Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. Nunes' amendment.

The National Marine Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion on the Central Valley Water Project and State Water Project is flawed because it attributes the pumps as a single factor in the decline of fisheries in the Bay Delta. Numerous regulatory measures under the Endangered Species Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the Clean Water have already resulted in over 50 percent cuts to water deliveries, yet haven't resulted in any improvement to the fisheries. The interim court orders under which this BO is based and a previous Biological Opinion on the delta smelt have slashed deliveries to just 10 percent, and we still are not seeing any improvement to the fisheries.

Implementing the Biological Opinion truly is the definition of insanity--doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We cannot solve the challenges of the Delta ecosystem by continuing to curtail pumping. We are long overdue for a study that examines all of the factors affecting the Delta, such as non-native fish that are predators of endangered species, climate change, and pollution such as discharged wastewater. It is imperative we undertake a complete study that identifies all of these factors and then set policy according to a complete set of data. To continue to curtail pumping prevents a true solution.

The cumulative effect of this Biological Opinion and other regulatory decisions is crippling small farm communities in the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley has an average unemployment rate hovering near 20 percent, with some communities at 45 percent. This is one more strike in what is an economic disaster for my constituents.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 27. Page 38, line 13, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 73, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Page 73, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 29: Page 47, line 22, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 52, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

Page 75, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 110: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 501.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 501 provides for the consideration of H.R. 626, the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule makes in order three amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a father. Nothing can replace the first few days and weeks between a parent and a newborn or a newly adopted child when the bond that is forged is critical and sets the foundation for the child's entire later life. It is in these first few moments that a child's emotional and physical health and development is established--time which cannot be made up for later in life once it's lost.

Yet many parents are unable to forge this bond simply because they cannot afford to take unpaid leave from their jobs. In fact, a 2000 Labor Department survey showed that 78 percent of employees chose not to take unpaid leave because they just couldn't afford it. And they certainly cannot do so in the trying economic times we face today when hardworking families are struggling just to get by.

No parent should be placed in the position of having to choose between bonding with their new child and forgoing these formative moments in their child's life in order to keep a roof over that same child's head or to put food on the table, especially when the fate of a child is ultimately at stake. This is a moral and societal situation that has legislators, parents and as protectors of God's children, we must get right.

The Federal Government, I believe, has a moral obligation to set the stage for making changes across the table. We need to do more than just help in the care and development of a child. We must take the reins and lead by example. We should be setting the standard in family-friendly workplace policies across the Nation, not lagging behind.

H.R. 626 is quite simple. Current law requires that new parents be given up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. If they wish to be paid, they must use any unused accrued sick time or vacation time. This bill helps families by providing 4 weeks of paid parental leave for Federal employees for the birth, adoption or fostering of a child and allowing employees to use that accrued vacation or sick time for that parental leave.

This small change in law will hopefully entice other employers to follow suit but, more importantly, have an immeasurable impact on the countless parents and the well-being of their children.

Madam Speaker, I can speak to this from my own experience. My dear wife Kathie and I have three beautiful children--one biologic and two that we adopted out of the foster care system. These children we love as much as they were our biological daughter. I will tell you from our own experience, however, that by adopting a child, especially one out of foster care, it requires special care and attention and additional time for bonding. This is not an option in their case. It is an absolute necessity. Our children--in fact, all foster children have faced and will continue to face significant challenges in their lives from the abuse that they incurred when they were in foster care. They will forever carry those unspeakable scars that every parent fears and no child should ever bear. Yet the only hope and chance that you have to save these children is to give them time to bond with those very new parents that are the ones that will be, in fact, trying to save their lives and rub away those scars. There is no other choice than to immediately give them all the love they can take and more than they've ever known; food, nutrition they desperately need, and the health care they have never had. They need the unflagging support and nurturing that they get from these new adoptive parents in order to establish a pattern of survival in their lives. I also know that without the time to forge this bond immediately after adoption, they have no hope of overcoming the enormous obstacles that they face.

Madam Speaker, you can put a price tag on a piece of legislation, but you cannot put a price on the importance of not having to worry about a paycheck and having the full and undivided attention of both parents lavishing boundless love on a disadvantaged child. I can think of no greater gift that we can give as parents to our children than the gift of time. Without it, far too many children will simply slip through the cracks, and for many more, all hope will be lost. As legislators, it is our imperative that we do what is morally right, not to let hope be lost, but rather to let hope spring eternally and to give these children, who already have so many things working against them, as I mentioned in the case of adoption and foster care, the chance at life that they deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just will respond to the gentleman that this is less than $100 million a year for the entire country. While every dollar that the taxpayers pay is significantly important, I would say that this particular bill is much more important in some ways than many expenditures this Federal Government makes.

It is also something that I believe is fundamentally important in many sectors, especially in the area that I talked about with adopting new children. The gentleman says that the Federal employees are some of the most stable workforce that we have in this country. Well, that is exactly the kind of people you want to adopt children, people in stable homes that have jobs that they are not going to lose, that can take the time to do what we have set forth in this bill.

While leave policies in the government generally may compare favorably with some private sector employment, the Federal Government's paid parental leave policy simply does not. Seventy-five percent of the Fortune 100 companies offer at least 6 weeks of parental paid leave and make them much more attractive to young working families who cannot afford to go without pay for that length of time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to, at this time, yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I respond to my colleague from California and my colleague from Texas in this way. My colleague from California knows that I support him in his efforts to try and solve the California water crisis, and, in fact, I have been a leader in trying to do that. I don't always agree. I have come to this House floor and argued with my own leadership with regard to the issues that have dealt with the causes of the California regulatory drought.

I would also like to remind the gentleman, who loves to blame the Democrats for everything that goes wrong, that it was a Republican bill and a Republican judge that put both of those concerns that are causing much of our water problems on the map.

With regard to my friend from Texas and his claim that this is all about the cost, I can tell you that as an adoptive parent, if I hadn't taken the actions I did by adopting two children, they would not have filled the place they hold in my heart, but they would have also cost the Federal Government much, much more. When we take kids out of an abusive home and put them into foster care, we do so in order to try and recapture their lives.

My children came out of a home where they were being neglected and abused by a drug-addicted mother. The scars that they will carry from that time in their lives are profound. Had I not had the ability to spend time with them, the challenges that we face with the emotional difficulties of those young people that I love so much would be, in fact, much worse than they are even today.

The gentleman can talk about how this is a cost issue, but let me tell you, if people can't get the time to do what is right about adopting young kids, they won't do that. And it will cost the Federal Government much more.

We argued this in a bill last year where we gave the opportunity for our troops to adopt young people and take that leave. It was the right thing to do then, and it passed. Last year, this bill was on the floor, and 58 of the gentleman's colleagues from Texas voted in support of this. This is the right thing to do for our country. It is the right thing to do for our kids. I believe in it profoundly. And, yes, this government wastes a lot of money in many different ways, but I can tell you that money spent in this area on this particular set of young people that I have talked about so much today is money well spent and will pay dividends many times over in the future. I have no question about that.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I've sat here and listened this evening to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) talk about how this is a terrible waste of dollars, and how the Republicans are saying that this is a terrible waste of money.

But I'd wish to correct the gentleman. Today this isn't a partisan issue. In fact, I would predict that there are a number of his colleagues, the gentleman from Texas, on the Republican side of the aisle, like Mr. Wolf, who understand what this is about.

This is about America's children, about children coming into this world and bonding with a mother and a father and having the opportunity to do that in this hectic world that we live in today. It's about foster parents that come in and do the right thing, taking care of abused and victimized children, and needing that time to do it right.

It's about adoptive parents who, when they reach out and bring into their home permanently children who have been victimized by society's ills, having the opportunity to do it right so we can start healing those children.

There are a number of Republicans on that side of the aisle that are going to do the right thing tonight. They're going to vote for this rule, and they're going to vote for this bill because it's the right thing for America and building families.

They call themselves the ``Family Values Party.'' Tonight they can prove it by coming in here and voting to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I'd like to submit for the Record the statement of administration policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration supports the goal of H.R. 626, which

would provide Federal employees with access to paid leave

upon the birth, adoption, or fostering of a child.

Being able to spend time at home with a new child is a

critical part of building a strong family. The initial

bonding between parents and their new child is essential to

healthy child development and providing a firm foundation for

the child's success in life. Measures that support these

relationships strengthen our families, our communities, and

our nation. The Federal government should reflect its

commitment to these core values by helping Federal employees

to care for their families as well as serve the public.

Providing paid parental leave has been successfully employed

by a number of private-sector employers, and can help to make

job opportunities accessible to more workers.

The Administration is currently reviewing existing Federal

leave policies to determine the extent of their gaps and

limitations. The Administration looks forward to working with

Congress to refine the details of this legislation to make

sure it meets the needs of Federal agencies and employees, as

well as their families.

You know, the gentleman from Texas talks about how much money this government has wasted. He's right, there's a lot of money that gets wasted.

But over the last 8 years, as our country was being absolutely raped by those defense contractors in the Middle East with no accountability, where was the gentleman to stand up against that?

No, ladies and gentlemen, he's not willing to stand up against that, or wasn't during the last 8 years. But tonight he will criticize us spending a few dollars to get it right for our families in America.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that while most parents wish to stay home with their new child, they just can't afford to take unpaid leave, which directly affects that child's well-being.

We can start with having the Federal Government lead by example to set the stage for making changes across the table. To paraphrase Mahatma Gandhi, we must be the change we wish to see in this world. I believe that couldn't be more true.

I ask the Members of both sides of the aisle to support the parents of America, to support the children of America, and be the change that we wish for our world.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 490 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule today is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 490.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 490 provides for consideration of H.R. 31, the Lumbee Recognition Act, under a closed rule, and also for separate consideration of H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009, under a structured rule. Both bills are debatable for 1 hour, each equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule for H.R. 1385 makes in order two amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions on both bills.

Mr. Speaker, the two bills before us today will right several wrongs in our country's history and bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition of the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina and six Indian tribes in Virginia.

Since the late 1800s, the Lumbee Tribe has been seeking Federal recognition despite the fact that congressional hearings and the Department of the Interior's studies have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community. In fact, the Lumbees were first recognized as a tribe in 1885 by their home State of North Carolina. In that time, however, various bills to recognize the tribe failed due to opposition from the Department of the Interior.

Most importantly, in 1956, Congress formally acknowledged the Lumbee Tribe with passage of the Lumbee Act. However, it was passed during a period of Federal Indian policy known as the Termination Era. As such, while Congress acknowledged the Lumbee, it effectively ended its relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition.

This termination has subsequently prevented the Lumbees from receiving recognition from the Department of the Interior which has maintained that only Congress can restore that relationship.

A similar injustice has occurred in Virginia. Records exist documenting a relationship between the six Indian tribes, local governments, and the Commonwealth of Virginia for centuries. It has long been established that ancestors of these six tribes resided in Virginia when the first white settlers landed in Jamestown, yet their history is fraught with deliberate discrimination and document destruction.

During the Civil War, most local records and tribal documentation were destroyed in fires at government buildings. At that time, many Indians began adopting Anglo-American names, language, and customs to conceal their tribal identity and ensure their survival.

In addition, Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act--pushed by a noted white supremacist--was responsible for the deliberate and systematic destruction of over 46 years of any records that traced and recorded the existence of vast Indian tribes.

The Department of the Interior has generally not questioned the tribes' ancestry or tribal government status. But despite the wealth of documentation that exists for each tribe, it is not clear whether they could obtain proper documentation to be acknowledged by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I would add that each of these six tribes was recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia between 1983 and 1989.

Mr. Speaker, the circumstances surrounding all of these tribes are certainly unique and warrant special attention by Congress. Congress has passed bills recognizing all of these tribes several times, including last session. The Lumbee bill passed with strong bipartisan support while the Virginia Tribes bill passed by voice vote.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again support these long-overdue bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire from my friend and colleague from California if he has any further speakers.

I would yield.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from California, and I understand that he has concerns about this process and these measures.

I would just like to remind the entire body that the Lumbee bill has, in fact, been before the Congress before. This Congress has acted on it. Despite the claims to the contrary, Congress has traditionally taken the lead in recognizing Indian tribes. In fact, Congress has recognized 530 of the 561 Federally recognized tribes.

Despite the fact that the Department of the Interior established certain administrative procedures in 1978, Congress has stepped in and recognized tribes nine additional times due to extraordinary circumstances, much like this.

I think that this is an appropriate rule, and I think we will have an opportunity to debate the issues during the debate time that has been allotted.

I would ask my colleagues to support the rule, and I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to once again take an important step forward in correcting hundreds of years of injustice which are long overdue.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 406 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 406.

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

House Resolution 406 provides for consideration of H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, under a structured rule. The rule makes in order 14 amendments, which are listed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. Five Republican amendments, eight Democratic amendments, and one bipartisan amendment have been made in order. Each amendment is debatable for 10 minutes, except the manager's amendment, which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to make a clarification regarding the description of one of the amendments that has been made in order under the rule, specifically amendment No. 2 by Chairman Frank. The Rules Committee report inadvertently listed a description from an earlier version of this amendment. The amendment was later modified, but the change to the description was not updated. I want to emphasize that the actual amendment text which was made in order is correct.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the correct description for the Frank amendment listed as No. 2 in the Rules Committee report.

Madam Speaker, as we all know, our country is at a significant crossroads, the likes of which we have never known. Businesses continues to shed payroll, job losses continue to mount, and hardworking families across America continue to struggle.

Many economists have correctly stated that the foreclosure crisis is the root of our economic meltdown, and I firmly believe that until the housing market is stabilized, the economy will continue to worsen and people will continue to spend less, more businesses will shut their doors, and mass layoffs will further spread.

Until that happens, however, more and more American families are at risk of losing their homes. In the first quarter of 2009, more than 800,000 mortgage loans entered into the foreclosure process, with over 340,000 in March alone. Both are record highs, which goes to show that the foreclosure crisis is far from over.

I can personally attest to the damage the foreclosure crisis has left in its wake and the long effects it will have into the future. I have the honor of representing California's 18th Congressional District, which encompasses the San Joaquin Valley, but today my district is suffering like no other. My district has the highest rates of foreclosure in the Nation and a loss of 70 percent of home equity over the last 3 years. And with each passing month, it seems that the numbers are worsening.

As a result of the rampant foreclosures in my district, once vibrant neighborhoods have become vacant yards overgrown with weeds, and houses are crumbling from vandalism and disrepair. Swimming pools are abandoned at these houses and have become havens for mosquitos. Crime and vandalism are on the rise in what were previously safe neighborhoods.

Yet that's not all. Home values in surrounding areas are also beginning to plummet, and what started out as a foreclosure crisis in my district is quickly spinning out of control, creating economic disasters. In many parts of my district, they now face unemployment rates of over 20 percent. Small businesses and neighborhood restaurants which were once packed with customers are now almost empty and are shutting their doors at alarming rates. Our longest-serving community bank was swept up in the foreclosure crisis and recently closed. On top of that, my dairy farmers are in crises and we have one of the worst droughts in the country.

Madam Speaker, as I have been saying for quite some time, the devastation that has hit my district is massive and widespread and is somewhat similar to what Katrina left behind, only it was not caused on a single day by an extreme event but over the course of weeks, months, and years.

Long after the foreclosure crisis has come and gone, the Central Valley will continue to cope with the aftermath of this economic devastation for many years to come. My district and our Nation will not overcome this crisis overnight, and it will take unprecedented action to help us rebuild and recover.

Congress has taken several important steps and actions not just to combat this crisis but to ensure a housing crisis of this magnitude will never happen again. The bill before us today is one more step in that direction.

Some say the foreclosure crisis can be traced back to the rapid increase in subprime mortgages and risky underwriting practices, most of which were made with no Federal supervision. Many of the families targeted by subprime lenders were, in fact, low-income families with poor credit histories who felt this was the only opportunity for them to achieve the American Dream. They were lured into low ``teaser'' introductory interest rates which morphed into loans which they had little chance of repaying once rates increased, starting the uptick in the foreclosure market.

H.R. 1728 is aimed at preventing these predatory practices in the future. Among other things, H.R. 1728 requires lenders to prove borrowers can actually repay their loans in order to ensure that vulnerable consumers aren't pressured into loans at terms that they can't meet. It eliminates incentives to steer consumers into high-cost loans. It also provides much-needed regulation of the lending industry.

H.R. 1728 is not a cure for the foreclosure crisis, but it is an important component in eliminating the unscrupulous practices that ran amok and helped lead the collapse of the housing market.

I want to thank Chairman Frank for once again bringing this bill forward and for his continued commitment to turning the tide on our Nation's foreclosure crisis. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Frank for working with me to insert language into the manager's amendment of this bill that would create and make publicly available a national database of foreclosure and default statistics, which we don't currently have. The Federal Government keeps track of many economic indicators, including home price declines and unemployment, but right now there is no government agency that keeps tabs on defaults and foreclosure rates.

As the foreclosure crisis has taught us, foreclosure and default rates are critical statistics not only for monitoring the Nation's economy but also for determining which areas of the country have been hardest hit in the downturn. My amendment calls on the Secretary of HUD to create this database so that the Federal Government and Congress can better detect and assess the housing crisis so that we can respond in a timely and targeted manner.

Again, I thank Chairman Frank for incorporating my amendment, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the manager's amendment and the underlying billing so we can stop predatory lending and establish a federally maintained database on foreclosures and defaults.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just respond briefly on a couple of points and say that the gentleman continues to advocate for the policies that got us into this crisis. And, in fact, we need to regulate this industry, not because all mortgage bankers are evil; they are not. There are some very good ones. But the few have caused significant pain to both the economy, to our Federal Treasury and to individual homeowners.

Mr. Frank has designed a 5 percent solution that, in fact, I believe keeps the mortgage bankers with having skin in the game, so that they can't just sell off these loans, give bad ones and absolve themselves of responsibility and let the problem fall on the taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

I would just reply to the gentleman from Texas that I anticipate that this bill will get wide bipartisan support. So we will in fact see if it does and see who comes forward and supports this bill further today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus).

I'd like to inquire at this time how much time each side has remaining.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would at this time yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), a sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Watt.

Madam Speaker, I am the last person to speak, and I would like to reserve to close.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for engaging with us this morning on a very constructive debate. However, we have serious disagreements on what this bill should look like.

Madam Speaker, in the last 18 months, the foreclosure crisis has not improved in our districts. And in most places, in fact, it has become significantly worse. In 2009, millions of Americans will default on their mortgages, and millions more will see their home equity drop precipitously. All of us know the potential consequences of this crisis. And for far too many of us, including those in my district, we are well acquainted with the depths of despair and destruction the foreclosure crisis has been inflicting on us.

Still, in spite of all the signs, small businesses that have closed on Main Street, foreclosure signs lining the neighborhoods, the unmistakable despair in the neighborhood coffee shops, I do believe there is reason for hope. The fundamentals of our economy and the spirit of the American people are simply too strong to throw in the towel because it may be an easier path. It is not time to give up. Rather it is time to redouble our efforts, strengthen our resolve, and focus not on what we have done, but what we will do to turn this economy around. If we do just that, I have no doubt we will overcome whatever challenges we may face, and we will fix this problem of foreclosures with the economy and the mortgage crisis.

I urge all my colleagues to support taking another step forward to stabilizing our housing market and helping our economy recover once and for all.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure and absolute tremendous pride that I rise today to recognize the first full senior class to graduate from the University of California at Merced.

Throughout my career in the legislature in California, and today as a Member of Congress, UC Merced has remained a top priority of mine. In fact, the entire community embraced this project and worked tirelessly for its creation.

Unemployment and poverty rates in the San Joaquin Valley continue to substantially exceed California averages, and high school graduates from the Valley have historically enrolled in the University of California system at about half the rate of graduates from other parts of California. Building the first UC campus in the San Joaquin Valley in Merced increases educational access and opportunity for the Valley's students and enhances job opportunities, new business development, and economic growth throughout Central California and, in fact, our State.

When my dear friend and founding chancellor, Carol Tomlinson-Keasey, was given the daunting task of building UC Merced, she rose to the occasion and she began to plan for a campus that would be infused with her personal strengths of unwavering commitment, innovation, and academic leadership. I believe Carol is watching today, and I wish her my best.

Carol worked collaboratively with government officials, the private sector, nonprofit organizations, and the UC Board of Regents to develop support for the campus and to secure needed funding and authority to develop the campus. Carol often said UC Merced would transform the lives of students in the San Joaquin Valley. Today is a testament to her vision and evidence to this transformation.

UC Merced has built its reputation as the most ethnically diverse institution in the UC system, as well as being the Nation's first major public research university built in the 21st century.

The class of 2009 has played an integral role in UC Merced's success. Whether they were building a student government from scratch or creating numerous clubs or assisting in groundbreaking research, every one of these students has demonstrated a commitment to excellence in academics and a passion to lead the community in the 21st century. At UC Merced, we call them the pioneers.

The best example of the spirit of these students is in their recent campaign to have First Lady Michelle Obama deliver their commencement speech.

Through their own determined efforts and with steadfast perseverance, the student body flooded the First Lady's office with valentines and letters asking her to come to Merced. And their hard work paid off when the First Lady recently announced that she

would attend the May 16 graduation to give that commencement speech. These passionate students have helped put Merced on the road to opportunity and promise to inspire the educational dreams of young people throughout the Central Valley for generations to come.

I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating and honoring the historic achievement of UC Merced's first full graduating class, the Class of 2009.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, as well as his staff, for their hard work, which has made the dream of college a reality for so many students across the country.

I ask my colleagues to join me in support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Randy Siefkin, a long time political icon of Modesto, California. Randy has spent a majority of his days as a Professor of Political Science at Modesto Junior College, but behind the scenes he has proven effective in getting countless candidates elected to local office.

Randy Siefkin's first hint at political interest may have been in 1952, when at age 10 he helped arrange an ice cream hour for Dwight D. Eisenhower. He furthered his hunger for politics by working on campaigns for Nixon and Rockefeller--and eventually made a career by steadfastly serving as Professor of Political Science at Modesto junior College from 1970 to 2001. From that day in 1952 right up to this very hour, Randy is actively collecting political buttons from every corner of the earth.

Thirty one years of educating students left little time for much else, but somehow Randy managed to devote himself to a number of community groups and civic organizations. Ranging from serving on the Board for the Muir Trail Girl Scouts to directing the Modesto Film Society to participating with North Modesto Rotary, Randy has shown a genuine devotion to his community.

Politics and civic duties have not only been a passion for Randy, but his family is equally devoted to giving back as well. Randy Siefkin is married to Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Susan J. Siefkin and they have two children--Nelson, a Cultural Resources Specialist for the National Park Service, and Kristen, a Public Relations professional.

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute honor to share a little bit about Randy Siefkin and to thank him for his selfless devotion to his family, his community, and his country.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a grave concern in California with the San Joaquin Valley water quality. Water is the basic necessity of life. Without clean, available water, we can't produce, grow, play, work and in fact even live. It is important to research and preserve our resources, and my amendment focuses on the vital water resources of California.

Every year, the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada slowly melts and flows down the mountain, providing clean, reliable water year-round to our farms, homes, businesses and municipalities. But now global warming threatens this natural system and threatens the health of our families. As the atmosphere warms, the snow pack melts too quickly to use and we lose the vital components of life.

For 50 years, visionary leaders harnessed Mother Nature and brought water from the mountains down into the valley to meet the needs of a thriving and growing State. Our economies flourished under that water system and it was efficient and it was the pride of the West. But recently our State has more than doubled in population and we have done little to keep pace with this growth. In fact, instead of keeping pace with the growth, we have actually lost significant amounts of our water supply.

It is therefore even more important today to support this amendment as we desperately search for good water that can continue to nourish our crops and feed our children. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague and dear friend from Texas. I also want to thank the staff of the committee and the chairman of the committee for working with us to make this amendment possible on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the passage of this amendment and to greater availability of clean water in California.

I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I appreciate his input.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to remind my colleagues that the housing crisis continues to devastate across this country. My constituents in Merced, California, near my hometown of Atwater, are suffering from 19.9 percent unemployment, the highest rate of foreclosures in the Nation, and a 70 percent loss of their home equity over the last 3 years.

They have seen their community banks fail and their businesses on Main Street close their doors for good. Simply put, the Central Valley is experiencing an economic tsunami that will leave the Central Valley struggling for many years.

That is why I'm working on legislation to devise an Economic Disaster Area designation--so places like my district, whose communities have been disproportionately affected by the country's recession, can receive additional Federal funding they need to keep from falling off the maps.

I'm asking my colleagues to support me in my efforts to create this Economic Disaster Area designation and to help my constituents and the entire Central Valley recover from this economic downturn.

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

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

I rise today in support of my amendment. My amendment allows the Secretary of the Treasury to exempt community bank TARP participants from compensation standards established by the Secretary as long as they have not received more than $250 million in TARP funds and as long as doing so is consistent with the intent of this bill.

The community banks were not the bad actors that led to the collapse of our credit markets, and we need them to be a part of the solution to our economic recovery. They are known for their prudent lending practices and their commonsense compensation policies, which is why the vast majority of them remain well capitalized and ready to lend.

By painting community banks with the same brush as the financial institutions that abused the trust of the taxpayers and their shareholders, we are unfairly adding to the regulatory burden of these community banks, and we run the risk that they will drop out of the Capital Purchase Program.

I do not support outrageous bonuses that were paid out of TARP funds to irresponsible executives. But I also do not support burdening community banks with overbearing regulations that are in response to actions made by the larger institutions.

My amendment will make sure this doesn't happen by allowing the Treasury Secretary to concentrate his efforts on where the problem existed in the first place and not in our community banks. It will also encourage the participation of more community banks in the Capital Purchase Program and will enhance their role as leaders in the economic recovery.

I want to thank Chairman Frank for working with me to craft this amendment and to support my efforts to protect community banks from unfairly burdensome regulations.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the chairman for his leadership on this and for his help crafting this amendment. I thank his staff for the same.

I have no further speakers, Mr. Chair. I reserve to close.

Mr. Speaker, just today, the New York Times reported that four small banks were returning our TARP funds because of the onerous regulations they find themselves having to comply with. If we apply the same regulations to small banks that we do to the big ones, more community banks will opt out of the TARP program, and I think to some disadvantage to districts like mine that are suffering so badly.

My amendment will make sure that they can take TARP funds and still not have to deal with some of these regulations. I think that's a positive movement in the right direction.

I actually thank Mr. Bachus for saying that this was a step in the right direction, and I enjoy working with him and my colleague from Georgia.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that the housing crisis continues to devastate communities across the country.

By all measures my district has been among the hardest hit by the foreclosure epidemic and the recession.

Constituents in Merced, California, near my hometown of Atwater, are suffering from 19.9% unemployment, the highest rate of foreclosures in the nation, and a loss of 70% of their home equity over the last three years.

They are experiencing an economic tsunami that will leave the Central Valley struggling for many years to come.

I am working on an effort to devise an Economic Disaster Area designation.

So places like my district, whose communities have been disproportionately affected by the country's recession, can receive the additional federal funding they need to keep from falling off the map.

The future of my constituents and my district is in jeopardy.

That is why I am asking my colleagues to support me in my efforts to create this Economic Disaster Area designation and to help my constituents and the entire Central Valley recover from this economic downturn.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California, Ms. Matsui and I also thank her for her passion and dedication to increasing our country's commitment to community service and volunteerism.

Mr Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act.

As we all know, our country is at a significant crossroads of the likes we've never known. And my own district has been hit like no other.

My district is saddled with the nation's highest foreclosure rates and drops in home equity, unemployment rates approaching 20 percent, my dairy farmers are in crisis, and we have the worst drought in a century.

There is an unmistakable feeling of despair in every coffee shop I visit. My constituents are hurting and need help getting through this economic crisis.

But beyond the housing, infrastructure, and other assistance to stimulate my district's economy, we will surely benefit from the countless Good Samaritans who are willing to answer our country's call to service and help communities most in need.

To that end, I proposed two amendments to ensure that the hardest-hit areas of the country such as mine would not be overlooked.

All told, my amendments added home price declines as an eligible criteria; defined ``severely economically distressed areas'' to include staggering foreclosure rates, home price declines, and unemployment rates; and most importantly, waived the matching grant requirements in economically distressed areas where it is impossible to raise any local funding.

And thanks to my good friend from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, the ``distressed areas'' definition was further expanded to include areas that lack basic needs such as water and electricity.

Together, these changes put the hardest-hit districts such as mine on the volunteer map. And it will give us the ability to enlist a cadre of willing volunteers to provide my constituents and my community with the support and assistance they need to overcome these trying times.

I would like to thank my friend and fellow Californian, and Chairman of the Education

and Labor Committee Mr. Miller--and his staff--for supporting my proposals and including them in the manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that these are tough times for our country. But with opportunities like this where we can tap the American spirit, promote community service, and come together to give those in need a hand up, I know we will be able to rebuild our communities, recover from this economic disaster, and come out stronger at the end of the day.

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

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall,

without intervention of any point of order, consider the bill

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

pursue every legal means to stay or recoup certain incentive

bonus payments and retention payments made by American

International Group, Inc. to its executives and employees,

and to require the Secretary's approval of such payments by

any financial institution who receives funds under title I of

the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill

shall be considered as read. All points of order against the

bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

to final passage without intervening motion except (1) one

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial

Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this momentous occasion of honoring a great man, John Dingell. And as we do so, I remember another colleague who is no longer with us, Bob Matsui from California, whose wife, Doris Matsui, so ably serves with us today in remembering the work he did on the bill to establish reparations and to make sure that we never forget what happened in the past. President Roosevelt was a great President. He led us through a great war. But he did not do so without making some errors.

Mr. Speaker, as it has been said, February 19, 1942, on that day, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 setting in motion the forced relocation of 120,000 Japanese Americans. As a result, on May 7, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry were ordered to leave their homes and property, their farms, and take with them only what they could carry and report to a designated assembly center before 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday, May 13. This order was issued by the U.S. War Department and posted to telephone poles, store windows, placed across lawns of Japanese American's homes in Merced County, in my home city and throughout the West Coast.

Nearly 4,700 Japanese Americans from over seven counties reported to a structure that had been built in just 11 days at the Merced County fairgrounds in my district. They entered the assembly center not as Japanese Americans but as prisoners. Families were searched for weapons and surrounded by barbed wire. Armed guards watched over them as they settled in to makeshift housing. Mr. Speaker, no one had ever been accused of any crime, yet they were detained for over 131 days.

Among the victims of this unconscionable act was a young child and his family, someone very familiar to this Chamber, as has been mentioned. He was born of Japanese ancestry. His name is Congressman Mike Honda. And his family were among those assembled at the fairgrounds in Merced before taken to a more permanent internment camp in Colorado.

There were hundreds of other of my friends that I have gotten to know over

the years, also, that lost their farms from Livingston, California, from so many areas throughout the Central Valley. And it just pains me to remember how they lost so much during this relocation.

Each year, the Japanese American community comes together for a Day of Remembrance to reflect on the events that took place and to educate the community on the need to remain vigilant in protecting America's values of equality, justice, due process of law and fundamental fairness.

This February 21, the Merced Assembly Center Commemorative Committee will unveil a memorial on the fairgrounds to remember this time in our Nation's history and the unjust hardships faced by so many of our brothers and sisters. Mr. Speaker, I can also tell you that in that event there will be a lot of people thinking about our U.S. Constitution and reaffirming our devotion to it.

To my friend and colleague, Mr. Honda, I want to say, I'm sorry this took so long. I have served with you for over 12 years. You have been my friend all that time. And I am just glad that we can honor you in this way now. To my friends back home in the Merced area and in the Nissei farming community, I want to say I'm sorry it took so long, but I am so proud that I am the person who is able to do this. You are truly great mentors to me and great friends to our community.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better time to come together as a community, to heal the wounds of our past and to reaffirm our commitment to preserving the fundamental values of our great Nation than today. I wish my friend, Bob Matsui, was here to pass this bill with us.