Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud Amber Westerfield who has received the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. Amber Westerfield is a student at North Arvada Middle School and received this award because her determination and hard work have allowed her to overcome adversities.

The dedication demonstrated by Amber Westerfield is exemplary of the type of achievement that can be attained with hard work and perseverance. It is essential that students at all levels strive to make the most of their education and develop a work ethic that will guide them for the rest of their lives.

I extend my deepest congratulations once again to Amber Westerfield for winning the Arvada Wheat Ridge Service Ambassadors for Youth award. I have no doubt she will exhibit the same dedication and character to all her future accomplishments.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see a Coloradan in the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, for 7 years now the Bush administration has done the bidding of big corporate interests. The administration has never supported regulation of big business, and in fact they have eliminated important oversight that is necessary to protect the American consumer. In other instances, agencies have simply turned a blind eye. For a time this benefited big business, but we are now seeing how devastating the failure to enforce the law or regulations can be for both the American people and the American economy.

Last month the Bush administration bailed out Bear Stearns out of fear that if the Wall Street giant filed for bankruptcy, many more supposed giants would follow. What the administration refuses to admit is that had it enforced the law and properly regulated Bear Stearns and the other giants for the last 7 years, they never would have been in this predicament in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the administration should be commended for finally recognizing the need to enforce the laws and regulations that are on the books. Unfortunately, it should not have taken a huge economic and housing crisis for them to recognize the importance of government oversight. That is, after all, part of their job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I believe there is promise in all forms of stem cell research but especially in embryonic stem cells. Currently, this administration's prohibition of Federal funding for embryonic stem cell procurement is ridiculous.

I campaigned on this issue because people suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and epilepsy deserve a government that fights for them. Researchers who care about finding cures to these debilitating diseases need every resource available. That is why I promise to fight until funding flows from Washington to the lab benches in scientific institutions across the country.

Federal funding is essential for embryonic stem cell research and for progress in curing these tough diseases. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we got on track and we stop fighting science in this country.

The reason you seek amnesty or immunity or some sort of protection from being sued or charged is that there may have been wrongdoing. There may have been some violation of a law or potentially a constitutional provision like the fourth amendment, which you just read.

I think really the issue here, and you may all have been over this a dozen times, but it bears repeating, that there is a provision in our wiretapping law, and everybody calls it FISA. This is about wiretapping. This is about eavesdropping. There are times when you need to wiretap. There are times when you need to eavesdrop if somebody you have probable cause or you have general belief that somebody is going to do you harm. It could be a criminal enterprise or it could be a foreigner who wants to attack the United States. There was a glitch in our law which needed to be fixed. There was a technical glitch which said if there was a wiretap on U.S. soil, then you had to get a warrant.

Now the way that telecommunication works these days is somebody could be calling from Pakistan to Germany, two people, foreigners who aren't entitled to the protection of the fourth amendment, but that telecommunication, that phone call is routed through the United States. We changed the law, we, the Congress, to take care of a technical telecommunication glitch and said in that instance that you don't have to get a warrant. So if it's between a foreign individual and another foreign individual, there's no need for a warrant on foreign property.

Now we fixed this. But the President asked for more. He wants to get rid of the courts who are there to protect us as citizens, as Americans, and the Constitution of the United States. He says, I don't want those courts. I don't think they need to be present. Well, we needed them when Richard Nixon was President. We needed to make sure that before the government, before the White House, before anybody looks in on my house or your house, or any American's house, there has to be a reason. And the courts were that stop. That was that objective branch. So yes, we are going to keep the courts involved.

Secondly, the President or the White House or somebody had asked the phone companies to do these taps. Well, the phone companies knew how to do taps. They got a warrant. The law said, You get a warrant, you're protected, Mr. Phone Company, or Mrs. Phone Company. You can wiretap somebody's phone call. Well, it appears that in this instance they didn't get warrants. They circumvented the courts.

Now we don't know that for sure. We haven't been given all the information that we in the Congress or the people of America deserve. Now the phone companies are asking for amnesty. They are saying, look, if we didn't follow the law, we are sorry. Just forgive us. We know at least one phone company that said, Wait a second, this doesn't make sense. You're not giving us the warrants that the law requires. We are not going to do it. That, I am glad to say, is my local phone company, Qwest.

So it isn't like everybody did this. At least one phone company said we want to follow the law. So, you know, this is about amnesty for other phone companies and this is about avoiding the courts. That is what this administration wants and, quite frankly, I am not going to shirk my responsibility to the Constitution and to the people of this country by caving in to those particular requests.

We each in this country, one of the very first principles that we have and one of the very first values that we hold dearly is our privacy. Now it may not be that I don't have anything to hide, but I might not want the world to know that my daughter has epilepsy, which she does. Somebody else might not want to have somebody know that their child is failing in school, or that they are having marital problems. Who knows what it is?

We in this country enjoy our privacy. It's something that is protected by the Constitution. And it may be that we haven't committed a crime, that what we have done isn't something that is going to be brought before a court, but it's something that is personal to us.

We in this country enjoy that right. We enjoy that freedom not to have the government snoop into our lives unless there is really a reason. And that is why the courts are present.

I turn to my friends from Kentucky and Iowa.

Yes. To my good friend from Wisconsin, this is about the rights we enjoy as Americans, and this is about the responsibility that we have as Members of Congress to make sure that there isn't some violation of the rights that we enjoy as Americans, we as Members of Congress and everybody we represent. Really what has been troubling I think to everybody is that the President says ``Trust me. Just give them amnesty. Just give them immunity.'' The phone companies are saying, ``We really can't talk to you because we are sworn to secrecy. Just trust us.''

You know, I don't know about any of you and your constituents, but I know that my constituents expect good representation, good oversight of these kinds of things. And if the telecommunications are entitled to some protection, we have given them protection in the law. If you get a warrant, you are immune. You are doing your national duty by wiretapping or using your surveillance powers. But you got to go through the right process to protect those rights that we are so fortunate to enjoy as Americans.

Well, I don't know. I wasn't an attorney for Quest. Just in terms of what I have read and the individuals I have spoken to, I think Quest would respond by saying we wanted to follow the law. It isn't as if Quest has a spotless record everyplace, but in this instance they did the right thing and they have got to be given credit for it. Others chose to maybe take the path of least resistance.

Well, I want to step back for a second and just talk

about what I think our responsibility is with respect to this wiretapping surveillance stuff and our responsibility as Members of Congress, and really as citizens of this country, because we each have an obligation as citizens to do these same things, to uphold the Constitution and the rights that we all enjoy under the Constitution and to make our citizenry safe, to help make our families safe, our neighborhoods safe, our communities safe.

There is a way under the law as we have revised this surveillance law to do both of those things. We have fixed this technical problem that existed where foreigners were given certain rights under our Fourth Amendment that they weren't entitled to. We have corrected that in this law. But we have maintained the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment and the Third Amendment and everything else within the Constitution for each and every American by including the courts to oversee this and supervise when the government says we want to eavesdrop on a citizen, and we are demanding of the President and the telecommunications companies, we want to see what it is you are asking us to let you off the hook about.

That is what is being asked. And they are saying sorry, we are not going to let you look at that. Therefore, we are going to say, then we are not doing our job. We are not going to just let you go get a get- our-of-jail-for-free or go scot-free without information. We are not doing our job then. We are not being accountable and responsible to our constituents.

As the President has laid this out, he is just trying to stir up fear in the American populace, which is wrong. He is trying to avoid the courts as being a check and balance on the awesome power of the Federal Government to invade our privacies. He doesn't want that, and he is asking us to give this carte blanche amnesty without really giving us the basis for that, and I object to all of those things. With that, I yield back to my friend.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

The Bush administration continues a daily drumbeat of fearmongering on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, wiretapping, despite its own admission over the weekend that it has access and authority to continue all surveillance.

The U.S. intelligence community has expansive authorizations for wide-ranging surveillance limited by each American's right to privacy. If any new surveillance needs to begin, the FISA Court can approve a request within minutes. But National Security Director Mike McConnell says President Bush is holding up a compromise on FISA legislation because he wants to give blanket immunity to telecommunications companies who turned over information about their customers. Once again, President Bush is putting the biggest corporations first and shrinking the constitutional rights we all enjoy as Americans.

We can protect this country and the Constitution at the same time, and that's precisely what the Democratic majority will do.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson, and I want to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for working together, for the give and take that's gone into this bill.

I rise in support, but I do recognize the complaints that Mr. Campbell raised in connection with this bill and this package. This is a short-term fix to some long-term fundamental economic problems that we have in the country, but it gives us a chance now to focus mid term and long term on strategies and investments that will strengthen our families and our Nation. These are strategies and investments that will call for sacrifice on the part of the Nation, as well as each one of us as individuals.

We will get a chance now, I hope, in future packages to look at the infrastructure of this Nation in energy and transportation, but this today will give the shot in the arm this country needs and give us a chance to really plan for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

I rise today to pay tribute and say thank you to a Colorado icon and an American hero, Felix Sparks, with H.R. 4240.

Sparks, who recently passed away at the age of 90, lived an extraordinary life that exemplified public service and devotion to one's country.

A Texas native raised in Arizona, Felix Sparks was a part of our ``Greatest Generation'' who answered our Nation's call to duty during the Second World War.

Described as a ``soldier's soldier,'' he would endure over 500 days of combat and partake in three of the most important events that would define modern history.

The Battle of Reipertswiller, the Battle at the Caves of Anzio, and the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp.

One story in particular that I would like to call to your attention which attests to the character of Felix Sparks occurred during the Battle of Reipertswiller, a battle in which 158 enlisted soldiers were killed, 300 men were wounded, and another 426 were captured over a course of only 3 days.

After finding his unit under siege and trapped in enemy territory, Sparks, then a lieutenant colonel, refused to leave behind three of his men who lay incapacitated in the open battlefield.

Facing near-certain death, he courageously left his tank and raced, on foot, directly into the close-range crosshairs of the German gunners to rescue those soldiers.

With only a holstered pistol in tow, he would drag each of his wounded comrades, one by one, to safety.

A personal account of this series of events was uncovered in the memoirs of a German SS officer who had commanded his gunner not to fire on Sparks. The memoir read: ``Those of us witnessing the scene, whether nearby or more distant, instinctively felt there was no honor to be won by firing on this death-defying act of comradeship.''

Sparks also cheated death a year earlier at the Battle of the Caves of Anzio in Italy, where he would be only one of two men in his company to survive. Sparks was part of the first Allied force to witness the horrors and atrocities of the Dachau concentration camp on the discovery of 39 rail cars packed with some 2,000 Holocaust victims. In all, 30,000 prisoners were liberated from Dachau by the Allied Forces; and for the rest of his life, Sparks would continue to speak out at Holocaust remembrance ceremonies.

Based on his experiences at Dachau, Felix was tireless in his efforts to refute those shameless individuals who try to rewrite history and claim the Holocaust and Dachau never occurred. He'd say: ``Tell that to my face'' in a shout and in a voice that indicated he'd been there and saw it personally.

For his service during World War II, he was awarded a Silver Star and two Purple Hearts after being severely wounded on the battlefield. He would continue his military service with the National Guard until his retirement as a brigadier general in 1977.

And upon his return from the war, enamored with stories from his men about their hometowns in the Rocky Mountains, Felix and his wife settled in Colorado. There, the Sparks family would grow to include four children, six grandchildren, and seven great grandchildren.

He would earn his law degree from the University of Colorado and become a Colorado district attorney. Renowned for his commanding speaking ability, Felix would then go on to become the youngest supreme court justice in Colorado's history at just 38 years of age. He would preside over several of the most prolific and high profile cases in our State's history.

After his service on our State's highest court, Sparks, an expert in water law, would serve for over two decades as the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. He would write some of the most influential and important groundwater laws that have continued to serve our State for decades thereafter.

I came to know Felix during my days in the Colorado senate after he had testified in my committee with regard to an anti-gun violence measure following the tragic death of his grandchild from a drive-by shooting. His passion and his words live with me to this day. And he was so well respected for his honesty and straightforward testimony.

It is also important to note, after returning home from the war, Felix would continue to personally reach out to console the families of his men and promise them he would never forget.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons I bring this bill to the floor today is so this promise that Felix Sparks made to the families of his men can live on for generations. This bill pays tribute to Felix's men in the 157th Infantry Regiment of the 45th Infantry Division of the United States Army, whose motto since the Spanish-American War has been ``Eager for Duty.''

Our Nation can never adequately repay and give thanks to these individuals for their sacrifices in the battles against tyranny, in the battles for our Nation's freedom. It is my hope the renaming of the Lakewood post office for Felix Sparks will inspire future generations to find a calling in public service.

This bill also pays tribute to Mary Sparks and the Sparks family, who meant so much to Felix and to our community.

In closing, I wish to thank each of my colleagues in the Colorado delegation for joining me in bidding a fond farewell to a man who meant so much to our State and to our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4240 to rename the Lakewood post office in Felix Sparks' honor.

I thank my friend from Iowa and my friends who have shared today because you have talked about just fundamental values of what makes America great, whether they are biblical or just precepts of our Constitution.

I am going to step back and just be a little more businesslike about this. These gentlemen, these servicemen and women were tortured, harmed, beaten, bashed, broken. They brought a claim against Saddam Hussein and his regime, and they had, that regime had assets. Those assets were here in the United States of America. They have a claim against those assets.

We are not making a claim against U.S. assets. We are not making a claim, they are not making a claim against the new regime's assets, but the old regime. Now, they have a claim. They can't just turn it back. They were hurt. They were tortured. They should be compensated. That's the bottom line here.

Now, if the President has chosen to say you cannot sue the old regime, you don't have a claim against the old regime, then there should be other compensation due to these gentlemen for the torture that they have suffered.

I thank the chairman. I thank the chairwoman for bringing this bill. And Congresswoman Capito and I are part of this energy efficiency task force. And I know that she has strong feelings toward building in an energy-efficient, sustainable way. We have a big difference of opinion as to property rights on this one. And it's unusual, here in this instance, the Federal Government is the owner and the financer of these projects. It has the right, as any property owner does, as any owner does, to say how it wants its building built. And that's what's done within this proposal, within this bill, and that is to build these units in a green fashion. And so that, I think, is appropriate. It is an appropriate exercise of ownership to say we want these to be green. And the people of the United States of America in this last election said we have to be more energy conscious. We have to figure out a change to how we power this Nation and how we consume energy, and this is where we get started as a Federal Government.

Now, one of the things we've talked about is the flexibility within the bill as to the standards to be used. We use the words ``substantially equivalent.'' And if, in fact, HUD or EPA or the Department of Energy is being recalcitrant, isn't following through on developing substantially equivalent standards, you can bet that our side of the aisle will work with you and the various Departments to make sure they get off their fannies and they do develop some substantially equivalent standards so that there is flexibility.

This is a good bill. This is a bad amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.

It's great to be standing on the floor with gentlemen who have been elected by the people in 2006 to change the way this Nation is being run, and to provide the hope that we need to deal with the problems you've outlined. And we can do this, we know we can do this. This is a time where we change the focus from the wealthiest 1 percent to the hardworking people of middle America. This is the time for hardworking Americans. And we're going to provide, based on this stimulus package, a package of different approaches to help middle Americans, hardworking Americans, we're going to provide them with refunds so that there will be some money in their pocket, not just in the pocket of the wealthiest 1 percent, but in the pockets of everyone across America. Ronald Reagan used to talk about trickle down. Well, that's not how the economy works, it works trickle up. It's a flood up. If people in the middle have money, they spend it, and that will generate all sorts of new business in America.

We're also going to provide stimuli that will create many new jobs, whether it's in the energy sector. We can improve how we're dealing with health care and increase jobs there. But this is a time when we really are going to change how Washington is conducting business. The President would like us just to focus on the wealthiest. He would like us just to keep things the same. We're not doing that. We're here to provide hope to people and change so that people in their everyday lives know that they've got folks here who were elected to fight for them. And we are going to change things by providing a whole new approach to the economy this year.

We hope to provide a package that will be $100 billion, that's about 10 months in Iraq, that's nothing, where we can help this country really get on a solid footing economically, and then for the long-term future, really develop a whole new energy system that will provide thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs across this country, as well as revamp our health care system that has become such a drag on the economy.

This is a time when we have to look very hard and be realistic about the problems that face us. But when America really turns its attention to something, it changes the future. And that's what this Congress is going to do. That's our job. That's why we were sent here was to change the future and to provide hope to people.

With that, I would like to turn this over to my friend from Wisconsin, Steven Kagen. And with that, sir, would you let us know what you think of this stimulus package that the Speaker is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have got again to realize and understand why the people sent us here to change America, to change the way Washington runs, and they want us to look out for middle America, hardworking people. They want us to look out in the short term, the mid term, and the long term.

And in the short term, you talked about it. We want to provide in a bipartisan way, working with our friends on the other side and with the administration, real relief to millions of people across America. And you described it as timely, targeted, and temporary. Relief that gets right into people's pockets where they can then buy those necessities, whether it's a washer or they have got to fix the sink or whatever it might be, because people, even those that don't run into terrible problems as you described, are having a heck of a time making ends meet. They're working 40 hours. They're working 60 hours. But if there is one bump in the road, a kid who has to have braces or any little thing just sets you back, because everybody is that close, as energy prices go up, as tuition goes up, as health care costs go up. So our job is to give them some relief. And when we do that, that will help the economy as a whole.

Then we have the mid term and long term, the trade policies. But for me in my area, which is primarily the suburbs of Denver, it is middle America. It is right down the middle politically. It is right down the middle financially. It's not rich. It's not poor. It's not Democrat or Republican. It is right down the middle as an independent kind of an area. And they are expecting

of us to turn the attention to them, to middle America, and not just the wealthiest people. And when we do that, we're going to change the face of this Nation again.

John Yarmuth was talking about the fact that as we have improved productivity, the worker, the average guy, hasn't seen the benefit of that, but it's been more of the owner. And that's okay, too, that the owner sees some benefit, but it should be shared across the board, because at the end of the day you have this disparity between the rich and the poor continue to grow, and that's not healthy for any country. This country has thrived and progressed because of the middle class, because of the hardworking people in the middle.

So we have long-term strategies, which would be investments in energy, rebuilding our infrastructure. The speaker comes from the city where we had the bridge collapse. We have too many roads, too many things that have to be repaired in this country, and it is time for us to turn our investments to this country, and lots of jobs will be developed as a response to that.

I yield to my friend from Kentucky.

I just would like to close. I think our friend from Minneapolis, Mr. Ellison, used the right word; the economic stimulus is a spark. It will help those people who really can use it just make the ends meet that week. Once that happens, that moves an economy as millions of people in unison do that.

So we have a chance to really change the way this economy is headed, we have a real chance to change the focus from the wealthiest 1 percent to the people who are working so hard every day across America. Those people that make this country so wonderful, so great.

I am just glad that the folks from Wheat Ridge and Lakewood and Arvada and Golden and Brighton and Commerce City and Aurora and a number of

other places in my District gave me the chance to come here and help make that change. I think that they are looking for change, and they are looking for hope, and we are going to deliver that.

With that, I will turn it back to the president of our class, the eminent Mr. Walz.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to commend my friend Peter Groff on his historic achievement of becoming the first African American State Senate President in Colorado's history. Senator Groff becomes only the third African American Senate President in U.S. history. This momentous accomplishment is well-deserved.

Senator Groff is one of the most honorable, bright, and deliberate individuals I have ever had the pleasure to serve with. He embodies statesmanship and has earned the trust and esteem of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Groff's courageous and visionary approach to governing can be summed up in his own words: ``To be bigger than the politics of the moment.'' I find it fitting that the man nicknamed ``the conscience of the Colorado Senate'' would be the first in our State's history to shatter this once seemingly impenetrable glass ceiling.

In closing, the Honorable Shirley Chisholm once said, ``I don't measure America by its achievement, but by its potential.'' I can think of no better person to help Colorado achieve its potential than Peter Groff. He will serve Colorado with honor and distinction.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has to get out of the White House a little more often so that he can see firsthand how average Americans are struggling to make ends meet during this holiday season. Over the past 7 years, the President has presided over an economy in which the poverty rate has gone up and household incomes have gone down. The average family is making less today than they did last year, while at the same time, everyday costs for food, home heating oil, gas, college tuition and health care skyrocket out of control.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan voiced concern this weekend that the economy may be heading into a recession early next year. Despite all of these warnings, President Bush stood before the American people and proclaimed that the American economy was strong and pointed to the tax cuts of his first term as a reason for this strong economy.

Well, the President needs a reality check. It is time for the President to recognize that the struggles of average working families are here to stay and he needs to check them out. Together,

we can address those concerns, and we wish to work with him.

Thank you, Mr. McNerney, and I want to thank Mr. Hall. All of you are supporting this particular resolution, and it is one that is apropos for our time right now. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the National Renewable Energy Lab, NREL, which is about three blocks from my house, is the leading organization in the world for developing energy efficiency technologies and renewable energy technologies.

Today, I rise to honor and commend that laboratory, which is the premier in the country. In 1977 the Solar Energy Research Institute opened and was designated a national laboratory of the Department of Energy. In 1991, President George Bush changed the institute's name to the National Renewable Energy Lab, which I will call NREL.

NREL is the principal research laboratory for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and also provides research expertise for the Office of Science. Changing our energy policy and developing a new direction for energy was and is a high priority for Americans across the country. We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil and we must increase our supply of renewable energy. We cannot afford the status quo any longer.

Leadership in the House on both sides of the aisle has shown this understanding for the increase in renewable energy and energy efficiency across the country, and for the first time in a long time this Congress passed a budgetary increase to the Office of Energy Efficiency and to the Office of Science so that NREL can continue its vital and important research and development in these particular areas.

NREL has advanced our national energy goals by developing innovative ways to change the way we power our homes and businesses and fuel our cars. They have developed competitions for solar cars and energy efficient homes. In fact, many times the races have ended here in Washington, DC, and we have had on the mall these competitions among our colleges and brightest kids as to how to make our buildings more energy efficient.

NREL has worked to develop biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, and the list goes on, types of renewable energy, and it has worked on both renewable energy for buildings, as I said, as well as renewable fuels for vehicles. Now more than ever we must seek ways to increase production of renewable energy and make our country more energy efficient, and NREL is helping to do just that. By seeking and creating avenues to develop renewable energy and improve our energy efficiency, we can strengthen our national security, protect our environment, and create thousands and thousands of new jobs.

I commend NREL on its work for the past 30 years, and I look forward to their work in the next 30 years. I thank the 1,200 current employees and the past employees who helped make NREL the leader that it is today. I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from California as well as the Speaker for helping me with this bill and commending this laboratory for the good work that it does.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, and I appreciate the work that my friend Mr. Watt has performed. But with respect to this amendment, I have to oppose this amendment.

One of the things that Mrs. Biggert talked about was five principles that she saw in this bill. There is also a sixth principle of real estate and financing, and that is certainty. And what I fear is by making this the greater of actual damages or triple damages, triple being the amount of money that the mortgage originator made, at least he can figure out what that is. Actual damages really does just set the prelude for a lawsuit or a major controversy.

So I support this bill. I don't support the amendment. And I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I thank the chairman for being willing to work on this particular amendment to zero in on the major players who, in a repeated fashion, time after time, show by pattern and practice an abuse of this predatory lending policy.

I do want to reiterate something that Mr. Blumenauer said. I want to congratulate the ranking member and Mrs. Biggert and Mrs. Capito and a number of the others on the Republican side of the aisle, along with the sponsors of this bill, for working and refining and developing a bill that will deal with the problems that we have seen of predatory lending and subprime loans that have hurt a lot of the people in this country and our financial system.

I also intend to work with the chairman on the eviction piece, the rental piece of this, so we don't harm the single-family, owner- occupied system of FHA and VA-type loans.