Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I want to thank Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin for not only working with me but also other members of my conference, the Republican Conference, on important issues related to eye and retinal health. I appreciate her recognizing today as the 40th anniversary of the National Eye Institute, H. Res. 366. Also I appreciate her dedication to people that are suffering with retinal and eye diseases; and these visions issues that we speak about today, as a result of our support and the support of the National Eye Institute, make a difference to thousands of people who have these eye diseases in their families.

I am very proud of this resolution. Last Congress we, meaning Ms. Baldwin and I, joined together in support of National Glaucoma Day, and today we're here to recognize the 40th anniversary of the National Eye Institute and to express support for the designation of 2010 through 2020 as the Decade of Vision.

The National Eye Institute, also known as NEI, was established by Congress in 1968 to protect and prolong the vision of the American people. NEI research leads to sight-saving treatments, reduces visual impairment and blindness, and improves the quality of life of people of all ages.

Vision research has been supported through the NEI by over 600 research grants and training awards made to scientists at more than 250 medical centers, hospitals, universities, and other institutions across the country and around the world. With congressional and public support, the national investment in vision research has yielded substantial dividends to treat many potentially blinding eye diseases and visual disorders.

Vision impairment and eye disease is a major public health problem for the world to face. As you have heard, vision-related costs here in the United States approach $68 billion annually. There are some 38 million people in the United States over the age of 40 currently experiencing blindness, low vision, or age-related eye disease. This

number is estimated to increase to 50 million people by 2020.

NEI benefits children born with eye diseases and vision loss, as well as older citizens and everyone else that fits in between. NEI actively works to predict, prevent, and preempt aging eye disease and visual impairment thereby enabling more productive lives and reducing vision costs.

The National Eye Institute is the world leader in basic research with the National Institutes of Health's Human Genome Project to translate discoveries of genes related to eye disease and vision impairment which compromises one-quarter of genes, discovered to date, into diagnostic and treatment modalities.

The NEI has been a leader in collaborative research with so many private funding entities such as the human gene therapy trial with the Foundation Fighting Blindness, or this lead organization known as FFB, for individuals with Leber congenital amaurosis, a rapid retinal degeneration that blinds infants in their first year of life. This trial has demonstrated measurable visual improvement even with initial safety trials.

I am a big supporter of the Foundation Fighting Blindness, and the work that they have done in the past continues to carry out in our daily lives. This resolution recognizes the 40 years of service from the National Eye Institute and commends them for their leadership while supporting their mission to prevent blindness and save and restore vision.

Additionally, this resolution designates 2010 through 2020 as the ``Decade of Vision'' to maintain awareness in the next decade of public health challenges associated with vision impairment and eye disease, as well as to emphasize the need for prevention and early detection, access to treatment, and rehabilitation.

Lastly, we commend the National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research for its efforts to expand awareness of the incidence and economic burden of eye diseases through this Decade of Vision initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of supporting not only this 40th anniversary but also to say that the United States Congress has what I believe is a realistic opportunity to work with the National Institutes of Health to make sure that we continue to push the envelope for people who are in this country and around the world who are counting on research and development to cure blindness during this Decade of Vision. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for her concentrated and special support of blindness issues. I look forward to working with her.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. My amendment would affirm the United States' complete support for Israel's absolute right to defend itself from an imminent military or nuclear threat from Iran, from terrorist organizations or from nations that harbor them.

Israel is currently being threatened on three fronts--by Hamas in the south, by Hezbollah in the north and by Iran. Iran provides financial and material support to both of these terrorist organizations. This threat culminated on May 20 when Iran successfully tested a surface-to- surface missile with a range of 1,500 miles. Iranian leaders continue to express their hatred for Israel, and they refuse to acknowledge its right to exist. Their incendiary words and actions are an existential threat to Israel and to the entire region.

No nation should be subjected to these continued threats. Israel has demonstrated tremendous restraint in the face of these dangers despite being continually questioned by some in the global community regarding its approach to dealing with these threats and terrorist attacks on its citizens.

Israel has been and remains one of the United States of America's strongest allies. Israel seeks only peace with its neighbors and a homeland secure for its people; but if an attack from Iran or from a terrorist organization becomes imminent, this Congress should declare that Israel, like the United States, should reserve for itself the inalienable right to defend itself and to protect its people.

I encourage my colleagues to demonstrate their strong support for Israel by supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, for his words of support.

In fact, this Member sees the need to make sure that not only the people of Israel but the people of our country understand it should be the express purpose and policy of the United States of America to yield to other nations--yes, those we call dear friends--to make sure that they are very clear in understanding our support for them. They should reserve the same right that we do to protect this country. Notwithstanding that, we've had a change of administrations. Notwithstanding that, we've had many, many, many people who are supportive of Israel come and speak to me, personally, about just the question as it might occur:

Where does the United States stand in its support of Israel?

Today is a great day. Today is the bill that's very appropriate to make sure that we understand that the United States' support of Israel is strong and that we stand behind Israel and that we understand that it is they, Mr. Chairman, who are just miles away from imminent threat through missile attack. I believe it is the right thing to do.

I appreciate the gentleman's feedback. I hope we vote for this. I hope it's accepted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Berman, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for speaking today.

Mr. Chairman, we live in a dangerous world, and there are some of our friends and allies who live in, perhaps, a more dangerous neighborhood than we do here in the United States. I believe that this amendment is one we should support because it makes sure, unequivocally, that the world understands where the United States of America is in our support of not only a friendly nation but of a democracy, one of the few democracies in the region.

United States policy in the United States and in this House of Representatives should be to support it openly and to make sure the world understands, not where, Oh, I thought we had done that, and I know that's what both of my colleagues are saying. I thought we were there; we don't really need to do this. We need to do it. We need to do it. It's the right thing to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I've heard a lot of arguments here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I'm not a psychologist, but I would tend to bet that probably more than the first 12 weeks of a child's life is very important to their development. I'm kind of surprised that we don't have evidence today that says that the first 13 or 14, 16 years of a child's life is really the most important point, and maybe we just ought to let Federal employees take 16 years off since that's the defining moment. There's just no reality with this about the first 12 weeks of a child's life. Let me tell you, it's about probably the first 14 or 15 years; and as a parent, I can tell you, I remember the first 12 weeks. I remember them very vividly for both of my boys. I'm sure that there is some bit about what my children understood about the bonding with me.

Let's just go straight to this. This is expensive. It's going to cost a lot of money, and it's for Federal employees at a time when this Federal Government needs to be more efficient, and the people of this country cannot afford it. We've done without it for this number of years, and I'm surprised that we're doing it today in the economic times that we have.

Today I will discuss my opposition to the structured rule, which limits debate and does not provide for the ``open and honest Congress'' my Democrat colleagues have always called for for the past 3\1/2\ years. I also rise in opposition to putting taxpayers further in debt, those people that don't work for the government, to pay for this new extension of benefits by expanding an already generous government paid leave.

The economy is in a recession. Hello. Hello. Wake up, Washington. We're in a recession, and somebody else is going to have to pay for this. Oh, I know. It's about the kids. I know it's about this bonding for the first 12 weeks. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Government spending is out of control, and individuals and retirees that have lost trillions in their savings and retirement are now going to have to pay another billion dollars for this plan. The government should be ensuring the future of the economy before taking on additional government benefits for those who have some of the greatest job security at the expense of the people who are paying for it, namely, the taxpayer.

I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule and to this legislation, which would provide more government benefits to bureaucrats with benefits already in excess of what most hardworking Americans in the private sector have. I guess we're supposed to sacrifice a little bit more to make sure

our government employees get more benefits.

Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, I return to my home every weekend in Dallas, Texas. I have only been in this body 13 years. I have never spent a weekend in Washington, D.C. I go home when the votes end to be with my family; and I, like every Member of this body, love my family. We understand the importance of family and how strong families are to our country. Additionally, I know how hard Federal employees work. I honor them for their work and their devotion to the people of this country and the devotion to their jobs, and they do deserve competitive compensation and a good benefits package. At the same time, I believe at this time this bill sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working Americans, the taxpayers and their families that they, themselves, are struggling to sacrifice to give a select few in this government additional new benefits.

In February of this year, my Democratic colleagues passed a $1.2 trillion economic stimulus package with absolutely no--zero--Republican support. This was their failed attempt to provide jobs to the struggling economy. The U.S. has eliminated 663,000 jobs in March alone, an additional 563,000 in April. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed has risen by 6 million people to 13.7 million, and the unemployment rate has grown from 3.9 to 9 percent. We should be thinking about how we're going to struggle to get people employed in this country, not give additional benefits to government workers.

One would think that this massive amount of spending that was done this year by my friends on the other side would ensure job growth, investment and economic output. Instead, the failed policies of the Democratic Party and of this administration have led to a budget deficit that already has been announced, it's not just $1 trillion, it has now grown to $1.8 trillion, about $89 billion more than was predicted in the President's budget. That is nearly four times the record set last year by my Democrat colleagues of this House. This has led even to the President's chief economic adviser, Dr. Christina Romer, while speaking on CNN to acknowledge that it is ``pretty realistic'' that there will be no job growth until 2010, and the U.S. will hit 9.5 percent rate of unemployment this year. Well, let's just be honest about it. The Democratic plans are that there would be 9 percent unemployment next year. That was the Democrats' blueprint, their plan that was in the budget. Nine percent, that's their best estimate, their guess. We're going to rise to 9 percent. Well, the question is not whether Congress should support families but whether it makes sense when so many Americans are already struggling with unemployment rates, increased taxes, thanks to our good friends in the Democrat majority, and an economic recession in the 3 years that the House and the Senate have been run by Democrat leadership, to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that government workers, in my opinion, have not even asked for it.

Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle often argue that Federal employees need greater benefits to be more competitive with private industry. There could be truth to that. But even the Office of Personnel Management has determined that Federal and private sector benefits compare favorably, and additional benefits would not help with retirement and retention. Additionally, this bill does not assist the older workforce facing retirement since it specifically deals with paid leave for having a child, adopting a child or taking care of a foster child.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit-in- search-of-a-problem will cost taxpayers $938 million over the next 5 years. Madam Speaker, at a time when average hardworking American families are already struggling and working many, many, many more hours and trying to find additional income through a job that they cannot find to pay their bills, I don't believe it's appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels by using taxpayer dollars to do it.

Since June of last year, the Federal Government workforce has grown by 37,000 employees while the private sector has shed more than 4.4 million jobs at the same time.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent trillions of the taxpayers' dollars over the past 6 months. Americans are faced with a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone from the Democrat majority in this administration. Their plan. Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point when it comes to subsidizing higher Federal spending at their expense. It is costing the free enterprise system jobs and the opportunity to get a job tomorrow because of the massive spending that is taking place by this Democrat majority.

Responsible American families are cutting back their costs. They are dealing with the job loss. They are doing the things to help their families and their friends, and they are looking at the destruction of their savings and retirement accounts.

I think it is simply wrong. It is wrong for the Democratic Party to move this bill. Rather than trying to create jobs, they are trying to get new benefits for Federal employees.

Madam Speaker, I will be honest. You are darn right that this is going to be a tough vote for Members of Congress. Are we going to pay attention to what is happening back home or are we just going to come up here and spend another $1 billion?

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have had two wonderful speakers on the majority side tell us--I think they were contradicting each other. One said it only costs $100 million a year. Another speaker said, oh, there is no cost. As a matter of fact, PAYGO says there is nothing to it.

Well, maybe the PAYGO rules of this House say that, but let me tell what you what the Congressional Budget Office says, their cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office says, 5 years, $938 million; $938 million. Almost $1 billion over 5 years. Now, that is real money. Oh, no, no, no. You got it wrong. We are already going to give them the money anyway, so it doesn't cost any more.

That is not reality, and that is not the way it works. The CBO is right, $938 million over 5 years. We had our President just 3 or 4 weeks ago say, after spending all these trillions of dollars, the President said, I'm going to ask my budget to cut a whopping $100 million from all their budgets across government; 100 million. Well, that is this bill just for 1 year, as the gentleman says, just 1 year. But the bottom line is it is $938 million over 5 years.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't try and explain to the American people that you are really trying to do something good for them but turn around and make it more difficult. I think our friends that are in the majority party don't understand that you just can't sneak up here to Washington and do this and get away with it back home. People are going to pay attention to this.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Clovis, California (Mr. Nunes).

I thank the gentleman for the inquiry. As a matter of fact, I do have at least one more speaker. I would anticipate that if you do not have any additional speakers, I will then offer my close and then we could allow you to do the same, and then we can move on through this rule.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for that opportunity to move forward on this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the cost estimate for H.R. 626 from the Congressional Budget Office.

H.R. 626--Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009

Summary: H.R. 626 would amend title 5 of the United States

Code, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Family

and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) by creating a new

category of leave under FMLA. This new category would provide

four weeks of paid leave to federal employees following the

birth, adoption, or fostering of a child. In addition, the

legislation permits the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

to increase the amount of paid leave provided to a total of

eight weeks based on the consideration of several factors

such as the cost to the federal government and enhanced

recruitment and retention of employees.

Under current law, federal employees who have completed at

least 12 months of service are entitled to up to 12 weeks of

leave without pay after the birth, adoption, or fostering of

a child. Upon return from FMLA leave, an employee must be

returned to the same position or to an ``equivalent position

with equivalent benefits, pay, status, and other terms and

conditions of employment.'' Employees may get paid during

that 12-week period by using any annual or sick leave that

they have accrued. The leave provided by this bill would be

available only within the 12-week FMLA leave period.

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 626 would cost $67

million in 2010 and a total of $938 million over the 2010-

2014 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds.

Enacting H.R. 626 would not affect direct spending or

receipts.

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or

tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary impact of H.R. 626 is shown in the following table.

The costs of this legislation would fall in all budget

functions (except functions 900 and 950).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a newsletter with information provided

by the National Federation of Independent Business, known as the NFIB. This letter provides information about strongly opposing this bill.

NFIB: FMLA Should Not Grant Paid Leave for Federal Employees

Washington, D.C., June 4, 2009--Susan Eckerly, senior vice

president, public policy for the National Federation of

Independent Business, the nation's leading small business

association, released the following statement asking the U.S.

House of Representatives to defeat the Federal Employees Paid

Parental Leave Act of 2009 (HR. 626).

``This legislation mandates an alarming expansion of the

Family and Medical Leave Act from an unpaid leave program

into one that would provide partial paid parental leave for

federal employees. By carving out four of the 12 weeks of

FMLA as paid parental leave, we are deeply concerned that

H.R. 626 sets a precedent for future discussions over

expansion of FMLA.

``In addition to creating a new paid leave component of

FMLA at a great cost to the taxpayers, the bill doesn't

require federal employees to first use accumulated vacation

or sick leave before taking the paid parental leave. Again,

this would set a bad precedent for the private sector.

Currently, if an employee has accrued paid time off, an

employer may require them to use some or all of their accrued

paid time for some or all of the FMLA leave.

``Small businesses are struggling to survive in our tough

economic times, and are very concerned that creating an

expensive, new paid leave benefit for federal employees will

eventually lead to new paid leave mandates on small business,

something that's neither practical nor affordable. We are

strongly urging the House to defeat this bill.''

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I did engage in an agreement with the gentleman from California. The gentleman has given concurrence. We had another speaker from the Republican Party who would choose to speak, and so, going back on my word, but with agreement, the gentleman is allowing me to extend 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia, not only for coming to the floor, but also the gentleman from California for allowing me to extend to an additional speaker. And I thank the gentleman very much.

Madam Speaker, we should have a different title to this bill. This bill should be the bill for what Congress needs to do to expend Federal benefits, benefits to Federal employees, while knowing that in April there were over 611,000 private sector jobs that were lost. That should be the name of the bill. This is what this Congress is going to do to respond to some almost 3 million jobs that have been lost, while this administration is in power. That's what this bill really should be known for.

This is the answer to 3 million job losses in the private sector. We're going to extend benefits, further benefits to the Federal Government.

Hey, I understand that because the Federal Government employment has risen about 100,000, and with, you know, car companies and banks and everything else, no telling how many Federal employees that we'll end up with at the end of this year. So maybe I was wrong. Maybe there is a strong demand out there for Federal Government employees who want additional benefits.

But we should remember that back home, where I'm from, and where a lot of people are from, 611,000 jobs disappeared in the month of April. And this is the response from our Democrat majority and our President: let's go spend more money, new benefits for Federal Government employees.

I get it. I think you will too, Madam Speaker, when we hear from people back home.

Madam Speaker, in closing I'd like to reiterate the horrible precedent that I think this legislation sets to those Americans who today that I just talked about, some 611,000 in April alone in the private sector who lost their jobs. Millions of Americans are jobless, and due to the out-of-control spending of this Democrat Congress, no analyst or White House official believes jobs will bounce back this year. None of them. Nobody.

As a matter of fact, the Democrat Party is on record and it's going to get worse next year and we're planning on it already. We already understand that. We ought to be saying that instead of extending benefits that it's going to cost another billion dollars.

Why are my friends on the other side afraid of risking more of the taxpayer dollars to provide Federal employees who already have the most job security and excellent benefits? Why are they afraid to back away and wait on this? Why are they pushing this? I wonder.

I wonder really who is more important and who they're hearing from, because evidently it's not people back home. Maybe it is the government workers that they're listening to. Maybe government workers are more important to this party than people back home. Maybe that's why this is happening.

Look, Republicans are providing quality solutions. We think we understand what the American people are going through. We understand what's happening with the taxing, the borrowing and the spending. Huge deficits and unemployment rates continue on and on and on.

I oppose this bill, and I hope that the American people understand that the taxpayer was heard today on the floor of the House of Representatives. They were heard by the speakers of the Republican Party who said we should not be extending benefits right now. We should not increase the spending and the cost of $1 billion over the next 5 years. We should understand what real people are going through.

I'm going to vote against this bill.

I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Jack E. Singley, former Superintendent of the Irving Independent School District (IISD).

Mr. Singley first joined Irving ISD as a math teacher at MacArthur High School in 1965. Over the past forty-four years, he has served in various roles from teacher to vice principal to personnel director to Superintendent. Upon taking the reins as Superintendent in 1988, Irving ISD has undergone tremendous change. Irving ISD added eight schools, enrollment grew from 21,887 to 33,233 students, over 30,000 students graduated from high schools, and employees increased from 2,309 to 4,177. He exhibited great leadership skills and carried out his vision to improve Irving ISD, helping students achieve their full potential. Aside from being one of the longest serving Superintendents in the State of Texas, Jack will be remembered for his commitment to public education and dedicated service to Irving ISD. He has touched countless lives and will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Singley for devoting his career to public education and expressing our heartfelt gratitude for his forty-four years of service to Irving ISD.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a teaching legend, Mr. Larry Cavitt and to celebrate his forty years of dedicated service at St. Mark's School of Texas. I am proud to represent St. Mark's in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas.

Mr. Cavitt first joined St. Mark's faculty on August 28, 1969 after receiving his M.A. from Southern Methodist University. In his current role, he serves as the 5th grade humanities teacher and senior class advisor. During his tenure at St. Mark's, he has also taught 7th, 8th, and 9th grade Social Studies, 8th grade Humanities, U.S. History, and Advanced Placement Law and Government. Outside of the classroom, members of the basketball and baseball team know him as ``coach.'' In his forty years of service, he has helped shaped young impressionable minds, providing them a firm educational foundation for success. He always encourages his students to chase their dreams and I know these young men have greatly benefitted from his teaching, wisdom, and insight. St. Mark's is a successful institution because of dedicated and caring teachers such as Mr. Cavitt.

I admire him for his passion for teaching and ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our gratitude for his continued service. I congratulate Mr. Cavitt on reaching his forty-year milestone and wish him all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and 114 years of dedicated service to our service men and women.

Founded on August 25, 1895, the War Department envisioned an exchange at every post where practical to bring our troops a taste of Americana. Since then AAFES has expanded to over 3,100 facilities worldwide. The growth and success of this exchange service is due in large part to the numerous employees, now totaling over 43,000 associates, dedicated to serving and supporting our service members and their families. For Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, over 450 associates annually volunteered for deployment, choosing to follow our troops wherever they may go and proudly upholding the AAFES motto of ``We go where you go!'' Their dedication, courage, and patriotism are commendable and resonate deeply within each of us, as we stand united in our support for our soldiers and AAFES.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating AAFES for 114 years of exemplary service and in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for their unwavering support of our armed forces.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Bill Kysor's 40 years of teaching at St. Mark's School of Texas. I am proud to represent St. Mark's in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas.

For forty years, Mr. Kysor has inspired young men and fostered their artistic capabilities and appreciation. During his tenure, Mr. Kysor has taught Middle School art and Upper School Art Elements, Painting, and Sculpture, but he is best known for his Ceramics class.

In addition to his work in the studio, Mr. Kysor has introduced scores of boys to the wonders of the outdoors during Middle School campouts and the annual Pecos Wilderness Trip. Playing his beloved drums, he co-sponsors the Blues Club. Mr. Kysor also has the distinction of being the only ``Honorary Member of the Science Department,'' an honor awarded to him as thanks for creating the ceramic Periodic Table of the Elements that graces the Cecil and Ida Green Science Building.

In 2006, Mr. Kysor escorted his student, Jason Sanford as he received a Presidential Scholar in the Arts award for his command of the art of ceramics.

Mr. Kysor was appointed to the St. Mark's faculty on August 28, 1969, after receiving his M.A. from Southern Methodist University. He is an icon at St. Mark's, and I admire him for continuing to teach even after reaching his forty-year milestone. I wish Mr. Kysor all the best.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. This closed rule does not call for the open and honest debate that has been promised time and time again by my Democrat colleagues. Today's action by my friends on the other side of the aisle is yet another example of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries into the private marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, today I will inform you of the parliamentary games that my Democratic colleagues are playing on this bill with a gun provision adopted by the Senate. We will discuss why Congress is pushing a bill that already exists in Federal statute, which not only limits credit and raises interest rates to responsible borrowers today. Small business will feel the impact also; and, finally, to review Congress' need to regulate every sector of the economy while they refuse to manage their own gross spending habits of the taxpayer dollar.

The Senate managed to add a provision in this legislation that would allow visitors of national parks and refuges to legally carry licensed firearms by a large bipartisan majority of 67-29. While this does not add power to the overregulated credit bill, it does provide an important legislative victory for Second Amendment rights. Yet my Democratic colleagues have separated the vote on this bill in two separate sections, one vote on the gun provision and one vote on the credit card bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why is this? Why is this that we take a piece of legislation from the Senate and because it is not liked by the Democratic leadership here, we separate that bill? Have my friends on the other side of the aisle split this vote to increase government regulation while voting against constitutional rights?

Not even 6 months ago, the Federal Reserve passed new credit card rules that would protect consumers and provide for more transparency and accountability in our credit market. These new regulations are set to take effect in July of 2010, an agreed-upon date to ensure the necessary time for banks and credit card companies to make the crucial adjustments to their business practices without adversely hurting consumers. With the growing Federal deficit, the current economic crisis and the growing number of unemployed, why is Congress now passing legislation that already exists in Federal statute?

This legislation allows for the Federal Government to micromanage the way the credit card and the banking industry does its business. If enacted into law, it is not credit card companies that will suffer. It will be everyone that has a credit card and, I might add, those who would like to have a credit card in the future. Every American will see an increase in their interest rates. And some of the current benefits that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear, for example, cash advances and over-the-limit protection.

My friends on the other side of the aisle not only remove any incentive for using credit cards responsibly, but they punish those who manage their credit responsibly to subsidize the irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats also want to limit the amount of credit available to middle and low-income individuals, the very Americans who need to take most advantage of credit. A Politico article written last Friday discusses that the changes in this bill ``will dramatically raise the costs of extending loans to cardholders and cause the riskiest cardholders to be dropped altogether.'' It goes on to mention how bad this bill is in regard to the current economic downturn and how restricted access to credit cards will make it increasingly harder to purchase the essential family staples while dealing with job layoffs and temporary unemployment.

Additionally, the strain of this legislation could have a direct and adverse impact on small business. Small businesses are critical to this economy in making sure that we have economic and job growth in this country. For individuals starting a small business, this legislation will increase their interest rates, reduce benefits and shrink the availability of credit, potentially limiting their options even to succeed in the marketplace.

Meredith Whitney, a prominent banking analyst, predicts, in a Wall Street Journal article from March, a $2.7 trillion decrease in credit will be available by the year 2010 out of the current $5 trillion credit line available in this country. That means it will almost be cut well in half. Mr. Speaker, with the current state of the economy, we urgently need to increase liquidity and lower the cost of credit to stimulate even more lending, not raise rates and reduce the availability of credit. This is not a solution for the ailing economy.

This type of government control of private markets is all about what our Democratic colleagues and this administration have been exploring. Whether it is federalizng our banks, credit markets, health care or energy, the list goes on and on. That said, this administration has taken their power grab a step further. Now they are considering a take- over of the financial industry. Converting preferred shares into common equity signals a dramatic shift towards a government strategy of long- term ownership and involvement in some of the Nation's largest banks.

Millions of Americans are rightfully outraged at the mismanagement of TARP and the reckless use of their tax dollars. And I believe that taxpayers are increasingly uneasy with the Federal Government's growing involvement in the financial markets. Bloomberg.com had an article yesterday which highlighted that three of our large banks have applied to repay $45 billion in TARP funds. That means they had to tell the government we would like to pay back the money, is that okay, largely due to these burdensome regulations that the Treasury Department continues to place on them. But just last week, Secretary Geithner announced that he is considering reusing bailout repayments for smaller banks. This is completely unacceptable, and why I have repeatedly called for a solid exit plan for American taxpayers to be repaid by these TARP dollars. TARP dollars were never set up to be used as a revolving fund for struggling banks.

To preempt de facto nationalization of our financial system, on February 3, 2009, the House Republican leadership, including myself, sent a letter to Secretary Geithner regarding what was called the ``range of options'' this administration was considering in managing the $700 billion of taxpayer moneys.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record a letter that was sent to Secretary Geithner at that time.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2009.

Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Geithner: Recent reports indicate that the

Administration is considering a ``range of options'' for

spending the second tranche of the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (TARP) released last week and that the Administration

is considering whether to ask the Congress for new and

additional TARP funds beyond the $700 billion already

provided. We are writing to raise serious questions about the

efficacy of the options being considered and to ask whether

the Administration is developing a strategy to exit the

bailout business.

Because the Administration has committed itself to

assisting the auto industry, satisfying commitments made by

the previous Administration, and devoting up to $100 billion

to mitigate mortgage foreclosures, it has been reported that

President Obama might need more than the $700 billion

authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

(``EESA'') to fund a ``bad bank'' to absorb hard-to-value

toxic assets. In light of these commitments--which come at a

time when the Federal Reserve is flooding the financial

system with trillions of dollars and the Congress is

finalizing a fiscal stimulus that is expected to cost

taxpayers more than $1.1 trillion--it is not surprising that

the American people are asking where it all ends, and whether

anyone in Washington is looking out for their wallets.

Indeed, a bipartisan majority of the House--171 Republicans

and 99 Democrats--recently expressed the same concerns,

voting to disapprove releasing the final $350 billion from

the TARP. As we noted in our December 2, 2008 letter to then-

Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, we realize that

changing conditions require agility in developing responses.

However. the seemingly ad hoc implementation of TARP has led

many to wonder if uncertainty is being added to markets at

precisely the time when they are desperately seeking a sense

of direction. It has also intensified widespread skepticism

about TARP among taxpayers, and prompted misgivings even

among some who originally greeted the demands for the

program's creation with an open mind. Accordingly, we request

answers to the following questions:

1. How does the Administration plan to maximize taxpayer

value and guarantee the most effective distribution of the

remaining $350 billion of TARP funds?

2. How is the Administration lending, assessing risk,

selecting institutions for assessing, and determining

expectations for repayment?

3. Will the Administration opt for a complex ``bad bank''

rescue plan? How can the ``bad bank'' efficiently price

assets and minimize taxpayer risk? Will financial

institutions be required to give substantial ownership stakes

to the Federal government to participate in the program?

4. Is a ``bad bank'' plan an intermediate step that leads

to nationalizing America's banks?

5. Can you elaborate on your plans for the use of an

insurance program for toxic assets? Specifically, will you

seek to price insurance programs to ensure that taxpayer

interests are protected? If so, how will you do so?

6. What is the exit strategy for the government's sweeping

involvement in the financial markets?

Thank you for your consideration of these important

questions.

Sincerely,

John Boehner; Mike Pence; Cathy McMorris Rodgers; Roy

Blunt; Eric Cantor; Thaddeus McCotter; Pete Sessions;

David Dreier; Kevin McCarthy; Spencer Bachus.

This letter outlined a host of questions that deal with ensuring that the taxpayers would be paid back and also having an exit strategy for the government's sweeping involvement in the financial markets. Today is May 20, and over 3 months later, there has been no response by Secretary Geithner to the Republican leadership letter.

A couple of weeks ago, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, published a report that reveals at least 20 criminal cases of fraud in the bailout program and determined that new action by President Obama's administration are ``greatly increasing taxpayer exposure to losses with no corresponding increase in potential profits.'' This is why you see the Republican leadership asking questions. This administration has not responded to our letter.

This administration is not above oversight and accountability. The American people deserve answers for their use of tax dollars and an exit strategy from taxpayer-funded bailouts, including how their investment in TARP will be returned. That is why I sent another letter to Secretary Geithner on April 23 of this year expressing grave concern to the recent reports of the Treasury moving taxpayer dollars into riskier investments in banks' capital structures.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Congressional Record a copy of this letter dated April 23 to Secretary Geithner.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2009.

Hon. Timothy Geithner,

Secretary, Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Geithner: I am greatly concerned by recent

news reports that the Administration is considering

converting the government's preferred stock in some of our

nation's largest banks--investments acquired through the TARP

program--into common equity shares in these publicly-held

companies.

As you are aware, these investments were originally made to

their recipients at fixed rates for a fixed period of time--

signaling that their intent was to provide these banks with

short-term capital for the purpose of improving our financial

system's overall position during a time of crisis. Converting

these shares into common equity, however, signals a drastic

shift away from the Administration's original purpose for

these investments to a new strategy of long-term ownership of

and involvement in these companies.

I am concerned that converting these preferred shares into

common equity would have two serious and negative effects.

First, it would bring the banks whose shares are converted

closer to de facto nationalization by creating the potential

for the government to play an increasingly activist role in

their day-to-day operations and management.

Second, I am concerned that moving these investments

further down the bank's capital structure into a riskier

position puts American taxpayer dollars at increased risk of

being lost in the event of a recipient's insolvency.

To date, no Administration official has provided the House

Republican Leadership wish any comprehensive answers to the

serious questions raised in our February 2, 2009 letter to

you about the Administration's exit strategy for the

government's growing involvement in the financial markets.

In absence of the Administration's response to that letter,

I would appreciate your prompt assurance that converting

these preferred shares to common equity--thereby taking these

companies closer to nationalization and putting taxpayers'

money at increased risk--is not a part of the

Administration's yet-to-be-articulated strategy on getting

out of the bailout business.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this

issue of critical importance to me, the residents of Texas'

32nd District and the entire taxpaying American public. If

you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel

free to have your staff contact my Chief of Staff Josh

Saltzman.

Sincerely,

Pete Sessions,

Member of Congress.

As this Democrat Congress continues to tax, borrow, and spend American's hard-earned tax dollars, we move even closer to nationalizing our banks and credit systems, which will only deepen our current economic struggle. The Federal Government's interference in hindering our progress is apparent, while they should be there to help solidify making our system stronger and better. When Congress or the administration changes the rules, it should be in the best interest of the American public. But I can honestly say that this is not the case today.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to consider new ways to protect consumer credit and consumers from unfair and deceptive practices and to ensure that Americans receive useful and complete disclosures about terms and conditions. But in doing so, we should make sure that we do nothing to make credit cards more expensive for those who need this credit or to cut off or hinder access to credit for small business with those less-than-perfect histories.

While reading the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago, I came across an op-ed called ``Political Credit Cards'' discussing this very issue. It states: ``Our politicians spend half their time berating banks for offering too much credit on too easy terms, and the other half berating banks for handing out too little credit at a high price. The backers should tell the President that they'll start doing more lending when Washington stops changing the rules.'' This speaks to exactly what happened with TARP, health care, welfare, taxes, and lots of other legislation, including that underlying legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better from their elected officials. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we spoke just a minute ago about how banks had accepted these TARP funds and accepted them because it was necessary at the time to ensure the financial success of the banking system. And yet now here we are a few months later and the banks have undergone their stress tests. The banks understand more about the risk that is out there. And yet even as companies like JPMorgan Chase want to refund $45 billion or give it back to the government, the government is balking at them doing that.

The reason why is, as this article in Bloomberg.com states, because the government has a methodology that they want to follow which would cause banks to be in a different position because--in other words, not run their business the way they want--because government wants to tell them what the rules and regulations would be. And it appears as though that that is what this Treasury Department wants to do, that they have delayed banks paying back the money so that they can then put rules and regulations industrywide on anyone that took this money.

Mr. Speaker, what should happen is we should have a Treasury Department that eagerly, gleefully wants to get back money that was given to them on behalf of the taxpayer. And instead what happens is we have a Treasury Department that is delaying this. It is making it, I believe, more difficult, all under the guise, then, of trying to make sure that they get what they want, and that is exacting more rules and regulations on these banks.

I think that the Treasury Department should respond back to our letter. They should tell us what the exit strategy is, how people should pay back the money, and let the free enterprise system go about its job of creating not only a better economy, but also creating an opportunity to raise stock prices and employment in this country by doing their job in the free enterprise system.

I will include this article from Bloomberg.com as part of our testimony today.

Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Goldman Said To Apply To Repay TARP

(By Christine Harper and Elizabeth Hester)

May 19 (Bloomberg)--Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan

Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley applied to refund a combined

$45 billion of government funds, people familiar with the

matter said, a step that would mark the biggest reimbursement

to taxpayers since the program began in October.

The three New York-based banks need approval from the

Federal Reserve, their primary supervisor, to return the

money, according to the people, who requested anonymity

because the application process isn't public. Spokesmen for

the three banks declined to comment, as did Calvin Mitchell,

a spokesman for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

If approved, the refunds would be the most substantial

since Congress established the $700 billion Troubled Asset

Relief Program last year to quell the turmoil that followed

the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Banks want to

return the money to escape restrictions on compensation and

hiring that were imposed on TARP recipients in February.

``It really is a way for them to break from the herd,''

said Peter Sorrentino, a senior portfolio manager at

Huntington Asset Advisors in Cincinnati, which holds Goldman

Sachs and JPMorgan shares among the $13.8 billion it

oversees. ``It's a great way to attract customers, personnel,

capital.''

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on April 21 that

he would welcome firms returning TARP funds as long as their

regulators sign off. He added that regulators will consider

whether banks have enough capital to keep lending and whether

the financial system as a whole can supply the credit needed

to ensure an economic recovery.

Geithner's ``Broad Constraints''

One of the people familiar with the efforts by the banks to

repay TARP said he anticipates that the government would

prefer to issue industrywide compensation guidelines before

allowing any major banks to repay TARP money.

Geithner said yesterday that he would like to establish

``some broad constraints'' on compensation incentives in the

financial industry instead of setting limits on pay. A law

that went into effect in February sets a cap on the bonuses

that can be paid to the highest-paid 25 employees at banks

that have more than $500 million of TARP funds. Banks are

awaiting guidance from the Treasury on how to implement the

rules, such as how to determine which people to count in the

top 25.

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley were among nine

banks that were persuaded in mid-October by then-Treasury

Secretary Henry Paulson to accept the first $125 billion of

capital injections from the TARP program to help restore

stability to the financial markets.

Stress-Test Results

The refunds would be the first by the biggest banks that

participated in the program. As of May 15, 14 of the smaller

banks that received capital under the program had already

repaid it, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The 19 biggest banks were waiting for the conclusion

earlier this month of so-called stress tests to determine

whether they would require additional capital to withstand a

further deterioration of the economy.

Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, the fifth- and second-biggest

U.S. banks by assets, were found not to need any more money.

Morgan Stanley, the sixth-biggest bank, raised $4.57 billion

by selling stock this month, exceeding the $1.8 billion in

additional capital the regulators said the bank may require.

``Wrong Time''

While executives at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan have

expressed a desire to repay their TARP money for months,

Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Mack

told employees on March 30 that he thought it was ``the wrong

time'' to repay the money.

Morgan Stanley, which reported a first-quarter loss, also

slashed its quarterly dividend 81 percent to 5 cents. On May

8, when the company sold stock, it also sold $4 billion of

debt that didn't carry a government guarantee. Selling non-

guaranteed debt is a prerequisite for repaying TARP money.

The banks will also have to decide whether to try to buy

back the warrants that the government received as part of the

TARP investments. The warrants, which could convert into

stock if not repurchased, would add to the cost of repayment.

JPMorgan, which has $25 billion of TARP money, would need

to pay about $1.13 billion to buy back the warrants,

according to a May 14 estimate by David Trone, an analyst at

Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller. Morgan Stanley's

warrants would cost $770 million and Goldman Sachs's would

cost $685 million, Trone estimated, using the Black-Scholes

option-pricing model.

Bank Shares

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley shares have climbed since

Oct. 10, the last trading day before the banks were summoned

to a meeting by Paulson and informed of the government's

plans to purchase preferred stock in them. Goldman Sachs,

whose stock closed today at $143.15 in New York Stock

Exchange composite trading, is up 61 percent. Morgan Stanley,

which closed today at $28.28, has almost tripled from $9.68.

JPMorgan shares, by contrast, are 11 percent lower at

today's $37.26 closing price than they were on Oct. 10, when

they closed at $41.64.

Banks could open themselves up to lawsuits if they repay

the money too quickly and end up needing to ask the

government for help in the future, James D. Wareham, a

partner in the litigation department at Paul

Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP said last week.

CNBC on-air editor Charlie Gasparino reported on May 15

that Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan believe they have been given

permission to exit the TARP. He reported yesterday that

Morgan Stanley is seeking preliminary assurances that it can

exit the program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman letting me know that she has no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we spoke about earlier was the letters that the Republican leadership has sent to Secretary Geithner asking questions about Treasury's plans now about not only the use of TARP funds, how they will be paid back, what that process is, and finally, the exit strategy from the TARP program.

The Republican leadership in this House sent a letter to Secretary Geithner months ago. We have not heard anything back, certainly not in writing. So we have looked across the news media for releases that came from the Secretary, and among other things, we have seen things that disturb us greatly. One of those is that the Secretary has openly talked about the wanting to have this Federal Government change the investment that was made in these banks from, in essence, one type of instrument to another. In this case, it was from preferred stock to common stock.

In other words, since they put the money in the system, in the banks, and they cut a deal about what they would do, they now want to change the rules of the game. I believe that is not only unhealthy, I think it would absolutely be against the spirit of the law that we passed about the intent.

What happens when you do this is now the Federal Government would then become a common shareholder, meaning that the government would be investing in the stock market. The government would become a partner in that effort, meaning that the government, as such a large player, could determine the stock price up and down. I think that is a bad deal. I think that's a bad deal not just for the free enterprise system, but I think that's a bad deal for this government. It puts them into a position where the government helps control the stock market and the stock price.

We've asked Secretary Geithner what he thinks about that. Secretary Geithner has not responded except to say that that is reserved as an option. And now on May 13, we see that Secretary Geithner announces that the bailout repayments will be reused for smaller banks. That means that the money that was lent as part of the TARP program, when the money comes back in, Secretary Geithner is now going to reallocate that to smaller banks.

It should be noted that what happened is a number of these banks have already received the money. But the TARP program, by the way it was set up, it said that when the money comes back in, it will go back into general funds. In other words, it was taken out of general funds. It was expected that it would be paid back plus interest and would come back to us.

Despite what Secretary Geithner says, there are some Members of this body who are very clear about what they think about that. And as this ABC News, off their Web site, dated May 13 article said, Despite the warm welcome Geithner's announcement received from the assembled bankers, some Capitol Hill lawmakers are none too happy with the plan to repay taxpayer money back out to smaller banks.

And it talks about Representative Brad Sherman, who is a Member of this body and a Democrat from California, ``blasted Geithner on the House floor today, citing part of the original TARP bill--Section 106D--that he said meant that these plans were `illegal.'

``It is being widely accepted in the press and on Wall Street and in Washington that whatever the Secretary gets back from the banks will instead be part of some revolving fund from which the Secretary of the Treasury may make additional bailouts in addition to the first $700 billion of expenditures.''

It says, ``Sherman went on, `Well, the statute is very clear to the contrary, whatever is returned to the Treasury,' '' it is returned to the Treasury. It goes into the general fund.

Mr. Speaker, what we're talking about is the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority and the responsibility to manage these funds. I do recognize that as these funds were given, there was a change of administration. I believe, and I think this Congress believes, that Secretary Geithner was a part of that transition. But now that the Secretary has been in office and he has assembled his team, it's time that the Secretary be very plain and write back at least those people who are writing letters, including the Republican leadership, asking what the plan is.

Seeing press releases as they come out one at a time as the Secretary chooses to do this is not a plan. We're after a thoughtful idea and process now that we've been through the stress test about how the American taxpayer can be paid back. And I think the $700 billion plus interest is what needs to come back to the Treasury and go into the general fund.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Roswell, Georgia, Dr. Price.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I thank the gentleman for not only coming to the floor but for his thoughtful ideas.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I'd like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, in reality, they're going to limit credit, reduce benefits, and raise interest rates for every single consumer, whether they were a good consumer or a risky consumer.

I think the American taxpayer, really, the American public, including small businessmen and -women, really deserve the same accountability and transparency with their dollars to be used in a way that they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation have a real problem, and we need real solutions, and passing this legislation today when we already have a statute that will take place is simply a waste of time.

We need to protect jobs. We need to provide more jobs. We need to encourage economic growth. And we need to restore the American public's faith in their Members of Congress.

And I believe today you have heard very succinctly the Republican Party come down and talk about how this bill is a big overreach that will impact and cause problems to a system rather than making it better.

With that, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this closed rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. This structured rule does not call for the open, honest debate that has been promised by my Democrat colleagues time and time again; yet here we are again discussing the mortgage reform bill for the second day.

It is essential to provide for more transparency and accountability in the lending process, but there is also a laundry list of important issues that face this Congress. And all this week we will have but one bill on the floor of the House of Representatives to debate. I think that's unfair to the American taxpayer when there is much work to be done.

Today not only will we be discussing the flawed underlying legislation, which is already addressed in Federal statute, as we spoke about yesterday being on the floor, that Federal Reserve has already issued the rules and regulations as a result of feedback from industry last year, but what we are here to do is to try to redo that to put the majority's mark on that legislation, which already takes care of the problem.

But this legislation that we're going to handle again today limits choice, reduces credit, and increases costs to consumers and taxpayers at a time when the effort should be about making home mortgages more reliable, least cost conscious, and making sure that consumers would be able to have an opportunity to have a chance to have a home. But what we are going to do is, by allowing a patchwork of State laws to confuse the system, we are going to now create qualified mortgages which require lenders to hold 5 percent credit and creates a $140 million slush fund for trial lawyers. So what we are going to do is limit choice, reduce credit, and increase costs, and make sure now there is a slush fund for trial lawyers to sue the same companies that we were trying to encourage

to lend to the marketplace so people could have money.

Madam Speaker, you will also hear about the amendments that our Democrat majority has made in order and failed to make in order today, no matter how substantive those amendments were.

We have heard the number of amendments that were made in order. My good friend knows that there were about 20 Democrat amendments that were put into the manager's amendment. So the 8-5 ratio is a little bit deceptive. It should be 8 plus 20, it's 28 versus 5 Republican amendments.

I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee last night, and both were struck down on party line vote--I guess that's no surprise. One was to limit trial lawyers access to taxpayer funds, and one was to ensure organizations like ACORN or any organization that receives money from the Federal Government, are more transparent and accountable with any government funds they receive.

At the end of 2007, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve undertook careful review of the abuses in the mortgage process system, and they took public comments, held public hearings across the country. And after careful deliberations, they finalized new comprehensive mortgage rules. These rules are going to take effect 5 months from now in October.

So not only are we spending all of 1 week on one piece of legislation, but the necessary regulations already exist in Federal statutes, and companies all across this country are already aiming at implementing those rules and regulations being ready for October.

This legislation fails to address the uneven patchwork of state mortgage lending laws and leaves lenders and consumers with unfair and confusing laws where the costs will ultimately be borne by customers. While this legislation attempts to establish is a new class of loans called qualified mortgages which will enjoy safe harbor and exemption from further restrictions in this bill, this will ultimately limit consumer choice on mortgages and unduly burden the mortgage industry, essentially excluding numerous safe and affordable mortgage products that serve and have been good to borrowers as well.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats are here today to say that they are on the side of the consumer and the borrower, even if it limits choices and raises interest rates for every single consumer that chooses to use this avenue to buy a home. Mr. Michael Menzies, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers Association, in committee hearings on April 23, 2009, stated, ``Lots of this legislation simply increases our cost of doing business rather than helping us do a better job with our customers.''

Another regulation that will narrow choice, lessen credit and increase costs for borrowers and taxpayers is the lender risk retention provisions requiring lenders to retain at least 5 percent of the credit risk presented by all loans that are not deemed qualified mortgage. While I do believe that it is important to have some ownership in your investments, these far-reaching requirements would make it impossible for many lenders to operate, especially small and local lenders.

With the current economic crisis and all the efforts to inject capital into the financial services sector, why would we want to limit the use of capital and threaten to further impair banks' abilities to lend? Madam Speaker, this is not a solution for the ailing economy.

In addition, this legislation directs HUD to establish a brand-new $140 million slush fund for legal organizations to provide a full range of foreclosure-related services. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle actually take these steps simply to fund trial lawyers in this legislation.

If this doesn't force a flood of litigation, I really don't know what will. And Margot Saunders of the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer-advocate organization, said on April 23, 2009, in the Financial Services hearing, ``We have tried to propose repeatedly that you draft a simple bill that creates market-based incentives for enforcement rather than litigation opportunities,'' and I might say, which is full in this bill.

In other words, what we are doing is looking for paying lawyers to come and do what we should do here in this body with thoughtful, honest, straightforward legislation, which is why I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee last night, that of course was defeated on a party-line vote.

Madam Speaker, I include the amendment in the Record.

Amendment to H.R. 1728, as Reported Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

After section 220 insert the following new section:

Madam Speaker, we began this debate and discussion yesterday where we were trying to talk about the impact of this bill and what feedback would come as a result of hearings that Chairman Frank did have, and one of them, one of the outcomes of that, was a letter dated May 5, 2009. The letter comes from the Mortgage Bankers Association, one of the primary impacting organizations and, certainly, they are there in communities to serve on behalf of the American people for people's housing needs.

Madam Speaker, I would submit for the Record a letter that was sent to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner about their feedback about this legislation.

Mortgage Bankers Association,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

Madam Speaker, at this hearing that was held about this bill, a lot of feedback was provided by the marketplace--people who were impacted the most; people who every day are in front of lenders and trying to get people in homes.

Part of the feedback was provided from the American Bankers Association. I'd like to insert into the Record a letter related to that meeting and this legislation.

American Bankers Association,

Washington, DC May 6, 2009.

To: Members of the House of Representatives.

From: Floyd E. Stoner, Executive Vice President, Government

Relations and Public Policy.

Re: H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending

Act of 2009.

I am writing on behalf of the members of the American

Bankers Association regarding H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform

and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009, which the House of

Representatives is scheduled to consider beginning on

Wednesday, May 6, 2009.

H.R. 1728 is far-reaching legislation designed to prevent a

recurrence of the problems in the subprime market that have

harmed many American homebuyers. We appreciate that this

legislation seeks to address the source of most of these

problems, the loosely regulated and largely unexamined

mortgage originators operating outside of the regulatory

structure within which federally insured depository

institutions function.

However, we are concerned that this major legislation can

have a negative impact on both insured depository

institutions and credit-worthy borrowers seeking to buy

homes--impacts which have the potential to impair economic

recovery. In considering any new legislation, it is critical

to recognize the significant regulatory and structural

changes that are already underway in the mortgage industry

that will provide much greater protections to consumers. It

is essential to recognize that the further changes proposed

in H.R. 1728 will be cumulative to the changes already being

implemented under revisions to Truth in Lending Act, Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and Home Mortgage

Disclosure Act regulations.

We have worked with the Financial Services Committee and

are pleased that a number of concerns were addressed either

prior to, or during, Committee consideration of the

legislation.

While we greatly appreciate the comprehensive, inclusive

consultation that has gone into the drafting process so far,

and the desire to avoid unduly restricting credit, we remain

concerned that the bill still, in our view, needs serious

work.

We plan to work with the Congress as the legislation moves

forward to clarify additional areas of concern. To that end,

we offer the following comments.

Safe harbor: The legislation creates a category of

``qualified mortgages'' which are given a safe harbor from

the expanded liability of the legislation. ``Qualified

mortgages'' are also exempt from certain other key

restrictions in the bill, including the risk retention

requirements. While the very narrow safe harbor included in

the original bill has been expanded beyond just 30 year fixed

rate loans, we are concerned that it is still far too narrow.

An amendment adopted during Committee consideration of the

bill expanded the safe harbor to include fixed rate loans of

terms other than 30 years, as well as some adjustable rate

mortgages. However, the language on adjustable rate mortgages

(ARMs) remains too restrictive. To qualify for the safe

harbor, ARMs would have to be underwritten to the maximum

rate possible during the first seven years of the loan.

Consider the example of a five year ARM with the initial

rate set at 5 percent and with caps on increases in later

years set at 2 percent per year. Under the pending bill, this

loan would have to be underwritten at a rate of 9 percent

(because in the seventh year of the loan the rate could--but

by no means is likely--to go to 9 percent for that year). In

this instance, even though the borrower could not pay more

than 5 percent for the first five years of the loan, and not

more than 7 percent in the sixth year, they would have to be

able to afford the loan at 9 percent for all seven years in

order to qualify. This will shut the door to affordability to

many borrowers. We strongly recommend that this provision be

altered to reflect a more realistic underwriting standard.

Similarly, we are concerned that to be included in the safe

harbor, loan points and fees must be limited to not more than

2 percent of the loan amount. The bill should be clarified to

ensure that bona fide discount points paid by a borrower to

reduce the interest rate on a loan are not included in this

calculation. The relevant threshold in this instance should

be the annualized percentage rate (APR) as currently defined

in regulation implemented pursuant to the Truth in Lending

Act. We also believe that the 2 percent cap should not be

statutory, but instead should be determined by the federal

bank regulators to accommodate small dollar loans which may

carry fixed fees taking the loan beyond a 2 percent cap. The

bank regulators are better suited to determining the

appropriate cap on fees paid in association with different

loan products.

Risk retention: We are pleased that the bill was modified

during Committee consideration to provide the bank regulatory

agencies with the authority to exempt loans (beyond those

exempted under the safe harbor) from the 5 percent credit

risk retention provisions of the bill. While this expanded

regulatory discretion is a step in the right direction, we

remain firm in our conviction that federally regulated and

examined insured depository institutions should be exempt

from risk retention requirements. Insured depositories

already have significant risk retention--and the capital to

back that risk. Loans sold by insured depositories into the

secondary market frequently include recourse agreements, so

that if there is an underwriting or other error or omission,

the depository can be forced to buy the loan back. Again,

because insured depositories have strong capital positions,

they can and do buy back recourse loans. The same cannot be

said of other lenders who lack capital. For these lenders,

greater risk retention is needed. For insured depositories,

it is not. We recommend excluding insured depositories from

the risk retention provisions of the bill.

Uniform national standards: We are gravely concerned with

the enforcement provisions of the bill, especially in light

of an amendment adopted in Committee which would grant state

attorneys general enforcement authority over the Truth in

Lending Act provisions added by the bill. The current

language of the bill will lead to conflicting enforcement

actions between state attorneys general and federal banking

regulators. It will cause confusion to consumers and lenders

alike and will generally undermine the regulatory framework

for mortgage lending in the nation. A confusing enforcement

scheme is likely to harm borrowers and provide the

unscrupulous with new opportunities. At a minimum, we urge

you to adopt clarifying provisions which would give the

federal banking regulators notice of a state attorney

general's intention to act, and allow the federal regulator a

reasonable time to act before the state is allowed to do so.

Such a framework is needed to bring order and clarity to the

process.

We anticipate a number of amendments during floor

consideration. As a general rule, we oppose amendments which

would increase regulatory burden on banks and their

employees, and support amendments which recognize the role

that regulated, insured, and examined institutions play in

protecting consumers' interests and in providing products and

services which benefit our national marketplace.

We appreciate the working relationship that has been

established between the Members of the Committee and all

interested parties, and we shall continue working with

Members of Congress as this legislation moves through the

legislative process.

This letter goes to all Members of the House of Representatives. So each of my colleagues openly received a copy of this. It is from Floyd Stoner, executive vice president with the American Bankers Association.

Here is what their conclusions are after seeing the legislation. They are ``concerned that this major legislation can have a negative impact on both insured depository institutions and creditworthy borrowers seeking to buy homes--impacts which have the potential to impair our economic recovery.''

So what the American Bankers are saying is that the answer, the antidote, the medicine that now-Speaker Pelosi is coming up with will actually have the potential to impair economic recovery.

So every single Member of Congress got this letter. We will find out today what their views are. But the American

Bankers Association also said, and pretty much ends their letter by saying: ``The bill still, in our view, needs serious work.''

We should reject this bill. We should understand that the people who are engaged in trying to make sure people have loans and are worried about our economy are saying it not only has the potential to impair economic recovery, but the bill needs serious work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman coming down and talking about how Republicans are to blame for all this mess, but I'd like to harken back to September 25, 2003, at a hearing that was held back in the Financial Services Committee.

Our current chairman, Barney Frank, who's a very thoughtful and diligent chairman, thoughtful on the ideas of the entire industry, said, ``I don't think we face a crisis.'' This is 2003. ``I don't think we face a crisis. I don't think that we have an impending disaster. We have a chance to improve regulation of two entities I think that, on the whole, are working well.''

So perhaps the most thoughtful person in the country, certainly in this Congress, back on September, 25, 2003, is saying, ``I don't think we face a crisis, and I don't think we have an impending disaster.''

Further, he said, ``I don't see any financial crisis. You can always make things better, but I do think we should dispel the notion that we are here today because something rotten has gone on.'' That was Barney Frank. That was Barney Frank at the hearings.

So the gentleman wants to blame Republicans. And yet, here we had the lead, very thoughtful and articulate, Democratic ranking member, arguing that there was nothing wrong and nothing was about to happen. Yet, today, what we have is another answer: Oh, I'm sorry. We forgot to say, and we know that the Fed has already taken care of this problem with rules and regulations that are already known and will be in place in October.

Here we have now legislation to re-address that issue. And the answer that comes back from the marketplace is, This legislation limits choice, reduces credit, and increases cost to consumers and taxpayers.

I would have assumed that if there was nothing wrong in 2003, and now we corrected it with a series of hearings, including the Federal Reserve, that we would want to help the marketplace--not limit its ability, its choices, and put exposure to taxpayers. That's why we're opposed to this.

We're opposed to it not because we're trying to stop it, but because we're trying to make it better. We think what should have been made better has already been done by the Fed. This Congress knows it.

Every single Member of Congress got a letter to their office directly from the American Bankers Association saying serious flaws in this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman. By the way, the gentleman and I are friends. We are speaking about policy here, disagreements.

I would say to the speakers that have come on the Democratic side today, it sounds like an argument they are having within their own party. Everybody is trying to blame the Republican party and George Bush for what happened; yet, if the gentleman didn't like 2003, I will go to the end of 2004, December 16, 2004, if we need to get more current. And I will quote the gentleman, the chairman of the committee:

``The SEC's finding that Fannie Mae used incorrect accounting is serious and disturbing. While these improper decisions by Fannie Mae do not threaten the financial soundness of the corporation, and should have been used by anyone in an effort to cut back on Fannie Mae's housing efforts, they do not reveal troubling deficiencies in its corporate governance.''

All of these signals that came to Members of Congress from people who were on the committee, including one of the most distinguished members of the committee, said: We don't have a problem. There is no soundness problem. There is no weakness problem. I don't see a financial crisis. Sure, we can always do things better, but I think we should dispel the notion that we are here today because there is something that is rotten that has gone on.

Well, why are we trying to extend blame? Why don't we just talk about the problem that we are in today? And if we are going to do that, my notion would be that what we should do is listen to the people who are in the banking business saying this is a problem. This bill has serious flaws.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Egan, Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Madam Speaker, I am really down to no speakers and just my closing statement. So I would encourage my friends to go ahead and utilize their time, and then I will close as appropriate.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from California and each of the Members from his side who have participated today, including the gentleman, Mr. Frank. I would like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers and have said that people want to delay this legislation, that is not true. It has already taken place. Whatever we need, the Federal Reserve has already done.

What we will say is that what this legislation is doing is benefiting trial lawyers with tax dollars. And perhaps more importantly, it is causing this circumstance to be aggravated and to be worsened.

We already understand there will be less credit that will be available. This will raise the costs of loans and mortgages that people will want to receive. At a time, especially, when the economy needs help, this will harm the economy. And that is directly what the American Bankers Association has said in a letter to every single Member of Congress. So I hope every single Member should hear this. They need to be talking to their staff, ``hey, did that letter come in on this legislation that we are handling today?'' And that letter says, ``serious flaws, serious flaws, bigger problem.''

We need to be providing for jobs. We need to be encouraging economic growth. We need to encourage investment. And this legislation does not accomplish that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee I offered two amendments to this legislation. My first amendment asked for the courts to limit fees for attorneys filing lawsuits created by this legislation to reasonable levels to ensure that real victims of predatory lending, not trial lawyers, are fairly compensated for wrongdoing.

Unsurprisingly, this amendment was rejected by the committee Democrats on a party-line vote of 9-4. In rejecting this amendment, my Democrat colleagues chose to put trial lawyer fees over victims' compensation in cases where homeowners have been defrauded.

My second amendment would require that ACORN meet the same transparency and reporting requirements that Democrats demanded from any financial institutions receiving TARP funds. My amendment would have ensured accountability and transparency for any taxpayer funds distributed as a result of this legislation. I will repeat that: my amendment would have ensured accountability and transparency for any taxpayer funds distributed as a result of this legislation, just like TARP funding that we have already passed in this body. But, once again, my colleagues in the Rules Committee decided to vote against this and in favor of special interests, and the amendment failed.

Madam Speaker, the main component of this amendment really was not received because it singled out ACORN as a group. And I note that it has a well-documented history of deceit and fraud, which, just again this week, ACORN has been accused in 26 counts of breaking the law in the State of Nevada, and today, seven more counts brought against them by a Democratic prosecutor in Pennsylvania.

So to answer this criticism, I am offering this motion to recommit to extend transparency and good government provisions from my original amendment to any group that is receiving government grants for legal or housing counseling.

I would yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman doing that, for him accepting this, in the spirit of what you have done. I appreciate that because it lives up to the gentleman's word of accepting. It is my hope that by what I am going to do now, it will ensure it will be in the final bill. Madam Speaker, I will ask for a recorded vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman.

As I rise today, before I begin my formal statements, I would like to acknowledge that the gentleman, Mr. Frank, the chairman of the committee, has come to the floor, and I want to personally thank the gentleman for engaging with me and perhaps other members of the Republican Party on working on this bill. I want to personally thank the chairman for that engagement and believe that it will result in the opportunity for Republicans to have a better say on the bill that will be before the House today, and I want to personally thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I do rise today, however, in opposition to H.R. 1728, which is the majority's misled attempt to bring stability back into the mortgage market. As the American people will soon see, many provisions of the bill are a destructive force to both the lending industry and, in turn, the American homebuyer.

First, the new Federal Reserve regulations already exist and are about to be implemented in October of this year, which means that this work on predatory lending has already taken place.

Second, this bill establishes a new group of qualified mortgages, which limits consumer choice of mortgages and unduly burdens the mortgage industry.

Third, it establishes new credit risk retention rules, which dramatically limit the successful functioning of the secondary market, especially small, nonbank lenders.

And, fourth, it authorizes a $140 million slush fund for legal defense funds.

Last July, the Federal Reserve issued new regulations under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act which implemented many provisions of the predatory lending legislation of Congress last year. As part of this implementation, new Federal rules have been developed which address predatory practices and products, bringing an end to a variety of issues which have haunted the subprime market, such as poor underwriting standards. These rules already are set to take effect in October of this year.

My colleagues from both sides of the aisle understand that these new regulations will soon be in effect, and certainly cleaning up the lending industry is important. Even Chairman Frank has previous knowledge, and I quote, that ``the Federal Reserve has adopted regulations so that the predatory and deceptive lending practices that led to the subprime crisis will be prohibited,'' already done.

But rather than allowing the Fed's carefully constructed regulations to take effect, this new majority has decided to draft their own mortgage reform bill with their own unique twist. Unfortunately, this twist includes new and untested mandates and duties, that even if they can be implemented, they may end up punishing the very consumers that this majority party is trying to protect.

My question is simple: Why is Congress meddling with regulations that will soon yield significant and expected benefits in combating mortgage fraud, eliminating the bad actors of the industry, and providing greater protection to the consumer?

While this legislation attempts to correct past excesses in the mortgage market by establishing new standards for mortgage origination, and imposing greater legal liability on the secondary market, this bill, in fact, injects legal uncertainty into the lending process, thereby raising the cost and reducing the availability of mortgage credit to consumers. Allowing a slush fund for people to sue is a prime example of what we are talking about. I would like to say this is an unintended consequence. I think it's an intended consequence.

One of the primary provisions which contribute to the higher cost and reduced availability of loans is the misconstrued establishment of a new class of loans called qualified mortgages. Any loans deemed as qualified mortgages are, in theory, protected under the bill's limited safe harbor and are exempt from the new lending risk retention requirements.

All other nonqualified mortgages are excluded from this safe harbor and siphoned into the category of subprime mortgages. In turn, any lender can be sued for selling nonqualified mortgages.

The kicker, however, is that H.R. 1728 makes all real safe harbor mortgages rebuttable, meaning that borrowers can sue any creditor for any mortgage.

Under the terms of this bill, no mortgages are protected by safe harbor laws and all lenders can be sued. That is going to have a direct and devastating consequence on the marketplace.

When the bill was introduced in Congress, the last Congress, the bill appropriately filtered most mortgages into three types of loans. For the sake of explanation, let's call them green, yellow and red mortgages.

Green light mortgages are good, traditional, protected mortgages. Yellow light mortgages are potentially hazardous mortgages. In this case, the consumer has the right to sue for loss in the case of predatory lending, while the lender maintains the right to a fair defense.

Lastly, red mortgages are simply mortgages presumed bad and the law allows the consumer to sue for any loss.

Unfortunately, according to this year's version of the bill, the law will only allow for green and red light mortgages, and, most importantly, neither of them will have a real safe harbor because borrowers can sue any creditor for any mortgage. Regardless of how safe and affordable and how well an alternative mortgage may have served the borrower, lenders will begin making fewer and more expensive loans out of fear of being sued.

At the end of the day, what is the purpose of this mortgage reform? A

government-mandated mortgage structure enforced by the very taxes paid by the American homeowner, or providing for consumer choice of loans which best suits the needs of responsible homebuyers with the assurance of meaningful customer protection? I think we can see what we are going to get.

Madam Speaker, I have a concern also with the new ``credit risk retention'' requirements. This provision will force any loan originator to hold 5 percent of any mortgage that does not fit the bill's narrow safe harbor, what is known as the ``qualified mortgage.'' The ``credit risk retention,'' as it is referred to, requirement is a far-reaching requirement that leaves my colleagues and me confused as to how certain groups, such as smaller lenders, will even survive.

The fact stands that many smaller nonbank lenders do not have the same reliable sources of funding as depository institutions. These lenders would be unable to compete, let alone to operate, at a competitive level. They simply cannot compete. Additionally, this provision will necessitate that larger lenders increase their capital. This is the wrong approach during a time when the government is concerned that lenders are insufficiently capitalized; moreover, during a time in which the government is making the taxpayer pay for these insufficiencies. David Kittle, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, testified in front of the Financial Services Committee on April 23 of this year. And here is what he said, ``at a time when policymakers are focusing so much of their efforts on injecting capital into the financial services sector, this provision would force an inefficient use of capital across all types of institutions and threaten to further impair their ability to lend at all.'' This will simply narrow choices, lessen credit and increase costs for borrowers and taxpayers, as well as increasing lawsuits.

While a critical element of mortgage reform should be giving incentives for greater accountability to lenders without damaging the mortgage market, H.R. 1728 imposes huge liability on all groups involved in issuing a loan while circumventing any investor liability. Unfortunately, the bill magnifies the already substantial legal risks faced by participants in the mortgage market, dramatically reducing any incentives for lenders to partake in the mortgage market.

And as if new litigation were not enough, this bill authorizes $140 million for legal assistance grant funds to legal organizations to provide taxpayer-funded legal defenses for homeowners in default or facing eviction. Simply put, this bill sets up lenders for failure by burdening them with undue liabilities and funding trial lawyers. This bill lacks the key taxpayer and lender protections, opening the door to taxpayer-financed frivolous civil lawsuits which will ultimately ruin the mortgage industry. I'm sure it will empower a bigger Federal Government, however.

Additionally, this bill subjects the taxpayer to involuntarily funding groups like ACORN, who will be eligible for receiving grants from this legislation. My colleague from Minnesota was able to add a provision which sufficiently blocks any organization that has been indicted from receiving any funds--for example, ACORN. Unfortunately, the majority is actively making efforts to reopen groups like ACORN to taxpayer funds with no regard for past indiscretions.

Restructuring the mortgage industry is essential in returning safety and security to the housing industry. We don't debate that. Unfortunately, the majority party is choosing to streamline an overzealous mortgage bill without allowing the Federal Reserve regulations to first go into effect, not to mention the destructive nature of this bill on the lending industry and what the impact of this bill will have on every single American who is striving for the dream of homeownership, namely, making it more expensive and less available to those people who need it the most.

H.R. 1728 is a jackpot for trial lawyers, kryptonite for the mortgage industry, and ultimately crushes dreams of homeownership for many Americans. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation, and I hope my colleagues do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I find myself in a position of making sure that this body does understand that lots of debates have taken place. I know the gentleman, Mr. Frank, has been on the committee for a long time and has argued very vehemently for years that the crisis was not about to happen, that the crisis and the changes that were made to Fannie and Freddie and subprime mortgages and all these things, that there was no crisis that was getting ready to happen. And I would respectfully say to the gentleman, it seems like Mr. Greenspan agreed with that. Something did happen. And it is up to us as thoughtful Members to make sure that we appropriately then take action where necessary. This was done last year. The Federal Reserve understood it, went through a deliberative process, took feedback from the industry and took feedback from consumers. The damage had been done.

We are now talking about predatory lending. We are not talking about what got us in the problem in the first place. We are talking about now that people are in trouble, how do we help save them? How do we help work with them? How do we make sure that the system properly works not just for people who might be in trouble, but people who might be in the future? The Federal Reserve has already done this. We already know that those rules will take place in October.

What I would argue with the gentleman about is going then too far, not doing something. I wouldn't argue with the gentleman. The gentleman is really very thoughtful in much of what he does. But the legislation will narrow choices, lessen credit and increase costs for borrowers and taxpayers. And at some point there has to be some balance. We are in agreement that we ought to move forward, that we ought to do things, that the laws that will take place through the regulation of the Fed are proper, necessary and needed. But we are not for making lawsuits a better part of what we are doing, providing money for people to sue, narrowing choices, lessening credit and increasing costs. And that is our decisionmaking point where we disagree with not only this legislation but perhaps moving this bill in the first place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, you know, two points: first of all, we are sitting here blaming each other. I hope I am not doing that about the past. We were talking about today's bill, the right way to balance what needs to be done now with the understanding that the Fed has already acted, notwithstanding whether the gentleman, Mr. Frank, thinks that they should have acted or whether the chairman of the Fed should have done something. The bottom line is that the gentleman was right there with him the whole time. ``There is no problem. There is no systemic risk.'' And that was the constant message that we heard from the gentleman, Mr. Frank, about the same big issue.

But I would like to take issue with one point, and that is Republicans have done nothing. Well, I would like to say that there was Republican-authored legislation called the SAFE Act. And the SAFE Act which created licensing and registration for the mortgage industry was enacted last year.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors had called ranking member, oh, yes, he is a Republican, Spencer Bachus' bill ``the most significant mortgage reform in years.''

So let's be a little bit clear: Republicans were not here doing nothing. Our friends, the majority party, were offering public comment about what was not going to happen, and the subprime mortgage effort did happen. And now what we are trying to do is work with a set of rules and regulations that have been agreed to by the Fed, well understood, and the industry as well down the line to make sure this October we know what those rules are. And now we are going to have our friends in the majority party to overlay new rules that empower trial lawyers that will narrow choices, lessen credit, and increase costs. There has got to be some balance.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue today that notwithstanding the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who has been mentioned a couple of times, have been very active for 6 or 8 years on this issue. Doing nothing would not be an accurate description. Saying that Republicans blocked attempts would not be a correct assertion. But saying that there has been work in the aftermath to try and do the right thing that is right on target already exists and we don't need to add to that would be equally true also.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to engage the gentleman, and I appreciate him doing this. But, Mr. Speaker, my point would be the gentleman is trying to get into a political argument especially about how I may or may not have voted. He supposes I would have voted against the bill because it was a reasonable bill. I think that is what he is trying to say. I don't know how I voted on the bill, this section of the bill, at all.

What I would say to you is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say Republicans did nothing and then say, oh, Republicans, a handful of Republicans did something, but the vast majority of Republicans voted against it. That is, Mr. Speaker, trying to take what we are attempting to do here today, making public policy wise choices in the open, and by the way, Republicans are for doing this on the floor to talk about every amendment, to talk about the processes, to talk about the expectations of performance, to talk about what we expect the laws to do; and now he is trying to have it both ways to say, I guess it was a Republican idea, but most Republicans opposed it. It was a Republican idea by the ranking member of Financial Services, Spencer Bachus, who is a Republican, and who moved forth in those responsibilities an opportunity for something to become law. And it is obvious the gentleman, Mr. Frank, at the time was willing to engage in that, and that should make all of us feel good.

But I don't think we should turn around later and diminish that effort just because we want to make political points here today. And I don't mind making political points because here are the political points I would make: today we are going to narrow choices, lessen credit, and increase costs for borrowers and taxpayers. We are going to provide at a time when our country should be trying to lessen spending of money, we are going to provide an extra $140 million for people to go sue in court to overload our courts when resolution should be done by the legislation, but in fact also by the rules that are already provided by the Federal Reserve.

Republicans aren't here just to say no and to come to fight. We are after good public policy. We are after public policy that will work for people and a marketplace so there are lenders in every single community.

This bill that we are here today on will lessen, take away the number of qualified lenders who are available because now the costs are going to go up, fewer consumers will be able to get the loans and will pay more money because now we are going to give from the Federal Government $140 million to go sue somebody.

Legislation should be about finding a balance. I'm not opposed to remedies. I'm not opposed to courts and people litigating for the right reasons. I am simply not interested in now that it is over, trying to find a way to beat up people when resolution, keeping people in their homes, finding a way for that balance to work.

And today we will give full credit to Mr. Frank. He wants political credit; let's give him full political credit. All the Democrats will get full political credit today for doing essentially two things: number one, reworking what is already laws that are going to begin in October by the Federal Reserve; and, secondly, we will give you credit for these principles, narrowing choices, lessening credit, and increasing costs for borrowers and taxpayers. Making it more difficult at a time when America and Americans need the chance to go get a home loan, we are now going to add more rules and regulations to the mortgage industry.

This is exactly where Republicans do draw the line. We are for well- balanced, well-meaning, thoughtful articulation on this floor to make sure we understand what we are doing. We are not for suing people and not for adding costly rules and regulations. The industry has already told us that is exactly what the intended outcome of this bill will be.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this one-sided debate about how bad Republicans are, how we did nothing; but I believe the gentleman has already well answered that question and heard it that Republicans in fact have been proactive during this entire time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated May 5, 2009, from the Mortgage Bankers Association whose title is ``Investing in Communities.''

Mortgage Bankers Association,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,

I want to thank not only the gentlewoman for extending the time, but also the gentleman, Mr. Frank, for engaging in this issue.

Mr. Speaker, testifying to the Financial Services Subcommittee on behalf of a coalition of consumers, advocacy groups, and labor organizations from across the country, Margaret Saunders of the National Consumer Law Center, called this bill ``convoluted and virtually impossible as a mechanism to solve the current problem.'' Convoluted and virtually impossible as a mechanism to solve the current problem.

We need to go back to the drawing table and remove many of the political provisions which will only cause further damage in the marketplace. It will further damage a fragile mortgage market that is in need of greater certainty, not more uncertainty.

This afternoon in the Rules Committee, my friends on the other side of the aisle will have an opportunity to allow for quality changes to the underlying legislation, opportunities for Members of this body to hear debate and vote on amendments. I encourage an open rule, which will be an open and honest discussion just like we've had here on the floor today, on the discussions that the House will handle tomorrow.

With respect to the 50-plus amendments to the legislation that were submitted to the Rules Committee yesterday morning, we'd like to see them all be made in order. Congress has an opportunity to provide for quality, meaningful returns, and to help the current mortgage lending process, and it is my hope that my Democrat colleague friends will allow for that process.

With that, I oppose this rule and look forward to a better rule tomorrow. As always, I think that a better rule tomorrow, an open rule, will yield not only the intended results, but will help the American people to know what we intend to do with this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation.

This structured rule does not call for the open and honest debate that has been promised by my Democratic colleagues time after time.

Today's action by my friends on the other side of the aisle is another example of the Federal Government overstepping its boundaries into the private marketplace. And I think it's important for us to note that people who get credit cards get this as an extension of their opportunity and their credit, and they have a responsibility when they sign a contract to live up to that responsibility. It is not a right that is being extended, I believe, today for us to go into the free market and to tinker with on a Federal basis what is a right that is reserved to the States today. We disagree with what is happening today.

Not even 6 months ago, Madam Speaker, the Federal Reserve passed new credit card rules that would protect consumers and provide for more transparency and accountability in the marketplace. These new regulations are set to take effect in July 2010, an agreed-upon date to ensure the necessary time for banks and credit card companies to make crucial and critical adjustments to their business practices without making mistakes and without harming consumers.

Part of what the gentleman from Colorado just described, some of the 60,000 letters of feedback to the industry, took place in that regard. It took place to the Federal Reserve taking information, working with credit card consumer groups to try and alleviate problems or perceived problems in the marketplace. However, with the growing Federal deficit, the current economic crisis, and the growing number of unemployed people, I would simply ask why is Congress passing legislation that already exists? Let's give those statutes and those rules and regulations which are going to be in place time to work.

This legislation allows for the Federal Government to micromanage the way credit card companies and the banking industry does its business. Those hearings have already been held. Decisions have already been made by the Fed. Decisions with credit card companies and consumer groups to understand what changes needed to be made, they've already happened.

If enacted into law, it is not credit card companies that will suffer. It will be every single person that has a credit card and for those who even want to have a credit card in the future. Every American will see an increase in their interest rates, and some of the current benefits that encourage responsible lending will most likely disappear. For example, cash advances, over-the-limit protection, would be just one example.

My friends on the other side of the aisle not only remove any incentive for using credit cards responsibly, but they punish those managing their credit responsibly to subsidize those who are irresponsible. Madam Speaker, the Democrats also want to limit the amount of credit that is available to the middle class and low-income individuals. The very Americans that take the most advantage of credit will be harmed by what we're doing here today.

This legislation prevents credit history from being used to price risk, as an example, meaning that some individuals may not now be able to get a credit card, especially if they are lower-income or they have blemished credit histories or are trying to establish credit for the first time, like college students.

Additionally, the strain of this legislation could have a direct and adverse effect on small businesses which use this credit, especially in times like these where economic and job growth in this country are threatened. For individuals starting in a small business, this legislation means increased interest rates, reduced benefit, and shrinks the availability of credit, potentially limiting their options to even succeed in the marketplace.

Meredith Whitney, a prominent banking analyst, in speaking as a result of this legislation, remarked in The Wall Street Journal that she expects a $2.7 trillion decrease in credit by the end of 2010 out of the current $5 trillion credit line available in this country.

Madam Speaker, at a time when we're in economic downturns, the option of credit that is available for people--notwithstanding that they may have to pay a little bit more but will have the flexibility to have that credit--is important.

In the current state of our economy, we urgently would say we need to increase liquidity and lower the cost of credit to stimulate more lending--not raise rates and reduce the availability of credit.

This is not a solution for the ailing economy.

This type of government control of private markets is really what my Democrat colleagues and this new administration have been exploring for quite some time. Whether it is federalizing our banks, federalizing our credit market, federalizing our health care system, federalizing the energy sector, this is what this new administration and my friends in the majority party wish to do.

That said, this administration has taken their power grab a step further, first of all, in this legislation, to write contracts, to hire and fire executives, and to guarantee muffler warranties. They won't let banks pay back their loans. And now they are plotting a hostile takeover of the financial services industry, converting preferred shares into common equity shares, a drastic shift towards a government strategy of long-term ownership and involvement in some of our banks.

Millions of Americans are outraged at the mismanagement of TARP and the reckless use of their tax dollars, and I believe that taxpayers are increasingly uneasy with the Federal Government's growing involvement in financial markets that we see on the floor today.

In an effort to provide more protections to consumers and to taxpayers, I offered an amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee--a Rules Committee of which I have served for 11 years--that was defeated by a party-line vote of 7-3.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Congressional Record a copy of that amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 627, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

Add at the end the following new section:

Madam Speaker, I referred to an article in The Wall Street Journal on March 10 of this year by Meredith Whitney. I would like to insert that into the Record, also.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 10, 2009]

Credit Cards Are the Next Credit Crunch

(By Meredith Whitney)

Few doubt the importance of consumer spending to the U.S.

economy and its multiplier effect on the global economy, but

what is under-appreciated is the role of credit-card

availability in that spending. Currently, there is roughly $5

trillion in credit-card lines outstanding in the U.S., and a

little more than $800 billion is currently drawn upon. While

those numbers look small relative to total mortgage debt of

over $10.5 trillion, credit-card debt is revolving and

accordingly being paid off and drawn down over and over,

creating a critical role in commerce in America.

Just six months ago, I estimated that at least $2 trillion

of available credit-card lines would be expunged from the

system by the end of 2010. However, today, that estimate now

looks optimistic, as available lines were reduced by nearly

$500 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone. My revised

estimates are that over $2 trillion of credit-card lines will

be cut inside of 2009, and $2.7 trillion by the end of 2010.

Inevitably, credit lines will continue to be reduced across

the system, but the velocity at which it is already occurring

and will continue to occur will result in unintended

consequences for consumer confidence, spending and the

overall economy. Lenders, regulators and politicians need to

show thoughtful leadership now on this issue in order to

derail what I believe will be at least a 57% contraction in

credit-card lines.

There are several factors that are playing into this swift

contraction in credit well beyond the scope of the current

credit market disruption. First, the very foundation of

credit-card lending over the past 15 years has been

misguided. In order to facilitate national expansion and vast

pools of consumer loans, lenders became overly reliant on

FICO scores that have borne out to be simply unreliable.

Further, the bulk of credit lines were extended during a time

when unemployment averaged well below 6%. Overly optimistic

underwriting standards made more borrowers appear

creditworthy. As we return to more realistic underwriting

standards, certain borrowers will no longer appear worth the

risk, and therefore lines will continue to be pulled from

those borrowers.

Second, home price depreciation has been a more reliable

determinant of consumer behavior than FICO scores. Hence,

lenders have reduced credit lines based upon ``zip codes,''

or where home price depreciation has been most acute. Such a

strategy carries the obvious hazard of putting good customers

in more vulnerable liquidity positions simply because they

live in a higher risk zip code. With this, frequency of

default is increased. In other words, as lines are pulled and

borrowing capacity is reduced, paying borrowers are pushed

into vulnerable financial positions along with nonpaying

borrowers, and therefore a greater number of defaults in fact

occur.

Third, credit-card lenders are currently playing a game of

``hot potato,'' in which no one wants to be the last one

holding an open credit-card line to an individual or

business. While a mortgage loan is largely a ``monogamous''

relationship between borrower and lender, an individual has

multiple relationships with credit-card providers. Thus, as

lines are cut, risk exposure increases to the remaining

lender with the biggest line outstanding.

Here, such a negative spiral strategy necessitates

immediate action. Currently five lenders dominate two thirds

of the market. These lenders need to work together to protect

one another and preserve credit lines to able paying

borrowers by setting consortium guidelines on credit. We, as

Americans, are all in the same soup here, and desperate times

are requiring of radical and cooperative measures.

And fourth, along with many important and necessary

mandates regarding fairness to consumers, impending changes

to Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) regulations

risk the very real unintended consequence of cutting off vast

amounts of credit to consumers. Specifically, the new UDAP

provisions would restrict repricing of risk, which could in

turn restrict the availability of credit. If a lender cannot

reprice for changing risk on an unsecured loan, the lender

simply will not make the loan. This proposal is set to be

effective by mid-2010, but talk now is of accelerating its

adoption date. Politicians and regulators need to seriously

consider what unintended consequences could occur from the

implementation of this proposal in current form. Short of the

U.S. government becoming a direct credit-card lender,

invariably credit will come out of the system.

Over the past 20 years, Americans have also grown to use

their credit card as a cash-flow management tool. For

example, 90% of credit-card users revolve a balance (i.e.,

don't pay it off in full) at least once a year, and over 45%

of credit-card users revolve every month. Undeniably,

consumers look at their unused credit balances as a ``what

if' reserve. ``What if' my kid needs braces? ``What if' my

dog gets sick? ``What if' I lose one of my jobs? This unused

credit portion has grown to be relied on as a source of

liquidity and a liquidity management tool for many U.S.

consumers. In fact, a relatively small portion of U.S.

consumers have actually maxed out their credit cards, and

most currently have ample room to spare on their unused

credit lines. For example, the industry credit line

utilization rate (or percentage of total credit lines

outstanding drawn upon) was just 17% at the end of 2008.

However, this is in the process of changing dramatically.

Without doubt, credit was extended too freely over the past

15 years, and a rationalization of lending is unavoidable.

What is avoidable, however, is taking credit away from people

who have the ability to pay their bills. If credit is taken

away from what otherwise is an able borrower, that borrower's

financial position weakens considerably. With two-thirds of

the U.S. economy dependent upon consumer spending, we should

tread carefully and act collectively.

Essentially what this person is arguing, a person who looks at the markets

every day, credit in this country, and I quote from this, ``Currently, there is roughly $5 trillion in credit card lines outstanding in the United States, and a little bit more than $800 billion is currently drawn upon.''

What we are saying is that people do have the ability to utilize more of their credit with credit cards. And I believe the vast majority of consumers are carefully and thoughtfully understanding that when they sign an agreement with a credit card company, that they understand that what they need to do is pay that back, and if not, that there will be a penalty, a fee, or interest that will be charged as a result of that.

The free market today has lots of credit cards, lots of different companies, lots of different options that are available to people. But with what we are doing here today, that is going to change the way people do business for the vast majority of credit card users. It means that, today, if you follow all the rules, you pay either the first month or, properly what you're doing, that you are willing to keep that credit card because you need it without having to pay the penalty or the associated penalty to the risk that you have. Tomorrow, we are going to take risk out of the risky people and put the risk on everybody. And that is really what Meredith Whitney is trying to say here. Of the trillions of dollars that are available, credit card companies only draw down $800 billion. That is because the vast majority of people, very effectively and properly, use the credit that is available to them.

The system does and did need tinkering; but when we tinker with that system, we should make sure that what we do is to add transparency, not rules and regulations that inflict what they do, and the changes, onto a contract willingly signed by a consumer.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, one of the amendments that was talked about earlier that was denied in the Rules Committee deals with an issue that Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department have openly talked about, and that is their decision to look at the possibility of taking that preferred stock which TARP funds were bought into and converting that to common stock. On April 21 there was an article in The Wall Street Journal that talked about this. It's entitled ``A Backdoor Nationalization.''

The bottom line is that immediately after this appeared in the press, the stock market promptly tumbled by 3.5 percent, meaning once again bad news to the marketplace, with J.P. Morgan falling 10 percent and financial stocks as a group more than 9 percent. This was on April 20.

What this is about is that it would be a wholesale conversion, which would mean that the government would own a larger portion of banks, even more and even in a different way than they would with preferred stock. The Wall Street Journal says this is a back door to nationalization. That is because it would create uncertainty, not more certainty, by offering the specter of even greater lengths of periods of Federal control over the banking system.

Perhaps even worse than that, what they would do is they would seek to transfer and force banks to do this because of the frailty of the banks at this point. It means that the government would force a change of a contract from a bank that they may have.

Madam Speaker, that amendment should have been made in order. This Congress should be out on this as a policy, and we should be speaking up about this. Even though the amendment was not made in order, I encourage the Financial Services Committee of this Congress to make sure that they hold hearings on this exact issue.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 21, 2009]

A Backdoor Nationalization--The Latest Treasury Brainstorm Will Retard

a Banking Recovery

Just when you think the political class may have learned

something in months of trying to fix the banking system, the

ghost of Hank Paulson returns to haunt the Treasury. The

latest Beltway blunder--and it would be a big one--is the

Obama Administration's weekend news leak that it may insist

on converting its preferred shares in some of the nation's

largest banks into common equity.

The stock market promptly tumbled by more than 3.5%

yesterday, with J.P. Morgan falling 10% and financial stocks

as a group off 9%, as measured by the NYSE Financials index.

Note to White House: Sneaky nationalizations aren't any more

popular with investors than the straightforward kind.

The occasion for this latest nationalization trial balloon

is the looming result of the Treasury's bank strip-tease--

a.k.a. ``stress tests.'' Treasury is worried, with cause,

that some of the largest banks lack the capital to ride out

future credit losses. Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and the

White House have concluded that they can't risk asking

Congress for more bailout cash.

Voila, they propose a preferred-for-common swap, which can

conjure up an extra $100 billion in bank tangible common

equity, a core measure of bank capital. Not that this really

adds any new capital; it merely shifts the deck chairs on

bank balance sheets. Why Treasury thinks anyone would find

this reassuring is a mystery. The opposite is the more likely

result, since it signals that Treasury no longer believes it

can tap more public capital to support the financial system

if the losses keep building.

Worse, wholesale equity conversion would mean the

government owns a larger share of more banks and is more

entangled than ever in their operations. Giving Barney Frank

more voting power is more likely to induce panic than restore

confidence. Simply look at the reluctance of some banks--

notably J.P. Morgan Chase--to participate in Mr. Geithner's

private-public toxic asset sale plan. The plan is rigged so

taxpayers assume nearly all the downside risk, but the banks

still don't want to play lest Congress become even more

subject to political whim.

A backdoor nationalization also creates more uncertainty,

not less, by offering the specter of an even lengthier period

of federal control over the banking system. And it creates

the fear of even more intrusive government influence over

bank lending and the allocation of capital. These fears have

only been enhanced by the refusal of Treasury to let more

banks repay their Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money.

As it stands, banks and their owners at least know how much

they owe Uncle Sam, and those preferred shares represent a

distinct and separate tier of bank capital. Once the

government is mixed in with the rest of the equity holders,

the value of its investments--and the cost to the banks of

buying out the Treasury--will fluctuate by the day.

Congress is also still trying to advance a mortgage-

cramdown bill that would hammer the value of already

distressed mortgage-backed securities, and now the

Administration is talking up legislation to curb credit-

card fees and interest. Both of these bills would damage bank

profits, but large government ownership stakes would leave

the banks helpless to oppose them. (See Citigroup, 36% owned

by the feds and now a pro-cramdown lobbyist.)

We've come to this pass in part because the Obama

Administration is afraid to ask Congress for the money for a

meaningful bank recapitalization. And it may need that money

now in part because Mr. Paulson's Treasury insisted on buying

preferred stock in all the big banks instead of looking at

each case on its merits. That decision last fall squandered

TARP money on banks that probably didn't need it and left the

Administration short of funds for banks that really do.

The sounder strategy--and the one we've recommended for two

years--is to address systemic financial problems the old-

fashioned way: bank by bank, through the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corp. and a resolution agency with the capacity to

hold troubled assets and work them off over time. If the

stress tests reveal that some of our largest institutions are

insolvent or nearly so, it's then time to seize the bank,

sell off assets and recapitalize the remainder. (Meanwhile,

the healthier institutions would get a vote of confidence and

could attract new private capital.)

Bondholders would take a haircut and shareholders may well

be wiped out. But converting preferred shares to equity does

nothing to help bondholders in the long run anyway. And

putting the taxpayer first in line for any losses alongside

equity holders offers shareholders little other than an

immediate dilution of their ownership stake. Treasury's

equity conversion proposal increases the political risks for

banks while imposing no discipline on shareholders,

bondholders or management at failed or failing institutions.

The proposal would also be one more example of how Treasury

isn't keeping its word. When he forced banks to accept public

capital whether they needed it or not, Mr. Paulson said the

deal was temporary and the terms wouldn't be onerous. To

renege on those promises now will only make a bank recovery

longer and more difficult.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia coming down and setting the record straight about how the Bush administration has caused all these problems and all these tax cuts. But I would remind the gentleman that the greatest economic boom in the history of the United States and the world occurred during the time that we encouraged and incentivized investors to be a part of growing our economy.

As I recall, the facts of the case are that 3 years ago when our friends, the Democrats, became the new majority, they announced quite openly that those tax cut days were over with, and that's when the investor left. And when the investor left, that's when our economy started going downhill.

Let's tell the truth here. What we just passed just yesterday was the largest spending budget in the history of the universe that will lead to a debt that will double and triple, double and triple, in the next few years. That is a national security issue. And that's part of what we are talking about here today. The interference in the marketplace by my friends, the Democrats, that not only wiped out, took the investor out of the equation, but today are going to create an even worse circumstance for credit cardholders at a time when the extension of credit is needed more than ever.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman, and I would allow him to proceed as just discussed.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I had previously spoken that I would have a late arrival.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, in closing I would like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, they have refused a bill, the opportunity for an amendment in this bill, that would protect all taxpayers from de facto nationalization of our financial system. The American taxpayers deserve the same accountability and transparencies with their dollars that this bill claims to do for consumers.

As a Nation, we have real problems, Madam Speaker, and they need to be solved through real solutions. And passing legislation that already exists in Federal statute, I believe, is wasting our time.

We need to provide jobs, we need to encourage economic growth, we need to get the investor back into the game and, perhaps most of all, we need to restore America's public faith in their Members of Congress and in this Congress that we are aiming at solving the problems that face this Nation.

While I encourage each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this structured rule, I would also advise them they need to equally understand the facts of the case, and that would drive them to a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Ronald Reagan and his accomplishments as our nation's 40th president. He was a legendary president, skilled actor, and loving husband and father to his family.

Today, we pay tribute to a great American, a man who deeply loved this country. In the midst of darkness, Reagan showed no fear--staring down the face of communism and ultimately leading us to victory in the Cold War. He exhibited unprecedented leadership during a period in our history when our economy seemed bleak, our enemies surrounded us, and the fight against Soviet Communism pushed against our ideals of freedom and democracy. Even after an assassination attempt in 1981, Reagan quickly returned to duty with tremendous grace and ease, giving us a mere glimpse of his strength and determination to better our country. Known as the ``Great Communicator,'' Reagan had an amazing gift of connecting with the public, instilling us with a sense of pride as Americans. President Reagan once stated, ``There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' Certainly, these words ring loud and true today in the halls of Congress, reminding us that we are merely servants of the American public.

I wholeheartedly support today's resolution for the acceptance of a statue of President Reagan to be placed in the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for Ronald Reagan's service to our great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I am honored and privileged to recognize Raymond L. Orians in tribute to his lifelong dedication to the collegiate and interfraternal movement, as well as his 25 years of service as the Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the Pi Kappa International Fraternity. Pi Kappa Alpha is a values-based college fraternity, with more than 200 chapters, 13,000 undergraduate members, and over 235,000 lifetime members.

Mr. Orians has spent his entire professional career, which spans more than 40 years, helping to educate college undergraduates and working to advance the North American Interfraternal movement. Most notable has been his involvement with the Fraternity Executives Association, as its president in 1994-1995, and as a mentor to countless other executives and staff members throughout the collegiate world.

He was also actively involved as president of the Coalition for Freedom of Association, an action group consisting of several fraternities and sororities and other student organizations, which was successful in helping to secure federal legislation for the right of students to associate freely. This legislation became federal law and remains a source of law vital to the success of all student organizations today in their most critical area of operation, membership recruitment.

Mr. Orians has also been a strong advocate within Pi Kappa Alpha for the benefits of membership in the North American college fraternity. He has attended countless meetings as an advocate for their membership and is frequently consulted for his expertise in the field. He has also been a key point-person on the efforts to lobby Congress to pass the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act, personally walking the halls each year and also making certain that Pi Kappa Alpha is well represented.

At Pi Kappa Alpha's 2008 International Convention, Mr. Orians announced that he would be retiring from his post as Executive Vice President & CEO, a position he has held for 25 years. Prior to that, he also served as the chief housing officer for Pi Kappa Alpha for 15 years. In tribute to his service to Pi Kappa Alpha, Mr. Orians was honored with his Fraternity's Loyalty Award in 2004 and Distinguished Achievement Award in 2008. In recognition that he is a true source of inspiration in the pursuit of excellence by undergraduate members and chapters, he will forevermore be the namesake of Pi Kappa Alpha's Chapter Excellence Award. It is awarded annually to the top 10-15% of Pi Kappa Alpha chapters.

Mr. Orians' personal and professional achievements throughout his career have been outstanding by every measurement. He presided over the establishment of 67 new Pi Kappa Alpha chapters at institutions of higher learning throughout North America which included more than 100,000 new members being brought into its ranks. Under his leadership, a new Pi Kappa Alpha Memorial Headquarters was constructed and dedicated in 1988, with a new Gold Star Memorial dedicated on August 1, 2008 recognizing those fraternity members who have made the ultimate sacrifice in military service to their country. In addition, the highly successful True Pike program, a values-based educational and leadership program, was created, and the innovative Pike University was established during his tenure, benefiting thousands of undergraduate young men each year.

Throughout his career, Mr. Orians has been a tremendous ambassador and advocate for all fraternities. Given his involvement, achievement, and tenure within the Greek movement and within Pi Kappa Alpha, it is an honor for me, as one of his Fraternity brothers and a colleague in the collegiate Greek movement, to acknowledge with gratitude the distinguished career and service of Raymond L. Orians, on this, his final day as Executive Vice President of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Woodrow Wilson High School which will celebrate its eightieth anniversary on April 25, 2009.

Since its founding, Woodrow has always been a special part of Dallas. This historic high school was designed by famed Dallas architect Mark Lemmon. To honor its namesake, the school's cornerstone included a piece of wedding cake from Jesse Wilson Sayre, President Woodrow Wilson's daughter. Over the course of its history, Woodrow has educated thousands of bright individuals, nurturing their talent while providing them with a wonderful learning environment as well as many fond memories. In 2006 and 2008, Woodrow made it to Newsweek's list of America's Top Public High Schools.

It is also the only public high school in the United States proudly hailed as the alma maters of two Heisman Trophy winners: Davey O'Brien and Tim Brown. Other notable alumni include legendary real estate developer Trammell Crow, Congressman Sam Johnson, Congressman Jim Collins, Texas Attorney General Jim Maddox, Chief Justice Tom Phillips of the Texas Supreme Court, civic leader Ruth Sharp Altshuler, and seven Dallas area mayors. As Woodrow celebrates eighty years, I know it will continue to be a beacon of academic excellence in Dallas.

I ask my colleagues to join me in offering our heartiest congratulations to the faculty, staff, students, and alumni of Woodrow Wilson High School.