights protests across the South. The sit-in protest that began in Greensboro was the moment the civil rights struggle became a movement.

Later, Greensboro's peaceful public school integration was a model for other communities all over the nation. And today, Greensboro celebrates a diverse population, with citizens from Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, as well as Africa.

In the tradition of the Underground Railroad, the tradition begun with Greensboro's participation in the Underground Railroad, Greensboro now welcome refugees from conflicts around the world, the Sudan, Liberia, Myanmar and on and on.

I am proud to honor the Bicentennial Celebrations of the City of Greensboro, and I'm honored to represent Greensboro in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my assurance to that of Mr. Frank, as if anyone would need that, but I think that this clarification really does not change the intent of the statute. On its face, going from foreclosure to foreclosure process is redundant. Foreclosure is a process. It is a legal procedure. It is a legal procedure by which real property given as security for the payment of a debt is seized and sold to pay the debt. It is a legal procedure. It is all process. So saying ``foreclosure process'' appears, on its face, to be redundant.

However, the concern has been that States would add to the same section of their State ordinances, their State statutes, other provisions that have nothing to do with foreclosure procedures, that have to do something to make other provisions; and yet there would be the argument that all of those now are exempt, immune from any argument of preemption. That is certainly not what we intend, and I lend my assurance to that of Mr. Frank that I will work to make sure that the language that Mr. LaTourette just presented be the language in the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to address specifically the amendment that Mr. LaTourette and I have offered.

Mr. Speaker, the worst of the foreclosure crisis is yet to come. Mr. Frank just corrected incorrect factual assertions. Let me correct one as well.

Mr. Feeney said a few minutes ago or gave the example of a 3 percent teaser rate. Mr. Speaker, the typical initial rate for the mortgages that are causing this problem was 8\1/2\ percent, which is already well above the conventional prime rate.

According to The Wall Street Journal, 55 percent of the people who got those loans qualified for prime loans. Their trust was betrayed. And the typical adjustment after just 2 or 3 years was a 30 to 50 percent higher monthly mortgage payment. Seventy percent had prepayment penalties so people couldn't get out and would have to pay when they got out, when they refinanced out of a loan they could not possibly afford and the lender never intended they would afford because they required they come back and refinance again.

It's not surprising that 3 million homeowners with subprime loans are expected to enter foreclosure proceedings in the next couple of years and 2 million of them will likely lose their homes. Another 40 million homeowners will see the value of their homes decline when other homes in their neighborhood are foreclosed, and they will lose $200 billion in their home property values.

Credit Suisse now estimates that there is another wave of foreclosures coming after this one as even more exotic, innovative mortgages go into default. Credit Suisse estimates that in the next 5 years 12.7 percent of homeowners with mortgages are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure.

Mr. Speaker, when those families lose their home to foreclosure most will fall out of the middle class and into poverty.

The policy failures that caused this problem, that led to this crisis, were in Washington, but State and local government are having to deal with the consequences.

Property rights, contracts and foreclosure proceedings are all matters of State law, not Federal law. The laws vary from State to State, but every State's foreclosure law includes protections for the borrowers whose homes are being seized and sold to pay the mortgage.

State laws have notice requirements. They provide reasonable time for the families who are losing their homes to find someplace else to live and to move; they limit the costs that they be charged to homeowners; they allow homeowners to cure defaults in some circumstances. Many States limit or prohibit deficiency judgments if the sale of the home is not enough to pay off the debt, and on and on. And several States, not surprisingly, are now considering additional laws to protect borrowers who are losing their homes to foreclosure.

Recently, there has been some suggestion, some hint in the press and elsewhere that if State and local governments start getting underfoot, if they start making a nuisance of themselves, the lending industry will argue that some of the especially annoying State laws, State foreclosure proceedings cannot be applied to mortgage holders or mortgage services that are affiliated with national banks or trusts.

There is no Federal foreclosure law, but they argue that State foreclosure proceedings could be preempted by Federal laws that govern national banks and trusts. This amendment clarifies that State laws and local ordinances on foreclosure and foreclosed properties are not preempted by Federal law.

Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. I will not consume much.

I do want to applaud the work of the Science and Technology Committee on reauthorizing this program that has been remarkably effective.

Fire is remarkably destructive, but we have made great strides under this program. In 1973, there were more than 6,000 Americans who died each year in fires, another hundred thousand were injured. Largely because of this program and the training and other support, we are now about to the point where about 16,000 a year are injured and between 3,000 and 3,500 die each year. That is obviously still too much, but is remarkable progress.

And among the most dangerous work that anyone can do is fighting fires. The number of deaths each year among firefighters is a large number, and even more are injured every year. A great many firefighters never complete their term of service before qualifying for retirement because they suffer from disabling injuries.

This bill does provide for additional training for fighting fires, particularly where wild areas come into contact or where urban areas and wildland areas meet. It helps training for fires that involve hazardous materials as well as giving advance training in emergency medical services. And it does, as Mr. Wu just pointed out a moment ago, provide for moving towards a voluntary consensus for firefighters' health and safety.

This will help reduce that number of firefighters who die each year and who suffer from grievous injuries in doing very courageous work in protecting us and protecting our property.

Madam Speaker, I am not overly concerned by what the courts ultimately decide executive privilege covers. The Bush administration's claim of executive privilege here goes well beyond any privilege ever recognized by any court decision, but the Republic can obviously survive a court decision on the narrow question of the exact extent of executive privilege.

But, Madam Speaker, the courts must decide. The President cannot decide by decree. The President cannot announce with absolute, unreviewable authority what information the administration will provide or withhold.

The Framers of our Constitution had just fought a war against an autocratic King. It is inconceivable that they intended to create an executive with the powers that the Bush administration now claims and that the minority now supports.

For the entire history of our Republic, our courts have recognized that Congress needs information to carry out our constitutional duties, to decide what the laws should be, to decide what to appropriate Federal funds for, and that we cannot rely on information that is voluntarily, cheerfully provided. Congress must have the power to require information, including information that the President does not want to provide, that the President sees as inconvenient or embarrassing.

We must inquire into the need for new laws. We must inquire into how existing laws are being administered. And the Supreme Court said half a century ago that Congress' investigative powers are never greater than when inquiring into abuse of authority or corruption by Federal Government agencies.

Madam Speaker, the allegations here are very serious. Does the minority think that these are trivial allegations? Prosecutorial decisions cannot be used to reward political friends or punish enemies. Elections have consequences, Madam Speaker; but they should never have these consequences, not in America. Criminal prosecutions guided by political concerns are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.

The two resolutions that we are considering will allow the courts to decide these questions of what information Congress can require in the discharge of our constitutional duties. It will allow important constitutional questions to be decided, as they should be decided in a democracy, by the courts.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation may be interpreted to have the unintended consequence of changing the federal regulator governing Farm Credit System lenders, who as mortgage loan originators will be subject to the regulatory controls in this legislation. As H.R. 3915 progresses through Congress, I intend to work with my colleagues to ensure that any regulatory controls resulting from this legislation to Farm Credit System institutions are managed by their current federal regulator, the Farm Credit Administration.

I dearly wish that this bill was the one being described by so many people on the other side of the aisle. That sounds like a really tough bill. And this bill, I hope, will become tougher as we go along.

I agree with many over there who said that they support the idea of homeownership and want to make sure that there is a mortgage market that lets people buy homes.

Mr. Chairman, the mortgages we are talking about have nothing to do with homeownership. According to the mortgage bankers themselves, who oppose this bill, 72 percent of subprime loans are refinances, not purchase money mortgages. And only about one in 10 subprime loans is to buy a first home. Lehman Brothers says that 30 percent of the subprime loans entered last year will result in final foreclosure, a family being turned out on the streets by a sheriff because their home was sold at a foreclosure auction at the steps of the courthouse.

Do the math. One subprime loan in 10 helps people buy a home, a first home, get into homeownership. Thirty percent will result in foreclosure. The loans that we need to get at, we need to prohibit, are costing Americans homeownership, not helping with homeownership.

Now, several speakers have said that they think the consumers should make choices, there should be a variety of choices available to consumers. Sometimes they say this bill will shut down market innovation. Well, Americans are for innovation, Mr. Chairman, just as they are for reform. Americans are fundamentally reformers so politicians have figured out to call everything they do a ``reform,'' however obviously contrary to the public interest it is. And now American business has learned to call everything they do an ``innovation,'' regardless of how bad it hurts consumers.

I can think of many wonderful innovations. When we think of an innovation, we think of a scientist in a lab coat coming up with new products.

Mr. Chairman, I am now the age my father was when he died of a heart attack in 1965. There wasn't a thing we could do to help people with heart disease in 1965. But I am on a cholesterol medicine because I inherited from my father high cholesterol that I hope will allow me to outlive my father. I think that drug is an important innovation, and I am glad we made that innovation.

Mr. Chairman, this necktie is an innovation. Ten years ago, you could not buy a silk necktie that was stain resistant. And for those folks like me who tend to miss their mouth from time to time, the cost in new neckties in any given year was hundreds of dollars. But this tie has a nanotechnology process that causes liquids to bead up and roll off rather than soak in and stain. This necktie is an important innovation to me.

But what on Earth do we mean when we say that a mortgage is innovative? It means simply that there is no end to the variety of terms, there is a proliferation of indecipherable terms that are not designed to help consumers.

Alan Greenspan called them ``exotic loans.'' Others have called them ``toxic loans.'' The innovation is not really about allowing consumers to tailor narrowly the loan they get to their specific circumstances. The late Ned Gramlich, a well-regarded former Federal Reserve Board governor, asked why was it that the riskiest loans were being sold to the least sophisticated consumers. It was a rhetorical question. He knew the answer. He knew those loans were being sold to people to take advantage of them, to separate from middle-class homeowners more and more of the equity in their home, to trap them in a cycle of having to borrow and borrow again, and every time they borrowed, losing more of the equity in their homes.

Some of the other speakers have talked about the importance of refinancing out. Mr. Chairman, a mortgage system where people have to borrow money to pay off the mortgage they are in now is not a mortgage system that works.

I thank the gentleman.

I would now like to engage in a colloquy with Mr. Frank concerning this. And, Mr. Chairman, both Mr. Frank and I would deeply appreciate a slow gavel on this particular point.

Mr. Frank, please direct your attention to the language at the bottom of page 5 of the manager's amendment, clarifying the prohibition against payments to loan originators that vary with the terms of the subprime mortgage, which, as Mr. Murphy of Connecticut has already pointed out, is an important antisteering provision. The abuse that the prohibition addresses is the payment by lenders to originators, most often brokers, known as a yield spread premium.

Under widespread practice now, lenders pay brokers an additional percentage point in a yield spread premium for every additional half point in interest on the mortgage above the rate that the borrower qualified for. Although borrowers sign a piece of paper agreeing to the payment by the lender, the broker hands the borrower the paper and tells the borrower what the borrower is signing, and most borrowers never realize that the broker makes more money the more that the borrower pays for the mortgage.

I agree with Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, that is a kickback. It is not a legitimate business practice. It needs to change.

Mr. Frank, as I understand it, the clarifying language in the new subparagraph does not simply permit what the previous subparagraph forbids, but it is directed to limited circumstances and does not allow any additional total compensation for an originator. Just as a buyer may pay discount points at closing to buy down the interest rate over the life of the loan, subparagraph (B) allows a consumer to pay more in interest over the life of the loan in return for lower costs and fees at closing.

Is that correct?

And is it also correct that any payment by the lender to the broker, or to use the language of the bill, any incentive compensation paid by any person to any originator, based on a higher interest rate, is still forbidden?

I am glad that Mr. Frank earlier embraced redundancy as a virtue, but I want to continue even though it may be redundant.

So a mortgage originator under this subparagraph, the one we were speaking of a moment ago, will get paid exactly the same in total compensation, including both the compensation paid by the borrower and the compensation paid by the lender, whether the interest rate is 6 or 8 or 10. Is that right?

And so any compensation paid by the lender will be backed out dollar for dollar from what the borrower had agreed to pay; is that correct?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have said before that the remedies under this bill are very modest. They are so modest, in fact, that a great many consumers who have actually been harmed, who have clearly been wronged, who have clearly entered into a mortgage that violated the law are not going to have much they can do about it.

The other side calls this bill a trial lawyer bonanza, Mr. Chairman. Not many people are going to even find a lawyer who can bring a claim like this.

This takes very modest remedies and improves them only slightly. It's not going to provide for punitive damages or pain and suffering. It's just their out-of-pocket loss if they entered into a mortgage that violated the law. Again, the remedies are very modest. This makes them only slightly less modest.

Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns about this bill is the weakness, the inadequacy of the remedies available to the consumer. I have said that earlier today in the debate on this bill that I am very concerned that if industry is looking at one consumer in 50, or one in 100, or one in 200 who has actually been the victim of illegal practices, brings a claim for very modest remedies, many industries or some in industry may simply view that as a minor cost of doing business, a minor nuisance, and just keep doing what they are doing.

This amendment, while I agree it does need to be tinkered with some, would raise the stakes substantially. It does provide a more substantial penalty, $1 million plus $25,000 for each loan. That actually is not that much. Ameriquest, one of the biggest subprime lenders, paid $425 million in a settlement and just kept doing it. Just kept going. It was the cost of doing business. And their CEO is now the ambassador to one of those small, pleasant countries in Europe that big campaign contributors get appointed to be ambassadors to. It hasn't affected them in the slightest.

This amendment would call the attention of the regulatory agencies, the SEC to pay attention to the securitizers, the Goldman Sachses of the world, the big banks; Bank of America would have to answer to the OCC, their regulatory body, and on and on. Mr. Chairman, those industry groups do not want the attention of their regulator that way. They do not want to be under that kind of scrutiny; they do not want to pay those penalties. And this would substantially raise the stakes for them and encourage them to abide by the law.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to correct something I said earlier today. Earlier today I said the Mortgage Bankers Association was opposed to this bill. That is not correct. They do not support the bill. In a letter dated today, they outlined four areas of major concern with the bill, but they did not oppose the bill. They did not support the bill, but they did not oppose it. So what I said earlier today, it was incorrect.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, title III hardly turns all subprime loans into HOEPA loans. HOEPA loans are very high-cost loans, loans with a very high interest rate. For first loans, it is 8 percent above the Treasury rate, which works out to about 13 percent. Or for subordinate loans, second or third mortgages, it is 10 percent above, which is more like a 15 percent interest rate.

In contrast, this legislation before us, the other provisions of the legislation, the other titles, treats the subprime loans as loans with an interest rate of about 8.5. So there is plenty of room between 8.5 or 13 or 15.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true that this legislation in North Carolina has created a problem with lending in North Carolina. We have heard it again and again in the Financial Services Committee for 4 or 5 years. We have heard repeatedly testimony by the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks, Joe Smith, who has said there is a ready availability of credit in the subprime market in North Carolina, and that it is no more expensive than it is anywhere else that he knows of.

We have heard from witnesses from industry who have said repeatedly they have been able to lend in North Carolina on the same terms and at the same rates as everywhere else, and they have been able to do so profitably.

There was a business school study at the University of North Carolina that said there has been no difference in the

availability or the cost of credit in the subprime market in North Carolina because of the protections of the North Carolina law. A Morgan Stanley survey of 280 subprime branch managers said there had been no reduction in subprime lending in North Carolina as a result of these consumer protections. And it just goes on.

In the time between 1998 before the North Carolina law was enacted and went into effect in 2003, there was a 366 percent growth in subprime lending in North Carolina. It is sort of hard to see from that that the North Carolina law killed off subprime lending.

What it did do is it protects consumers from equity stripping, from having huge chunks of their equity in their home, their life savings, taken from them at closing by outrageous up-front costs and fees, many of which were poorly disclosed.

This lowers the trigger for a HOEPA loan from 8 points at closing to 5 points at closing and closes some of the loopholes so that consumers, when they have to borrow money against their home, are not going to have their equity stripped, are not going to have their life savings, the equity in their home, taken from them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close, so I think I will wait until Mr. McHenry is done.

Only one of us is right.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, the woman from Shelby would be able to borrow under this bill, it just would be a highly regulated loan, only if she is paying more than 13 percent interest or paying more than 5 percent in closing costs, which is a lot in closing costs.

Mr. McHenry really got at what is wrong with predatory lending when he said that people need to be able to refinance to pay off the loans they are in now.

That is not the kind of mortgage system we want. We don't want people refinancing to pay off the loan they are in now and pay the prepayment penalties on this loan and pay points and fees for the next loan, and then 2 years later doing it all over again. We don't want people in a cycle of borrowing and borrowing again. We want people to get into loans that they can pay off. They can pay month after month, and at some point have a ceremony, a little party, that people in another generation had of burning the mortgage because it is paid off. So for the rest of their lives, they will own their home free and clear.

Predatory lending traps people in a cycle of borrowing and borrowing again. That is something that North Carolina law successfully dealt with. If there was some slight dip in overall loans, it is because people weren't caught in a cycle of borrowing to pay off the last mortgage and then having to borrow 2 years from now to pay off the mortgage they are entering today.

It ends flipping of loans to generate fees for everybody else in the system who is getting rich off the middle class, off the middle-class homeowners. The North Carolina law is working fine for North Carolina. It will work fine for the rest of us. It has been the model for most of the States that have had their own predatory lending legislation, consumer protection legislation in the last few years. Keep title III in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, October 31, 2007, I missed rollcall vote No. 1026 a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 3034. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, over the last year and a half, the Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which I chair, has been reviewing the work of the Office of the Inspector General of NASA and a related investigation of the NASA IG by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Integrity Committee, the procedure actually for investigating IGs themselves.

I appreciate Mr. Towns and Mr. Cooper, knowing my interest in this issue, including me very graciously in discussions of this legislation, and I commend them for their work on this legislation.

The purpose of this amendment is to smooth the transition between the old law and the new and to make sure that we do not disrupt some of the work of IGs that is now going well in our effort to get in place reforms to improve the work of IGs.

I fully support the goal of this legislation to make sure that Inspectors General are independent, that they can act without fear of political reprisal, and to accomplish that by establishing a set term. This amendment accomplishes other purposes perfectly consistent with that overall goal of the legislation.

First, it establishes the same qualifications for the selection of Inspectors General of the designated Federal agencies that are not subject to confirmation by the other body. There is no reason that there should be any different qualifications, and this brings the qualifications for those Inspectors General into line with the qualifications of those confirmed by the other body.

Second, the amendment expands the goals for removal of the Inspectors General, with criteria that the Inspectors General themselves, the IGs themselves, have agreed to should be the basis for removal, and would not undermine their independence by being a threat to their independence; so, removal for improper grounds. The additional grounds, and these are in the regulations now, the rules now: knowing violation of the law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; and abuse of authority. Those criteria for removal do increase the President's flexibility to get out of office inept or abusive Inspectors General.

Third, the amendment incorporates several provisions of two executive orders pertaining to the work of IGs, executive orders 12805 and 12993, which would no longer be in effect under this legislation, to maintain certain policies and procedures that are working well and make sure that there is not a gap when there are no procedures in place and to make sure that we will not have to recreate those procedures under the new legislation. It also directs the new council, the new Inspectors General council, to incorporate as much of the established policies that are working well as possible into the new rules. Again, those rules are developed by the IGs themselves over the years. They work very well. They do not need to be disrupted.

Fourth, the transparency of the Integrity Committee's investigations, the work of inspecting the Inspectors General themselves, the investigations into the investigators, has been a problem. This amendment would require the council to submit to Congress a report of their work in inspecting the work, to investigating the work of Inspectors General.

Finally, the amendment requires the office of OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to continue to provide the Inspectors General council with the administrative support that the PCIE now has.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to appoint a committee of Inspectors General to review the integrity, the experience, the reputation, all of the qualifications of anyone the President appoints to serve as an Inspector General and to provide a report of that evaluation to the other body, to the relevant committee of the other body, before any confirmation hearings. It provides a similar procedure for agency heads who appoint Inspectors General without confirmation by the other body.

The amendment does not create any new bureaucracy. It uses an existing office or an office that will exist under this legislation. The evaluation of that committee is not binding in any way. It simply is an unbiased, informed evaluation that would be helpful to the other body in their consideration of confirmation of anyone appointed as an Inspector General to serve as an Inspector General, just as the American Bar Association's evaluations on the qualifications of judicial nominees are helpful in confirmation.

Mr. Chairman, most Presidential appointments are policy positions for which loyalty to the President is a proper consideration. In fact, it is a necessity. It is a requirement. And the other body has traditionally deferred to the President's judgment in confirmation. If the President wants to appoint a political operative, if he wants to appoint some political poohbah's worthless, otherwise unemployable brother-in-law, the other body usually goes along so the President can have his own people in policy positions.

As the debate on this bill has made very clear, Inspectors General are not jobs like that. Inspectors General are not the President's people. They are to be watchdogs who report both to the agency head and to Congress. They are not the President's people. IGs are not the President's people. They are our people, too. Congress needs to rely on the work of IGs in our oversight duties. IGs are Congress's people as much as they are the President's people.

The statute says now that IGs should be objective and independent and they are to be appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration or investigation. In other words, Mr. Chairman, IGs can't just be some poohbah's worthless brother-in-law.

This amendment provides the other body with an informed evaluation of the integrity and qualifications of any potential IG to assure that IGs are up to the job, they understand what their job is, they are to identify waste, fraud, abuse or general inefficiency, and report to the agency head and to Congress without fear or favor. IGs must report with rigorous honesty even if their reports cause political embarrassment; especially when their reports cause political embarrassment.

This amendment will return to an earlier tradition of consulting well-regarded IGs before an appointment of an IG for suggestions of who would be good for that job.

Mr. Chairman, we have departed from that tradition, to our detriment. This amendment will return us to that tradition.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support this legislation to treat the monstrous Bashir regime in the Sudan like the pariah it deserves to be. I also visited the Sudan in April as a member of a congressional delegation led by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Ms. Lee, the author of this important legislation was a member of that delegation, as was Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who just spoke a few minutes ago.

I returned from the Sudan even more convinced that we must not waiver in our effort to end the genocide in Darfur. The Bashir regime, just last week, again rejected a draft United Nations resolution to deploy a joint peacekeeping force to use all necessary means to end the violence in Darfur, to end the killing, to secure order.

The Bashir regime has repeatedly called an international force an affront to their sovereignty. The Bashir regime has forfeited their sovereignty, their claim to sovereignty, by committing genocide, by sponsoring genocide against their own people. In the last 4 years, 400,000 to 450,000 people have been killed in Darfur; 2.5 million people have abandoned their homes to seek refuge from the violence; 4 million rely on food assistance.

The Bashir regime's claim of sovereignty is a flimsy legalism in the face of the atrocities in Darfur. This legislation will hold up for public shame the companies that invest in the Sudan or conduct business with the Sudan that will seek profits, even in the face of the genocide in Darfur.

Sixty years ago, as the enormity of the Holocaust sank in, humanity promised never again. But the world has let genocide happen again and again, most recently in Rwanda. Kofi Annan, then-Secretary General of the United Nations, admitted that the world failed the people of Rwanda. I refuse to fail the people of the Sudan, of Darfur, as we failed the people of Rwanda. I am determined to keep the promise of 60 years ago. Never again.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on my own behalf and the behalf of Ms. Linda Sanchez of California.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement an Executive Order entered earlier this year. The Executive Order claims powers for the President over agency rulemaking that is consistent neither with statutes passed by Congress nor with the Constitution.

There are safeguards on how agencies can use that power, their power of rulemaking. Agencies are supposed to make rules in the public, with public participation, in the open, and citizens can sue an agency if regulations are too tough or too lenient.

Executive Order 13422 dramatically changes how rulemaking works and lets political appointees overrule the professionals at each agency in secret with no accountability to anyone. Decisions that are supposed to be made in the open can be made in closed rooms on the basis of improper political considerations, and often no citizen will know to sue to challenge a rule or more often sue to challenge agencies inaction because no citizen will know

what really happened. No citizen will know what the professionals at an agency be recommended be done.

The issues raised by Executive Order 13422 need Congress' attention, but this amendment stops this President or any Presiding from seizing the power to rewrite almost every law that Congress passes, laws to protect public health, the environment, safety, civil rights, privacy, and on and on, without answering to Congress or the American people.

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

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