Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, It does not promote civility to have a party line vote and spend an afternoon debating whether Mr. Wilson's apology for what he said during the President's address last week is `good enough.' Clearly, Mr. Wilson thoroughly embarrassed himself. And while I disagree with Mr. Wilson and I strongly support the President, I think we should be moving on and not piling on. As Voltaire wrote, `I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' We all agree Mr. Wilson's behavior was inappropriate, now it is time to get back to work.

Thank you very much, to the distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Bart Gordon. I also want to thank my colleague on the Financial Services Committee, a very distinguished new Member of the House, Gary Peters, the sponsor of this bill.

By increasing the power of alternative and renewable energy, we have the opportunity to break our addiction to foreign oil, reduce global warming and create millions of new jobs in the process, ones that cannot be shipped overseas. In my own region, we are doing research in alternative fuels such as butanol at the School of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, and we have hydrogen fuel cell technology in Rochester institutions of higher education, as well as at a Delphi plant there. We're already using these new fuel vehicles, the ones that have already come out.

On Monday I stood at an old train station in downtown Syracuse which had been abandoned for years, creating an eyesore. But using stimulus money, the Clean Communities Group will turn this building into a charging station for electric cars as well as an alternative fueling hub for CuseCar, an alternative fuel car sharing company in Syracuse. Under this bill, it can become a center for research on the practical use of these advanced technology vehicles.

Our energy policy, Mr. Chairman, is heading in the right direction, and the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act ensures that we are charting the right course for our new energy future.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are faced with a rare problem. We have a program that has proven to be working, and all we need to do is to keep it working. Getting gas-guzzling vehicles off the road and replaced with new fuel-efficient vehicles is helping our environment. It is putting money directly into the pockets of middle-income families. It is a ray of hope for auto dealers in this country, a ray of hope for the U.S. auto industry and a ray of hope for our economy.

Finally we have a bailout, not for the big businesses, not for Wall Street, but a bailout for Main Street.

As the lead sponsor of a bill to help protect the legal rights of auto dealers, I can tell you this is a godsend for the auto dealers in my district. Don't stall what's working. Give it a fill-up, and let's get Cash for Clunkers back on the road.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I welcomed to the Capitol Dr. Sharon Brangman from my district, who was recently named the next president of the American Geriatrics Society. This morning she told me and other Members how physicians who work with the elderly are spending an overwhelming majority of their time providing primary care often without appropriate compensation through the current Medicare formulas. The extra year of training and additional expertise actually mean less pay, which is one of the reasons why we have an acute shortage of geriatricians in America.

Mr. Speaker, baby boomers entering into the later stages of life will cause America's older population to double in the next few years. We must reform our health care system to adequately compensate doctors for providing preventative and coordinated care to patients in every stage of life. If we do it right, it will save money because many superfluous and harmful treatments will be eliminated and seniors will not only live longer but better lives.

Mr. Speaker, I hosted a town hall meeting in my district in Syracuse, New York. The town hall was extremely well attended, with over 400 constituents from across central New York in attendance, and everyone was interested. I think there may have even been 400 different opinions in the room. The ones who were the most passionate, of course, were the ones on both sides of it and the extreme sides of it. There was the crowd that wanted a government-run, single-payer health care system and wouldn't settle for much else, and then there were about an equal number equally convinced that the government should have absolutely no role in health care whatsoever and that any role at all would be socialism. I think most of the people in my district, though, are somewhere in the middle.

I would like to share just one story from my town hall. At the end of the evening, after some pretty heated rhetoric, a man named Doug West of Skaneateles, New York, came down to the front of the auditorium to show me his monthly insurance bill and how it went from about $350 about 6 years ago to more than $800 today. Doug is a retired engineer from a local company, and unless there are is some dramatic changes, Doug is not going to be able to afford that rising cost forever.

Doug and his family are examples of the constituents that I will be focused on in my advocacy for higher quality and more affordable health care.

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask Chrysler and General Motors to continue to honor their commitments to auto dealers in this country. Chrysler and GM should not deprive economic rights to profitable dealerships across this country.

Yesterday, I joined with Representative Frank Kratovil of Maryland and introduced the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009. The act claims to restore the economic rights of GM and Chrysler dealers as they existed prior to each company's bankruptcy. We want to preserve GM and Chrysler car dealers' rights to recourse under State law and, at the request of an automobile dealer, require GM and Chrysler to reinstate franchise agreements in effect prior to those companies' bankruptcies. These are bankruptcies negotiated with Federal officials, and taxpayer dollars are helping to maintain both companies. Therefore, these bankruptcies should not be used to change the rules that dealers have been operating under.

I first wrote a bipartisan letter with Representative Chris Lee of New York and more than 65 of our colleagues to the auto task force in May asking them to work with the companies to reconsider the forced closings. Since then, thousands of dealers have been informed by GM and Chrysler, through a seemingly arbitrary system, that their relationships were ending essentially immediately, leaving some dealers with millions of dollars invested in car stock with no options for consolidation and little leverage for liquidation.

In my home district in upstate New York, there is a dealership, Lewis Goodman Chrysler, which has been the cornerstone of one of our communities for 50 years. Mr. Goodman opened his dealership in 1959 in Syracuse. Two years ago, at the age of 82, Mr. Goodman passed away, but his dying wish was to make sure the dealership reached the half century mark. His widow promised to keep their dealership running at least through its 50th anniversary, which was just last week. Lewis Goodman Chrysler received a letter on May 15 informing them that Chrysler was severing their relationship. The letter gave no indication as to why this particular dealership was targeted, just that the relationship was ending.

I visited Mrs. Goodman last week to celebrate the 50th anniversary. This is a dealership that is profitable, partly because of selling preowned cars. It employs dozens of people and has been loyal to them for years. It is exactly the kind of small family business that we in this House claim to want to help, not close.

We all recognize that the economy is not favorable to the auto industry right now and especially not in certain sections of the country where the population can no longer support an extensive dealer network. We have already seen layoffs from parts manufacturers in my district, plant closings, and a Chapter 11 among one of their suppliers. In this context, across central New York 11 dealerships have closed on their own since 2007, and we expect to see other dealerships consolidate and close this year. But we do not, in the middle of a recession, need to take a hatchet to local, family-owned businesses that have supported our communities for decades when market forces are already at work. These dealerships employ hundreds of people across my district. They sponsor our local little league teams, our pancake breakfasts, and they buy ads in our local newspapers and local TV newscasts. They

have been the cornerstone of our community for generations.

I have also signed a letter with Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Majority Leader Hoyer, and over 100 of our fellow Members, and we sent it to President Obama talking about our concerns, the total lack of transparency and how this system is shutting down profitable dealerships. And we want to know, from both sides of the aisle, whether we can get more transparency and an indication of how this, indeed, saves money.

The auto companies, who are buoyed by taxpayer dollars, should be honest with the dealerships and with the American people about how these decisions are being made, and the dealerships should be negotiated with on how to consolidate dealerships in a way that will help to find a soft landing for the workers and communities, not just in my district, but across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of sending this critical bill to the President for his signature. Enactment will stop deceptive and unfair practices by credit card issuers that have taken advantage of honest consumers.

I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I want to especially thank Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.

When she started in this effort, the odds were dead set against her, and it was likely her efforts would run into stiff partisan opposition. Thanks to her leadership and hard work, this bill has very bipartisan support, passing this House this year by 357-70 and, yesterday, being approved by the Senate with an overwhelmingly bipartisan 90-5 vote.

Each time I am at home in my district, without fail, people share stories about their times with credit cards. One woman, Diana Lynn, from Baldwinsville, near Syracuse, recently noted that, in the fine print of her credit card, her interest rate had been raised from 14.25 to 21.5 percent for no reason, which was applied to her already existing balance. Diana runs an animal protection nonprofit and is taking care of her mother, who is in intensive care. Now, she is confident that she will eventually pay off this balance and will still maintain her good credit, but she is worried about those less well off, who are at the mercy of the credit card companies.

Hers is just one of the hundreds of stories that my office has heard. Today, we take action on their behalf. Under this legislation before us, Diana would have been protected. For too long, the credit card issuers have taken advantage of American families, of small businesses and even of churches that are too responsible to run away but are too poor to pay off their balances.

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights means that credit card companies will no longer be allowed to act as loan sharks. The enactment of this bill is just the beginning. Just as the Bill of Rights in the Constitution provides a foundation for all of our laws that protect citizens' liberties, this bill will create a solid foundation for Congress to build upon in order to provide a needed floor for the industry to improve their practices and to highlight the need for consumer responsibility. This bipartisan coalition will continue to push for more transparency and fairness for consumers in upstate New York and throughout the country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I would consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment that would require the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to work with funding recipients to promote opportunities for individuals enrolled in Job Corps to gain employment experience on modernization, repair, and construction projects funded under this act.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to work with recipients of funds to promote appropriate opportunities for individuals enrolled in a junior or community college. This is, I think, a pretty noncontroversial amendment that just allows additional help in getting people to work, young people to work, and giving them needed skills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I rise to offer an amendment that enables job opportunities provided under the 21st Century Green High-Performing Schools Act to be accessible to students enrolled in Job Corps and community colleges.

The Maffei/Schwartz amendment adds to the existing requirements of the bill which requires the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to work with grant recipients under this Act to promote opportunities for participants in Youthbuild programs to gain experience on projects funded by the bill.

In the state of New York and through a nationwide campus network, Job Corps provides a complete range of career development services to at- risk young women and men, ages 16 to 24, to prepare them for successful careers. Job Corps differs from Youthbuild in that it targets at-risk youth and operates programs at residential facilities.

Job Corps is a critical program that reaches young adults who need opportunities by providing them with academic training and vocational opportunity.

My district is in Upstate New York and includes Syracuse, where each year we place approximately 400 at-risk youth into the Job Corps program. There are real success stories from this program, and by allowing funds from the Green Schools Act to be utilized for the Job Corps program, we will bring opportunity and hope to more vulnerable youth in my area and across the country.

Community Colleges are an important generator of trained, skilled students who can enter the workforce in critical fields. In my district, Onondaga Community College has created the Sustainability Institute. The institute will train students in installation of geothermal and wind systems, which are both expanding fields but severely lack adequately trained workers in Central New York. The Sustainability Institute has been endorsed by the New York US Green Buildings Council because a green workforce is our future, but we are woefully under-trained and -prepared to embrace this new economic engine.

Renovating, modernizing, and constructing green schools offers hands- on learning opportunities for students, ensuring that they are provided opportunities to learn new techniques, new trades, in a new green economy. This amendment will help to further ensure that our nation's young people are prepared for the jobs of the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act of 2009 gives the

Department of Justice the resources it needs to better combat and prevent the kind of financial fraud that has put our economy on its heels.

As I discussed with the bill's sponsors on this legislation in the House, however, I do have concerns about amendments like those included in this package that expand the reach of an already powerful weapon-- the civil False Claims Act. Often enforced by whistleblowers and their private counsel when the Department of Justice steps aside, the civil False Claims Act reaches beyond traditional fraud to impose treble damages and per claim penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 on individuals, corporations, and other legal entities who submit false claims for government program funds, knowing or recklessly disregarding the falsity of those claims.

The power of the False Claims Act comes from its broad terms, low burden of proof, enabling the government to impose penalties and recoup funds lost not only to frauds, but to less culpable schemes that abuse government moneys.

But there's also a danger in this. Not all whistleblowers and their lawyers have the same view of the statute as the Department of Justice and the risk of penalties, treble damages, and attorney fees. In many cases, the defense costs can cost some defendants to settle charges they would otherwise be able to defend.

One of the things this legislation does is expend that powerful weapon to reach schemes that defraud the government of money it pays by mistake--of ``overpayments'' that come into the possession of an entity, like a university or a research institution, through no fault of its own, that the entity keeps and maybe hides rather than notifying the government or returning it to the government.

Drafting language to pursue unlawful retention of an overpayment proved difficult, however. When we considered similar legislation in committee, I learned that hospitals, universities, and other research institutions are among various entities that function in government programs where the program rules do require those entities to account for overpayments.

They do so in the form of periodic reports prepared according to agency rules that account costs incurred and payments received. This allows them to reconcile overpayments and underpayments and, when appropriate, repay those overpayments.

But the drafting problem we faced was avoiding language that would impose liability on research institutions or hospitals for holding on to overpayments at a time when the applicable rules would allow them to do so pending repayment through the normal process.

This would include reconciliation processes established under statutes, regulations, and rules that govern Medicare, Medicaid, and all sorts of other various research grants and programs.

So, as a courtesy to my colleagues, I withdrew an amendment that addressed these issues and commenced negotiations to see that any amendments to the False Claims Act-protected entities that rely on those processes in good faith in handling their accounting, protecting them from unwarranted investigations and litigation concerning overpayments, they were, in effect, entitled to keep for at least a small period of time.

As reflected in the committee report, the Senate version of this bill was amended to afford that protection. A new subsection of the False Claims Act will not impose liability for the mere retention of an overpayment over the course of the reconciliation period. Rather, the new subsection would require proof of a knowing false record or statement, of knowing concealment, or of knowing and improper acts to avoid or decrease an obligation to pay money to the government.

So, if a person or entity receives an overpayment from the United States and fails to return it immediately and instead takes steps to return the overpayment through an applicable reconciliation process, then liability would not attach. However, if a person falsifies information during a reconciliation period or otherwise acts knowingly and improperly to avoid the payment, liability would attach.

So it's vitally important that we pass this legislation to fight financial fraud. But it's also important that we not punish universities, hospitals, and other important research institutions when they're doing everything that they are supposed to do. We must have enforcement and also fairness.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This week the House will take up anti-predatory lending and mortgage fraud legislation. These bills are the next step as we work to rebuild our economy in a way that is fair and consistent with our values.

The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009 will curb abuse in predatory lending, a major factor in the Nation's highest home foreclosure rate in 25 years. The bill would outlaw many of the most egregious industry practices that have marked the subprime lending boom, and it would prevent borrowers from deliberately misstating their incomes to qualify for a loan.

But I would also like to get back to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, because that is such an important piece of legislation. As I mentioned, it passed 357-70 in this body, and I do urge that the other body take up this legislation as rapidly as possible.

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights has had such broad bipartisan support because these credit card issuers and companies have benefited from an uneven playing field for so long. Regular people across the country and across my district have been victimized by these unfair and abusive practices, and Congress has now finally heard their stories. One of their stories was featured today in an editorial in the Syracuse Post-Standard, my hometown newspaper.

``Temple Baptist Church in Baldwinsville is the kind of customer that credit card companies used to reward with lower interest rates, not higher ones. The church paid its credit card bill on time and always paid at least the minimum due.

``But without explanation, Advanta Bank raised the church's interest rate from 18 percent to a whopping 36.9 percent. The higher rate had already been applied to $8,000 in new purchases, according to the Reverend Aaron Overton. He was shocked, just like thousands of citizens who have found themselves in similar positions.

``Fortunately for Overton and other consumers, their outcry was loud enough for Congress to pay attention. Last week, the House of Representatives approved the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, which would prohibit sudden and retroactive rate hikes.''

Then the editorial goes on to say later that this bill is good, we need to do more, and that ``Congress needs to carefully examine how credit card companies conduct business, the kinds of interest rates they charge and what other schemes are being practiced that hurt customers. Overton says he probably could have gotten a better deal from the Mafia than from his credit card company. It does appear that some companies are shaking down customers as the economy worsens.''

Mr. Speaker, I will include the full editorial for the Record.

The point is this: We cannot any longer allow these kind of practices to occur. The model that makes this occur is the fact that at one point in our country, all lending, including credit card lending, was based on the fair principle that a bank or other institution would lend out money and then would make money on the interest and then the principal would be paid back.

But these credit card companies have now targeted people that cannot afford to pay back that principal and instead continue to get higher and higher fees. Yet they are too responsible, like Reverend Overton, to run away. He is not going to go anywhere. That church is not going to go anywhere. So there is no excuse to raise those rates and to have those fees, except that the company wants to make more money.

My concern, the concern of my newspaper at home and the concern of many of us, is that these credit card companies, before this bill fully takes effect, before the Senate is able to pass it, will take advantage of this all the more. But to them, Mr. Speaker, to them I have a clear message, and that is we have got our eyes on you and you shouldn't try it, because if you do, we are going to put this into effect much, much earlier, as our Chairman Barney Frank has said.

I do not believe that you should have a lawyer to get a credit card. We have lawyers to get a new house, often when you have a house closing. But when it comes time to get a credit card, you shouldn't need a lawyer. These 30 page contracts, frankly, that people don't read, but I tell you, if you did read them, there is only a couple of sentences that matter. Those are the sentences that say the credit card issuer can do everything and the consumer can do nothing. This has to end. This practice has to end. We must assure fairness, and that means getting the Senate to pass a strong credit cardholders' bill of rights, and in both Houses and down the street at the

White House we have to keep an eye on this industry and make sure they don't take advantage of the customers further during this recession.

Mr. Speaker, I include the editorial from the Syracuse Post-Standard for the Record.

Bad Credit

Temple Baptist Church in Baldwinsville is the kind of

customer that credit card companies used to reward with lower

interest rates not higher ones. The church paid its credit

card bill on time and always paid at least the minimum due.

But without explanation, Advanta Bank raised the church's

interest rate from 18 percent to a whopping 36.9 percent. The

higher rate had already been applied to $8,000 in new

purchases, according to the Rev. Aaron Overton.

He was shocked just like thousands of citizens who have

found themselves in similar positions.

Fortunately for Overton and other consumers, their outcry

was loud enough for Congress to pay attention. Last week, the

House of Representatives approved the ``Credit Card Holders'

Bill of Rights,'' which would prohibit sudden and retroactive

rate hikes.

The Senate is expected to pass similar legislation,

according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the

Senate bill would contain ``important protections for

consumers and is a giant step forward for anyone who uses a

credit card.''

Let's hope so.

The credit card companies have been allowed to ride

roughshod over their customers, employing jaw-dropping

practices in a nation that supposedly operates by fair and

transparent financial rules.

In fact, Congress needs to go farther than the House did in

its bill.

As Rev. Overton pointed out, credit card companies should

be made to refund the money they received from the outrageous

fees.

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was able to work out

such a deal recently with JP Morgan Chase & Co. It refunded

$4.4 million to 184,000 cardholders Cuomo said were wrongly

charged a monthly $10 fee.

Most of the regulations in the Credit Card Holders' Bill of

Rights will not take effect until next year. But Rep. Dan

Maffei, D-DeWitt, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-Manhattan,

sponsored an amendment that would ensure that one crucial

provision takes effect within 90 days of signing that

companies give customers 45 days notice before raising rates.

Maffei says the House bill is just the beginning of

stricter oversight of credit card issuers. As a member of the

House Financial Services Committee, he says he has heard

complaints about credit company practices throughout his

district. He plans to hold hearings in Syracuse this summer.

That's good. Congress needs to carefully examine how credit

card companies conduct business, the kinds of interest rates

they charge and what other schemes are being practiced that

hurt consumers.

Overton says he probably could have gotten a better deal

from the Mafia than from his credit card company. It does

appear that some companies are shaking down customers as the

economy worsens.

Lawmakers must put an end to such practices immediately.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we must support this rule because the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act is really just the beginning, just the foundation of reestablishing basic rules that will protect consumers.

A lot of these amendments are very, very good amendments and are needed to make sure that we don't need a lawyer like we do when we buy a house, you have a lawyer. But we don't need a lawyer in order to just get a credit card.

The very nature of what credit card companies have been doing has become exploitive. They are going after Americans who may be too responsible to run away, but too poor to ever pay back their balance.

They are making their money on unreasonable interest rates, fees, et cetera. And during a recession, this only becomes worse.

Now, the other side is saying that there is competition. But how can consumers take advantage of this competition if they can't even tell which credit card is better because of all the deceptive practices that we are allowing? Thirty-page contracts containing all this fine print, raising interest rates, universal default which says if you are late on any card, then any other card can punish you.

This credit card bill of rights is really just the beginning, and we must make sure that we also have a declaration of independence from unreasonable credit card interest rate and debt. Just as I just did with my credit card, we must get away from these unreasonable rates and unreasonable fees that the credit card companies are offering.

This bill will give the consumers the tools to do that.

I want to thank Chairman Gutierrez for yielding and for all his leadership. I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Barney Frank, as well. And especially I want to thank the former chairwoman of the subcommittee, Carolyn Maloney, for her persistence on behalf of American families.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for support of this very important bill, because I feel strongly that we must stop the deceptive and unfair practices that have taken advantage of honest consumers.

For too long, credit card issuers have buried important details in the fine print or never showed consumers the 30-plus pages contract they are signing onto. Credit card issuers then hit consumers with rate increases and fees, always with the excuse, well, it's in the contract.

I am okay with needing a lawyer to close on a house, but regular people shouldn't need a lawyer just to get a credit card. We must make sure credit cards have fair rules.

I hear time and again from people in my district who have seen their interest rates substantially increased on their credit cards or the limits decreased for arbitrary reasons or no reason at all. This is an issue that crosses into every part of my district.

Without fail, someone shares some story each time I am at home. One, for instance, is Reverend Aaron Overton of the Temple Baptist Church Baldwinsville, New York. He saw his credit card company raise the rate on his church's existing balance to more than 36 percent, even though he had evidence that his bill was always paid on time. And, believe me, this Baptist church showed no risk of default or of running away.

The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights takes important steps to level the playing field. It provides that customers receive 45 days' notice of an interest rate increase. It institutes commonsense changes, such as requiring that every statement display a clear due date.

Finally, and most important to my constituents, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights ensures that companies cannot raise rates retroactively on existing balances. Raising rates on preexisting balances means that issuers are raising rates on funds already disbursed to customers, and that's simply unfair.

The credit card issuers have taken advantage of American families, small businesses and even churches that are too responsible to run away or default but too financially strapped to pay off their balance. This is unfair at any time. But during a time of recession, it is unconscionable.

This bill of rights for credit cardholders will restore fairness to the consumers.

Madam Speaker, after 8 years of failed policies under the last administration, we have inherited a massive, unprecedented budget deficit projected to be well over $1 trillion before the current President took office. While growing our economy is a major component of the budget, reducing the deficit is a top priority for everyone.

The budget before us today will cut the deficit by two-thirds by the end of 2013 with a combination of spending cuts. Now, I'd like to correct the excesses overnight, but like steering a sailboat, it takes some time to turn us around while still not capsizing.

Some say we should chop everything except defense in the interest of leaving less debt to our children, but the fiscal deficit is not the only thing the policies of the last 8 years has left us with:

We have a huge education deficit, Madam Speaker, where children in urban and rural areas in my district don't have decent schools available to them. We have a health care deficit where people even with insurance cannot get the preventative care they need to avoid bigger problems. We have an infrastructure deficit, as demonstrated by leaky sewers and crumbling roads and bridges in my district.

If we reduce the deficit a little more, it will still be substantial thanks to the policies of the past, but it will leave our children with poor education, inadequate health care and crumbling infrastructure. Are we really serving their best interests by doing this?

We must invest in the economy to get rid of the structural deficit that we inherited. Just as someone might take a second mortgage to fix the structural integrity of their family house, we must do this as well. We may have a somewhat bigger mortgage, but we will have a strong house to pass on to our kids. That's what this Obama budget does. Otherwise, we will leave our children with a somewhat smaller mortgage but with no house, with no education, with poor health, and with Third World infrastructure.

That's not why the people of the 25th District of New York elected me. That's not why people elected the 44th President of the United States. The President's budget makes these tough decisions that the people sent us here to make. We must support it and we must support the rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about some great achievements by student athletes in my district.

This past weekend Jamesville-DeWitt boys' varsity basketball team, which is my hometown, defeated Peekskill 77-75 in Overtime to win the Class A Boys' High School basketball championship.

The 25th congressional district winning ways continue at the New York Public schools championship with Bishop Kearney boys' varsity basketball team defeating Seton Catholic 65-48 to bring home the Class B Boy's High School basketball championship.

And the women of the 25th district got into the act when Newark girls varsity basketball team defeated Albertus Magnus 75-68 to take the Girls' Class A basketball championship.

Coach McKenney at Jamesville-Dewitt, Coach Boon at Bishop Kerney, Coach Kirnie at Newark and all of the student athletes are to be congratulated on these great achievements. I wish them all the best of luck as they move on to the New York State Federation Championships this weekend in Glens Falls.

Last, but certainly not least, I am proud to say that the Syracuse Orange men's basketball team won both of their NCAA tournament games this past weekend and have advanced to the sweet 16 this weekend. To coach Boeheim, and all of the players, I can't tell you how many people come up to me in halls of Congress to talk about how great you are. I will be cheering for you as you compete for a berth in the Final Four.

All of the student athletes that compete bring my district and the whole United States great pride and I applaud you on your efforts. Keep up the good work, and Go Orange!

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership on this bill.

I, too, had some hesitation about broadening the bankruptcy judges' jurisdiction on this. But what I did was I listened to the other side and I worked with the gentlewoman from California and the distinguished chairman from Michigan, and we were able to get a lot of changes in this bill--and particularly in this manager's amendment--that would make sure that the lender and the borrower would get together, that there would be a safe haven to protect banks and make sure that they could, in fact, renegotiate these loans, and to keep anyone from using this for anything but an absolute last resort. However, as a last resort, it's a necessary, because if we don't have this, then whatever the borrower does, they may not have recourse.

In my district, this is not the biggest problem, foreclosures are not the biggest thing. But yet, even if one family comes to me and says, we're desperate, we have to declare bankruptcy, and if we had a second home, it would be covered, if we had a yacht, it would be covered, but our first home would not be covered, that's a very difficult thing to explain. So I support the manager's amendment.