Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to mark the passage of this historic legislation and to thank the individuals whose hard work made this moment possible. Of course we would never have gotten here without the perseverance of our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn. Also, Congressman John Larson, Chair of the Democratic Caucus and Xavier Becerra, Vice Chair. I would also like to thank Congressman Chris Van Hollen for his leadership and the Committee and Subcommittee Chairs whose perseverance brought us to this historic vote today: Chairmen George Miller from Education and Labor, Charlie Rangel from Ways and Means, Henry Waxman from Energy and Commerce and Sander Levin from Ways and Means and Subcommittee Chairs Pete Stark from Ways and Means and Frank Pallone from Energy and Commerce. I would especially like to thank my regional colleagues, Education and Labor Subcommittee Chairman Bob Andrews, Budget Committee Vice Chair Allyson Schwartz, House Administration Chairman Bob Brady, Congressman Mike Doyle, Congressman Patrick Murphy and Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Delegate Donna Christensen who represented the Congressional Black Caucus in critical negotiations. This bill will be good for my District, our region, and our country. We in the Congress owe a debt of gratitude to our President, Barack Obama, who led this historic effort.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank the staff whose talents are rarely seen in public, but without whom this would never have happened. First, Liz King in my office, an ardent advocate for my constituents in this debate. In the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle whose institutional memory and long-term commitment to healthcare access for all contributed to the success of this effort. Cheryl Parker Rose and Wendell Primus in the Speaker's office, Catherine Tran in the Democratic Caucus, Debbie Curtis and Cybele Bjorklund on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Michele Varnhagen on the Education and Labor Health Subcommittee and Karen Nelson on the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee staff.

On the local level, I would like to extend my appreciation to Marc Stier at Health Care for America NOW and Bob Brand a close friend, local advocate and veteran in this fight. I would also like to thank the countless constituents who called my Washington and Philadelphia offices, sharing their stories and raising their voices on behalf of health reform for themselves and their neighbors.

I want to thank and congratulate each and every one of them for getting this bill to this point and for giving me the opportunity to vote for affordable, secure healthcare for America's families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the chairwoman and in support of the rule. This Easter season, we are reminded again that if we can just hold on past Friday, Sunday will come. Americans have been holding on for over 100 years. We have seen bankruptcies, we have seen needless deaths. We have seen families denied insurance and children denied needed health care, but Sunday has come. This majority and this House is going to rise to the occasion. We will beat back this point of order, but much more importantly, we are going to beat these insurance companies and give the American public a health insurance reform bill that we all can be proud of.

I rise in support of the health care reform bill in honor of a friend of mine, Linda Taylor, who died because of the lack of insurance in a breast cancer illness that she faced.

Let me thank the gentlelady from California. I want to congratulate my colleague for her extraordinary leadership on this issue of such importance. We know of the real environmental challenges facing the oceans throughout the world. Oceans represent the vast majority--more than two-thirds of the surface of our planet--and this effort to educate our future generations about our responsibilities to be good stewards is so very, very important.

Back home, we have the Lenfest Foundation, in which Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest have put forth tens of millions of dollars into these types of efforts. And here in Washington, my friend, Tom Lindenfeld, with the Blue Guardians. There's so many people, Americans, who have focused the Nation's attention on this challenge.

I want to rise as an appropriator that's on the subcommittee that handles the NOAA appropriations. First of all, these authorizations are important, but they will be held to the PAYGO rules. It's still vitally important that the Congress speak and indicate its preference. I'm a supporter of this bill. I want to thank my colleague for her introduction and hope that all of my colleagues will favorably support it.

Now, I want to say a little bit about the other subject matter that's been raised on the floor, about the health care debate that we're going to have on Sunday. Now, all we have to do as Americans when we really hear these very different points of view is look at the scorecard. When the Republicans had the Presidency, the Congress and the Senate for 6 years, tens of millions of Americans were uninsured, and they did zero. On the question of children's health care, there was just zero and vetoes of the children's health care program. In terms of reining in the insurance companies and their unfair practices, they did zero.

Now, the Democrats in less than 16 months have made sure that the children's health care program could insure over 10 million children. On Sunday--and what an appropriate day for it--we're going to take 32 million of our fellow citizens and make sure that they have health care coverage. Aren't we our brother's keeper? We have a responsibility to be stewards of the Earth, but we also have a responsibility to love our neighbor. And in this Easter season, we know that on Fridays a lot of things can happen. We can hear a lot of things and witness a lot of things, but if we just hold on and wait until Sunday, good things happen on Sunday.

I believe that this Democratic majority, when we look at the scorecard, when we get held to account for how we were stewards--my colleague from California is showing good stewardship in terms of the oceans and educating future generations, and this Democratic majority is going to show that, indeed, we are our brother's keeper on Sunday. So notwithstanding the zero over their 6 years, we've taken less than 16 months to take the priorities of this country, right them again, and move us in the correct direction.

Now, we've heard this talk about deficits. The last time that we were paying down the deficits and balancing the budget, we had a Democrat in the White House. We're headed in that direction again. That's what PAYGO is about. That's what responsible leadership is about. And that's why the President's set up this fiscal commission. I have introduced a bill to get us to deal with the debts in our country. We hear a lot of nonsense from some of our Republican colleagues. We can stop talking about it and vote on it.

Let me thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding me some time. The beauty of sports--you know, we're entering into March Madness; we just witnessed the Olympics. When you get to sports, there's a scorecard. All the talk and all the bravado really doesn't matter. You kind of look at what the score is. And we had a Republican President, we had a Republican House, a Republican Senate for 6 years. And on the question of providing insurance to tens of millions of Americans who didn't have it, they did zero. On the question of reining in

insurance companies in terms of excess costs, they did zero. In terms of dealing with the practices of insurance companies taking away coverage on a preexisting condition, because they say pregnancy is a preexisting condition or acne or domestic violence, the Republican President and the majority in the House and the Senate for 6 years did zero.

Now we have a Democratic President and a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. In less than 16 months, we have provided health care to over 10 million children, even against the tobacco lobby and all of our Republican colleagues, many of whom voted against it. We prevailed. We in this House voted to take away the antitrust exemptions from insurance companies. Within just a few hours, some 72 hours from almost this moment, we are going to provide over 32 million of our fellow citizens with health insurance coverage through a health care reform proposal. We're going to rein in the worst practices of insurance companies. We're going to eliminate lifetime caps and yearly caps. We're going to make sure that children with preexisting conditions can't be denied coverage, and then down the road, adults.

So we are moving to look now at the scorecard. All of the talk is wonderful. I heard my colleague say, Well, they've done this and they tried to do this. Whatever the Republican President and majority did over those 6 years is overwhelmed by what was left undone. And we have begun this work. We're going to finish this work. And we're going to make sure that in this country we join the rest of the industrialized world in providing insurance for all of our citizens. We began this fight, and we're prepared to vote about it in just some 72 hours, all of this talk notwithstanding.

Madam Speaker, March 1 to 7 is Peace Corps Week, a time to officially celebrate one of the greatest ideas and most beloved international initiatives in our nation's history--49 years of hands-on good will by nearly 200,000 volunteers dispatched to 139 countries.

It is also an opportunity to pay tribute to my fellow Philadelphian Harris Wofford, the Father of National Service, who developed, nurtured and led the Peace Corps as it grew to reality from then-Senator John F. Kennedy's challenge to college students to serve in the cause of peace.

Harris Wofford has devoted his life and his creative energies to the civil society, civil rights and service to humanity. In addition to his seminal work in founding the Peace Corps, he served as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service--our domestic Peace Corps--which followed an all-too-brief and highly principled four years as United States Senator. He has continued his bipartisan advocacy for responsible and caring citizenship on behalf of America's Promise, Youth Service America, the Points of Light Foundation, and Experience Wave.

The 49th anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps by President Kennedy on March 1, 1961, is a great cause for celebration. But it's also a time to recognize that the reason we are celebrating is that, for the past 49 years, every week has been Peace Corps Week--over 2,500 Peace Corps Weeks.

Today, more than 7,600 volunteers in 76 nations are carrying out the vision of President Kennedy, Senator Wofford and so many other great and little known Americans who have made the Peace Corps synonymous with American service and sharing, American teaching and know-how, American compassion and peace work. I congratulate all these fine young--and not so young--men and women for their selfless efforts.

The Peace Corps has been the experience building and jumping off point for many prominent Philadelphians--including one notable alumnus from my hometown, ``Hardball's'' Chris Matthews. Today, I want to commend a dazzling dozen current Peace Corps volunteers who have traveled from their homes in the Second Congressional District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia and Montgomery County, for two years of service abroad.

They are Kaye Bullemeier, Darline Dameus and Noel C. Kuck, now in Malawi; Lauren J. Mcilhenny and Benjamin J. Stollenberg, in Albania; Emily F. Haimowitz and Daniel R. Merin, Costa Rica; Cara A. George, Guatemala; Imani D. Hulty, Mozambique; Nancy Morisseau, Turkmenistan; Joo Weon J. Park, China; and Danielle Porreca, Jamaica.

I salute these men and women and join with all Americans in extending thanks to entire Peace Corps family, past, present and future. You do us proud.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

If we roll the tape back, I can hear, as if it was yesterday, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, testifying before this Congress--and right after President Bush was sworn into office--about the fact of this $5 trillion surplus and the opportunity to pay off the debt. We were having a discussion about whether it would be good for our economy--this is in the record of this Congress--whether it would be good for our economy to pay off all of our debt or rather we should leave some debt on the books. That is what was projected. It was said at the end of the Bush Presidency, we can be an entirely debt-free country. Well, here we are today in a much different situation.

Now, if you want a balanced budget, then you should follow those people who know how to get us there. Democrats led the way under President Clinton, and we had a surplus. We had a balanced budget. We were paying down national debt. And that is where we are returning our country to, which is a responsible fiscal policy.

And as we see the economic turnaround, gross domestic product, 6 percent in the negative a year ago. We saw $700,000 lost in January a year ago. What we see now is a 5.7 percent increase in gross domestic product. We see purchasing orders up, manufacturing up, in today's report, by 1 percent, which is the second month in a row. We see home sales up. We see a country on the rebound.

And the fact of the matter is that PAYGO, as structured under this rule, not only says that you have to pay as you go, it also directs the Government Accountability Office to look for duplicative programs in the Federal budget that can be cut.

Now, I am going to be offering additional legislation next week on dealing with the debt that has been accumulated by the Republican President and the Republican majority over the last 6 years of the Bush administration, and we can do even more.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call to the attention of my colleagues an important and insightful commentary in the Sunday Washington Post--``A Very Productive Congress'' by Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Norman Ornstein is no raving liberal, nor is AEI considered among the ranks of progressive think tanks. Even more to the point, Ornstein is no fan of this august body. As the editor's note describes, he is co- author of ``The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track.'' His study, co-written with Thomas Mann, was published in 2006 when, I might suggest, a great many in the House today would have readily agreed.

So it is significant and, frankly, a hopeful sign for progress in our democracy that Ornstein cites the high legislative achievement of the 111th Congress and the dramatic if overlooked success of President Obama since January 2009:

``. . . This Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president--and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson,'' Ornstein writes. ``The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.''

Ornstein in particular praises the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a monumental achievement that would draw even greater recognition if it had been passed as a series of separate programs to reshape and fund education reform, health information technology, an energy smart grid, far-reaching job recovery and much more--``Instead, the Congress did it in one bill.''

I am a dedicated viewer of the Sunday talk shows. This past Sunday my channel surfing failed to locate a single commentator, legislator, scholar or talking head referencing the Ornstein essay. So I am sharing Norman Ornstein's article here in hopes that it will stimulate further discussion, appreciation of the Congressional leadership, and proper perspective of our accomplishments at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2010]

A Very Productive Congress, Despite What the Approval Ratings Say

(By Norman Ornstein)

When President Obama urged lawmakers during his State of

the Union speech to work with him on ``restoring the public

trust,'' he was hardly going out on a limb. The Congress he

was addressing is one of the least popular in decades. Barely

a quarter of Americans approve of the job it's doing,

according to the latest Gallup/USA Today poll, while 58

percent said it was below average or one of the worst ever,

according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey last month.

It's not hard to find reasons why Americans are down on

Capitol Hill, and why President Obama's approval rating has

dropped below 50 percent in many polls. A year into the 111th

Congress, unemployment remains at 10 percent, and many

Americans are struggling to get by--even as they've watched

Congress bail out banks and coddle the same bankers now

salivating over massive new bonuses. At the same time, the

public has had a front-row seat to the always messy

legislative process on health care and other issues, and this

past year that process has been messier, more rancorous and

more partisan than at any point in modern memory.

There seems to be little to endear citizens to their

legislature or to the president trying to influence it. It's

too bad, because even with the wrench thrown in by Republican

Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, this Democratic

Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive

since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama

already has the most legislative success of any modern

president--and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon

Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have

produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record

accomplishment.

The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was

far more than an injection of $787 billion in government

spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-

third of it--$288 billion--came in the form of tax cuts,

making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with

sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable-energy

production as well as home-buying and college tuition. The

stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy

arena of health-information technology, and more than $1

billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health-

care treatments.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the

stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school

districts across the country. There were also massive

investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart

grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy

and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious

advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more

than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless

Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would

be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress

did it in one bill. Lawmakers then added to their record by

expanding children's health insurance and providing stiff

oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous

Congress. Other accomplishments included a law to allow the

FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in

nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights and

defense procurement reform.

The House, of course, did much more, including approving a

historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory

changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health-

care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way

through the Senate, and even in this political environment it

is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It

is likely that the package of job-creation programs the

president showcased on Wednesday, most of which got through

the House last year, will be signed into law early on as

well.

Most of this has been accomplished without any support from

Republicans in either the House or the Senate--an especially

striking fact, since many of the initiatives of the New Deal

and the Great Society, including Social Security and

Medicare, attracted significant backing from the minority

Republicans.

How did it happen? Democrats, perhaps recalling the

disasters of 1994, when they failed to unite behind Bill

Clinton's agenda in the face of uniform GOP opposition, came

together. Obama's smoother beginning and stronger bonds with

congressional leaders also helped.

But even with robust majorities, Democratic leaders deserve

great credit for these achievements. Democratic ideologies

stretch from the left-wing views of Bernie Sanders in the

Senate and Maxine Waters in the House to the conservative

approach of Ben Nelson in the Senate and Bobby Bright in the

House, with every variation in between. Finding 219 votes for

climate-change legislation in the House was nothing short of

astonishing; getting all 60 Senate Democrats to support any

version of major health-care reform, an equal feat. The White

House strategy--applying pressure quietly while letting

congressional leaders find ways to build coalitions--was

critical.

Certainly, the quality of this legislative output is a

matter of debate. In fact, some voters, including many

independents, are down on Congress precisely because they

don't like the accomplishments, which to them smack of too

much government intervention and excessive deficits. But I

suspect the broader public regards this Congress as

committing sins of omission more than commission. Before the

State of the Union, the stimulus was never really sold in

terms of its substantive measures; it just looked like money

thrown at a problem in the usual pork-barrel way. And many

Americans, hunkering down in bad times, may not accept the

notion of ``countercyclical'' economic policies, in which the

government spends more just when citizens are cutting back.

Most of the specific new policies--such as energy

conservation and protection for public lands--enjoy solid and

broad public support. But many voters discount them simply

because they were passed or proposed by unpopular lawmakers.

In Massachusetts, people who enthusiastically support their

state's health-care system were hostile to the very similar

plan passed by Congress. Why? Because it was a product of

Congress.

Well before Sen.-elect Brown's Bay State upset, it was

clear that a sterling legislative record in the first half of

the 111th Congress did not guarantee continuing action in

2010 or beyond. And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59

senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on

the other side willing to become vote No. 60. With

Republicans ebullient over the Massachusetts election, the

likelihood is that they will feel vindicated in their ``just

say no'' strategy, Obama's leadership lectures

notwithstanding.

If the midterm elections in November turn out to be more

like 1994, when Democrats got hammered, than 1982, when

Republicans suffered a less costly blow, the GOP will

probably be emboldened to double down on its opposition to

everything, trying to bring the Obama presidency to its knees

on the way to 2012. That would mean real gridlock in the face

of a serious crisis. Given the precarious coalitions in our

otherwise dysfunctional politics, we could go quickly from

one of the most productive Congresses in our lifetimes to the

most obstructionist.

And voters would probably like that even less.

Madam Speaker, Teddy Pendergrass lived many remarkable lives--a life of song, rich and sensuous, a life of determination to overcome a difficult childhood in North Philadelphia, and finally a life of perseverance and triumph against the greatest odds imaginable.

When Teddy Pendergrass, at the too-young age of 59, died January 13 in a hospital several miles from where he grew up in North Philadelphia, the tributes flowed from across the nation and the world. But they weren't nostalgic reminisces for a faded star whose career might have been cut short by a paralyzing automobile accident. The praise and admiration were present-tense, for a man who--by guts and willpower-- kept performing, kept filling concert halls, stayed vibrant on the playlists and wherever music is enjoyed.

Even more, Teddy Pendergrass was a man of character and example. He grew in stature with the passage of years. He endured the hard solitary work of rehab so that he could return to the limelight--in a wheelchair, but ever-soulful. The tragedy of March 18, 1982 did not render Teddy bitter or consumed with self-pity. He emphatically made it clear that ``there is life after paralysis''.

Offstage, Teddy Pendergrass worked to inspire and encourage others. He established the Teddy Pendergrass Alliance to raise money for other victims of spinal cord injuries. He partnered with the National Spinal Cord Association. He inspired young artists--and youth people with severed spinal cords.

Theodore DeReese Pendergrass, born March 26, 1950, had a strong and special relationship with his mother Ida Burgess Pendergrass--and with the gift of music that she nurtured. Ida would stand young Teddy, at the age of two, on a chair in church and he would sing praises to the Lord. At age ten he was licensed to the Gospel Ministry. Soon he was playing the drums for various local groups including The Cadillacs. It was while drumming for Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes that his vocal gift was discovered.

In 1972, he signed to Gamble & Huff's Philadelphia International Records label. ``Teddy Bear'' was smoldering hot--in his recordings, on stage, everywhere he went. He recorded 10 platinum (million-selling) albums in a row for Gamble and Huff at Philadelphia International Records. No one who heard them will ever forget hits like ``Love TKO'', ``Turn Off the Lights,'' ``Feel The Fire.'' And of course, ``If You Don't Know Me By Now.'' His ``women only'' concerts are legendary.

A year after his accident Teddy Pendergrass returned to recording, memorably in a 1984 duet with Whitney Houston, titled ``Hold Me.'' He rolled that wheelchair onstage at JFK Stadium to perform at the unforgettable ``Live Aid'' charity concert. He produced a 1998 autobiography, undertook a 2002-2003 concert tour, and all the while serving as an inspiration to many young artists. The milestone of his life was ``Teddy 25--A Celebration of Life, Hope and Possibilities'' at Philadelphia's Academy of Music. It was a fund raiser for his Alliance, and it marked 25 years since the accident.

Then, at last, came retirement. This past year, Teddy Pendergrass faced a battle with colon cancer that his great heart and courage could not overcome.

Teddy Pendergrass loved life and would light up any room with his million dollar smile. He loved his family and held them close to his heart. This love was evidenced in the way that he encouraged family and friends to share private moments with him. He and his wife Joan enjoyed spending every possible moment together; laughter was a tremendous part of their life. Their love for each other was ordained by God and they became one in marriage. Teddy returned to the Lord Jesus Christ and together they joined the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church.

Teddy leaves to cherish his memory, his loving wife, Joan Pendergrass, his devoted mother, Ida Pendergrass, his children, Teddy II (daughter-in-law, Felicia), Tishia (son-in-law, Cedric) and LaDonna; stepdaughters Sherilla Lestrade and Jessica Avila; grandchildren, Montaurius Drane, Desaray Drane, Teddy Pendergrass III, Alana Nida Sky Pendergrass, Jasmine Lestrade, Gabriel Gomes and Jeremiah Sanford. In addition to his immediate family, Teddy will be dearly missed by his godchildren, family and friends; especially, his cousins, Jerry and Francina Pendergrass, George Mouzon, Pee Wee Mosley and Neverland Dent; his special family; Joyce Canderlero, Edwin Dereese Canderlero, Antonio Canderlero, Keya Perinchief, Kylid Perinchief, Lori Edmonds, Paya Williams, ``second Mom'' Louise Hollerway, his manager's Danny Markus, Shep Gordon and Allan Strahi and longtime friend, Henry Evans.

It is as Enon Tabernacle, one of Philadelphia's great churches, that a Celebration of Life will be conducted on Saturday, January 23, at 10 a.m. Teddy Pendergrass lived a life worthy of celebration at every level. His music lives on. His spirit lives on. His fierce determination and zest for life endures. This is how we know him, by now.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. The Republican minority has been fairly consistent. When we focused on health care, they said, well, 85 percent of the people in the country have health care, so let's not turn things upside down, let's not sacrifice too much to try to deal with the tens of millions who don't have it; 85 percent have it.

On the jobs front, 90 percent of the people in the country have jobs. So I can see their lack of empathy for the 10 percent who don't, and they don't see a need for us to act. But as we come to this holiday season, as we look and see many of our citizens who not only have not a job at this moment, mainly because of policies enacted, this unwarranted war in Iraq and fiscal policies that have had us a double- digit national debt in the trillions before

Barack Obama was sworn into office, but they don't really see a need for us to do a great deal of effort here to try to put Americans back to work.

I want to thank the chairman for authoring this legislation which is bifurcated, both focused on jobs and also in helping people in a difficult moment. That's what I think America ought to be about. I rise in support of this legislation.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4173, the Wall Street and Consumer Protect Act of 2009. The bill proposes to address the financial crisis brought on by the financial industry by crafting a comprehensive set of measures that will modernize America's financial regulations and hold Wall Street accountable. A myriad of issues, from predatory lending to unregulated derivatives, are contained in the bill to prevent conditions that led to last year's financial meltdown.

The legislation being considered today outlaws many of the egregious industry practices that marked the subprime lending boom, and it would ensure that mortgage lenders make loans that benefit the consumer. H.R. 4173 establishes a simple standard for all home loans, mandating that institutions must ensure borrowers have the ability to the loans they are sold. In addition, the bill prohibits the financial incentives for subprime loans that encourage lenders to steer borrowers into more costly loans, including the bonuses known as ``yield spread premiums,'' which lenders pay to brokers to inflate the cost of loans. Many homeowners in the current mortgage crisis received were steered into more expensive loans than they qualified for. The bill limits the prepayment penalties charged to borrowers who wish to get out of their loans and refinance on more affordable terms.

Implementing laws to correct the failures that led to the economic conditions that created the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression is important in ensuring the ensuing calamity that transpired after the collapse of the financial markets. Nevertheless, the Chairman's inclusion of a mortgage foreclosure assistance provision in the Chairman's Manager's Amendment brings to light one of the least discussed causalities of the financial disaster. Many homeowners now find they are unable to meet their financial obligations due to the severe recession caused by the unbridled greed and recklessness of many financial services institutions.

On numerous occasions, President Obama declared the road to recovery must begin with correcting the damaged housing market by providing people the tools necessary to keep their homes and prevent foreclosure. According to a recently released report by RealtyTrac, a realty company that maintains a comprehensive national database of pre-foreclosure and foreclosure properties, nearly 400,000 properties received foreclosure filing in August 2009. Though number of filings decreased less than one percent from the previous month, the overall number of foreclosure filings is nearly 18 percent higher than the previous year. More strikingly, the report also indicates 1 in every 357 properties used for housing are under threat of foreclosure.

Although not all homes in the foreclosure process will end in a foreclosure completion, an increase in the number of loans in the foreclosure process is generally accompanied by an increase in the number of homes on which a foreclosure is completed. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, about 1 percent of all home loans were in the foreclosure process in the second quarter of 2006. By the second quarter of 2009, the rate had quadrupled to over 4 percent.

Traditionally, housing is considered a relatively safe investment that allows for the possibility for a high rate of return. Rapidly rising home prices reinforced supported this view. During the rapid of expansion of housing in the early part of this decade, many people decided to buy homes or take out second mortgages in order to access their increasing home equity. Furthermore, rising home prices and low interest rates contributed to a sharp increase in people refinancing their mortgages. For example, between 2000 and 2003, the number of refinanced mortgage loans jumped from 2.5 million to over 15 million. In 2006 and 2007, the value of housing dropped precipitously, which triggered an unexpected increase in the number of homeowners that were delinquent on their mortgages payments and facing foreclosure.

Mortgage foreclosures are very costly to both the foreclosed homeowner and the mortgage lender. Lenders suffer revenue losses from uncollected interest on delinquent loans, as well as unrecoverable origination costs and fees. Though loans that are insured under the Federal Housing Act mitigates losses to lenders to a certain extent, foreclosures cost the lending industry approximately $32,000 for every home that is in foreclosure proceedings since foreclosed properties are often sold below market value.

Losing a home to foreclosure can have a number of negative effects on a household. For many families, losing a home means losing the household's largest store of wealth. Furthermore, foreclosure can negatively impact a borrower's creditworthiness, making it more difficult for him or her to buy a home in the future. Finally, losing a home to foreclosure can also mean that a household loses many of the less tangible benefits of owning a home. Research has shown that these benefits include increased civic engagement that results from having a stake in the community, and better health, school, and behavioral outcomes for children.

In addition, many homeowners experience difficulty finding a place to live after losing their home to foreclosure. Many will become renters. Nevertheless, some landlords may be unwilling to rent to families whose credit has been damaged by a foreclosure, limiting the options open to these families. There can also be spillover effects from foreclosure on current renters. Renters living in units facing foreclosure may be required to move, even if they are current on their rent payments. As more homeowners become renters and as more current renters are displaced when their landlords face foreclosure, pressure on local rental markets may increase, and more families may have difficulty finding affordable rental housing. Some observers have also raised the concern that a large increase in foreclosures could increase homelessness, either because families who lost their homes have trouble finding new places to live or because the increased demand for rental housing makes it more difficult for families to find adequate, affordable units.

A concentration of foreclosures will negatively impacts communities, not just homeowners facing foreclosure. Many foreclosures in a single neighborhood may depress surrounding home values. If foreclosed homes stand vacant for long periods of time, they can attract crime and blight, especially if they are not well-maintained. Concentrated foreclosures also place pressure on local governments, which can lose property tax revenue and may have to step in to maintain vacant foreclosed properties.

Unforeseen events can happen to all people, in all communities. Unexpected medical expenses, sudden unemployment, and divorce are only some of the myriad of unforeseen circumstances that can create financial instability for hardworking homeowners. Such hardships are frequently cited as significant contributing factors that hinder a homeowner's ability to maintain timely mortgage payments, ultimately resulting in dramatically higher rates of mortgage foreclosure. Homeowners in America face the added pressure of simultaneously handling the financial burdens of unforeseen events and their mortgage obligations.

Making Home Affordable, the new Obama plan which requires lenders to modify mortgages, is a good idea that is off to a slow start as lenders have yet to gear up for or aggressively seek modifications to those eligible. Foreclosures caused by unemployment are becoming a greater and greater portion of the foreclosure problem. Estimates are that 5.5 million homes will enter foreclosure in 2009 and 2010.

In Pennsylvania, a major state initiative to combat family- devastating foreclosures has been operating with success for more than a quarter-century, enacted in the wake of the severe recession of 1983. The Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program (HEMAP) has provided loans to over 43,000 homeowners since 1984 at a cost to the Keystone State of $236 million. Assisted homeowners have repaid $246 million to date which works out to a $10 million profit for the state after 25 years of helping families keep their homes.

The Pennsylvania model will work nationally, and that is why I introduced H.R. 3142, the Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance (HEMA) Act, which is pending before the House Financial Services Committee. HEMA establishes an emergency mortgage assistance program for qualifying homeowners who are temporarily unable to meet their obligations due to financial hardship beyond their control. Under HEMA, homeowners would have the opportunity to regain financial stability without the immediate pressure of foreclosure. With the support of Chairman Barney Frank of the Committee on Financial Services and Subcommittee Chairwoman Maxine Waters, the HEMA proposal was incorporated into H.R. 3766, the Main Street TARP Act. The Main Street TARP Act proposes to use unspent TARP funds to provide relief for distressed homeowners who are unable to meet their mortgage obligations due to financial hardship, as well as providing assistance to renters seeking affordable housing.

A national HEMA program offers a workable complement to President Obama's new Making Home Affordable program. Making Home Affordable has allocated $75 billion in TARP funds to provide financial incentives to encourage participation by mortgage servicers and homeowners. Although the Treasury Department is taking steps to increase the effectiveness of Making Home Affordable by pressing mortgage servicers to put additional resources and staff into providing loan modifications that make mortgages affordable for homeowners, the scale of the problem is huge and the ability and willingness of servicers to do the work necessary is in question. The loss of six million US jobs since the start of the recession complicates the crisis as many jobless won't even have enough income for a loan modification to be effective.

A HEMA-style loan program could use TARP funds already allocated for foreclosure prevention to directly cure mortgage defaults for the unemployed. As the economy recovers most jobless workers will get back to work and be able to resume their mortgage payments. Even a portion of the $75 billion set aside for Making Home Affordable could pay a lot of mortgage payments to bring homeowners current and not have them at the mercy of a mortgage servicer who is poorly equipped to offer them help.

Such a program could be run much more efficiently than the time consuming loan modification program. A homeowner who indicated that he or she was unemployed would provide verification of unemployment compensation to the servicer and automatically be approved for a loan that would pay any mortgage above 31 percent of their income (the target amount in Making Home Affordable modifications). The Treasury could make payments for the homeowner who is then current on the mortgage. It would cut through the disorder of the loan modification program and slow the numbers of foreclosed properties on the market.

The success of HEMAP is evident in the program's results. Since its inception, 42,700 families were saved from foreclosure by providing over $442 million in loans to at-risk homeowners. The average loan to a distressed homeowner is $10,500, which is much less than the $35,000 it costs to complete most foreclosure actions. Additionally, this estimated average foreclosure cost does not consider the impact of foreclosures on families, neighborhoods and communities.

We have tried everything else. The Treasury has already allocated far more than $2 billion to prevent foreclosures. It seems likely that many of those dollars will not be spent in a timely manner by mortgage servicers modifying loans. It's time to get people's mortgages paid directly and to slow the pace of home losses that are destroying families and crippling our overall economy. It's time to think outside the box about foreclosures--and way past time to keep Americans inside their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, in my fourteen years representing the people of Philadelphia and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, I have had few opportunities as significant as this one to stand up for my constituents, their families, the future of our city and the destiny of our nation. This healthcare bill is the result of months of legislative negotiation and collaboration and answers the calls made for decades by mothers who could not alleviate the suffering of their children, conscience-minded small business owners who could not provide the healthcare coverage they knew their employees deserved and doctors and nurses who fought creatively to provide treatments they knew their patients needed and could never afford. I am proud that today we will take the most significant step in a century towards joining the rest of the industrialized world in assuring every American has access to the healthcare they need.

It is the nature of democracy that this bill contains some provisions which I do not support. I believe women deserve access to the full range of legally assured health services on equal footing with men. I believe it is our responsibility to vigorously address the pernicious health disparities which disadvantage Americans of color and linguistic minorities. I believe overzealous efforts to deny some people healthcare on the basis of their immigration status will inadvertently limit care for native-born and legal residents as well. I believe a stow public option is the only way to ensure competition, choice and affordability in the American private insurance market. At the end of the day, we, as the Representatives of the people are called to speak for them. Rarely do we have the opportunity to so directly improve their standard of living. It is with the people of the Second District in mind, and the generations to come, that I enthusiastically vote yes for the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Acel Moore, a distinguished Philadelphia journalist and educator, mentor and role model, who is adding another significant honor to his already impressive career. Along the way, Acel Moore has been a pioneer in the promotion and showcasing of minority journalism and a star in the ranks of Philadelphia journalists.

Acel Moore has been called ``the conscience of the community,'' a title and responsibility that he continues to earn every day.

His latest honor, the 2009 Star Alumnus EDDY from the Philadelphia Education Fund as a Star of Public Education, will be presented November 19, 2009 at the Philadelphia Education Fund awards ceremony on the campus of Drexel University in my district.

Acel's journalism career began at the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1962 as a copy book, gained added prominence with the 1977 Pulitzer Prize and continues today as the Inquirer's Associate Editor Emeritus and columnist. Yet alongside his work in the newsroom, Acel has been the creator of programs, motivator and instructor for generations of public school youth in Philadelphia.

Most significantly, he has blended these dual passions. Acel Moore has not only opened the door for talented youth of color to launch journalism and communications careers in workplaces desperately in need of diversity. He has, time after time, built the doorway itself.

Acel--known throughout Philadelphia and in wider journalism circles simply by his distinctive first name--continues to lecture at several colleges and universities around the country. At the Inquirer, he writes and directs recruitment, training and staff development while still being consulted to help shape and balance the paper's editorial policies.

In 1979, he established the Art Peters Fellowship Program, a copy editor internship that has launched the careers of 50 journalists. In 1984, he created the Journalism Career Development Workshop that has trained dozens of Philadelphia high school students. The program is now named in his honor--the Acel Moore Minority Workshop. He also has developed writing and journalism programs for the School District of Philadelphia.

In 1970 he won the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Scale of Justice Award for his series on the juvenile court system. Then came the Public Service Award from the Society of Professional Journalism in 1971 and an award from the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors Association in 1974. That same

year Moore joined Reggie Bryant to host an influential television show called Black Perspectives on the News on WHYY public television.

In 1975, Acel Moore and 43 other newsmen and women met in Washington to launch the National Association of Black Journalists. NABJ soon spawned a Philadelphia chapter, and many more local chapters.

A quarter century later, Acel Moore reflected, ``If I had said in 1975 . . . that I thought NABJ would have the impact and import it has today, I'd be lying. There was a feeling among some people that signing their name on the list [to form NABJ] was a risk, that there would be a retaliation for doing that.''

NABJ soon spawned a Philadelphia chapter, and many more local chapters. It was an advocacy group, an employment agency, a civil rights crusader. Now NABJ has 3,300 members. It has provided the example for minority journalism organizations of Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans, lesbians and gays, significantly increasing the diversity of our newsrooms, networks and the communications executive ranks. This is no small feat, and it is a tremendous service to the profession that Acel Moore loves: A newsroom or newscast must reflect the audience and the community it serves or its credibility suffers.

Acel Moore had already achieved prominence and impact by the time he and Inquirer colleague Wendell Rawls began their investigation of abuse of inmates at Farview State Hospital. Their series led to awarding of the 1977 Pulitzer Prize, journalism's most important award, for local investigative reporting--and to significant changes at the hospital itself. Typically, Acel Moore was digging hard, uncovering the truth and providing a voice for the voiceless.

I was honored to attend Acel Moore's ``retirement'' party in December 2005 with 250 colleagues, admirers, movers and shakers at the Moore College of Art. I put retirement in quotes because Acel wasn't truly retiring then, or in full retirement even today. He has taken up the hobby of painting. But he has never really stepped away from his day job--serving the Philadelphia community, its underprivileged and voiceless, coaxing and grooming the next generation of communicators to continue his life's work.

On the eve of this next great and greatly deserved honor, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking a great Philadelphian, Acel Moore.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I knew Jack Kemp and worked with him when he was Secretary of HUD on an initiative in Philadelphia to take a major step in reforming public housing, move away from high-rise public housing for families with children and create real neighborhoods. It was Secretary Kemp, former Congressman Kemp, who really supported this effort and today, with a whole new skyline, a city of neighborhoods, increased our property values in all of the communities where we took down the high-rises and created real homes and neighborhoods for families.

So I want to just rise--even though I know he is from New York and the Yankees won--as a Philadelphian to thank Jack Kemp for his service and to support this legislation today. He truly made a difference, not just as a Member of Congress but in his life after his work in the Congress as part of the President's Cabinet and as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3949 as amended I would have voted ``yea.''