Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, my friend, Senator Richard T. Moore was honored recently at the commencement of the New England College of Optometry. I wanted to share his remarks, as his address justly paid tribute to the school, its faculty, and graduates for their commitment to public service.

A Vision for Health Care

President Chen, Chairman Manfredi, Vice Chairman Ferrucci

(my friend and personal Optometrist), Members of the Board of

Trustees, parents, alumni, friends, and most especially, my

fellow graduates of the Class of 2009 . . . I'm honored to

share in your celebration today and to receive a degree from

this prestigious institution with its well-deserved

reputation for improving access to care, enhancing the

quality of life by preventing blindness, and developing

innovative, economically viable models of eye care.

Visus per mentem, vision through the mind, has long been

the motto of this great College. It is a phrase that reflects

a sincere commitment to learn the skills and knowledge

necessary to serve others, as well as a deeply felt belief

that you can help people to see the world with more clarity

and purpose--to give in a way, the gift of sight--or at least

improved vision. Hopefully, your clinical experience working

at the New England Eye Institute and in community health

centers and school or elderly vision clinics, has kindled in

you to a desire to devote some portion of your time, treasure

and talent to bring quality eye care to the underserved of

our society.

Few, if any of you, in the Class of 2009 could have

attended New England College of Optometry for four or more

years without deriving from your studies, from your

outstanding instructors and most of all from your own inner

hearts some sense of inspiration and idealism as well as an

appreciation of your social responsibility as a newly-minted

health care professional.

Continue the Legacy of Community Service

Graduates of New England College of Optometry who preceded

you have blazed a trail of community service through vision

research and care that is almost legendary! They left an

inspiring legacy upon which you and your classmates can now

build. With your OD degree in hand, challenge yourselves to

follow in the footsteps of exemplary alumni such as Charlie

Mullen OD ``69 (who addressed you a few moments ago) and

Kenneth Myers OD ``74, who firmly established vision care as

a focus of the U.S. Veterans Administration. Their pioneering

work is, today, helping wounded veterans of the wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan to see beyond the trauma of war and return to

productive lives in our communities.

Then, there's Edward Goodnig OD ``76. He brought his

knowledge and skills to underserved regions expanding primary

care opportunities for Alaska's Native American settlements

and schools. You may also know of Frank Thorn OD ``79,

today's Commencement Marshal and an expert on the causes and

development of Myopia, who has shared his professional

knowledge and restless energy from this campus on the banks

of the Charles River to remote villages in the Amazon Rain

Forest and--in Marco Polo fashion--from Europe to China.

Their exciting and fulfilling careers, chronicled in the

College's 2008 Annual Report, offer a glimpse of the

potential that awaits you as today's graduates.

Such stories of successful graduates can teach, they can

offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot

supply the courage to follow your own path. For that each of

you must look into your own hearts. Accept your degrees today

with the same pride, enthusiasm, and commitment that launched

those pioneers of Optometry into rewarding lives of caring

service.

Continue to Learn and Share Knowledge

Never be too busy to keep from learning how to better serve

your patients. That includes sharing your real world

knowledge of your patients and the condition of their eyes

with those involved in academic research here at New England

College of Optometry and elsewhere. It also means staying

informed about the rapidly changing science of your

profession. Each of you, my fellow graduates, as our newest

health care professionals, have a responsibility to continue

your education by maintaining competency in vision care and

in the technology necessary to deliver the best quality of

care to all who seek better vision.

Whether your career takes you to remote regions of America

or the world, or takes you back to wherever you may call

``home,'' remember one of the basic concepts that you learned

here in the Back Bay, that eye care professionals are an

integral part of the team of primary care providers, and

deserve to be treated with the same degree of

professional respect as any other health care

professional! In this era of health care reform, each of

you will play an essential role in not only diagnosing and

treating conditions of the eye, but you will also serve as

part of the team of professional caregivers who assist and

support each other for the benefit of every patient.

Massachusetts as a Model for the Nation

For the past four years, as each of you have been immersed

in becoming competent, dedicated vision care professionals in

the classrooms at 424 Beacon Street, I've been learning the

lessons of health care reform about a mile away in the State

House meeting rooms at 24 Beacon Street. The grades are now

in, and the results are clearly informing the growing

national debate on health care. Massachusetts is leading the

way in health care reform! We are:

First in the nation in health care access.

First in electronic health records and e-prescribing.

In the forefront of patient safety, quality improvement,

and cost containment.

Leading the way in prescription drug ethics.

In just three years, 432,000 Massachusetts residents, who

were previously un-insured, have gained access to health care

and the many stories of lives saved or improved are truly

heart-warming.

Optometry's Contribution to Health Reform

One of the challenges facing Massachusetts and the Nation

in fully realizing the health improvement and cost savings

benefits of health care reform is the need to expand patient

access to primary care. It is just as important--and less

expensive--to keep people healthy, as well as to treat those

who are ill. We have made great progress in expanding access

to health insurance for the people of Massachusetts, but

there is still an unmet need for easy access to primary care

providers. I believe that optometrists, such as each of you,

are ready--even anxious--to help to fill some of that void.

To address this challenge, those who pay for health care

need to embrace new payment models that support wellness as

well as coordinating care for those who suffer from illness,

injury or less than good health. Any such wellness effort

needs to include regular screening--such as vision

screening--and be coordinated with health information

technology such as through a centralized vision care

registry.

Major stakeholders in health care reform obviously include

the physician community. The Massachusetts Medical Society,

the oldest, continuously operating state medical society in

the United States, is the primary voice of physicians in the

development of public policy. However, it sometimes seems to

me that the society's policy positions have evolved far more

slowly than the progress of science itself.

An old baseball player once said, ``I don't question the

integrity of an umpire, just his eyesight.'' Similarly, I

don't question the integrity of our state medical society,

just their vision! As fewer medical doctors enter the field

of primary care, the medical profession needs to embrace

other health professionals who, with appropriate training

such as that provided by the New England College of

Optometry, can do much to provide safe, cost-effective care

for patients needing attention.

It's high time for all Massachusetts physicians to rise

above the tradition-bound guild-mentality that confounds

health care progress, and respect the education and

experience of all health professions in treating the whole

person. It's time for Massachusetts to embrace treatment

regimens for optometrists that are already fully accepted in

49 other states, if we are to offer quality care that is

convenient and affordable for patients. You, the Class of

2009, must make your voices heard as that debate unfolds!

It was Robert Kennedy who once challenged an earlier

graduating class at another college--``to decide, as Goethe

put it, whether you will be a hammer--or an anvil. The

question is whether you are to be a hammer--whether you are

to give to the world in which you were reared and educated,

the broadest possible benefits of that education.'' So I

challenge you to get involved in writing the health care

policy of your generation--be a hammer!

A Vision for Health Care in America

You are graduating at a most exciting time in health care!

As you begin your professional careers in vision care, health

reform is about to take center stage in the national arena.

National health reform is likely to include minimum standards

for benefits, an individual insurance mandate, a guaranteed

issue requirement for health insurance, a prohibition on

excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions, the creation

of an insurance exchange where people can sign up for

coverage--all factors that are included in the Massachusetts

health reform effort.

If we view health reform through the lens of the ongoing

Massachusetts experiment, there are some fundamental

principles to anchor the national effort.

1. Each of us has an individual responsibility to take care

of our health--including screenings and check-ups, as well as

maintaining health insurance to help pay for our care and

that of our families.

2. Each of us has a collective responsibility, as citizens

of a caring society, to support public policies that

guarantee access to safe, high quality, affordable and

patient-centered health care for everyone in society.

3. Each of us, in the field of health care, has a

professional responsibility to strive for the highest level

of competency, to ensure that we, and our colleagues in the

patient care team, deliver the right care at the right time

and in the right place.

These principles can serve as a shining beacon for health

reform in the nation, much as this Commonwealth led the

nation in propagating the principles of democratic

government, social progress, and educational excellence

throughout its proud history.

Massachusetts'' first Governor, John Winthrop, wrote in

1630 about the social experiment being launched in this New

World. He called upon his Puritan brethren and all their

descendants to share their resources and gifts with others,

``rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together

so that--``the world will say of succeeding plantations, may

the Lord make it like that of New England . . . we shall be

as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.''

Sharing our gifts with others is the cornerstone of health

care reform in Massachusetts and, I hope, it will be your

personal cornerstone in your health care careers as well.

Truly, the eyes of all people in America are focused on the

Massachusetts health reform experience as a framework for

bringing expanded access to quality care to all Americans.

But that's not all we're contributing to health care. This

morning, Massachusetts is sending forth from this city upon a

hill, a new class of highly skilled, and energized health

care professionals with their degree in optometry in hand!

While past experience may teach us to be skeptical of the

promises of any politician, to those of you who will dedicate

your health care careers to the betterment of your state and

all her people--I can promise a lifetime of challenge and

opportunity, sometimes exciting and rewarding, sometimes slow

and difficult, but always, always worthwhile.

And let me add one final bit of parting wisdom: No one ever

injured his or her eyesight by looking on the bright side of

things! The economy will improve! You'll earn a good living!

And those of us in government can't wait to share in your

success every April 15th!

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, June 25, 2009, due to a medical situation involving a member of my family, I was not present for rollcall votes 453 through 460. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

``Aye'' on rollcall 453: The McGovern/Jones/Pingree Amendment; ``Aye'' on rollcall 454: The McGovern/Sestak/Bishop/Lewis Amendment; ``No'' on rollcall 455: The Franks/Cantor Amendment; ``No'' on rollcall 456: The Akin/Forbes Amendment; ``Aye'' on rollcall 457: The Holt Amendment; ``Aye'' on rollcall 458: The Connolly Amendment; ``No'' on rollcall 459: The Motion to Recommit on H.R. 2647; ``No'' on rollcall 460: Final Passage of H.R. 2647.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the courageous women of Darfur, refugees in the Farchana Camp in Chad, who issued their Farchana Manifesto one year ago this month. I honor also the efforts of Physicians for Human Rights who have worked to treat and comfort survivors of the Darfur genocide and support them in their struggles for human rights and personal dignity. No advocate, however, could speak more powerfully of their plight than the women themselves. The Manifesto has been translated into English and French from the hand-written Arabic original, posted in the Farchana Camp on June 10, 2008.

We, the women of Farchana Camp, have many concerns and

problems with the lack of freedom and having the opportunity

to speak about freedom.

We can assign these problems to a number of items,

including the following:

1. Lack of opportunity for freedom of speech, and no one to

listen to what women say.

2. Lack of freedom to go to work or engage in life's

activities. If a woman is working in some occupations,

responsibility is left to the woman alone in all cases, such

as: illness, home activities, and responsibility for

the children. While the man does what he wants with money,

the responsibility is left to the woman.

3. Lack of women's equality. One man, if he has the notion,

can have one wife or two or more wives.

4. Lack of freedom for women even with their own private

property; for example: money, gold, household pots and pans,

and livestock.

5. Women are not allowed to make contact with people

outside the community. For example: visiting neighbors,

family, and friends. And women are not allowed [illegible] to

travel far, and if he allows her, he does not give her money,

and he tells her, ``This trip is of your own accord.''

6. Lack of acceptance of higher education and universities

to enable women to get ahead.

7. Failure to encourage girls in the schools and leaving

the responsibility to the mothers.

8. Failure of fathers to take responsibility for girls. If

something happens, the mother is blamed, and they make her

hear harsh words from the family, and sometimes divorce even

takes place.

9. Outside chores, such as: [illegible], provisions,

construction, and feeding livestock--that is, all physical

demands--are the responsibility of the woman.

10. Failure to show confidence in women, such as leaving

the house without the man's knowledge and he tells her, ``You

went out to commit adultery.''

11. Failure to value the life of the woman. They only value

her in bed. They like a lot of births, but they do not like

raising sons and children.

12. Early marriage for girls and compulsory marriage

without consent.

13. In the case of meetings, women do not have the freedom

to speak at organizations; only men's statements are heard.

14. Women do not know how to submit their complaints--the

place and the organization that is concerned about them.

Thank you. We hope to achieve freedom for women in the

whole world.

More than sixty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the women of the Farchana Camp challenge us to realize its long-promulgated ideals.

Madam Speaker, due to the fact that I had to return to my district for family reasons, I was unable to take rollcall votes 308, 309, and 310. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 308; ``no'' on rollcall vote 309; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 310, in favor of final passage of H.R. 626, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 4, 2009, and Tuesday, May 5, 2009, I was unable to be in attendance and missed several rollcall votes as a result of an illness. I wish to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present: Rollcall No. 229--``yes''; Rollcall No. 230--``yes''; Rollcall No. 231--``yes''; Rollcall No. 232--``yes''; Rollcall No. 233--``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about some of the fiscal issues that have affected this country and how they were caused and maybe a little bit of who caused them and who didn't cause them.

Over the last several months, obviously there has been a lot of debate

about this and there have been a lot of people who want to point a lot of fingers at other people. And that is natural. We all tend to do some of that in our lives, and it is particularly natural here in Washington. People love to point fingers at somebody else when there are bad things going on, and people love to point fingers at themselves when there is something good that goes on.

In this particular case, with the financial crisis that we have, instead of stepping up and understanding that, I believe every single American, including me, has some degree of blame in the current fiscal situation. Everybody tried to get a piece of the American dream. Everybody tried to punch up whatever retirement plans they had. Everybody tried to get better rates on their loans. Everybody tried to get better rates on their credit cards. Everybody tried to get more mortgages than they could afford. Everybody tried to do it. And, of course, some people in business were there to try to provide those things.

So I think it is a little ludicrous to try to blame anyone in particular, or actually any group of people. I think it is all of us that have some degree of blame.

As I heard some of my colleagues just a few minutes ago try to blame Fannie and Freddie or try to blame individual Members of the House or individual Members of the Senate, I think that is ridiculous, and I actually have more faith in the average American than to think they would think any individual or any one group could do it.

In this particular case, let's go back just a little bit. What were Fannie and Freddie created for? They were created to help the middle class be able to purchase a home. That is why they were created. Because before their creation, home ownership was limited to only about 20 to 30 percent of Americans. About 60 to 70 percent of Americans were never able to afford a home because banks simply wouldn't make loans unless they were absolutely guaranteed of always getting their money back. They wouldn't take any risk whatsoever.

So Fannie and Freddie were created in order to stabilize home ownership that was on the border. They were also created, most importantly, to expand the availability of mortgages to working people. And it happened slowly, over time. This country went from a place where only 30 percent of Americans own homes, to now in today's world approximately 70 percent of Americans own their own homes. That is in contrast to most of Western Europe, where it is about 90 percent of people own their own homes.

I personally think, having been raised in a middle-class, lower- middle-class family, that home ownership is still the best way to guarantee entry and maintenance of a middle-class lifestyle, because it is the largest purchase any of us will ever make, most of us will ever make. It is the most important purchase.

In the normal course of events, over time, you build up equity in a home. And most of us have to remortgage it to send our kids to college. That is how most of us afforded to be able to send our kids to college.

All that being said, Fannie and Freddie and their concept of a government-sponsored enterprise have created over time an immense number of homeowners, an immense number of people who would not otherwise have had an opportunity to get a mortgage.

I have no doubt. I totally agree that over the last 10 or so years, like everybody else, they decided to stretch some of the definitions to do some things that maybe were questionable, not necessarily for any nefarious reasons, but for the same reason banks were doing it, for the same reason hedge funds were created, for the same reason private equity firms were created, to get a little bit better return.

Now, there were many of us at the time, now I'm talking back in 2005 and earlier, who said, you know, maybe they've gone too far; maybe they've expanded it just a little bit too much; maybe they have to be reined back in.

And back at that time, our friends, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, were in charge of the House, they were in charge of the Senate, and they were in charge of the White House. And we worked with them. We worked with Chairman Mike Oxley of the Financial Services Committee to try to come up with a bill that would address some of these very issues, and we did. We got a bill out of committee and on to the floor of this House in a bipartisan fashion that would have reined in some of the concerns that these people that have just talked have about Fannie and Freddie, and not just Fannie and Freddie. I don't want to pretend in any way that they were the only ones doing this, but they were also the ones that we were responsible for. It would have reined them in. And it was done in a responsible way, in a bipartisan way, with Chairman Oxley and at that time Ranking Member Barney Frank and the White House, the Bush White House, not the Obama White House, not the Clinton White House, but with the Bush White House.

When the bill got out here some of the more extreme Members wanted to shut down the whole thing, having no clue how most of their own constituents were able to afford a home, and they raised all their concerns, all the same ones you've heard tonight, that government should have nothing to do with mortgage rates. Well, that's ridiculous. That is ridiculous. And they just decided to kill it. This is back in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

And if you don't believe me, we have quotes here from Chairman Oxley himself, who was quoted as saying--now, this is after the fact. This is dated September 2008, talking about those times. And Chairman Oxley himself, this is a quote from the Financial Times, not necessarily the bastion of liberal thinking. He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. This is a quote: ``All the hand-wringing and bed wetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,'' he says.

What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute. When we tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, the right-wing members of the Republican Party decided to say ``no.'' They decided to let it ride.

Now, I understand what they were doing for political purposes. I don't understand, still don't to this day understand what they were trying do for financial purposes or government purposes. But ideologues around this place never understand that sometimes doing what's right for people is better than winning an ideological argument.

In this case, if we had simply done that one thing, according to, again, this is the Republican chairman of the Financial Services Committee at the time, when the House was run by Republicans, the Senate was run by them and they had the White House. This is a direct quote. ``We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now.'' That's his quote, not mine. I happen to agree with him, obviously.

We didn't take the opportunity. And what happened? A few years after that things got a little worse. Democrats finally took the House back.

What was one of the very first things we did? We passed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie. We passed a bill to reduce and restrict subprime loans as quickly as we could. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. This was 2007, after most of the problems had been caused.

Now, that doesn't mean, I won't pretend that myself and others don't have some degree of blame. I am happy to accept my degree.

What did I do? What did people who agreed with me do?

I was happy to push to allow more people to qualify for mortgages. I thought at that time, and I still believe, that that is a good goal. I will admit, knowing what we know now, maybe we pushed a little too hard for some people. I agree with that. I understand that. That doesn't mean when times get better, people like me won't push again, because I still believe that the best way into the middle class and the best way to stay in the middle class is home ownership. And I don't know anyone who disagrees with that, except people that are already in the higher income brackets, who they have theirs, and they're more than happy to pull up the ladder for the next people trying to make it to the middle class.

People want to rewrite history. I understand that. It's not new. It's an old political game. But facts are facts. When the government agencies had

overstepped some of their boundaries, we were there to try to help them, help get them back within those boundaries. We worked with Republicans. We got a good bipartisan bill out of committee, and then that bill fell into the hands of the Newt Gingriches and others of the world who just let their ideology control everything they do and everything they say.

And we didn't have the votes. As soon as we got the votes, we addressed the issues, and we are still addressing them now. Yes, we're trying to fix the mess that we inherited and we will continue to try to do so. But we're also trying to make sure, while we're doing that, that these things can't happen again. And we have done that already, to some degree. We have a few more things that we have to do.

As a matter of fact, today we spent a fair amount of time in Financial Services passing a bill that hopefully will be on the floor next week, or the week after, that will continue that process, to make sure that future mortgages, Number 1, are given to people who deserve it, Number 2, can be paid back, and yet, that balance to allow people to continue to access mortgages, to continue to build themselves up in the middle class, and to continue to be able to stay there.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield as much time as she might desire to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take two seconds and show this chart.

As you can see, this chart shows the number of subprime loans over a period from 1996 to 2005. Pretty obvious what happened. Within the first couple of years, subprime loans were reasonable, and a number of them given out. This entire time the House was controlled by the Republican Party, the entire time of this chart.

As you can see from this hashed section, that is when the White House was taken by the Republican Party. And you can see what happened to subprime loans, they skyrocketed. They skyrocketed. And they didn't stop until 2008--actually, they didn't stop. They started slowing down in 2008 and they stopped in 2009.

What happened in 2007 was the Democrats took over the House and they passed legislation to deal with this. That same legislation--or similar, I shouldn't say the same, but similar legislation was passed through the Financial Services Committee in the year 2005 that would have done the same things earlier. Now, it wouldn't have stopped the problems, but it would have lessened the problems. And this chart speaks for itself.

It is amazing to me that people can blame others when the ones on the receiving end of that did not control this House, did not control the Senate, did not control the administration, did not control any of the appointments to any of the regulatory agencies, yet somehow they can be blamed for a lack of action. That is unbelievable rewriting of history. And I just think the people who know the facts will draw their own conclusions.

With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado for as much time as he would like.

There are just a few things I want to say before I pass it off to the gentlelady from Wisconsin.

There are a couple of things that people have to understand; yes, Fannie and Freddie have some blame in it, like we all do, but they didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing as well. They didn't create credit default swaps. They didn't create excessive leverage. Yes, they did invest in them heavily. Why did they invest in them heavily? They did it because the rate of return was so high they couldn't walk away, because that higher rate of return allowed them to then put more money up for mortgages. They didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing.

So yes, we are talking about them tonight because they are government-sponsored entities, but a lot of this was created by people other than them, the private market.

There is one other thing I do want to say. The other thing I have heard an awful lot of is that somehow the CRA, Community Reinvestment Act, is somehow to blame for all of this.

The CRA was a law that was passed because banks were happy to take money out of poor and lower income neighborhoods without putting any of it back in. People were allowed to deposit their money, but they weren't allowed to get mortgages. Simple law says, if you take the money out of these communities, you have to put some of that money back in.

Nothing in the CRA says a single loan should be given that is inappropriate. Nothing in the CRA says a single loan should be done in an unsafe or in an unprofitable manner. That's not what it says. As a matter of fact, it says things just quite the opposite. It simply says, if you want to do business in a certain community, you have to then do business in that community. It's quite simple.

One little fact: In 2006, 84 percent of the high-cost loans were originated by non-CRA covered banks. I'll say it again to make the point. Eighty-four percent of the loans given that were high-cost loans--all of these loans that mostly get a lot of people in trouble-- were not given by banks covered by the CRA. How could they possibly then or how could that law possibly have caused this trouble if they were only giving out 16 percent of the troubled loans? No one else is to blame, just the ones that they don't like.

Absolutely.

I'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for as long as she might take.

It certainly is uncomfortable for a lot of us, and it certainly is real. I totally agree with everything the gentlewoman just said.

By the way, if it were a race item, in reality, wouldn't everyone losing their homes today be black? The answer is that it's not. It's across all lines. Blacks are losing their houses. Whites are losing their houses. Hispanics are losing their houses. Why? We've all been victimized. I want to be clear. I want to repeat again:

Fannie and Freddie didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing. I'm not saying they're not without blame. They are as I am and as, I think, everyone is. We all have some degree of blame. Okay. At the same time, what about those who were in charge at the time? I'll go back to the chart of subprime loans.

During that entire time that subprime loans were charging upward, this House was controlled by Republicans. The Senate was controlled by Republicans almost that entire time. Particularly when they went through the roof, that's when they took over the White House. Why? Why did it happen overnight? Nobody sat down and said, ``Let's do subprime loans.''

What happened is we got an administration at the White House that said, ``We don't need regulation. Let the market do whatever it wants. Let human greed go unregulated.'' Now, there's nothing wrong with human greed. We're all greedy. It's what drives a lot of us--we all want more--but unfettered greed, unregulated greed, unlimited greed always leads to disaster. It always does. We had an administration that believed the market could regulate itself, period. Now, the market can regulate itself to some degree, but when you say to the SEC, ``Do nothing. Look the other way on credit default swaps. Sit on your hands when anybody comes up with new instrumentations and when banks have special investment vehicles that are off the books,'' this is the result.

Congress has some blame. No question about it. Personally, I should have screamed louder. Now we have the votes. Those people with the votes should have done something.

I want to point to the chart behind the gentleman from Colorado again. During the time period when Republicans had control, they did nothing. Nothing. Since we took over--and I'll go through the litany later because I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota--we have taken action. With action sometimes--there's no question about it--the horse is out of the barn to some degree. You can only do so much when that has happened, but we have done what we could do when we could do it. We will continue doing it this week and again next week.

With that, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I would like to thank the gentleman.

I would like to just read one little fact. May 25, 2005, there was a vote in the Financial Services Committee of the House that was then under the control of Republicans. The chairman was Mike Oxley, who's been mentioned here a couple of times. I knew him. I served with him. He was a good man. He was a true conservative. But he was a good man. He fought for his ideals as we all fight for ours. And he, at that time, had control. He won a fair number of times, but he would talk to you openly, honestly, and didn't pull any punches.

Chairman Oxley at the head, Representative Frank as the ranking member of the minority party, May 25, 2005, H.R. 1461, a vote of 65-5. Every single Democrat and, obviously, most of the Republicans on that committee voted for a reform bill of Fannie and Freddie. That bill came out, went to the Rules Committee, and was changed. Dramatically changed. Why was it changed? Pure ideology.

The Republicans--as the Democrats do now--if the Democrats stick together, we can pretty much pass any bill we want out of Financial Services or any other committee. That's the way the House works. At the time, the Republicans were in the majority. They could have passed any bill they wanted without a single Democratic vote if they chose to do so. Chairman Oxley preferred to take an important issue and work hard to get bipartisan support. And he did.

My colleagues here all serve on the Financial Service Committee. You can't name me too many times we have a rollcall vote that we get a 65-5 vote on any issue of major importance today or almost ever. I have been on the committee 11 years now. It almost never happens. That is hard work. That is work that deserves credit. That is work that says it's a serious issue that should rise above ideology of either side. The bill wasn't perfect, in my opinion, but it was pretty good. And it was the best we could get at the time. We were in the minority. Understand that. Something is better than nothing.

So 65-5, the bill comes out and gets tossed aside by people that didn't know much about the issue, yet ran this House, because of ideological purposes. That tells you--I think it should tell you--there was an attempt to take action even in 2005. When that happens, you send the bill out, the committee has done its work, you think everything is going well, you think people are in agreement; and when the leadership of this House says, ``Forget about it. We're doing what we want to do on an ideological basis. We don't care about this bipartisanship,'' that tells you, don't even try this again. Don't waste your time. And there was nothing else that happened until Democrats took the House back, and we acted quickly. Representative Ellison just listed a whole bunch of those items, and as he said, we're doing more today.

Yes, I would.

I recognize the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, I am leaving in a few minutes, but I will come back.

I don't have the records in front of me, and that's fine.

And that's fine. But would the gentleman agree that the Democrats didn't run the House?

I totally agree.

It's nice to agree for a change.

Madam Speaker, I rise in sorrow and in solidarity with Armenians, with our fellow citizens of Armenian descent, and with all men and women of good will to recall the atrocities Armenians suffered in the early years of the last century. Contemporary accounts leave no doubt that indiscriminate massacres took place.

I understand that this topic evokes painful memories and raises difficult issues of national identity for persons of both Armenian and Turkish ancestry. Nonetheless, I believe that we must call genocide by its proper name and acknowledge it when it has occurred so that we may better learn to recognize and resist its horrors in the future. That includes recognizing the policies of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and its aftermath as genocidal.

International response to genocide has historically been inadequate at best, and we must do all we can to strengthen our resolve to prevent and punish such atrocities. Moreover, I believe that nations can move forward in fellowship when the past is confronted with honesty and courage. I hope to see the republics of Armenia and Turkey cooperate and jointly contribute to the stability of their troubled region.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to some of the things that have been said about Oversight and Government Reform. First of all, I want to make it very clear I think they do a great job. I think they've done a great job for years, even though, in my opinion, for a long time with the Bush administration there was virtually no oversight of any significant nature whatsoever, which is, I think, one of the reasons we are in some of the problems we're in now economically.

Be that as it may, people have to understand that, first of all, there is a limited amount of money. We are all trying to cut ends here and there. And in this particular case, this particular committee is still the second largest funded committee in Congress at almost, I think, $11 million or $12 million, if I remember correctly. And that is fine.

On top of that, the committee turned back several hundred thousand dollars last year for reasons that are up to them, I assume it is sufficiency, but it just says that the budget should be sufficient.

The most important thing that I want to comment on is the suggestion that somehow if this money isn't given, if the gun to our head is not answered appropriately, then oversight won't happen in this term. Well, that is patently ludicrous. And it is, because very simply the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, has specifically asked each and every one of the 20 standing committees to do more oversight on their own. Every one of those committees, to my knowledge, has submitted detailed plans on what they plan on doing this year. I myself am on three of those committees, and I can tell you from personal experience all of those committees are already doing more oversight this term than they have done in the past.

Now, I understand that if there was no other oversight going on, I would be up here advocating the exact same thing. But if you have got 20 other committees stepping up to the plate, doing more work--and I do disagree strongly that those committees somehow aren't capable of overseeing the administration, because that is effectively what we do. We are not overseeing Congress, that is what the Ethics Committee does, we are overseeing the administration. And to suggest that Members of Congress somehow can't read the laws that they are required to write and read and enforce, I find that a little bit insulting and a little bit difficult to believe.

Of course, the Financial Services Committee is the best committee to oversee financial services matters. They understand the issues. They ask the right questions. They know the right people to talk to.

I understand and accept and appreciate the fact that Oversight and Government Reform fills in the holes and does oversight of some of that oversight. I appreciate that, and I agree.

That is why they still have the second largest funding of all the committees; otherwise, we wouldn't need them at all. We could just get rid of them. I don't think we should. I think they have a valuable part to play.

I think the Speaker has an important and thoughtful and rightful approach to have everybody in Congress participate in oversight. I think that is the appropriate way to go.

This particular authorization bill recognizes that, accepts that, and suggests that not just a few Members of Congress can do oversight, but that every Member of Congress is responsible for some degree of oversight. That is why there will be over 200 additional hearings this year by various committees. Again, the committees I am on have already had some that have never had them before. I think the Speaker's approach is correct, and I think in the long run it will prove that every Member of Congress has a role to play, and every Member of Congress will participate, rightfully.

And, I believe that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, number one, will continue to do a good job, will continue to fill in the holes that the other committees can't do, do the broader oversight that they have been so good at; and, I think in the final analysis the taxpayers will get more bang for their dollar, and I think they will be better served.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, and to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences which has just honored Senator Kennedy with its ``Scholar-Patriot Award.''

Nearly 230 years ago in Cambridge, in what would become the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts, John Adams, James Bowdoin, John Hancock, and other ``scholar-patriots'' established the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

The Academy was created, during the American Revolution, to provide a forum for leaders from science, scholarship, business, public affairs, and the arts, to work together as citizens in support of a democratic republic. In the words of the Academy's charter, enacted in 1780, the ``end and design of the institution is . . . to cultivate every art and science which may tend to advance the interest, honor, dignity, and happiness of a free, independent, and virtuous people.''

Today, the Academy, still in Cambridge, flourishes as an independent policy research center. Its members remain true to the original mission, conducting multidisciplinary studies of complex and emerging problems. Current Academy research focuses on science and global security; social policy; the humanities and culture; and education.

On March 9, 2009, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences convened a meeting in Washington, D.C. on the topic of The Humanities in a Civil Society. As part of the program, the Academy announced the presentation of its Scholar-Patriot Award to the dean of our state's congressional delegation, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Throughout his career, Sen. Kennedy has been a stalwart champion of the humanities. I am proud to enter into the Congressional Record the citation from the Academy, and I congratulate my friend and colleague for this well-deserved recognition. ``The American Academy bestows its Scholar-Patriot Award on Edward M. Kennedy for his extraordinary service to the Academy, the community, and the nation.

``For four decades you have been a fierce defender of the ideals of opportunity, equity, and justice. Master of quiet collaboration and inspired oratory, you have achieved an unparalleled legislative record. Your efforts to insure quality education and health care for all Americans, including your leadership on the Americans with Disabilities Act, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, have earned you the respect of men and women across the political spectrum. From your first major bill on immigration reform to your recent call for a renewed commitment to community service, you have championed an open and inclusive society. To your family and the nation, you are a profile of courageous leadership, the guardian of a dream that lives on.

``The founding members of the American Academy were pragmatic visionaries, anticipating the needs of a young republic for both wise governance and fresh ideas. You follow in their footsteps as a Scholar- Patriot for our time. Asserting that ``our future does not belong to those who are content with today,'' you have fulfilled the Academy's historic mission, translating knowledge into action and celebrating the life of the mind in service to the community, the nation, and the world.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The CTSA program is a noteworthy initiative with the potential to enhance and invigorate our nation's clinical and translational research enterprise.

As the representative from the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I am especially pleased that the program makes significant efforts to create new clinical research homes in academic settings and, so, strengthen our nation's current and future research infrastructure. Furthermore, I am quite proud that Boston institutions; Boston University, Harvard University, and Tufts University are 3 of the 38 sites that currently comprise the growing CTSA network.

Over the past few years, roughly level funding for NIH has severely limited the size of the award that can be made to these and the other CTSA-recipient institutions. These funding challenges have had dire consequences for the program's implementation and have seriously impeded its very necessary expansion.

As an ardent supporter of NIH, I thank Chairman Obey on the increased NIH funding in both the FY09 Omnibus Appropriations bill and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Madam Speaker, I supported H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, because we need to create and preserve jobs. In the final analysis I believe that this bill offers enough stimulus to earn a ``Yes'' vote from me. There is no question that help is needed. Each day seems to bring more sobering news about layoffs and business closings. This bill will serve as a boost for job creation and for our overall economy. It is estimated that the legislation, once enacted, will create or save millions of American jobs. I also believe, however, that this legislation relies too heavily on tax cuts to stimulate the economy and a fair amount of the spending, though generally desirable, does not offer a truly stimulative aspect. Nevertheless, on balance I felt that it was better to accept an imperfect bill than wait for a perfect measure that may never materialize. We simply cannot wait much longer to provide as much relief as possible to the American public.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Committee on House Administration from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 27 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend and constituent, Jack Hamilton, who is retiring after almost three decades as Executive Director of CAAS, the Community Action Agency of Somerville. Jack is the man who made both ``community'' and ``action'' a reality in the day to day work of the agency. He fought poverty and discrimination every day of his adult life. He communicated a sense of urgency to his staff and inspired both colleagues and clients with his deep commitment to the dignity and well-being of every person.

Under his leadership an anti-poverty agency grew to offer services ranging from early childhood education and parenting support, to help for tenants, access to health care, and advocacy for the disabled. He was an active citizen, far beyond what would have been expected of him as CAAS Executive Director, and he encouraged others to become involved. He never shied away from personal involvement in electoral politics, for and against those candidates whom he saw as worthy, or unworthy, of support, but he never let petty political differences limit his effectiveness.

Jack worked with elected officials and with me when I served as Mayor, collegially and constructively, but he never withheld his criticism when he felt a rebuke was necessary. Above all, he was determined to work with anyone and everyone engaged in an important issue, to cooperate and to understand such honest differences as might arise. He is a man of compassion and integrity, capable of righteous indignation and generous anger. I am proud to be his friend and I am grateful for his service to the city we both love.

My colleague is easily impressed, but thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, we have to back up a little bit and remind ourselves what we are debating here. We are debating a bill that amends the TARP provisions. It doesn't grant $350 billion to anyone.

There is no money attached to this bill, and I actually agree with many of the comments that have been made about the past 350 and the potential soon to be $350 billion. I have the same concerns they do. I may fall on the different side of the issue because, for me, I voted for it, not because I loved it, but because to me it was the only way to save the economy.

I think some of it's working. I agree that I have the same concerns about the lack of reporting that has been done to us, that this administration has not told us how effective it has been. I agree with those concerns, but that's not what we are debating. The bill before us is an improvement on the bill that we passed, and those other concerns should be directed when we get that other bill, hopefully within the next few days, and I may actually join you when the time comes, don't know yet.

It depends on whether this bill gets passed. It depends on what the new incoming administration says about this bill that's currently before us.

But let's not forget how we had the last one. Many of us tried to add some of these provisions the last time. We were told by the current President that if those things were added he would not sign the bill. He would veto it and let the economy go down the tubes. We were told by some of our colleagues in the other body that they would not go along with it.

So we were stuck with the situation. You either save the economy or do nothing.

I actually respect those of us who did nothing. I wasn't sure that my vote was right. I am still not sure, as I stand here today. And anyone who is so certain that they know exactly how to fix this economy, well, good luck to you and God bless you, because you are much more certain than most Americans.

Most of us are doing the best we can with the knowledge that we have. I wish I could sit here today and say to you that the hearing we had a few weeks ago in Financial Services provided me all the information I needed to make a thoughtful judgment on whether the next 350 should go forward.

Instead, I was told we are not going to look at the individual institutions. We don't care what they do. That is an insane statement. No one can agree with that, yet that's what we were told.

I have some belief and some faith that the new administration will feel differently. I believe this bill sets forth clear or at least clearer definitions of what must be in the report, clearer definitions of how the money should be used.

I haven't heard one reason to vote against the bill that's before us. I have heard reasons to vote against potentially the next 350.

But let's focus on the bill that's in front of us. I would like to hear one reason why we shouldn't specify better reporting, that we shouldn't strengthen oversight, that we shouldn't clearly state that this Congress wants something to be done directly about mortgage foreclosures. I haven't heard that.