Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1595, a resolution introduced by my colleagues Representatives Levin and Camp, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of real estate investment trusts, or REITs.

Prior to 1960, access to the returns for investments in high-quality commercial real estate assets was limited to institutions and individuals with significant financial resources. To remedy this, Congress adopted legislation establishing REITs to make it easier for small investors to invest in commercial properties, similar to mutual funds, by pooling their resources. President Eisenhower signed the legislation into law on September 14, 1960, fifty years ago today.

As my colleagues know, REITs are companies dedicated to owning and operating income-producing real estate, such as apartments, shopping centers, regional malls, office buildings, industrial warehouses, hotels and lodging, health care facilities, and self-storage buildings. Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets, but the key feature of a REIT is the requirement that at least 95 percent of a REIT's taxable income be returned to its shareholders every year. For example, in 2008, REITs returned approximately $17.8 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends. These income returns have been one of the primary reasons why the industry has performed so well over the years. In addition, REITs have been recognized for the diversification benefits they bring to individual portfolios, the efficiency of their liquidity attributes, and the professional management practices they bring to the table.

Congress created the path for REITs to exist 50 years ago today, and Congress has continued to preserve and perfect the REIT method of real estate investing through the adoption of targeted legislation that has mirrored the changing investment marketplace.

I want to congratulate the REIT industry on this important milestone and I hope that the REIT method of investing continues to be strong, efficient and effective in today's economy.

Madam Speaker, the August work period is a time for Members of the House to listen to their constituents back home. Last year, I was greatly inspired by the many people in Alabama and throughout our country who came out to publicly express their views on health care and other pressing national issues. It is my hope that the people will be just as engaged this year. During the America Speaking Out meetings I held in Alabama last week, my constituents shared their concerns about the weak economy and the direction that Washington is headed with excessive spending and borrowing, high taxes, and dangerous deficits. My constituents know that our nation is on an unsustainable path and are worried about what that means for their children and grandchildren. This month, we all need to listen closely to what the American people are saying in town halls, corner cafes, and online democracy initiatives like America Speaking Out. The strength of our country has always been our people, and we in Congress would be wise to listen and learn in order to guide our proceedings when the session resumes.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to express strong support for the Spirit of '45 Day celebrations that will be occurring throughout our country, including at the Alabama National Cemetery in my district.

On August 14, 1945, World War II officially ended, marking a victory for the cause of freedom over tyranny in the world. The Americans who served us on both the battlefield and the home front deserve our lasting gratitude. History will forever celebrate the men and women of the ``Greatest Generation'' who endured the Great Depression, preserved democracy, and rebuilt the postwar world, creating examples of service that continue to inspire and sustain our nation.

Keep the Spirit of '45 Alive is a non-profit grassroots campaign to encourage Americans to commemorate the 65th Anniversary of the end of World War II by holding events and inspiring young children to gather personal recollections of August 14, 1945 from family members and friends.

Their goal is to establish a permanent National Day of Remembrance to the legacy of service of the greatest generation so that their example of commitment to community and country will continue to provide inspiration now and in the future.

This commemoration will encourage our young people to learn valuable lessons from their elders about overcoming adversity through self- sacrifice, courage, perseverance and service to others. During my meetings, soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan have often told me how they were inspired by the service of their fathers and grandfathers.

It is my hope that Keep the Spirit of '45 Alive will serve as an example to Americans of how we always come together with a shared sense of national unity and purpose during challenging times in our nation's history.

Therefore, I would like to provide my heartfelt endorsement for the Spirit of '45 Day celebration at the Alabama National Veterans Cemetery on Saturday, August 14, 2010.

Madam Speaker, in the music world, it is challenging enough for a band to record one hit song, much less become a voice for an entire region and a true icon. That is why Congressman Connie Mack and I are pleased to jointly recognize the accomplishments and patriotic spirit of the legendary Lynyrd Skynyrd.

From humble beginnings, Lynyrd Skynyrd has become one of the most revered and accomplished bands in the history of music, having sold nearly 30 million records worldwide in

the last four decades. Through their live performances and the music and songs still played on radio stations around the world every day, the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd have established themselves as timeless artists who transcend any one musical era or generation.

As validated by their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2006, Lynyrd Skynyrd has had a seminal impact on the development of rock and country music and a profound influence on the career development of many artists who followed in their creative footsteps.

Through their collective voices, the band has become a beacon for regional identity and pride in the American South. This is perhaps best epitomized by the song ``Sweet Home Alabama,'' an anthem so universally identified with the state of Alabama that it is the official motto displayed on license plates.

Since their start in Jacksonville, Florida in the late 1960s, Lynyrd Skynyrd has been a spokesman for the everyday working man and woman, the friends and neighbors of their formative years. Their ability to capture a unique part of the American spirit has given their music emotional meaning to many fans and built a legacy that continues to grow year after year.

Amid triumph and loss, these sons of the south have evolved from band to close-knit family. A tragic airplane crash in 1977 claimed original members Steve Gaines, Cassie Gaines, and lead singer Ronnie Van Zant, but Ronnie's brother Johnny carried on the tradition as the new vocalist. Devoted fans cherish the contributions of Bob Burns, Ed King, and Artimus Pyle and remember the legacy of Allen Collins, Leon Wilkeson, Billy Powell, and Ean Evans. Today, led by core members Johnny Van Zant, Gary Rossington, Rickey Medlock, and Michael Cartellone, Lynyrd Skynyrd continues to share an unbreakable bond with the fans they count as family as well.

Lynyrd Skynyrd has been a generous supporter of our men and women in the armed forces for many years. The band has long understood that our military personnel bravely and unselfishly stand guard over our everyday security and freedom. They have enthusiastically raised money for military families and played countless shows for our service members in uniform. Their song ``Red, White, and Blue'' was written as a tribute to the men and women who serve in the defense of freedom.

As representatives of timeless American values and champions of working class heroes, Lynyrd Skynyrd continues to entertain and inspire millions of fans across the world. Along with Congressman Mack, I find it highly appropriate that the people's House takes time to recognize this classic band for lasting contributions not just to the world of music, but to American popular culture as a whole.

Mr. Chair, on July 15, 2010, I missed rollcall vote No. 445. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2010, I missed rollcall votes 437, 438 and 439 while visiting with World War II veterans from my district at the National World War II Memorial as part of the Birmingham Honor Flight program. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Nos. 437 and 438 and voted ``yea'' on No. 439.

This bill has good in it. It really does. It has enhanced consumer protection similar to what the Federal Reserve has enacted. It has greater transparency and disclosure. In the field of derivatives, it has provisions to prevent companies like British Petroleum from manipulating the market, as they did last year. But there's a lot of bad in this bill, and there's a lot of ugly. I'm going to talk about the bad when I address the bill. And the bad is some capital requirements on companies that could cost a trillion dollars. And that's a greater amount than the two stimuluses put together. That could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

But right now I want to talk about the ugly. And the ugly is the bailout of creditors and counterparties. This is a Wall Street bailout bill, make no mistake about it. This bill says that the FDIC can lend to a failing company. Now this is a company that is failing. They can't meet their obligations. You loan a failing company money. You can purchase the assets. This is the government purchasing the assets of the largest financial companies in America. They can take a security interest in the assets. They can guarantee the obligations of the firm. We did that with Fannie and Freddie. We told the Chinese bondholders, We'll pay you a hundred cents on the dollar. And with AIG we did the same thing. We told the European banks, we told Goldman and Morgan, We'll pay these credit swaps off at a hundred percent. They can do that under this bill. They can bail out creditors and counterparties. And they can even sell and transfer to the FDIC the assets of a failing firm.

Now how do they do that? Well, they have to borrow money. You can't buy something for free. You can't guarantee things without money. Under the House bill, you can borrow 90 percent of the fair value of the failed firm's total consolidated assets. You're going to borrow. In other words, the government, the taxpayers, are going to borrow 90 percent of that amount. What are we talking about? Potentially, with just the largest six companies in America--Bank of America, Morgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, the so-called Wall Street banks, most of which, including Goldman Sachs, have said, We like this provision. It's a great provision. The Federal Government can borrow for those six firms $8.5 trillion. Yet we've not asked, Where are you going to borrow this money from? Are you going to go back to the Chinese?

What will it cost? How will it affect the FDIC when the taxpayers borrow this kind of money? How will it affect our ability to pay the depositors that we have guaranteed those obligations? How will it affect our ability to meet our commitments today, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? How will it impact the deficit? What will it do to interest rates? Is there an exit strategy?

The largest bailout which is not addressed in this bill, the largest bailout in the history of this country was of Fannie and Freddie. We still haven't gotten out of that. In August of 2008, every Republican in this body said, Reform them before you bail them out. We've bailed them out. We guaranteed $400 billion of their assets over our protest. And then last December 31, the President guaranteed all their obligations; and just this week, we hear that that could amount to $1 trillion.

A trillions dollars there, $2 trillion here, $2 trillion here, $2 trillion here, $1 trillion here, almost $1 trillion there. How do we do it? How do the taxpayers get paid back?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address the good, the bad, and the ugly in this bill.

The good: There is consumer protection. There is more disclosure and transparency. There are some bipartisan provisions in this bill that add a whistleblower office to the SEC. But the bad and the ugly far outweigh those.

In total, this bill is a massive intrusion of Federal Government into the lives of every American. It is the financial services equivalent of ObamaCare, the government takeover of our health care system.

If finally enacted, it will move us further toward a managed economy, with the Federal Government's making decisions that have been and should stay

in the hands of individuals and private businesses.

For instance, it will make the compensation of every employee of a financial firm subject to rules set by a government overseer. Can you imagine anything as basic as what an employer pays an employee controlled by a Federal bureaucrat in Washington? It will even apply to clerical employees. Government regulators will be empowered to seize and break up even healthy firms they decide are systemic risks and to even appoint new management to run these private companies.

As I said on the floor earlier today, this bill will institutionalize AIG-type bailouts of creditors and counterparties, and it will saddle taxpayers with the losses resulting from out-of-control risk-taking by Wall Street institutions--gamblers. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you this bill does not include a bailout fund. They are wrong.

As I explained earlier, here it is, laid out. You can lend money to a failing company. Now, how do you get money back from a failing company? You can purchase their assets. You can guarantee their obligations. You can sell or transfer their assets. It is there.

What does this cost?

As I explained earlier, the FDIC can borrow up to 90 percent of a firm's assets. That's $2 trillion in the case of Bank of America alone. They could borrow $2.1 trillion in that case alone. That is a bailout fund, period.

Not only will it make bailouts permanent, but it will empower government employees to go around settled bankruptcy law in so-called ``resolutions,'' done behind closed doors, with unequal treatment of creditors at the whim of politically influenced government officials. This has already happened. A financial firm's ability to survive a crisis like the one we went through 2 years ago will depend, as it did then, on whether its CEO can get the President of the New York Fed on the phone on a Saturday night, as one firm did. Friendships and being well-connected should not determine the success or failure of private enterprises.

Finally, it imposes an $11 billion tax disguised as an FDIC assessment. To fund this new government spending, they tax Main Street banks and financial institutions. They raise their FDIC premiums even though those premiums would go to bail out Wall Street firms and not to save depositors, as the system was designed to do.

Mr. Speaker, if you voted against this bill on the floor, if you voted against it in committee, you need to vote against it again, because it is even worse than when it came out of the House.

We have seen the anger and frustration generated by the injustice of too-big-to-fail bailouts. We have seen the folly of implied guarantees as with Fannie and Freddie. We have seen, time after time, the failure of government-run schemes to create jobs and to grow the real economy. Nevertheless, here the majority party is again, doing the same thing over and over, blindly hoping that, suddenly, this time, they will get a different result. Well, you're right. The American people are demanding a different result, and in a series of recent elections, they have told incumbents to go home and to spend their own money, not theirs--not the taxpayers'.

In conclusion, if you choose to bail out the creditors and counterparties of the big Wall Street firms or to loan them money when they get in trouble, don't expect the voters to bail you out come November.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

When I say they shouldn't bail out the creditors and counterparties, I don't care whether they are in receivership or not. They should not bail them out, period.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the ranking member of Oversight and Government Reform.

(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the ranking member of the Domestic Monetary Policy Committee.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think you would go to a funeral home and lend the corpse money. So I don't know why you would lend money to a failing firm. You ought to just go ahead and put them in bankruptcy like we want to do.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois who's the chairman of the Financial Services Oversight Committee (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), who is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, to then yield time to his members.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time left on both sides?

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), who is the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.

At this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the ranking member on the Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear two people that I know are leaders of the majority; and they each, Mr. Hoyer and Ms. Pelosi, I know they appear to be sincere when they say that never again will the American people be asked to bail out those on Wall Street who made reckless deals; no longer will the taxpayer be put on the hook.

Yet there is an inconvenient truth here for my Democratic friends, and that is the clear wording of the bill. I mean I think it is elementary that before we pass legislation that we read it. I would not repeat this except that my colleagues in the majority continue to say time after time after time that there is no bailout, and there is. There is an AIG-style bailout. Now, AIG cannot be saved under this legislation. In fact, we changed that, and we both insisted in a bipartisan way that the AIGs of today will not survive. They will not survive under this bill. AIG, under this bill--and in bipartisan way we agree--failed. We say we put the AIGs into bankruptcy, and they are resolved in that way. My Democrat colleagues say that an AIG-like failing company will be put in an FDIC supervised resolution authority.

Now, Mr. Frank is correct when he says, Wait a minute. Wait a minute. This only occurs when these firms are being placed in liquidation. They are being liquidated.

Well, now, I agree with him, but is there no bailout of anyone on Wall Street? Well, of course there is. It is a very expensive bailout.

In the Dodd-Frank bill, it is section 204D(1-6). I mean, go write this down. Go and read it. It says that the FDIC can, one, lend to a failing firm; two, purchase the assets of a failing firm; three, guarantee the obligation of a

failing firm; four, take a security interest in the assets of a failing firm; five, and/or sell the assets that the FDIC has acquired from the failing firm.

Why would you lend a failing firm money? I keep asking that. The second thing is: Where is the bailout fund in this bill?

There is no bailout fund in this bill. There is $19 billion that is assessed towards community banks. They are FDIC assessments that are raised, which are about $9 billion, and there is the TARP program that ended 3 months sooner than it should have. We were told somehow, because we were not going to start any new programs in that 3 months, that somehow--hocus-pocus--it saves us about $10 billion. It is hocus- pocus because you cannot spend the money on the new programs in this bill and then turn around and suddenly pull out of a hat that same money and give it back to the taxpayers. It just doesn't happen.

Also, Speaker Pelosi may forget that one of the first signs of trouble was not in September of 2008 but in July of 2008 when we suddenly realized that Fannie and Freddie were insolvent and that many of our banks, almost all of our banks, had major positions in their shares. Why did they have major positions in the shares of Fannie and Freddie? They lost all of that money because the government had said, If you'll invest in that, we'll give you a special rating, and we'll count it as the same as treasuries. It disappeared overnight.

Now, that was in July, not in September. Banks took a hit on that. The Democrats said at that time--and the Bush administration and Secretary Paulson--we've got to give $400 billion to Fannie and Freddie because, in 1999, under the Clinton administration, you said let's loan to people with poor credit; let's loan to people without much of a downpayment. Republicans and Democrats both rushed to use this as a source of cheap money, and it failed.

Republicans said--and still say and say as this bill is on the floor--wait a minute. You're going to reform these companies before you pour taxpayer dollars in them. Every Republican in the House voted, no, we will not give them taxpayer money until they are reformed and there is a plan to liquidate them.

The chairman says we need to liquidate them. What about Fannie and Freddie? Why aren't we liquidating them? We're not. The biggest bailout that we've had is of Fannie and Freddie. Who did we bail out? Did we bail out the banks that had shares? No, we bailed out the Chinese bondholders. Secretary Paulson said, You know what? The Chinese might not lend us any money.

Let me tell you that we'll sure need the Chinese to lend us money if this bill passes, because there is a derivatives section in here.

Now, we have a letter that Chairman Peterson produced, which said this doesn't affect end users, but it's a letter. The truth is we were in conference last week when we fought this out, and we voted for an exemption for end users. The Democrats voted against one. We've been told in the past 48 hours, 72 hours, by groups like the International Swap and Derivatives Association that this bill will cost businesses $1 trillion. $1 trillion. That is capital. It doesn't matter whether they trade on the derivatives or if someone does it for them. Someone has to post that capital, and that goes through and is an expense for that commercial company.

If you take $1 trillion out of the economy suddenly, sure, you are going to have a crisis like this bill anticipates. This bill says, if there is such a crisis, then a receiver is appointed. Chairman Frank keeps saying, A receiver is appointed. A receiver is appointed.

That's right. That receiver, after 30 days, is authorized to borrow 90 percent of the fair value of the failing companies.

Chairman Frank, that is $8.5 trillion. That money is not in this bill. There is not even $10 billion in this bill for this type of resolution. So you have to go to the banks or you have to go to the financial companies or you're going to get it after the fact. If they're failing, how are they going to pay it?

I want to close with a positive. The 320 Members of this House who took a stand can take a stand in just a few minutes.

Collin Peterson, Chairman Peterson, said that there are no requirements that end users post margins. We all agree that, if they had to, it would be $1 trillion out of these companies. $1 trillion, according to Joe Biden, will produce 700,000 to 1.4 million jobs and will produce as many as 200,000 jobs a month. So that is the hit to this economy if this does apply to end users.

So we have a motion to recommit. First, it says there is an exemption on end users. Now, you have said that there is one, and you have this letter from Chairman Dodd and Blanche Lincoln saying there is one, so that's half of it. So you'd vote for that because you're saying it's in there.

Secondly, there is the Federal audit. We need the taxpayers to demand--and the voters are demanding--of Mr. Hoyer transparency at the Fed. They are spending trillions of dollars. They are committing trillions of dollars. Let's have this audit of the Fed.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of back room deals and secret manipulations of the economy to benefit political cronies at the expense of taxpayers.

The voters and taxpayers are demanding transparency and accountability and they will not be pacified with false promises or misdirection. Calling a bank tax an ``assessment'' fools no one, especially the voters.

That's why I will be offering a motion to recommit at the conclusion of this debate that will replace the weak Federal Reserve Audit in the conference report with a robust provision patterned after a bill co- sponsored by 320 members of this House when it was offered by Congressman Paul.

Taxpayers want to see for themselves what their government is doing with their money. And that includes specifically the Federal Reserve, an institution that has unfettered powers and whose errors of judgment were a contributing cause of the financial crisis.

Monetary policy fueled the credit boom and bust cycle. The Fed needs to be held accountable for any mistakes it has made in the past and any it may be making now. Failing to hold the Fed accountable increases the likelihood of those mistakes being repeated in the future, and exposes taxpayers to an unacceptable level of risk.

The American people support a full audit of the Federal Reserve System to achieve the level of transparency needed to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure accountability.

With each taxpayer dollar it committed during the financial crisis, the Fed assured the American people they would not take losses. American taxpayers deserve more than the central bank's assurances; they deserve proof. A full audit of the Federal Reserve System is the only way to create the openness that a democratic society like ours demands.

The second element of the Motion to Recommit attempts to correct one of the most damaging aspects of this bill and that is saying a lot because there are a number of seriously misguided provisions in this legislation.

Several items in the conference report will impact companies' ability to create jobs.

It has been reported that BP and Enron have tried to manipulate markets using derivatives but we do not need any new law to regulate that kind of illegal activity. It is already illegal. We do need regulators to enforce the rules.

The lack of an end user exemption for commercial companies in the derivatives title will pull an estimated one trillion dollars of resources from job creation and investment.

Coincidentally, the combined stimulus packages enacted in the last two years also amounts to about one trillion dollars. Vice President Biden told us on June 2nd that the Obama stimulus package alone would result in the creation of between 700,000 and 1.4 million jobs in the remainder of 2010. Under the vice president's logic, diverting one trillion dollars from productive commercial business capital could presumably destroy up to 1.4 million jobs.

Instead of allocating precious resources to hire more people or increase wages, commercial companies will have to post capital every time they enter into a derivatives contract to hedge against legitimate business risk.

If this legislation--supposedly intended to regulate the financial services industry--is enacted, capital requirements will force non- financial companies to abandon legitimate hedging strategies and accept excessive volatility at a cost that will ultimately be borne by their customers and employees.

Margin requirements for ``end-users'' are not a new issue for Members of the House. Chairman Frank tried to insert an amendment in the House bill last December which would have explicitly allowed regulators to set margin requirements for end-users. It failed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 150 to 280.

Withdrawing a trillion dollars from the private sector could well sow the seeds of the

next crisis because it could destabilize the financial system, possibly triggering another vicious cycle of government bailouts to correct the results of bad government policy.

The House should ensure that the potential economic harm in these derivative provisions is avoided by approving this Motion to Recommit and sending this defective legislation back to the conference to be rewritten.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add these comments regarding Section 913 of the Report calling for a review by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, of the current regulation of investment advisers and broker-dealers.

The Conference Report on H.R. 4173 directs the SEC to conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of current standards--both at the state and federal levels--with respect to investment advisers and broker- dealers when providing personalized investment advice and recommendations about securities to retail customers.

Before the SEC proceeds with any new rules and regulations in this area, it is critically important that the unique roles of different financial professionals, their distinct relationships with their customers, and the nature of the services and disclosures they provide be fully examined and well understood. These definitive factors should provide information to guide the SEC in determining if any new rules and regulations are needed and defining the details of any such measures that might be proposed.

The conferees included the requirement for a comprehensive study for these purposes, and I anticipate that the SEC will follow the intent of Congress with a thorough and objective analysis in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit with instructions at the desk.

Yes.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, in the music world, it is challenging enough for a band to record one hit song, much less become a voice for an entire region and a true icon. That is why Congressman Connie Mack and I are pleased to jointly recognize the accomplishments and patriotic spirit of the legendary Lynyrd Skynyrd.

From humble beginnings, Lynyrd Skynyrd has become one of the most revered and accomplished bands in the history of music, having sold nearly 30 million records worldwide in the last four decades. Through their live performances and the music and songs still played on radio stations around the world every day, the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd have established themselves as timeless artists who transcend any one musical era or generation.

As validated by their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2006, Lynyrd Skynyrd has had a seminal impact on the development of rock and country music and a profound influence on the career development of many artists who followed in their creative footsteps.

Through their collective voices, the band has become a beacon for regional identity and pride in the American South. This is perhaps best epitomized by the song ``Sweet Home Alabama,'' an anthem so universally identified with the State of Alabama that it is the official motto displayed on license plates.

Since their start in Jacksonville, Florida, in the late 1960s, Lynyrd Skynyrd has been a spokesman for the everyday working man and woman, the friends and neighbors of their formative years. Their ability to capture a unique part of the American spirit has given their music emotional meaning to many fans and built a legacy that continues to grow year after year.

Amid triumph and loss, these sons of the South have evolved from band to close-knit family. A tragic airplane crash in 1977 claimed original members Steve Gaines, Cassie Gaines, and lead singer Ronnie Van Zant, but Ronnie's brother Johnny carried on the tradition as the new vocalist. Devoted fans also remember and cherish the contributions of Allen Collins, Leon Wilkeson, Billy Powell, and Ean Evans. Today, led by core members Johnny Van Zant, Gary Rossington, Rickey Medlock, and Michael Cartellone, Lynyrd Skynyrd continues to share an unbreakable bond with the fans they count as family as well.

Lynyrd Skynyrd has been a generous supporter of our men and women in the Armed Forces for many years. The band has long understood that our military personnel bravely and unselfishly stand guard over our everyday security and freedom. They have enthusiastically raised money for military families and played countless shows for our service members in uniform. Their song ``Red, White, and Blue'' was written as a tribute to the men and women who serve in the defense of freedom.

As representatives of timeless American values and champions of working class heroes, Lynyrd Skynyrd continues to entertain and inspire millions of fans across the world. Along with Congressman Mack, I find it highly appropriate that the people's House takes time to recognize this classic band for lasting contributions not just to the world of music, but to American popular culture as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

This motion to instruct directs the conferees to insist that this legislation end the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts once and for all by stipulating that bankruptcy is the only available option for liquidating a failed financial firm. The motion also requires that the conferees and the public, by extension, have at least 72 hours to review the contents of the conference report before its final approval.

We've heard time and time again that the Democrats ``resolution authority'' to wind down systemically significant financial institutions ends the too-big-to-fail doctrine and protects taxpayers. That's an outrageous and false claim. Read the bills. Both the House and the Senate let the FDIC do the following: lend to a failing firm, purchase the assets of a failing firm, guarantee its obligations to creditors, take a security interest in its assets, and even sell or transfer assets that the FDIC acquired from it.

And while the House establishes a $150 billion bailout fund to pay for the resolution of a failing firm, with an extra $50 billion line of credit with the Treasury if the original $150 billion is exhausted and cannot fully fund the bailout, the Senate approach is no better. The Senate would allow the FDIC to potentially provide trillions of dollars from the Treasury in order to pay off a failed firm's creditors and counterparties in the aftermath of its failure with the hopes that the funds can be recouped at some later date. But only a hope.

The Senate bill institutionalizes backdoor bailouts that have so infuriated the American people by conferring on the FDIC the exact same tools that were used to rescue the creditors of Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac with the taxpayer price tag today of over a trillion dollars. This would continue the misguided too-big-to-fail bailouts that allowed U.S. regulators to pay Goldman Sachs and other large European banks 100 cents on the dollar at the expense of hundreds of smaller institutions and companies which were considered too insignificant or small to save or to pay.

The Democrats like to call their plan a ``death panel'' for large financial firms, but if you read the bill, in reality, it is nothing less than the taxpayer-funded life support to pay off the creditors of the failed institutions but not necessarily all of the creditors. They could pay some of the creditors and let others hang out to dry. We saw that with AIG and other bailouts.

And don't forget the so-called too-big-to-fail institutions have only grown larger and more dominant through the regulator-directed but taxpayer-funded bailout process, a process this legislation institutionalizes.

The better, more equitable approach to dealing with failed nonbank financial institutions--the only way to make sure taxpayers are protected from paying for Wall Street mistakes--is bankruptcy, first proposed by House Republicans. Unlike the FDIC, which can funnel unlimited amounts of taxpayer cash to a failing firm's creditors as part of a so-called resolution, a bankruptcy court has neither the authority nor the funds to make creditors whole. Bankruptcy is an open, transparent process administered according to clear rules and settled precedent and preferences, preferences that, in this bill, could be disregarded.

By contrast, the resolution authority proposed by the Democrats would be carried out entirely behind closed doors with no guarantee of adequate stakeholder participation and protection and without a bankruptcy judge to ensure a fair and equitable outcome. The Democrats have been careful to include in their bill a provision that explicitly states that taxpayers will bear no losses from the government's exercise of resolution authority. But that promise, like the promise we heard in Fannie and Freddie, is an empty one, not worth the paper it is printed on.

You will remember, on this floor we heard the Secretary of the Treasury say, $300 billion that will never be used. It was used, and almost another trillion dollars more was guaranteed.

The only way to ensure that the pockets of taxpayers will not again be picked by Wall Street and government bureaucrats with the help of this Congress--a coalition which sometimes I refer to as the reckless and the clueless--is to insist that failing firms be resolved through bankruptcy.

In conclusion, let me remind my colleagues that for 99.9 percent of core companies and all individuals who find themselves unable to meet their obligations or their creditors, bankruptcy--not a government bailout--is the only alternative. It ought to be the alternative for failing too-big-to-save corporations as well.

This motion to instruct would eliminate the two big to fail/too small to save double standard in the Democrat bill that has so infuriated the American people and makes bankruptcy the only option for the systemically significant firms, many of which created the crisis our economy and the American people face today. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

May I inquire of the Speaker as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very able ranking member of the Oversight Committee, Mrs. Judy Biggert.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Government Oversight Committee from California (Mr. Issa).

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time left on both sides, knowing that I have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania say that there were really no bailouts. I think, if you submit that statement to the American people, they would tell you that there were bailouts because, in fact, there were bailouts.

The majority has made a statement on the floor of the House in defense of this bill that it has all been paid back. Well, in fact, it has not all been paid back, and I think, on further examination, Mr. Speaker, we would all have to remember the inconvenient fact that AIG still owes the American people about $150 billion and that Freddie and Fannie not only owe hundreds of billions of dollars but that the President, back on December 25, guaranteed their obligations, which could run in the trillions.

Now, in addition to all of that, a few statements by the chairman, Mr. Speaker.

The chairman says that they have to be troubled, that instead of going through bankruptcy, they will go through this thing where you can guarantee their obligations, where you can take a security interest in them, where you can purchase their assets, where you can lend money to them. They have to be troubled.

Well, who decides that?

Well, according to the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury sits at the head of a small group. I think the Senate bill includes Ms. Elizabeth Warren, but it includes the OCC.

Yes, I will yield.

Well, I will withdraw that statement. I am glad to hear that it does not.

Now, let me ask you this. This bill, and I'm going to quote from section 210, it says that the FDIC is authorized to borrow up to 90 percent of the fair value of the failed firm's total consolidated assets. Ninety percent of the total consolidated assets.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, maybe he can give us this figure or review my figures. But the largest corporation in America, Bank of America, which would qualify under this program has total assets of $2.34 trillion. That means that the FDIC could borrow $2 trillion.

Now, I would ask this: Where do they borrow it from? But, more importantly, if they borrow $2 trillion to allow Bank of America to go into this process, if they are not paid back, who pays it? And the answer is: the taxpayers, a $2 trillion investment right there.

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

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to honor our veterans this Memorial Day, it is an appropriate time to recognize the service of Lieutenant Colonel Alan L. Hinson for his dedicated work as the Executive Director of Operation Grateful Heart in Alabama.

Alabama has a proud heritage of supporting our troops in uniform and our returning veterans. Lieutenant Colonel Alan Hinson upheld this tradition when he was appointed by Governor Bob Riley to serve as the Executive Director of Operation Grateful Heart. He has been responsible for ensuring that all military personnel and their families receive appropriate recognition, tangible support, and neighborly care. The program provides caring assistance for our troops, both as they fight terrorism and defend freedom overseas and when they return home and require employment and veterans services in their communities.

Lieutenant Colonel Alan Hinson's concern and compassion have come from his own experiences. He served in the U.S. Army from January 1969 until June 1991. He was a helicopter pilot during the Vietnam War, flying combat aerial missions for the 145th Combat Aviation Battalion, as well as direct support missions in support of ground troops in the III Corps and V Corps regions of South Vietnam. He also served several tours of duty at Fort Rucker, Alabama as both a flight and ground instructor. Later in his career, he returned to his basic branch of Field Artillery, where he served with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea, 3rd Armored Division in Germany, 2nd Army in Atlanta, and Army Forces Command in Atlanta.

In 1995, Lieutenant Colonel Alan Hinson returned to Alabama, where he served military veterans and their families for nine and a half years as counselor and case manager with the Alabama Intensive Veterans Employment (ALIVE) Program. The ALIVE program helped veterans encountering employment barriers return to the workforce by providing vocational assistance, job-specific training, work experience, and other supportive services. From 2005 through April 2007, Lieutenant Colonel Alan Hinson supplied assistance to Alabama citizens who had lost their jobs either from trade-related layoffs or as a result of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

Lieutenant Colonel Alan Hinson is married to the former Celia Marie Sullivan of Troy, Alabama. They have one daughter, Rochelle Hughes, a nursing instructor at Mississippi University for Women in Columbus, Mississippi; one son, Chief Warrant Officer Scott Hinson, currently serving with the 3rd Infantry Division at Forward Operating Base Falcon in Iraq; and five grandchildren.

Lieutenant Colonel Alan Hinson has devoted his life to his family, his country, and our brave men and women in uniform. As he retires from his service as Executive Director of Operation Grateful Heart, it is now our welcome opportunity to salute him for his dedication to the United States of America and to the well-being of our troops and veterans.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to supporting our troops, it is essential that we as Americans unite as one community.

Our brave men and women in uniform need our support. And so do their families, who live daily with the knowledge that a loved one may be put in harm's way in the defense of freedom.

Since World War I, the Blue Star and Gold Star banners have been a way for families--and the communities they live in--to show their consideration and respect for our troops in the field.

My home State of Alabama has very active Blue Star and Gold Star programs. Glenn Nivens of Blue Star Salute in Alabama, Rachel Clinkscale of Gold Star Wives of America, and Marynell Winslow of Alabama Gold Star families represent, as leaders of their respective organizations, the many citizens of Alabama who are tireless in their support of our troops and their families.

Whenever I see those powerful banners--and in fact, I've had the honor of being presented with a Blue Star banner which I proudly display in my office--I always reflect on what it takes to keep America free. This has been the case for generations of Americans.

There should never be an impediment to displaying the Blue Star and Gold Star banners, whether it is in the window of a house, a business, or in the case of this legislation, a condominium unit. Some of my colleagues may remember that in 2005, we passed similar legislation also referred to the Financial Services Committee that protected the display of the U.S. flag.

If anything, we should be promoting greater participation in the Blue Star and Gold Star programs as a way to show appreciation for our troops and our solidarity with their families.

The Sixth Annual Blue Star Salute will be held at the American Village in Montevallo in my district on Memorial Day. It would be a great pleasure to report to them that the House of Representatives has voted strongly to support the freedom of our families to proudly display the Blue Star and Gold Star banners.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on this bill and also on the coin bill.

There is a bond between mothers and their children that words cannot describe. For the lucky ones among us, the more fortunate ones, a mother, our mother or someone else's mother, or a mother figure such as a grandmother, has made all the difference in the world in our lives. The tender care, the unending support, and the unconditional love of a mother truly are life's greatest blessings for a child.

Every year on the second Sunday in May, this Nation honors its mothers. It will do so again this Sunday. We seek to acknowledge their tireless support and their enduring love.

Few of us realize how the tradition began. As Mrs. Capito said, it began through the efforts of one lady in 1868 at the end of the Civil War. Her name was Anna Jarvis, and she dreamed of an annual Mother's Day.

However, she didn't live to see that, but her daughter did. On May 9, 1907, the second anniversary of Mrs. Jarvis's death, her daughter organized a group of friends, and within a year they began having church services on the second Sunday of May throughout West Virginia. It spread to Philadelphia. And then in 1910, the Governor of West Virginia, Governor William Glassock, issued a Mother's Day proclamation. The next year Mother's Day services were held in all the States.

And later that year, President Woodrow Wilson, responding to a joint resolution of Congress, issued a proclamation setting aside the second Sunday of each May for displaying the American flag as a public expression of our love and reverence for our mothers. The mothers of our country.

Today that celebration has spread throughout the world. It began in West Virginia and here in the United States, another thing we as Americans can be proud of as we honor our mothers this Sunday.

Madam Speaker, as a parent myself, I know that there is nothing more important than the well-being of a child to a parent. When there is a change in a child's behavior and when the parents or grandparents notice that something is wrong, they are the first to notice, and they are also the first to want answers. Often those answers are that the child has autism or is on the autism spectrum.

I also join in commending Mike Doyle and Chris Smith for their long labors on this issue, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Towns and of others.

Autism has always been a challenging diagnosis. There is an increased instance of autism spectrum disorder. It is quite a phenomenon. As of yet, it hasn't really been explained, but it is something that children, families, and siblings will have to deal with their entire lives. There are two very important things that we now know about autism:

The first is that awareness is critical, so I commend Mr. Reichert and Mr. Gerlach, along with Mr. Pitts and the other speakers today. That's what makes the designation of April as National Autism Awareness Month so significant. The sooner an autism spectrum disorder is identified, the sooner a child can receive specialized treatment.

The second thing we know is that early intervention programs can make an exceptional difference in the quality of life for these precious children. This has been proven not just by studies but by the personal stories told by individual families. They've seen their

young people literally blossom in front of their eyes as a result of early treatment.

The Birmingham area, from which I hail, has an innovative center called Mitchell's Place. It's named for Mitchell, who is the son of the two founders, the Meislers. It is a model for autism services, not just for Alabama but for the entire country. Mitchell's Place combines the latest in behavioral and developmental research on autism with a structured and caring environment. When you walk through the doors of the center, which is bright and nurturing, you can feel the love for the children, and they respond.

There are many promising developments to report to families living with autism. Recently, I and Congressman Mike Doyle, who is the chairman of the Congressional Autism Council, hosted a briefing at which we heard from the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Thomas Insel. He told us about exciting research which is progressing in a number of areas. Expert researchers are studying causes, early intervention programs, strategies for older individuals with autism, and even potential cures.

In my State, thanks to the efforts of State Representative Cam Ward, we now have an Autism Task Force which is coordinating our State resources, and I know we patterned that after Pennsylvania, Congressman Gerlach.

In conclusion, it's an honor to speak on behalf this resolution and of the children and parents and grandparents and loved ones of those with autism. It's a pleasure to work with many Members of Congress who care so deeply about this issue, including the lead cosponsors, Congressmen Reichert and Gerlach, along with Mr. Pitts from Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Doyle. Today's resolution has great meaning to millions of families across America affected by autism spectrum disorder.

If it encourages parents to be more attentive to the symptoms of autism and to get early treatment for their children, we will have done a great service for their families.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to bring to the attention of my colleagues the heroism of a constituent, Derek J. Creel of Warrior, Alabama. Guided by his faith, Derek put his own life at risk to save the life of a young child during a tragic outing on raging waters.

In recognition of his courageous and selfless action, Derek has been awarded the Carnegie Medal by the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission.

The criteria for this prestigious award was established by the philanthropist Andrew Carnegie in 1904, when he wrote on the Commission's founding Deed of Trust that, ``We live in a heroic age. Not seldom are we thrilled by deeds of heroism where men or women are injured or lose their lives in attempting to preserve or rescue their fellows.''

Derek Creel displayed extraordinary heroism in swimming to a father and son who had been overtaken by a strong current in the Black Warrior River on March 27, 2009. Excruciatingly, he could not save the father from the cold and swift waters. But he both saved and comforted the frightened young boy while rescue help arrived. Derek's spiritual strength was every bit as important to their survival during that challenging time as his physical strength.

Warrior Police Chief Raymond Horn, who was at the scene, wrote a gripping account of Derek's heroism in nominating him for the Carnegie Medal. It is a description of an exceptional action by a prayerful man that I commend to your reading.

On 03/27/09 the Warrior River, Locust Branch, was well above normal depth from recent rain storms. The currents were very strong and swift with a lot of debris, i.e.; stumps, trees and rocks in this river. There were more storms moving into the area later that night with flash flood warnings being posted.

The rescuer, Derek Creel, was at the river fishing. He witnessed a canoe, with an adult male and a male child, capsized. The two victims were caught in the swift currents and very

rapidly being pulled down stream while holding onto the canoe. At this point Derek Creel with total disregard for his own life or safety jumped into the cold water and swam towards the victims. After reaching the victims and the canoe he attempted to get them to the shore, but the currents were too strong and they were washed down river about half a mile from the boat launch.

At this point Derek was able to steer the canoe into a downed tree in the river. He then had to physically hold onto both victims. He soon became exhausted and had to make a very difficult decision. Let one victim go and save the child and himself. The father, Tim Sagafoose was injured and was unable to help or respond. Derek was unable to hold onto the father any longer and turned him loose into the current. Derek then had to calm the young boy and explain what he had to just do. He had the presence of mind to witness to the young boy about God and salvation, all while holding onto him in the cold swift water for over for over thirty minutes before they were rescued by Warrior Firefighters Lee Kilgore and Luke Ahl.

I personally spoke with Derek at the scene and he was visibly shaken, and extremely apologetic about not being able to save the father. And he was very humble about his rescue efforts on this night.

After days of refusing media interviews, he finally did an interview on the day Tim Sagafoose's body was recovered. During this interview, Derek credited his actions to God and his Savior Jesus Christ for putting him there that day and giving him the strength to hold on.

After 34 years of Law Enforcement experience I walked away from this incident with not only amazement at the actions of Derek Creel, but true respect for him. He is a remarkable young man with strength and conviction and truly humble demeanor. I am very proud of Derek for not only his heroism, but his witness of the Lord in this difficult moment. He is truly a hero in my opinion in more ways than one.

In closing, I congratulate Derek and the entire Creel family.