Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding congressionally directed appropriation projects I sponsored as part of H.R. 2847, FY 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.

Agency/Account: U.S. EPA--State and Tribal Assistance Grant

Amount: $439,065

Requesting Entity: City of Petersburg, P.O. Box 326 Petersburg, Texas 79250

Funding will enable the city of Petersburg to continue supplying quality drinking water to its residents. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has ordered the city to replace one of its elevated water tanks or place it offline or the city will be forced to pay penalties and fines. Loss of a water tank will reduce the water supply, as well as drop the water pressure which is important for fire fighting. Without a stable water supply, the city of Petersburg will not be able to maintain economic growth. The total cost of this project is $798,300.

Madam Speaker, one of the sayings we have in Texas is, when someone is pretending to be a cowboy, we say that fella is all hat and no cattle.

A lot of people have come down here today to try to represent that this is an energy bill. Well, let me tell you, it is not an energy bill; it is all tax and no energy.

Some of the people were talking about the fact that we are going to make America more energy independent. We are not. This bill does not make America more energy independent.

Every day we get up and write other countries a check for nearly a billion dollars, $900 million. Now, what we get to do with this new bill is we get to send $15 billion in 2012 to countries so they can plant trees and give us credits. Now doesn't that make a lot of sense?

What this bill is, and I think the title is appropriate, cap-and- trade. It is going to cap energy production in America and trade away American jobs. I think the American people are kind of concerned about jobs right now. We have families that are losing their jobs and we have families that are trying to pay their utility costs and trying to afford their gasoline, and yet we have got a bill down here that evidently is all talk and no bill. Don't vote for this bill.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

These are unprecedented times in our country. We have people that are out of work. We have people that are losing their homes. Businesses are closing. And a lot of people wonder, how did that happen? When some people look for the cause of that, they say that unbridled spending and borrowing by individuals, by companies and even by government brought us to this point in our country where our economy is in a deep slump. Many of those families are having to make a lot of changes in their lives, making sacrifices.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not doing the same thing. At a time when across this country American families are tightening their belts, stopping the unlimited spending and borrowing, the Federal Government continues to do just that. In fact, Madam Chairman, this year we're on track to have a $2 trillion deficit. Now just for those folks that don't know what $1 trillion is, if you had to count to 1 trillion, it would take you 17,000 years. So if you are going to count to 2 trillion, it is going to take you 34,000 years.

So what does my amendment do? What this does is it just says, this stimulus money that we put into Homeland Security, some $2.7 billion on top of the $43 billion that we had already approved for FY09 and we're now talking about approving $43 billion for

2010, basically it says, you know what, we're going to have to tighten our belts. So it takes that stimulus money out.

Now you say, Well, why would you do that? Well, what we've already heard from a number of people, including administration officials, is, Hey, we may not be spending this correctly. We may not have gotten it right. Well, let me tell you, when people back home are having to tighten their belts and when they are looking at some of the largest deficits in the history of this country, they want Congress to get this right. What this does, it preserves the many programs that are already important and that many people have spoken on behalf of; but it doesn't let them continue to spend this $2.7 billion that, quite honestly, we didn't have to begin with. It's one thing to spend additional money when you have it; but when you don't have it, it's another issue.

The people back home are faced with that very same issue. I got a letter from one of my constituents in Abilene, Texas, the other day. It said, Congressman, you know what, we got caught up in the credit card and borrowing; and it said, We've stopped that. We've quit charging a lot of things we used to charge. We have not taken the vacations we were taking. We've dropped a lot of items. We were doing it, and now we're saving.

The question she asked, Congressman, why isn't the Federal Government doing the same thing? Do they not understand that we cannot continue to run these deficits at these levels, continue to spend money that we do not have? Madam Chairman, we have to stop this. We cannot leave a legacy for future generations where they have no future. It is projected in just a few years that we will be paying interest to the tune of $1 billion a day--$1 billion a day in interest. And that interest doesn't do anything for our country. It pays back countries like China and Japan for the money that they have provided to support our borrowing and spending habit. It's time that we stop that. This is a commonsense approach. It keeps the funding at a constant level, but it takes away this $2.7 billion that we didn't have in the first place.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The chairman brings up the point that we are gutting this bill. In fact, we are not gutting this bill. We're just trying to give the American taxpayers some of their money back, $2.7 billion. And unfortunately it was $2.7 billion that we didn't have. If he has some other areas that would be better served by cutting those programs, I would love to have that discussion with him. But the bottom line is, I was on an airplane coming back to Washington. I had two people come up and say, Congressman, y'all have got to stop this spending. We can't afford it.

And you know who even gets that more than anybody? I have a 10-year- old grandson Nathan, and I gave Nathan a gift card not too long ago. He and I went to the store, and he went around the store and gathered up a lot of things that he thought would be something that he would like to have. And when he got to the counter, he realized that had he more items in his basket than he had money on his gift card. So he didn't turn to his granddaddy and say, Granddaddy, can you spot me a little extra? He took those items that he couldn't afford back to the shelf where they belonged. That's what the American people want us to do. They want us to do what my 10-year-old grandson Nathan did, and that is to understand that we have a finite amount of money. We cannot break this country. And if we keep spending like this, we are going to break this country.

When we passed this $782 billion stimulus package, we then came back and we started bailing out automobile companies. We had an omnibus bill, $400 billion. We passed a $3.7 trillion budget. People in America, Madam Chairman, are saying, What in the world are y'all doing? The young family back in Abilene, Texas--they get it. Nathan Neugebauer, my 10-year-old grandson, he gets it. I'm wondering when the United States Congress is going to get it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding a congressionally directed project in H.R. 2647, The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010.

Agency/Account: Research and Development, Army

Amount: $8,500,000

Requesting Entity: Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, TX 79409

This funding will focus on developing compact electromagnetic generators for integration into standard weapons systems for defense applications that require the destruction of electronic hardware while minimizing collateral damage. Examples of applications include placement on HUMVEES, in cruise missiles and attached to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). A key target of this technology is the disruption of remote detonation electronics used in improvised roadside bombs and inner-city car-bombs.

Madam Speaker, I proudly congratulate the Howard College Hawks baseball team of Howard County Junior College in Big Spring, Texas for winning the 2009 Junior College National Baseball Championship.

The Hawks finished the season with a 63-1 record; the best record ever by a World Series championship team at any level of collegiate baseball. The championship squad includes sophomores Andrew Collazo, Jonathon Castillo, Tommy Vukovich, Nick Popescu, Caleb Nine, Bryan Johns, Runey Davis, Kane Kimrey, Hunter Hill, B.J. Armstrong, Dylan Cacciola, Monk Kreder, Chase Adams, Miles Hamblin, Marvin Prestridge, David de la Chapelle, Zach Neal, Jared Butler, William Calhoun, Corey Sartor, Anthony Collazo, Cody Henry, Juan Villarreal, and freshmen Kyle Padden, Tanner Ross, Zak Anderson, Blake Barnes, Brandon Parrent, Landon Steinhagen, Stephen Niedwiecki, Joe Leftridge, MacKenzie Harrison, Duncan McGee, Burch Smith, Josh Brewer. Led by head coach Britt Smith, the coaching staff includes assistant coaches J. Bob Thomas and Jack Geise.

Several players received individual recognition for their outstanding performance. Runey Davis and Miles Hamblin had the top fielding average as the Hawks led the nation in team fielding percentage. The NJCAA/ Easton Division I Baseball Defensive Player of the Year award went to Hawk centerfielder Runey Davis. Andrew Collazo was honored as the tournament's Most Valuable Player and Best Defensive Player. William Calhoun was awarded the Rawlings Big Stick Award with a regular season batting average of .527--the highest in the nation.

Three of the Hawks were named to the All American team: designated hitter William Calhoun, Pitcher Zach Neal, and Catcher Miles Hamblin.

With great support from the community, the Hawks have brought home the national championship to Big Spring. I applaud the Howard College Hawks for their hard work and success.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican standards on member requests, I am submitting the following information regarding congressionally directed appropriation projects I sponsored as part of H.R. 2847, FY 2010 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Act.

Agency/Account: NASA

Amount: $1,000,000

Requesting Entity: Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, TX 79409

This funding will be used towards providing engineering support for extended human and robotic space flight missions, which will directly contribute to NASA's initiative of returning to the moon and going to Mars. For human and robotic missions, the Center for Space Sciences is addressing the need for a decreased reliance on mission control due to the communication delays that occur in long distance missions.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize Jimmy Dee Clark for his dedication to the 19th Congressional District of Texas. Jimmy retires this month after 23 years of continuous service to the district.

Born to Leeman and Frances Clark on December 12, 1945, Jimmy was raised on a farm in Acuff, Texas. He graduated from Roosevelt High School in 1964 and just two years later, he married his childhood sweetheart, Rita Dunagan. After 20 years of running his family farm, Jimmy began an additional career in public service.

In 1986, my predecessor in Congress, Larry Combest, hired Jimmy as a district representative. As Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the 106th and 107th Congresses, Mr. Combest greatly shaped farm policy in this country, and Jimmy brought indispensable insight as a liaison between the fanners and ranchers of the 19th District and their representative. Jimmy was instrumental in helping Chairman Combest shepherd the 2002 Farm Bill through Congress.

Following Chairman Combest's retirement in 2003, Jimmy came to work for me as my District Director and Deputy Chief of Staff. Jimmy's experience and counsel have made him an invaluable asset to my staff. Most notable, however, is Jimmy's ability to relate to his fellow farmers in West Texas and to help ensure I understand their business, their concerns and their role in District 19's economy. Again, Jimmy's guidance and his role as the voice of the farmers of my district were essential in helping me during the 2008 Farm Bill.

Jimmy is also a strong Christian and family man. He and Rita have two daughters, Jill and Randee, and five grandchildren: Caden, Kacie, Josh, Steffanie, and Gabbie, that I know he will now get to spend more time with. A 32nd degree Mason, Jimmy's public service has reached more than just the farmers in West Texas. He has served as a past member and Commander of the Lubbock County Sheriff's Reserve. A licensed pilot, Jimmy's hobbies include flying and home remodeling.

I am enormously appreciative to Jimmy for his hard work and for his contributions to improving the course of agriculture policy in the United States and in West Texas. More important, I am proud to count him as a friend. Those in District 19, including myself, thank him for a job well-done and extend to him our best wishes for his retirement.retirement.

Mr. Speaker, in Texas there is an old saying about the cowboy that was all hat and no cattle; in other words, he was all show and no substance.

At a time of economic hardship, Mr. Speaker, this Waxman-Markey energy bill is all tax and no energy. It is going to cost every American family a $3,100 increase in their energy costs. Farm income is expected to decrease $8 billion in the near term and almost $50 billion in the outyears, a 57 percent decrease in farm income over the next 20 years.

The trouble with this cap-and-tax is it is also going to increase the cost of buildings and construction of farm buildings. In a town hall meeting last week, Mr. Speaker, the people in the 19th Congressional District said, Congressman, please stop this cap-and-tax bill. They know that this is a plan not to produce more energy, but it is a plan to increase taxes, to take more money out American families' pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I stand for the American farmers and families and small businesses all across America. I opposed this cap-and-tax plan. The Waxman-Markey bill is all hat and no cattle.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great American. Jimmy Clark has served this country and particularly the 19th District with distinction for 23 years. Starting off with former Congressman Larry Combest and now serving as my deputy chief of staff, Jimmy has served with great pride and excellence the people of this district. It is a large district. He has traveled many miles to represent and make sure that the constituents of the 19th District have the great service that they deserve.

Jimmy brings to the table a lot of experience. And over the 23 years, he helped put valuable input from his farming background into four farm bills, valuable input that helped shape what I think is good policy for this country.

We are going to miss Jimmy Clark. We are going to miss his service to the district. When people talk about Jimmy Clark, they talk about someone of great honor and character and someone who is always willing to help. We wish Jimmy and his lovely wife, Rita, all the best as they embark on a new journey in their life. All of us from the 19th Congressional District, and really the people of the United States of America, thank Jimmy Clark for his great service to his country.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize Dr. James R. Reckner for his dedication to the Vietnam Center and Archive at Texas Tech University. Dr. Reckner retired from Texas Tech University at the end of 2008 after 20 years of service as a professor of history, founding director of the Vietnam Center and Archive, and Executive Director of Texas Tech's new Institute for Modern Conflict, Diplomacy and Reconciliation, which now oversees the Vietnam Center and Archive.

A retired Naval officer and a veteran of the Vietnam War, Dr. Reckner received his Ph.D. from the University of Aukland in New Zealand. He joined the faculty at Texas Tech in September of 1988 and shortly after founded the Vietnam Center and Archive. From 1991 to 1992, Dr. Reckner held the Secretary of the Navy's Research Chair in Naval History and has served as a member of the Secretary's Advisory Subcommittee on Naval History since 1998.

As founder and director of the Vietnam Center and Archive, Dr. Reckner oversaw 20 years of development and growth including the acquisition of many unique and historic collections that have helped us better understand the experience and course of the Vietnam War. As a result of his leadership, the Center has become the foremost Vietnam- related research, archival and reconciliation institution in the United States.

During his years in the United States Navy, Dr. Reckner received the Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V'', the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat ``V'', the Meritorious Service Medal and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

For his work in academia, Dr. Reckner also received the Gold Key National Honor Society Teaching Award in 1991, the President's Outstanding Leadership Award in 1996 and the Faculty Distinguished Leadership Award in 2004, among others. Not only is he an inspiring educator and skilled researcher, but he is an accomplished author as well with several published writings on naval and military history. In 1989, he received the Theodore & Franklin D. Roosevelt Annual Naval History Award for his historical biography entitled Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet.

I am enormously appreciative to Dr. Reckner for his contributions to the Texas Tech community, veterans of the Vietnam War and their families, and for his efforts to foster reconciliation between Vietnam and the United States. Those in District 19, including me, thank him for a job well-done and extend to him our best wishes for his future endeavors.

Well, I thank the gentleman, and we are here today debating a very familiar issue in terms of credit cards, but this time things are a little bit different.

I do not strongly support the underlying provisions of H.R. 627, but I strongly support the Second Amendment protections offered by our colleague across the Capitol, Senator Coburn, and approved by the Senate. Anytime that Congress can back Americans' Second Amendment rights, we should certainly do so.

We've heard from our constituents and people across the country that they are upset about some of the credit card policies that are coming in place. Some people are seeing their interest rates increased, and some are seeing their credit lines reduced. I understand their concerns, particularly those who have been playing by the rules, using their credit cards responsibly. They feel like now they are being penalized for doing the right thing, and I don't disagree with them.

One of the things that people think is that somehow this credit card bill is going to help the people that have been doing and playing by the rules. In fact, this bill I believe hurts people that have been playing by the rules. Those who have been using their credit cards responsibly now can expect some extra fees and maybe now annual fees, where previously they were paying no annual fees.

We've talked a lot about what the Federal Reserve has been trying to do, and they have already issued new rules on credit card activities, and in fact, we've not even given the time for these new rules to be implemented, and we're going to bring legislation.

Now, the problem that I have with that is that anytime you put a new policy in place, sometimes there are unintended consequences. One of the things about making this law, as opposed to letting the Federal Reserve make that rule, is if the Federal Reserve were to discover that in some cases, some of these credit card rules were in fact being punitive to credit card users, they would have the ability to amend their rules.

If we put this into law, the problem is that if we find out there's some unintended consequences, then we have got to come back and go through a legislative process to undo that. Now, how many people believe that Congress has a history of undoing legislation that is found to be onerous? The record is not very good, and that's the reason many of us believe that we need to let these new Federal Reserve rules go into place, let the marketplace determine what are the best policies, and the best way to adjust to this.

If you look at the history of credit cards, what you learn is that many years ago credit cards were only available to the very best customers in the bank. Many people were not able to get credit cards. But as States changed their usury laws and more flexibility was given to these credit card companies on pricing of credit cards, they became available to many more Americans, and now almost every American probably has some form of credit card or the other.

What is going to happen now is that what these banks did, they were able to, if you were a little bit riskier customer, you paid a little bit higher rate. If you were a little less risky customer, you paid a lower rate. If you were paying your balances on time, you were being rewarded for that. If you were being late, you were being penalized for that. That makes sense. You know, good behavior, reward good behavior; bad behavior, punish bad behavior.

But what this bill wants to do is say, you know what, we're going to wrap everybody up into one little package and say everybody is the same. It doesn't matter whether you're chronically late on your credit card or if you're paying out the balance in full each month, we are going to restrict the ability to--

So why would Congress do that to credit cardholders that are actually being responsible about that. Well, they shouldn't do that, and that's the reason we should defeat this rule and defeat the underlying bill.

Now, interestingly enough, there was a New York Times article I believe yesterday--and not always do I agree with some of the things that are in the New York Times--but I thought it was interesting that this particular article basically said that same thing, that we're going to just allow banks to be able to do risk-based pricing and, to quote, ``Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. But with the relaxing of usury laws,'' as I told you earlier, they are able to do risk-based pricing.

It goes on to say that there will be one-size-fits-all pricing. What does that mean for those of us that maybe haven't been paying an annual fee on our credit card? We're going to be paying an annual fee. Those of us that have been enjoying a grace period, that grace period probably is going to get shorter. Those of us that maybe have reward credit cards where we're getting airline miles and something like that, what does that mean? Those probably are going to be restricted or could go away.

That's what happens when we get the Federal Government trying to tell Americans what kind of credit card they ought to have, what kind of mortgage they ought to have, what kind of car they ought to drive, what products their banks should be able to provide for them. What made this country great is innovation, and when the Federal Government starts getting involved in these businesses we destroy innovation, we destroy American people's choices, and that's not what the American people I believe sent Members of Congress here to do, to take away their choices. I believe they sent Members of Congress here to enhance their choices and enhance their opportunities.

And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to vote against the rule and vote against the underlying legislation, and I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

There are some provisions in this amendment that I support and there are some that I don't.

One of the parts of it that I do support is the amendment does call for a GAO study to analyze the effectiveness of the risk-retention provisions of this bill and make recommendations to Congress. My only regret is I wish we could have done a study before we implement this particular piece of legislation.

As you know, section 213 of the bill requires creditors to retain an economic interest in at least 5 percent of the credit risk of each loan that is not a qualified mortgage that the creditor transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party.

I think a lot of people feel that this skin in the game may be a good provision. I think the question that arises is what will be the impact on small lenders and small community banks across the country? One of the things that we want to make sure is that the bill is not really clear about the mechanism or the mechanics of how this provision would be implemented, and we're going to have to have regulatory clarification on that. I wish that, again, we could have had a study in advance of that so that we could then make sure that, as we are implementing this bill, that the regulators have some direction of how to go to make sure we implement this provision without causing major disruption in the mortgage process. Again, I wish we could have done that before.

There are concerns that I have about the manager's amendment as well, Mr. Chairman. First of all, rather than clarifying provisions related to broker compensation, yield-spread premiums, and ensuring all types of mortgage creditors are covered by equal antisteering provisions, this amendment adds further inequity and confusion.

Congressman Miller offered an amendment during the Financial Services Committee markup that would have preserved the careful balance of banning steering while preserving a consumer's ability to finance the closing costs and origination fees associated with their loan.

In committee, Chairman Frank said he felt that he and Mr. Miller had agreed in principle about only banning incentivized compensation and not direct compensation. Mr. Miller withdrew his amendment, given the agreement by the chairman to work with him on details of the language. The manager's amendment does not reflect that agreement, and the Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment submitted by Mr. Miller. Really instead of clarifying the ability of consumers to finance closing costs and origination fees through rate or principal, the manager's amendment removes that option to finance through the rate completely.

Additionally, the manager's amendment says all origination fees must be collected either up front or all fees shall be in the rate. This means consumers, again, will no longer have the option of paying some closing costs up front and some through the rate.

Consumers should be able to finance closing costs and origination fees as they deem appropriate for their individual circumstances. Clarifications were expected to ensure the preservation of this option, but the only clarification made was that the bill will now only prohibit this option in the manager's amendment.

What does that mean? Well, that means when an individual goes to their mortgage lender or to their local community bank, in the past they have had an option to say, you know, I would need to put a certain amount of my closing costs in the loan and maybe that would be reflected in the rate. Maybe part of it would be reflected in the principal balance. But now we're going to take away the option for the banker to offer that to the individuals. And I think that's what our opposition has been to this bill from the very beginning, that while we are trying to prevent predatory lending, and everybody is against predatory lending, at the same time we've started down a road where we are going to limit the available products to individuals. We're going to raise the cost of these mortgages to individuals, and, more importantly, we're going to cause mass confusion in the marketplace.

There are some very punitive things in this bill that if someone is ``steering,'' that could result in a lawsuit. And steering could be, well, I think this mortgage, if I offered you this one, it would be beneficial to you but I also think if I offered you this mortgage. But I think it's going to deter a lot of mortgage bankers and community bankers from offering two different options to individuals because they're going to be afraid that somehow they are steering.

I have some other concerns which I will express further into the debate here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's sensitivity to this because I think it is a very important issue that we need to resolve in this legislation before it becomes law.

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it's my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

I want to speak to the gentlewoman's provision in this bill, and one of the concerns I have, I mean, there is a lot of people that want to debate States' rights versus Federal rights. One of the concerns I have about the provision in the manager's amendment is that it says yes. It says, yes, there is Federal jurisdiction and, yes, there is State jurisdiction.

What I am concerned about is that could cause some potential conflicts, and that States would think they had jurisdiction, the Federal Government would think they have jurisdiction, and that States might get the opinion that they might have jurisdiction on some of the other provisions in this bill.

And so one of the things that I think we need to make sure of, as we move forward on this legislation, is we have, maybe, clearer lines on this preemption statute to make sure that everybody understands what the rules of engagement are, as this particular piece of legislation is being implemented.

So one of the other pieces of opposition that we have to this is that we need a clear, I think a clearer preemption wording in this bill to make sure that we understand what the States' jurisdiction is over this bill and what the Federal jurisdiction is over this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, another provision in this that has caused concern is the tenant provisions.

This amendment would require property owners to promptly notify any tenants or potential tenants upon becoming subject to foreclosure or defaulting on their mortgage loan. This language requires the owner to provide information on the circumstances with respect to the property and the effect of the default or foreclosure.

Notice to tenants is important. However, in multifamily projects such as apartments, a receiver is typically put in place to manage the property so that residents can remain in their apartments with no disruption. Mandating a notice to residents, if not done correctly, could cause alarm and maybe not even needed alarm.

I have a letter from the National Apartment Association where they have concerns about this very issue, that if you have got an apartment complex, the owner may be temporarily in default. You give notice to the tenants that you are temporarily in default. The tenants get scared, they start looking for other places to live, and, basically, creating vacancies, and, in fact, maybe making the default permanent by the fact that there will not be sufficient revenues to make the payments. So I have very large concerns about that.

Additionally, the amendment allows HUD to step in to troubled properties, transfer a multiproperty project, if delinquent, at the risk of fault or disinvestment or foreclosure.

This is a fairly major expansion of HUD's authority and could be considered to be a property taking. Property of this type may not be in foreclosure as yet, yet the provision would force properties into foreclosure or over into government control, again, a major expansion, quite honestly, a move away from what the original intent of this legislation was.

The original intent of this legislation was to prevent predatory lending. And now we are prescribing how tenants are going to be treated, whether we are going to force property owners to make disclosures about their financial condition, a major diversion from what I think is the intent of this legislation, and, again, one of the reasons that I do not support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I, again, rise in opposition to this amendment. One of the purposes of this legislation, again, we said, was to prevent predatory lending. But, unfortunately, the consequences of this legislation are going to be to increase the cost of mortgage financing for consumers.

It's going to raise the monthly payments for many consumers over what their choices would have originally been. It's going to limit the choices that are available to them. It's going to force lenders to provide maybe only one choice. It's also, I think, going to continue to cause a major disruption in the mortgage system.

As one of the speakers originally said, the market is very fragile right now, and some of the provisions in this amendment, I think, contribute to that.

With that, I encourage Members to vote against this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment. I think it does make the underlying bill better. Income verification is an important criteria in determining whether somebody qualifies for a mortgage or not and has the ability to repay. Providing a low-cost way to be able to do that, I think, is an important step in this process. And I commend the gentleman.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

The gentlewoman offers a thoughtful amendment. Prepayment is an important option for mortgage holders. I appreciate her amendment, and we support that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit by which the gentlewoman is introducing this amendment, but what we are all trying to do with disclosure, I think, is simplify it in a way that consumers actually understand the terms and conditions of the contract.

I have worked with Representative Biggert and Congressman Hinojosa to ensure that HUD, for example, and the Fed work together to have a simple

disclosure that is uniform and universal so that when people are taking credit out, they understand the terms and conditions of that and it's the same terms and conditions that they're presented when they get to closing.

Now, what the gentlewoman's amendment says is that all products offered or discussed or referred by the originator must be put in this spreadsheet. What does that mean? Well, that means that in order to cut down on the amount of paperwork that an originator is going to want to do, they're not going to discuss very many options and they're going to be asked to make assumptions of what are the benefits of a particular product over the other product.

One of the things that this bill does is it moves in a direction to begin to simplify that disclosure process, and now we're kind of truncating that with this new disclosure; so now we are going to add another piece of paper.

I would submit to you that a lot of people took on mortgages that they didn't understand the terms and conditions of. I don't know that there was any predatory lending necessarily going on. In some cases there may have been. But in many cases the disclosures are very hard to read, they're multipages, and the terms and conditions, unless you read many, many pages, you didn't understand.

One of the things that I believe is the best way to do that is that on a one-page form you have all of the more important conditions of this loan so that the person that's taking out that mortgage understands what they are getting. But I think we are going down a road here of what's going to happen in this legislation, if this amendment is passed is, we are going to tell the American people the government knows best what mortgage you should take out because we're going to make it so onerous for originators to display their products and to sit down and counsel with their prospective borrowers that they are going to only give them one choice. And, in fact, I think in many ways that's what this bill does.

It begins to say, you know what, the Federal Government is going to tell you what kind of mortgage that you should have. That's not the role of the Federal Government. The role of the Federal Government here is to make sure there are fair and ethical practices going on and not for the Federal Government to force originators of mortgages to be telling borrowers what kind of mortgages they should take out because they're afraid that they will fall under some of the provisions of this bill.

So I am very much opposed to this. I think it goes down the wrong direction. We are working in a bipartisan way to simplify disclosure for mortgages and we should stay that course.

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

Mr. Chairman, somehow adding more forms doesn't sound simpler to me, and basically that's what we are doing here.

In the underlying legislation, we're working together for a simple, uniform form. And by the way, what would happen in that case is, as the lender is talking about different products, they would have that simplified one-page disclosure for this product and that product, and then it's up to the consumer to be able to say, I'm going to look through this information and make a determination.

And if the gentleman would like to answer this question: Do you believe that a lender that maybe has 15 or 20 products available to him for an individual borrower is going to display 15 or 20 products to you if he's going to have to do a spreadsheet that's 15 or 16 columns wide?

I yield to the gentleman.

That wasn't the question. The question was, do you think that someone is going to offer 15 choices if they're going to have to do a spreadsheet that's 15 columns wide?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is going to be ``no,'' because the people that are offering those are going to offer one or two choices because now they've got additional paperwork and they're going to have to be drawing assumptions of the cost/benefits.

If we go back to the underlying bill, which says you've got to make a disclosure, and it's going to be in a simplified form hopefully, and with government that's a stretch to simplify anything, but if we do get HUD and the Fed together to come up with one form, then we're going to be able to offer them products where we have a uniform disclosure. So they're going to be able to draw their own conclusions and not rely on the lender or the originator to make some kind of assumptions on a spreadsheet.

I do not object, but I would like for the gentleman to clarify what his amendment does.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I am sorry I didn't make the question clear to the gentleman, in his UC, he was trying to fix a PAYGO issue.

Could you explain how your unanimous consent request addressed that PAYGO issue?

Thank you.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

So instead of being mandatory, it's discretionary.

I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to congratulate

some champions in the 19th Congressional District of Texas. I proudly congratulate the Sudan Nettes girls basketball team of Sudan High School in Sudan, Texas, for winning the Class 1A, Division I State championship in 2009.

The Nettes finished the 2008-2009 season with 35 wins and only five losses. The championship squad includes seniors Whitney Robertson, Skylar Sowder, Amy Tiller, and Brittany Williams; juniors Lacee Logan and CeCe Williams; sophomores Emylee Gonzales, Desiree King, Chelsea Locke, and Mariah Steinbock; and freshmen Baylee Black and Danielle Logan. Led by head coach Jason Cooper, the coaching staff includes assistant coaches Lisa Logan and Mark Scisson.

Following a frustrating loss in this last year's State finals, the Nettes demonstrated their hard work and determination during the off- season. In this year's final, their focus on teamwork paid off in a 71- 38 victory over the Roscoe Plowgirls, the third largest margin of victory in Class 1A history. With this win, Sudan earns its fourth State title and its first since 1994.

I applaud the Nettes' hard work and tradition of success. With great support from the community, the team proved itself as the best basketball team in Class 1A. The Sudan Nettes continue to exemplify the principles of competitive spirit and success on and off the court.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I proudly congratulate the Muleshoe Mules high school football team for defeating Kirbyville on the way to winning the Class 2A, Division I State football championship in 2008.

Establishing a tradition of success, the Mules have made their State playoffs 9 out of the last 10 years under Head Coach David Woods. In 2008, the Mules demonstrated their talent and determination by ending the football season with a perfect 15-0 record. This is the first State football championship for Muleshoe.

Quarterback Wes Wood passed for 4,532 yards for this season, with 230 of those yards in this year's championship game.

In another exceptional championship performance, Lane Wood ran for 160 yards and two touchdowns. The Mules scored four consecutive touchdowns in the second half to achieve a final score of 48-26.

I applaud the Mules' hard work and resilience through the 2008-2009 season. With great support from the community, the team proved itself as the best 2A football team in the State of Texas and an inspiration to all of us. The Muleshoe Mules continue to exemplify the principles of competitive spirit and success on and off the field.

I think we will have a good debate today because it is not about not doing nothing, but it's about a difference of opinion of what the right thing to do is, because that's really, bottom line, what the American people want us to do.

They want to have a good mortgage and they want the right to have a mortgage that works for them. I think that the Republicans will articulate that we want them to have those choices.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who has been a strong advocate of making sure that Americans have plenty of opportunities and plenty of choices when they look at their financial products.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The example I would use here today, imagine taking your car to the repair shop and saying, you know, my car is not running very well, it is running rough. And immediately the service attendant reaches over, pulls up your hood, and starts taking the engine out. And you stop and you say, wait a minute, what are you doing? And they say we are going to put a new engine in, you said your engine wasn't running correctly. That is before we did any diagnostic work to maybe determine whether it needed new spark plugs, or maybe it needed a new valve, or something like that.

And, really, we have started down a road here. We have had one of the most robust housing finance systems in the world. It has been the envy of the world. It has allowed record levels of homeownership for American families. Yes, it is running a little rough right now and we will need to get to the bottom of that, we need to diagnose what those problems are. The Federal Reserve is going down that road; they

have promulgated some new rules. We have said that now people who are going to originate mortgages are going to have to be registered.

But the problem here is that my friends are going down the road here without really determining all the places in the engine that could be causing the engine not to run correctly, they want to put a new engine in there--an untested engine.

Quite honestly, I spent a number of years in the housing business. I built houses, I made mortgage loans, I have borrowed money, I have originated mortgages. And one of the things I know is that not every mortgage fits every situation. A lot of people were able to enjoy the American Dream because they were able to get a mortgage tailored to their financial needs. What this bill does is says, you know what, the government is going to tell you what kind of mortgage you get. And if you don't take the government mortgage, it might not allow you to get the house that you want. It is like, not only is the government going to put a new engine in your car, but, by the way, the government says, scoot over, now we are going to drive.

We have seen, in the last few months, a major government intervention into financial markets, into automobile companies, into insurance companies. Last week, we saw that the Federal Government is going to tell you what kind of credit card you get to have now. And now my colleagues on the other side want to tell you what kind of mortgage you get, which is going to tell you what kind of house you get. That is not the American Dream; that's the Government Dream. Quite honestly, my colleagues are dreaming if they think this is not going to increase the cost of mortgages for families all across the country.

And you know what happens when you increase the cost of the mortgage? It reduces the affordability for those American families. That means many of them have to buy smaller houses, or, in some cases, many people are priced out of the housing market because they can't get the mortgage that meets their needs.

Let's let the American people have a choice to do that. Let's stop and look and give the regulatory measures that have already been proposed by the Federal Reserve time to work. And let's make sure that we are fixing the things that are broken before we throw out the whole engine and leave Americans without the ability to be able to have affordable mortgages and afford the American Dream.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure now to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that there's any disagreement in this House, and certainly not on our side, that predatory lending is bad, and we have taken steps to do that. The Fed has taken steps to do that. We want to make sure that people have the right choice of mortgage to be able to take a mortgage out that allows them to own a home.

The problem with this bill is that it really starts to mess up the conduit of how mortgages are made. And a little bit of history on that is a mortgage is made in your local bank or a mortgage banking company. It is then sold into the secondary market. Investors buy those mortgages so that those banks and mortgage companies can originate more loans, and that's how we have built this great housing market in this country.

What this bill does is it begins to put liability and uncertainty at a time there's already a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the secondary market. In fact, the secondary market in this country right now is shut down because of uncertainty, and now we want to dump a whole bunch or more of contingent liability and uncertainty on the secondary market to the point where I'm not sure whether we'll ever be able to start that engine.

So what I think what our colleagues are trying to do is to say somehow that Republicans are not against the predatory lending. Of course we're against predatory lending, and steps have been taken. But what we are for is making sure that there is a mortgage market left when this all blows over. Yes, the market has had a hiccup and people are now trying to ascertain what the new rules are going to be. They've seen the government take over banks and get involved in all kinds of businesses. So there is a lot of uncertainty out there. And the question is, was a lot of this a lack of oversight or was it a lack of a bunch of regulations? I would submit in many cases this was a case where there was not appropriate oversight.

I yield myself an additional minute.