Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am a former tax lawyer. My wife is a practicing CPA. We have heard this before: simplification is going to help. It has never put a single accountant out of business, and it won't do it now. It is another part of the big scam going on.

Why? Sure, I will probably get a tax break out of this; some of my constituents will. But what do we get in return? We don't get healthcare. We don't get better roads. We don't get better education. But we do provide a $5,000 to $10,000 debt for our children. We do tell our seniors: Too bad if you have a heart attack or cancer; no more medical deductions for you. We tell our current graduate students: Too bad, no deductions for you. And on and on and on.

And by the way, we have a new provision in here that I like to call the ``Dynasty Protection Act.'' Why? Because if you have a dynasty, if you are worth $30-, $40-, $50-, $100 million, your children get to keep it all. Not because they have done anything, but because they won the genetic lottery. Good for them.

And then if they do get up off their butt and get a job, maybe start a hedge fund with all the money they inherited, they get another tax credit by not touching the special tax deals--you have the hedge fund managers. And if they earn a little extra money, they get to keep more of it because there is no alternative minimum tax left.

I know that President Trump will particularly appreciate that provision because we all know--the only tax return we have seen--the AMT cost him $31 million. So thank you from the rich.

Now, I don't have any problem with people being wealthy. I represent many of them. They don't want this tax cut because they know it is bad for America.

Mr. Speaker, as a final insult, the corporate tax you have encourages businesses to send jobs offshore by not taxing profits made offshore when they expand jobs, if they do. They will do it offshore, not here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I don't even know if I need 2 minutes.

Look, this bill has some good things in it. Everybody admits that. It does. Like every bill I have ever voted on, there is some good, there is some bad. But this bill has more bad in it than good.

It has some good philosophy that I won't agree with the details. I agree we should do something about repetitive loss properties. I think everybody agrees with that, but not the draconian measures taken in this bill.

We all agree that we need to help make it a stable fiscal platform, but not what this bill does. That is the problem here. This is not a--I have seen worse bills. As a matter of fact, I have seen worse flood insurance bills, so this, I will have to admit, is an improvement over the last horrendous flood insurance bill. But it is not even close yet.

And the problem here, this is a missed opportunity. Flood insurance doesn't need to be partisan. It doesn't need to be based on philosophical purity. This is a necessity to many Americans, many middle class Americans, and there is no doubt, without winning or losing any votes at home, we could work this out if the majority wanted to. But you don't.

You don't want any Democratic votes. Apparently, you don't want all the Republican votes. Why? I don't know. Maybe lighting candles at the altar of certain philosophies.

When this bill--not if--when this bill fails in the Senate, you are going to find a lot of people over this side who continue to want to work with you to come up with a bill we can all embrace. I know that will happen, and I look forward to that day.

This bill isn't it, and everybody here knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the powerful words of L. Rafael Reif, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on DACA, ``Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.'' Mr. Reif notes MIT's commitment to intellectual excellence, merit, and national service in support of DACA. He is himself a proud naturalized citizen of the United States.

[From the Boston Globe, Aug. 31, 2017]

Trump Should Not Repeal DACA

(By L. Rafael Reif)

President Trump is reportedly considering a repeal of

``DACA,'' the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

The immediate pressure: a threat of legal action by a number

of states to end the program, which sets a Sept. 5 deadline

for the White House to act.

As the president of one of America's leading technical

universities--an institution built on intellectual

excellence, a meritocratic openness to talent, and a long

tradition of national service--I believe repealing DACA would

be a mistake. Repeal would be no more than a rejection of a

policy and of thousands of human beings. Repeal is not,

however, a solution for the country or for the young people

directly involved. I strongly urge the president and Congress

to find a path that better serves us all.

Created in 2012 by executive action, DACA addresses the

problem of young people brought to this country without

documentation when they were under 16, a group sometimes

known as Dreamers. DACA invites them to declare themselves

openly to the government. In return, provided that they meet

strict criteria, such as having earned a high school diploma,

being enrolled in higher education or engaged in the

military, and having committed no serious crime, DACA allows

them a Social Security number, a driver's license,

authorization to work--and perhaps above all, relief from the

fear of being deported. DACA is not a path to permanent

citizenship; it grants a temporary but renewable opportunity

for a normal life. And it applies only to the fixed pool of

those who were brought to the US as children before June

2007.

Repeal would run counter to our national interest in at

least two ways. First, it would remove productive workers

from our economy, while costing the US government tens of

billions in lost future tax revenues and the direct costs of

deportation. And because Dreamers are, by definition,

products of the US education system, driving them out would

be throwing away a tremendous national investment. We should

treat these

educated, English-speaking strivers not as a burden, but as a

resource.

Repeal also strikes me as a violation of deep American

principles. The plight of the Dreamers presents a profound

question of fairness. Often starting from harsh personal

circumstances, these young people have done what any American

family might dream of for their child: Study hard, aim high,

and earn a degree or a place in college or the military, on

the road to a productive career. They are undocumented

through no fault of their own. And when offered an

opportunity to come out of the shadows, they did--because

they trusted that our government would not punish them for

it.

Could we ask for more, from any American?

Yet, as we see at MIT and at campuses across the country,

the threat of DACA repeal is subjecting these young people to

brutal uncertainty. Now, because of decisions made for them

when they were children, they fear losing the opportunities

they earned, the communities they think of as home, and the

nation they love.

The surest way to provide the certainty these students

deserve is for Congress to pass legislation protecting these

Dreamers. As many polls have found, the vast majority of

Americans oppose repeal of DACA. And many members of

Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have proposed humane

and sensible legislative solutions.

So I ask, in this urgent moment, that we unite as Americans

in calling on Congress to bring a bill to the floor as soon

as possible--and calling on Trump to allow Congress the time

to get this right.

I came to this country 43 years ago. The US immigration

system worked well for me. It granted me a student visa and

eventually a green card. Years later, on a beautiful day that

I will never forget, I became an American citizen. I have the

particular patriotism of an immigrant, rooted in deep

gratitude and appreciation for a country founded on a dream

of fairness. I urge Trump and the Congress to find a sound,

stable legislative path to keep that promise if fairness for

the Dreamers, too.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Let us be honest. There are no legitimate consumer groups who support repealing this rule. The consumer groups are actually with the consumers, and they want this rule.

So let us be clear. This rule is being repealed for the biggest financial institutions in the country.

Let us be clear. I do not oppose arbitration as an option. I do oppose it as the only alternative allowed. Very simply, you go to a bank, they open up a bank account in your name, they steal your money, they move it over. If you catch them, you go to the bank, you file arbitration, they give you your $100 back and maybe a dollar's worth of interest, and it is over.

They don't tell you there is 2 million, 3 million, 5 million other people with the same situation who don't know about it. Because it is arbitration, no one talks about it. It is done in private.

I am not opposed to arbitration as a way to avoid court when possible. I am vehemently opposed to taking options away from consumers that say you cannot individually stand for your rights. That is what this bill does. That is all it does.

If you care about consumers, you would work with us to try to find a simpler way. You don't want to do it. You want to help the big boys. Good luck.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be outraged on this one.

About a month ago, the majority party took away the ability of people using the internet to keep their information private. You allowed every person on the internet, every company, to access everything about anybody who uses the internet. The country hated it. During that entire debate, you told America: We are out to protect you; we are protecting you.

No one believed it, and here we are again today. You are out to protect the consumers, with no consumer groups who agree with you. You are basically telling people: Trust us more than you trust yourselves; therefore, in order to do that, we will take away your right to protect yourself in a court of law.

No one buys it. No one buys it. Leave us alone. Let me defend myself. I don't need you to defend me. America wants to be left alone. Leave them alone.

Mr. Chairman, you know, I was going to talk about leveraged buyouts, and I was going to talk about CDOs and CDO squared and Volcker rules and all those other things, but the truth is that is not what this is about. It is not about the details of the bill. It is about the concept. It is about Main Street versus Wall Street.

Now, I am not opposed to Wall Street, but if you make me make a choice, I am with Main Street. And I know that the radicals are against this bill, the radicals like the VFW, and I will just read what they said.

If enacted, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 would put

those who have taken an oath to defend this country and our

way of life in financial harm's way.

In light of this and on behalf of the nearly 1.7 million members of the VFW and its auxiliary, I call on you to oppose H.R. 10.

The other radical group that opposes this bill is the AARP, representing 38 million Americans; and the Communications Workers of America, with 700,000 members; and the Brotherhood of Teamsters, representing, I think, 900,000; and, of course, the California Teachers Association, which represents 900,000 people, who also invest $202 billion in our country.

All that being said, I am shocked that I am sitting here thinking that the Dodd-Frank Act is some kind of a failure. Bottom line is we put an end to the Wild West of Wall Street and we are on to a nice, steady playing field. We should be able to adjust it, but we should not throw it out.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately release his tax return information to Congress and the American people.

Whereas, in the United States' system of checks and balances, Congress has responsibility to hold the executive branch of government to a fair and equal standard of transparency ensuring the public interest is placed first;

Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax return information to the public;

Whereas, tax returns provide an important baseline of reasonable information including whether the President paid taxes, ownership interests, charitable donations made, and whether tax deductions have been exploited;

Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns could help those investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election understand the President's financial ties to the Russian Federation and Russian citizens, including debts owed and whether he shares any partnership interests, equity interests, joint ventures or licensing agreements with Russia or Russians;

Whereas, the President recently fired Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, under whose leadership the FBI was investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election;

Whereas, President Trump reportedly stated to Russian officials during a White House meeting that he fired Director Comey to ease pressure on the ongoing investigation of Russia's influence in the 2016 election;

Whereas, Senate Russia investigators have requested information from the Treasury Department's criminal investigation division, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, which handles cases of money laundering, for information related to President Trump, his top officials and campaign aides. FinCEN has been investigating allegations of foreign money-laundering through purchases of U.S. real estate;

Whereas, the President's tax returns would show us whether he has foreign bank accounts and how much profit he receives from his ownership in myriad partnerships;

Whereas, Donald Trump Jr. said The Trump Organization saw money ``pouring in from Russia'' and that ``Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets'';

Whereas, Congress gave itself the authority to review an individual's tax returns to investigate and reveal possible conflicts of interest of executive branch officials involved dating back to the Teapot Dome scandal;

Whereas, it has been reported that federal prosecutors have issued grand jury subpoenas to associates of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn seeking business records as part of the ongoing probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 election;

Whereas, according to his 2016 candidate filing with the Federal Election Commission, the President has 564 financial positions in companies located in the United States and around the world;

Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the Office of Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership stake in his

businesses, and can still withdraw funds at any time from the trust of which he is the sole beneficiary;

Whereas, the Emoluments Clause was included in the U.S. Constitution for the express purpose of preventing federal officials from accepting any ``present, Emolument, Office, or Title . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign state'';

Whereas, the Chairmen of the Ways and Means Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation, and Senate Finance Committee have the authority to request the President's tax returns under section 6103 of the Tax Code;

Whereas, the Joint Committee on Taxation reviewed the tax returns of President Richard Nixon in 1974 and made the information public;

Whereas, the Ways and Means Committee used IRC 6103 authority in 2014 to make public the confidential tax information of 51 taxpayers;

Whereas, Director Comey has testified that tax returns are a common tool in investigations because they can show income and motives;

Whereas, the American people have the right to know whether or not their President is operating under conflicts of interest related to international affairs, tax reform, government contracts, or otherwise:

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives shall:

One, immediately request the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015 for review in closed executive session by the Committee on Ways and Means, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, and vote to report the information therein to the full House of Representatives;

Two, support transparency in government and the longstanding tradition of Presidents and Presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House that was previously noticed.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the privileges of the House as defined in rule IX, clause 1 are ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''

We all know what has been going on for the last couple of months. In light of the testimony that was just released today of former Director Comey and what he is scheduled to say, his written testimony tomorrow, if it is not clear by now that the Congress should continue its investigation--as we speak, we have several committees in this Congress investigating the Russian influence on our election and what its relationship is with the Trump administration.

Clearly and unequivocally, one of the questions that must be answered for the integrity of this investigation and, therefore, the integrity of the House, is whether the President himself had any undue influence in his actions.

Now, the answer may be ``no,'' and I personally hope that it is ``no.'' I have no personal reason to want to have the President do something wrong.

But, at the same time, we, the American people, have a right to know the answer that our President has not been subject to undue influence. And as a Member of Congress, we have a responsibility to our constituents to provide them those answers.

The investigations are ongoing. At some point, it is unquestioned that the President's tax returns will become relevant to what the FBI is doing. It is only a matter of time.

For the integrity of the House, for the dignity of the House, I believe firmly that we should exercise the law that the Congress put in place itself to do our own due diligent investigation and not just simply sit on our hands while others do our work for us.

These documents will become public, and when they do, regardless of what they show, I believe firmly it will reflect negatively on this House for not having done our duty, for having shirked our responsibilities. That is why I believe this is a privilege of the House. That is why I believe this House should take this action.

And again, I hope we find nothing. That would be good for America, certainly good for Mr. Trump, good for America. We have plenty of other things to argue about and debate. This shouldn't be one of them.

And if anybody can look me in the face and say that they believe this investigation is just going to go away, if they believe the investigators are not going to look at the President's financial records, they can't because anybody who has ever been involved in any type of an investigation knows it is inevitable. And since it is inevitable, why should we wait? Why should we wait?

I ran for office, taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and giving my constituents my promise of only one thing: I will do my job as best as I see fit. I won't shirk my responsibilities.

We have plenty of votes in this House that many of us, including me, would rather not take because they are uncomfortable, because we have to explain them to our constituents, because sometimes they are difficult and confusing. This is not one of them.

There aren't any Americans that don't believe they have a right to know that their President has not been subject to undue influence. That is all this does. It draws no conclusion from it, and it allows the majority party to call on it to make the determination; not me, but the majority party; the chair of the Ways and Means Committee.

That is why I offered this resolution. That is why I think this resolution is going to continue to be offered, and, at some point, the House is going to do it. I don't know why Members of the House want to drag this out and pretend that somehow you are going to be able to avoid it. You are not. It is going to happen.

With that, I would like to invite my friend, Mr. Pascrell, to say a few words. He has been the leader on this particular issue for months now.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Boston Conservatory at Berklee on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary. The Boston Conservatory, founded by violinist and composer Julius Eichberg in 1867, has a long and rich history of educating undergraduate and graduate students in music, dance and theater. The school has always set itself apart by the strength of its instructors and its distinctive, multidisciplinary structure. Indeed, the Conservatory has trained generations of talented performing artists. Today, the school's highly sought-after instructors are distinguished artists and leading practitioners in their fields, holding positions with the Boston Symphony and Boston Pops orchestras, the Boston Lyric Opera, Boston Ballet and a host of other prominent local and national companies.

Founder Julius Eichberg was a former Conservatoire of Geneva professor who immigrated to the United States from Germany, who founded the Boston Conservatory as a professional training academy and a community music school. It was one of the first conservatories to admit African-Americans and women, and featured in 1873 an opera performance by the first African-American opera company in the U.S., as well as the establishment of the first professional female string quartet in 1878. The Conservatory's commitment to equal opportunity continues through our times: the Conservatory earned the 2015 Commonwealth Award, Massachusetts' highest honor in arts, humanities and sciences in recognition of the school's music programs for students on the autism spectrum and with special needs.

The Boston Conservatory is the oldest performing arts conservatory of its kind in the United States. Its recent merger with the world renowned Berklee College of Music, which fosters unparalleled access to a broad range of academic and creative opportunities for students in both schools, is a final example of the forward looking, progressive approach that the Conservatory has always taken.

I thank the Boston Conservatory at Berklee's faculty, students, administration and alumni for their dedication, commitment and positive impact they have had on American performing arts. I also congratulate the school on 150 years of service and wish them well as they continue their fine traditions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have a simple question: What the heck are you thinking? What is in your mind? Why would you want to give out any of your personal information to a faceless corporation for the sole purchase of them selling it?

Give me one good reason why Comcast should know what my mother's medical problems are. Do you know how they would know? Because when I went to the doctor with her and they told me what it was, I had no clue what they were talking about, so I came home and I searched it on the net, and I searched the drugs that she was taking. The same with my children.

Just last week, I bought underwear on the internet. Why should you know what size I take, or the color, or any of that information?

These companies are not going broke. That is not the situation. The internet is not in jeopardy. This is plain and simple, and I don't get this.

When I was growing up, I thought one of the tenets of the Republican Party that I admired the most was privacy. It is mine, not yours, not the government's--mine. You can't have it unless I give it to you.

My phone number, my Social Security number, my credit card number, my passwords--everything is mine. Yet you just want to give it away. You make one good argument: let's level the playing field. You are right. I agree with you. But you don't level the playing field by getting rid of the playing field. You level it by raising it on those who are not subject to this rule.

Please give me one--not two--one good reason why all of these people here, why all of these people watching would want Comcast or Verizon to have information unless they give it to them. We are talking medical information. We are talking passwords. We are talking financial information. We are talking college applications. There is nothing in today's society that every one of us doesn't do every day on the internet, yet Comcast is going to get it--not because I said it is okay.

And what are you going to do with it? Kind of look at it and say: oh, yeah, hey, Mike takes a size 38 underwear. That is great. They are going to sell it to the underwear companies. Hey, he bought this kind of underwear. He likes this color. Let's give him ads. By the way, most of those ads are useless, because I already bought the underwear. I don't need any more.

But it is none of their information. It is none of their business. Go out in the street, please, leave Capitol Hill for 5 minutes. Go anywhere you want, find three people on the street who think it is okay, and you can explain to them ROIs, the company has to make progress, and we have to make money.

You will lose that argument every single time, as you should. And I guarantee you, you won't find anybody in your district who wants this bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that our cell phones are tracking every move we make and keeping a record of it. Many people don't know, but your automobile is also doing the same thing. They keep a record of where you go. They keep a record of whether you wore your seatbelt. They keep a record of whether you applied the brakes or turned the turn signal on. Okay. That is your automobile. You don't have to drive.

Just recently, in the last couple months, we have learned that our televisions and children's dolls are doing the same thing. Last month, it was revealed that Vizio had spied on 11 million consumers by listening to them while their TV was off because they can do it.

Also, last month, a child's doll called My Friend Cayla for little girls or boys was banned in Germany--banned in Germany--because that doll listens and responds. It goes into the internet, and the doll's owner keeps and sells that information.

This month--this month--a teddy bear manufactured by a company called CloudPets was exposed for collecting more than 2 million voice recordings of children talking to their teddy bear.

Now, maybe we accept that. I know that those are not the items that this resolution would address, but the problem is you are taking an item for ISPs and reducing it down to this level. You say your privacy is protected. I just gave you three examples in the last 2 months where your privacy is not protected. Neither is your children's. Neither is your family's.

In 2012, a giant international company--international ISP company, by the way--filed for a U.S. patent for a cable box that would sit in your house. It would watch you. It would record you. It contained an infrared sensor and even take your body temperature with a thermographic--and that is a quote--thermographic camera. It would do all this without telling you and would work whether the cable box was on or not. If you don't believe me, if you still have the courage to go on the internet, go find patent application number--now, write this one down--2012/0304206. That is the patent application number. It is still online.

I want to read you one small segment from that 25-page patent application. This is a direct quote. I am not making up a single word. The device ``may detect . . . that two users are cuddling on a couch during the presentation of the television program and prior to an advertisement break. Based on the detected . . . action . . . the device would select a commercial associated with cuddling.''

For example: ``a commercial for a romantic getaway vacation, a commercial for a contraceptive, a commercial for flowers . . . et cetera.''

I didn't make up a single word of what I just read, and every one of you is sitting there with your mouth open that this might happen in your world. That is what this resolution will allow, and you can't turn it off. You can't say: Don't watch my children. Don't watch my wife.

This is a terrible resolution. As I asked earlier today, what are you thinking?

Mr. Speaker, this week I missed Roll Call Number 168. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call No. 168--No.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest, guys: leveling the playing field, capital formation. Come on.

All this rule was written for is to expose bribery. There is no line in any corporate report that says: paid for bribery. It comes up as royalty fees. It comes up as gifts. It is bribery, pure and simple.

Every company in a foreign country is subject to it, especially a Third World country, especially when it comes to natural resources, and we all know it.

If you think this rule is overbroad, yet you are still truly appalled by bribery and the results of it, submit some other option for us to do it. That is all this rule was ever meant to do.

Give us an alternative, as opposed to simply repeal this. It is just like health care; you complain, complain, complain, but no alternative.

Honestly, if you put forth a proposal that says the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is now legal, it is okay to have bribery, but you have to report it, people like me might be open to it. I understand.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respectfully disagree. This, for all intents and purposes, prohibits them from doing it, number one.

Number two, you have an obligation. You have an obligation, if you don't like what exists, to propose an alternative. That is the way the world should work.

Every time we don't like something, we offer an alternative. You don't have to like the alternative, but there is an alternative offered.

MR. HUIZENGA. Will the gentleman yield?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the gentleman's intentions on this. I understand the concept of a level playing field. If the Chinese are bribing a Third World country, we should be able to compete with them. If that is the case, make our companies allowed to bribe them, as long as we know what is going on. Now, I don't know how you are going to write that law, but I am happy to work with you any time you want.

Here is the problem: bribery is insidious. It is secretive. It can't be found.

Now, I am a Catholic. I probably am not the best Catholic in the country. I think we could probably all agree to that.

Mr. Speaker, the basic tenets are pretty clear. Here is what they write, one line from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: `` . . . where governance is weak and corruption is rampant extractive, industry revenue that is not transparent becomes a curse that deepens poverty, destroys democratic institutions, defrauds elections and allows autocratic leaders to remain in power against the will of the people.''

If you really believe that people around this world should benefit by true and open democracy, you have to provide them the opportunities to do that. I happen to agree with the bishops.

If you want to allow our companies to bribe foreign governments, say it. I don't like it, but it is a reality of the world. They have been doing it for generations.

That is all this attempt was. And to simply repeal it says: It is open business day, guys. Go in, pass the cash around, stick it to the regular people, and don't tell them about it.

Mr. Speaker, this is my first 1-minute in 20 years-- first one--and I am here today to basically call out my colleagues who remained silent this weekend as Lady Liberty shed tears.

It is not about extreme vetting. No one has concerns about punching it up a little bit. This weekend we took people from around this world who are legally, legally, legally coming to our country, many of whom have been through every single vetting we can give them. We embarrassed ourselves and them in what we did this weekend.

Where is the terror threat from a 5-year-old child?

Where is the terror threat from a professor coming to MIT or a research scientist coming in?

There is none. Not one of the seven countries mentioned provided one single terrorist.

And for those people who say, I am here just to protect our country, I have been in Boston all of my life. The largest numbers of people came out from New York City and Boston. It was our people who lost their lives, yet we remain humanistic and openhearted.

Open your hearts to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, last week I missed several roll call votes due to weather. I wish to state how I would have voted had I been present:

Roll Call No. 46--No

Roll Call No. 47--Yes

Roll Call No. 48--Yes

Roll Call No. 49--Yes

Roll Call No. 50--No

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my words congratulating everybody for finally getting this done, but I also want to be real clear. I wish we could have done this a year ago, so we could have been working on things that we have some differences on that need to be done.

Where we are today on this bill could have easily been reached in a bipartisan manner with 400-plus Members voting for it over a year ago. I am only aware of two outside groups--both

think tanks, not in business, not in labor--that opposed this bill; yet we let them run the agenda here because people couldn't get off the dime.

For me, that is a huge mistake. We are here to make agreements, to make compromise, to get things done. For instance, we are sitting here today with Fannie and Freddie not resolved after all these years because we can't get off the dime of a few ideological disagreements that clearly are not going to be settled, the way they are going.

There is plenty of room for compromise, plenty of room to get together and talk about it and get something done for the American people and the American economy.

That is just one example. We have to get beyond the outside ideological groups telling us what we can and cannot do. Even if we agree with them, we have to understand we are elected to lead, to argue, and then to compromise.

We are here today, finally. Thank you. Let's not get bogged down any further in this new Congress. We will have our differences, and we will have some differences that cannot be resolved. This was never one of them. I think there is plenty of room on Fannie and Freddie. I think there are issues on insurance.

I think there are plenty of issues we can and should work on. We both have our outside groups to deal with. We both have to turn to them with loving attention and tell you: ``We love you, we agree with you, but I was elected to move the ball forward.''

That is what we are doing here today, and I congratulate those people that have finally done it, including the two people leading this bill, both the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, and other members of this committee that have worked on this for so long.

I can't honestly say that I am looking forward to doing this again in 6 years, but I hope that when we get there, we can do it a little bit more quickly than we did this time.