Floor Statements

To my two distinguished colleagues who have taken the leadership on this time on the floor, I thank you for your graciousness in allowing us to bring up H. Res. 944 and at the same time to recognize what is arguably an extraordinary and great moment in American history.

For this man, Lieutenant General Russel Honore, the only word that comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, is that word ``great.'' There have been some great moments and great events in the last 7 years of this country that have threatened the very foundation of our country. The 9/11 of 2001 that launched the vicious attack on this country that led us into this extraordinary period of this war on terror, and then just 4 years later a great catastrophe, one of the greatest natural disasters to have ever hit the United States of America and to the gulf coast of this country: Hurricane Katrina. Great events, great occasions bring forth the need to rise up to this occasion and these great occasions great men.

We are here today to honor a great American, and we ought to pause for a moment and think about this word ``great'' that we are using to describe this great American, Lieutenant General Russel Honore. The word ``great'' means something of great magnificence. When that question was put to the great philosopher Aristotle, what does it take to be a great man, Aristotle said the first thing you've got to do is know thyself.

Well, I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, Russel Honore knew himself, and not only did he know who he was, Russel Honore knew whose he was, that he was foremost and first of all a child of God that had been brought on this Earth for a great need and a great occasion.

Later on in history that question was put to the great Roman general and soldier Marcus Aurelius. The question was put to Marcus Aurelius, what does it take to be a great man? Marcus Aurelius said, in order to be a great man, you must, first of all, discipline yourself. And so much has been said about the great soldiering of this great American. The hallmark word is ``discipline,'' ``focus.'' He endured hardness and toughness as a good soldier, and through that discipline came the loyalty, came the courage that it took to fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but, more than that, to expound the toughness and the discipline that was needed to our fellow soldiers that came under his care. For there is no greater thing of General Honore than the love of his soldiers, and he exemplified that by heading up the commandant post in my district at Fort Gillem, Georgia. For three-quarters of the National Guard that had to be positioned, had to be trained, had to be deployed into the war zones came through the hand of Russel Honore at Fort Gillem in Clayton County and Forest Park in Georgia and my congressional district.

And, finally, that question was put to the great Messiah and prophet Jesus Christ when He was asked, Jesus, what does it take to be a great man? And Jesus replied, first of all, in order to be a great man, you must sacrifice yourself. And, oh, what a great sacrifice. And you must love your fellow man as you do yourself. And what greater exemplary of that was in going down into Katrina and not just soldiering, not just taking the time to protect the area, but clothing the people there, finding food and shelter for them, and taking the time to stop beside the road of the agony that they were experiencing, put an arm around them, and help that gulf coast to recovery.

Yes, ``greatness'' is the word for General Russel Honore. And we are so grateful for him, for the role that he has played, and for the greatness of this man. For he came at the most opportune time to provide the most opportune service, and he is truly a great American serving a great Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand before the House and to thank the distinguished chairman of our Ways and Means Committee for doing a yeoman's job on a very difficult issue, in bringing both parties together, in bringing both Chambers together, and responding in a timely way to help the American people who are struggling to make ends meet.

There are some who say we're not in a recession, but I can tell you this from my constituency and others all across this country, a recession is upon us. And in some areas with high unemployment, it borders on a depression.

So this is much needed. It comes in a timely manner. We are putting money into the hands of those who will spend it the quickest, and that means the moderate and lower income individuals. And at the same time, I am proud as a member of the Financial Services Committee to have played a small role in helping this move forward, especially in expanding the limits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and our FHA loan extensions.

Madam Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate in here this afternoon. What is on the American people's mind right now are two words: ``quickly'' and ``now.'' They want this economy turned around quickly and now.

The best way to do that is in our plans, getting money to the people who will spend it quickly and now, extending the limits on our lending capacity in FHA quickly and now, and in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, about 143 years ago, Abraham Lincoln, as well as Robert E. Lee, came before this Congress at the end of the Civil War, and they said to this Congress: we need to move. It is not incumbent upon us to complete this task, but neither are we free to desist from doing all we possibly can quickly and now.

Those are the words that are tripping off the tongues of the American people. We need to stop them from being put out of their homes with foreclosures. That is why we have the limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as for the FHA loans.

Americans want to be able to have their jobs. You do that by stimulating the economy and putting the money in the hands of the people who will spend it quickly and now.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa very cleverly uses the words ``union scale.'' This is not union scale; this is prevailing wage scale. This is set by scientific surveys within a community, based upon what is the prevailing wage in that community. It moves from community to community. There is a reason for that.

Davis-Bacon has been one of the foremost agents that we have been able to use in our entire economic structure to make sure that the American worker has a livable wage that maintains the standards in that community. The Davis-Bacon requirement has been on the books since 1931, and, if I might add, put on by a Republican, one of my opponents' party members, President Hoover, and it has served us well.

Now, this amendment is certainly an amendment that is very timely. Here we are in the throes of a recession, one of the most damaging economic crises that this Nation has faced in the last quarter of a century, and we have the gentleman from Iowa wanting to put on an amendment that would diametrically affect the living wages of the people who need the help the most.

Now, by preventing workers on HOPE VI projects from earning a living wage is certainly not the right way to go. It is a hole in the head bucket strategy, given that those very same workers in the absence of Davis-Bacon protections would be unable to find housing themselves. A part of the HOPE VI mission, Mr. Chairman, is to make construction of units more efficient and to ensure that the HOPE VI housing units are more environmentally friendly and cost effective. The Davis-Bacon prevailing wages helps attract the necessary skilled workforce to build housing in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This is a bad amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to Mr. George Miller to put his statement in the Record at this point.

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

Mr. Chairman, let it be noted that the gentleman from Iowa, my good friend, is the one who brought up the race card, not I. But I will be the one who quickly puts it back into the middle of the deck, where it should stay and belong forever.

The fact of the matter is this: For 77 years, Mr. Chairman, this country has had the prevailing wage. Not a union

wage. The prevailing wage standards are set by scientific surveys of actual wages paid in the local communities, and anyone awarded a government contract pays at least those prevailing wages. It is not a union scale. If you had union scale, that is it no matter where you go. Prevailing wages are what is established based upon that local economy, that local situation.

You talk about New York. When Hoover put this in in 1931, he didn't put it in for New York. It was for the entire Nation, because we were at the throes of the depression, at the beginning of the depression.

And now in a similar situation, while we are not in the beginning of a depression, but certainly in a recession, you misguidedly, my good friend, want to remove it. How ironic.

Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible amendment. It certainly is not the right time to even think about in any fashion any measure that would constrict the economic sector in this country rather than at a much greater need when we need to expand it, and we need to stand and protect the wage earner and working America on this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to recognize the 175th anniversary of the founding of Cobb County, GA. On December 3, 2007, residents of Cobb County came together to celebrate a community that has managed to remain united through many trying times. It was the spirit of community that held Cobb together after many bloody battles of the Civil War took place here, or when the murder of Leo Frank in 1913 threatened to pull the community apart. This deep reverence for community is one of the primary reasons that Marietta, one of Cobb's largest cities, was the first city in Georgia to be awarded the All American Cities Award by the National Civic League.

Today, Cobb County continues to meet the challenges that face our Nation with strength, resilience and innovation. Several cities in Cobb County have partnered with cities around the world, developing trade relationships that keep Cobb County and Georgia relevant in the global economy. Cobb County is proud to be the home of Home Depot's headquarters as well as several other companies that keep Georgia's, as well as America's, economy strong. As our Nation has grown more diverse, so has Cobb County. Cobb County has demonstrated how much progress can come from people working together as neighbors and partners rather than focusing on those things that keep communities divided.

Cobb County is a place that all Americans can be proud of and look to as an example of what every community should strive to emulate. I am proud to represent Cobb and commit these statements to the Congressional Record so generations can reflect on what has been, is, and will continue to be an exemplary community.

Mr. Speaker, there is probably, timing-wise, no greater, no more important piece of legislation for the protection of this country than this TRIA risk insurance program. It is very important that I just start my remarks by responding to some of the concerns that the gentleman raised.

First of all, in our Financial Services Committee, this is indeed a bipartisan product. Republicans and Democrats worked on this together. This is also a bicameral institution. It is important for the House to have its input. It is important for the Senate to have its input.

As a timing matter, it is critically important for us to make sure that we have incorporated into this legislation important issues that the Senate has left out. So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is simply a joint product. We asked for the conference. The conference was not permitted. So we have no other choice except to take what the Senate has offered, and we are accepting that. But there are some other important points of this legislation that need to be incorporated into this bill. And so this revised bill is not a repudiation of what the Senate has done. It is an acceptance of what the Senate has done. And it is also recognizing and acquiescing to some of the issues that they raised that we agreed with. The nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological we agreed with that we would not include.

So what do we have here? And I think it is important for the American people to know exactly this product that we have that we are putting forward at this point. This revised bill would extend TRIA for 7 years just as the Senate favors. Now, we in the House asked for a 15-year renewal for this. You talk about stability. You talk about making sure that we are responding. This is a heavy, heavy issue with the terrorist attack.

We also feel genuinely that if we are going to offer this insurance protection for property, for buildings, my Lord, the most valuable commodity that we lose in a terrorist attack is human life. Group life insurance should be included in this. We are just simply taking what the Senate has offered and again extending back and saying group life insurance must be offered in this bill. The reset mechanism and lowering of the trigger, the Senate wants $100 million. We say $50 million to increase the capacity by encouraging smaller insurers to provide coverage. This is very important as well. And as Chairman Frank just mentioned, life insurance for foreign travel. Why shouldn't people who decide they want to go to a somewhat dangerous destination as Israel have that life insurance covered? So we are certainly adding the reset mechanism for significant terrorist attacks, over $1 billion, to lower the deductibles and triggers to rebuild market capacity and then gradually increase private sector obligations over time.

We took a lot of time, my colleague. I am on the Financial Services Committee. We have worked very hard. We had hearings on it. We heard from every factor of the community in the financial services, and this product that we offer reflected that. All we are simply saying is, timing is important. But why not allow the House, which has just as much right as the Senate, to perfect this important legislation? We are taking what they want, we have accepted some of the things that they felt were excesses, and we are simply adding these four major components back to the bill, reset mechanism, group life insurance, lowering the trigger and life insurance coverage for foreign travel.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

We are negotiating with whoever would present themselves to negotiate on the Senate side. But, unfortunately, that has not been successful.

In conclusion, I would just simply say that I urge that we support this rule. It is very important and timely.

Mr. Speaker, it baffles me when, on this floor, we, who are Members of the House of Representatives, so quickly, so easily want to abdicate our responsibilities to the Senate. No wonder the Senate does what it does.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to abdicate our responsibilities to the Senate. The Founders of this Constitution and this country dedicated two

Houses, one, the Senate, that runs every 6 years, and they made a distinct decision to have the Members of the House of Representatives run every other year because the power of the House closest to the people is that House that the people look to to be most responsive to the day-to-day delicacies of their needs. This is what we're doing here. And the day-to-day delicacies says we've got to pass the most significant, the most meaningful terrorism risk insurance program possible. There's no greater threat we face.

My colleagues on the other side have said, well, why can't the private sector do this? The private sector has come to us. We don't know how catastrophic these events may be. But one thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, we must not allow the terrorists to shut down and destroy our economy. And unless we have this backstop, the insurers have said they cannot rebuild.

Not only that, the insurers have come to us, who we've got to listen to, to say we need this backstop so that the economy will be stable. Perhaps we may not need to use it. Let us hope and let us pray that we will not have to.

But, Mr. Speaker, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we must prepare for the storm before the hurricane is raging.

This is not a giveaway program. This is not a subsidy program. This is an insurance program, insurance that we hope and we pray that we will not need. But if we do, it is the House of Representatives who are responding to say, We need to insure life, not just property. You ask the American people. Property you can get again and again. Buildings you can rebuild. But a life, a life is gone like that and must be insured.

This is the House of Representatives speaking, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Neal, I want to thank you and Chairman Rangel for your leadership on this extremely important bill.

There are several points I would like to make. First of all, my good friends, my Republicans on the other side of the aisle, it must be clear. There's no question about it. What the Republicans want to do is borrow the money to pay for this tax from China, from Japan, and have our children and grandchildren pay for it. But they don't want to just stop there. They also want to protect those wealthy 1 percent who are using tax loopholes to hide their money away from taxation in offshore accounts. That is what our Republican colleagues want to do.

We, on the Democratic side, want to look at this in the responsible way, as the American people expect. We have to provide tax relief for 23 million American families. How to do that is most assuredly to pay for it. And we're doing it by closing these offshore loopholes.

Madam Speaker, this issue boils down to a practicality of ideology. The Republicans and the Bush administration has repeatedly shown that they really quite honestly do not get it when it comes down to health care, and particularly for those who need the health care the most. This is not just the beginning of this. This argument started back during the winter when there were 17 States who came up short, and we fought and we fought to try to get that shortage fixed. But there was no help until I drafted an amendment, went to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and we attached it to the Iraq war supplemental. That is the only way President Bush and the administration signed it.

Now, let me just point out two important points. There are scare tactics being used here. Anytime the Republicans and those on the other side want to score a point, they bring up the bogeyman of illegal immigration; these people are going to be illegal aliens. There's nothing in this bill. As a matter of fact, there's express language that prohibits in this bill any illegal immigrant or undocumented person from being eligible for this children's health program.

You talk about there are adults on the bill. There are no adults on this bill except an adult who happens to be pregnant with child for prenatal care. Should they not have that care? That strikes at the heart of this bill.

I urge everyone to not go with this sad argument and let's sustain and override this veto coming up on January 23.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3505) to make various technical and clerical amendments to the Federal securities laws, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on this legislation and on H.R. 3526, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3505, is the Securities Law Technical Corrections Act, and it consists entirely of technical and clerical amendments to the Federal securities laws which were requested by the Securities and Exchange Commission as a minor part of a larger legislative agenda. Included are the Security Act of 1934, the Investment Act of 1940 and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.

Mr. Speaker, periodically we in Congress should review our laws in order to make sure that they are current and that they are up to date. Furthermore, this bill addresses certain changes to be made to reduce confusion. We want

to ensure that the laws we pass are current, and periodically clarifying certain aspects of these somewhat complex and complicated laws is a very valuable undertaking.

The amendments made by this bill correct drafting errors and remove obsolete references to the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, which was repealed in 2005. It further corrects numbering and punctuation errors. There are several technical changes that need to be made to the bill, as introduced, one to correct statutory citations and punctuation and also for clarification.

Mr. Speaker, as security laws are very complicated, very complex and highly technical, and with many of these laws having been written in the 1930s and the 1940s, periodic overview is very, very important and essential to the financial security of our great Nation, and this, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague Mr. Roskam for his hard work on this bill and for his contribution, and also the leadership of our Financial Services Committee under the chairmanship of Chairman Barney Frank for his work on this measure as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Arcuri). I really appreciate this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here with 100 percent support for H.R. 3915. Let me just start off my comments by sharing with you and the Members of the House and the people of this country how severe this issue within the mortgage industry is, particularly within my district and my beloved State of Georgia. We are one of the leading States that have been victims of abusive lending practices, predatory lending, and certainly we are at the epicenter of this mortgage crisis facing us in this country.

For example, Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of the loans in my district are in the subprime area. Homeowners in my district have lost $159 million in home equity value. One of the counties in my district, Clayton County, is one the leading counties in this State that has suffered so desperately from home foreclosures due to subprime lending, abuses within the lending practice, and certainly the epicenter of it all, the eye of the storm, is predatory lending.

My State of Georgia has been fighting this battle for an awfully long time. Even during my days in the Georgia State Legislature as a Georgia State Senator, we had to deal with this issue of abuse from Fleet Finance.

So I want to just start with laying that out, Mr. Speaker, so you can see how critical this issue is, not only within my State of Georgia, but facing this entire Nation. That is why we have this bill. It is an important bill, and it is important because it is urgent that we move in a timely manner.

Let me just state very quickly, Mr. Speaker, if I may, what the key areas are in the reform of this bill.

First of all, it creates a new licensing structure for mortgage brokers and loan originators. This is done to ensure that they are licensed and that they are held accountable for the quality of the loans that they originate. This is very important.

Second, it creates a new minimum standard for mortgages and protections to ensure that all loans are properly underwritten, and eases the way for high-quality or qualified loans, qualified mortgages, to be securitized. This is very important. This is especially important because it ensures continued liquidity in the mortgage securities market, and that is what we really need to make sure that we do foremost, is to make sure we have the money there, to make sure we have the liquidity there.

The third key area is it expands the definition for high-cost mortgages, which greatly increases the protections available for consumers if they desire to select a subprime mortgage.

Now, this bill also addresses reckless loan underwriting, it addresses abusive subprime payment penalties, and it deals with direct incentives for mortgage brokers to steer families into expensive and risky loans. There are a lot of these kinds of unsatisfactory practices that are going on in this industry, let me say not by everyone, but there are some bad actors in this mortgage industry situation. This bill attempts to weave a delicate balance to move in and deal with those that are doing wrong and provide the kinds of protections that our consumers need.

This legislation is needed because all Americans should be protected against predatory lenders. Those are the ones that we are after the most, these folks that sit there and they look and they target areas. They target the most vulnerable people among us. They target minorities. They target African Americans especially. They target Hispanics. They target senior citizens, some of the most vulnerable people. They take advantage of the significant complexity of the language and the complicated situations that are involved in the mortgage industry, so that many people don't know what they are signing for on the bottom line, and they take advantage of that.

We need this legislation because consumers should get good credit. The best thing we can do for consumers currently on bad loans and for future borrowers is to ensure that they can get good credit.

This legislation is needed because credit availability must be preserved, especially in the troubled market that we are in right now. Lenders should not make loans that they know that the consumer cannot pay back.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost unspeakable for many of these loan originators, who know that many of these people can't pay these loans, but they go ahead and they deal with it.

Let me just deal finally with the arguments that there are some on the side that say the legislation is too weak. There are others that say the legislation is too strong. Well, I would just like to say we in Congress have to work with almost everything. It is sort of like making sausage. We have to pull this. We have to pull that. We have to try to come up with a bill that, first of all, we can get through the Congress.

But I am willing to bank my stake on it, Mr. Speaker, that this is a good bill. This is a bill which is a first step which we can deal with. And if they say that this bill is so weak, why are my phones ringing in my office, ringing both here and in Atlanta, Georgia, from bankers and from brokers who are saying that this bill is too strong?

This bill is an effort to move. It is important national lending legislation that, for the first time, prohibits steering a consumer to a loan that would do these four things: A loan that the consumer cannot pay, a loan that does not provide net tangible benefits, a loan that has predatory characteristics, and a loan that treats borrowers differently based on their race or their economic standing.

In most cases, this bill also will allow States, if they want to, to have even a stronger bill, in most cases.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity. I thank Mr. Arcuri for your patience with me. I hope we will have a chance to come back later in the day and address some of the issues of signing liability and preemption.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important because the assignee liability issue did come up, and I think as we move through this debate it would be clear to get a clear understanding of what we have in that so we will have a point of reference.

First of all, in this issue, if a consumer gets a loan that violates the minimum standards, in this bill are minimum standards, then the consumer has cause of action against assignees that have purchased that loan. The consumer may sue to rescind the loan and recoup other costs. There has to be an element of liability in the issue. We have worked to get a delicate balance that both protects the consumer while at the same time also saving some elements of liability so that we keep the market free of unnecessary suits.

Further, when the holder of a bad loan initiates a foreclosure, the consumer may exercise a rescission right under this to stop foreclosure. This is important. If the rescission right has expired, the consumer may seek actual damages plus costs against the creditor, the assignee or the securitizer. This provision gives real power to the consumer who can sue to stop a foreclosure of a bad loan or to rescind the bad loan.

Now, we also have some protections from liability for the loan originator. Number one, somebody may ask, why even give some protection from lawsuits to any entity that buys a loan? I believe that most consumers realize that the market provides the funding for loans and that the constant threat of legal action will indeed increase the cost of those loans for everybody. Somebody will have to pay that cost. And normally, that cost will fall on the consumer. So we have struck a delicate balance in the assignee liability.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important and urgent and critical bill. All across this Nation, families are struggling and suffering. In my own district of Georgia and in one of my major counties, which is Clayton County, which is one of the leading counties that has had over a 200 percent increase in foreclosures of homes, they have lost over $158 million in terms of their home equity.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the speaker just spoke a moment ago about one of the major features of this bill, and that is trying to grapple with assigning liability. I want to just make sure that everybody understands what we are talking about, because we are going to have that debate. Just what is an assignee? An assignee is a mortgage broker or lender, any loan originator that makes these loans but they don't keep them. They repackage these loans. They often are loans that are delivered to the secondary market to a group of investors and these are parties that own an interest in the loan as it flows through the investment process, and they are known as assignees.

Since these loan originators don't keep the loans they make, they often deliver what the secondary market will buy, with little regard for whether the homeowners can make their payments or afford these loans. Unfortunately, many of them get into these loans on what is known as ``teaser rates.'' They put forward a loan at a very low rate but, unbeknownst to the homeowner, in a short period of time the payment balloons out of kilter and the homeowner cannot afford it. Some people say this is not by design. But in so many cases, they are by design.

So what does that consumer have? He must have some recourse by which to have an ability to stop the foreclosure on his home. That victim has to hire

legal counsel to bring separate action against the loan originator. This bill attempts to address that. An assignee liability is an important feature of this measure.

I rise to oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Price amendment attempts to exempt prime loans from the requirement of the bill. The Price amendment takes out prime loans from the definition of residential mortgage loans. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most significant financial crises that has impacted every sphere of our economy. While, yes, subprime issues may be at the eye of the storm, these winds are howling and they are blowing fierce and hard throughout every length and breadth of this country. More than three-fourths of Americans with mortgages have prime loans. The Price amendment will do one essential thing. It will deprive the vast majority of Americans, 78 percent of Americans will be deprived by his amendment of the many important critical protections in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, all Americans need consumer protections against risky loans. This crisis has weakened the entire American economy. Look at

Citigroup. Look at Countrywide. Major Fortune 200, 500 corporations have suffered tremendously. That has a ripple effect and has made millions of middle- and upper-income American families, as well as the lower-income families less secure. All Americans deserve to have the protections to stop bad loans from being made in the first place.

We need to make sure that both prime and subprime consumers get mortgages that they can repay. We need to make sure that prime and subprime mortgageholders are strengthened by consumer protections against reckless, abusive lending practices for both prime and subprime, and we need to make sure that both prime and subprime borrowers are not steered into more expensive mortgages. For example, Mr. Chairman, for prime borrowers, the Price amendment removes the important requirement in this bill that mortgage originators comply with what is known as ``Federal duty of care.'' By that we mean what we have under this bill, where mortgage originators have to offer prime borrowers full disclosures that are mandated by the bill. This bill ensures that all borrowers can make informed decisions when taking out loans. All borrowers deserve that, both prime and subprime.

Also under our bill, mortgage originators must present all borrowers, including prime borrowers, with the range of loan products that the borrowers can repay or that provide them with a net tangible benefit. The question was raised, what is net tangible benefit? It is making sure that the loan doesn't leave you in a worse-off position, for example, such as when you refinance, where your cash-out is less than the fees that you are paying.

The Price amendment also would take away this important protection from our borrowers. It removes the protection of prime borrowers against steering. This is critically important, as the gentleman from North Carolina that preceded me talked about. This carefully crafted bill requires strong rules against talking borrowers into more expensive loans that they cannot afford.

Mr. Chairman, both subprime and prime borrowers deserve that. These 78 percent of homeowners, borrowers would not have that kind of protection if we adopt the Price amendment. We need to protect our borrowers, both prime and sub, from having borrowers being talked into loans that have predatory characteristics like equity stripping, they do that for prime as well as subprime, excessive fees that leave them in a worse position than they were before.

The Price amendment would take away the important consumer protection that protects a consumer from loans they cannot repay, does not provide the tangible benefit, and then, Mr. Chairman, one important measure that treats borrowers differently based on race. At the bottom of this is this tug of war in this whole fight because this is targeted. There are many African Americans who are target or are prime, but they are targeted to move into subprime.

This issue bleeds all across the horizon, Mr. Chairman. This amendment that Mr. Price is offering severely weakens and guts this measure and deprives all Americans from having the equality of protection under the law. It must be rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3703) to amend section 5112(p)(1)(A) of title 31, United States Code, to allow an exception from the $1 coin dispensing capability requirement for certain vending machines.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within

which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material therein.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3703. This is a very timely and important piece of legislation because as you may recall, the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 requires retailers, including vending machines that are located on Federal property, to both accept and disburse $1 coins by January of 2008. We are talking about 7 weeks from now. That brings about the urgency and the timeliness of the matter.

This requirement additionally applies to transit systems, military bases, and those that take Federal subsidies. Now, while most vending machines are already programmed and able to accept $1 coins, there are very few that are programmed to dispense $1 coins. So that is why this legislation is needed, to exempt those vending machines from dispensing requirements that do not have a reason to dispense the $1 coins in the first place.

So that in effect, Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this bill, we will have unintendedly affected a hindrance of the circulation of the coins by compelling them to be stored in vending machines that will never dispense them. This legislation targets machines that have only $1 in currency and exchange. So you can see there will never be a need for the machine to dispense $1 coins.

We believe that these Presidential $1 coins are very important. They should be circulated. The public should circulate them, but certainly having them stored in a vending machine from which they will never be dispensed is not the way to do that. That is why we need this bill. I ask that the House urgently pass this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I urge immediate passage of this bill and transmittal to the Senate.

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