Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I am not in opposition, but I plan to speak in the allotted 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, throughout this debate, the Bear

Stearns matter has been invoked by Members of the majority who have called forth the bailout of the Bear Stearns counterparties, not of Bear Stearns but of the counterparties, as a reason to bail out lenders in this case. And basically, what they said time and time again, my colleagues, many of them my friends in the majority, they have said, You Republicans had no problem when the Federal Reserve bailed out Bear Stearns. Now, although you had no problem with that $30 billion, you've got a big problem with the $15 billion under the gentlewoman, the chairman of the subcommittee from California. You have got a big problem with this $15 billion. In fact, that's not the case. I would like to clarify what I think is a misconception.

Immediately following the Bear Stearns, whether you call it a bailout or intervention, it was a $30 billion potential loss to the American taxpayers, I agree with the gentlelady from California. One of our Members, and I think it shows the importance that one Member can make a difference, and that Member was Representative Scott Garrett from New Jersey. Representative Garrett immediately penned a letter to Chairman Frank, and I commend Chairman Frank; he gave a very prompt response to that letter. But in that letter, Scott Garrett raised some questions.

One of the questions was, Should we use taxpayers' money or expose taxpayers to laws to intervene in these situations. He wrote a very carefully crafted letter. He said, I have serious concerns about this, serious concerns about the taxpayer standing behind a $29 billion guarantee. I think these are extraordinary actions that we're taking, and we ought to have a full investigation.

Now, that letter was signed by 17 Members of this body. Now, who were those Members? Were they the Democratic Members who are expressing concerns tonight? Let's see.

There was Scott Garrett; there was Spencer Bachus, yours truly; there was Don Manzullo from Illinois, I believe he is a Republican; Walter Jones from North Carolina. I congratulate Walter on his fine victory last night. Michele Bachmann, she is a Minnesota Republican; Ginny Brown-Waite, she's from Florida, she's a Republican; Randy Neugebauer, vice chairman of our side, or vice ranking member; Tom Feeney, last time I checked he was a Republican unless he switched parties. Tom Price. Is there any debate among any of us that he's a very conservative Republican? Ron Paul. Now there's a debate. There's a debate. He may not be a Republican; he may be a Libertarian; certainly not a Democrat. Mr. Putnam, member of the Republican leadership. Thad McCotter. He signed his name. We had to do some investigation. He really used his chicken scratch here, but we've identified him as Thad McCotter after some investigation. Mr. Hensarling. Boy, that's a conservative Republican. Mr. Pearce from New Mexico; Jeff Davis, Kentucky; Judy Biggert, esteemed subcommittee ranking member, and Dean Heller.

Seventeen Members, all Republicans, who express real concerns. And I do want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee, because he almost responded yes, we need to look into this; we need to have hearings. He did say, I don't think it's necessary to do it at this time. I think we can postpone it because we need to talk about something that's quite different, and that's the foreclosure prices.

But tonight on this floor, the Democrats have linked the two as bailouts.

Let me tell you what the chairman said. The chairman of the full committee, and I agree with him, I think he's absolutely right. He said we should check into this matter because when you use taxpayer money to guarantee something, here is what he said, ``It sets a precedent that could lead to future instances of companies . . . expecting the same assistance.'' A precedent that could lead to future instances of companies expecting the same assistance. And we shouldn't obligate the taxpayers to make those sort of expenditures because people will begin to think that they will be bailed out.

Absolutely what we face tonight. Madam Chairman, Members of this body, we are creating an expectation tonight on this floor by bailing out irresponsible speculators and lenders.

I thank the Chairman.

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 nations' 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, Thomas Price, Ron Paul, Adam H.

Putnam, T. McCotter, Jeb Hensarling, Steven Pearce,

Geoff Davis, Judy Biggert, Dean Heller.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

And responding to the chairman, first of all, I would say the letter that came back to Mr. Garrett from the chairman expressed the chairman's opinion that he had much more confidence in this bailout than the Republican Members.

But secondly, he pointed out only 17 Members. In fact, that is the majority of the Financial Services Committee, and as Mr. Garrett asked earlier of the majority party, how many Democrats signed a letter demanding an investigation into the Bear Stearns matter? The response was none. All Members that have publicly in writing demanded an investigation were Republican Members, the majority of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 2634 the Clerk be directed to execute the second instruction in the amendment conveyed by the motion to recommit as though it read ``all that follows on that line'' rather than ``all that follows.''

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me thank the chairman for his willingness to allow this unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in closing, I want to thank Chairman Frank of the full committee for his willingness to allow this unanimous consent request to be adopted. And as he would agree, this allows this very important piece of legislation to go to the Senate.

He and I and this body are joined, I think, in a bipartisan way to see that these 24 countries, heavily indebted poor countries, that hopefully this legislation will make its way through the Senate to the President, where he will sign it.

I would yield.

Absolutely. And as the chairman knows, if this becomes legislation, then the Treasury Department would negotiate with these countries individually and come back to the Congress on an individual basis for approval. But it has, in the past, these efforts by the Congress, our legislation has had tremendously beneficial effects in alleviating poverty and suffering in these very poor countries. And I know

that is the goal that both the chairman and I share.

Well, I'm a great believer in quoting Psalms.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask for such time as I may consume.

I speak in support of the legislation. First of all, let me thank Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairman Waters for the bipartisan cooperation they've shown in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is very good legislation. I would urge all Members to support it. What the legislation does, as Congresswoman Waters said, it allows the administration to negotiate debt relief arrangements with the 25 poorest countries of the world. It does not require them to enter into any specific agreement. It simply gives them that authorization.

Once they have gone to those countries and negotiated debt relief, that

agreement then has to come back to the Senate and the House for our approval. So we're not approving any specific action today. We're simply authorizing them to do what most of us in this body believe is the right thing to do, and that's debt relief for the poorest people of the world.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that a disaster is defined by magnitude and distance. We hear about a million and a half citizens of Darfur starving to death, and it is halfway around the world. It somehow does not grip us like seeing someone in our own community starve to death on the streets. But in reality, 1.5 million people have died in Darfur, and they're dying in Sub-Saharan Africa. They're dying in these 25 countries.

And people say, how do they die? You hear of 25,000, but what we're really talking about is one child at a time, one young person at a time, one older lady or grandmother that simply dies because there is nothing to eat or because there is no clean water or because there is no vaccinations.

Now, let me give you three reasons why we should support it. People say let me answer this first, and I'm going to answer it by submitting for the record, and I would ask the Members, if you're trying to decide whether to support this legislation or not, I'm going to introduce the remarks of Ward Brehm, who is the chairman of the U.S. Africa Development Fund. He spoke at this year's prayer breakfast. I wish every Member could have been there.

Remarks of Ward Brehm, Chairman of U.S. African Development Board,

National Prayer Breakfast, Thursday, February 7, 2008

Thank you, Senator Enzi. I am deeply humbled by your

introduction and proud to be able to call you my friend.

Most of you were probably surprised when you picked up the

program and saw a speaker you've never heard of before. Me

too . . . One month ago, I sent in my registration . . . and

was just hoping for a good seat!

My thanks also to the members of the Senate group for this

opportunity. A good friend emailed me last night and said

that if God was going to speak through me I didn't need to be

nervous. . . .

God is the one who should be nervous!

My wife read to me from Scripture last night that Jesus

said when two or more gather in His name He will be there.

That's good enough for me!

My work has given me the high privilege of serving you, Mr.

President, the American people, and above all, the poor in

Africa.

The best way to help the poor is to help them not be poor

anymore. The only way I know how to do that is through job

creation, and the very best form of sustainable development

is a steady paycheck.

It's been said that if you give a man a fish, you feed him

for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a

lifetime. But that's not the full story. If you want to eat

for a lifetime, you need to own the pond.

So a bit of background . . . Despite that eloquent

introduction, I am a recovering Type-A controlling

businessman. I've been described even by people who like me

as someone who is often wrong but seldom in doubt. I was a

bit of a problem child growing up. In fact, my pastor since

childhood, Arthur Rouner, recently referred to me as a

ministerial long shot!

They say that if God wants to get your attention He will

toss a pebble into your life. If that doesn't work He'll

throw a rock. As a last resort He'll heave a brick!

Africa was my brick.

In 1994, Africa was not on my personal radar screen.

In fact, the only thing on that radar screen was me.

In the Los Angeles Airport I bought a copy of Stephen

Covey's book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

I didn't buy it to learn anything, but just wanted to make

sure he got them all right!

I was intrigued by Covey's notion of paradigms: identical

sets of facts can mean something totally different because of

your world view.

Somalia was in the news at the time, and countless numbers

of Africans were dying from starvation. I felt no real

connection to this humanitarian crisis. My radar screen was

full.

Paradigms usually change because of shock or trauma, but I

wondered if it might be possible for someone to change their

paradigm on purpose. I supposed that if I were to see people

starving, it would change that paradigm and perhaps much

more. The thought left me nearly as quickly as it came.

But God sent me a reminder . . . One week later, I made one

of my occasional stops at church . . . My pastor, out of the

blue, took me aside and said, ``Ward, I'm going to Africa in

two months, and I would like you to go with me.''

I told him I couldn't believe the coincidence of his

invitation given my recent reflections on Somalia. Then I

said . . . ``No!''

He looked at me in a strange way, and he said, ``Would you

at least pray about it?'' I looked at him and said, ``You're

the pastor; you pray about it. I will think about it but

suspect my answer will still be no.''

He must have prayed hard . . . because two months later, I

found myself in the Minneapolis airport with a ticket to

Ethiopia in my hand. I was surrounded (for lack of a better

word) by church ladies. And they were hugging me . . . Then

someone suggested we pray before we departed, so I found

myself outside Gate 8A, holding hands with a group of

strangers. And as I stand here before the National Prayer

Breakfast I can honestly say I uttered my first heartfelt and

sincere prayer . . .

``Lord . . . Don't let any of my clients see me!''

And then we flew. 12,000 miles to Africa, and a million

miles from my comfort zone. I had the high privilege of

having my heart broken. I saw poverty on an obscene level.

Children with flies on their eyes and for the lack of a 50

cent medicine doomed to blindness, the emaciated faces of

famine, families shattered by civil war. And in Masaka,

Uganda, I held the hand of a 22-year-old Mother as she died

of AIDS and then turned and looked directly into the eyes of

four brand new orphans.

I was an eyewitness.

It put a face on the statistics. I always believed that

those statistics were true, but now they were real. It got

personal. . . .

More recently, I took a long walk with a warrior turned

pastor friend deep into an unknown wilderness along the

northern Rift Valley that divides Northwest Kenya with

Uganda. He took me to where they had never seen a person with

white skin. When they first spotted me, they thought I was a

ghost . . . a dead man walking. For a while, I thought they'd

be right.

I fasted for five days on this walk to experience real

hunger, but had brought along protein bars in the case of (as

Lodinyo put it) an ``emergency''. At the end of the walk, I

collapsed in a borrowed sleeping hut; when I awoke 13 hours

later, I saw a little boy peeking through the door. While he

was initially terrified, curiosity eventually got the best of

him, and I noticed he was concentrating more on my stash of

power bars than he was on me. He succeeded in snatching a

bar, and immediately ran away. ``Kids are the same

everywhere,'' I thought, until I stepped outside the hut, and

found a little boy kneeling over his two-year-old sister with

a terribly distended stomach, feeding her tiny pieces of

protein. . . .

I found out 3 months later that she had died . . . another

paradigm shift.

Now after more than 30 trips to Africa, the question I have

been asked more than any other by my African friends is

``What do you pray for?''

Most of us among the affluent have too many things. Too

much food, multiple cars, great health care, retirement

plans, insurance. . . .

It's only when things fall completely apart, and we're

totally out of control that we feel totally dependent, and

thus closest to God. Death, cancer, business failure,

addiction, divorce, crises; these are the things that drop us

to our knees.

All across the world including America things are

continually falling apart for the truly poor . . . They are

always out of control, constantly living in a crisis mode,

and thus dependent and faithful to God's own commandment that

we love Him with all our hearts. God is often all the poor

have.

The leaders that God anoints are their only hope. And

despite the often-horrific conditions they live in, the poor

are thankful for their very existence.

Scripture asks, ``Hasn't God chosen those who are poor in

the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and inherit the

Kingdom?'' Yes, He has. I've seen it with my own eyes.

The question I'm asked the most by my American friends is,

``Why cross an ocean to help people when you need only cross

the street, to help your own?'' It's a great question, and

the answer is, of course, that we need to do both.

Solzhenitsyn said that disaster is defined by two things:

magnitude and distance. So a small disaster close to home or

a huge disaster faraway, results in what he describes as

``bearable disasters of bearable proportions.'' We've become

too good at ``bearing.'' Our hearts should be broken by the

things that break the heart of God.

Specifically in Africa, there are many faraway disasters of

epic proportions. In 1994 . . . In Rwanda, a country the size

of Maryland, the political genocide claimed over 800,000

lives. Nine thousand lives per day for 90 days. That's two

World Trade Center disasters per day for 3 months.

Today . . . in Darfur, Sudan, 1.5 million homeless.

Thousands terrorized, raped and killed. AIDS is killing 4,400

people per day in Africa, and even more are dying from

curable malaria. Epic disasters of epic proportions, far from

home for most of us. We have hundreds right here in this room

from all around the world, our neighbors this morning . . .

who experience these epic disasters close to home.

I do want to say this while I have the chance with the

President sitting right here. Very few people are aware that

due to President Bush's commitment and the resulting

partnership with Congress there has been an absolutely

historic four-fold increase in American assistance to fight

poverty and AIDS in Africa.

In 2003 there were 50,000 Africans on Anti Viral medication

and today there are over 1.5 million. I have not met a single

person who hasn't agreed with this high calling.

Proverbs, the book of Wisdom says, ``speak up for those who

can't speak for themselves and defend the rights of the poor

and destitute.'' You have been that voice and on behalf of

the ``least of these'' in Africa as well as the collective

American conscience, I want to say . . . ``Thank you Mr.

President.''

Do you remember when Jesus was talking to His disciples,

and asked them when He was hungry, why they didn't give Him

any food, and when He was naked, why they didn't give Him any

clothes? And the disciples said something like, ``Lord, we

never did any of those things to You.'' I always thought

(like most folks) that Jesus replied ``Whenever you did this

to the least of these, you did this unto Me.''

Except He didn't say that. What He said was, ``Whenever you

did this to one of the least of these, you did this unto

Me.''

How often do we forget the word ``one.''

It changes the meaning of what Jesus said completely. In

our quest to be helpful, we can rob the poor of their

dignity. In order to be of any help to the poor, we need to

understand them, we need to know them, and we need to Love

them. They are not a group. The poor is not a species. They

are identical to us in their hopes and dreams. They love

their families and long for a better life. The only

difference is that they are poor.

And people don't stiffer and die in groups. It's one at a

time. And each one of those deaths leaves an identical wake

of agony to what you and I and our families would experience.

So what are we supposed to do with all of this? How does

this fit with our own world, so different and so faraway?

Frankly, I'm not sure, but we do have some clues . . . Jesus

said, ``The poor will always be with you.'' What an odd thing

to say. . . . especially coming from Him!

Jesus also said, ``To whom much has been given, much will

be expected.'' So maybe This is a test of sorts. If so . . .

how are we doing?

I have heard stories similar to mine of peoples' lives

being changed: from orphanages in Russia to inner-city

schools in Minneapolis, from the slums of Calcutta to remote

medical clinics in the mountains of Afghanistan, from the

streets of Washington, DC, to wretched prisons in East Asia.

Indeed, all across the world people are answering Jesus'

question, ``Who is my neighbor?''

And these people are finding themselves changed, engaged,

and discovering meaning and relevance by being involved in

things much bigger than themselves. . . .

I believe that, deep down, most people would love to have

God change their lives. Here's the thing: If asked, He will,

every time, guaranteed. And while these changes may initially

seem scary, they ultimately lay a foundation for a life lived

on purpose rather than by default.

I will be forever indebted to Africa. Africa awakened me

when I didn't even know I was asleep. I pray that everyone

who seeks one will find a similar path.

I pray that each of you will find your own Africa. . . .

A few years ago my good friend, Gary Haugen, asked me the

most important question of all. . . .

For those four orphans I was with in Uganda who watched

their mother die of AIDS and were suddenly completely on

their own . . . For a twelve year old girl kidnapped and sold

into slavery in rural India . . . For a single mom evicted

and homeless on the streets of DC . . . For each one of them:

What is God's strategy for letting them know that He is

good?

The mother in Ethiopia sees her baby die of malnutrition.

Why would she think God is good? And what is God's strategy

For allowing her to know that He loves her?

The answer is astounding. The answer is . . . us.

Even more astonishing . . . He has no plan B. . . .

God bless you One and all.

And what he said is, and I'm going to quote him: ``The question I have been asked by most of my American friends, `Why cross an ocean to help people when you need only cross the street to help your own?' '' He said, ``It's a great question.'' And the answer is, of course, that we need to do both.

He goes on to quote many people that we look to for directions, many spiritual leaders of all different religions, including Christ Jesus. And that is the answer. Yes, we have an obligation to our nextdoor neighbor, but I do believe that we should have at least compassion and the desire to help people in other countries. We can do that easily and almost without effort, and when you say ``almost without effort,'' aren't we talking about money?

The first round of debt relief for seven countries cost every American citizen 50 cents. Fifty cents. But what did that 50 cents do? It reduced infant mortality in those countries by 9 percent. Nine percent. What is 9 percent? Well, in some of those countries, it was literally hundreds of children surviving that wouldn't have survived. It also included many little girls, millions, millions of little girls that were able to go to school who were never afforded that opportunity before, all for a cost of 50 cents.

This next round of debt relief is estimated to cost $2 for every American citizen. Now, how often could you reach in your pocket, could you put $2 down, and could you see hundreds of thousands of children being given an opportunity to read and write? How many times could you reach in your pocket and offer $2 and know that thousands of people would survive the night?

There was a Catholic priest, a nun, Sister Trujillo in Nicaragua, and she was asked sometime, how do these people survive? How do they survive in such conditions? And she said, I came to say often they don't. They don't survive.

And whether we pass this legislation or not, all over the world in these poor countries, tens of thousands of people won't make it through the night tonight. They will die. They won't see another day. But if we pass this legislation, we can be assured, because we have a track record of success, we can be assured that hundreds of thousands will survive.

In some of these countries, and these are stories that are phenomenal to me, in many countries for special-needs children, people with Down Syndrome, people with severe physical limitations, there was absolutely no services, no services. They were basically born into total hopelessness. In those countries where we've afforded debt relief and their debt services have dropped, there are actually, today, services for those children, for handicapped children.

Anyone who has children, little boys or girls or grandchildren, don't you take pride when they start learning how to read, when they start learning how to write? If for almost nothing you could ensure that little children all over the world have that same right, would you do something? I think you would, and you would vote for this legislation.

Let me give you three reasons again why this is the right thing to do not from a moral standpoint but from even from a good government economic standpoint.

First, it's yielded results. Wherever we have done this, we have benefited. The United States of America has benefited, these countries have benefited, the citizens of these countries have benefited. As I said, the poverty rate in the Sub-Saharan African countries which we gave debt relief is down 6 percent. Over 1 million children a day are receiving health care that weren't receiving it, all for almost no cost to us.

Second, and I think this is essentially important and I want to try to find this. This is a quote from the 9/11 Commission. And if you don't hear anything else that I say today, you're concerned about our country, you're concerned about our security, then realize that debt relief is, I believe, dollar for dollar the most effective program in assuring our national security because it helps to combat poverty, and it is poverty that leads to instability and hopelessness. It creates terrorism and terrorist factions to breed and thrive.

The 9/11 Commission, in talking just about programs such as this, said, ``Terrorism is not caused by poverty. Indeed, many terrorists come from relatively well-off backgrounds. Yet when people lose hope, when societies break down, when countries fragment, the breeding ground for terrorism is created.'' They go on to say, ``Where there is not basic education, where the children are not afforded an education, those are the very countries that the next terrorist threat will come from.''

It's no accident that the U.N. listed Afghanistan prior to the Taliban taking over as the country with the fewest number of children attending public education, or any education. Now, we have a choice that we can stand aside and let these children go to madrassas where they're taught to hate America, or we can help these countries help their own future generations by allowing them to go into public education systems which will not brainwash their children.

And the beneficiaries will not only be them, it will be us. It will be those of us who have had children in the military. I can tell you, as the father of a young marine, this bill is very important to me. I believe that this bill, as much as anything else, allows, long

term, in our next generations, us to keep more of our children from having to go over and try to combat these terrorist activities.

Third, it's cost efficient. The U.S. share of the expected first round of debt relief under this act, as I said, will cost no more than 50 cents a piece for every man, woman and child in this country.

During the debate on this bill, we Republicans asked for and were readily joined by the Democrats in asking for some changes in this debt modification from the ones that went on in prior years. One, we asked the President not to grant debt relief to countries that are not moving in the direction of democracy, that are not committed to the rules of law which are committed to improving human rights and the constitutional rights and the fundamental rights of their citizens. Second, there are countries that engage in human trafficking. Under this legislation, they are not eligible for debt relief. They will either have to turn from those practices or they will be denied even an opportunity to negotiate. And third, they cannot harbor or promote terrorism.

Let me simply close by urging the Members; we all want a safer country, we want a freer America. And for America to be secure in the present global economy we really cannot ignore the rest of the world. We cannot just simply watch as these countries slip into chaos and discord.

This legislation, as much as anything we will bring forward this year, for almost no money, will, I believe, fundamentally improve lives all over this world, all over the globe, but will also be a very good investment for the United States of America, both economically, militarily and morally.

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

Mr. Chairman, in a minute, I'm going to yield to the gentleman from California, but at this time I yield myself such additional time as I may use.

In recognizing the bipartisan nature of our efforts here on the floor today and in committee and over the past few years, this has been an issue that I think has brought the Congress together. That's not to say that Members are not concerned about certain parts. Members have expressed, will this work? This may not work, I'm not sure

it will work. Well, it did work, it did work. We now have a proven track record of accomplishment.

Did we have failures? Yes. Did it work better in certain places than others? Yes. Were there places where perhaps it didn't work very well at all? Yes. Were there places that it amazed us as to how well it worked? And the answer again is yes.

Let me tell a story that completely blind-sided me. I was in Namibia with Bob Goodlatte and Steve King, and we were on an agriculture mission. We met with the President. And Namibia, by the way, they were not accorded debt relief. They don't have that much debt, so they were not one of the countries that we extended debt relief to. So I was surprised when the President of that country sat down with us and one of the first things he said is, please express our country's gratitude. And this is one of the largest countries, geographically, and most strategic countries in Africa, right above South Africa. And he said, please express to the Congress and the people of the United States my thanks for debt relief and the blessings it has brought to this country. And I said, well, Mr. President, you didn't receive debt relief. He said no, but Namibia is much better off today because of debt relief because some of our neighbors did, and those neighbors were trying to destabilize our democracy. They were trying to send rebels into our country. And it stabilized our borders. And we've been able to take money from troops that we had positioned on the border, and also money that the United States had supported to help them do that, they no longer spend that money because their neighbors are more stable, and they are not sending rebels across the border.

So here is an ally of ours that we've not had to spend money on to help defend them from anti-democratic movements simply because the countries where those movements came from are more stable. So again, in places where we didn't even extend debt relief, we've seen tremendously beneficial things.

I want to recognize Mrs. Biggert, the gentlewoman from Illinois. Mrs. Biggert, as ranking member of the subcommittee over the past few years, has really taken a leadership role in debt relief. She's knowledgeable on the issues. She has been a real asset, and I thank her.

Recently, she and I asked two members of the Republican Caucus who had been opposed to debt relief issues in the past to travel on a delegation to Africa. They did. They came back, and both of them immediately within a week called our office, and I think they expressed to Chairman Frank, now I've seen with my own eyes many things that Members of this body had talked about. I've seen what a little bit of money can do and how far it can go. I see not only the great need, but I see the ability to address that need for what we in America call an almost inconsequential amount.

And I wish every Member, before they took this vote, could travel to Latin America, could travel to Africa, could travel to these countries in the Middle East or Asia, and they could witness for themselves many of the amazing success stories, countries whose people are better off today than they were yesterday. Not because we gave them money because this is not what debt relief is about. Debt relief is not about giving them foreign aid; it's about allowing them to help themselves, taking their money and spending it on their own people so that they won't be coming to us for a handout. This is about a hand up, a totally different approach, an approach that's working.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

We don't actually have any additional time to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I have been called away to an agricultural conference. I would ask unanimous consent to yield all time remaining to be managed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House to reflect on the memory and devotion of a valued employee who loved this institution, Lou Costantino, Sr.

Mr. Costantino's passing over the weekend was a loss to the House of Representatives. He had a deep reverence for this institution and always conducted himself with honor and decency. Whether it was a Member of Congress or a member of the public passing by the door to the floor, Lou treated everyone with equal respect and civility. He was an ambassador for the House of Representatives and the Capitol Hill neighborhood where he spent the majority of his life.

Lou Costantino, Sr. was born in a house on New Jersey Avenue just a couple of blocks from the Capitol. His parents ran a grocery store at that time, the same grocery that Lou would begin running shortly after graduation from high school, along with a carry out, barbershop, and cleaners that his parents opened. He operated these businesses until coming to work for the House of Representatives in 1980.

During those early years, Mr. Costantino met his wife Doris while going to Eastern High School on Capitol Hill. They were married in 1965 at St. Peter's Church and had two children, Eydie and Lou. ``There's been a Costantino at St. Peter's for 100 years,'' he would often remark.

Lou's devotion to family was indicative of the commitment he had for the House of Representatives. He first began his career here in 1980 with the Office of the Doorkeeper. He always loved his job and the people around him, and held the history and the daily workings of the House in the highest esteem. In accordance with his post, and owing to the high regard in which he was held, Mr. Costantino had the honor of escorting the First Lady to her seat for the State of the Union Address, a task he accomplished annually for every First Lady since Nancy Reagan.

Born just a few blocks away, and having worked in the Capitol for more than 25 years, Lou Costantino, Sr. served this institution and his country with honor and distinction. We extend our sympathies to his family during this time of loss. But we also offer our deep and sincere gratitude for the devoted service given by an individual whose qualities represent the best that this institution has to offer.

Madam Speaker, on February 25, 2008, I missed votes because my flight was delayed. Southwest Flight 1357, scheduled to depart BHM at 1:20 p.m. and arrive at BWI at 4:10 p.m., did not depart BHM until 3:15 p.m. and arrived at BWI at 6 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to express my full support for H.R. 3532, naming the Federal post office in Lula, Georgia, in honor of PFC Johnathon Millican. It is a fitting tribute to a brave solider.

This recognition from the community where Johnathon spent his boyhood comes in addition to the inspiring ceremony held last July 28 at Locust Fork High School in Alabama, where Johnathon received his diploma. It was my great privilege to participate in the ceremony, in which Johnathon's wife and father were presented with his posthumous Silver Star award.

Johnathon's actions during the raid on Karbala on January 20, 2007 are the embodiment of the scriptural passage that says there is no greater love for a man than to lay down his life for his friends. His valor saved the lives of his fellow soldiers, and he died defending freedom.

At this time, allow me to introduce the remarks I made during the ceremony into the Record.

The actions of Johnathon Millican embody the same

scriptural passage that we've heard at funerals of many of

our veterans. It is: Greater love has no man than this, that

one lay down his life for his friends.

Johnathon's life was short, but his legacy will stand.

His father shared with me a conversation he had with

Johnathon just before he graduated here. Many of Johnathon's

classmates were planning for college. Others had lined up a

job. Still others were talking about how they were going to

spend their summers, the things they were going to do.

Johnathon had already made another decision. He was going

to enlist in the Army. The call to duty to serve his country

was strong in the aftermath of 9/11.

Johnathon knew there would be personal sacrifices involved.

He knew the fight would not be easy. In fact, his father

reminded him that it could be dangerous. Johnathon accepted

that. But Johnathon believed in the mission. From Iraq, he

posted an observation on the Internet which I wish everyone

in this country would observe.

The quote is, ``You don't have to love the war but you have

to love the warrior.''

One definition of warrior is ``someone notable strength of

spirit.''

Johnathon resoundingly demonstrated those qualities this

past January 20th, when insurgents broke into the government

compound in Karbala.

I think it is Johnathon's valor and our concern for all our

young men and women in the field that brings us together. The

Silver Star Award has given each and every one of us an

opportunity to thank Johnathon and his family in a tangible

way for his service and his courage. I very much appreciate

each and every one of you who have come out this morning to

show your love, your compassion, and your gratitude to

Johnathon and his family.

It's a struggle to find the right words at a time like

this. I think it's best to go to the soldiers in the field.

Let me read from the email sent to me this week from Iraq by

Captain Tom Morris, who was Johnathon's commanding officer.

``As a commander of troops in combat, losing your soldiers

is harder than losing family members. Speaking at Johnathon's

memorial service was the hardest thing I ever had to do.

``It brings me great pleasure to know that he is being

awarded the Silver Star and that there will be a memorial at

his high school in his honor. I believe the most important

thing to do is to tell his story to those who do not know it,

especially those who attend his school.

``I will always remember him, especially his deep southern

accent and that he was a country boy who was the toughest

there was and that nothing really bothered him. I can only

hope that I can be as strong, both mentally and physically,

as he was.

``He will be missed, but never forgotten. He was my

soldier, friend, and fellow paratrooper.''

``Hero'' is an overused word these days. It's used to

describe a TV actor or football player. There is a difference

between fame and worthy accomplishment.

The reason we need to tell Johnathon's story is so people,

especially our young men and women and boys and girls, do

understand the difference between celebrity and heroism. The

students who go past the memorial here at Locust Fork High

School will know that a real hero walked their halls.

To conclude, a passage from Corinthians (16:13) is

appropriate for Johnathon and all of the soldiers who protect

us. It reads:

``Be on your guard, stand firm in the faith, be men of

courage, be strong.''

These words apply perfectly to Johnathon, and why he is

deserving of the Silver Star being presented to his family

today.

I thank the ranking member.

First of all, I'd like to commend Chairman Rangel, Chairman Frank, the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican leadership, and Ranking Member McCrery. I think that what we have here is good legislation. I supported it for three reasons when it passed the House.

Most importantly, and I repeat the words of Ranking Member McCrery, we're getting money back in the hands of American citizens. We're letting them make the decision on how to spend the money and not this Congress. It's a tax cut. It's a tax cut for many low- and middle- income Americans. I particularly like the tax cuts we've given to seniors, to veterans, and the disabled, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out.

Secondly, the Financial Services Committee tried to address the much publicized and very important problems with our housing market by increasing liquidity in our housing market for mortgages. There are people that are ready to buy houses, there are institutions that are ready to loan, but there is a lack of confidence in some of those mortgages and in that financing. And I believe the new limits we've given the GSEs and FHAs will help that market. We've done it short term. We'll revisit it if it needs to be for a longer period of time.

Third, I believe what is lacking most of all in our economy and our country today is a lack of confidence, a lack of optimism.

There has been a lot of expression of the importance of hope, the importance of optimism and confidence. And I believe, at least short term, this package will at least say to the American people, we have confidence in you. There is need for optimism. And, hopefully, in some small way, it will promote optimism and confidence.

I will say this as I close: until and unless we balance the budget, until government begins to spend what it brings in, we're going to have problems. Until we address entitlement reform, we're going to have problems. This government cannot continue to run deficits. If it does, the economy will not, over the long term, recover.

We have a spending problem in this Congress. We need to recognize that. We've recognized in this bill that we spend too much money, that instead the people ought to do it. We ought to continue that.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this economic stimulus package.

The version of the stimulus plan we vote on tonight is very similar to the version passed by the House last month. It includes a number of changes--including tax relief for seniors, veterans, and the disabled-- that will extend the package's benefits to millions more Americans.

Madam Speaker, I support this package for three reasons.

First, it recognizes the basic economic reality that getting money back in the hands of people who earned it is the best way to help our economy. The tax element of this package has been called a rebate, but in essence, it's a tax cut for millions of low- and middle-income Americans who need it the most.

Second, it will help struggling homeowners. It includes several provisions designed to address the lack of liquidity in certain segments of the mortgage market. It temporarily increases the loan limits that apply to mortgages that can be purchased by the housing GSEs,

and increases the size of mortgages which the Federal Housing Administration can insure.

Third, quick enactment of this plan will encourage optimism among Americans concerned about the economy. Madam Speaker, hope has been mentioned very often in this Presidential campaign. Tonight we should send a message to the American people that our economy is strong. There are businesses that are ready to hire, ready to invest, ready to buy new technology. There is a legitimate reason for optimism today, and we should promote that optimism. This package, I believe, will contribute to that optimism and that hope.

Madam Speaker, let me conclude by commending President Bush, Chairman Frank, Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, and the Republican and Democratic leadership of this House for coming together so quickly to assemble this stimulus package. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

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

I rise in support of the bipartisan economic stimulus package, and let me share with the Members a conversation I had yesterday.

I traveled to New York City, and there I met with 20 to 25 of the financial leaders of our country. The executives were from some of the largest banks and other lending institutions, insurance companies, in America. And almost to the person they told me that they had been talking to businesses all over the United States, and the message they continue to get from the majority of those business leaders is our business is good, we're making the money, we are receiving new orders, we want to expand, we want to hire people, we want to invest in new equipment, we want to invest in new technology. But we're holding back because we hear that things are getting worse, we hear that things may get worse, we're reading that in the newspaper, and we're not sure.

So I believe that what we have here in America today, and let's not minimize the problems. I'm going to speak about the housing market in a minute, and as Chairman Frank said, I'll not minimize the difficulties that we have in the housing market or subprime, but let me say to the Members, let's not talk ourselves and the American people into a recession. And I'm not saying that any of us are. This is not directed at any Member. I say it this way: I want to encourage the Members and all Americans to have confidence in this country, have confidence in our market, because I will tell you that people in New York that are looking out there in America are saying that a lot of businesses are good, they want to invest, they want to hire people.

So part of what I think is so good about this stimulus package is that I believe it will encourage people to have confidence. It will encourage people to invest or spend.

The Financial Services Committee, as Chairman Frank said, was responsible for the housing portion of the stimulus package, and I will direct some statements to those portions in a minute.

Before I do, I want to add a few words in strong support of the tax cuts contained in this stimulus package, and they are tax cuts. The stimulus package that we're considering today recognizes the basic economic reality that getting money back in the hands of people who earned it is the best way to help our economy.

The tax element of this package has been called a rebate, but in essence, it's a tax cut, a tax cut for millions of low- and middle- income Americans, those who need it the most, those with a moderate income.

I believe this will be immediate tax relief for hardworking taxpayers, and the improvement into our economy that always results from allowing taxpayers to decide how their hard-earned money will be spent will be beneficial.

Some have said not all Americans will spend this money. Some will save it. I think our answer to that ought to be, yes, some will spend it, most economists tell us that the vast majority. Some will save it, but that's their choice, not our choice. That's America. I am confident that whether they save it, whether they spend it, whether they pay down their bills, whether they invest as businesses will in new equipment, that it will all be good for America.

Hopefully, it will stimulate not only the economy but it will also prompt my colleagues to enact additional tax cuts in the future and make the Bush tax cuts that have worked so well permanent.

It is widely recognized that the troubled housing market is a significant contributor to the current downturn in our economy. It is not contributing to our economy as it has in the past. We all know housing prices are down. This stimulus package includes several provisions designed to address that lack of liquidity, that weak market in certain segments of the mortgage market. The bill increases, but only on a temporary basis, the loan limits that apply to mortgages that can be purchased by the housing GSEs, Fannie and Freddie, and by ensuring that the Federal Housing Administration and those that are insured by the Federal Housing Administration, most people refer to as FHA, it will increase the size of those mortgages and mortgages that they can insure and offer.

Greater availability of higher-cost mortgages and FHA-insured loans will help get prospective homebuyers off the sidelines and into the housing market. We're hearing that today from the national Realtors. In those markets, there have been price declines. In some they have been particularly severe.

This legislation will assist existing homeowners to refinance loans that they're struggling with. It will also allow those who want to buy and are on the sidelines now to begin making offers and to restore our housing market.

The combined changes, I believe, will help restore confidence to our economy, and we need that confidence. The higher GSE and FHA loan limits, like the other provisions of the package, are both targeted and temporary, they expire at the end of this year, thereby addressing the concerns of those who fear that expanding the eligibility for the GSEs and FHA loan products will unduly increase Federal housing subsidies. I share those concerns.

While I would have preferred that the increases be implemented as part of a comprehensive GSE and FHA reform, I'm encouraged, very encouraged, by the commitments that Chairman Frank and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee have made to us that achievement of those broader reforms in the GSEs and FHA are a priority for them, also, and that achievement of those broader reforms will be among the highest priorities of this congressional session. I look forward to that important work.

As the GSEs purchase larger mortgages and take on more risk, it is incumbent that this Congress produce legislation that creates a world- class

regulator for these enterprises and fully protects U.S. taxpayers. We have heard from both the Treasury Secretary and the President about the need for this reform. This House has passed legislation making that reform law. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to follow our example.

Let me close by saying the bottom line, I believe, is we must not only take the measures we do today, which are going to offer real solutions, but also do whatever we can to increase and encourage optimism among Americans. That's what we need. Hope has been mentioned very often in this Presidential campaign. Our message needs to be to the American people that our economy is strong. There are businesses that are ready to hire, ready to invest, ready to buy new technology. There is a legitimate reason for optimism today, and we should promote that optimism.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by commending President Bush, Chairman Frank, Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, and all the Republican and Democratic leadership of the House for coming together so quickly for this stimulus package. There is hope for America. There is reason for optimism. This package, I believe, will contribute to that optimism and that hope.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me say this to the membership on both sides. I believe that we've come together in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation today because we have confidence in America. We have confidence in the American people. We believe the American people have a right to have confidence.

And I would say whether we're Members or Americans, I would say to all of us, you have every reason to have confidence in this country. You have every reason to have confidence in the workers of this country, their innovative ability and their ability to produce and compete in the world economy. You have every reason to be confident in the American economic system.

That's the message that I heard in New York City from many institutions that said they had money to loan. There are companies out there who are making money, that want to hire people, that want to build new plants, that want to expand, that want to buy equipment, that want to invest in new technology, but because of what they read in the paper, not because of their balance sheet, but because of what they're hearing is that things may get worse, there is a lack of confidence out there. I don't believe that it is entirely justified.

This country has challenges. This economy has weaknesses, and we've talked about those. But our underlying fundamental economic system and our financial system is sound. And I hope by us today joining together in a bipartisan way to pass this legislation we'll be saying to the American people, your Congress has confidence in you and the economy.

Since HOPE VI, we've had a lot of success. I think the program is a success. How the program has been a success is not as simple as simply replacing units on-site. In fact, most of the residents of these housing projects have actually moved to other communities through vouchers. The main thing, I think, to remember is that it has eliminated some of the most dangerous and distressed public housing in the country and created livable, mixed-income communities; and that's very good.

To date, there have been over 200 HOPE VI grants, and to various housing agencies. Almost all of them have been a success. These grants have been used to fund public/private partnerships that have changed landscapes once populated by failed housing projects and crime-ridden neighborhoods into vibrant mixed-income, mixed-use communities, providing quality, affordable housing for those in need.

I think anybody on the Financial Services Committee who's attended these public hearings has heard the testimony of the living conditions that

these tenants in public housing were living under. High crime areas, vandalism, dilapidated conditions, paint peeling off, lead, plumbing that didn't work, electricity that didn't work, heating that was inadequate, areas where there was such a concentration of crime that many of the youth growing up in those communities really had no or very few role models.

In my home State of Alabama, there are several examples of projects where HOPE VI has made a tremendous difference. For example, Park Place is a 12-block section of downtown Birmingham that a HOPE VI grant has transformed into an attractive, mixed-income housing development. Not only has it decreased the concentration of low-income residents living in a crime-infested area with very few prospects of jobs, but it's also improved the surrounding communities. The surrounding communities, the property values were going down. It was more dangerous. And those areas have been improved. The commercial district downtown has improved. One of the stories that we need to realize is not only the improvement that we see in the community that was replaced or rehabilitated, but the community around it.

But most residents, if you track where they've gone, they have chosen, through vouchers, and a lot of them just by simply turning down housing assistance, they've moved to other communities, and they're doing quite well. They've moved to communities where they think there are better schools. The students of those residents who have actually moved and not returned, they're doing better, on the average, than those residents who chose to return.

In New Orleans, we actually found a lot of people chose not to go back to the original community because they did not trust the public housing authority. And that's one reason that we've tried to advocate not simply replacing these units on a one-by-one basis, and re- duplicating a bad situation.

The Tuxedo Court project in Birmingham is going to replace 488 obsolete units of aging buildings with 331 modern, for-purchase rental homes. All the residents who are not going to relocate there have been given vouchers, or if they qualify, public assistance, and many of them have chosen to move to communities across town.

Our vision, and I think the vision of both Democrats and Republicans on this committee, should be for the residents of those communities to better themselves and better their living conditions, their housing. It should be vibrant, mixed-use communities with good housing, safe streets, strong schools.

In a previous debate, I mentioned a public housing project in downtown Atlanta called East Lake. East Lake was so dangerous that the police refused to patrol it. And it's not alone. Children slept in bathtubs or closets for fear of being hit by random gunfire.

A developer by the name of Tom Cousins proposed replacing this crime- ridden project, where there was very little hope for the residents, very little future for the youth, with a mixed-income community. And that's been done. Today, professionals, accountants, doctors, lawyers, people with good income, are living side by side with families still on subsidized and on public assistance. The end result is a sharp reduction in crime in East Lake. But the more important result is a sharp increase in the level of academic achievement and success among the youth living in that community.

Now, for all the good, we are concerned about this bill. First of all, it eliminates the Main Street Revitalization program, which was for the benefit of smaller communities.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the chairman for that.

Another problem that we have with it is eliminating the demolition- only grants, because on certain occasions we feel like public housing, there may be adequate housing other places, or vouchers or a better system. But I think one of the main causes of concerns we have, and the gentlelady from West Virginia, is the green requirements. While some of the provisions have merit, we believe that they have, number one, the unintended result of reducing the number of affordable housing units that can actually be constructed under HOPE VI.

In fact, I have a letter I would like to introduce from the homebuilders, but also a coalition of National Affordable Housing Management Association. And basically what they say here is that the additional cost burdens of these particular green compliances will greatly discourage the development of these projects and drive up the cost substantially.

January 14, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chair, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,

Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community

Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Committee Leaders: The undersigned organizations, who

work collectively in support of affordable housing and

promoting sustainability in our nation's housing stock, are

writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3524, The HOPE VI

Improvement and Reauthorization Act, in its current form. We

do appreciate that the forthcoming Manager's amendment will

make several important improvements to the bill. For example,

we support allowing HUD to grant a waiver to the one-for-one

replacement provision under certain circumstances. However,

we suggest that HUD also should be able to provide waivers

related to funding realities. If one-for-one replacement

renders a deal infeasible, there should be enough flexibility

to waive that provision. We also believe that extending the

period in which all replacement units must be provided after

demolition has been completed from 12 to 36 months is very

sensible. HOPE VI projects must contend with many variables,

from weather conditions, securing local approvals and working

extensively with tenant groups. All of these factors can

increase construction periods beyond what otherwise might be

considered normal.

However, while our organizations have long-supported this

important housing program, there are several provisions in

the bill which we believe are so onerous that private

developers may no longer be able to participate, jeopardizing

the very existence of the program. Specifically, our main

objection is that the legislation will unfairly and

unnecessarily drive up development costs by mandating

compliance with privately developed green building rating

systems. The additional cost burdens for green compliance

adds further impediments to an already complicated financing

structure for HOPE VI projects and could greatly discourage

developers from undertaking future projects. In addition,

there are provisions related to the occupancy of HOPE VI

projects that are unclear and could be interpreted to prevent

owners from instituting sensible eligibility standards.

Green Building Mandate

Our members are committed to working on increasing the

sustainability of affordable housing, as well as keeping

housing affordable in all markets. We believe that mandatory

green requirements in the HOPE VI program will have

unintended consequences that far outweigh any sustainability

gains. Dramatic reductions in additional HOPE VI projects is

a very real possibility because of increased costs that

developers would have to finance based on the proposed

provisions in the bill. There is a limited amount of HOPE

VI funding, and a developer's ability to leverage a

significant amount of additional financing is limited. In

addition, total development costs (TDC) are capped. Unless

TDCs are allowed to increase (or alternatively, the costs

of complying with the green building requirements are

excluded from TDC), the developers may be forced to scrimp

on other important aspects of these developments to pay

for costly green components. Decisions on what aspects of

green development can be afforded in these properties

should be left to the developers and their partner public

housing agencies. HUD has recognized this as a practicable

approach, as demonstrated by its implementation of green

building incentives in the Mark-to-Market program.

Further, the specific reference to only one green rating

system will stifle innovation and technology advancement in

all aspects of green building. During a time when green

building is growing exponentially and programs are competing

to be the ``greenest,'' Congress should not be codifying one

inflexible benchmark that cannot adapt to future

sustainability needs. Congress should not be

using the HOPE VI program to pick winners and losers in the

green building arena.

Keeping green building as flexible and competitive as

possible reaps the greatest environmental and economic

rewards. Mandating a specific green building requirement for

HOPE VI is short-sighted, overly restrictive and costly and

is a disservice to community affordable housing needs.

Sustainable green design for all housing markets should be

protected from government mandates and rigid statutory

benchmarks. Green building means something different in every

climate zone, just as every market has differing demands for

affordable housing.

It is important to understand that opposing a green

building mandate in no way signals opposition to

sustainability or environmental conservation. Green building

should not be driven to the lowest common denominator or

serve as a deterrent for development of these vital housing

projects. Opposing the green building requirements in this

bill demonstrates awareness that green building is an

important variable that needs to be incorporated into HOPE VI

in a manner that is functional, flexible, and encourages more

energy and resource-efficient construction in the future.

eligibility provisions

The Limitation on Exclusion provision (Section 7(m)(2))

could be interpreted to place limits on the public housing

agencies' (PHAs) ability to establish reasonable eligibility

criteria for occupancy in the new HOPE VI development. The

provision says that replacement housing under a HOPE VI plan

must be subject to the same policies, practices, standards,

and criteria regarding waiting lists, tenant screening

(including screening criteria such as credit checks), and

occupancy that apply to other housing owned, managed or

assisted by the PHA.

However, the provision goes on to say that a household

cannot be excluded from the HOPE VI development, except to

the extent specifically provided by other provisions of

Federal law (e.g., relating to safety and security in public

and assisted housing; ineligibility of drug criminals,

illegal drug users, alcohol abusers and dangerous sex

offenders; as well as preferences for the elderly and

disabled; and persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses).

This seems to preclude PHAs from screening for credit

worthiness or other typical screening criteria.

We support holding all households to the same standards. We

note that HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Handbook encourages

PHAs and owners to adopt screening policies that take into

consideration tenancy history related to payment of rent and

utility bills; caring for a unit and premises; respecting the

rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of their housing;

drug-related criminal activity or other criminal activity

that is a threat to life, safety or property of others and

compliance with other essential conditions of tenancy. The

proposed provision in H.R. 3524 could be interpreted to

undermine HUD's existing policies and create an unfair

disadvantage to other eligible tenants who wish to move into

a HOPE VI property. Further, it appears that the bill may

provide a de facto preference to applicants that have been

released from a prison or other correctional facility. It is

the responsibility of the owner/landlord to ensure a safe

environment for all residents, and such a preference may

preclude their ability to honor that responsibility.

The owners of HOPE VI developments must be able to

implement good business practices to attract investors and

lenders. Otherwise, the developments will be viewed as too

risky, and the developer's financing prospects will be in

jeopardy. We suggest that these provisions be clarified to

ensure that PHAs can continue to set fair and reasonable

screening and eligibility standards that are applied to all

households.

other

We believe that the provision eliminating HUD's ability to

award demolition grants should be revisited. There may be

circumstances under which a demolition only is warranted. HUD

and PHAs should be allowed to retain this current authority.

summary

Our organizations are committed to furthering the

sustainability of affordable housing and believe that the

success of these efforts lies in the ability of the industry

to take advantage of the innovations that are constantly

occurring in the market. The provisions in H.R. 3524, The

HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act, as currently

written, will impede these efforts by mandating the use of

one specific system. In addition, owners of HOPE VI

properties must be able to establish reasonable and workable

occupancy policies that are fair to all prospective tenants

in HOPE VI communities.

Our organizations stand ready to work with the Committee to

craft an effective and appropriate way to address green

building and eligibility standards within the HOPE VI

program. Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Institute of Real Estate Management.

National Affordable Housing Management Association.

National Apartment Association.

National Association of Home Builders.

National Multi Housing Council.

More important, and let me close by saying this, and this is a serious problem with this bill, I have a letter from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. They say that the standards we're using in this bill, let me quote them:

``If a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED certification,'' that's the program we're using, ``they are largely forced to use wood products grown and manufactured overseas.''

``This puts American workers and American products at a competitive disadvantage.''

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,

Washington, DC, January 11, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development,

Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Community

Development Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairmen Frank and Waters, and Ranking Members Bachus

and Capito: On behalf of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters

and Joiners of America, I am writing to express our concerns

with provisions of H.R. 3524 that would require non-

residential construction in HOPE VI grant projects to meet

the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating criteria.

For the last four years, the Carpenters have had a great

interest in green building legislation as it affects both

parts of our union--the part that constructs buildings and

the part that harvests and manufactures wood products that

are used in them. Therefore, we are strong supporters of

green building, but want to ensure that building ``green''

does not result in ``pink'' slips for our members.

Over this time, we have found a number of important flaws

in the LEED system that we believe makes it unsatisfactory

for the marketplace and should not be the only standard

referenced in legislation.

Our primary concern is LEED's failure to recognize all

credible, sustainable forestry certification programs in its

certified wood credit. LEED only provides credit to builders

using forest products certified by the Forest Stewardship

Council (FSC). No credits are awarded for wood products

produced by other companies independently third party

certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)

Program standard or the American Tree Farm System, the two

largest sustainable forest management systems in the United

States. These two systems account for over 90 million acres

of forestland, yet do not qualify for points under LEED.

Therefore, if a builder wants to use wood and receive LEED

certification, they are largely forced to use wood products

grown or manufactured overseas. This puts American workers

and American products at a competitive disadvantage.

LEED also discriminates against wood compared to other

imported building products. LEED credits builders for using

``rapidly renewable materials,'' which are defined as

products originating from plants harvested in a 10-year

cycle. As you might expect, construction lumber cannot earn

this credit since it takes more than ten years for a tree to

grow to a usable size and diameter. Instead, if a builder

uses exotic crops such as imported bamboo, they can earn the

credit.

As a result of these flaws, we have actively supported

other green building systems that are inclusive in regard to

the use of wood. One system that we have supported at the

national, state and local levels is the Green Building

Initiative's Green Globes program. Unlike LEED, it recognizes

all the major sustainable forestry programs used in the

United States and does not put wood at a disadvantage

compared to other building products. Also unlike LEED, Green

Globes takes into account the concept of life-cycle analysis,

or the cost to operate the building over time.

As a result, Green Globes has been increasingly recognized

by federal agencies and state governments. At the federal

level, it has been recognized by the Department of Health and

Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the

Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, 11 states have

written Green Globes into their state green building

statutes,

Therefore, we request that the legislation be modified in

order to specifically include other standards, such as Green

Globes. Should any amendments be offered to create a process

that gives the government the opportunity to review and

select a standard, we request that language be included that

gives all eligible and viable green building standards equal

consideration and ability to participate in the process. We

believe that with these changes, we will produce a piece of

legislation that meets all of the legislation's goals.

Sincerely,

Douglas J. McCarron,

General President.

Number 1, under the standards you've adopted, we won't be using wood, when it's one of our greatest renewable resources. We won't be using wood. So you will be putting a lot of carpenters and laborers and joiners out of work, the framers.

But second, if you do use wood, you will have to import that wood. So, as an article in Slate magazine said, and it's the reason the University of Michigan in one of their projects is trying to decide whether they want to use this LEED program, LEED, this article in Slate magazine actually pointed out that you can put up a bicycle rack and you get the same credit as if you used an energy efficient heating system. That's wrong.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Would you continue to work with us to make sure that, in fact, is possible?

Madam Chairman, Members of this body, let me say that there is a difference of opinion on our side and different opinions on our side. But I do believe that one thing ought to be clarified, and I believe I share this opinion with all my colleagues on this side. We believe the purpose of HOPE VI is not simply to replace a failed housing project model with another public housing project or community. We believe the purpose that all of us have, Republicans and Democrats, is to help those families in those communities have a better life and a better future, and hope.

As I think the Urban Institute and others have found, the majority of those residents, and I don't dispute what the gentleman from Texas said, there are and there will be residents that will say I want to go back to that community. But, hopefully, and one thing HOPE VI does, that community is replaced by a much better community, a much better mixed-income community where there is more hope, there is less crime, there is less poverty, and there are residents in those communities that can actually help those children get jobs. But most, and every study that has looked at this, and maybe someone on your side will correct me, most, if not every, study has shown that the average resident of that community is going to choose not to come back to that same location, but to relocate to another area because in most cases the area they would relocate to is closer to their job, it's closer to a school, or if not a school, it's closer to a higher performing school, and they choose, through a voucher, to relocate. In fact, a substantial minority of those residents relocate to another community, get a better job, get a better income, and move totally off public assistance.

There are a lot of fond memories in those communities, but there are a lot of people trapped in a circle of poverty in those communities and surrounded by criminal elements. And when we do this one-for-one model, I believe we are taking resources where we could give people the choice of relocating elsewhere and reestablishing what we had that we tore down.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment, and I would like to commend the majority on addressing several of our concerns. I think particularly the developmental timeline is very significant. I think it's a much more practical way of dealing with notifying tenants about changes, eligibility standards are much improved, and the provision on illegal aliens.

I do think that the one-on-one replacement provision, and I very much appreciate you, I think, making a good change, and I think it allows more of our Members to support the underlying bill. I do intend to continue to support doing away with the one-on-one replacement for the reasons I said in earlier debate, because I still believe that for most people the best option is for them to move out of this concentrated housing. I also think it has an unintended consequence of restricting the ability to create a mixed-income community that you attract a mix of individuals into.

So I will support the Neugebauer amendment. I think the green building requirement, it does do away with some specific references to the LEED rating standard. However, the Green Communities rating system for residential construction remains in the bill, and I believe that we have got to give more flexibility. Let's be environmentally sound, but let's don't adopt one standard, particularly as expressed by the Carpenters Union, the Laborers Union, also the National Home Builders. Let's not discriminate against American wood products.

As we continue to move forward, I am sure that the cooperation you all have shown today will manifest itself, and we will continue to work on that. I will support, and I believe very much we need Mrs. Capito's amendments on the green building requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and urge its immediate passage. We are voting on language very similar to legislation that passed the House 418-1 at the end of July, which supports the decision of state and local legislators and fund managers to divest from companies doing business in Sudan. However, the bill before us today does not require the government to create or be the source of a ``black list'' of such companies. For that reason, the Senate version is much more acceptable to the Administration.

Some have said that today's legislation is too little, too late. This certainly may not be the case for more than a million innocent men, women, and children who have somehow survived the genocide and slaughter. We can't rewrite history or save lives already lost in Darfur. However, we can and must resolve to do better going forward. This legislation has the potential to give hundreds of thousands of

peaceful and unarmed men, women, and children in Darfur an increased chance of surviving the genocide.

Economic and financial considerations have been used to both block and water down our Sudan capital markets legislation in the past. Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a loving nation can never be used as justification for turning a blind eye to genocide. Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be a bedrock principle. America is a loving nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent with our values and principles.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help put strong pressure on a government that has consistently engaged in genocidal actions, both directly and as an enabler of paramilitary factions that are harassing and killing people in the Darfur region and elsewhere in Sudan.

It is vital to keep the pressure on the Khartoum government, both because of the ``bait-and-switch'' game it has been playing with the rest of the world for years, pretending to make strides to end the genocide and then going back on its word when the world's outrage is temporarily spent. The latest outrage involves refusing to allow the deployment of non-African United Nations peacekeeping troops, due in two weeks, which it previously had agreed to accept.

The objective of this legislation is one that I wholeheartedly embrace, and that I have sought to achieve in legislative proposals of my own in previous Congresses. Passage will be a strong expression of Congress's outrage over the continued genocide in Darfur. I urge its immediate passage.

I want to thank the staff that worked on this important effort. From Chairman Frank's staff, Jim Segel, Scott Morris, Daniel McGlinchey and Nancy Alexander; from Representative Barbara Lee's staff, Chrisos Isentas; from Representative Donald Payne's staff, Noelle Lusane; from Representative Ileana Ros--Lehtinen's staff, Gene Gurevida and Yleen Poblette; from Representative Frank Wolf's staff, Molly Miller; from Representative Christopher Smith's staff, Sherry Rickert; and Joe Pinder, Kevin Edgar, and Anthony Cimino from my own staff.

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

Congresswoman Lee has, I think appropriately, mentioned several Members who have worked hard on this legislation. And historically in this Congress the House has come together to work very hard in a bipartisan way, not always successfully. Several years ago, we passed a capital market sanction unanimously out of the House. It went to the Senate, and unfortunately it died there.

We're voting on legislation that passed the House this last July with a vote of 418-1. It supports the decisions of State and local legislatures and fund managers to divest from companies doing business in Sudan. However, the bill before us today does not require the government to create or be the source of a ``black list'' for such companies. We all know the SEC had some problems with maintaining such a list, and at times was inaccurate. For this reason, the Senate version is more acceptable to the administration and to many of us in the House.

Some have said today's legislation is too little, too late, but that certainly is not the case for more than 1 million innocent men, women and children who have somehow survived the genocide and slaughter in Sudan. We can't rewrite history or save lives already lost in Darfur; however, we can and we must resolve to do better going forward. This legislation has the potential to give hundreds of thousands of peaceful and unarmed men, women and children in Darfur an increased chance of surviving the genocide.

Economic and financial considerations in the past have halted some of us in the House from using our efforts against the Sudan Government. They've been used to block and water down our Sudan capital markets legislation in the past.

Economic and financial considerations are important, but in a loving Nation, such considerations can never be used as a justification for turning a blind eye to genocide. Closing our financial markets to those who participate directly or indirectly in the slaughter of innocent human beings is well within our ability and ought to be a bedrock principle of our Nation.

America is a loving Nation, and allowing our financial markets to be utilized by an evil, and that's a strong word, but in this case it fits, an evil regime which conducts religious and racial genocide is inconsistent with our values and our principles.

This legislation will help put strong pressure on the Government of Sudan that has consistently engaged in genocidal actions both directly and as an enabler of paramilitary factions that are harassing and killing people in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan on a daily basis.

It is vital to keep the pressure on Khartoum, both because of the bait-and-switch games it regularly plays with the rest of the world, and has done so for years, pretending to make strides to end the genocide, and then going back on its word when the world's outrage is temporarily spent. The latest outrage involves refusing to allow the deployment of non-African United Nations peacekeeping troops, due in two weeks, which it previously had agreed to accept.

The objective of this legislation is one that those of us on our side wholeheartedly embrace. In fact, three of our Members who have been to Sudan and have consistently for years worked in the slaughter there will speak in support of the legislation. Their advice and counsel on the legislative proposal has been invaluable.

Passage of this legislation will give a strong expression of Congress' outrage over the continued genocide in Darfur.

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who really has been a passionate crusader against the outrage that we now know as Darfur, and I recognize him for such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Congresswoman Lee's kind remarks. I very much appreciate the fact that she and I have cooperated so many times on these issues.

Chairman Frank, on this issue, has been wonderful, and I commend him. Also, a member of his staff, Jim Segel, I would like to acknowledge Jim, and represent all the Democratic staff. And Joe Pinder and our staff, I congratulate them on the fine job they've done.

At this time, I would like to call on two of our Members, both Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey and also Representative Ros- Lehtinen. Ileana has been very active and personally involved in this issue.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield all additional time to Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen of the International Relations Committee for her knowledge and her fine work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2761, the Terrorist Insurance Revision Extension Act of 2007. I think the legislation is critical to our Nation's economic security and the proper functioning of the insurance marketplace.

Let me thank Chairman Frank and his staff and Representatives Capuano, Price, Kanjorski and Baker for all their leadership and hard work on TRIA this year. We would not have enacted TRIA this year had the House not acted several months ago before the Senate and set the stage for this current compromise.

I would also like to acknowledge the strong contributions of Mr. Ackerman and the New York City delegation, Mr. King and Mr. Fossella. I would also like to acknowledge their concern with regard to this bill. We all remember the attack on New York City more than 6 years ago. We are grateful that we have not suffered another attack on the homeland. I think there is recognition among many Members of this body that New York City is a symbol of our financial strength.

It is not only that it is a symbol; it is a gateway to our country for many immigrants and it quite naturally was on September 11, and could be, again, chief among the targets. So I would say to Mr. Ackerman, I appreciate your passion and your participation, and we are dealing with a compromise here.

In the absence of further attacks, it would be easy to forget the chaos and the economic disruption that followed in the wake of 9/11 and, more importantly, the loss of life that we all witnessed in a very personal way, but New York City's residents in an even more personal and deadly experience for them.

In 2002, it was fresh in our minds, and we created TRIA, which did help to settle the markets and made possible the strong economic recovery that followed, and TRIA was and remains a central element of our commitment to the American people to do all that we can to ensure the stability of our economy in the event the unthinkable happens again.

In a moment I am going to call on Mr. King, the gentleman from New York, who worked very hard on this bill. Terrorist acts are aimed at our Nation as a whole. The resulting damage and suffering inevitably fall on a relative few of our communities and citizens. We know that New York City is a primary target of these terrorists. And although I am an ardent supporter of free markets, I believe it is entirely appropriate for our government to minimize economic fallout and disruption sure to arise from any new attack. Terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon in America, and we are dealing with terrorist organizations which have both the intent and the potential to deliver deadly strikes against our homeland.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of our leadership team, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and I would like to acknowledge to him, publicly, and to the New York delegation that most of us in America probably do not realize the contribution and the special nature of the City of New York and its contributions, both financially and I think socially, to the United States. To many around the world, it does represent our leading city and is truly a target. When they target New York City, they target all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who worked very hard on this bill. And as many of us know, when Louisiana was hit by Hurricane Katrina, he worked very diligently on that. I think he also has played a yeoman's part in this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of many of my House colleagues, the New York delegation, concerning certain aspects of this bill. It is not a perfect bill. It is the bill the Senate sent back over. I believe, despite the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is a reasonable measure. I believe it will ensure the continued vitality of our commercial insurance markets as they operate under the threat of global terrorism. I believe it is fiscally responsible.

Many on my side would have preferred a 3-year bill, as the gentleman from Louisiana talked about. Originally, it was a 3-year bill. I believe the New York delegation can take satisfaction from the fact that it was a 7-year extension and that it does cover domestic acts of terrorism. I applaud them for that.

But I think, on the other hand, it does offer limits and improves taxpayer protections and prevents further intrusions by the government into a market-based system. For that, I thank many of my colleagues on my side, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Campbell and others, who voiced their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I again applaud the hard work and the willingness of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and to bring the bill here today before the House. He faced a hard decision. He has worked hard on this. He made, I think, a very passionate and, I think, in many respects, reasoned defense of his position.

We do know going forward that we need to pay particular attention, if the terrorists continue to threaten our largest city and target it, that we are fully supportive of the people of New York City.

I thank all of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate who worked on TRIA for a long time. Whatever else has happened, we have come together today. It may have been an emotional journey, but we are going to pass legislation that I believe will be effective, and I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will surrender any time I have left to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given another minute.

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

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

Members of the body, first let me address the practicalities of where we are. I am going to talk about the policies in a few minutes after others have had an opportunity to speak, but let's just talk about where we are.

The chairman has talked about the Senate this, the House this. But the truth is that the present legislation expires December 31. That is in 19 days. Businesses across the country are trying to arrange their insurance coverages for next year, and they have no certainty as to whether or how much there will be a Federal safety net in place. Nineteen days.

Even if Congress were to act today, there is hardly time enough for insurance companies to develop new policy forms, to obtain approval from 50 State regulators, to get them in the marketplace for review by the brokers, and to finish negotiating coverage with their policyholders. There is just not time.

Now, it can be the Senate problem. The House passed a bill earlier this year. That is all true, but that doesn't change the facts. Nineteen days. Nineteen days. Each additional day that we fail to get a bill on the President's desk means less ability in the marketplace to adjust and to respond to the new mandates in this program, or the Senate program, particularly the mandates on domestic terrorism. Policies are going to have to be rewritten. And both the House and the Senate bill does that, so it doesn't really matter which bill ultimately passes.

Mr. Speaker, I share Chairman Frank's frustration with the Senate. He described this ping pong, back and forth. A House-Senate conference would have been nice to work out our differences, although in a minute I will say why I personally believe the Senate bill is more in keeping with our original intention. The chairman of the full committee and I were two of the authors of the original legislation. And it says in that legislation it was intended as a very temporary Federal backstop until the private market could fill in, and I will talk about that and why I support the Senate bill later.

But as a practical matter, whether I supported the Senate or the House bill, there is only one bill that is going to pass. I think the chairman knows that, I know that, Members of this body know that. That's the Senate bill.

The administration has indicated they are going to veto anything but the Senate bill. If we pass this bill, they will veto it. The Senate has agreed unanimously to their bill. They came together unanimously. I regret we weren't able to do that. But it was, at that time, a 15-year permanent bill. So we didn't come together. But we have got to put this behind us and adopt legislation that has a realistic possibility of becoming law, and to do it right now. We need to do that on the alternate minimum tax. It is staring us in the face.

I don't think the American people, the taxpayers, I don't think the accounting industry care whether or not the Senate did this to the House or the

House did this to the Senate. On terrorist insurance, I don't think the insurance companies, the developers, the policyholders, I am not sure they care about all the internal fights between this body and that body. They are caught in the middle, and you do have a bill available. It's a Senate bill that will go to the President to be signed and take away this uncertainty.

The Senate has made it clear that they are not going to pass the legislation that the chairman is offering. It is not me; that is the Senate. The White House has issued a Statement of Administrative Policy indicating that if presented with the bill we are going to vote on today, the President will veto it. That's with less. The Senate is not going to take it up, so it won't ever get to the President. So that is just theoretical because the Senate said they are not going to pass it. And we have got 3 weeks left before the program expires.

Now, some of our Members think that the private market, that the TRIA 5 years after 9/11, a 3-year bill and a 2-year extension, that TRIA has served its purpose. And in a few minutes I am going to talk about the Treasury and that they believe that it has fulfilled its purpose and from now on it just retards the private market.

But we can vote this bill down, we can bring up the Senate bill, and we can put a bipartisan TRIA extension on the President's desk. We can do it this week. The time for further deliberation or argument has passed. Time has run out on us.

With all due respect to the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I recommend we vote down this legislation, we bring up the Senate legislation, we do it in a motion to recommit, we do it in a unanimous consent, we do it in a suspension. We move it, we pass it over to the Senate, and we end the uncertainty.

If it is such a vital program that many Members think it is, why don't we need it in place? Why would we wait until a week or two or even after it expires to reauthorize it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, TRIA, provides a free Federal backstop to private insurers to protect them against acts of terrorism in the United States so they can have insurance. It was enacted, as all of us recall, right after 9/11 for 3 years as a very temporary measure. It was intended to give the insurance industry developers a 3-year period of transition to a private market, allow them to stabilize, to price terrorism insurance, and the third goal was to rebuild capacity.

Now, in 2005, Republicans agreed. We came together bipartisanly and extended it for 2 years. However, that same year, the Treasury did a study on TRIA, and here's what they said. They said, by 2005, 2 years ago, the program had achieved all its purposes. The insurance market had stabilized. They were pricing terrorism insurance, and they were rebuilding capacity.

I will submit for the Record the Treasury Department study that they found had achieved all its goals. Now, let me read from the Treasury study of 2 years ago: ``The availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance has improved since the terrorist attacks of September 11. Despite increases in risk retentions under TRIA, insurers have allocated additional capacity to terrorism risk, prices have declined, and take-up (purchase) rates have increased.'' But we extended it.

And then we passed the legislation that the chairman has talked about today, and it went over to the Senate. And the Senate, unanimously, passed a TRIA bill. One hundred Republicans and Democrats came together and passed that legislation, and the President said he would sign it.

Now, there are things about this bill that some of my colleagues on this side support. The gentlelady from Florida has a provision that I think would be beneficial. But it deals with group life. I'm sure she's going to talk about that provision in a minute.

But let me say this. The Senate has said they're not going to include group life. So why put a provision in about group life when the Senate has already said they're not going to include group life?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Well, as I said a few minutes ago to the chairman, with all respect to the chairman, we have 19 days. We've talked about the importance, particularly on that side of the aisle, and many Members on our side, the importance, if we are going to have a bill, let's have a bill. If the program is important, let's have the program. Let's not let it expire.

If terrorist risk insurance will shut down New York, if in the absence of this bill you can't build a hotdog stand in New York, why would we let a bill expire that will, quote, shut down the economy of New York? We have an alternative. The alternative is to pass a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate.

Executive Summary

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 requires

the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) to

perform an analysis regarding the long-term availability and

affordability of insurance for terrorism risk, including

group life coverage; and coverage for chemical, nuclear,

biological, and radiological events; and to submit a report

of its findings to Congress by September 30, 2006.

In conducting this analysis, the PWG was assisted by staff

of the member agencies who reviewed academic and industry

studies on terrorism risk insurance, and sought additional

information and consultation through a Request for Comment

published in the Federal Register. Staff also met with

insurance regulators, policyholder groups, insurers,

reinsurers, modelers, and other governmental agencies to

gather further information.

The key findings of the PWG's analysis are set forth below.

The findings are presented under three main areas: the

general availability and affordability of terrorism risk

insurance; coverage for group life insurance; and coverage

for chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological events.

Further detail on each finding is provided in the body of the

report.

Key Findings

Long-Term Overall Availability and Affordability of Terrorism

Risk Insurance

The availability and affordability of terrorism risk

insurance have improved since the terrorist attacks of

September 11, 2001. Despite increases in risk retentions

under TRIA, insurers have allocated additional capacity to

terrorism risk, prices have declined, and take-up (purchase)

rates have increased. The take-up rate--or the percentage of

companies buying terrorism coverage--has reportedly increased

from 27 percent in 2003 to 58 percent in 2005, while the cost

of coverage has generally fallen to roughly 3 to 5 percent of

total property insurance costs. These improvements have

transpired in a marketplace that has had access to a Federal

backstop that has gradually contracted through the life of

the temporary TRIA Program. Insurers' retention of risk has

steadily increased under the TRIA Program: deductibles have

increased from 7 percent of direct earned premium in 2003 to

17.5 percent in 2006, and other changes made to TRIA in 2005

have also increased insurer retentions. The general trend

observed in the market has been that as insurer retentions

have increased under TRIA and policyholder surpluses have

risen, prices for terrorism risk have fallen and take-up

rates have increased.

The improvement in the terrorism risk insurance market is

due to several important factors, including better risk

measurement and management, improved modeling of terrorism

risk, greater reinsurance capacity, and a recovery in the

financial health of property and casualty insurers. State

regulation does not appear to have had a significant impact

on capacity, and a significant number of policyholders are

still not purchasing terrorism coverage. How these factors

continue to evolve will importantly affect further

developments in the long-term availability and price of

terrorism risk insurance.

Insurers have made great strides in measuring and managing

their risk accumulations. The amount of capital an individual

insurance company is willing to allocate to a particular risk

in a given location depends on its understanding of its

maximum loss under different scenarios. Since September 11,

insurers have made greater use of sophisticated models that

allow them to identify and manage concentrations of risk in

order to avoid accumulating too much risk in any given

location. This improvement in risk accumulation management

has allowed insurers to better diversify and control their

terrorism risk exposures, which has enhanced their ability to

underwrite terrorism risk.

A significant effort has been made by the insurance

industry in modeling the potential frequency and severity of

terrorist attacks, which helps insurers to assess their

potential loss exposures. An understanding of the potential

frequency and severity of terrorist attacks is important for

insurers to properly evaluate their risk exposures.

Improvements in probability modeling of terrorist attacks

have likely had a positive impact on insurers' willingness to

provide coverage for terrorism risk following the re-

evaluation of terrorism risk that took place after September

11. However, unlike other catastrophic exposures (e.g.,

natural disasters) where there are more refined methods of

modeling frequency, modeling terrorism risk frequency relies

largely on analysis of terrorist behavior. Given the

uncertainty of terrorism in general and, in particular, the

uncertainty associated with these modeling efforts, insurers

appear to have limited confidence in these models for

evaluating their risk exposures.

The quantity of terrorism risk reinsurance capacity has

increased since the period following September 11.

Reinsurance for terrorism risk all but vanished after

September 11 as reinsurers withdrew from the market. The

market has since improved and reinsurers have gradually

allocated more capital to terrorism risk. The key

determinants in the capital allocation decisions of

reinsurers include pricing, which is influenced largely by

demand, loss experience, underwriting performance, and

probability of loss for a given risk at a given location.

These determinants also factor into the willingness of other

capital providers (e.g., through catastrophe bonds or other

mechanisms) to allocate capital to terrorism risk. The

presence of subsidized Federal reinsurance through TRIA

appears to negatively affect the emergence of private

reinsurance capacity because it dilutes demand for private

sector reinsurance.

The financial health and capacity of insurers has recovered

since September 11. There

has been improvement in the financial health of the insurance

industry, which plays a role in how much capacity an insurer

is willing to expose to terrorism risk. Since September 11,

policyholder surpluses in the property and casualty industry

have risen, as the industry has remained profitable (even

with the 2005 hurricane season losses) and has benefited from

increased rates of return on assets. As a result, insurers

have more available capital to allocate, and they apparently

have chosen to allocate additional capacity to terrorism risk

as demonstrated by the increased provision of terrorism risk

insurance coverage over the past few years.

States require that some types of terrorism risk insurance

be provided and otherwise regulate aspects of the terrorism

risk insurance market. However, it is unclear whether these

requirements have reduced capacity significantly. State laws

and regulations govern various aspects of the insurance

marketplace (e.g., mandating certain types of coverage,

approving forms and rates, and monitoring financial

solvency), and the provision of terrorism risk insurance

falls within this general structure. In terms of pricing,

although states regulate commercial insurance rates to

various degrees (to a larger extent with workers'

compensation insurance), commercial terrorism risk insurance

for large property risks may be exempt from state price

regulation or not subject to state price regulation (or other

state mandates) when purchased from non-admitted surplus

lines insurers. In addition, some insurers do not even charge

for the terrorism coverage that is included in their

policies. In lines of insurance with the greatest amount of

price regulation and coverage mandates (such as workers'

compensation insurance), insurers have generally remained in

the market, even as their TRIA retentions have increased,

despite not having the flexibility to fully price for

terrorism risk. Therefore, while state regulations have the

potential to significantly interfere with the operation of

the insurance markets, it does not appear that such

restrictions have had a significant impact in the market for

terrorism risk insurance in the post-TRIA environment.

While take-up rates have increased as prices have fallen, a

significant number of policyholders are still not purchasing

coverage. The willingness of consumers to pay for terrorism

risk insurance is a determinant of how much capital insurers

will allocate. It is unclear why approximately 40 percent of

all policyholders do not purchase coverage, although the

Treasury's 2005 study and others have found that the primary

reasons were price and assessment of their individual risk to

terrorist attack. Individual perceptions of low risk are

likely related to the lack of a successful terrorist attack

within the U.S. since 2001, and perhaps to some degree an

expectation that Federal aid might be available if a

significant attack occurs.

Further improvements in insurers' ability to model and

manage terrorism risk will likely contribute to the long-term

development of the terrorism risk insurance market. However,

the high level of uncertainty currently associated with

predicting the frequency of terrorist attacks, along with

what appears to be a general unwillingness of some insurance

policyholders to purchase insurance coverage, makes any

prediction of the potential degree of long-term development

of the terrorism risk insurance market somewhat difficult.

The post-September 11 terrorism insurance market has

developed in the presence of a Federal backstop (albeit a

progressively less generous one over time), which creates

inherent difficulties in evaluating the long-term development

of the terrorism risk insurance market.

Group Life Insurance

Coverage for terrorism risk insurance in group life

insurance policies has remained generally available and

prices have declined, even though group life insurance is not

part of TRIA. Given these market signals, there is no reason

to expect negative developments in the group life insurance

market. Group life insurance is generally sold to employers

as part of employee benefit packages along with other

benefits, such as medical, dental, vision, and disability. In

some cases group life insurers partner with other providers

of employee benefit services. The group life insurance market

is highly competitive and insurers appear to be unwilling in

the face of such competition to raise prices (states do not

regulate group life insurance rates), or to decline to

provide terrorism coverage. Even though group life insurance

has not had access to the Federal backstop under TRIA,

private market forces (high competitiveness and extreme price

sensitivity) have ensured the continued availability and

affordability of group life insurance to employers and their

participating employees.

As in the market for property and casualty reinsurance,

there have also been improvements in the availability of

catastrophic life reinsurance, and there is the potential for

continued market development. Just as with the property and

casualty reinsurance, catastrophic life reinsurance all but

disappeared after September 11, even though by most industry

metrics, September 11 was not a catastrophe in terms of

either individual or group life insurance losses. Still, the

lack or limited availability of catastrophic life reinsurance

following September 11 had no disruptive effect on the

availability and affordability of group life insurance to

consumers largely due to competitive market forces. Since

then, some catastrophic life reinsurance has again become

available in the marketplace, albeit at higher cost when

compared to pre-September 11 pricing. Today, group life

insurers are deciding whether to purchase reinsurance, or to

forgo and retain most of the risk--a decision that has not

had any impact on the availability and cost of group life

insurance to consumers.

Similar to the situation with property and casualty

insurers, group life insurers have developed an increased

ability to measure and manage their accumulation of terrorism

exposure through the use of modeling, and there appears to be

potential for additional improvements. While group life

insurers face aggregation exposure (the risk of multiple

losses from a terrorist-related mass casualty event due to

concentrations of insured lives), they are capable of

managing this risk to some degree by managing risk

accumulations. Property and casualty insurers have made great

strides in modeling techniques, but it is unclear to what

extent group life insurers have made use of these tools. The

highly competitive environment in the group life market, the

general wider dispersion of overall life insurance risks (for

companies that sell both group and individual life), and some

institutional arrangements regarding how policies are sold,

may all influence how group life insurers view their need and

ability to manage accumulation risk.

Chemical, Nuclear, Biological and Radiological (``CNBR'')

Coverage

Historically, insurance coverage for losses associated with

chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological risks has

generally not been widely available unless it was mandated.

Insurers generally did not provide CNBR coverage even before

September 11, and for the most part they do not provide such

terrorism coverage even with a Federal backstop in place.

Given the general reluctance of insurance companies to

provide coverage for these types of risks, there may be

little potential for future market development. The factors

determining the availability and affordability of CNBR

coverage in the marketplace have more to do with the nature,

scale, and uncertainty of the damage and losses from CNBR

events--however caused--and less to do with terrorism

specifically. What coverage exists today is mostly tied to

state mandates, most prominently workers' compensation

insurance, as well as some aspects of fire insurance through

the Standard Fire Policy. In addition, a Federal mandate

requires some nuclear coverage for reactor operators and some

specialty coverage exists. There is virtually no CNBR

reinsurance available, and the modeling issues both for

exposure and probability become even more complicated for

Mr. Speaker, we have 19 days till this program expires. Now, if, as you have said, this is such an essential program, we need to pass a bill today. The industry needed 6 months. They've only got 19 days. Policies have to be written. We can continue to talk about not letting the Senate run over the House. We can continue to say we're going to stand up for our version of the bill, but ask yourself this question: How could 100 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, come up with a unanimous bill, which many of us in this bill support, and the President said he will take it up and sign it, why are we here today delaying the extension of what many of you have argued on the floor today is a very important bill?

I'm going to say it again. Even if Congress were to act today, there's not enough time for insurance companies to develop new policy forms. There's not enough time for 50 State regulators to approve those forms. There's not time to get the finished product to the marketplace. There's not time to negotiate with policyholders.

So this idea that we don't have to pass it today, no, we don't have to pass it today. No, we don't have to pass it tomorrow. We should have passed it 6 months ago. We did. The Senate passed a different version, and we are arguing at the end of this session, 19 days before this program expires, as to differences between the Senate and the House version.

And quite frankly, as I have said, the Senate version, which is the version the Treasury Department urged on the House, the version the President has said he will sign, the insurance industry's happy with. It extends the TRIA program. Why are we here delaying? As I said, we're delaying this. We're putting this program at jeopardy. We're postponing a decision on AMT. The IRS is not going to have time to react to that, and here we are as if we have all the time in the world.

The American people are not interested in differences between the House and the Senate bill. I believe the American people, you know, if a bill can pass unanimously out of the Senate, which it did, and the President take it up, why does this House continue to debate long after the time to act and pass legislation? It should have happened 6 months ago. It can happen today. It should happen today.

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

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

It's all come down to this. We can continue to debate the Senate, we can continue to try to change this bill, or we can pass a bill, send it to the President, which extends this vitally important program as so many speakers on the majority side have said. Let's be honest with ourselves. We know that this bill should have passed 6 months ago. We know it probably should have passed 9 months ago. We know that it will not pass in time for new coverage to be written January 1. We know that.

So here we are, arguing differences with the Senate, but I think the first thing we ought to acknowledge is the Senate unanimously passed this bill. Now, the chairman says that two people got together, agreed on everything and the other 98 waved good-bye. Well, let me say this. We, the majority of this body, almost all the Members on your side, if not all, and a good number of the Members on our side have said we need to extend this program and we needed to do it 6 months ago. It's time for us to pass the Senate language, send this bill to the President. You know, there comes a time when if what the Senate did is wave this bill good-bye, it's time for us to wave this bill good-bye.

We have engaged in a debate. The Senate has been unfair to us. Quite frankly, policyholders don't care whether the Senate's unfair to the

House. They don't care whether the House didn't get its way and the Senate did. The bill the Senate passed, I'm not supporting it because it's not only the only thing available today, although it is. Let me again read to you what the statement of the administration is.

The administration continues to believe that any TRIA reauthorization should satisfy these three key elements: The program should be temporary and short-term, there should be no expansion of the program, and private sector retention should be increased. That was the original policies and the original bill we passed. However, the administration will not oppose the version of H.R. 2761 passed by the Senate on November 16, but the administration strongly opposes any amendments to the Senate-passed version of the bill away from the administration's key elements.

And the only thing underlined in this statement to us is, accordingly, if H.R. 2761 passes, that's the bill before us, if it's presented to the President to be considered, his senior advisers will recommend him veto the bill. A very important program.

It's already too late for insurance companies and policyholders to adopt the provisions as of January 1. State regulators don't have time to print the forms. It's time for us to pass the bill. It's time for us to say, Okay, we didn't settle all our differences with the Senate, and we can do that. And, quite frankly, I am very happy that it is the Senate bill we'll be passing, because the Senate bill is very, very close to what we Republicans some year ago proposed. And we've gone through a year.

Provisions, the House has not gotten its way on certain provisions. It's time to act. It's past time to act, and we're going to have that opportunity today. We're going to have the opportunity to extend what you say is a vital program, what some of us say, well, actually we're not getting what we want because we believe that this program continues to be a free Federal backstop for private insurers and developers, and that's okay.

We want development, just like you do. We don't believe, as the Treasury does, many of us, that the program has served its purpose and it is actually impeding the private market, but we don't have to get there. We have compromised our beliefs and are willing to vote for a 7- year extension. The Senate unanimously came together and compromised their various differences and voted unanimously for a version the President has said he will sign.

The only thing that remains is on this side, the House side, that some in the majority have not gotten their way on certain provisions. And listen, I'm all for advocating a House position, but we've done that, and in the interests of the American people, in the interests of getting legislation, in the interests of closure, let's vote for the Senate version.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, whom I have great respect for, indicated several times that we are here today because of the Senate's inaction and intransigence. Now, I'm not going to argue that point. The Senate, what they didn't do is they didn't take action on our bill, but what they did do is they came together and they unanimously passed legislation, and that legislation is very close to what House Republicans advocated from day one. They did take action. They passed legislation. The President said he'll sign it. It's legislation that Treasury said is consistent with the original declarations of the TRIA bill.

I share the chairman's frustration on the predicament we find ourselves in. I wish the Senate had been willing to engage in a conference to allow Members the opportunity to work out their differences on the extension of this program. However, I will tell the chairman this: The House Republicans, many of us on that conference committee, would have voted to adopt the Senate language. So the Senate bill, in my opinion, had we conferenced, we would have still passed the Senate bill.

Now, the chairman has expressed his frustration with the Senate that they are holding a gun to our head. I'm not going to characterize it in that regard. Whether it is or isn't, I wish it wasn't so. But the clock has run out on this Congress and the opportunity to get anything done on TRIA has, as a practical matter, gone by. But if it is so important, and most Members of this body believe it is, it's important to pass legislation today, and that's the Senate legislation.

The motion to recommit removes additions in the bill offered by the majority and returns the TRIA language to that passed by the Senate last month by unanimous consent. The Senate bill reflects a bipartisan compromise with the administration. It extends the TRIA program for 7 years, the same amount of time that we advocated in a bipartisan bill in the House. We didn't get a bipartisan bill in the House. It wasn't a bad bill. It wasn't a bad bill. But that bill when it passed and the bill today, the bill that was just offered, is not going to become law.

The Senate bill includes coverage for domestic terrorism. Many in this body felt like it ought to include that. It imposes a liability cap for the marketplace. That's good. I think it's a responsible, measured approach to extending a vital program, as many have characterized it. Not all on this side agree. But the majority on this side will come together, the majority of the minority, and pass what you say is a vital program and we'll do it today. The administration has said they will veto the House bill. Both sides of the aisle and the Senate have indicated that the Senate is unwilling to consider it. We have a gripe against the Senate, but let's take that up with the Senate. A large number of Members in the House may continue to oppose the Senate bill. You have an opportunity to vote on it in just a minute.

The only TRIA extension that can get enacted is the Senate compromise. Many say I wish it wasn't so. It is. The only responsible course for this House to take is to accept the Senate bill and move on. My motion is the Senate compromise.

We have 19 days until TRIA expires. Let me say it again. That's not a practical time left for the industry to comply with legislation. In a reasoned society, a deliberative body would never pass a bill and ask the American people to adopt all that in 5 days.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot risk TRIA's expiration. We need to get the job done now. A vote for this motion to recommit is a vote to promote economic vitality in this country.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I believe that it does, in fact, address abusive practices which, unfortunately, are in our mortgage lending market today. I believe it brings some needed oversight to the mortgage industry.

The legislation that we are considering today is the product, and everyone acknowledges this, industry acknowledges it, consumer groups, Members on both sides, the membership has engaged for over 2 years in an attempt to come together to span political differences, philosophical differences, and to address the very serious problem in the housing finance market.

I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts. He has allowed us to fully express our opinions. I believe that this long dialogue which we have had has resulted in consensus legislation which, though not perfect, I believe will achieve two very important, very necessary goals. One is to implement reforms that will offer consumers needed protection against predatory lending practices; and two, I believe, and I sincerely believe, that this legislation will preserve working Americans' access to consumer credit.

I believe that the Members most closely involved in the negotiations which led to the manager's amendment sincerely believe we have achieved these goals. We need not let the perfect be an enemy to the good. Members from both sides will address provisions of this bill which they believe do not satisfy the goal I have described above.

I believe the fact that this legislation fully satisfies neither side is an indication that we are in about the right place in achieving a nonpolitical, legislative remedy to address this issue of such great impact to our economy and our families, both now and moving forward.

In closing, let me say it has always been my view that when faced with serious issues like this one impacting millions of families across America, that Congress has both the privilege and the responsibility of rising above partisanship and acting in the public's interest. With this legislation today, I believe we have done just that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for 3 minutes to speak in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who rises in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) to speak in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who speaks in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) to speak in support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) to speak in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to speak in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I recognize the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for 3 minutes.

The chairman is correct. Section 107 was designed and implemented to give the Federal bank regulators flexibility in implementing the national registry. And it is the intention of the committee, of the entire committee, that, as they do this implementation, that they give proper consideration to its impact on small financial institutions, smaller impact, and that they try to minimize that impact.

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

I yield 15 seconds to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan manager's amendment. It makes both technical and substantive changes in the legislation, and I think significant contributions. For example, the amendment incorporates language authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller). His amendment clarifies the bill's anti-steering provisions to ensure that consumers retain the ability to finance points and fees in connection with a mortgage transaction. It also corrects certain problems in the provisions dealing with renters and foreclosed properties that Mr. Marchant from Texas raised during the markup. And it addresses some of those problems.

The amendment also includes provisions drafted by the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) that will give consumers regular updates on the term of their mortgages and advance notice of any impending interest rate adjustments. Now, these are important improvements in the bill. And I again thank Chairman Frank and the other members who contributed to the manager's amendment, and urge support for the manager's amendment.

I would yield the remaining time that I have to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). The amendment, among other things, enhances the integrity of the appraisal process, and requires the taxes and insurance on subprime mortgages be escrowed. These are two glaring problems in today's subprime market, and I think both these requirements will go a long way towards making these loans sounder and reducing the number of foreclosures and delinquencies.

These issues are ones that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has worked on for many years. He deserves credit for an amendment that will improve many key aspects of the mortgage origination, servicing, and appraisal process; and I compliment him.

Chairman Kanjorski worked closely with my colleagues, Ranking Members Judy Biggert and Shelley Moore Capito, in crafting the amendment. And the three of them actually offered the amendment that addresses legitimate administrative and operational concerns that have been raised, not only by consumer groups, but by the industry itself. And the mortgage appraisers, or the Appraisers Institute, actually endorsed this measure. And it maintains the underlying bill's strong consumer protection.

And this amendment offers additional strong protections.

I commend all three of our colleagues for their efforts and urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment and claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement I talked about the fact that we had had negotiations over the past 2 years trying to really gain a balance in this legislation between lender and borrower to ensure that credit is still available to borrowers, to ensure that there was proper incentive for lenders to make loans which did not violate this act. And I believe, in fact, we have done that. It's a careful balance. And I must say that I think the sense of proportionality in the amount of damages to be awarded that we have it right. But I believe this amendment would increase potential damages and is not warranted.

We are not trying to create a right of actions in this lawsuit. We are trying to discourage lenders from making predatory loans. And if they do make predatory loans, then our function here is for them to pay reasonable compensation and also to cure that loan or to make things right. And I believe that the underlying bill, not this amendment, strikes the right balance between consumers and originators.

I also believe that this amendment might unknowingly remove the incentive for an originator to originate a loan. As some of my colleagues on this side have cautioned, they believe the bill already does that. And I believe this would just be additional evidence to those who are already opposed to the bill that we have the right set of incentives and rights and liabilities under the bill.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.