Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I will yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unfortunately, this amendment does little to change the fact that the bankruptcy provisions in this legislation will fail to solve the foreclosure crisis. Some claim the manager's amendment will narrow the bill's bankruptcy provisions, but there is nothing in this amendment that meaningfully changes the underlying bill. Meaningful change would have meant a true requirement for bankruptcy petitioners to exhaust other options before going to bankruptcy court.

As Speaker Pelosi observed just this week, ``Bankruptcy, by its nature, should require a judge to see that other remedies had been exhausted and that good faith overtures from the lender had not been dismissed by the borrower.''

The manager's amendment does not do that. Rather, it merely requires that judges consider whether the lender offered the borrower a loan modification when determining whether to approve the borrower's bankruptcy plan. So a judge is free to consider a loan modification the lender offered and then approve a cramdown despite the lender's offer. The judge can approve a cramdown even if the borrower signed a pre- bankruptcy modification with the lender and then went shopping for a sweeter deal in bankruptcy.

The manager's amendment also contains a major loophole that will allow borrowers to avoid any requirement that they contact their lender about a loan modification prior to filing for bankruptcy. Under the manager's amendment, a borrower can do nothing, fail to seek a qualifying loan modification and still be entitled to get a

bankruptcy cramdown once a foreclosure sale was scheduled. In other words, bankruptcy relief is available to those who fail to seek a loan modification under the Obama plan.

Meaningful change also would have meant substantially narrowing the class of loans eligible for bankruptcy modification. Senator Durbin, the principal sponsor of the companion legislation in the Senate, has acknowledged the merit and proposals to limit the bill to subprime loans.

[From American Banker, Feb. 27, 2009]

Transcript of Remarks by Sen. Durbin

The following is a transcript of remarks between Sen.

Richard Durbin and an American Banker reporter, Tuesday

evening after President Obama's speech to Congress.

AB Reporter: ``Sen. Durbin, do you have a moment today on

bankruptcy reform?''

Sen. Durbin: ``Sure.''

AB Reporter: ``I know that in the House, at least regarding

this week, the lenders are still trying to make the

restrictions so that you have to exhaust all other recourses

before bankruptcy pretty tough, even today I heard about

making HUD or one of the regulators certify that you had a

modification or something that didn't work before you could

go through bankruptcy. What are your thoughts on what the

standard ought to be?''

Sen. Durbin: ``I think that it is reasonable to require the

borrower to be in communication for a reasonable time before

they file for bankruptcy. You know if a borrower will not

talk to a bank they should not be able to avail themselves

but it's really difficult to write into law a measurement of

good faith so the best you can do is give them an opportunity

to meet. Remember 99% of foreclosed homes end up owned by the

bank so it isn't as if they are going to end up coming out

ahead if the person's losing their home. They get stuck with

$50,000 in costs and a house to maintain; to protect from

vandalism, and to show and try to sell, so the banks ought to

be much more forthcoming. Every attempt we've tried, every

voluntary attempt we've tried has failed. You have to have

this bankruptcy provision as the last resort if there is a

failure to negotiate the mortgage.''

AB Reporter: ``Do you know when the Senate might be taking

this up?''

Sen. Durbin: ``After the House and we might change it of

course. There are variations we're looking at. But I'm

willing to restrict this to homeowners to eliminate

speculators; to subprime mortgages, only those currently in

existence. I want to make this a reasonable limited--

AB Reporter: ``You're willing to limit it to subprime

mortgages?''

Sen. Durbin: ``We've talked about that as a possibility.

But I am willing to negotiate. I want this to be a reasonable

approach, but we have to include it. If we don't include it

we'll be stuck in the same mess we're in today.''

AB Reporter: ``What about the time limitation as far as

when the loans were originated. I understand there are some

who would like to see it limited to loan underwritten in the

last few years?''

Sen. Durbin: ``My version will not be prospective. So it

has to be existing loans.''

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes no attempt to narrow the class of eligible loans. That class is as wide as it ever was. Finally, rather than narrowing the bill, the manager's amendment actually provides that, if the judge doesn't want to give a cramdown, he can just rewrite the mortgage as a no-interest loan over the full term of a new 30-year mortgage. What a gift and what an insult to those who pay their mortgages on time. The only borrower the manager's amendment suggests should be denied relief is the borrower who ``can pay all of his or her debts and any future payment increases on such debts without difficulty for the foreseeable future,'' but that person will never need to be in bankruptcy court, by definition.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment continues the majority's policy of punishing the successful, taxing the responsible and holding no one accountable. It is unfair for Congress to bail out mortgage lenders and borrowers on the backs of responsible homeowners who continue to pay their mortgages even in these troubled economic times. Clearly, the American people are not willing to pay for their neighbors' irresponsible actions. The manager's amendment hardly narrows the scope of the underlying bill. In some areas, it actually makes it worse. Members should oppose both this amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1127, but I also agree with Steve King, the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee, about the need for religious worker reciprocity. Some countries that send religious workers to the United States refuse entry to religious workers from the United States and do not allow for the free exercise of religion.

Each year, the U.S. Commission of International Religious Freedom compiles a list of countries that seek to control religious thought and expression, that show open hostility to religious minorities and that fail to protect certain religious groups. The 2008 list includes Burma, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

One way to help advance religious freedom is to do as Representative King suggests and prevent citizens of countries that are hostile to religious freedom from participating in our religious worker visa program. Both the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program and the rural J-1 visa waiver program are set to expire this Friday, March 6. H.R. 1127 extends both programs until September 30, 2009.

The J-1 visa program provision waives the 2-year foreign residency requirement for foreign doctors who are willing to serve in medically underserved areas. The waiver program enables people in rural and in intercity communities to have access to quality medical care. The Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program allows 5,000 religious workers per year to enter the United States to assist churches and other religious establishments.

While I support the program, I have long been concerned about the level of fraud. In 2006, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office conducted an assessment on the religious worker visa program. They selected 220 religious workers at random and found fraud in one- third of the cases. In addition, they found ``many of the cases reviewed had multiple fraud indicators.'' In 32 of the fraudulent cases, the religious institution was not bona fide. It either did not exist or it existed only on paper. Thirty-nine of the fraudulent cases were marked by fraudulent supporting documentation or material misrepresentations within a document by a legitimate religious institution.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule last November, making several changes designed to reduce fraud in the program. Immigration Chairwoman Lofgren and I are awaiting a report by the DHS inspector general regarding the effectiveness of those fraud prevention measures. I hope we will address concerns about fraud and will also ensure that reciprocity is contained in any future extension of the religious worker visa program.

Madam Speaker, United States military aviation was born in San Antonio on March 2, 1910, when 1st Lt. Benjamin Foulois launched a Wright Brothers ``Aeroplane'' into the air from a wooden take-off ramp at the Fort Sam Houston Parade Field. This first flight revolutionized military combat, and dramatically influenced public transportation and commerce around the globe.

March 2, 2010, will mark the 100 year anniversary of military aviation, and San Antonio would like to celebrate this in a special way. They would like to make military aviation a theme for the entire year, encompassing everything from San Antonio's Fiesta celebration to The Chamber's annual ``Celebrate America's Military''.

This anniversary will include a reenactment of Foulois' first flight using a replica of the original Wright Flyer at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

San Antonio is home to many aviation legends and firsts, among them: In 1924, Charles Lindberg became a flying cadet in the United States Air Reserve, training at Brooks and Kelly fields. Dr. Francis Kane developed the GPS system, which was originally used for precision bombing. On June 3, 1965, astronaut Edward Higgins White, II, a San Antonio native, became the first American to conduct a spacewalk. Gen Schielberg is father of space missile defense. U.S. astronauts used the centrifuge at Brooks City-Base for nearly 40 years to conduct space training. Brooks AFB was the first center for manned space travel.

All of this occurred as a result of the first military flight in San Antonio.

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

Mr. Chairman, our country has fallen into a serious economic recession, a recession that is worsened by the foreclosure crisis. Until we address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover.

But some of what is in this bill we consider today will be helpful. Providing loan servicers a safe harbor from the threat of litigation if they offer borrowers meaningful loan modification will, in fact, help blunt the crisis.

But the bill also includes many counterproductive components, especially the bankruptcy provision. This bankruptcy provision not only will fail to solve the foreclosure crisis, but also will make the crisis deeper, longer and wider.

Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will increase the overall cost of lending. Lenders and investors will hesitate to put up capital in the future if they fear that judges will rewrite the terms of their mortgage contracts. Less available capital and increased risk means that borrowers will pay higher interest rates in the future.

Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will also encourage borrowers to file for bankruptcy. Under this bill, a borrower will be able to reduce, for example, a $500,000 mortgage to $400,000. When housing prices rise in the future, that borrower has no obligation to pay back the $100,000 amount they crammed down. Thus, the borrower receives a $100,000 windfall. And experts predict that receiving this windfall will provide an incentive for borrowers to file for bankruptcy.

If bankruptcy filings increase as a result of this legislation, which is predicted, it is unlikely that the country's only 368 bankruptcy judges could handle the additional caseload in an effective manner. This will prolong the crisis as borrowers wait for their bankruptcy plan to be court-approved.

In fact, even Senator Durbin, the primary sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, has stated that he is ``willing to restrict'' this legislation to subprime mortgages in an effort to make this proposal ``reasonable.''

So, the legislation we are considering today, and the ``Housing Affordability and Stability Plan'' announced by the President last Tuesday, really amount to another entitlement program, a program that comes at the expense of the 92 percent of the homeowners who are making their payments on time.

And it is a program that benefits lenders who wrote irresponsible loans and borrowers who borrowed more than they could afford. In other words, this legislation will punish the successful, tax the responsible, and hold no one accountable.

If we pass this legislation, what message does it send to responsible borrowers who are making their payments on time? How can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbors' mortgages? What are homeowners to think if they pay back the full amount of principal they owe, while others receive a government-granted reduction in principal?

We need to do everything we can to help solve the foreclosure crisis, but we need to do so in a manner that doesn't bankrupt the taxpayers or our financial system and that is, in fact, fair to all.

And as we work to solve the foreclosure crisis, we need to remember how we got here. As the President said in his address to Congress on Tuesday, ``It is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.''

This foreclosure crisis was brought on largely by irresponsible mortgage policies. Those policies were implemented by lenders and supported by government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae, who were all too willing to put profits ahead of prudence. Their irresponsible behavior was encouraged by Members of Congress and the Clinton administration. Too often borrowers, spurred on by cheap credit and little or nothing as a down payment, borrowed more than they could afford.

The mortgage bankruptcy provisions in this bill are not the answer. Allowing bankruptcy modification of home

mortgages will be costly, generate unintended consequences, and likely delay the resolution of the foreclosure crisis itself.

If we're going to enact this bankruptcy provision, despite all of its flaws, we should at least limit relief to subprime and non-traditional mortgages. We should provide bankruptcy judges with clear guidance on the procedure to follow in modifying the terms of home mortgages, guidance that would make lowering payments to an affordable level the paramount goal of bankruptcy modification. And we should provide much stricter provisions for allowing a lender to recapture any principal that is reduced in bankruptcy if the home is later sold at a profit.

Mr. Chairman, this bill, and the amendments we are going to consider today, provide none of these safeguards.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 2009 Omnibus.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lamar Smith.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses Account.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alamo Community Colleges.

Address of Requesting Entity: 201 W. Sheridan, San Antonio, TX 78204- 1429.

Description of Request: I have secured $100,000 for the Alamo Region Energy Futures Park Center of Excellence with Alamo Community Colleges. The funding will help establish the Futures Park which will house advanced energy credit and non-credit instructions for students, education, and business and industry. The center will combine education and training with practical hands-on applied research. It is my understanding that approximately 30% of instructional costs will be reimbursed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and that scholarships will be made available through the ACCD Foundation and Alamo Workforce Board. The ACCD Foundation will also be raising funds to share in the costs of this program. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: Airport Improvement Projects.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of San Antonio.

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, Texas 78283.

Description of Request: I have secured $1,187,500 for the City of San Antonio's Department of Aviation. Funding would be used for Airport Improvements including: Install shoulder areas to adjoining movement area pavements; Airfield Pavement Improvements and Airfield Electrical System Upgrade. The San Antonio International Airport receives Airport Improvement Program funds allocated to major capital improvement projects such as the current runway and taxiway extension work under design. $650,000 in airport self-generated funds will be allocated for matching. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: DOJ; COPS Law Enforcement Technology Account.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Austin.

Address of Requesting Entity: 301 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701.

Description of Request: I have secured $350,000 for the Austin Police Department. The funding would be used to purchase surveillance cameras and deploy them in high crimes areas in Austin. The project will provide the Austin Police Department with the capability to monitor violent crime hotspots from a central location. The City of Austin will provide the required match. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Austin, TX.

Address of Requesting Entity: 301 W. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor, Austin, Texas 78701.

Description of Request: I have secured $300,000 for the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Prevention in Austin, TX. The funding would be used to construct a non-structural sanitary sewer overflow prevention project. It will prevent sanitary sewer overflows that threaten public health, property, surface waters and the ecologically fragile Edwards Aquifer. The project will help the City of Austin meet federal clean water mandates and it will help protect a regional aquifer that is vital to public and environmental health. It is my understanding that the City of Austin will be matching 45% of the cost of the project through the city sewer rates. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: U.S. Department of Energy; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Bexar County, Texas.

Address of Requesting Entity: 100 Dolorosa, San Antonio, Texas 78205.

Description of Request: I have secured $475,750 for Bexar County. Funding would be used for materials and labor for the installation of photovoltaic panels at the new Bexar County Parking Garage for the purpose of re-charging plug-in hybrid vehicles. The project will promote the use of renewable energy while minimizing the impact of vehicle emissions. It is my understanding that Bexar County will be contributing $326,000 towards this project. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Operations & Maintenance Civil Works Projects.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102.

Description of Request: I have secured $3,422,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Canyon Lake, Texas. Funding for this project would be used for operations and maintenance in Canyon Lake, Texas and to repair conduit liner, service and emergency flood gates. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: National Park Service--Historic Preservation Fund--Save America's Treasures.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of New Braunfels.

Address of Requesting Entity: 150 North Seguin, New Braunfels, Texas 78130.

Description of Request: I have secured $150,000 for the Comal County Courthouse Restoration. Funding for this project will preserve and rehabilitate the historic Comal County Courthouse. The restorative work includes improving fire safety and accessibility to persons with disabilities by replacing outdated and hazardous building systems and restoring and reconstructing architectural elements that have been removed or concealed

in past remodeling efforts. This project has wide community support and it is my understanding that the County has already provided $750,000 in funding for preliminary planning and specifications. The County and the City will continue their collaborative efforts to identify and secure funding sources to ensure the preservation and restoration of this structure. The work will lead to improved accessibility and enhancement of the facility. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Investigations Civil Works Studies.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

Description of Request: I have secured $382,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for funding regarding the Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins. Funding would be used to complete the draft interim feasibility report for the Cibolo Creek IFS, complete the plan formulation phase of the Leon Creek IFS, and initiate the plan formulation phase of the Alamo Heights IFS. The partners in the projects have committed to match the federal funding at the required levels. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Investigations Civil Works Studies.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

Description of Request: I have secured $406,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for funding regarding the Lower Colorado River Basin. Funding would be used to complete the Williamson Creek study and continue the other Interim Feasibility Studies within the basin. It is my understanding that this project is a 50/50 match with the Lower Colorado River Authority. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: Housing and Urban Development Department Economic Development Initiative Program.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of New Braunfels.

Address of Requesting Entity: 424 South Castell Avenue, New Braunfels, TX 78130.

Description of Request: I have secured $142,500 for the City of New Braunfels Downtown Infrastructure Improvements. The City of New Braunfels is a Texas Main Street city and has a comprehensive Downtown Master Plan for its Central Business District. A key component is the relocation of overhead utilities to underground locations, which will facilitate other portions of the redevelopment project, including streetscaping and drainage. The City has already contributed $111,000 to the project and has received a $14,000 Certified Local Government Grant from the Texas Historical Commission for the preliminary planning. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Investigations.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

Description of Request: I have secured $1,264,000 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for funding regarding the Lower Colorado River Basin. Funding for this project would be used to initiate buyouts of the Timber Creek area and Onion Creek Forest/Yarrabee Bend areas, and complete the DDR and P&S for Wharton, TX. It is my understanding that as a result of a local bond referendum in 2006, the City of Austin has a 35% match for the project in hand. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: Buses and Bus Facilities.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Address of Requesting Entity: 2910 East 5th Street, Austin, TX 78702.

Description of Request: I have secured $2,612,500 for the Capitol Metro's Paratransit Services Vehicles. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Capital Metro provides door- to-door van and sedan paratransit service throughout Central Texas for persons with disabilities and senior citizens. Capital Metro will be replacing many of the vans and sedans that serve this program, as they are retired during the coming fiscal year. Central Texas' disabled population relies heavily on Capital Metro's paratransit services to provide transportation to jobs, classes and medical appointments. As many disabled veterans are returning to Central Texas following their tours of duty, our paratransit services will be required to accommodate their needs and requirements. The replacement of retired vehicles, and the expansion of the paratransit fleet, will allow Capital Metro to continue this important program. Local sales tax will provide matching funds. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)--Health Facilities and Services.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Community Health Development, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 201 South Evans, Uvalde, TX 78801.

Description of Request: I have secured $143,000 for the Community Health Center Infrastructure Capacity Project for Real County. The funding would be used for new equipment/furnishings to strengthen capacity to continue serving Real County residents with quality health care. Successful completion of the project will enable CHDI to maintain a high level of quality care, improved staff efficiencies and, increase the number of patients served. There are no other funding sources for this project. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: DOJ; OJP Juvenile Justice Account.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Antonio Fighting Back.

Address of Requesting Entity: 2803 E. Commerce St, San Antonio, TX 78203.

Description of Request: I have secured $450,000 for San Antonio Fighting Back. The funding would be used for equipment and services to combat juvenile delinquency and victimization of children and improve the juvenile justice mission in San Antonio. Activities to be funded will be capacity building training and strategies and technical assistance that will assist faith-based and community-based organizations in organizational development, fund development, program development, financial management, communications and public relations, grant writing skills, personnel and human resources training, program evaluation, and community networking. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009.

Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Construction Civil Works Projects.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

Description of Request: I have secured $10,000,000 for the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project. Funding would be used to award and initiate a fully funded construction contract for Phase IIa; complete the design of Phase III; initiate 95% design of Phase IV of Mission Reach; and continue the Woodlawn Study. It is my understanding that several entities in the community are prepared to provide $49.7 million of local funding. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Bill Number: FY 2009 Omnibus.

Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Antonio Water System.

Address of Requesting Entity: 2800 U.S. Hwy 281 North, San Antonio,

Mr. Speaker, the so-called stimulus bill gives jobs to law-breakers.

Democrats put illegal workers ahead of Americans without jobs. They removed a requirement that employers verify the legal status of workers paid with stimulus money. So now we have taxpayers' dollars going to hire illegal immigrants instead of U.S. citizens and legal workers.

Now that the requirement that employers hire legal workers has been removed, 300,000 jobs in construction alone will go to illegal workers, according to the Heritage Foundation. If the goal of the stimulus bill is to create jobs, is it too much to ask that the jobs go to citizens and legal workers?

The American people need to know that the Democrats could have saved stimulus jobs for citizens but intentionally decided to give jobs to illegal immigrants instead.

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of transparency, because Republicans, the media and the American public were shut out of negotiations, I am suggesting a new name for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this so-called stimulus bill.

Based on what we know, I propose that we call it the Emergency Massive Expansion of Federal Spending to Double Our Budget Deficit by Circumventing the Legislative Process to Roll Back Welfare Reform, Intrude on Individual's Healthcare Decisions, Buy Green Golf Carts When We Don't Know How They Will be Used, Bail Out Fiscally Irresponsible States, But We'll Give People an Average Whopping $13 per week of Tax Relief, So We Hope They Won't Mind, Non-Stimulus, Non-Recovery Act of 2009.

There, I think that does a much better job of describing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is just as important to recognize examples of fair reporting as it is to criticize biased news. Earlier this week, the Associated Press released an article fact-checking President Obama's claims about the economic stimulus package. The AP found that the President ``had it both ways'' when at first he bragged about getting Congress to produce a stimulus with no pork, but later boasted the stimulus would do good things for pet projects in Indiana. The AP also found the President guilty of ``projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.''

Americans count on the media to checks the facts on important issues and report the truth about officials in both parties. Fair reporting like this will go a long way towards restoring Americans' trust in the media.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 554--``The National Nano-technology Initiative Amendments Act.''

This legislation supports research and innovation in the field of nanotechnology and strengthens the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) by adding provisions to encourage nanotechnology education, studies, and economic development.

Whether it's medical research, military systems, or energy advancements, nano-technology plays a vital role in our lives today and will help drive innovation for tomorrow.

We see nanotechnology used in computers and other nano-electronics, as well as a wide variety of products from landmine detectors to water filtration systems to sunscreens.

The future of nanotechnology is limitless. Nanotechnology will pave the way for significant advances in many fields, including medical diagnostics, automotive performance, and solar energy.

In short, nanotechnology is the convergence of 21st century science and technologies. It is proof that small technology can have a huge impact in the world.

This legislation helps ensure that American companies have the resources they need to further develop nanotechnology, which will help American businesses remain on the cutting edge of technology and drive the American economy.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their work in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the Floor today.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 554.

Madam Speaker, sometimes media bias is most evident by the news that reporters choose not to cover.

For example, where were the media when the Congressional Budget Office announced last week that the economic stimulus package would reduce the long-term potential output of the economy? Almost every national media outlet ignored the CBO's negative report.

Where were the media when the White House announced last week that it would seize oversight of the Census Bureau and, thus, be able to politicize the nonpartisan census?

Where were the media when President Obama decided that an internal investigation by his own attorney was sufficient to clear his staff of any inappropriate dealings with the former Governor of Illinois?

Madam Speaker, can you imagine what the media would have done if a Republican President were involved?

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Resolution 134, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's trip to India, in which he paid his respects to the methods of nonviolent protest pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi.

Dr. King studied Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolent change at seminary, and in 1959 he had the honor of visiting the land in which the seeds of peaceful protest had been successfully sown by Gandhi.

Gandhi was the first to employ nonviolent protest on a mass political scale. This opposition resulted in national change. Dr. King, inspired by Gandhi's organized peaceful action, launched a similar effort to fight for racial equality under the law in the United States. That inspiration eventually materialized in the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to Dr. King in 1964, and a year earlier in a 250,000 person peaceful march Dr. King led through the streets of Washington, D.C. Dr. King was the leader of an historic nonviolent revolution in the U.S. Over the course of his life, he fought for equal justice and led the Nation towards racial harmony.

While advancing this great movement, Dr. King's home was bombed and he was subjected to relentless personal and physical abuse. Despite this violence, Dr. King responded in peace and with strong conviction and sound reasoning. As a pastor, Dr. King's religious beliefs were essential to the success of his nonviolent efforts.

Just as Mahatma Gandhi was a deeply religious man, so too was Dr. King. It is doubtful that such a long and enduring movement could have survived in either man's country without the power of religious inspiration behind it.

While Gandhi and Dr. King convinced millions of both the morality and the effectiveness of nonviolent change, their message, unfortunately, was not accepted by all. On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his hotel room in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. King was assassinated. But a single vicious act could not extinguish Dr. King's legacy which endures to this day. And Dr. King's legacy is due in large part to the inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi, whose success helped endow Dr. King with the courage to lift voices, not weapons, in the struggle for equality here in the United States.

America is a better, freer nation today in large part due to the philosophical fellowship of Gandhi and Dr. King.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. And let me also point out that I know that the two gentlemen from Georgia to my left, one who has spoken and one is getting ready to speak, as well as the Speaker himself, the gentleman from Illinois, have all been leaders in the Civil Rights Movement. And we certainly appreciate their leadership, their contributions and their success.

And I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have any other speakers at this time.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 35 which recognizes the 100th anniversary of the NAACP. For a century now, the NAACP has fought to bring justice and racial equality to all of America.

In 1917, the NAACP won a legal victory in the Supreme Court which held that States could not restrict and officially segregate black Americans into residential districts. The same year the NAACP fought for the right of black Americans to be commissioned as officers in World War I.

In 1935, NAACP lawyers Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall won a legal battle to admit a black student to the University of Maryland.

During World War II, the NAACP led the effort that resulted in President Franklin Roosevelt's ordering a nondiscrimination policy in war-related industries and Federal employment.

And in 1948, the NAACP convinced President Harry Truman to sign an executive order banning discrimination by the Federal Government.

In 1954, under the leadership of Special Counsel Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP won one of its greatest legal victories in Brown v. Board of Education, which found segregated schools and other educational facilities in the United States to be unlawful.

In 1960, in Greensboro, North Carolina, members of the NAACP Youth Council launched a series of nonviolent sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. The segregation ended.

The history of America's modern struggle to live up to our constitutional principles includes a major role by the NAACP, and it continues to champion the cause of social justice today.

It is with pleasure that I join in supporting this concurrent resolution, which I hope raises even greater awareness of this organization's historic contributions to the cause of civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), also a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, breaking news. The national media spells scandal without the ``D.''

Two weeks ago the Governor of Illinois was removed from office. All three television networks ran full reports on the story the same night and again the following morning. Not one report mentioned that he is a Democrat.

The same has been true of numerous other Democrats recently embroiled in scandal. CNN ignored the party affiliation of the Democratic Mayor of Baltimore as news broke that she had been indicted. The AP did the same while covering the indictment of the former Democratic Mayor of Detroit. And in the aftermath of his sex scandal, network newscasts apparently forgot that the former Governor of New York is a Democrat.

Americans need and deserve balanced reporting from the media, not selective omissions.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons. In my role as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, though, I want to point out a few immigration provisions that undermine personal responsibility and burden American taxpayers.

In 1996, Congress required that legal immigrants wait five years after coming to the United States before receiving welfare benefits.

It's only fair that American taxpayers not foot the medical bills of foreign nationals who arrive with a sponsor's pledge not to let them become a ``public charge.''

This bill, H.R. 2, changes current law and allows immigrants to get medical benefits at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

The five-year waiting period for immigrants to receive government benefits is the last line of defense for the U.S. taxpayer. It should not be repealed or altered.

Prior to 1996, the cost of welfare for immigrants had jumped to $8 billion a year. The number of noncitizens on Supplemental Security Income increased more than 600 percent between 1982 and 1995. Both of those numbers will be much higher if H.R. 2 is enacted.

At a time when government spending is out of control, and when states, cities and American citizens are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing we need is to change good policy and further burden U.S. taxpayers.

This legislation should be opposed.

Madam Speaker, some people look at the huge, so- called economic stimulus bill and think it's a Christmas present. But the Federal Government is not Santa Claus. Elves are not producing this money. This money isn't free, and the American people will get the bill.

The $1 trillion in spending and interest equals more than $9,000 for every taxpayer. And the unprecedented deficit will inevitably hike inflation and damage the economy.

Only $90 billion, or 12 percent of this spending spree, will stimulate the immediate creation of jobs which are needed now. Most of the spending doesn't occur for 2, 3 or 4 years.

It would be far more effective to provide tax incentives and investment credits to the small businesses of America that already create 70 percent of all the jobs.