Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding this time.

I agree with everything the majority leader just said. You know, the firefighters of this country are not only protectors of us from a domestic standpoint; they are leaders in the war against terrorism.

We all remember what happened at 9/11 when so many firefighters gave their lives to try to protect those people who died in the Twin Towers in New York City. And we should not forget that because there is the threat of terrorism every single day in this country, and the frontline fighters, in addition to the policemen, are the firefighters. They're the ones that are going to have to rush in to protect people and save lives in the event that we have another tragedy like 9/11.

So I'd just like to say in the short time I have here today we need to give them every single tool they need. This is one area of government that's absolutely essential, and the firefighters of this country need to know the Congress of the United States is behind them 100 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the Associated Press reported that President Barack Obama says creating jobs is not the goal of the upcoming White House forum on jobs and economic growth. The President told NBC News on Wednesday that the purpose of the December 3 summit is to figure out how to encourage hiring by businesses still reluctant to do so.

Businesses are being taxed too much. And I'll tell you, if I were talking to the President, I would say, Mr. President, if you want to create jobs, cut government spending, cut taxes, and not raise taxes. It's the wrong thing to do in this economic climate.

Madam Speaker, in October the national unemployment rate reached 10.2 percent, the highest level of unemployment our country has seen since April 1983. Clearly, the stimulus package rushed into law earlier this year has failed to create the jobs that President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Democrat Congressional Leadership promised it would. And, I fear that the full extent of the unfulfilled promises of job creation and economic stimulus are just beginning to surface.

Under the circumstances, as policymakers one of the first questions we should ask when evaluating any bill that comes before this House is ``Will enacting the policies embodied by this bill potentially jeopardize American jobs?'' If the answer is yes, in my opinion, we have a responsibility to the American people to reject that bill. Unfortunately, it appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take a different view. Rather than seeking to preserve and grow private sector jobs they seem determined to kill those jobs in favor of the Federal government assuming control over a larger and larger percentage of our economy.

I would like to briefly discuss one example of the Majority's drive to replace private sector jobs with government jobs that, if enacted into law, will potentially put thousands of Hoosiers out of work. Recently, the House of Representative voted on the ``Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009'', H.R. 3221, which sets the stage for the elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan, FFEL, program leaving parents, schools, and students with no choice for obtaining student loans except for the Federal government's Direct Lending Program. Supporters of the proposal contend that consolidating student loans under the Federal umbrella will actually save the Federal government money. They cite as evidence a Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimate that nationalizing the whole Federal student loan program would save nearly $90 billion in direct spending over ten years. However, what they fail to mention is that the CBO also found that President Obama's plan to reform the Pell Grant program would increase direct spending by $293 billion over that same 10-year period. In other words, any potential savings to the taxpayer, real or not, from federalizing the student loan industry will actually be spent many times over. More importantly, whether the plan to federalize the student loan industry is good fiscal policy or not fails to take into account the real world question of jobs.

Moving to a one hundred percent Direct Lending system would kill jobs in the private student loan industry. Make no mistake about it, it is not a question of if jobs will be lost; it is a question of how many jobs will be lost. The FFEL program supports more than 30,000 private sector jobs nationwide. In Indiana alone about 2,300 jobs are in the FFEL industry, and in Indiana's 5th Congressional District, killing off the FFEL program could result in the loss of more than 1,500 jobs.

As you can imagine, the possibility has many of my constituents worried, and for good reason. In Fishers, Indiana, Sallie Mae--the Nation's largest private student loan lender--operates a Loan Service and Data Center and employs 647 Hamilton County residents. The Hamilton County Council--which represents the people of Fishers--is following this issue closely and has taken note of what the end of the FFEL program could mean for hundreds of its residents. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place into the Congressional Record a copy of the Hamilton County Council resolution encouraging the preservation of Indiana jobs, which was passed on November 4.

Resolution No. 11-04-09-02

Whereas, the Congress of the United States is debating the

President's plan to make college more affordable; and,

Whereas, among many issues involved in said debate is the

issue of eliminating private student lenders; and,

Whereas, Sallie Mae and its 8,500 employees across the

country including 2,300 in Indiana are ``at risk'' in said

debate; and,

Whereas, Sallie Mae employees 647 Hamilton County Residents

and,

Whereas, Sallie Mae, its employees and leadership have been

significant supporters of the community in many ways; and,

Whereas, the Hamilton County Council on behalf of all

residents of Hamilton County is supportive of responsible

actions by the Congress which will recognize appropriate cost

saving measures while protecting valuable jobs for Hoosier

families; and,

Whereas, Sallie Mae and a broad coalition representing

various stakeholders in the student loan community have

proposed a responsible alternative which should be seriously

considered and adopted as the best way of achieving the goals

and objectives of both the President and Congress, without

sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs across the country and

here In Indiana: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Hamilton County Council, meeting in regular

session, as follows:

Section 1. That the Congress of the United States is hereby

encouraged to adopt a student loan reform proposal that makes

college more affordable and achieves significant taxpayer

savings while also protecting Hoosier jobs and our families

and communities.

Section 2. That a copy of this Resolution be provided to

all members of the Indiana Congressional delegation forthwith

as an expression of the concern and desires of the entire

County of Hamilton, Indiana.

Section 3. This Resolution shall be in full force and

effect from and upon its adoption.

All of which is resolved this 4th day of November, 2009.

Hamilton County Council.

I support the FFEL program and believe that H.R. 3221 will lead to its extinction, which is why I voted against the bill. Additionally, on two separate occasions during this Congress I have proposed amendments to help preserve the FFEL program, and the jobs associated with the program. Disappointedly, the Majority has used their control of the House Rules Committee to kill those amendments and prevent the full House of Representatives from debating and voting to protect these jobs.

I have not given up the fight to preserve the FFEL program or the jobs associated with it though. Could improvements be made to the program? Sure, but there is more to lose than gain by eliminating the program in its entirety. Since 1965, the FFEL program has provided access to higher education for tens of millions of Americans, and it has done so with private capital and private labor. I believe we have a responsibility to the American people to preserve the FFEL program and the good-paying jobs associated with the program.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to pay the long overdue respects of a grateful Nation to First Lieutenant Charles L. Maggart from Marion, Indiana, who fell serving his country in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II.

Charles Maggart was born in November of 1919 and attended Marion High School in Indiana, where he was an honor student as well as a football and basketball star. In fact, his outstanding athletic ability earned him scholarship offers in 1938 from both Indiana University and the University of New Mexico. Charles chose the University of New Mexico. However, with the clouds of war looming over Europe, Charles returned to Indiana to attend Marion College, today Indiana Wesleyan University, where he took flying lessons.

In April of 1941, Charles applied for and was accepted into the Army Air Force. Upon completing basic flight training at Parks Air College in St. Louis and Randolph Air Field in San Antonio, Texas, Charles was assigned to Ellington Field in Houston, Texas, for advanced flight training.

On December 12, 1941, just 5 days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Charles Maggart, until then a sergeant major of cadets, earned his pilot's wings and his lieutenant's bars. He also married his wife, then First Lieutenant Yolanda Federico. The next day he departed for Morrison Field, Florida, for assignment to the 49th Pursuit Group, Ninth Pursuit Squadron; but he was fairly quickly reassigned from fighters to bombers, ending up with the 405th Bombardment Squadron, 38th Bomb Group, Fifth Air Force 38th flying out of Australia.

The group shipped out from California for Australia in April of 1942. On December 5, 1942, Lieutenant Charles Maggart's war came to an end. Flying a B-25 bomber known as the ``Happy Legend,'' Lieutenant Maggart and his six-man crew set off to bomb Lae, a critical point along the northeastern coast of Papua, New Guinea. Lieutenant Maggart and his crew were shot down by the Japanese over the Owen Stanley Mountains. In January of 1943, Lieutenant Maggart's wife and family were informed by the War Department that he was missing in action.

Lieutenant Maggart's mother, waiting patiently, had reservations about his fate. After repeated letters to the War Department, in 1947 she was told that the aircraft and crew were never recovered and were probably lost at sea. It wasn't until 1949 that Lieutenant Maggart and his crew was officially declared killed in action. Although a team of Australians reportedly reached the crash site in 1943, the area was still overrun with Japanese units, and little could be done to document the remains of the aircraft and crew. Except for the determination of Charles' brother, Phil Maggart, and the families of the other crewmembers of the ``Happy Legend,'' that might be the end of the story.

Phil Maggart last saw his brother Charles in October of 1941, and for more than six decades, Phil has tried to find his brother and to bring him home. Working through government bureaucrats and private contacts even when he was serving with the U.S. Air Force around the world, including a tour of duty flying search-and-rescue missions in Vietnam, Phil never gave up asking questions, and ultimately he found answers. Thanks to the persistence of Phil Maggart, Lieutenant Charles Maggart has finally come home. And tomorrow, Tuesday, November 17, 2009, Lieutenant Charles Maggart and his crew will be interred together at Arlington National Cemetery, a fitting place of honor for true American heroes.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that all of my colleagues join me in saluting Lieutenant Maggart and his valiant crew. God bless you, gentlemen, and thank you for your service to America.

First of all, let me say thank you for taking this Special Order tonight.

You know, this should never have happened. There are 13 Americans that are dead, their families are suffering tonight, and it need not have happened. This man issued so many warning signs, it wasn't even funny. And, for some reason, his superiors did not investigate this man, call him on the carpet and find out why he was talking about these acts of violence and anti-American sentiments, and because they didn't, and they decided to unload him and send him down to Fort Hood, all those people are suffering--the families--and those people are dead that you alluded to just a few minutes ago.

This is not just an issue about this man committing these terrible atrocities, this terrorist attack. This is about making sure that the people in positions of leadership in the military and in other areas of our government are made aware when people start talking like he did and advocating terrorist attacks on the United States of America.

Now I understand that people are very concerned about the religious attitude that people have and trampling on their rights as far as their religious beliefs are concerned. But when you're talking about a war on terror--terrorist attacks where they kill almost 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, they blew up embassies over in Africa, they attacked the USS Cole and killed a bunch of Navy personnel--when we know they do that, and that's their goal, to destroy America, these fanatics, then, by golly, when we have somebody in the military or anyplace else in government that's talking like that, they need to be investigated and they need to be removed from a position where they can perpetrate those terrorist attacks.

And this is a tragedy not just because those young people gave their lives down there unnecessarily because of this terrorist, but because the superiors of his did not do their duty in responding to this man and reporting on what he was talking about prior to this thing taking place. If they had stood up and said, This guy's a threat to his fellow soldiers, we might have been able to avoid this.

And so I'd just like to say to my colleague once again, I'm very happy that you have taken this Special Order. I hope you will add me, along with our colleague from Texas, to this bill. I'd like to be a cosponsor. And I just say to any of the military personnel and leadership over at the Pentagon or the people at any of our military bases, if you hear anybody talking like this man did, advocating a terrorist attack on America, then, by golly, tell the people of this country about it and tell your superiors and get them out of there.

Not only should they be removed from the service; they should be watched so they don't perpetrate a terrorist attack once they're removed from the service. But they certainly should not be in a position of leadership in any branch of the service in any part of this country.

We're in a war against terrorism, and we need to make sure that we are vigilant. Thomas Jefferson said, The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And we need to be that way right now, because this is not something that's just going to go away because we don't want it to happen. We are in a war against people that want to destroy America, want to destroy our way of life and force upon the rest of the world their religious fanatic beliefs. And we can't allow that to happen and go unchallenged.

We have an awful lot of people in all religions that would cringe at thinking that that person was in their church or in their synagogue or in their mosque and shared some of their beliefs, because it casts a pall over every one of them. It makes every one of them feel like they share in this terrible tragedy that took place, this act of terrorism. And it's unfortunate because there are a lot of people that believe in the Muslim faith that are just horrified that this happened and because of the way that they're looked upon in this country.

And so if we're talking tonight not just about people in the military, but if we're talking to people in mosques around this country, who love this country, they should tell the authorities if there's somebody that's acting like that--that threatens the security of this country and threatens the possibility of a terrorist attack in any part of our society.

With that, let me just say to my colleague once again, thank you very much for taking this Special Order. I really appreciate it. I'm sure people across this country share your views. And I yield back.

I just hope that all of our colleagues who are in their offices tonight or may be watching this Special Order on television will join with you and the other sponsor of the bill from Texas, our colleague, and push as hard as possible for hearings here in the Congress of the United States.

We have in this body subpoena authority. The only thing that can't be brought before a committee is something that's top secret, classified, and

if that is not the case, then we have the authority to subpoena documents and evidence to bring this issue before the Congress, a number of committees here.

I think it's important that people like you and all of our colleagues ask the White House to relent and let us have these hearings, which I think are extremely important, because the American people want to know about this, because everybody is concerned about the terrorist threat that we face in this country.

So the President can't claim executive privilege. If he does that, then of course they can block us from having a hearing. But even if he does that, they have to prove that there's a reason for executive privilege. And we have subpoena power here in the Congress of the United States. And so the committee chairmen, chairmen of these various committees, if it isn't something that's top secret or highly classified, they can subpoena this information and bring it before the Congress.

I hope that you and the rest of our colleagues will do everything possible--I know you will--everything possible to make sure the American people know everything that happened and everything that led up to this tragedy.

Once again, thank you very, very much for taking this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a request for a unanimous consent, does that allow the person asking unanimous consent, if there is an objection, to continue on with hyperbole?

I object.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I ask unanimous consent for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled that you cannot embellish, if an objection has been heard, a unanimous-consent request, and yet the other side continues to embellish their remarks when an objection has been heard, and I wish you would restate what you just said, that if an objection is heard they cannot embellish their remarks.

I hope I don't get a hernia, Mr. Speaker, and say to all my colleagues, if you haven't read this thing, it's going to cost billions and billions of dollars and hurt the economy. I would just like to say that I hope before we vote on this thing you will read it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Government can't give until it takes. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

You know, we have 10.2 percent unemployment right now. This bill is going to cost about 5.5 million jobs. It's going to cost $730 billion in new taxes and $1.2 trillion for the program over the next decade. We can't afford that at this time with unemployment being at the rate that it is.

We face a $1.4 trillion deficit this year alone, and you're going to add $1.2 trillion to that and a $730 billion tax increase with 10.2 percent unemployment?

You're going to cost jobs. And the American people want jobs right now, first and foremost. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. And then deal with some of these things in a more responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I was afraid you were going to leave, Mr. Chairman, before I got to talk to you. I always like to address you when I am down in the well.

You made a comment about my colleague, Mr. Kingston, when he said something about our bill being so much smaller. You said, I think it was 10 times bigger because it did 10 times more. It does do a lot more. It spends a lot more. It is 1,990 pages--now don't walk away, I want you to hear this--and each word, each word in the bill is $2.25 million. Each word, not each page out of 1,990 pages. Each word. And it is going to cost not $1 trillion but about $1.3 trillion. And it is going to cause rationing of health care. And it is going to cause a big cut of Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

I see you moving. You are moving toward the door. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I love you, but this is not the best bill that I have ever seen. In fact, I think it is a bill--well, he is leaving now. He is going out the door. So, Mr. Chairman, I will just tell you, I would like to take issue with that.

I would like to just say one more thing before you leave, because I want to talk about Ronald Reagan for a minute. When you did your dissertation--hold it. When you did your dissertation, you didn't mention Ronald Reagan and what he did and when he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.''

Now you can go.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'm sorry. Oh well, he is gone now anyhow.

Mr. Speaker, Madam Ranking Member, Ronald Reagan forced Gorbachev and the Soviet Union to spend money they didn't have, like we are doing right now with that health care bill, spend money they didn't have to build T-55 tanks and weapons to keep up with us in the Cold War, and he forced that country, that Soviet Union, and all of the countries involved, to fall apart. And he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' And I thought at the time, that's a great speech, Mr. President, but it will never happen.

And I went to Namibia to monitor the election in Namibia with former Senator Edwin Muskie about a year and a half later, and we were going to a German beer garden for lunch before the election took place. I walked in, and everybody was holding steins, and I thought it was a big birthday party or wedding party. And I said, What's going on?

And this guy with tears rolling down his cheeks, a German fellow, said, Haven't you heard? The Berlin Wall is coming down.

I got tears in my eyes and said, I'll be darned; he got it done.

Ronald Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had. I'm serious. I really mean that. He did whatever it took to deal with the Soviet Union, and he won.

But not only that, Ronald Reagan said if we ever move toward government control of health care, it would be a strong move toward socialist control of everybody in this country. I'm paraphrasing him, but he actually said that. When Ronald Reagan came in, instead of moving toward more government control over our lives, he said instead of raising taxes and creating more government, we are going to cut taxes and give people more disposable income and we are going to give businesses more money so they can expand. And what happened, we ended up with the longest period of economic recovery that I can remember and probably in our history.

So the Obama administration comes in and they take over the car industry, the financial industry, the banking industry. They want to take over the energy industry, and now they want to take over 18 percent of our entire society's economy, and that is health care. It is going to be destruction of much of what we believe in and the way we live

in this country. We don't need socialism in America, and that is what it is.

And if you say that is a pretty strong word, go to the dictionary and look and see what socialism is. It is government control over people's lives. It is government regulation over everything.

And this health care bill is an absolute disaster. Seniors are going to see rationing of health care first, and then others will. They will see the cuts in Medicare and Medicare Advantage, $500 billion. They are going to see all kinds of problems that they don't realize right now.

I just hope, I just hope that the people of this country who appeared on the mall yesterday by the thousands will continue to fight, Mr. Speaker, will continue to fight to stop this bill before it gets passed into law. Because it is going to change everybody's life, and it is going to mortgage the future of our kids and our grandkids. Inflation, higher taxes, all of the things that we don't want.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the things that has been a real drag on the economy, Mr. Speaker, has been the housing industry, and the tax credit that we've given first-time homebuyers, according to the Realtors and the homebuilders with whom I've talked, has been a real plus. That is one of the few things that we've done around here that has helped the economy and helped create some jobs.

Now, in this bill, we're not only extending the first-time homebuyer credit, which I think is going to help the economy, but we're also going to say to people that already own homes, we're going to give you a $6,500 tax credit if you choose to move up and buy another house. That's been one of the shortcomings that we've had over the last few months, because people that want to get another home feel like with the economy being the way it is right now, they don't want to move. But if you encourage them with a $6,500 tax credit--a tax credit. We like tax cuts and tax credits. If we give them a $6,500 tax credit, I guarantee you there is going to be a lot of people that will move up into more homes, newer homes, and it will really help economic growth in this country.

So I just want to congratulate the sponsors, even on the Democrat side, for putting this in the bill. I really think this is a plus. I don't compliment my colleagues too much over there, but the $8,000 tax credit that is being extended for first-time homebuyers is good, and the $6,500 tax credit for people that are going to buy a home, a second home or a third home, as they get rid of their first one, I really think this is going to be a plus for the economy. So even though I disagree with my colleagues 95 percent of the time, this is one time they have put something good in a bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have great respect for the majority leader. I just want to correct a couple of things that he said.

He said this is the worst economy in the last three-quarters of a century, and I would like to bring to his attention that in the Jimmy Carter administration we had 12 percent unemployment, which is worse than now. We had 14 percent inflation. When Ronald Reagan came in, Mr. Volcker had to raise the interest rates, or did raise the interest rates, to 21.5 percent. What happened was the economy took another huge nosedive because of the terrible inflation and economic problems that were created during the Carter administration, which was not three- quarters of a century ago; it was just a mere 20-some years ago.

The other thing I would like to say is that while we are doing the right thing by passing this bill, and I complimented my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the extension of the home building credit for first-time homebuyers and adding to it the tax credit for second-time homebuyers--and I think those are great steps in the right direction, and I will support this bill--the things that they are doing on the other side of the aisle with the stimulus bill, $1 trillion, with the health care bill that they are going to try to ram through here Saturday that's going to cost $1 to $3 trillion that we don't have, when there is a better way to do that, really troubles me.

I would hope my colleagues would start thinking about what Ronald Reagan did because the deficits were so high and inflation was so high, and that is cut taxes. When you cut taxes, you stimulate economic growth and you sell more products and people go back to work. That creates economic expansion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I won't give my normal 20-minute speech, but I would just like to say that Chris Smith has been a leader on the right-to-life issue as long as I have been in Congress. He and Henry Hyde were the stalwarts that were always fighting for the unborn, and I am very happy to lend my support to their efforts.

I would just like to say that in addition to the language that's in the bill that's going to allow the taxpayer to pay for abortions, this bill is really an abomination. The bill that is going to be before us Saturday costs $2.25 million per word and the bill is over 2,000 pages long. It's going to cost $1.3 or $1.4 trillion and maybe more than that. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen. It's going to cause rationing; it's going to cause seniors to lose Medicare Advantage; it's going to cost $500 billion out of Medicare and Medicare Advantage. This is a disaster.

And when I hear the President say that the doctors want this, my wife's a doctor. He says the AMA wants it. Doctors across this country don't want it. He says that the seniors want it because of AARP. Seniors don't want it. AARP is getting 61 percent of their money from kickbacks from insurance companies and commissions, and they are going to get more if Medicare Advantage goes down the tubes because they will sell more Medigap insurance.

There are a lot of problems with this bill, but one of the most important things to me and to Chris and all those who are here tonight is the right-to-life issue. For that reason alone we should defeat this, but there are a lot of other problems with it as well.

Mr. Speaker, if I were talking to America, I would say, This is Nancy Pelosi's answer to health care. It's going to cost $2.25 million per word, and we don't even have the manager's amendment yet, which is probably going to add another 600 or 700 pages to this. This is going to cut Medicare and Medicare Advantage by about, oh, $460 or $470 billion. Seniors are really going to feel it. It's going to end up rationing health care, maybe for everybody, but certainly for seniors. The taxes are going to go through the roof, and nobody's read this turkey. Nobody. They'll tell you they have. We've got a reading room right now; we're going to go through it. But even when we read this, we still don't have the manager's amendment.

We don't need this rush to judgment. We need to get it right. We need to take our time and get a real bill that's going to help the American people, not something that's going to cost an arm and a leg.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Israel has been our friend forever. They have been attacked again and again and again. So what did they do? Ariel Sharon tried to reach out in a peaceful way to give Gaza back to the Palestinians. And what happened? Hamas goes in there and starts launching missile after missile after missile at innocent people, blowing them up, trying to kill them. They want to destroy Israel, as does Iran. So what happens?

The Human Rights Council of the United Nations 27 times has issued decisions against Israel, and the Goldstone Report is just another in a long line. This is something that we should not tolerate. There shouldn't be one vote, not one vote in this place against Israel.

And the people who are making these comments on the other side of the aisle really bother me, because Israel has been such a great friend of ours and they have been trying to reach peace over there forever. And, instead, they keep getting rocket attack after rocket attack, and then they are criticized for human rights problems because they defend themselves.

If we launched missiles into Michigan, I guarantee you, Michigan would be really ticked off at us and would want to stop it and would do everything they could to stop it.

We ought to support Israel.

Madam Speaker, although unemployment, now at 9.8 percent, is expected to keep rising, and consumer confidence is down, the latest Federal Reserve report on economic activity shows some small signs that the recession may finally be starting to bottom out.

In particular, I am encouraged that we are starting to see indications that a rebound in the housing sector may be developing. A few weeks ago, for example, the Commerce Department said new-home building rose for the third time in four months during September, and, the National Association of Realtors announced that demand for previously-owned homes surged in September.

In late October, the Case-Shiller home-price indexes showed that U.S. home prices logged their third monthly increase in August. The indexes showed prices in 10 major metropolitan areas rose 1.3 percent from July. In 20 major metropolitan areas, home prices were up 1.2 percent from the previous month.

However, if a housing rebound is starting, it is still very fragile. For example, applications for home building permits--a key gauge of future construction--fell in September by the largest amount in five months. And, according to figures recently released by the Commerce Department, sales of new homes dropped unexpectedly in September; the first such decline since March.

The foreclosure crisis all but erased the gains we have made in increasing homeownership rates in the last 20 years. The financial gains families thought they had achieved through increases in home equity also disappeared, as now roughly 20 percent of homeowners owe more on their homes than they are worth.

Nevertheless, homeownership remains the single most important wealth- building tool available to families in this country. In fact, housing experts are saying that now is the time to buy. A sustained rebound in housing is therefore absolutely vital to Federal, State and local efforts to spark a broader economic recovery.

Regrettably, I have spoken to a number of mortgage brokers in Indiana and they tell me that many first-time homebuyers, who could otherwise buy a home, are finding themselves locked out of the housing market by the very rules and regulations we put into place to protect consumers from the so-called predatory lending practices that created the sub- prime mortgage mess in the first place.

I am not suggesting that we should return to the unchecked lending of the last decade, where someone could put no money down, show no proof of income or employment and walk away with a million dollar mortgage. But I am suggesting that we need to be vigilant for circumstances where--either through legislative or regulatory action--the Federal government may have inadvertently swung the pendulum too far in the direction of restricting access to the mortgage market in the name of consumer protection.

There are two letters I received from mortgage brokers in Indiana that point to one potential example. The issue relates to variable rate pricing of mortgage insurance for Federal mortgage loans.

These letters show these two mortgage agents both believe that the Federal Housing Administration's shift in policy from charging a flat- rate for mortgage insurance to charging a variable rate based on a person's credit score, has unfairly excluded some qualified buyers from the dream of home ownership.

I am not a mortgage expert; Madam Speaker, so I will defer to the experts as to whether the shift from flat-rate pricing to variable rate pricing is truly preventing would be homeowners from buying a home; but I would like to cite for the record a 2007 report done by the nonpartisan General Accountability Office regarding the proposed changes to the Federal Housing Administration's lending standards, including the shift to variable rate pricing of mortgage insurance premiums. The report reads, in part:

``. . . our analysis of data for FHA's home purchase borrowers in 2005 showed that, under FHA's risk-based pricing proposal, about 43 percent of those borrowers would have paid the same or less than they actually paid, 37 percent would have paid more, and 20 percent would not have qualified for FHA insurance.''

In other words, GAO's analysis, based on my understanding of the report, seems to suggest that variable rate premiums, based on perceived risk, send little extra money into the mortgage insurance trust fund to protect the funds from increased defaults but deny 20 percent of applicants FHA mortgage insurance--and by extension a mortgage.

If GAO's analysis is correct, and I have no reason to doubt GAO's findings, it would seem to support the arguments offered by the mortgage brokers from Indiana I cited earlier. In that case, Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues on the Finance Committee to give all due consideration to investigating the policy of variable rate pricing, in order to ensure that truly qualified borrowers are not being unfairly pushed out of the housing market.

All Star Mortgage Company,

August 19, 2009.

Congressman Dan Burton,

Rayburn H.O.B.,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Burton: I am writing this letter as a

follow up in regards to our meeting last week. The American

consumer that desires to purchase a new home or refinance

their existing home is at a distinct disadvantage considering

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's unfair increased risk based

pricing and mandatory delivery fees. These excessive fees and

higher down payments are stifling the real estate market.

They are overly burdensome to consumers, even those with

perfect payment histories. This is not only stalling the

housing recovery, but also inhibiting the overall economy, as

many industries are housing related. This unfair practice is

excluding many well-qualified borrowers from the dream of

home ownership. It would be my hope that Congress would call

for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to revisit their current

policy of charging higher fees and requiring larger down

payments to certain qualified borrowers, than they would

charge an equally qualified borrower based solely upon credit

score without regard to the borrower's actual credit

repayment history.

Sincerely,

Greg Evans,

President.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Pelosi health care bill: 1,990 pages. Nobody in this place has even come close to reading it. In addition to that, it costs $2.25 million per word. That's per word. There are almost 3,500 ``shalls'' in there, and a ``shall'' is a mandate that Congress do something. Nobody has read this thing. It's going to cost all this money.

Members of Congress can exempt themselves from being involved in the public option. Every time you go to a town hall meeting, the American people say, Are you guys going to be included? Well, this bill says you don't have to be included if you're a Member of Congress because we're more important than the guy on the street.

You know, this is just a terrible, terrible bill; and the people of this country don't want it passed. I've had five town hall meetings, and the people overwhelmingly are opposed to this thing. They want us to solve the problems of health care. They want us to do it in a responsible way, but they certainly don't want this thing, and this doesn't even include the manager's amendment. This is a bad bill, and it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on from my 1-minute I gave earlier, this bill, the Pelosi bill, the Pelosi health care bill that the Democrats are embracing is almost 2,000 pages long. It's going to cost $2.25 million for each word, and that does not include the manager's amendment, which we have not yet seen. I imagine it's going to come down probably sometime tomorrow.

As I said before, Members of Congress don't have to enroll in this public option which is in the bill. I hope everybody in America, if they happen to be paying attention--I know I can't talk to them, but if I were talking to them I would say, Hey, ask your Congressman why he is voting for a bill that's going to exempt him and make sure he can join a private health care insurance plan when there is a public option in here that he should be joining just like everybody else has to.

This bill is not going to cost under a trillion dollars as the Speaker has said. If you put the doc fix in there, it's going to cost another $250 billion. So we are looking at something between 1.2 and 1.3 trillion at a time when we are suffering economically in this country. Unemployment is close to 10 percent. The deficit this year, the deficit this year is already 1.4 trillion, almost three times just what it was last year, and we are going to add this new bill, which is going to cost another 1.2 to 1.3 trillion dollars.

The American people simply don't want it. Let's go into some of the other things that are in the bill, the Pelosi health care bill.

First of all, there is a surtax on small business people. Now, at a time when we have unemployment that's almost 10 percent, this is going to drive additional jobs out of the country offshore or they are going to have to cut back some of these businesses that stay here in America and let people go, which means there will be more unemployment. There is an employer mandate that's still applied to small businesses. Small businesses that have a payroll as low as $ $500,000 a year are going to be hit with a tax.

There is a new medical device tax. In Indiana, we have some companies that make medical devices to help people, prosthetic devices, wheelchairs and things like that. There's a new medical tax that's going to be levied on these kinds of devices of 2.5 percent, and that's going to be passed on to people who are suffering from medical problems that need these medical devices. We call that a wheelchair tax that's in this bill.

There's going to be new taxes on health savings accounts. The Pelosi bill eliminates the nontaxable reimbursements of over-the-counter medication from HSAs, HRAs, and FSAs. There is a new payroll tax, and the Pelosi bill creates a new voluntary payroll tax to fund new long- term care programs requiring mandatory spending, also known as a new entitlement.

Abortions are authorized in a break from the Hyde amendment and other longstanding pro-life policies. The bill includes the Capps amendment to authorize government funding of abortions through the public option. It also establishes an accounting gimmick to justify subsidizing private plans that cover abortion.

Next, Members of Congress, as I said, are exempt. They say that they may--not have to--enroll in the public option. At the same time it says ``may'' in there, there are 3,425 times in the bill it says you must, shall do something, and ``shall'' means it's a mandatory. There are mandatory things in here to the tune of 3,425 times.

Doctors reimbursement levels are up in the air. They've got those budget gimmicks that I talked about, which removes the doctor fix, the medical doctor fix of 250 billion, which takes this up to between $1.2 and $1.3 trillion.

It reduces affordability credits and instead expands Medicaid. The States are going to love that. They are going to shovel a lot of this onto the States who are already suffering, and they are going to have to raise taxes.

The Pelosi bill reduces the size of affordability credits for patients to purchase the insurance in the exchange and, instead, expands eligibility for Medicaid to up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level, placing more Americans on entitlement programs at a cost to both the Federal and the State governments.

As I said most States are in the red, and they are not going to like this. Ask any Governor; he will tell you.

This also significantly changes the Medicare part D prescription drug program. The Pelosi bill requires the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices for the prescription drug program. There are also several provisions in the bill that will likely increase seniors' premiums as identified by CBO, including the bill that would force seniors, force seniors, to pay at least an additional 20 percent more for their Medicare prescription drug coverage. That's part D.

These things the American people need to know. This is not a good bill. There is a better way, a better way.