Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 456 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 456.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 456 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services to concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except clause 10 of rule XXI and provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule provides that the question of adoption of the motion shall be divided for a separate vote on concurring in section 512 of the Senate amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the deceptive practices of credit card companies over the last 2 weeks here in Washington. My friends here in the House of Representatives have highlighted the nearly $1 trillion credit card debt in the United States.

President Obama has stressed the need for ``credit card forms and statements that have plain language in plain sight.'' My colleagues in the Senate have equated the deceptive practices used by credit card companies to loan sharking. Small business groups have drawn attention to the one in three businesses where credit card debt accounts for at least 25 percent of the company's overall debt.

Family and consumer groups have highlighted the more than 91 million United States families who are subject to unfair interest rate hikes and being taken advantage of by hidden penalties and fees. These statistics are certainly shocking, and meaningful legislation is necessary. However, this is not a new issue to the American people. This is a problem that they understand all too well and deal with each and every day.

Credit cards have gone from being a luxury to being a convenience to being a necessity. Whether it is paying for your gas at the pump or placing an order online, our modern economy almost requires you to have a credit card. Unfortunately, the tough economic times we are in mean that more and more Americans are turning to credit cards to pay for basic necessities or to make ends meet when something unexpected comes along.

Last weekend in Maine, I was talking with one of my constituents who told me something I hear frequently, that a credit card is the only way she can pay her medical bills. And last winter, with skyrocketing heating oil prices, a credit card was the only way many people in my State were able to stay warm.

But while credit cards have gone from luxury to necessity, credit card

companies have undergone a transition too. There was a time when a credit card agreement was reasonably straightforward and fair. It was an agreement to provide a basic service for a reasonable fee. But all that has changed. Credit card agreements are a tangle of fine print with complicated provisions that almost seem designed to keep the cardholder in debt forever. Everywhere you turn, it seems the credit card companies have dreamed up a new fee or another clever scheme to raise your interest rate. Basic fairness has been replaced by deception and greed.

These days using a credit card is like going to a Las Vegas casino. No matter how clever or responsible you are, nine times out of ten, you are going to lose, and the company is going to win. Managing your finances shouldn't be a gamble. The deck shouldn't be stacked against you.

Americans have a lot to worry about these days: a weak economy, a broken health care system and rising energy prices. And that is on top of all the responsibilities we face on a daily basis like raising a family and going to work. The last thing people need to worry about is whether or not their credit card company is going to suddenly double their interest rate or surprise them with an unexpected fee they can't afford.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring back basic fairness to the credit card industry and level the playing field for Americans to take responsibility for their finances. Credit card companies have been getting away with too much for too long.

I urge my colleagues to join me today in passing this important bill and sending it directly to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

I am the last speaker for this side, so until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the debate this morning on the TARP, on Secretary Geithner, on guns in the national parks, I just want to remind my colleagues that we're here today to talk about the rule on H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for us to prove to nearly 175 million Americans with credit cards that we understand their frustration and we recognize that they are the target of unfair, unreasonable, and deceptive practices. Late fees, over-the-limit fees, arbitrary increases in interest rates, the credit card companies have gotten away with far too much for far too long. It's time we level the playing field now for small businesses, for families and for individuals across this country.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Today I want to recognize some actions in my home State. Last week Maine became the fifth State in the country to embrace marriage equality.

Same-sex couples live all over our State in loving, committed relationships, raising families and growing old together, yet they have not been afforded the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. Last week our legislature took a major step towards correcting that injustice.

In the week leading up to the vote, thousands of people filled the Augusta Civic Center to testify on the marriage equality bill. People came from all over our State, men and women, straight and gay, young and old, couples and single people. Many of them waited hours for their turn to speak. When they got to the microphone, the overwhelming majority said it was time for Maine to recognize same-sex marriage.

Maine moved the country one step closer to federally recognizing and protecting the right for two people, regardless of their gender, to be married. Maine has always been an independent State with a forward- looking legislative body and citizens with common sense.

I stand here today to congratulate my home State on the passage of this landmark victory.

The landmark victory didn't come easily or without long debate. Many personal journeys began and ended with this lengthy discussion.

My daughter happens to be the Speaker of the House, and she shared her own personal story, which, with pride, I would like to share a few of her words which reflected our family's feelings. She said, when she got up to testify, ``This issue was brought home for me two summers ago when my husband and I were married. Our island pastor was on a trip abroad and unavailable to perform our wedding ceremony. My husband and I wanted to be married by someone we knew and trusted. We asked a good family friend to perform our wedding; we knew his tone, his presence, and his sense of humor would be perfect. He was honored to do it, and we immediately got to work planning the ceremony. Throughout the preparations for the wedding, he gave us honest and valuable advice about the joys and challenges of a lifetime of commitment to another person. He gave us some of the best advice either of us has ever received about marriage.

``As we drove away from our wedding rehearsal, all of us happy and relieved that everything seemed to be going well, my friend said to me, `I am honored to perform your wedding. It is going to be great. But it is important to understand that you and Jason have the right to do something very special, and it's a right that I don't have. The friend that married us is a gay man who has been living in a committed and loving relationship with the same man for more than 30 years.

``I was struck in that moment that a person whom I respected and trusted, a person as close to me as some of my dearest relatives, a person whose relationship was a model for trust, compassion, longevity, was legally denied a right and status that my husband and I were about to be granted. There is nothing fair about giving some committed couples in Maine the right to the legal responsibilities and privileges of marriage and denying it to others.''

That was my daughter, Hannah, the Speaker of the House's story, and one that held great meaning to my family and to so many of us across Maine as we considered the plight of many of our friends in committed relationships who haven't been allowed the right to make it legal.

When the deliberation ended at the public hearing and it was time to vote, many of Maine's State legislators found themselves in new territory. As Governor Baldacci made clear just after signing the marriage equity bill into law, he said, ``In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.''

Madam Speaker, as we in this body consider the future of issues of equality, it is important that we all take a moment to reflect on the history that was made in Augusta, Maine, this month. Eighty-nine State representatives, 21 State senators, and one Governor put themselves on record supporting fairness and equality, and one more State voted to do the right thing.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much. Thank you to all of my colleagues here today. It's nice to have the opportunity to join the two of you.

I first want to say that I concur. It was an important day to cast the vote that many of us did to recognize that there are serious issues around Iraq and Afghanistan. In spite of many of us coming from States where we have a lot of people serving in the military, and I greatly respect their service and the importance that all of us see in taking care of those who serve their country, this was also an important day to talk about the essential nature of finding an end to the conflict and making sure that we send the President that message.

I thank you for giving me this chance to talk a little bit about what it means to be a Progressive. You're right, I was fortunate to be on the floor just a few moments before we started the Progressive Hour to recognize something that had gone on in my State in the past week.

Maine is now the fifth State in the Nation to recognize the equality of marriage that everyone, regardless of their gender, should have the right to marry. As we all know, this can often be a contentious and difficult debate.

Thousands of people literally turned out at a public hearing in Maine to discuss this topic. People from all walks of life; from all religious backgrounds; people who were married and who weren't married.

I very proudly quoted from my daughter today. My daughter happens to be the Speaker of the House in Maine--far more important than her mother--and she gave a very eloquent speech about the fact she was married only a couple of summers ago by a wonderful friend of our family. And during the conversation preparing for the wedding, it occurred to her that her good friend who was marrying her had been part of a couple for 30 years, but because he was the same gender as her partner, was not allowed to be married.

So the person who gave her good advice, who performed the ceremony, was able to remind her everyone should have this right. I believe fundamentally it should be a Federal right. We should be talking about this at some point in our tenure.

But I'm just so proud of my home State, my own Governor, the State legislators, many of them who thought long and hard about the best way to cast their vote, but in the end said, Our goal is to do the right thing.

I just want to follow up a little bit about some of the things that you were already talking about before I close my remarks, but really on this idea of what it is to be a Progressive because Jared rightfully said that it's sometimes about asking the questions, of searching a little bit further, of taking the tough votes. I also think it is a matter of recognizing that we're all in this together.

For me, getting into politics--and I was first elected to the State legislature in 1992--but I became a school board member in my community years before that. Part of what I learned along the way is that the reason we do this is to recognize that we're all in this together. That if we're not all succeeding together; if we don't have health care; if everyone doesn't have a job; if we're not thinking ahead about the security or everyone, whether you're a soldier or not a soldier, we're not going to get ahead in the world. We're not going to have the kind of world that we want to have.

To me, that is the fundamental of this--our overarching political philosophy is just recognizing that none of us get ahead unless we all do it together. For me, that's always a question when I make a decision, whether it's an economic decision or an issue of health care.

I have been a small business owner. I'm proud to say that I employ other people. But I want to make sure that they're treated well, that they get fair wages, that their health care is covered. I believe that's part of the fundamental of the responsibility that we share to each other in this country and in countries abroad.

For me, that's a fundamental principle, and I'm proud to share these moments with my colleagues from Minnesota and Colorado, where I know those are their fundamental values, as well as many others that they bring to the floor today.

Absolutely.

Well, absolutely. Maine is an interesting State. We're about a third Republican, a third Democrat, and a third Independent, but pretty much everybody is independent there. I would say the overarching value that most people share is this idea that there is a right of privacy, of individual liberty; that I'm not going to interfere with your right to live your life in the way you choose as long as you respect my rights as well.

Because of that, even though we're economically quite disadvantaged in my State--it's about 38th in per capita income--people have worked hard to take care of each other, but also to somewhat leave each other alone. We have a lot of independent fishermen and farmers and people who make a living in a variety of ways, and most of them would say, Just preserve my independence and individual liberty and, while you're at it, can you make sure we get health care coverage.

But I think it's because people see those as values that should be shared, that come together.

Absolutely. I am glad you put this list forward today. I think it is an excellent collection of those things that we have done collectively to make sure that we are all better off.

Rural electrification was a very progressive idea. The idea that for economic development, for everyone to succeed, for people to have better opportunities, we all needed to be connected to each other.

I think one of the things that this underscores about Progressive values is the idea that you need to choose those things that will really benefit everybody. We all recognize we can't do everything. People sometimes accuse us of expecting government to do everything. We don't want to do that, and we don't want government to meddle in everything. But this is a very good list of those things that have benefited the greatest amount of people. And coming from a rural State, I know the importance of rural electrification.

In fact, I happen to live in a community that is about to construct a major wind tower, benefiting us as we look into the future, and we are still able to do that because of the organization that is there around rural electrification.

Absolutely. Again, representing a rural State, most people don't know, but Maine happens to be the most rural State in the Nation. Most of us live in small communities without access to cable, and the kinds of things that many other people have. Broadband has become essential for communication, education, and running a small business. Any kind of business, you need to be able to connect to people on the Net.

I personally run a business, and people wouldn't be able to find us if it wasn't for the Internet. But the fact is that many small communities don't have this. This is one of the reasons that this was part of the stimulus package that many of us supported and voted for because we believed it would help communities move ahead. Sometimes it is an inner-city neighborhood, and sometimes it is a distant neighborhood that needs that access to broadband. I think there is a correlation between what went on with the REA and rural electrification and what we are trying to do today to make sure that everybody in America has access to high-speed Internet. It is fundamental for education and now for medicine. We have many doctors who are able to diagnose at a distance in those communities that can't have a full-time doctor or the kinds of medical specialties that they need.

But people want to live and work in those communities. It is a great part of the American tradition. Whether you are a fisherman or a farmer, we want to continue that. It is a very important part of why we need to expand broadband.

Absolutely. People would say fundamentally, it was a part of America to expand west and be in rural areas. Many people choose the environment of rural America. But, frankly, we are dependent on those people who choose to grow our food, harvest our fish. Many in my State harvest the trees that make our paper and make our furniture. These are people with solid American values. Kids have wonderful schools to attend, and feel safe in their communities. We want to have more people who can have the opportunity to live there.

One of the biggest issues in my State is, How am I going to make a living and support myself? I think it is an important Progressive value to say what exactly does government need to do. We know we need to have security and roads. Maybe a high-speed train. You need to have health care available to you so you can feel comfortable and secure. But you also need broadband access. It is a very important thing.

We are both standing here and many of our colleagues are here, many who wouldn't necessarily call themselves Progressive, but they are here because they want to pass more legislation that will foster our Progressive values.

That is a wonderful list that looks at issues that people struggle with in the economy. But the fact is, I would say that one of the number one concerns of people in America today is to have access to health care and have it be affordable. I think that needs to be added to that list. I think many of us won't rest until it is done.

Many Members in this Chamber hear from their constituents every day, Do something about health care. I am thrilled that we passed a budget with $630 billion in it for health care, but we have a lot of work to do to actually design the system and make sure that it is available to everybody, whether you are running a small business or you are an individual who has no coverage, or struggles with coverage that has such a big deductible it doesn't provide you with the care you need when you are sick.

You have said almost everything that needs to be said. You have a great chart. In talking about some of the proud things in progressive history, I want to emphasize that virtually everything on that list is where people have said, We are all in this together. What do we need to take care of the basic fundamentals in this world so that we can prosper, so we can be safe and healthy and have a sense of security? That is what we are dedicated to.

I know those are the commonsense values of people in my State, people of vastly different political perspectives and economic perspectives who say, Look, unless we are all in this together--we have to move forward together or we are not going to get anywhere.

As you mentioned, we have a tall order in front of us. We have done a lot in the few months we have been here. And I feel proud as a freshman to have come at this moment in time when we have a President who cares so deeply about our relations around the world, economic justice for people and health care. It is a great moment to be here, but it is certainly a difficult task. Many, many people are struggling in this economy. States like mine are having a hard time balancing their budget and getting ahead. We have a lot of work here to do. I have been pleased to be here tonight, and look forward to many other dialogues like this in the future as we accomplish many of our goals.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 400 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 400.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 400 provides for initial consideration of H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti- Predatory Lending Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. After the general debate, there will be no further consideration of the bill except pursuant to the subsequent rule.

Homeownership has always been a key part of the American Dream. Unfortunately, for hundreds of thousands of Americans, that dream has been shattered by predatory lenders that entice them to accept loans they could not afford.

Now, across this country, hardworking families are unable to pay loans they can't afford, and they are losing their homes to foreclosure in unprecedented numbers. On top of this, many would argue that the extreme problems in the mortgage industry have been one of the most serious causes of our current, economic problems.

This week we have the opportunity to rein in these lending practices. H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009 is a major step forward in curbing abusive and predatory lending. This Congress has already passed legislation aimed at invigorating the housing market, by helping new homebuyers purchase homes and dispensing of many of the toxic assets that have had our economy in a stranglehold.

The bill we take up today is the second and equally important step of building a stronger foundation. The regulations that are proposed will put a new face on the mortgage system that has become rife with fraud.

H.R. 1728 would outlaw many of the worst industry practices, while also preventing borrowers from deliberately misrepresenting their income to qualify for a loan. The message is simple: Lenders can't give loans to people who can't afford them and borrowers have to tell the truth about their finances when applying for a loan. If you can't play by the rules, you will be held accountable.

This bill draws upon everything that was once fundamentally sound about our banking system. It takes us back to a time when community bankers knew their consumers, to when they understood clearly what they could afford and to when they worked with them to offer loans that worked best for their families.

This is a far cry from some of the practices developed during the real estate boom, when mortgages became far more risky and terms like ``no-doc

lending'' and ``liars loans'' became part of our language.

Madam Speaker, this bill sets minimum standards for mortgages requiring that consumers must have a reasonable ability to pay the loan back, and that mortgage refinancing must provide a net tangible benefit to the consumer.

All mortgage originators will be licensed and registered. Securitizers and other participants in the secondary mortgage market, for the first time, under Federal law, will be liable for supporting irresponsible lending.

The bill also prohibits financial incentives that encourage mortgage originators to steer consumers to higher cost and more abusive mortgages. In other words, lenders can't sell consumers loans that aren't good for them.

Over the last decade, many subprime loans were made to borrowers who, due to their weak credit histories, were high credit risks. This bill will make sure that, instead of rewarding originators for pumping out high volumes of costly mortgage loans, there will be incentives for lenders to give borrowers the best possible price and stick with the borrower over the course of the loan.

And any creditor that violates the standard set forth in this bill will be liable to the consumer. They will be required to either rescind the loan and pay for all the legal fees or work with them in a timely fashion to modify or refinance the loan at no additional cost to the borrower.

Somewhere along the line, our mortgage system has lost its way at a great cost to our economy. The affordable, 30-year fixed rate mortgage that allowed generations to experience the American Dream of homeownership has been tragically replaced with a subprime loan, teaser rates, and unaffordable payments.

Commonsense principles, like having the ability to pay, were abandoned in favor of schemes that involved collateralized debt obligation and credit default swaps. And as this financial house of cards collapsed, it is now the American taxpayers that are left holding the bag.

Madam Speaker, I hope we have learned our lesson. It is time to bring responsibility and accountability back to mortgage lending and to make sure we don't face another crisis like this. This bill is essential if we are to stabilize the housing market, to end these abusive practices, and to get our economy back on track.

I commend my colleagues, Mr. Miller, Mr. Watt, and Chairman Frank for their determination to this critical issue and their hard work in bringing it to the floor today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

First, I once again want to thank Mr. Miller and Mr. Wamp, my colleagues, for their excellent work on this bill, and to Chairman Frank for his work as well and for being here on the floor with us today for some very lively and important debate that clearly emphasized the importance of this bill, how long we have waited for this reform, and the damage that has been done by not having this reform for this considerable length of time.

By ensuring borrowers only secure loans that they can afford, this legislation will give Americans the best opportunity to purchase and maintain a home.

This legislation is about accountability. It will reward people who play by the rules and guarantee hard consequences for those individuals and institutions that do not. It's good for borrowers, it's good for lenders, and it is very good for our economy as a whole.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question, and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

First I need to thank Chairman Frank, Chairman Gutierrez, and my colleague, Representative Maloney, for their tireless leadership on this very important bill before us today. This bill takes real steps to curb the unfair, unreasonable, and deceptive practices that nearly 175 million Americans with credit cards are subject to.

Late fees, over-the-limit fees, arbitrary interests, increases in interest rates, the credit card companies have gotten away with far too much for far too long. It is time we level the playing field now for small businesses, families and individuals.

In Maine, like so many places across the country, this is one of the most important issues on the minds of hardworking men and women. If they have not themselves been the victim of arbitrary rate increases, double-cycle billing, and deceptive fees buried in pages of indecipherable terms, then they know someone who has.

While these deceptive and misleading practices have always been unfair, they have devastating financial consequences during this time of economic difficulty when more and more people are using their credit cards to buy gasoline, to pay for their health care bills, or put food on the table.

In Maine, not only have we been customers, but we are also employees of a credit card company. And as employees, we have seen firsthand the pervasive and unethical methods that these companies employ. When MBNA--now Bank of America--came into our community, people who had traditionally

built homes or been fishermen found themselves using deceptive company practices to sell their neighbors credit they couldn't afford, and it took its toll.

Last fall, Nightline profiled Cate Columbo and Jerry Young of Camden, Maine, who worked 10-hour shifts at MBNA pushing customers into taking huge cash advances that they couldn't afford. The company urged employees to take advantage of parents sending their kids to college, homeowners, even veterans. In the Nightline piece, Cate said, ``I would come home, and I would literally be crying in the sink doing dishes.'' The deceptive and misleading practices that Cate, Jerry and thousands of others were pressured to enforce ran squarely counter to the core values that Mainers and those across this country live by every day. That is why it is so important to pass this landmark bill today.

I strongly support the bill before us, but I want to be sure that it is implemented as soon and as well as possible. It is very important that we, as Congress, should be diligent about making sure that the industry and the regulators hold up their end of the legislation. My amendment simply requires that the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System reports on the level of implementation every 90 days until he can report full industry adoption.

Mr. Chairman, consumers have demanded that Congress act to stop the egregious practices of credit card companies, and it is our responsibility to provide the accountability and oversight that is necessary to ensure this happens. As we move to rebuild our economy in a way that is honest and fair, this commonsense legislation will allow cardholders to responsibly manage their finances.

Today, this body has the opportunity to change course by fixing a broken credit card system. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back my time and I urge a ``yea'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Kiwanis Club of Gorham, Maine for acknowledging the courage and sacrifices of the children of Maine's military families through their program entitled ``Operation Tribute''.

Kiwanis is an organization dedicated to service to children and youth through initiatives intended to improve the quality of life of children in communities around the world. Currently, Kiwanis has over 500,000 members internationally, representing 96 countries with 34 clubs in Maine.

On July 17, 2007, the Kiwanis Club of Gorham, later joined by the Kiwanis Clubs of Maine, launched Operation Holiday Cheer, a program to provide a holiday gift to each participating child of Maine's military families, including, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Reserves and National Guard. Over 9,000 children in Maine have a parent serving in the military.

In 2007, the Kiwanis acquired, wrapped, and distributed over 8,000 gifts to children in 140 cities and towns throughout the state of Maine. Included with each gift was a hand-written note thanking the child and his or her family which read, ``On behalf of the Kiwanis Clubs of Maine and the people of the State of Maine, we would like to offer you this token of our appreciation for your sacrifice. You are the child of a Maine military family and the bravery that you show every day by sharing your parent to help protect our country is being recognized and honored. You should be extremely proud of your service to our country and you should know that we, the Kiwanis and the people of Maine, stand proudly and beside you. We wish you and your family a Happy Holiday Season.''

In 2008, the Kiwanis built on the incredible success of Operation Holiday Cheer and expanded the program throughout New England and New York. Their efforts--and once again their success--were astounding. Operation Holiday Cheer raised over $650,000 and distributed over 23,000 holiday gifts to children of military families.

In January 2009, Operation Holiday Cheer renamed itself ``Operation Tribute'' to better reflect its mission of providing tribute to the children of military families.

I extend my deepest appreciation to the Kiwanis Clubs of Maine for their thoughtfulness in paying tribute--and bringing cheer--to the lives of thousands of children in Maine, New York and all of New England.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 875.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 280 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the

gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 280.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 280 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, today, people across the country are looking to this body to pass this important bill. We have an historic opportunity to protect and preserve land across the country for future generations. Our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be able to enjoy national parks around the country.

In Maine, my district, like so many other areas around the country, we cherish the natural beauty that surrounds us, and we have worked hard to preserve it. When I was the Senate majority leader in the State of Maine, I sponsored the biggest land bond bill in State history to preserve our open spaces for the public.

Time and again, the people of my State have voted to invest in public land that will be protected for generations to come, and we value the full variety of uses of that land, whether it be hiking, camping, kayaking, hunting, or fishing.

We are here today to consider the Senate amendments to H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. These amendments provide us with the opportunity to strengthen our National Park System, improve forest health, facilitate better management of our public lands, and increase the quantity and quality of the water supply in numerous local communities.

This is not the first time this body has voted on this legislation. On March 11, a bipartisan majority of the House voted in favor of the Omnibus Lands Management Act. Unfortunately, it narrowly failed to obtain the two-thirds vote to pass the House. Last year, the majority of the bills that make up this package were passed out of the House but were held up in the Senate by a threatened filibuster.

Finally, this year the Senate voted twice--each time overwhelmingly in favor of this package. Our time to send this legislation to the President's desk is long overdue.

This package will provide protection to historic and cultural resources that include the sacred ground of American battlefields. In addition, it will protect our forests, our water, our network of trails. It will add to our National Park System and provide land that we can all enjoy.

By finally passing this legislation today, we will designate over 2 million acres of land as wilderness. This means that when our grandchildren want to take their families to see what America looked like in its wild state, they will be able to. And they will be able to explore these lands because we are not closing off or preventing access to land.

Instead, the wilderness designation helps manage the various uses, and this legislation recognizes that some areas are better suited for some kinds of recreation than others.

This act also provides protection to historic sites like the Harriet Beecher Stowe House in my State of Maine, where this courageous abolitionist wrote ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Future generations will be able to see and use this site and others protected by this legislation.

This legislation before us is a product of bipartisan efforts that recognize how critical it is to conserve our land and ensure that the American people have access to that land. Land is one of our most precious resources and we must do our part, not only for our use but for future generations.

This legislation protects areas for outdoor recreation. It preserves land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities. Not only does this package protect some of the most environmentally significant and scenic land in the country, it also provides protection for our Nation's water resources and keeps our Wild and Scenic Rivers undammed and free flowing.

Taken as a whole, this package is truly landmark legislation. The amendments incorporate bipartisan bills introduced by the last Congress--39 by Democrats and 36 by Republican Members of the House.

Finally, as good a piece of legislation as I think this is, the debate before us is simply on the rule to debate the underlying bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may argue that this did not go through regular order, or this limits second amendment rights, or that it somehow excludes our honored returning vets from accessing public lands, but all of those arguments are simply untrue.

No, I won't.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important public lands bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Minnick).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

Yes. I am the last speaker for this side. I will reserve my time until the gentlewoman has closed for her side and yielded back her time.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear on two things. Nothing in this bill in any way limits or restricts access as defined by the ADA. Nothing in H.R. 146 changes the status quo in regards to regulation of hunting, fishing and recreational activities in designated areas.

I would like to enter into the Record a letter from the National Rifle Association supporting the Altmire amendment to the omnibus public land management bill.

I will also submit for the Record a full editorial in today's New York Times, and I would like to read briefly from that editorial.

``This bill establishes three new national park units and protects more than 1,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers and streams from development. But what makes it a memorial piece of legislation are provisions giving permanent wilderness status, the highest layer of protection the law can confer, to 2 million acres of public land in nine States ranging from California and Oregon to Virginia. This would be the largest addition to the nation's store of protected wilderness, now about 107 million acres, since 1994.

``The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the country at large. But after surviving a threatened filibuster in the Senate in January, it failed by two votes in the House, partly for complex parliamentary reasons and partly because some House Members felt that not all the measure's moving parts (the bill is really 160 smaller bills wrapped into one big one) had been properly vetted in committee.

``This is a defect that afflicts many omnibus bills. It is also true, however, that every single provision in the bill is a product of long and intense negotiations stretching back years on the State and local level, and the product, that is, of consensus.

``The measure is now back in the House after a second trip through the Senate. It has been approved each step of the way. Its most controversial provision for a road through a wildlife refuge in Alaska has been revised for the better. It now gives the Secretary of the Interior the power to veto the road if he feels it would cause excessive environmental damage.''

The New York Times closes by saying, ``The House should honor all of this work, as well as the country's need for protected open space, by approving this worthy measure.''

This legislation has been through the House and the Senate numerous times in one form or another. The items in the bill have been thoroughly vetted. Most, if not all the House provisions have had extensive hearings, committee markups and been passed by the full House. The bill is a bipartisan product that contains language sought by Members on both sides of the aisle. That was reflected in the last week's suspension vote of 282-144 here in the House. The Senate vote was 77-20. Any changes at this point would require that the bill goes back to the Senate, where further action is very unlikely. It is time to pass this widely supported bipartisan legislation and send it to the White House for the President's signature. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for

Legislative Action,

Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time to myself as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, people across the country are rightly outraged by the egregious nature of the AIG bonuses. It is unconscionable for AIG to pay out $165 million in bonuses to the same top executives who mismanaged the company to the point of failure.

It is fundamentally wrong to be rewarding the very same people who ran AIG while it was losing billions and billions of dollars with risky schemes that directly led to the staggering $170 billion bailout last year. It is a stunning example of greed and shamelessness, and it is gross mismanagement and misuse of taxpayer funds that borders on criminal.

People in Maine, my district, and around the country are angry. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents sharing their outrage. One resident of Wells, Maine, in the straightforward way that my constituents do, wrote to me in this manner. He said, ``Let AIG fail. Let those greedy, blood-sucking executives find out what it means to lose their life savings. You need to tell those that want our tax dollars, these are the conditions, clear and simple. And if you don't want to use it for what we want, you will get nothing.'' He went on to say, ``It has become a sad day in our history when we have to lose our retirements, and then have to give billions to those that have caused the problems, and then, in turn, they give it to themselves as bonuses.''

Another Mainer wrote, ``I am writing to you because I am absolutely appalled that we, as citizens and taxpayers, have given billions of dollars to AIG, only to have that company give us all the proverbial finger and pay out $165 million in bonus money to their staff. AIG's conduct, given their own monetary losses that are in the billions of dollars, is criminal.''

The small businesses in my State of Maine are doing what businesses around the country are doing; they are diversifying, they are freezing wages. They are using their own resources, adopting cost-saving measures, whatever it takes to stay in business and keep people in their jobs.

Like so many businesses around the country, a businessman in Portland recently chose to dig into his own pocket and use his own money so he wouldn't have to lay off his employees. And just last week, I met with the owners of a small machine shop that had been growing. They came to me with questions about how they could better use the money in the recovery package to stay in business just to stay afloat. They weren't looking to line their own pockets, they were asking for help to keep people employed and keep their business afloat. These are the types of people who are stung the hardest by the AIG bonuses.

Families and businesses in Maine and across the country are struggling to make ends meet and stay in their homes. And they are helping each other out of a shared sense of responsibility. Meanwhile, on Wall Street, we see executives who seem to think they live by a different set of rules and who refuse to take responsibility for the damage they have caused. It is a perfect example of why we have, and will continue to have, a commitment to transparency and oversight in government.

When the House passed TARP last year before I was here, this type of abuse is exactly what the American people were afraid of. We knew there was a chance of waste, fraud or abuse, and now it has come to light. We are here today to fix it. We will continue to forge ahead to fix our struggling economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

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

Thank you very much for yielding.

I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we are here at this moment to pass the rule to allow us to fix this situation.

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

I wasn't here. Just to remind you, although I'm happy to be here to manage this bill, I was not here when many Members of the House voted on that particular bill. But I do want to say all of us in this Chamber had the opportunity to vote on the conditions on the TARP to make sure we dealt with things like executive compensation, and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in fact, most of them, refused to vote in favor of those conditions. So we have had those opportunities to do that over time.

I do agree it should be further investigated exactly how things happened here. We are in one of the most tumultuous times in our economy than any of us have ever faced or previous generations have faced. But I personally voted in favor of those conditions of the TARP. And I do find it a little disingenuous to find many of my new colleagues, whom I am just getting to know, so anxious to talk about executive compensation, capping executive compensation, looking at this, when it was an issue that only probably weeks or months ago they wouldn't have gone near with a 10-foot pole. In fact, they wouldn't even have discussed this. They would have said leave business to itself, we're not going to get involved in this particular issue. This is an issue that has concerned me and my constituents back in my home State for a long time. I was proud to vote in favor of the conditions of the TARP.

And I want to remind my colleagues again we are here today to allow this rule to come to the floor so that we can have full debate on all of the opportunities afforded to us in this bill and this will be with us in only moments as soon as we vote in favor of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, just in a quick answer to my good colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, I was proud to vote in favor of this stimulus bill and very happy to vote for things that are helping my district at this very moment around health care and jobs and road construction and things that are desperately needed in my State.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Doggett.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for bringing in my voting record and remind her that I was very proud to vote for the stimulus or recovery package, whichever we choose to call it, and have already stated that on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

I yield another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for this side. I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, I can be very brief in my close, and I thank all of the eloquent speakers from our side who have come to the floor to talk about this important issue and the importance of voting on it today.

Let me be clear, a ``no'' vote, a ``no'' vote on this, is to allow the executives at AIG to keep their bonuses.

Now, how many people have come before us today to say it is unconscionable to think that they would take taxpayers' dollars to fund a misguided scheme, and then be given bonuses by the taxpayers? It is unthinkable. A ``no'' vote here is unthinkable.

We have talked about a whole variety of things from each other's voting records to the constitutionality, to a whole range of issues that do and don't apply to what we are talking about right now, and that is to allow a rule to allow us to proceed with doing something about the executive bonuses at AIG.

How many people have come before us? How many constituents have we heard from who have said: You have got to do something about these bonuses. I am struggling. I am struggling to keep my business going. I am struggling to keep my home going. Numerous things we have all heard from all of our constituents that have said to us, do something, do it right now. That is what people are asking us, in this extreme difficult economy where people are struggling every day, where businesses are struggling, where in my district we are hearing a layoff notice almost every day. People are saying to us, it is time to do something. That is why we are here.

I urge a ``yes'' vote of my colleagues on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 257, as Reported Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-

Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution,

without intervention of any motion or recess, the Speaker

shall entertain a motion offered by the Minority Leader or

his designee, that the House suspend the rules relating to

the bill (H.R. 1577) to require the Secretary of the Treasury

to pursue every legal means to stay or recoup certain

incentive bonus payments and retention payments made by

American International Group, Inc. to its executives and

employees, and to require the Secretary's approval of such

payments by any financial institution who receives funds

under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of

2008. Clause 8(a) of rule XX shall not apply to such motion.

A motion to adjourn shall not be in order during

consideration of such motion.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1388 is an important call to service for the entire country. It will offer opportunities to people of all ages, races, and backgrounds to get involved in their communities and make lasting changes in the places they live. I strongly support this bill and want to commend the authors for their hard work in crafting this essential piece of legislation.

Among the many important provisions of this bill, I was pleased to see the inclusion of the Clean Energy Corps. In my home State of Maine, we have some of the oldest housing stock in the Nation, and we are one of the most dependent on home heating oil. Clean energy innovation is essential to our economic growth and survival.

I believe our rural State can become a leader in clean energy and in creating good-paying, sustainable jobs. Clean energy development is an important issue for both urban and rural communities, but rural communities often have to address their clean energy needs in different ways than big cities do.

In addition, rural areas frequently have a wide array of natural resources at their disposal that enable them to effectively address their clean energy needs.

This amendment will give service-based projects in small towns the flexibility to design clean energy solutions that are specific to their rural needs.

I would like to share with you one short example of an innovative and groundbreaking project that was developed in my hometown, the island of North Haven.

I live in a rural community on an island 12 miles off the coast of Maine. Because we have to get our electricity from the mainland over an undersea cable, electric rates are extremely high. Most recently, we paid 27 to 29 cents per kilowatt hour. So the people of my tiny town, where we have 350 year-round residents, have gotten together with a neighboring island and have put together a plan to construct a wind turbine that will provide our electricity, and may even allow us to send some back to the mainland.

This is nearly a $10 million project. This project could not and would not happen without the volunteer efforts of dozens of people in our community who have donated thousands of hours to make this clean energy project a reality.

It is crucial to encourage volunteerism and ingenuity in rural areas which are traditionally underserved by these types of service projects. This

amendment extends additional opportunities for volunteerism into rural areas so we can continue to help and encourage our citizens of all ages to contribute to our clean energy future.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my support to this measure and thank the Members of this body who have worked so hard to bring this here previously and have also seen the wisdom of adding this into the stimulus package.

We have all been asked so many times how we're going to make sure this money is well spent, how we're going to make sure that our constituents get the value for which is in this. And I think this is the best protection that we have making sure that those people who have the information are there to tell us that.

I want to tell one quick story.

In 2004, Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest-ranking civilian contracting officer at the Army Corps of Engineers, exposed a pattern of favoritism.

I can't finish my story, but I want you to know that

she is one of the many workers that will be protected under this law, and I look forward to everyone's support.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 87 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 87.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 87 provides for consideration of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This measure is identical to the version of the bill that was passed by this House on January 9 of this year by a significant vote of 247-171. The bill is also virtually identical to the version adopted in the 110th Congress.

It is well past time to get this legislation to the President for his signature. Today, we plan to do just that. After this bill is passed by the House later today, it will go directly to the White House and on President Obama's desk.

First, I want to commend Chairman Miller for his leadership and his tireless efforts that have brought us so far. As my colleague, Chairwoman DeLauro, said during her eloquent remarks when this body first took up the bill 2 weeks ago, ``We are here today because Lilly Ledbetter got short-changed--short-changed by her employer, the perpetrator of consistent pay discrimination lasting years, and short- changed again by the Supreme Court.'' And so now we are here today to fight for the final passage of this essential legislation.

As a mother of two daughters, a woman who has owned her own business myself much of my adult life, and as a newly elected Member of this body, I was proud to cast one of my first votes in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and I am proud that both Chambers have already made a strong commitment to protect workers against pay discrimination in the workplace.

This important legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the underlying bill, S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for his kind welcome to a new Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new Member, and my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Education and Labor Committee that did such great work on this bill, Mr. Andrews.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to lead this bill today as a newly elected Member and a new member of the Rules Committee, and I appreciate working alongside my new colleague on the Rules Committee. And I'm sure we will have a busy afternoon together.

We have heard several arguments and supportive thoughts from many of my distinguished colleagues from this side of the aisle. And I appreciate their thoughts and their very hard work that it has taken to bring this bill to the floor and the momentous occasion we will have today when we are able to take this vote. I have also heard several arguments from my esteemed colleague from Florida. And I just want to remind him that when this bill was debated during the last session of Congress in the Education and Labor Committee where there were ample opportunities to bring amendments, those people in opposition only brought two amendments. So this is not a bill where there is tremendous disagreement. And in fact, the fact that there were no speakers virtually in opposition to this bill shows us what an important piece of legislation we are dealing with today, and in fact only were the discussion around the process taken up today. And I feel that since we have already debated this bill in the House and the Senate when it was last here, we passed it by an overwhelming margin of 247-171. It was passed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate of 61-36.

I am confident that this bill will receive very strong support today and want to say that I'm proud to be a Member of this body when this is happening. I do want to remind my colleagues that this legislation simply restores prior law. It is so important. And by passing it, we are making great strides in protecting workers by reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision as we have been eloquently described to today. We owe it to all American workers to strengthen, not weaken, nondiscrimination charges based on gender, race and religion.

It has passed the House, and it has passed the Senate previously. Today we are here to send it on to President Obama for what will be his first signature of any bill.

I urge my colleagues to support workers everywhere and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.