Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2352, the ``School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007'', which is aimed at making America a safer place. The bill under consideration addresses health and safety issues for children. I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

H.R. 2352 is necessary and will ensure the protection and safety of our children in a learning environment. Violence at our schools have increased at an alarming rate in States

such as California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin over the last few years. H.R. 2352 seeks to curb that stem of violence.

H.R. 2352 increases authorized annual funding from $30 million to $50 million for FY 2008-2009 for the Secure Our Schools grant program, and decreases the non-Federal grant participation percentage from 50 percent to 20 percent. It requires institutions of higher education to conduct annual campus safety assessments and develop and implement campus emergency response plans.

This bill seeks to address the violence in our schools. It will ensure the safety of students and teachers and will make sure that education is the paramount concern of educators.

The Act also increases the Federal portion of the funding from 50 percent to 80 percent, which decreases the non-Federal portion from 50 percent to 20 percent. According to the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Office of the Department of Justice, which administers the Secure Our Schools grants, many of the poorer communities that need help the most have been unable to participate in the program because they cannot afford the previously required 50 percent non-federal grant match. The proposed change in non-Federal funding is more in line with the COPS traditional 75/25 percent split, and should allow more participation in the program.

The Act increases the possible uses of funding to include surveillance equipment, hotlines to report potentially dangerous situations and capital improvements to make school facilities more secure. Finally, the Act requires the establishment of an interagency task force to develop and promulgate advisory school safety guidelines.

The Act amends the existing requirements for grant applications, and requires each grant application to be accompanied by a report, signed by the chief education officer and the attorney general or other chief legal officer, demonstrating that the proposed use of the grant funds is an effective means for improving school safety, is consistent with a comprehensive approach to preventing school violence, and meets the individualized needs of the particular school.

Finally, the Act amends the Higher Education Act and requires each eligible participating institution to conduct an annual campus safety assessment, and develop and implement a campus emergency response plan to address emergency situations, including natural disasters, active shooter situations, and terrorist attacks. The bill is sponsored by Mr. Rothman, and has 52 cosponsors.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Scott from Virginia for his critical insight into this much needed legislation before us. H.R. 3971, the Death in Custody Reporting Program reauthorizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, program, which is designed to report the deaths of prisoners and immigration detainees in local and State custody.

The Death in Custody Reporting Act is a critical oversight tool which allows State and local corrections officials and advocates to monitor in-custody suicides, homicides, drug and alcohol overdoses and other critical issues.

Due to the current lack of transparency and accountability, the public and advocacy groups have to rely on word-of-mouth and media accounts to find out about deaths of immigration detainees. According to the ACLU, at least 69 immigrants have died in custody since 2004. A significant number of these deaths occurred in Federal detention facilities.

I am pleased that the Senate amended this legislation to ensure that Federal detention center authorities also had to report under the same circumstances and the State detention centers; finally closing the loophole that allowed deaths of immigration detainees in Federal detention facilities to go unreported.

This program which began in 2000, is supposed to receive death records quarterly from each State's prison and juvenile justice systems and from nearly 18,000 State and local law enforcement agencies. The reports include the age, gender and race of the deceased, the criminal history of the deceased and the circumstances surrounding the death.

Sadly, according to a report by Human Rights Watch the U.S. criminal justice system fails to meet many international standards for the treatment of crime victims. Among other proposed measures in the report, HRW recommended that the United States ratify the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Colleagues, nearly 300,000 men, women, and children are detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, each year, the majority of whom have no criminal history whatsoever. Thousands arrived on our shores fleeing persecution and torture, only to be locked up like criminals in one of over 400 detention facilities around the country. We must not let go of our belief in the innate value of human life, or stray from our fundamental values while detaining immigrants or criminal offenders.

In 1995, after a one-year investigation by journalist Mike Masterson into prison conditions and the death rate of persons in custody, Ashberry Park Press of New Jersey, ran a series of award winning editorials which listed the following abuses resulting in death that were occurring in our jails and prisons: Racially motivated violence, overzealous police investigations, cover-ups and general law enforcement incompetence.

This prompted the Death In Custody Act of 2000 which required reporting of deaths of persons in custody. Since then, The Bureau of Justice Statistics has compiled a number of statistics. My colleague, Congressman Bobby Scott at one point testified to the most astounding statistic--that since reporting deaths have been made mandatory, the latest report dated August 2005 shows a 64 percent decline in suicides and 93 percent decline in homicides for individuals in custody. He stated that these statistics suggest that the oversight measures play an important role in ensuring safety and security of prisoners in State facilities.

I agree with his finds and that is why I support H.R. 3971. We need continued oversight over the conduct of law enforcement in the arrest and imprisonment of citizens and immigrants.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics date shows that between 2001 and 2005, there were 15,308 State prisoner deaths, 5,935 local prisoner deaths and 43 juvenile deaths during incarceration. In my district alone, in the last decade, 106 deaths have occurred in Harris County jail, many because of inability to secure meds or to secure med care after an attack.

Immigrants in Jails

Survivors of torture, asylum-seekers, families with small children and individuals with serious mental health and medical conditions such as HIV/AIDS, are routinely locked up in jails or under jail-like conditions. Studies conducted by the bipartisan Commission on International Religious Freedom, New York University's Bellevue Program, and Physicians for Human Rights have demonstrated that, even in well-run jails, detention itself poses a serious threat to the psychological health of the detainees.

Without the right to appointed counsel and often detained in remote locations, detainees are unable to exercise fully what rights they do have. While I do not stand here and advocate allowing duly processed criminals to be released, or those breaking our immigration law to be simply be set loose, there are safer and more cost-effective alternatives to detention for most immigrants ICE currently detains.

conclusion

Angela Davis, an activist who went from being on the most wanted list to a distinguished and tenured professor in California, said that ``Jails and prisons are designed to

break human beings, to convert the population into specimens in a zoo-- obedient to our keepers, but dangerous to each other.''

Is that our goal? Are jails and prisons rehabilitating or are they simply creating more dangerous criminals? We need to better understand what is happening in our society and take account for it. This legislation maintains a log--a report that will track deaths in custody. The more we know what is going on, the more responsible we must become. It is my belief that this is just the beginning of a criminal justice system that needs reform.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

We are here to do the people's business. That business must be done in the context of the Constitution. And so I will support this rule, but I will raise a number of questions dealing with the constitutional protections of Americans, the restraining of the power of the Secretary of the Treasury, the understanding of this body being called back to be able to immediately respond if the irresponsible actions of this administration continue with the monies that may be given through the passing of this bill.

I tried to put more structure into the bill by giving $10 billion in amendments, $10 billion just for mortgages

for people who want to restructure. We talked about bankruptcy language that should have been put in that I offered; we talked about making it stronger and how you restructure the mortgages, rather than encourage them to restructure the mortgage, requiring them to do it. I had language that would address the question of making sure the courts were stronger, that courts had the ability to render equitable or injunctive relief. I also had an amendment to give us a 9/11-type commission, criminal liability. We tried to make the bill better, but we are going to work through this process.

I am going to watch this process, and determine whether or not we can do the people's business. That is what I think is important.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on H. Res. 1525, providing for consideration of the rule on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I want to begin by stating that I worked very hard. I worked hard to make this bill better. I will be listening intently to the debate throughout the day to establish the perspective and the legislative history we need for my constituents, the State of Texas, and for all of America.

I offered several amendments to make the Act better.

The first amendment that I would like to offer sets aside $10 billion as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the absence of a bankruptcy provision in the bill. I believe that the amount in reality should be higher; however, $10 billion is a good starting point.

This provision is important because the American people that are currently in mortgage foreclosure are facing a real and present crisis. Indeed, these are tough economic times. This money can be given to them by the Secretary of Treasury. This is a modest attempt at addressing the present crisis and it ensures that those on Main Street get the relief that they long deserve.

The second amendment that I would like to offer permits bankruptcy judges to allow persons in default of their mortgage on their primary residence to alter the terms of their mortgage. As Senator Barack Obama has recently stated, he is committed to altering the Bankruptcy Code in the future to assist homeowners on the question of restructuring their mortgages. Therefore, I believe that there should Sense of Congress language that provides that the Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgages. This would send a clear message that Congress is interested in helping Americans pay off their debt despite its not changing the Bankruptcy Code at this time.

The third amendment that I would like to offer makes an addition to Section 109 of the bill, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts.'' The present language of 109 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury should be encouraged to allow individual homeowners who face mortgage foreclosure to modify the homeowners' loans to prevent mortgage foreclosure. My amendment would change the words from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans.

In listening to the discussions that have been coming out of the mouths of voters across America, there is confusion as to what the monies will be used for. It would be very helpful in the legislative history or report language to designate how the monies will be utilized.

My fourth amendment addresses enforcement. There needs to be greater enforcement. In the section on judicial review there should be language that specifically provides that ``the courts should be able to exercise their discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the court determines that such relief would not destabilize financial markets.'' These are remedies available at law and in equity that inure to the litigants benefit. There has been no compelling reason put forth to vitiate or limit these remedies insofar as their implementation does not unduly affect or destabilize the financial markets.

My fifth amendment would create a new independent, commission to exercise oversight over what happened and the commission should regularly provide reports to Congress. This Commission unlike the one presently in the bill would be backward looking.

My sixth amendment would provide for narrowly crafted enforcement language. It provides that corporate executives who have been convicted of criminal malfeasance in the financial sector would be barred from conducting financial business with the government for a period of seven (7) years.

This is important because those corporate executives who have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing should not be allowed to continue in conducting business with the government. They should be barred for a period to attenuate the taint of their wrongdoing.

My seventh, amendment would permanently lift the present insurance cap of $100,000 that FDIC has established to insure funds stored in FDIC-backed banking institutions. This is different from the Senate bill because it makes the increase to $250,000 permanent.

My eighth, and final, amendment concerns Section 109 of the bill. Specifically, in Section 109, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts,'' the language should be changed from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans.

Specifically, current section 109(a) states in pertinent part that ``the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages . . . to minimize foreclosures.'' I believe if the true intent is to bailout ``Main Street,'' the Secretary should be ``required'' to minimize foreclosures.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of Financial Services Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I rise today with the confidence that our system of government is strong and the constitutional protections of the full faith and credit of our government must protect Main Street America while we reform America's Wall Street.

Many have claimed that this is a historic vote. Historic votes are not ubiquitous. Historic votes come about through necessity and not through the failures of people. This problem has persisted for a while and now Congress must rush before the recess to a vote. While I would have liked more time, time has seemingly run out.

I would begin by saying that I had concerns about the bill that was presented to the Congress on Monday. After much deliberation and a return visit to my district, I vote ``yes'' for this bill. Given these dire economic times, it is the responsible thing to do to vote ``yes'' when the mass of Americans are suffering.

Let me give you a picture of the tough economic times which face Americans. The economy is shredding jobs. The U.S. economy has lost jobs in every single month of 2008. In September, the economy suffered its biggest 1-month job loss,-159,000, in over 5 years. In total, the economy has shed 760,000 jobs since the beginning of the year.

Poor labor markets are significantly increasing unemployment. Within the past year, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by 2.2. million. In September, there were 9.5 million unemployed workers, keeping the unemployment rate at a 5-year high of 6.1 percent. Thus, it has become harder for Americans to find jobs.

The economy is faced with credit crunches. Individuals have found it difficult to get first or second mortgages, credit, credit cards, and loans, including student loans. Because of the compendium of these economic concerns, coupled with the drying up of the credit market, I have changed my vote from a few days ago from a ``no'' to a ``yes.'' I changed my vote because of my concern for the well-being of the American people.

The first three articles of the United States Constitution address the three branches of Government and their enumerated powers. These Articles govern the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches. Because there is no specific grant of constitutional authority for the actions that will be taking place here today, we the Members of Congress need to exercise oversight over the powers and actions of the executive. Should the executive or its agencies exceed the powers granted to it in the Constitution, the judicial can review the determinations made by the executive and the legislative branches. These concepts are fundamental to our Constitution and our system of constitutional checks and balances. These checks and balances were established by the Founding Fathers to reign in the unbridled power of the executive.

Today we are engaged in a fundamental exercise of the constitutional powers extended to the Congress. Today's vote is critically important.

Several questions come to mind when I consider the present financial crisis: Where was the FDIC? Where was the SEC? Where was the Federal Reserve?

I have worked with leadership to offer consistent amendments, not once but twice unsuccessfully, that would have strengthened the enforcement measures over the past week to change the administration's proposal to make it more encompassing, effective, and better for the American people.

While the present legislation is impressive, it is also impressive regarding what needs clarification in the present legislation. For example, the legislation needs clarification on its bankruptcy restructuring, enforcement, and judicial review. These are all issues that I have been very concerned about.

Because I am concerned and desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, I offered amendments yesterday. To ensure that this bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the following amendments:

First, many are concerned about the dollar amount that will be set aside for those individuals facing mortgage foreclosure. Therefore, I asked that language be inserted into the bill so that $10 billion be utilized for the Secretary of the Treasury to restructure mortgages.

Second, as Senator Barack Obama has recently stated, he is committed to altering the bankruptcy code in the future to assist homeowners on the question of restructuring their mortgages. Therefore, I believe that there should have been Sense of Congress language that the Congress should review and amend the bankruptcy code to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring. This would have sent a clear message that Congress is interested in helping Americans pay off their debt despite its not changing the bankruptcy code at this time.

Third, there needs to be greater enforcement. In the section on judicial review, Section 119, there should have been language that specifically states that ``the courts should be able to exercise their discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the court determines that such relief would not destabilize financial markets.''

Fourth, the legislation should have created a new, independent commission to exercise oversight over what happened and the commission should regularly provide reports to Congress. This commission would be backward looking.

Fifth, the legislation should have been narrowly crafted so that corporate executives who may be convicted of criminal malfeasance in the financial sector might be barred from conducting financial business with the Government for a period of 7 years.

Sixth, the legislation should have permanently lifted the present insurance cap of $100,000 that the FDIC has established to insure funds stored in FDIC-backed banking institutions to $250,000. I believe that this has already been included in the Senate bill; but, my amendment would have made the change permanent.

Seventh, in section 109, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts,'' the language should be changed from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans.

Specifically, current section 109(a) states in pertinent part that ``the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages . . . to minimize foreclosures.'' I believe if the true intent is to bailout ``Main Street,'' the Secretary should be ``required'' to minimize foreclosures.

There are certain redeeming qualities to the bill.

I understand that H.R. 1424 establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Board in section 104; Oversight and Audits in section 116; and a Congressional Oversight Panel in section 125. Therefore, these sections provide some oversight over the financial crisis and help to add one piece to the economic puzzle.

Without bankruptcy I offered an amendment that $10 billion should be set aside so that the Department of Treasury could use those funds to address the question of individuals facing home mortgage foreclosure. I considered it important to set aside money because I wanted to ensure that Main Street received something from this bailout and not just Wall Street.

The administration has labeled the current economic situation as a crisis that requires emergency measures. Our vote today in favor of the legislation is a first attempt at addressing these dire economic times.

Above all, my concern is to ensure that the American people receive the relief that they deserve. If the American people are facing mortgage foreclosure, it is my desire that monies be provided to them so that they can continue to stay in their home and pay their mortgages and their bills. Everyone deserves the economic dream of owning their own home. But the financial institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to assess the borrower's ability to pay for loans and purchase a home. It was the squandering of this responsibility and preoccupation with greed and avarice that has led us to where we are today. I am not satisfied that this bill is perfect, but this bill does allow Treasury to buy toxic assets from financial institutions, including our small and community banks. Once these toxic assets are purchased, the Treasury should be encouraged to restructure loans that are in foreclosure. This is indeed encouraging news.

There are substantial improvements in the present version of the bill compared to the Bush administration proposal. However, the bill as it is presently written, in my view needs some clarification as to how it provides the necessary relief to middle-class America. There are provisions now that address accountability measures by requiring a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full, and requiring congressional review after the first $350 billion for future payments.

Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and reform. One of the phases is to reinvest in the troubled financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another, reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan to guarantee that they will be repaid in full. The last is to reform how business is done on Wall Street. The current legislation provides for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit, provides sweeping congressional oversight.

There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that yield greater protection to the American taxpayers and even to Main Street. However, with the passage of this bill, it is my hope that H.R. 1424 will help the financial markets and make America secured. I am cautious and hopeful that there is enough in the bill to help Americans struggling with their mortgages.

Although I have certain lingering concerns regarding this bill, I have voted for this bill. After meeting with an Assistant Secretary for the Treasury, some of my concerns were answered; others remained. For example, the Assistant Secretary indicated Treasury's intervention in the markets will afford it the opportunity to purchase toxic assets. After Treasury purchases these toxic assets at fair market value, it is expected that the purchase price will set a marker so that other similar classes of assets will be purchased at the same or higher price level. This is a positive development for banks and financial institutions to recapitalize themselves. By itself this would be a help to commercial banks that desire to sell off their toxic assets.

In my conversation with the Assistant Secretary, he indicated that as time goes on, Treasury will develop guidelines for identifying and helping troubled small and community

banks. It is intended that small and community banks and small, women, and minority-owned businesses will all be aided by this legislation. These latter institutions will be aided because it is expected that there will be more liquidity in the market available to these entities and that more credit can be extended to them.

Lastly, the Assistant Secretary indicated that under sections 109 and 110, that Treasury has every incentive to renegotiate the terms of troubled mortgages. Importantly, the Assistant Secretary indicated that not all homeowners who are facing mortgage foreclosure will be helped. The goal, however, is to help as many Americans as possible.

I have drafted a letter to Chairman Frank of Financial Services, and I have raised several questions to which I would like answers.

First, I have asked Chairman Frank that should something go wrong with this bailout, whether Congress can be called to reconvene at any time before or after the election.

Second, I have asked Chairman Frank to share the constitutional grant of authority that would prevent the Secretary of Treasury from having unfettered power so that there will be a balance between the interests of the banks and individual homeowners.

Third, I have asked Chairman Frank what members of Congress can expect in the 111th Congress regarding follow-up on this bill and the financial situation generally.

Fourth, I have asked Chairman Frank to answer how members can ensure that community and regional banks can take advantage of this bill.

These are critical questions that need to be answered.

I believe that Wall Street is an important and vital part of the Nation's economy. I believe that the people who work there are good. It is a well known fact that financial markets do not always serve small businesses and minorities. I have personally had experiences where good hardworking people and small business owners were denied access to financial markets.

I believe in America and I believe in its Constitution. I believe that this bill would allow constant monitoring and vigilance and would help the American people.

I am reminded of the Preamble to our Constitution, which reads:

``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

I would like to end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton: ``the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.''

I hope that this legislation will provide the American people with the sun beam. It is my hope that this legislation works and that it serves the American people.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of financial services Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I also rise with a sense of the solemnity of this moment. However, I rise today with the confidence that our system of government is strong and the constitutional protections of the full faith and credit of our government must protect Main Street America while we reform America's Wall Street.

The first three articles of the United States Constitution address the three branches of government and their enumerated powers. These articles govern the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches. Because there is no specific grant of constitutional authority for the actions that will be taking place here today, we the members of Congress need to exercise oversight over the powers and actions of the executive. Should the executive or its agencies exceed the powers granted to it in the Constitution, the judicial can review the determinations made by the executive and the legislative branches. These concepts are fundamental to our Constitution and our system of constitutional checks and balances. These checks and balances were established by the Founding Fathers to reign in the unbridled power of the executive.

Today we are engaged in a fundamental exercise of the constitutional powers extended to the Congress. Today's vote is critically important.

Several questions come to mind when I consider the present financial crisis:

Where was the FDIC?

Where was the SEC?

Where was the Federal Reserve?

I have worked with leadership to offer consistent amendments, not once but twice unsuccessfully, that would have strengthened the enforcement measures over the past week to change the Administration's proposal to make it more encompassing, effective, and better for the American people. While the present legislation is impressive, it is also impressive regarding what needs clarification in the present legislation. For example, the legislation needs clarification on its bankruptcy restructuring; enforcement; and judicial review. These are all issues that I have been very concerned about.

Because I am concerned and desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, I offered amendments yesterday. To ensure that this bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the following amendments:

First, many are concerned about the dollar amount that will be set aside for those individuals facing mortgage foreclosure. Therefore, I asked that language be inserted into the bill so that $10 billion be utilized for the Secretary of the Treasury to restructure mortgages.

Second, as Senator Barack Obama has recently stated, he is committed to altering the Bankruptcy Code in the future to assist homeowners on the question of restructuring their mortgages. Therefore, I believe that there should have been Sense of Congress language that the Congress should review and amend the Bankruptcy Code to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring. This would have sent a clear message that Congress is interested in helping Americans pay off their debt despite its not changing the Bankruptcy Code at this time.

Third, there needs to be greater enforcement. In the section on judicial review (section 119), there should have been language that specifically states that ``the courts should be able to exercise their discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the court determines that such relief would not destabilize financial markets.''

Fourth, the legislation should have created a new, independent commission to exercise oversight over what happened and the commission should regularly provide reports to Congress. This Commission would be backward looking.

Fifth, the legislation should have been narrowly crafted so that corporate executives who may be convicted of criminal malfeasance in the financial sector might be barred from conducting financial business with the government for a period of seven (7) years.

Sixth, the legislation should have permanently lifted the present insurance cap of $100,000 that the FDIC has established to insure funds stored in FDIC-backed banking institutions to $250,000. I believe that this has already been included in the Senate bill; but, my amendment would have made the change permanent.

Eighth, in section 109, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts,'' the language should be changed from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans.

Specifically, current section 109(a) states in pertinent part that ``the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages . . . to minimize foreclosures.'' I believe if the true intent is to bailout ``Main Street,'' the Secretary should be ``required'' to minimize foreclosures.

Can you clarify how this legislation has any enforcement? I understand that H.R. 1424 establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Board in section 104; Oversight and Audits in section 116; and a Congressional Oversight Panel in section 125. However, none of these sections appear to provide penalties or sanctions for non-compliance.

I intend to have the following questions answered:

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Can you explain why the

bankruptcy provisions were removed from the bill?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Without bankruptcy I offered an

amendment that $10 billion dollars should be set aside so

that the Department of Treasury could use those funds to

address the question of individuals facing home mortgage

foreclosure. I considered it important to set aside money

because I wanted to ensure that Main Street received

something from this bailout and not just Wall Street. Can you

explain what provisions

in the bill would ensure that the monies are spent on persons

in mortgage foreclosure?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Can we add report language

indicating to the Secretary how monies are to be used when it

comes to Americans in mortgage foreclosure and can we add

language that the Secretary should attempt to restructure the

mortgages of homeowners that are in mortgage foreclosure?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The Administration has labeled

the current economic situation as a crisis that requires

emergency measures. Because these are ``exigent''

circumstances that are in need of correction, what in the

bill prevents the Secretary from using all the $350 billion

by January 2009?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Above all, my concern is to

ensure that the American people receive the relief that they

deserve. If the American people are facing mortgage

foreclosure, it is my desire that monies be provided to them

so that they can continue to stay in their home and pay their

mortgages and their bills. Everyone deserves the economic

dream of owning their own home. But the financial

institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to assess

the borrower's ability to pay for loans and purchase a home.

It was the squandering of this responsibility and

preoccupation with greed and avarice that has led us to where

we are today.

There are substantial improvements in the present version

of the bill compared to the Bush administration proposal.

However, the bill as it is presently written, in my view

needs some clarification as to how it provides the necessary

relief to middle-class America. Frankly, the bill provides no

panacea to our present economic woes. Our markets will have

the full faith and credit of the United States.

There are provisions now that address accountability

measures by requiring a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid

in full, and requiring Congressional review after the first

$350 billion for future payments.

Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue

with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and

reform. One of the phases is to re-invest in the troubled

financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another,

reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan to guarantee that

they will be repaid in full. The last is to reform how

business is done on Wall Street. The current legislation

provides for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit,

provides sweeping Congressional oversight.

There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that

yield greater protection to the American taxpayers and even

to Main Street. However, with a ``pause'' we can help the

financial markets and make America secure. I still have

concern that there is enough in the bill to help Americans

struggling with their mortgages. Is there some bright hope

you can share with me to relieve me of my anxiety?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Chairman Frank, on many

occasions, you have reiterated the concern of the American

people, which we both share, the wish that this legislation

had stronger and more comprehensive relief for home owners

facing foreclosures. Please elaborate on your interest,

willingness, and commitment for us to work together to

introduce and pass stronger and more comprehensive housing

foreclosure legislation in the next Congress?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and your staff, for your

commitment to this issue.

I thank the chairman for having the wisdom to bring this legislation up.

If you look at my State, you will see that Texas is just a smidgeon below turning red, and not on politics, but on the numbers of individuals unemployed.

As was indicated, we just voted on an emergency stimulus package on which I originally voted no. But looking at these numbers, having my car dealerships call me and tell me about the freezing of credit, with great difficulty I voted yes. But today is an acknowledgement that we are in crisis. 159,000 people today are unemployed, making a total of 759,000 people.

This emergency stimulus package or this emergency rescue package has got to focus on Mr. and Mrs. America. That is what the extension of unemployment benefits represents, so that Ms. Jackson in my district who has a high adjusted mortgage rate can still keep her job. We have got to keep her job and keep a house. And that is what my vote was today on the rescue package. That is why I am supporting these extenders, because we have got a crisis, folks. And this party, this Democratic Congress, this new President must address this question.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6867, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act introduced by Congressman McDermott of Washington.

Background

On June 30, 2008, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program was created by Public Law 110-252. This new temporary unemployment insurance program provided up to 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits to certain workers who had exhausted their rights to regular unemployment compensation (UC) benefits.

Unfortunately, over 1 million workers have joined the ranks of the unemployed since Congress enacted the Extended Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program in June, and over 800,000 workers are projected to exhaust their current extended benefits if we do not act now.

Hurricanes Rita, Gustav, and Ike have wreaked havoc on the gulf coast, and in my district of Houston, Texas I have seen people with out food and water. This devastation has also clearly affected the job market and has forced many hardworking Houstonians into the unemployment lines.

General--Statistics

The U.S. economy has lost jobs in every single month of 2008. This past month, the economy suffered its biggest 1-month job loss (-159,000) in over 5 years. With over 9.5 million unemployed workers the national unemployment rate is at a 5-year high of 6.1 percent. New claims for unemployment benefits just hit a 7-year high in mid- September. In total, the economy has shed 760,000 jobs since the beginning of the year.

Over the past year, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by 2.2 million. New claims for unemployment benefits just hit a 7-year high in mid-September. In July, there were 2.6 jobless workers for every available job. More than one out of every five unemployed workers has been jobless for over 6 months. The number of long-term unemployed (2 million) is up 57 percent over the last 12 months with 89 metropolitan areas having a jobless rate of at least 7 percent.

From January to May, 5 consecutive months, the U.S. economy has lost jobs. The unemployment rate had its biggest 1-month increase in over 20 years in May of this year.

The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fastest acting forms of economic stimulus because the money is spent quickly.

Congress has enacted federally-funded extended unemployment benefit programs on seven different occasions over the last 50 years in response to economic weakness (1958, 1961, 1972, 1975, 1982, 1991, and 2002).

In addition to those already seeking employment, statistics from recent years show an average of 100,000 additional job seekers entering the labor market in Texas alone, between the months of April and June.

The unemployment rates for adult men (4.9 percent), adult women (4.8 percent), teenagers (18.7 percent), whites (4.9 percent), and blacks (9.7 percent) rose in May. The jobless rate for Hispanics (6.9 percent) was unchanged. The unemployment rate for Asians was 3.8 percent.

Conclusion

Unemployment is at record highs. This affects the very heart of our American families. We must act now to extend these benefits. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6867 and support American families.

I thank the speaker very much, and again for his leadership.

I rise not because I would have wanted this vote today on the Emergency Economic Stabilization rescue package to be characterized as it has been characterized as ``a vote of the moment'' historic vote because I believe historic votes are votes that are absolutely imperative, that no one could foresee, that the challenges cannot be handled in any other way.

In this instance, we have been floating money for the past 8 years, ignoring regulation, ignoring the spiraling unemployment. And even though the motives were good to give opportunities to those who eagerly work every day and seek the American Dream, the vehicles, the facilities by which we allowed them or gave them the opportunity to seek and to attain those dreams was not theirs, it was the financial houses that saw big dollars in the eyes, the minds and the hearts of hardworking families that simply wanted to provide a homework desk for their children, their children's own room. So it caught Members, if you will, cast about in the suggestion and the characterization made by the administration, but made as well by media rushing to hysteria.

Then, of course, in the midst of this debate did not come the Senate's vote, which many people will think was one-upsmanship, but really what came as startling numbers--the numbers of 159,000 people who lost their jobs in this last month, the highest in 5 years; the fact that we needed to extend unemployment, not because people are deadbeat, but because they're out of luck, because they need this opportunity; came the number of 759,000 jobs that we have lost; came the unfortunate facts that credit crunching was going on, not necessarily for the seventh grader who may want to go to college 5 years from now, but for the person who desperately needs to buy a car or the small business that desperately needs to make their payroll.

So as a person who voted no because I believe the restraints on the Secretary of the Treasury were unfettered, the vote that I took on Monday, these rising issues drew on my conscience. No one had to call me. I wasn't pushed by this candidate or that candidate. It was the deliberation that Members individually reflected upon as they listened to constituents, as we, in essence, refuted some of their points or agreed with some of those, no to the bailout. But I think we have to take stands sometimes that are painful; and not that anyone should be sympathetic to that, that is our job. But this was not a historic moment. And the only reason I say that is it was the making of something that did not have to happen.

So how do we go forward? Well, I am grateful to a leadership that understood that we had to take this particular position. And they did it with diplomacy and acumen and smartness. So I thank them, all of them, the Democratic leadership. But at the same time, we have to be vigilant. My support came today because I believe that we are, if you will, recessed at the call of the Chair. If we find that this is not helping Mr. and Mrs. America, Mr. and Mrs. Main Street, this Congress can come back lickity split, and I will be there.

We also recognize that there may be unfettered powers by this particular Secretary of the Treasury, but we have the Constitution, we have our powers to stop any use of power that may be abusive.

In addition, we can again question the FDIC and make them function, the SEC, and make it function, the Federal Reserve, and make it function. We should continue to emphasize that those who engage in criminal improprieties should be subject to criminal prosecution. We should press for the American man and woman and homeowner the rights of bankruptcy so individually they can go in in a dignified way and restructure their loan and keep their house.

We should recognize that section 109 should be a section that is required. It has to do with working out mortgages. It says ``encourage it.'' We want to make sure that we prioritize those who are holding bad mortgages, who have a home they want to save, and make sure that the Secretary is working to require them to change.

And on judicial review, we need to make sure that it really works. We need to put aside money for those who need that to restructure their loans.

Mr. Speaker, I close by saying yes, I voted ``aye,'' because those who were victims needed something to move the

credit crunch along so that they could be helped, and I hope that we have done something that makes a difference.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 440, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m.

Madam Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is present to protect Main Street. The full faith and credit of this constitutional document will protect the men and women of America.

I will not stand here today and suggest that we do not have some challenges. I frankly believe that the bill we have before us is a miracle, and I thank the leadership for their strength in recharacterizing the two-page bill that anointed the Secretary of the Treasury that came from the White House.

But my question is, where was the Securities and Exchange Commission? Where was the FDIC, the Federal Reserve? Under the control and domination of this administration. So when we ask the question why, we need to look back at those who controlled the policies of America for the last 8 years. Where was the Secretary of the Treasury?

But I don't stand here to cast aspersions. I will say to you that this has been diagnosed, but America needs a second opinion. There is no enforcement in this legislation. The Financial Stability Oversight Board, no enforcement provisions; the Congressional Board, no enforcement provisions; the Inspector General, no enforcement provision. There are no criminal penalties for those who have been charged with malfeasance and criminal activities, no barring of individuals who are convicted of malfeasance and criminal activities from doing business with the United States.

So, in essence we give this money, and who does it go to? No listing by the Secretary of the Treasury where the first dollar will go. No separating a certain amount to help those in foreclosure in America in the small towns, hamlets and villages, when in fact we know that we could establish a Homeowners Loan Corporation and help those on Main Street.

Yes, I do believe we are challenged. But I believe we can come back, watch the markets, and work forward. This is a bill that hands out; it doesn't hand up. I ask my colleagues to consider the fact that we are protecting Main Street, not Wall Street.

Madam Speaker, I rise with great concern regarding H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I would like to thank Chairman of Financial Services Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I also rise with a sense of the solemness of this moment. However, I rise today with the confidence that our system of Government is strong and the constitutional protections of the full faith and and credit of our Government will protect Main Street America while we reform America's Wall Street.

Leadership has worked without tiring to alter the language provided by the administration for the betterment of the American people. Our leadership has created a miracle by modifying the 2 page document sent by the Treasury Department last week into a 109 page document. I thank leadership for that. We toiled long into the night to incorporate Democratic principles--many of which have still not been included.

Where was the FDIC? Where was the SEC? Where was the Federal Reserve?

I have worked with leadership to offer consistent amendments that would have strengthened the punitive measures over the past week to change the administration's proposal to make it more encompassing, effective, and better for the American people. While the present legislation is impressive, it is also impressive regarding what is absent from this legislation. For example, the legislation is devoid of bankruptcy restructuring, devoid of real enforcement, and devoid of any meaningful judicial review. These are all issues that I have been very concerned about.

In fact, it is because I am concerned and desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, that I offered amendments yesterday. To ensure that this bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the following amendments:

Set aside $125 million (in fact the amount could been more) as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the absence of a bankruptcy provision;

Add Sense of the Congress language that Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring;

Allow the courts to exercise rigorous judicial review and provide those courts with the discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the courts determine that such relief would not destabilize financial markets;

Create a new, independent commission to exercise oversight over the current financial situation with enforcement powers;

Allow criminal liability for persons or corporate entities that have engaged in criminal malfeasance;

Bar persons/corporate entities found to have engaged in criminal malfeasance with malicious intent in financial markets from doing business with the Federal Government in the future.

The bill in context

Segments of the economy have the ability to be strong. America needs to employ its full faith and credit to back its commitments. I feel strongly that this bill should have set aside $125 million to help homeowners who are facing mortgage foreclosure. This is important because it is money that would have been used to help the aggrieved: Main Street.

It is important to note that all five big investment firms--Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have altogether disappeared or morphed into regular banks. Given this phenomenon, the question arises and no one has or can seem to explain: Is this bailout still necessary?

Dr. James K. Gailbraith, of the University of Texas, wrote in the Washington Post on September 25, 2008, that the bailout is not necessary because the point of the bailout has been articulated as buying assets that are illiquid ``but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They are called `loans.'

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that.''

Deposit insurance presently is capped at $100,000. We should have considered raising the FDIC insurance cap, increased the amount of capitalization in the FDIC corporation, increased the amount of reserves in the Treasury Department.

Dr. Galbraith wrote, ``In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took 7 years and the pull of strong national economic growth. The present slump is national, and it can't be cured by legislation alone. But it could be resolved in 3 years, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions, and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished.''

As I consider this piece of legislation, three of the themes are consistent throughout it are (1) where is the enforcement; (2) who receives the first dollar; and (3) what is the disastrous and catastrophic event that will occur if this bill is not passed today? Because of the complexity of the nature and extent of the problems within the financial markets, I would rather that Congress carefully review and consider the right solution.

Congress should order the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Revenue Service to use their current powers and prevent the consequences with some extraordinary powers such as cited above regulating lifting the caps at the FDIC and allowing the SEC to suspend certain accounting practices; all this can be done without the massive bailout all at once.

This legislation was considered at 10 p.m. in a closed rule last night; debate on the rule immediately transpired with fewer than 10 members participating at approximately midnight. In less than 10 hours, members are expected to have read, understand, and speak intelligently upon this complex piece of legislation.

When we consider the magnitude and extent of the financial problem, we must consider how America has gotten here in the first place. During the past administration, America underwent a housing boom. Depressed housing markets around the country experienced unparalleled increases in price. Middle-class, working Americans sought to achieve the American dream by purchasing a home.

At the same time, banks and financial institutions were selling unsophisticated consumers unconventional and creative mortgage financing alternatives. Financial institutions were apt to qualify borrowers for more house than they could afford. Financial institutions were lending subprime mortgages and engaged in predatory lending. Adjustable rate mortgages, which had an interest rate that would adjust within 1, 3, or more years, became more common within the last 7 years. Interest-only names became common names within the first home purchaser's market. Borrowers who were considered a credit risk were allowed to purchase home. The banks and financial institutions were not paying attention to a borrower's credit rating, their ability to pay, or a borrower's potential to default.

Present Financial Situation

According to Bloomberg, this morning stocks around the world tumbled, the euro and

the pound plunged and bonds rose as governments raced to prop up banks. Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index plunged 4.31 percent to 17,876.41, and Tokyo's benchmark Nikkei lost 1.3 percent to close at 11,743.61.

Europe's Dow Jones Stoxx 100 Index declined 3.2 percent. MSCI Asia Pacific Index lost 2.7 percent after Dexia SA sank the most since it began trading 12 years ago, and ICICI Bank Ltd. retreated to a 2-year low. Futures on the S&P's 500 Index fell 1.7 percent as Wachovia Corp. tumbled 91 percent. Citigroup Inc. agreed to buy the company's banking operations in a transaction the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. helped arrange.

The British pound dropped the most against the dollar in 15 years, and the euro weakened after European governments stepped in to rescue Bradford & Bingley Plc, Fortis, and Hypo Real Estate Holding AG.

So far, the $700 billion package to shore up banks hammered out by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and congressional leaders over the weekend failed to convince investors it will shore up banks saddled with growing mortgages losses. The crisis that began with bad home loans to subprime borrowers in the U.S. is threatening to push the global economy into a recession as consumers lose confidence as banks cut back on lending.

It is difficult to have a $700 billion dollar rescue bill when the President failed to sign for $60 billion dollars to provide economic stimulus to working-class Americans.

In September, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers all filed for bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, MG was taken over by the Treasury, and Washington Mutual was seized by regulators in the biggest U.S. bank failure in history. Financial institutions worldwide have reported more than $550 billion of credit losses and asset writedowns since the beginning of 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Even after the announcement of the rescue package, the worldwide markets are still declining. I fail to see the specific catastrophic events/consequences that the U.S. public will experience if this bailout does not occur.

I am cautious because I believe that we as members of Congress need to take the time to craft a real recovery plan for our economy, a plan that puts people first and addresses our multiple economic crises, including good jobs, affordable housing, health care, retirement security, infrastructure, and disaster relief (Katrina, Ike, etc.).

Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public spending cuts. I do not believe that this was prudent. Schools, fire departments, police stations, parks, libraries, and water projects are getting cut. The persons who are feeling the effects of this economic decision are the more vulnerable populations, the elderly, the children, and the working- class. Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is not the solution either.

It is clear that something must be done, but this bill does not provide the answer that America seeks.

Recently, Congress sent an economic stimulus package to the President that would have provided $60 billion dollars in relief to middle-class working Americans. The President vetoed this bill. However, the Administration sends to us today this bill requesting $700 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street.

I would offer that we need to restructure our present financial system. However, the kinds of reform that I believe are necessary are not included in this bill. For example, the Federal Reserve itself needs to be reformed. As members of Congress we should be looking at establishing greater oversight, preventing predatory practices, and establishing public alternatives to the reckless privatized system that brought us the crisis in the first place. We need to prevent the victims of predatory lending from losing their homes and restrict lobbying by the financial sector.

I have heard from my constituents that they are not supportive of this bill. Many themselves were community bankers. One community banker, for example, wrote:

``I am a community banker who is deeply concerned about the recent developments on Wall Street and the bailouts that our government has undertaken. The great, great majority of banks in this country never made one subprime loan, and 98 percent are well-captialized . . . we don't ask for or need a bailout.''

Little Relief for the Nation's Homeowners

Because of the way that the bill is written, few if any homeowners will get mortgage relief, which is why I offered an amendment that would give $125 million directly to the homeowners facing mortgage foreclosure. The bill does not contain any provision allowing the terms of a mortgage to be changed without the consent of all the investors who own the mortgage. Few homeowners will benefit. For example, the bill would not provide relief to the majority of homeowners. The bill is little more than a Wall Street earmark and is not really a bill for homeowners. Although the bill does not provide for parachutes for executives, the executives' compensation remains the same.

This is because the Treasury will chiefly purchase mortgage-backed securities which will make the Federal Government one of several co- owners of millions of mortgages. Whether or not any mortgages modified will be determined by the loan servicer acting on behalf of all the various investors who own a piece of the mortgage. That is why Section 108(d) states in part ``The Secretary shall request loan services servicing the mortgage loans to avoid preventable foreclosures.'' Congress has already requested all loan servicers nationwide to avoid preventable foreclosures, so an additional request from the Treasury is unlikely to change current behavior.

Republican Commentary

Republican critics of the bill argue that the bill rescues persons that lack financial responsibility because they were living beyond their means or that the bill helps minorities who did not exercise fiscal responsibility. There is simply no credibility to these arguments. As I have attempted to stress today, the mortgage foreclosure crisis affects all Americans. Financial institutions engaged in speculation on Wall Street that we now see has had a deleterious effect on Main Street.

Speculation, in a financial context, is the assumption of the risk of loss, in return for the uncertain possibility of a reward. Speculation is one of the main causes of various economic crises around the world. In fact, speculators have played a major role in the present crisis. The speculators were greedy.

Nonprofits such as ACORN, NACA, and Homefree USA, among many others, have long been waging consumer campaigns to educate borrowers about the various financial instruments. And I am resoundingly grateful to them for their hard work. We cannot make them the scapegoats. These organizations have allowed persons who might not otherwise have the knowledge or the opportunity to purchase a home, the opportunity to do so in the right way. These nonprofits should be applauded.

Everyone deserves the economic dream of owning their own home. But the financial institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to assess the borrower's ability to pay for loans and purchase a home. It was the squandering of this responsibility and preoccupation with greed and avarice that has led us to where we are today.

There are substantial improvements in the present version of the bill compared to the Bush administration proposal. However, the bill as it is presently written does not provide the necessary relief to middle- class America. Frankly, the bill provides no panacea to our present economic woes. Our markets will have the full faith and credit of the United States. This bill has not sent a sufficiently clear message because it lacks enforcement.

There are provisions now that address accountability measures by requiring a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full, and requiring congressional review after the first $350 billion for future payments.

Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and reform. One of the phases is to reinvest in the troubled financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan to guarantee that they will be repaid in full. The last is to reform how business is done on Wall Street. The current legislation provides for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit, provides sweeping congressional oversight.

There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that yield greater protection to the American taxpayers and even to Main Street. The protection for taxpayers include the following:

Gives taxpayers a share of the profits of participating companies, or puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a company fails; and

Allows the Government to also purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle- income families.

For companies publicly auctioning over $300 million: There will be no multi-million dollar golden parachutes for top five executives after auction, although nothing prevents these executives from still reaping enormous salaries. There will be no tax deduction for executive compensation over $500,000.

However, with a ``pause'' we can help the financial markets and make America secured.

my amendment language

While the bill has some improvements, what is missing from the bill are serious enforcement mechanisms. The language of the bill was good and was marked improvement over what the administration sent to us last week, but more work needs to be done on the bill. There are still elements that need to be added to the bill.

The bill provides for the creation of a Financial Stability Oversight Board in Section 104. The bill also establishes a special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program in

Section 121. Last, section 125 establishes the Congressional Oversight Panel. Importantly, these sections lack any real enforcement. These sections require reports and investigation; however, there is no criminal sanction for any malfeasance perpetrated by employers.

One of my amendments would have established an Oversight Board that would have had the authority to issue criminal penalties and civil sanctions. My amendment would have provided a strong enforcement mechanism and would have been effective in ensuring that this crisis does not occur again. It would send a clear message to Wall Street.

Another of one of my amendments would have added serious judicial review to Section 119. Section 119 presently provides that no injunction or other form of equitable relief shall be issued against the Secretary other than to remedy a violation of the Constitution. My amendment would have allowed meaningful judicial review because it would have allowed injunctive and other forms of equitable relief insofar as the grant of such relief did not disrupt financial markets. These are remedies available at law and in equity. I see no compelling reason why such relief should not be granted in the financial context.

The bill has no bankruptcy provisions. The bill does not permit homeowners who are presently in mortgage foreclosure from declaring Chapter 11 and 13 bankruptcy. Importantly, my amendment would allow homeowners in default of their mortgages to restructure their loan, thus providing immediate relief to the homeowner.

Because the bill is devoid of bankruptcy relief, I offered another amendment to set aside $125 million as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure. I believe that this would have provided relief in the absence of any extension of the bankruptcy code to address current homeowners in mortgage foreclosure.

I believe that Wall Street is an important and vital part of the Nation's economy. I believe that the people who work there are good. It is a well known fact that financial markets do not always serve small businesses and minorities. I have personally had experiences where good, hardworking people and small business owners were denied access to financial markets.

I believe in America, and I believe in its Constitution. I believe that we can create a bill that would allow constant monitoring and vigilance and would help the American people.

I am reminded of the Preamble to our Constitution, which reads:

``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States America.''

I would like to end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton: ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.''

Let us work to provide the American people with the sun beam. Let us work to provide legislation that works and that serves the American people.

Madam Speaker, even as I stand here on the floor of the House, the residents of the gulf region, the gulf coasts of Louisiana and Texas, are still suffering from Hurricane Ike. We know as well that Hurricane Kyle has been making its way up the east coast. As we look back over the landscape this past year, we see the devastation of so much that has impacted our country through natural disasters--flooding, wind, hurricanes--and we realize that that is, by Mother Nature's way, something that will occur in this Nation on a regular basis.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and a chairperson of the Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure Committee, I introduce today Save America's Utility Infrastructure and Secure America Act of 2008, H.R. 7230. I do so with the hope that Americans will be better prepared, not necessarily the Americans in their homes but the utility companies who every day receive our payments for electricity and finding out in times of trouble they are not prepared.

For example, the blackout of August, 2003, in the northeast, midwest, and adjoining parts of Canada highlighted the need for infrastructure operating improvements.

As the chairperson of this committee, I believe that one of the ways of securing America and making America safe is to go throughout the Nation and address the questions of the sectors that predominately are controlled by the private community. Eighty-five percent of our critical infrastructure is controlled by the private community. By that they sense that they have sort of a pass. They don't have to invest in improving the infrastructure. So today I introduce this bill because I believe they do have to make a commitment to the rate payers to improve the infrastructure.

For example, in our own State of Texas, our public utility commission instructed, recommended to our utility company in a heavily treed area like my city of Houston to prepluck the trees that would entangle themselves in the above-ground wires. They recommended to them, if you will, to substitute the wooden polls for steel polls. They recommended to them that they should, in fact, secure the transformers.

None of this was done. And they were quoted as saying, it is far more inexpensive to clean up after the fact than to do this work beforehand. So what do we have? What we had in Texas is a tragedy of hundreds and hundreds of people, maybe thousands, impacted negatively by the lack of electricity. People were on oxygen and dialysis in hospitals that were shut down, and the tragedy of a 14-year-old asthmatic boy who lost his life, among others.

For me that is intolerable and unacceptable. If you want the benefit of doing business here in the United States, then you must do it well. So I have introduced this bill to subject those utilities who believe cavalierly that we don't have to do it, we want to keep the money in our pocket, to criminal penalties for those who don't develop vulnerable lists that will know where the hospitals and nursing homes are and where elderly persons and asthmatic persons live so that we can accept the fact that Mother Nature does not come with an appointment, but that we can be as prepared as we possibly can be. So this bill provides criminal penalties.

As well, the bill requires the establishment of vulnerable lists and vulnerable neighborhoods so that we are well aware of what to do. And it also instructs the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our infrastructure is meeting the standards that it should meet. This I believe is the way government corrects and reforms a system to make it work for the American people.

Madam Speaker, today as a complement to my remarks, we looked to try and correct the market. We didn't quite get there. But certainly I want to express my appreciation for the hard work of the Democratic leadership. It is clear that our friends on the other side could not muster the support for their own administration. I believe however we can make this a better bill. We can make it a better bill by ensuring that homeowners are protected, by putting money into this bill that is particularly set aside for homeowners who may be going into foreclosure. And

let it be totally disregarded that people were living above their means. Yes, there are hardworking Americans who saw the opportunity to improve their lives. But the banking institutions gave them the permission to do so. And don't put this on the backs of minorities. Hardworking minorities likewise are working to make their lives better. But it was the banking entities that gave them this, if you will, predatory loan.

We can do better by making this bill better, working to ensure that there is no short selling by borrowing it, and we can as well bail out Main Street as we look to reform Wall Street.

Let me thank the gentlelady from New York as the chairman of the Rules Committee, and particularly for the very hard work of the committee, and make note of the fact that it's almost 12:40 a.m. and there has been a lot of heavy lifting. And I want to acknowledge the work of our leadership, and particularly Chairman Frank and his staff, along with Speaker Pelosi and the entire team of very agile and very, if you will, comprehensive thinking team that was thrown a hard ball just a week ago by the administration, a two-and-a- half-page document that simply said, move the deity, if you will, from the person of faith and give it to the Secretary of Treasury.

We had a tough job. And I, frankly, believe that we did everything we could to ensure that we looked at this in the best way possible. But, Mr. Speaker, I come to suggest that all of the goals that were intended--transparency and consumer protection--clearly need further edification. And frankly, I would like to use the Texas term ``whoa.'' I believe that we need to stand back, monitor the markets, and to begin to craft legislation that is truly reform.

Let me tell you why. First of all, I know that my good friend from California gave us a detailed essay on some of the things that were not in this bill,

and he mentioned that people in America are living above their means. Well, I've been in a number of hearings, listening to homeowners from around the country on the issue of their mortgages. And I will tell you that these are hardworking Americans who were not living above their means; they were accepting the banking products that were given to them. They were hardworking, they saw the opportunity to invest in America's dream, a home, and they continued to work and pay their mortgages. But no one explained to them about adjustable rates so that their mortgage would be at one rate, and then a couple months or a year later it was accelerating into an unbelievable and intolerable amount. And then of course we've heard some Members of this body accuse minorities for being the cause of this debacle. How insulting. How unreal. And how untrue.

What we need to do is to work together, as my constituents have asked. One constituent said, show me what the catastrophic event would be. One said, I'm a community banker, and I have never loaned, if you will, a subprime loan. And I'm well capitalized, why am I being victimized?

This bill, at this status, will not protect any of the homeowners or get them the kind of relief we would like.

And so I say to this body, the Financial Stability Oversight Board does not have any enforcement. The Congressional Oversight Panel does not have any enforcement.

As I quickly speak, the amendments I offered all capture the idea of protecting the consumer. It, in essence, provides judicial relief.

In this bill, it specifically prohibits the judiciary intervening for equitable or/and injunctive relief. That means that if the assets are being misused by the officer that we have designated, then the courts cannot go in. Where are the checks and balances?

I believe that these amendments that I offered dealing with these questions of balance and providing money for mortgages, and et cetera, would have made this a better bill. So I ask my colleagues to consider that, and of course to consider these 400 economists quoted.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6600, the ``Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2008'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Doggett and the Ways and Means Committee.

This legislation today to require the federal government to remove Social Security numbers from Medicare identification cards and communications to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Medicare program, has fallen behind most other public and private organizations in recognizing the danger of displaying Social Security numbers. The Social Security Number Protection Act ensures that the Social Security numbers of Medicare beneficiaries are properly protected.

Every year, millions of Americans are victims of identity theft--many after their Social Security numbers are stolen. Instead of leading by example, the federal government is lagging behind private health insurers and other public agencies in protecting Medicare recipients from identity theft. CMS's continued use of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards needlessly places people at risk.

This bill ensures that a premium is placed on security and that personal information is protected. It makes no sense for a CMS to continue exposing Medicare beneficiaries to the risk of identity theft. We should pass this bill quickly and fix this problem once and for all.

I believe that this is one of those clear-cut problems that is easy to fix. With identity theft on the rise, removing social security numbers from Medicare beneficiary cards is the smart thing to do. Identity theft is one of the fastest-growing crimes in the nation. Nearly 8.4 million people were victims of identity theft last year alone, and these crimes accounted for more than $49.3 billion in fraudulent charges.

Nearly three years ago, Senator Durbin raised concerns about the use of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards. Because of his efforts, CMS issued a report to Congress hat outlined the steps that would be required to remove Social Security numbers from Medicare cards, but has failed to implement those changes.

In May 2008, the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration issued a report which concluded that: ``Given the millions of individuals at risk for identity the and OMB's directive to eliminate unnecessary uses of Social Security numbers, we believe immediate action is needed to address this significant vulnerability.

Today's legislation sets a timeframe for CMS to remove Social Security numbers from Medicare cards and communications to beneficiaries. The bill will:

Require the Health and Human Services Secretary to implement procedures to eliminate the unnecessary collection, use, and display of Social Security numbers of Medicare beneficiaries within three years;

Prohibit the display or the unencrypted electronic storage of Social Security numbers on newly issued Medicare cards;

Prohibit the display or the unencrypted electronic storage of Social Security numbers on all Medicare cards with five years of enactment; and

Prohibit the display of Social Security numbers on written and electronic communications to Medicare beneficiaries, unless essential for the operation of the Medicare program.

I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will protect our elderly. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support S. 3325, the ``Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007.'' I was a co-sponsor of this legislation when it was introduced before the House as H.R. 4789, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of this legislation. I am confident that this bill can address and strengthen criminal and civil enforcement of United States intellectual property law.

The purpose of the Senate bill is to strengthen criminal and civil enforcement of United States intellectual property law focusing, in particular, on copyright violations (piracy) and trademark violations (counterfeiting). In addition, the PRO-IP Act seeks to modernize and improve U.S. government efforts for coordination and enforcement of our nation's IP laws.

The knowledge and innovation of American citizens contributes significantly to the economic strength of our nation. Intellectual property law provides the principle incentives that are calculated to lead to the creation and production of new works. This bill is needed because the effect of piracy and counterfeiting on the economy is devastating. Total global losses to United States companies from counterfeiting and copyright piracy amount to $250 billion per year. Every company in every industry is vulnerable.

Because these illegal activities represent a growing public health, safety and law enforcement problem, S. 3325 provides additional targeted resources for investigation, enforcement and prosecution; requires the development and promulgation of a national Joint Strategic Plan to combat counterfeiting and piracy; and provides for enhanced Presidential level leadership and coordination among federal agencies involved with preserving and protecting intellectual property rights.

Title I of S. 3325 provides enhancements to civil intellectual property laws. Specifically, Title I makes it clear that a certificate of registration will satisfy registration requirements regardless of whether there is any inaccurate information on the registration application, unless the inaccurate information was included with knowledge that it was inaccurate.

Title I also broadens the civil remedies for infringement by broadening the scope of articles that may be ordered impounded by the court upon a finding that the article was made or used in violation of a copyright. This Title also directs the court to enter a protective order to ensure that confidential information is not improperly disclosed.

Title II provides enhancements to criminal intellectual property laws by addressing repeat offender penalties for criminal acts contained within the criminal copyright statute. Title II clarifies that a repeat offender is a person that commits the same criminal act twice. The bill clarifies that any property subject to forfeiture must be owned or predominantly controlled by the violator in order to be seized and directs the United States Sentencing Commission to consider whether the sentencing guidelines should be expanded to include the export of infringing items. There are enhanced maximum statutory penalties for counterfeit offenses that endanger public health and safety.

Title III of S. 3325 provides greater coordination and strategic planning of federal efforts against counterfeiting and piracy. Specifically, this Title establishes within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative and, within that Office, the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, appointed by the President of the United States. Lastly, Titles IV and V provide international enforcement, national, and local enforcement.

While I supported the House version of the bill and I support this Senate version, I would like to consider ways to ensure diversity in the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIPs) units that are established by this bill. I would like to work to ensure that minorities be represented in the hiring and that special recruitment initiatives be launched at historically black colleges and universities and other minority serving institutions. We should do all within our efforts to guarantee that minorities receive the necessary training and be recruited to help in the IP enforcement at the Executive, State, and local levels.

Simply, Mr. Speaker, S. 3325 is a first step toward the promotion of the American economy. It ensures that American innovation will remain crucial to the United States economy and that American innovation will allow the United States to remain a global economic power. Indeed, this bill ensures that the United States IP laws are enforced and that the American intellectual property system remains one of the best in the world.

I urge all members to support this much needed and thoughtful legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3296, a bill to extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials of the Supreme Court grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice. This bill makes sense and it should be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

Four years ago, Supreme Court Justice David Souter was assaulted by two men while jogging near his home. While this attack was deemed only a random assault, this should serve as a wake-up call for us all. The Supreme Court, like the Office of the President, is more important than the person serving in the position. Protecting them, isn't just about protecting the person, it's about protecting the sanctity of the court.

Edmund Burke said that ``Good order is the foundation of all things.'' To keep this order, we much protect those who provide that order. As this country becomes more and more partisan, we risk that the more extreme factors in our society will lash out and circumvent the system by focusing their anger at the officers of the court. Already the court is coming under increased attack from both sides of the aisle as being ``activist.''

This bill does something fundamental for the American way of life, it protects it. The legacy

of all those who came before us depends on making sure that those who come after can do the job duty requires. Nothing is more fundamentally American than protecting those who protect our rights.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008'' (reauthorizing Title II of P.L. 108-405). This Act authorizes funding to eliminate the large backlogs of DNA crime scene samples awaiting testing in State forensic labs. I am in support of this bill.

In recent years, law enforcement agencies have realized the critical value that DNA evidence has in quickly solving cases. Often, a DNA sample result can scientifically link a perpetrator to a crime or prove a defendant's innocence with virtual certainty. Many of the Nation's Federal and State criminal forensics laboratories currently are overwhelmed with innumerable samples awaiting DNA analysis.

Named for Debbie Smith, who was kidnapped in her Virginia home and raped in nearby woods by a stranger, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program authorized grant money to states to collect samples from crime seems and convicted persons, conduct DNA analyses, and enter these results into a comprehensive national database. Debbie Smith's attacker remained unidentified for over six years, until a DNA sample collected from a convicted person serving time in a Virginia State prison revealed his involvement in her rape. Although eventually identified, the six years between crime and identification allowed Ms. Smith's attacker to engage in more criminal activity.

Re-authorization of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will help law enforcement throughout the Nation. It will facilitate the development of a comprehensive national data base against which samples from current crime scenes can be compared. It will allow laboratories to reduce the currently unacceptable delays in processing DNA samples. Finally, it will provide law enforcement and prosecutors strong tools to quickly identify and prosecute criminals, minimizing the costs of investigation and prosecution, the possibility of prosecuting the wrong person and the possibility of future heinous crimes.

Recognizing that the backlog of biological evidence that had to be entered in State databases was preventing law enforcement officials from solving many of the Nation's most heinous crimes, like the tragedy that befell Debbie Smith, Congress passed the DNA ``Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000'' (P.L. 106-546). The bill authorized the Attorney General to make grants to eligible States to collect DNA samples from convicted individuals and crime scenes for inclusion in the Federal DNA database, Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and to increase the capacity of State crime laboratories. The Act required the Bureau of Prisons and the military to collect DNA samples from convicted individuals and forward these samples for analysis, and required the FBI to expand its CODIS database to include the analyses of these DNA samples.

The Act also amended the criminal code to require all defendants on probation or supervised release to cooperate with the collection of a DNA sample. The Act expressed the sense of Congress that State grants should be conditioned upon the State's agreement to ensure post- conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases; and that Congress should work with the States to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases. Finally, the Act authorized an unspecified amount of appropriations to the Attorney General to carry out the Act.

In 2004, DNA backlog elimination was incorporated into the Justice for Act of 2004'', P.L. 108-405 and was renamed the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which became Title II of P.L. 108-405. While the Act authorized $151 million for each fiscal year 2005-2009, Congress did not appropriate any money until FY 2008, at which time it appropriated $147-4 million.

The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program expires at the end of FY 2009. H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act,'' which has strong bipartisan support, would renew the law and authorize $151 million for each fiscal year 2009-2014. H.R. 5057 specifies that not less than 40% of the total amount awarded in grants must be used for DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes, rape kits and other sexual assault evidence, and in cases that do not have an identified suspect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1777, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2007.'' This bill is co-sponsored by Representative Delahunt. This bill makes sense and it should be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill.

H.R. 1777 would make permanent an exemption to the antitrust laws that permits the Ivy League schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in making their determinations. The exemption also allows for agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. Without this legislation, the exemption will expire on September 30, 2008. I support this bill.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid, i.e., aid from the school's own funds solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. These schools also agreed to use common principles to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of the group. This practice remained undisturbed until the late 1980s.

In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against the nine Ivy League schools to enjoin this practice. In 1991, the eight Ivy Leagues, except MIT, agreed to a consent decree that ended this practice.

In 1992, Congress passed a temporary antitrust exemption to allow the schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis. This temporary exemption prohibited any agreement as to the terms of a financial aid award to any specific student. It was to expire on September 30, 1994.

In 1994, Congress passed another temporary exemption from the antitrust laws. This exemption, similar to the 1992 exemption, allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only and to use common principles of needs analysis. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. Unlike the 1992 exemption, it allowed agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. The exemption was to expire on September 30, 1997.

In 1997, Congress passed a law to extend the expiration date until September 30, 2001. In 2001, the exemption was extended to September 30, 2008.

H.R. 1777, introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, would make the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. It would not make any other change to the substance of the exemption.

This is a good bill because need-based financial aid serves social goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need.

But for the existence of financial aid, and laws like this one, many of us today in Congress and in America, generally, would not have benefited from a post-secondary school education. We must pass this bill today to ensure that Americans continue to benefit from need-based financial aid at institutions of higher learning.