Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding funding that I requested as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009:

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009

Account: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation Account:

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Brent

Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 220, Brent, AL 35034

Description of Request: Provide $750,000 to construct a community storm shelter that will provide the public safe haven during tornados. Funding will be used for the planning and construction of the shelter and any necessary lot improvements for access to the shelter. Specifically, $102,000 is for sitework, $577,000 is for construction, $54,000 for professional fees, and the remaining $17,000 is for testing, surveying, and printing charges. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the FEMA, Pre-Disaster Mitigation account. The City of Brent will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009

Account: Department of the Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Missile Technology Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The University of Alabama at Birmingham

Address of Requesting Entity: 1530 3rd Avenue South, AB 720E 0111, Birmingham, AL 35294-0111

Description of Request: Provide $800,000 for the continued development of the Materials Application Research Center (MARC) at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The U.S. military constantly faces the competing challenges of ever-changing threats, needs to control costs, needs for lighter weight, more durable, improved performance equipment, and needs to increase the protection of our troops. Technology solutions to these challenges are often slow in development and implementation. The Materials Applications Research Center (MARC) will provide the large scale laboratory facilities and operational environment to help assure timely development and transition of new materials and manufacturing technologies to our military. The results will provide military systems solutions for significantly improved performance, increased durability, and lower cost for both acquisition and life cycle. This funding will go towards the project's total budget of $1.5 million. Specifically within the budget, $755,938 is for personnel salaries and benefits, $85,000 is for permanent equipment, $17,820 is for travel, $222,277 is for other direct material and service costs, and $418,965 is for other indirect costs. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of the Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Missile Technology Account. The University of Alabama at Birmingham will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009

Account: Department of the Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology Account

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Auburn University

Address of Requesting Entity: 202 Samford Hall, Auburn, AL 36849

Description of Request: Provide $2.8 million to the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center/National Automotive Center (TARDEC/NAC) to complete research and development of a hydrocarbon catalytic reforming and cleaning system/methodology capable of taking high sulfur containing logistic fuels such as JP-8 and converting them on demand into high purity hydrogen for use in fuel cell powered APU's (auxiliary power units) and ground-based military vehicles. The technical focus of this program is the development and demonstration of logistical fuel processor-fuel cell combinations that operate at significantly higher efficiencies than current internal combustion engines used by the Army. System attributes to be optimized include: overall efficiency, fuel flexibility, activity maintenance and poison tolerance of the various catalysts, startup/shutdown time- scales, process robustness, reliability/ruggedness, safety, thermal/ acoustic signature and integration, and reductions in overall weight and volume. Additional efforts will be conducted to design and adapt fuel processor/fuel cell systems to appropriate electrical loads with respect to voltage, current, AC/DC operation, peak power requirements versus average power and overall autonomy time. This funding will go towards the total project budget of $6.7 million, which includes approximately $1.206 million that will be retained by OSD and TARDEC/ NAC for administrative and technical support functions and the remaining $5.494 million will be used by Auburn University to complete R & D activities. All subcontracts from Auburn University will be approved by the DOD technical program manager and the respective contracting officers at the DOD and Auburn University. This request is in direct support of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center's program on Fuel Cell Development for Military Vehicles as conducted by their National Automotive Center. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of the Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology Account. Auburn University will meet or exceed all statutory requirements for matching funds where applicable.

Madam Speaker, on September 25, 2008, I missed rollcall vote 641 while attending a meeting at the White House to discuss the Nation's financial crisis. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 641.

Mr. Speaker, the number one cost in manufacturing is energy. The number one cost of job loss in America is the high cost of energy.

Now, the Chinese get that. The Chinese are building 32 nuclear power plants.

The country of India, they get it. Seventeen new nuclear power plants.

Even Abu Dhabi and Dubai, oil rich Arab countries, United Emirates, they sell us their oil and they're building nuclear power plants so they don't have to use their oil, they can sell it to us.

Listen, all these countries get it. The Republican bill gets it. It has nuclear energy. But Joe Biden, Senator Obama, they don't get it. The Democrats don't get it. There's no nuclear energy in their bill.

We'll continue to lose jobs. We'll continue to have high cost of energy, and most importantly, we will not be able to compete with the world because they are building nuclear power and cheap energy while we're not.

We need to vote for a real bill, not this sham.

Mr. Speaker, this is a gas receipt. All of us have seen our constituents give us these gas receipts. This is for $89. It's what Boone Pickens says is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

Now I'm going to show you where that money is going. A lot of it is going to Dubai. Dubai, they're our allies. If you had gone to Dubai before the cost of gasoline went up, you would have seen this picture. This is the main street in Dubai, a dirt road; and the only thing higher than two stories was a mosque.

Now let me show you Dubai today. That's where the infrastructure is being built. It's not in the United States. There are more construction cranes in Dubai than there are in the United States, 25 percent of them in the world.

Now here's my point: Do you know what Dubai is doing? Do you know what Abu Dhabi--do you know what the United Emirates are doing at this very moment? They are building or plan to build 14 nuclear power plants. They're building nuclear power plants. They're going to generate their electricity exclusively from nuclear power. Why? Because we don't get it; they get it. They're going to sell oil to us because we're not going to develop nuclear power. China is building 30. India is building 17.

This bill doesn't get it. Senator Obama, Senator Biden, they're opposed to nuclear power. They're not doing what the oil-rich Arabs are doing. Thank goodness Senator McCain and Governor Palin, they get it. The Republicans get it. This bill has no nuclear power in it. This bill is not going to stop the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. You can't do it without nuclear power.

Let's come back with a real energy solution. And I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, your bill doesn't get it. Dubai and Abu Dhabi will continue to build their nuclear power plants; we will build none.

And energy is the number one factor in manufacturing. We're going to lose our manufacturing. They're going to get it because they get it and you don't.

Mr. Speaker, when I visited my district in August, people had one thing on their mind and one thing only, and that was the high gas prices, exactly, what a hardship they were on the people of Alabama, and I think people throughout the Nation.

One of my constituents in Bibb County, Alabama, handed me at a townhall meeting his gas receipt. As you can see, he paid $90, $89 to fill up his truck. Now, Bibb County, Alabama, the average resident of that county makes $312 gross a week. Now, imagine a county where the average income is $312. Now, further imagine that 59 percent of people in that county commute out of town to work; 59 percent of them have to drive 40 and 50 miles to work every day. And they're like this gentleman, $90 a day out of a paycheck of less than $300.

They told me of stories of how they pay their gas bill, they struggle to pay their rent or their mortgage, they struggle to put food on the table, they struggle with all sorts of financial hardships. Is it any wonder that 9 percent of the people in this country are behind on their mortgage when they're putting hundreds of dollars on their gas bills?

They're also angry about something else. They're angry because we're not doing anything about it. Not only is this money coming out of the United States and out of our citizens' pockets, but let me tell you where it's going.

I recently went to a country--many countries in the world that we're getting oil from, they don't like us. They hate us. But one country that is actually our friend is Dubai. And I went to Dubai recently.

First, I want to show you a picture of Dubai in 1976. This was before oil prices went up. That's the main street in Dubai in 1976. It's a dirt road. The highest structure in Dubai is that mosque that many are in, about three stories high.

When I went to Dubai, it didn't look anything like a small coastal village. It looked quite different.

The next picture that I am going to show you is a picture of when I went there. Now, you saw that $89 gas bill. You're wondering where that money is going? This is where it's going. And this is what it's accomplishing for Dubai.

That's where our money is. The Highway Trust Fund will run out of money next week. The people of Dubai are not running out of money. That's why the Highway Trust Fund has no money in it.

You see all of the construction there? I was in Minneapolis this week. I saw very little construction. You go to cities around America, you see very little construction. You see very few of these high-rise cranes. But let me show you what you're seeing in Dubai. Let me show you another picture of Dubai.

This is a picture I took from a five-star hotel that we toured. Look at the construction frames. Those are construction frames that if we would solve our energy dependency, they would be in Minneapolis, they would be in Denver, they would be in Atlanta. But 15 to 25 percent of them are in Dubai. That's where our money is going.

Not only should our people be angry about what they're paying--they should be angry--and these are our friends. This is a country that is our friend. Most of our money goes to countries that are not our friends.

Let me tell you what Dubai is doing. They've got plenty of oil, and they've got a lot of money. Do you know what they're spending their money on? Let me show you.

China, India, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi, they get it. They're doing something about their energy problem. China is building 32 nuclear power plants. India is building 17. The slide I just showed you of Dubai, an oil rich country, and Abu Dhabi, they're building nuclear power plants. They're going to build 14 nuclear power plants. We're building none. And let me tell you the people in Alabama and this Nation are upset that they are building, China is building, India is building, and we are standing still. That's another thing they're angry about.

We need nuclear power, and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, during my energy presentation on the House floor this evening, I received assistance from our congressional page, John Brinkerhoff. John is a junior at Spain Park High School in Hoover. He is an accomplished young man who will reflect well on the page program and on his family, school, and community during his time in Congress. My sincere thanks go to John for his help on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, on August 1, 2008, I missed rollcall votes No. 564, 565, and 566 due to the death of my mother-in-law. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Nos. 564 and 565 and ``nay'' on No. 566.

Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 23 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until Monday, September 8, 2008, at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and recognize myself for such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition and I do so reluctantly because I acknowledge that we are faced with a crisis, and because there are provisions in this bill that I strongly support.

The bill strengthens GSE capital requirements, it enhances the government's receivership authority if they get in trouble. These are significant improvements over the current regime. Even more importantly, the legislation contains a measure I introduced over a year ago to create a comprehensive system for licensing and registration of mortgage originators. This provision will do more to protect consumers and prevent many of the abuses that caused the subprime crisis in the first place than just about any other reform we can make.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that, rather than bringing up a clean bill to the floor to improve GSE regulation, to modernize the FHA and to crack down on rogue elements in the mortgage industry, the majority has brought us something else entirely, and they prohibited any amendments, it's a ``take it or leave it.''

The bill before us today includes provisions that actually would undermine GSE safety and soundness and fiscal discipline by diverting billions of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and from homeowners and taxpayers to pay for three big new government programs. It does so at a time when we should instead be doing everything within our power to stabilize the GSEs and our housing markets and avoid the need for an even bigger taxpayer bailout down the road.

Mr. Speaker, the most troubling aspect of this legislation remains the affordable housing fund, which would siphon $9 million from the GSEs over a 10-year period to fund State and local initiatives. One of the primary beneficiaries of these funds will be political advocacy groups across the country that claim as some part of their mission the promotion of affordable housing.

When the affordable housing fund was first introduced in GSE reform legislation that the House considered in May of last year, I cautioned that this would be an additional cost on the GSEs; I said that on the floor of this House. At that time, their combined capitalization was roughly $106 billion. Today, their market capitalization is roughly $20 billion. One year and $86 billion in lost market capitalization later, a plan now to divert billions of dollars from the GSEs to fund another expensive government housing program is not only just bad policy, it's irresponsible.

Also, I believe unwise are provisions of this bill authorizing--and let me say this: The chairman of the full committee said that I have referred to this as a ``$300 billion program.'' I do that again today without apology. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes $300 billion in new FHA loan guarantees. Now, the chairman said that I said it would cost that in my letter to the Members. But, in fact, I said the $300 billion program would do little to help struggling homeowners. I said a $300 billion program. I didn't say that would be the ultimate cost. In fact, it authorizes $300 billion in guarantee. If anybody doubts that, 412 of the bill, line 19, it says, ``The aggregate original principal obligation of all mortgages insured under this section may not exceed $300 billion.'' At no time have I said that the ultimate cost would be $300 billion.

In fact, in another letter to the Members I quoted the Washington Post and what they said about the cost. And that cost will be in excess of $1 billion in all likelihood. So they are three new

programs, all of them costing more than $1 billion.

And as I said, this new FHA loan guarantee program would have the effect of bailing out lenders and investors seeking to offload their riskiest loans on an FHA already close to being overwhelmed by the larger role that it's being asked to play in the mortgage market.

Many of us on this side of the aisle have questioned the fairness of asking 110 million Americans who are paying their mortgages on time, renting or owning their homes outright to subsidize those who make different choices.

The version of this legislation that the House approved last May at least had the virtue of being upfront. It required taxpayers to foot the bill directly for this ill-conceived Federal program. The version we are considering today purports to protect taxpayers by changing and shifting those costs over on the GSEs--the same GSEs are asked to pick up this cost, but at the same time we authorize the taxpayer to lend them money--by imposing these costs of the bailout on the GSEs through the affordable housing fund. But as we found in the last couple of days, as I said, that's the same thing as asking the taxpayers to foot the bill no matter how circuitous you do it.

On this point you don't take my word for it. Look at the editorial of the Washington Post, not a conservative newspaper. Here's what they said: ``The bill would fund the bailout through a fee on Fannie and Freddie, possibly $531 million in 2009. This is rather circuitous, given that government backing subsidizes Fannie and Freddie indirectly (and that they may soon be borrowing directly from the Treasury)''--and they will when this bill passes, or could. ``And it contradicts the purposes of the mortgage bailout, which is to shore up housing prices: Fannie and Freddie will pass the fees along to their customers, thus decreasing housing liquidity and depressing the residential real estate market.'' Despite that, despite liberal newspapers agreeing with conservatives, it's in the bill, and we won't have an opportunity to get it out.

The editorial concludes by asking the question, and I asked the same question: ``Wouldn't it be simpler and safer to let a new regulator address the GSEs' capital needs before plunging them even deeper into the housing quagmire?'' Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more.

In addition to asking taxpayers to bail out the GSEs and lenders and investors seeking to rid their portfolios of their most toxic mortgages, this bill goes a step further. It establishes yet a third government program, this one a $4 billion grant program--paid for by the taxpayers--to fund the purchase of foreclosed properties by States and local governments. This is nothing more than a bailout of investors and real estate speculators who made risky investments but who will now be able to dump their foreclosed properties on State and local governments.

This approach invites more, not fewer, foreclosures by providing incentives to lenders to foreclose on properties rather than attempt to work with struggling homeowners to keep their houses or property. Besides, setting the government up as a landlord is not my idea of a wise use of taxpayer dollars or an answer to the housing crisis. What in the world it is doing in a bill purportedly designed to avert foreclosures and assist troubled homeowners is anyone's guess.

This legislation unfortunately contains yet another--despite all that--irresponsible, in my opinion, provision from the Senate-passed bill, one that establishes a moratorium on the FHA's authority to engage in risk-based pricing. At a time when we're asking the FHA to play a greater role in assisting troubled homeowners seeking to refinance, barring the agency from pricing its product according to risk is a serious mistake. Not only will this moratorium prevent the FHA from serving more homeowners, it will lead to higher mortgage costs for everyone as the FHA is forced to raise its upfront and annual premiums to compensate for its inability to charge premiums based on risk.

If we've learned anything in the last 2 or 3 years it's that there's risk out there, and we ought to price for that risk. We don't do that in this bill; in fact, we establish a moratorium to stop that.

This legislation--the entire legislation--presents us with extremely tough choices. It includes long-needed reforms, as I said, but it also adds costly and unnecessary programs that make it impossible for many of us to support. It takes money from the GSEs when they're already in trouble. It creates two big new government housing programs even though there's an abundance of housing programs already existing. If they are not doing the job, let's reform the ones we have. And it places a moratorium on risk-based pricing.

If that weren't enough, the bill now includes a proposal to support the GSEs by direct government investment of taxpayer dollars in the common stock of these privately held companies.

When the Treasury proposals were announced last week, we were told it was essential to avoid a catastrophic failure of Fannie and Freddie and the turmoil in global capital markets. We were told we needed to pass it within 48 hours. Confusingly, at the same time we were told that the Treasury needed blank check authority, we were assured that it would never be used. We were told it must be voted on immediately, even though we were told at the same time the Federal Reserve had agreed to provide liquidity in the event of an emergency if there was one.

Those assurances notwithstanding, giving unlimited authority to a government agency for unprecedented action is a serious matter in a system that's based on checks and balances. Deciding this issue without hearings and within a 1-week span with virtually no deliberation and no opportunity to amend is a surrender of congressional responsibility. Congress did not do that with Chrysler, Lockheed or Conrail, which all were extensively studied and debated before action taken.

It is likely that the concept of ``If you build it, they will come'' applies here; if we give them this authority, it will be used, and I believe not only to provide liquidity, but to purchase an equity stake in these private, stockholder-owned companies.

Even a small government investment in Fannie and Freddie is incremental nationalization, let's be honest, a path our government should not go down without serious consideration of the consequences. One is crowding out the private mortgage market as we give them ever larger sources of cheap money. How do private lenders compete? They don't. Not fairly.

We should hesitate to saddle taxpayers with losses in tough times that should be absorbed by those who took the risks and reaped the billions in profits when times were good.

By raising concerns, those of us who questioned a rush to judgment on a blank check request were able to delay the consideration last week and to make some beneficial changes in the bill. As a result, even Senators Dodd and Shelby have now acknowledged--and I think Senator Shelby has thought all along--that the blank check needs to be examined very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this bill. Given the high stakes, we must do better. We should reject this legislation and immediately substitute it with a clean bill that reforms the GSEs, modernizes FHA, and increases the Treasury lending authority by a set amount.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to introduce my letter of July 14 and let the Members themselves determine whether the correct characterization would be made on my statement.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is unquestionably true that the

financial stability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is

critically important to the housing market and in turn to the

overall economy. It is also quite apparent that as a result

of a weak economy, short seller activities and a declining

housing market, Fannie and Freddie are facing substantial

financial challenges. Having said that, the sweeping changes

contemplated in the proposal made by the Treasury Department

over the weekend represent a far-reaching overhaul of the

financial regulatory structure of our housing market. Making

such broad changes in a precipitous manner without adequate

study and analysis is unprecedented and, perhaps,

unnecessary.

The problem immediately at hand seems to have been

addressed yesterday by the decision of the Federal Reserve to

open the discount window to Fannie and Freddie. It also

appears this intervention by the Federal Reserve will be

sufficient to provide adequate liquidity for these

enterprises to meet any obligations for the near future.

With this Federal Reserve liquidity facility in place, a

more long-term structure can be given the careful analysis

that is necessary to avoid the all too common problem of

unintended consequences when the regular legislative order is

bypassed. Please consider a process which will allow all

sides of this issue to be given the careful consideration

they so clearly deserve.

I do believe there is need for expedited legislation and

that action is a basic GSE reform bill. This legislation

could be drafted and taken to the floor with minimal

preparation since its provisions were carefully vetted in

hearings and markup.

Sincerely,

Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member.

At this time, I will recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the subcommittee Chair, Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry as to how much time is remaining.

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

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

I would ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman from Rhode Island another 1 minute.

I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the total time be extended 1 minute.

I would ask unanimous consent that the total time be extended 1 minute and the gentleman from Rhode Island be given that time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the capable gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I recognize the deputy ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Neugebauer from Texas, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of the committee, Mr. McHenry, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a very capable, bright member of our committee for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the secretary of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inquire into the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, due to the imbalance, I'd reserve the balance.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, on June 19, 2008, I was unavoidably delayed and missed the vote on House amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 431.

Madam Speaker, on Memorial Day 2008, let us take time to reflect on the courage and indomitable will of a special group of World War II veterans: the survivors of the Berga POW camp.

Wallace Carden of Vestavia Hills in Alabama's Sixth District was one of the soldiers imprisoned in a cruel camp that simultaneously showed the worst of man's inhumanity--and the transcendent ability of the human spirit to endure and ultimately triumph.

Berga was a German concentration camp. Three hundred and fifty American soldiers were sent there after being captured during the Battle of the Bulge. Some were exiled there because they were Jewish. Wallace Carden, then just 19 years old, was detained simply because Nazi officers thought he looked Jewish.

The soldiers were ill-fed, heavily worked, and badly beaten; some were even killed. By day, they were forced to dig underground tunnels for weapons factories; by night, they shivered in squalid conditions, emaciated from hunger. But confronted with such inhumanity, these American soldiers persevered. They gave each other support, equally shared what little food they had, held faith in their country and God, and never allowed their spirit to be consumed by the evil and hate surrounding them.

Though physically separated from their brothers on the battlefield, the Berga soldiers honored America with their determination and will to survive. In the decades since, Wallace Carden and his fellow soldiers have provided important personal testimonials about Nazi brutality and prejudice, so that succeeding generations never forget the Holocaust and fully appreciate what it took for freedom to triumph during World War II.

Congressional Resolution H. Res. 883 rightly recognizes the service and sacrifice of the U.S. soldiers imprisoned at Berga, and I am a proud cosponsor. Their story is an integral part of the history of World War II, and their conduct under the most extreme and trying conditions an enormous credit to themselves and their country.

For my part, I want to thank Wallace Carden for his service to his community and country. Alabama is proud of him, and it is appropriate that on this Memorial Day recognition is being bestowed on Mr. Carden as well as an entire group of American soldiers whose soaring spirit should continue to inspire all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 1026, a resolution recognizing the 100th Anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Club.

From its very start, the Congressional Club has helped the spouses of Members to come together on a nonpartisan basis to form friendships and perform public service.

The role of the Congressional Club is as essential now as it was when the club was formed in 1908. Back then, Members and spouses often had to spend a long time travelling to Washington. Once here, spouses in particular faced the challenge of developing acquaintances and friendships in a new city and finding ways to share their talents to benefit the community and their country.

The club provided a refreshing nonpolitical atmosphere for friendships and charitable activities, a hallmark that continues to this day. Its headquarters at New Hampshire Avenue and U Street is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places and serves as an architectural anchor for the neighborhood.

Today, the Congressional Club continues to be a haven of civility and culture where the spouses of Members can meet outside of a political world that sometimes can be all-consuming and far too partisan. It is a testament to the positive things that happen in this town when creative and talented people get together for the sole purpose of serving the public good.

The Congressional Club has provided charitable support to literacy programs, domestic shelters, child care and seniors citizens, the White House library and United National Indian Tribal Youth. It brightens the holidays every December by delivering cookies to our local police and fire departments and hosting luncheons for nursing home residents and neighborhood children.

One of its best-known events is the First Ladies luncheon, which funds charitable activities. My wife Linda was chair of the First Ladies luncheon in 2007, so I well appreciate the tremendous amount of planning and organization that goes into making this such an anticipated and successful event.

The vital role that the Congressional Club plays in the life of the Capitol Hill community and this city at large is evident by the fact that it is the only club in the Nation founded by an act of Congress.

With its tradition of civility and service, the Congressional Club remains as important to the life of the U.S. Congress as it was when it was founded 100 years ago. I extend my sincere commendations to all of its members, past and present, and wish the club all the best on this memorable centennial.

Mr. Speaker, because I believe that this legislation represents a missed opportunity to modernize the regulation of our Nation's futures and securities markets, I am unable to sign this conference report.

Section 13106 of the conference report directs the members of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to work to ensure that by September 30, 2009, the SEC and CFTC take action under their existing authorities to permit risk-based portfolio margining for security options and security futures products. Depending on when this bill is approved and signed into law, the agencies would have roughly 16 months to achieve this directive. Because the SEC and CFTC have a fundamental disagreement over how to proceed, there is no guarantee that a legislative directive to reconcile their differences will yield a breakthrough in what has become a long-standing turf battle between the two agencies over this issue.

Chairman Frank, Mr. Kanjorski and I proffered a solution to this regulatory impasse during conference that would create a clear pathway the agencies must follow in order to realize a state-of-the-art portfolio-based margining system for customers of broker-dealers. Our targeted amendment to the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPA, would extend Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC, insurance to futures positions held in a portfolio margining account under an SEC-approved program, thereby significantly advancing the goal of risk-based portfolio margining.

Our amendment is consistent with recent recommendations by the Treasury Department in its Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, which found that ``the realities of the current marketplace have significantly diminished the original reason for the regulatory bifurcation between the futures and securities markets.'' As Treasury has recognized, there are many policy issues--portfolio margining included--where a lack of action has placed U.S. markets at a competitive disadvantage to other markets that do not draw the same artificial distinctions between securities and futures products.

Portfolio margining recognizes the risk-reducing effects of offsetting or hedged positions in calculating customer margin. Thus, a portfolio margin system should align a customer's total margin requirement, the amount of money they have to put up in order to fund their investment positions, with the actual risk the customer is taking.

Today, the portfolio margin rules already allow futures positions on broad-based securities indexes such as the S&P 500 to be used to hedge offsetting securities positions such as options and exchange traded funds on the same index. There is uncertainty about how these existing portfolio margin rules fit within the regime that protects investors in the event of the liquidation of their broker-dealer. SIPA governs such liquidations, which specifically excludes futures from the definition of a ``security.'' Single stock securities futures are not excluded as they are both futures and securities.

Consequently, if a broker-dealer carrying portfolio margin accounts failed, its customers' net equity claims would not include the value of futures positions in a portfolio margin account. This could result in situations where gains in the futures positions are not allowed to offset losses in the securities positions, thereby reducing the protection the customer would be entitled to under SIPA. It also would create severe operational challenges as the customers' futures positions would need to be unwound separately from the offsetting securities positions.

Some have argued that the Financial Services Committee's approach to solving this problem would somehow prejudice the so-called ``one-pot/ two-pot'' debate over whether futures should be allowed to be kept in a securities account. It does not. Allowing futures into a securities account would still require action by the CFTC. Our language would simply provide uniform investor protection in the event of a liquidation of a broker-dealer with portfolio margin accounts for whatever assets are in the securities account.

I am disappointed that the CFTC and the Agriculture Committee rejected the Financial Services Committee's proposal, the adoption of which would enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. markets and streamline financial services regulation. While I will not be able to sign a conference report that does not incorporate our language, I will continue to work with Mr. Kanjorski and other members of the Financial Services Committee to eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies in our current financial regulatory regime that place U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage internationally.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4008 and commend the primary sponsors of the legislation, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mahoney, and the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, for bringing it forward.

In 2003, Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, FACT Act, to

improve our nationwide credit reporting system and provide consumers with important new protections against identity theft, including the right to a free annual credit report. As the principal House author of the FACT Act, I can personally attest that when Congress passed that landmark legislation, it was never our intent to create opportunities for frivolous litigation. Because H.R. 4008 helps to clarify and underscore that intent, I am proud to cosponsor it.

One of the many consumer protections we included in the FACT Act was a provision that prohibited merchants from printing ``more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the card holder at the point of the sale or transaction.'' Unfortunately, enterprising trial lawyers have sought to exploit this provision by bringing hundreds of lawsuits against businesses, large and small, for failing to redact the expiration date from credit and debit card receipts. The suits allege that this failure constitutes a willful violation of the FACT Act, even though many retailers believed they complied with the law by truncating account numbers on receipts. And a ``willful violation'' can put a company out of business: penalties for such violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act are statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 dollars per consumer, as well as punitive damages and attorney's fees.

Thankfully, we can fix this problem, and it is fair and reasonable for us to do so. Truncating the account number is sufficient in almost every instance to protect consumers against identity theft and credit card fraud, and there are no reported cases of consumers suffering harm from the appearance of account expiration dates on their receipts. Common sense alone should tell us that there are no grounds for these punitive suits, but common sense is sometimes not enough. Representatives Bachmann and Mahoney have offered a simple, technical fix that will address this problem where common sense has failed. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support their legislative solution and urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Democratic omnibus housing bill, and also I rise in strong opposition to the procedure under which it comes to the floor today under a contorted rule, which is designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that's allow no Republican amendments, allow no input, allow no open debate of different provisions with any ability to modify those provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record page 24 of a promise that the Democratic majority made to the American

people. It's a statement of the Speaker of the House in their document ``A New Direction for America.''

Regular Order for Legislation

Bills should be developed following full hearings and open

subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate

referrals to other committees. Members should have at least

24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the

subcommittee level.

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and

conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules

governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a

bill to be considered the following day.

Floor votes should be completed within 15 minutes, with the

customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' ability

to reach the House Chamber to cast their votes. No vote shall

be held open in order to manipulate the outcome.

House-Senate conference committees should hold regular

meetings (at least weekly) of all conference committee

Members. All duly-appointed conferees should be informed of

the schedule of conference committee activities in a timely

manner and given ample opportunity for input and debate as

decisions are made toward final bill language.

The Suspension Calendar should be restricted to non-

controversial legislation, with minority-authored legislation

scheduled in relation to the party ratio in the House.

In this document, the Democratic majority promised to the American people in what was called a Congress working for all America, they made this promise: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority a right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Well, that's not what we have here today. Instead, we have what we are calling the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, but, in fact, it started out as a bill here in the House and passed the House as a bill to move the United States towards greater energy independence and security. Absolutely none of that bill remains, it's a total sham.

Through some, I suppose, back room, front room, side room, smoke- filled room, who knows, but the Democratic leadership, we, the American people really don't know--but at some point they decided to take every bit of that bill out. The only thing that remains of that bill, actually, is the resolution that brings this bill to the floor.

It refers to this bill and the resolution that brings it to the floor. The resolution says, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States towards greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, increasing clean, renewable energy production. That's all gone. But that's still in the Record. That's still the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the procedure outlined here indeed stifles the democratic process. It corrupts the democratic process. Despite ``A New Direction for America,'' despite a specific promise not to do this, we have a process that not only allows no Republican amendments, no substitutes, it does not allow even a vote on final passage of this entire bill. There will be no vote on final passage. There will be a vote on each of the three amendments that go to make up this package, but as the resolution clearly says, it is sort of self-executing, a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the title, the so-called renewable energy bill, shall be considered as adopted. There won't even be a vote on that. Now that is pretty innovative. That is pretty unusual.

But above all, as strange and as contorted and convoluted as this is, it is a corruption of the democratic process. It is a corruption of our democratic system, and it is a sad day for this House.

It is not the Members of this House who are being denied the full amendment process, it is Americans, those Americans we on this side of the aisle represent. They, as are we, are being shut out of the process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had been allowed, and we were not allowed to offer a substitute, if we had been allowed to offer an amendment, one of our first substitutes would have contained some of the things that the Democratic alternative has. It is a Democrat alternative, but there is no alternative, nor was one allowed, so I am not sure that we ought to use the word ``alternative.'' Alternative without an alternative is maybe what we should call it.

But it has FHA reform in it. When we said we would have liked to have offered a stand-alone amendment or offered legislation to do that, the chairman says that has already passed the House. Certainly it has; so did the renewable energy bill. But it didn't pass the Senate. We would like, because there is agreement in this House, and we could have agreed today and almost unanimously passed a FHA reform bill which all Members of this body say will go a long ways toward solving the problems of Americans stressed by lowering housing prices and their mortgage obligations. We could have done that. But in the Senate there has been no movement. We won't do that today because if we start taking those concrete steps, it will diminish the majority's opportunity to take what is a bad situation and adopt and create a tremendously expensive new omnibus housing bill.

GSE reform, we would have liked to have seen that joined with FHA. It is in this bill, and it is offered kind of as a candy or a carrot: take the GSE reform which you want, take the FHA reform which you want and we have all passed, and in doing that, you will have to take a new $300 billion housing program. At a time when we are running a deficit, that makes no sense to most Americans, most of us on this side of the aisle. Most of all what I do oppose is our inability to strike from the overall package this new $300 billion government subsidy that I believe is fundamentally unfair and likely to do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain, and in doing so I do not want to minimize the seriousness of the distress many of our citizens are experiencing. When we talk about distress, we sometimes focus on those who are behind on their mortgage payments. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you there are millions of other Americans who are making their mortgage payments; but, nonetheless, they are under an equal stress or a great stress themselves.

Last night the gentleman from Vermont said what we want to do with this bill is we want to spread the pain from those million or 2 million Americans who are behind on their mortgage, we want to spread that pain to all Americans. We want to spread that pain to those 34 million Americans who are renting their homes. We want them to take part of that yoke upon them. We want those who are making their mortgage payments on time, we want them to adopt some of this liability and assume some of this liability. We want those 25 million American families who have paid off their mortgages, many of them elderly citizens, we want them to assume some of this pain. We want them as taxpayers to assume some of these liabilities.

In other words, 110 million American families who are making their mortgage payments on time, who are renting or who have paid off their mortgages, they are being drug into this process and are being made liable and are on the hook now for these bad loans. They have been reading about it, and now they are going to be responsible for them. Now they are going to have to start paying. And the vast majority of Americans who find themselves struggling with mortgage payments, struggling with high gas prices, struggling with high food prices, are now going to assume responsibility for ill-advised financial decisions and misjudgments of other people. Good and decent people who have absolutely done nothing wrong, don't have a bad mortgage, don't have a problem with their mortgage, are going to be trapped in this dragnet.

Now is it necessary to involve the 110 million American families that aren't behind on their mortgages? I say, no. No. In fact, the Federal Government has already extended almost a trillion dollars in guarantees of liquidity. They have brought onto their books, the Federal Reserve, almost a half a trillion dollars worth of these questionable loans and questionable securities backing these loans. And the American people could be on a hook for that.

That is why my companion on the Financial Services Committee and 17 of

us on the Republican side wrote the chairman and said we need to take a close look. We need to urgently look at the Federal Government extending its guarantees and assuming securities and investments that maybe have no market value, just to pump liquidity into the market.

Now what we have agreed to in the past and we continue to agree with and we would have liked to have said let's go further with this, is the Hope Now program. The 1.4 million Americans, those who come closest to making their mortgage payments, they are behind or in default but they were close, and they had an ability to, with adjustments to their mortgage agreements, could make those payments, 1.4 million American families have been helped by Hope Now. And we think that more will be helped.

The FHA Secure program, almost 180,000 families have been helped by that program, at some Federal expense.

Before we create a massive new government program and put billions of additional taxpayer dollars at risk, we need to think long and hard about asking other Americans to assume this burden.

Lenders and securitizers wanted no part of government regulation or interference when house prices were soaring, and they made extraordinary profits. Speculators made millions of dollars. Lenders made millions of dollars. Investors on Wall Street bought high-risk SIVs, securitized investment vehicles, and they made millions of dollars. Sometimes we read where the heads of those hedge funds, private equity funds, and investment banks were paid a billion dollars in profits. They all made a lot of money. But now that the loans that they eagerly made are going bad, this bill offers a mechanism to off- load their problem loans onto the American taxpayers. That is unfair. It is wrong.

Because participation in the plan is voluntary, no investor will part with a mortgage if they think it has a reasonable chance of performing. The incentives are designed to ensure that the taxpayer loses. Investors will place the worst mortgages they have into the program. In fact, that is exactly what they are going to do. They are going to off- load the worst of their loans. If there is any chance of people paying, they won't put these loans into this pool. They will take those loans where people are way behind or have no ability to pay and they will put them into a program that will be financed by FHA-guaranteed loans. We all know when those loans go bad, who pays. It is not the lenders, it is not the borrowers, it is not the investors, it is not the speculators, it is the people we all represent.

Given the substantial risk these loans present, no lender would refinance them without the FHA guarantee. That is what was said on the floor. They are not going to refinance these with a Federal Government guarantee. There is a reason for that. They anticipate a default.

The result is the taxpayers of this country, 110 million American families that acted responsibly during the run-up in housing prices will be left to bear the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible lenders, investors and speculators. That's just not fair.

For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this housing package and I express my disappointment that the Republican Party, the minority, that many representatives here were shut out of the process, denied any opportunity to address the bill's many deficiencies through the amendment process or through the motion to recommit.

Let me introduce into the Record a letter that 16 Republicans, including myself and Scott Garrett, sent to Chairman Frank asking for hearings on the Bear Stearns matter and his response in which he said that he had much greater confidence in the decision to fund the bailout of the counterparties of Bear Stearns. So the chairman at that time expressed his support, and we expressed our concern.

So now he seems to have changed his opinion and is criticizing the administration for something he defended in these letters. We will be having hearings on this matter, on Bear Stearns I can assure you, because our side is concerned about that bailout.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 7, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to respectfully request

you hold a hearing of the full Financial Services Committee

regarding the recent collapse of the investment bank Bear

Stearns and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal

Reserve to facilitate Bear Stearns' sale to J.P. Morgan

Chase. These steps have had an immediate impact on the

financial markets and are also expected to have a long-term

effect on our financial regulatory structure.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed

voted to open its discount window to primary dealers. While

this authority has been available to the Fed since 1932, the

decision to use it at this time has raised questions about

whether and when the Fed should intervene to help a

particular industry or firm in the name of market stability.

With the Fed approving the financing arrangements of the

sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase as well as

guaranteeing $29 billion in securities currently held by Bear

Stearns, the Fed has possibly exposed the American taxpayers

to unknown amounts of financial loss and established a

precedent that could lead to future instances of companies in

similar financial trouble expecting the same assistance.

These extraordinary actions have raised a number of complex

and multifaceted questions. As members of the committee of

jurisdiction over our nation's financial markets and the

regulatory bodies that oversee them, we feel it is imperative

to have a full and public vetting of this unique situation.

Therefore, we strongly urge you to convene a hearing on this

subject of the Financial Services Committee on the soonest

possible date.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett, Spencer Bachus, Donald Manzullo, Walter B.

Jones, Michele Bachmann, Ginny Brown-Waite, Randy

Neugebauer, Tom Feeney, Tom Price, Ron Paul, Adam

Putnam, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeb Hensarling, Steve

Pearce, Geoff Davis, Judy Biggert, Dean Heller.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Vermont, who is leading the debate of the opposition, I would like to appeal to the gentleman from Vermont.

Our constituents today are under a lot of stress because of the high cost of energy, gasoline prices, heating bills this winter. And Vermont, and I congratulate Vermont. Seventy-three percent of their electricity is powered by nuclear energy. Seventy-three percent. That compares to 19 percent in all other States. So I congratulate y'all.

Nuclear energy is a source of very cheap energy, very cheap electricity. It could really wean us off our dependency on foreign oil. I would appeal to the Vermont delegation, both Mr. Sanders, Senator Sanders, yourself, we need more nuclear power plants. And we would just urge our representatives from Vermont to stop voting ``no'' and allowing other States to have a source of low-cost energy. So just on a personal basis, I'd appeal to you.

Now we find ourselves in a very serious situation, a crisis--it's not too strong a word--in America. We have high food prices. We have high energy prices. And many of our citizens are under stress in paying their mortgages. Fifty-four million American families make a mortgage payment each month. An additional 34 million American families make a rent payment every month. I would say that a great percentage of those are under stress. There's 25 million Americans who own their own home or don't have a mortgage, and some of them are under stress.

Now we all agree that foreclosures are serious. They're bad for the community. But we fundamentally disagree in how we address the problem. I, for one, most of my colleagues, say let's not take from the 34 million American families who are renting, let's not take their tax dollars. Let's not take from the 51 million American families who are paying a mortgage payment. Many of them struggling under high gas prices, high food prices. Let's not take from those other 25 million American families who don't have a mortgage on their home, let's not take from them and reward lenders who unwisely extended credit, because that's what this bill is about. It's not about benefiting borrowers because the guarantee doesn't go to borrowers. It goes to lenders.

Three years ago we started an effort to rein in subprime lending abuses, and the lenders came before us and they lobbied and they killed our efforts to bring some structure and some control over the mortgage market. They said, thanks but no thanks. You stay out.

But, now, now that the chickens have come home to roost, they've come back in and said, bail us out. And they're turning to 110 million American families and saying, we need $300 billion. These are speculators. Many of them speculated. Many of them are investors on Wall Street who bought high-risk, high-yield, structured investment vehicles containing these mortgages. And now they're saying, we're in trouble. And they're saying, we want to offload these bad loans on to the government.

And we'll decide today whether we take from 110 million American families, take their hard-earned money, and we bail out these lenders and these speculators, many of which are guilty of criminal, fraudulent acts. They trapped people into these loans, and when the loans have become illiquid, they've asked for the taxpayers to come in and stand behind it.

This program is, and y'all have said to us, or you have said, it's a voluntary program. Absolutely, it's voluntary. The lender can choose which loans he offloads on the Federal Government. Which loans will he offload? He'll offload his bad loans. He'll offload the very worst of the loans.

And the American taxpayers, those I represent who are making those rent payments, who are making those mortgage payments, and don't assume that those 51 million American families who are making their mortgage payment, don't assume they're not under stress. When you say, We're going to share the pain, why would you ask a renter or an American family that's paying their bills to share the pain? They have enough pain.