Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, as a House conferee for H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), and the chief sponsor of the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act (NRRA) that was included as Title V, Subtitle B of the Dodd-Frank Act, I rise to reaffirm these important provisions. The President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law earlier this year (P.L. 111-203).

The NRRA seeks to address an issue that most people have never heard of. But it is an issue that we in this House have successfully addressed a number of times in the past few years, and one that affects the lives of millions of Americans, individuals and businesses large and small.

Non-admitted insurance, or surplus lines, is specialty insurance you cannot purchase in the traditional, admitted market. Often called the ``safety net'' of the insurance market, surplus lines provides for coverage when the traditional market is not available. This is insurance for satellites, toxic chemicals, new inventions, or insurance on homes and businesses in a scarce market.

With my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, I sponsored the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act to fix the fragmented, cumbersome regulation of this important marketplace. The goal of the NRRA was not to eliminate regulatory protections, but to streamline the regulatory regime to enable insurers and brokers to more easily and efficiently comply with state rules and provide much-needed insurance protections to consumers. The law accomplishes this by giving sole regulatory authority over a surplus lines transaction--including the authority to collect premium taxes--to the home state of the insured.

The NRRA passed the House four times--three times as a stand-alone measure and, finally, as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. With the law's enactment, the responsibility for implementation moves to the states. I'm told that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is moving swiftly to draft a model agreement and statutory language to enable the states to collect and share surplus lines premium taxes. This sounds like a promising start, but only if the agreement and authorizing legislation are in keeping with the letter and spirit of the NRRA: to provide a simpler, uniform tax reporting and payment process with a single payment, to the insured's home state, for each transaction.

Premium tax simplification, while important, is but one part of the NRRA's goals. The broader intent of the law is to provide a comprehensive, uniform solution to the current regulatory mess by addressing the full spectrum of surplus lines regulation: declination and reporting requirements, broker licensing requirements and electronic processing, insurer eligibility standards, and treatment of sophisticated commercial purchasers. Most of

the provisions of the law will become effective next July without state action--as I mentioned, the rules of the insured's home state govern multi-state transactions and the insurer eligibility requirements and sophisticated commercial purchaser standards are set forth in the federal law.

Having said that, however, in order to truly realize the promise of the new law, the states need to take this opportunity to adopt a single set of uniform surplus lines regulatory requirements--requirements that are not just similar but the same in every state. I have no stake in how this is accomplished--by individual state laws based on NAIC or NCOIL models, through a standard-setting compact (which is authorized under the NRRA), or in some other manner. But it can and should be done--and the states should realize that now is the time to do it.

I urge the Congress to continue closely monitoring the full implementation of these important provisions.

Madam Speaker, as a House conferee for H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank Act''), I rise to reaffirm the intent of section 625 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which the President signed into law earlier this year (P.L. 111-203).

For years, many federal mutual holding companies have waived receipt of dividends in reliance on current Office of Thrift Supervision (``OTS'') regulations which permit waivers of such dividends. These regulations also provide that such dividend waivers would not affect the exchange ratio in the event of a full conversion to stock form.

Section 625 of the Dodd-Frank Act seeks to maintain the current OTS regulation regarding dividend waivers for federal mutual holding companies which, prior to December 1, 2009, had waived the receipt of dividends pursuant to current OTS regulations permitting such dividend waivers. Section 625 authorizes that these mutual holding companies may continue to do so as long as they provide proper notice beforehand and no finding is made that such dividend waivers constitute a safety and soundness violation. Section 625 also provides that such dividend waivers shall not affect the exchange ratio in the event of a later full conversion by the mutual holding company to stock form. The OTS's regulations (which

remain unaltered from when the Dodd-Frank Act was being debated and became law) define a mutual holding company as the top-tier company and includes any mid-tier stock holding company. Therefore, regardless of what level of the federal mutual holding company had or continues to waive the receipt of dividends, the clear intent behind Section 625 is to preserve the current OTS regulations with respect to these institutions.

I commend Chairman Frank for his leadership in drafting the Dodd- Frank Act, as well as his assistance in working with me to fully preserve and protect the thrift charter, including the dividend treatment of federal mutual holding companies. I also urge the Congress to carefully oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, including provisions like Section 625, to ensure the regulators implement them in such a way as Congress intended.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20th anniversary of a program that has truly served this Nation well: the Federal Home Loan Banks' Affordable Housing Program, AHP. The AHP is funded by contributions of 10 percent of the Federal Home Loan Banks' net income. The AHP represents the largest, single source of private sector grants for housing and community development in the country targeted at underserved segments of the market. The Federal Home Loan Banks have distributed nearly $4 billion in AHP funds since the program's initiation in 1990.

The AHP is a flexible source of grants and loans designed to help community-based lending institutions and their community partners develop affordable owner-occupied and rental housing for very low- to moderate-income families and individuals. Applicants are encouraged to leverage their awards with other funding sources, including conventional loans, government-supported financing, tax-credit equity, foundation grants, and bond financing.

The Federal Home Loan Banks' affordable housing funds are a significant driver of job growth, housing production, and expanded tax bases, according to a research study recently completed by The Hendrickson Company and The Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida. The study sought to quantify the ``ripple effect'' of AHP dollars in employment, broader development spending, and growth of municipal tax bases. By creating more jobs and building tax bases, as well as developing affordable housing, AHP funds are having a unique and very positive economic impact that goes far beyond the units AHP helps fund or the dollars AHP awards, researchers found.

Created by Congress in 1932, the Federal Home Loan Banks are 12 regional banks, cooperatively owned and used by financial institutions serving America's communities to finance housing and economic development. More than 8,000 lenders are members of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, representing approximately 80 percent of America's insured lending institutions. The Federal Home Loan Banks and their members have been the largest and most reliable source of funding for community lending for nearly eight decades.

As Congress turns to housing finance reform next year, I strongly encourage returning and new Members of Congress to consider the successes of the Federal Home Loan Bank System and seek to only build upon them in crafting a stronger, more stable housing finance system in the United States for generations to come.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1264, a resolution supporting the designation of March as Essential Tremor Awareness Month.

As you may know, essential tremor, also known as ET, is a progressive neurological condition that causes a rhythmic trembling of the hands, head, voice, legs, or trunk. It is often confused with Parkinson's disease and dystonia. ET is estimated to affect up to 10 million Americans, including up to 5 percent of people aged 40 to 60, and up to 9 percent of people aged 60 and older.

ET can interfere with a person's ability to perform activities of daily living such as grooming and writing, and in approximately 5 percent of cases is totally disabling. Additionally, research has shown that people with ET have a higher incidence of depression than the general population and that a significant number of these people isolate themselves in their homes.

Because of stereotypes and a lack of awareness, many people with ET never seek medical care, though most would benefit from treatment. While no medications have been developed for people with ET, specifically, the medications currently being used for other conditions may help up to 60 percent of people with ET.

While this number is encouraging, clearly more research is needed to develop treatments from chairman all people with ET can benefit. Organizations such as the International Essential Tremor Foundation headquartered in my district in Lenexa, Kansas, are leading the way to promote research in an effort to determine the causes, treatment and ultimately the cure for ET, as well as provide information, services and support to individuals and families affected by ET.

To bolster these efforts and to create more awareness about tremors as well as the need for greater ET research, please join me in supporting our resolution supporting the designation of March as National Essential Tremor Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, on September 17, 2009 I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 710, concerning H.R. 3221. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``no.''

On September 23, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 732, a motion to adjourn. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``no.''

On September 30, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 744, concerning H.R. 1771, the Chesapeake Bay Science, Education and Ecosystem Enhancement Act. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On November 7, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 880, concerning H. Res. 877, expressing support for Chinese activists. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On December 16, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 980, concerning H. Res. 973. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On January 27, 2010, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 25, concerning H. Res. 1020. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On February 22, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 49, regarding H.R. 4425. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On February 22, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall vote 50, regarding H.R. 4238. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On February 23, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 53, concerning H. Res, 1059. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On March 4, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 85, concerning H. Res. 1086. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On March 21, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 168, concerning H. Res. 1099. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On March 21, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 169, concerning H. Res. 1119. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On March 23, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 172, concerning H. Res. 1205. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On April 14, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 199, concerning H. Res, 1236. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On May 13, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 271, concerning H. Res. 1338. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On May 13, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 272, concerning H. Res. 1337. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On May 20, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 290, concerning H.R. 5128. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On May 24, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 292, concerning H.R. 1017. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On May 27, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 306, concerning an adjournment of the House of Representatives. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On May 27, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 313, regarding H.R. 5136. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On June 16, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 366, regarding H. Res. 1422. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On July 22, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 464, concerning H.R. 5341. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

On September 23, I inadvertently failed to cast a recorded vote on rollcall 535, concerning H. Res. 1640. Had I cast my vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to take note of U.S. District Court Judge Wesley Brown, who is still hearing cases in his chambers in Wichita, Kansas, at the age of 103. Appointed to the federal bench by President John F. Kennedy, Judge Brown has taken senior status but still hears cases and is now the oldest sitting federal judge in the United States. I commend him to my colleagues and thank him, on behalf of all Kansans, for his decades of judicial service, which began at an age when many Americans begin contemplating retirement.

[From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 2010]

At 103, a Judge Has One Caveat: No Lengthy Trials

(By A. G. Sulzberger)

Wichita, KS.--Judge Wesley E. Brown's mere presence in his

courtroom is seen as something of a daily miracle. His

diminished frame is nearly lost behind the bench. A tube

under his nose feeds him oxygen during hearings. And he warns

lawyers preparing for lengthy court battles that he may not

live to see the cases to completion, adding the old saying,

``At this age, I'm not even buying green bananas.''

At 103, Judge Brown, of the United States District Court

here, is old enough to have been unusually old when he

enlisted during World War II. He is old enough to have

witnessed a former law clerk's appointment to serve beside

him as a district judge--and, almost two decades later, the

former clerk's move to senior status. Judge Brown is so old,

in fact, that in less than a year, should he survive, he will

become the oldest practicing federal judge in the history of

the United States.

Upon learning of the remarkable longevity of the man who

was likely to sentence him to prison, Randy Hicks, like many

defendants, became nervous. He worried whether Judge Brown

was of sound enough mind to understand the legal issues of a

complex wire fraud case and healthy enough to make it through

what turned out to be two years of hearings. ``And then,'' he

said, ``I realized that people were probably thinking the

same thing 20 years ago.''

``He might be up there another 20 years,'' added Mr. Hicks,

40, who recently completed a 30-month sentence and calls

himself an admirer of Judge Brown. ``And I hope he is.''

The Constitution grants federal judges an almost-

unparalleled option to keep working ``during good behavior,''

which, in practice, has meant as long as they want. But since

that language was written, average life expectancy has more

than doubled, to almost 80, and the number of people who live

beyond 100 is rapidly growing. (Of the 10 oldest practicing

federal judges on record, all but one served in the last 13

years.)

The judiciary has grown increasingly reliant on semiretired

senior judges--who now shoulder about a fifth of the workload

of federal courts. But recently, some courts have also

started taking steps that critics call long overdue to

address the challenges that accompany jurists working to an

advanced age.

``Attention to this area is growing in the judiciary,''

said Judge Philip M. Pro, a district court judge in Las

Vegas. Judge Pro leads the Ninth Circuit Wellness Committee

in California, which focuses on age- and health-related

issues facing judges. A similar committee is being

established in the 10th Circuit, which includes Kansas.

``Most judges take pride in their work,'' Judge Pro said.

``They certainly want to be remembered at the top of their

game. But a lot of time you're not the best arbiter of that--

it's hard to see it in yourself if you're having

difficulties.''

Lawyers and colleagues who work with him say that is

certainly not the case with Judge Brown.

True, the legal community here has grown protective of him

over the years. In his younger days, he was so well known for

his temper--lateness, casual dress and the unacceptably

imprecise word ``indicate'' would all set him off--that

before hearings one prominent defense lawyer used to take a

Valium, which he called ``the Judge Brown pill.''

Now, lawyers use words like ``mellowed,'' ``sweet'' and

``inspirational'' to describe him, and one longtime

prosecutor began to cry while talking about his penchant for

gallows humor. ``Sorry,'' she said. ``It's just I can't

imagine practicing without him.''

A few years ago, when they noticed that while speaking in

court Judge Brown would occasionally pause, sometimes for

what seemed like minutes, lawyers, clerks and fellow judges

worried that they were witnessing the beginning of a decline

that would make him incapable of doing his job. But he began

using an oxygen tube in the courtroom, and the pauses

disappeared. (During an hourlong interview in his chambers,

he paused briefly just once while trying to recall the last

name of Earl Warren, the former chief justice of the United

States, but he was without his oxygen tank.)

The consensus is that Judge Brown is still sharp and

capable, though colleagues acknowledge that his appearance

can be startling. ``Physically he's changed a lot, but

mentally I haven't noticed any diminution of his ability,''

said Judge Monti L. Belot, the former law clerk who now has

his own courtroom in the same building, ``Which has to be

pretty unique.''

Nevertheless, Judge Brown has begun making a few

concessions to his age. He still hears a full load of

criminal cases, but now he takes fewer civil cases, and he no

longer handles any that may result in lengthy trials. He

spreads his hearings throughout the week to keep his strength

up, and he no longer takes the stairs to his fourth-floor

chambers.

Though most federal judges could resign outright and

continue to receive their full salary once they reach 65, a

majority--like Judge Brown--elect to move to senior status, a

type of semiretirement that allows them to continue to work

at a full or reduced level. The courts have become deeply

reliant on such judges to handle the caseload, but they have

also struggled with how to ease out judges whose desire to

keep working no longer matches their ability.

In rare circumstances, a panel of judges can vote to remove

another judge because of disability, which has happened only

10 times--most recently in 1999. Or, the chief judge of the

court can stop assigning the cases to the judge. More often,

a trusted colleague will be enlisted to suggest retirement or

reassignment to ceremonial duties, said Judge Marcia S.

Krieger, a district court judge in Denver who has been

surveying judges in the l0th Circuit about aging issues.

Judge Brown has taken the step of asking a few trusted

colleagues, including his longtime law clerk Mike Lahey, to

tell him when they believe he is no longer capable of

performing his job. ``And,'' the judge said, ``I

hope when that day comes I go out feet first.''

Born on June 22, 1907, in Hutchinson, Kan., Judge Brown,

who had become a prominent local Democrat, first sought

appointment by President Harry S. Truman to the federal bench

while serving as a lieutenant in the Navy during World War II

(at 37, he was the oldest man in his unit). He failed, but in

1962, after a stint as a bankruptcy judge, he was appointed

to the district court by President John F. Kennedy. He earned

a reputation as a pragmatic jurist whose middle-of-the-road

rulings reflect a desire to apply rather than make the law.

Judge Brown is one of four Kennedy appointees still on the

bench and the oldest federal judge in the country by six

years, according to the Federal Judicial History Office. The

only judge to serve at a later age was Joseph W. Woodrough,

who was on the Eighth Circuit until 1977, when he died at

104.

For his part, Judge Brown is dismissive of talk of his

place in the record books and tired of all the fuss over his

birthdays. ``I'm not interested in how old I am,'' he said.

``I'm interested in how good a job I can do.''

Madam Speaker, as a House conferee and the chief sponsor of H.R. 2571, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, that was included in the conference report for H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, I want to make several important clarifications of intent on the final language. The President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law last week (P.L. 111-203).

With respect to Sec. 533(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the definition of ``reinsurer'' is not to be construed narrowly, thereby limiting or avoiding the intent of Congress with respect to Title V, Subtitle B, Part II.

Additionally, Sections 531 and 532 of the Dodd-Frank Act entitled ``Regulation of Credit for Reinsurance and Reinsurance Agreements'' and ``Regulation of Reinsurer Solvency'', respectively, are also not to be construed narrowly so as to limit or avoid the intent of Congress with respect to Title V, Subtitle B, Part II. Furthermore, the clear intent of Section 532 in the manner it is written and should be understood is that the regulation of reinsurer solvency, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, includes the NAIC Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Program's laws and regulations.

Finally, in order to ensure the States are appropriately implementing the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, it is the intent of Congress that the Study and Report on Regulation of Insurance required pursuant to Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 502 of the Dodd-Frank Act include an evaluation of each State's compliance with Title V, Subtitle B.

Madam Speaker, as a House conferee and the chief sponsor of H.R. 2571, the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act, that was included in the conference report for H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, I wanted to make one important clarification of intent on the final language. The President signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law yesterday.

Section 521(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act is intended to require the broker to pay or remit all tax in a surplus lines transaction to the ``Home State'' of the insured as defined in the Act and to no other state or political subdivision of any

state. If other states are to receive a portion of the tax payment, the Act provides that the states may enter into a compact or otherwise establish procedures to allocate among the states the premium taxes paid to an insured's ``Home State.''

Further, it is the intention that as a result of this Act, each State adopt nationwide uniform requirements, forms, and procedures--such as an interstate compact--that provides for the reporting, payment, collection, and allocation of all premium taxes for surplus lines insurance as well as all nonadmitted insurance in the insured's ``home state''. Uniformity in the taxation of surplus lines and nonadmitted insurance will be of great benefit to insurance consumers, brokers and the states.

In addition, under Section 522(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the placement of all nonadmitted insurance, including surplus lines insurance, shall be subject solely to the statutory and regulatory requirements imposed directly by the insured's ``Home State'' and no other state. It is the intention that surplus lines and nonadmitted insurance transactions, particularly when the insurance covers risks in more than one state, be within the sole province of the insured's ``Home State.''

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to congratulate the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics on the campus of the University of Kansas for completion of the Institutional Assessment portion of the American Association of Museum's Museum Assessment Program, MAP.

Senior Archivist Morgan Davis led the MAP team which included Audio/ Visual Archivist Judy Sweets and Assistant Archivists Catherine Riggs and Robert Lay. The team completed an extensive self-study survey which included exercises designed to help improve understanding of museum practices and broaden the scope of services offered in the Dole Archive.

Judith Endelman, Director of the Benson Ford Research Center at The Henry Ford Museum, was selected to assist the Dole Archive in the Museum Assessment Program. During her two-day visit to the Dole Institute, Ms. Endelman met with Dole Institute staff and Dole Archive Advisory Board members to get a better understanding of the programs and services currently offered.

The Dole Archive, which contains the collections of former Senator Bob Dole, is an invaluable research collection documenting Senator

Dole's 36 wonderful years in Congress and record setting 11 years of leadership in the Senate. The Dole Archive contains a significant collection of papers, images and objects, many of which are on display in public exhibits at the Dole Institute.

The Dole Institute of Politics is a bipartisan civic institution with a mission to promote civic engagement and public service. Led by Director Bill Lacy, this mission is carried out through public programming which regularly brings figures of national political prominence to speak at the Dole Institute, interpretive exhibits on the life and career of Senator Dole, and the maintenance of the Dole Archive research collections.

Participation in the MAP program was made possible at virtually no cost to the Dole Institute through assistance from the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Dole Institute's achievement.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to consider the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Conference Report.

For too many years, Wall Street was not properly regulated. Who paid for these mistakes? Unfortunately, it was our constituents on Main Street who paid the price, not Wall Street financial firms.

According to a recent Pew survey, this result directly impacted more than half of working Americans, pushing far too many into unemployment, pushing far too many to take pay cuts, reduced hours, part-time jobs, or delayed retirement plans. So it is not surprising that many Americans have lost their faith and trust in our financial system.

The Dodd-Frank Act will restore Americans' trust in a well- functioning financial system. While the bill ends ``too big to fail'' and taxpayer bailouts, it also shields community banks, credit unions, and small businesses from the necessary regulatory burdens that will be focused on Wall Street and on others who created the financial crisis. Most importantly, this new law is fully paid for. Taxpayers will not have to pick up the tab.

I urge my colleagues to protect consumers, investors and taxpayers by supporting this conference report.

I will now turn to Chairman Frank for a brief colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your extraordinary leadership on this historic bill.

First, do you agree the conferees did not intend to impose the regulatory authority of the bureau over the activities of broker- dealers and investment advisers otherwise subject to regulation by the SEC and CFTC?

I thank the gentleman.

Clarification for the Record: Consumer Bureau vs. SEC/CFTC Powers, Provided by Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-03), June 30, 2010, H.R. 4173, Dodd-

Frank Conference Report

It was the conference committee's intent to avoid gaps in

oversight, but also to avoid creating duplicative or

competing rulemaking and supervisory authorities, one vested

in the Consumer Bureau and the other in the SEC or CFTC.

As such, the final report provides exclusive authority to

the SEC and the CFTC over persons they regulate to the extent

those persons act in a ``regulated capacity.'' If such

persons are not acting in a regulated capacity, their

activities relating to the offering and provision of consumer

financial products or services may be subject to the

authority of the Bureau instead of the SEC or CFTC.

But to the extent they are acting in a `regulated

capacity', only their functional regulator--the SEC or the

CFTC--has rulemaking, supervisory, examination or enforcement

authority over the regulated person or such activities. To

that end, the conference report specifically states that `the

Bureau shall have no authority to exercise any power to

enforce this title with respect to any person regulated by

the Commission' or the CFTC.

It was not the intent of the conference committee to impose

the regulatory authority of the Bureau over the activities of

broker-dealers and investment advisers otherwise subject to

regulation by the SEC and CFTC.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Frank Goode, who recently concluded 32 years of public service to the citizens of Shawnee, Kansas. In April, Frank Goode concluded a 30-year tenure as an elected member of the Shawnee City Council, which was preceded by 2 years of service on the Shawnee City Planning Commission.

On April 12, the City of Shawnee announced that it is naming the city's Public Works Service Center after former Councilmember Goode, in recognition of his long and distinguished service to Shawnee. As Mayor Jeff Meyers said in making the announcement, ``I'm sure we couldn't find but a handful of individuals across the county who have served their community for 32 years. That kind of commitment to the community deserves recognition that a plaque could never give.''

Frank Goode grew up in Shawnee, attending St. Joseph Grade School and St. Joseph High School. He also attended Donnelly College, Rockhurst College and Finlay Engineering School. A Korean War veteran, Goode was a division sales manager for the Stuart Hall Company. He first became involved with local issues when he was appointed to the Planning Commission in 1977; in the following year, he launched his first campaign for City Council.

As Council member, Goode focused on expanding the city and improving its infrastructure, while holding the line on taxes. He was particularly supportive of tax abatements, particularly those for Bayer Animal Healthcare, which he credits with keeping that major employer in Shawnee.

Having left the Council at age 80, Frank Goode is certainly entitled to a relaxing retirement. Nonetheless, he's still going strong, having spent the past few years also working at Goode Brothers Asphalt, a business started by his brothers at about the same time he first

was elected to the Council. I know Frank will also remain aware of and involved with local issues before the Shawnee government.

Madam Speaker, I know that you and all Members of this House join with me in paying tribute to a dedicated public servant who has been key to the growth and prosperity of Shawnee, Kansas, for the past several decades. I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize former Shawnee City Council Member Frank Goode.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sudanese athlete and humanitarian Manute Bol, who sadly passed away on June 19, 2010, at the age of 47.

Seven-foot 7-inches tall, Manute Bol joined the National Basketball Association (NBA) in 1985 with the Washington Bullets, after catching the eye of an American basketball coach working in Sudan. When he arrived in the United States, he didn't speak any English and hadn't completed any schooling beyond a basic elementary level. His exceptional height and shot blocking ability made him an instant hit in the NBA, and, in addition to two stints with Washington, his 10-year career took him to Golden State, Philadelphia and Miami. He twice led the league in the number of blocked shots per game and shares the record as the tallest person to ever play in the NBA.

While many undoubtedly knew Mr. Bol due to his prowess on the basketball court, he was perhaps most proud of the humanitarian work he did to help his native Sudan. In 2007, after relocating to Olathe, Kansas, Mr. Bol partnered with a Kansas-based relief organization, Sudan Sunrise, to help educate and improve living conditions for children in Sudan. He pledged money and support to help construct a school in his native Turalei, Sudan, which was partially completed in January 2010, and now serves 300 children a day.

Ravaged by prolonged civil wars, Sudan lacks many of the basic services that you and I take for granted. Eighty-five percent of the population in Southern Sudan is illiterate. Only about seven percent of teachers in the southern part of the country have any professional training, and it is not uncommon to visit a school where the teachers themselves have not been educated beyond fourth grade. Drawing from his own experiences and struggles due to a lack of basic education as a young man, Mr. Bol came to place a high value on learning. He felt that one of the keys to peace in Sudan is education for its children, and dedicated his life to improving the educational opportunities in his native country.

While Mr. Bol was helping Sudan make significant strides forward in its education system, it is clear that there is still much work to be done. It is my hope that we in Congress, and others across the globe, are inspired by the work of Manute Bol to help children in Sudan and that together, we continue the mission he has begun.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a resident of Kansas' Third Congressional District who will shortly celebrate her hundredth birthday--a goal that many aspire to, but few achieve. Mildred Davis of Kansas City, Kansas, will celebrate her hundredth birthday on June 30th. I know that you and all House Members join with me in wishing Mildred Davis many happy returns of the day, and I am pleased to place in the Record a short biography of her, which was written by her friend, Joyce Dickens:

Ava Mildred Finnie Davis was born June 30, 1910, to Lillie

Dedman Finnie and Lewis Finnie in Commerce, Texas. She was

the youngest of five children--three brothers and a sister.

Her parents and all brothers and sister have preceded her in

death. Though her given name is Ava, she soon became known to

all as Mildred.

She accepted Christ at an early age and was united with the

New Hope Baptist Church of Greenville, Texas, before moving

to Kansas City, Kansas, and uniting with Olivet Institutional

Baptist Church where she has been a faithful and loyal member

and worker for over 50 years. She served dutifully in the

Women's Missionary Department, Baptist Training Union and the

Sunday School for many years. She has encouraged and

counseled many young people spiritually.

Mildred attended prep school and two years of college at

Langston University in Langston, Oklahoma. In those days you

could teach school in Texas with two years of college and she

taught school at a small country school. She married Grady L.

Davis (now deceased) in Paris, Texas, and they moved to

Kansas City in the early 1940s. She worked at the old

munitions plant in the Fairfax Industrial District during the

war and after the war she began to work for well-to-do

families in Johnson County cleaning and cooking. They soon

discovered she was a superior cook and began to use her

skills in the kitchen for their entertaining. In 1945 she and

Grady bought their first home, at 615 Freeman Avenue, where

she resided for over 60 years. She was childless and when my

large family moved next door to her in 1954 she befriended me

and took me under her wings making me clothes and encouraging

me in my endeavors. I was only 12 years old and I loved going

next door where she would regale me with stories of her youth

and life. She was not only a fun person but also a wise

mentor.

In the late 1950s Mildred began to work for the Internal

Revenue Service during tax season. Eventually she was hired

full time at the Social Security Administration where she

retired after over 20 years of service.

She belonged to several community organizations including

the Turtle Hill Homeowners Association, which was organized

in her living room. This organization was instrumental in the

redevelopment of the Turtle Hill area, which now has many new

homes. She was also a long-time member of the now inactive

L'Esprit Social Club and when meetings were held in her home,

all members attended mainly because they knew the food and

company would be excellent.

Mildred Davis is now a resident at Medicalodge Post Acute Care and continues to be loved and admired by many friends, associates and a foster daughter.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

To Members of this House, I want to say that the bill, as written, says the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the purchase and commitments to purchase a preferred stock and other financial instruments under the program. That is directly from the bill. We should not add SIGTARP.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican motion to instruct but in support of the work the House and Senate Conference Committee will begin in crafting a final bill on Wall Street reform.

For most of last year, my colleagues on the House Financial Services Committee, under the outstanding leadership of Chairman Frank, along with other committees, worked hard to produce the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The work was bipartisan; over 50 Republican amendments were accepted along with over 20 bipartisan amendments. This package contains ideas put forward by Democrats and Republicans, as it should, creating a better and more thoughtful bill.

While the bill is large and complex, it does some very important things: it ends ``too big to fail.'' It ends the need for bailouts and fully protects taxpayers, and it has tough new consumer investor protections that will better protect families' retirement funds, college savings, and small business owners' financial futures from unnecessary risks by Wall Street vendors and speculators. And something we were careful to do in the House bill was to make sure this new financial oversight system would focus on the true problems that created the financial crisis and not responsible actors like most community banks and credit unions.

While the bill provides needed new oversight to the $600 trillion derivatives market, it is well balanced, allowing farmers and small businesses in Kansas to conduct good risk management and hedge their business risks in a responsible manner.

I commend the Senate for also passing a tough financial overhaul bill last month.

The conference committee should take the best ideas from both bills and combine them into one final bill that our colleagues can support and that will finally restore our constituents' trust in our financial system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct that serves as a distraction to the need for a well-balanced, strong financial reform package.