Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor and the House leadership for bringing this important resolution forward.

This resolution represents the opening battle in the fight against the continued expansion and overreach of the regulatory state, that state being the Federal Government.

We have just gone through 4 years of a very liberal Congress and 2 years of a very liberal administration, and working hand in hand, they have passed massive new laws that expanded government and weakened personal freedom. The 10th Amendment says that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are left to the States and the people. But from health care to financial services to other sectors of the economy, Congress has ceded its constitutional responsibility to unelected and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats.

Two years ago, President Obama reminded us that elections matter when he said, ``I won.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, in November, the American people won. In doing so, they made it clear to anyone listening that they strenuously objected to the direction that our country has taken. They object to the limitations imposed on our freedom, on our choices, and on our ability to create jobs. This is not new. In the past as well as in the current administration, liberal Presidents who could not achieve their goals by the consent of the people have resorted to regulatory fiat to give their most extreme supporters what they want.

Under these regulatory regimes, the power of Congress and the people has been reduced to notice and comment, a

notice and comment period in which they can only state their objections. However, as is becoming increasingly apparent to the American people, these comments are regularly ignored by the regulators. The expansion of the regulatory state continues to concentrate power in the executive branch and to marginalize representative government with congressionally enacted legislation being replaced by decrees from regulators who are insulated from the popular vote.

Fortunately, this Congress is committed to doing something about unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory burdens, and the resolution we are debating today is a great start.

Under this resolution, 10 House committees--including the Financial Services Committee--will review pending and existing regulations to determine their impact on our Nation's economy, on its ability to create jobs and, most importantly, our own personal freedoms.

This review comes not a moment too soon. Our job creators struggle under a seemingly endless and constant flurry of mandates pushed out by the administration and initiated under the former majority in Congress. Nothing better illustrates the rule of the unelected in the regulatory state than the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of this one massive piece of legislation passed in the last Congress, there will be a tsunami of 300 new Washington rules and regulations. The burden of these regulations will almost certainly limit access to credit for small businesses and consumers. They will divert private sector resources that should go to expanding businesses and creating jobs. And they will also limit the owners and the consumers of those firms from making their own choices and decisions.

The Financial Services Committee has heard testimony from many witnesses about the harmful impact of the act. One of them, the Cargill Corporation alone, told us that the act's requirements on derivatives would cost the company $1 billion, funds that otherwise would be deployed for the construction of a new plant in Kansas City, a plant that would create thousands of jobs and put Americans back to work.

That is only one example of the uncertainty our economy faces due to these new Washington regulations. It shows how the expanding regulatory state too often forces U.S. companies to divert resources and time away from job creation and investment and instead toward obeying the ever- growing demands of a bigger and more intrusive government.

In a hearing in my committee only this morning, there was bipartisan agreement and no opposition to a provision in our oversight plan offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) requiring a review of the mixed messages in which we hear Washington regulators calling for increased lending by banks but examiners in the field micromanaging bank activities and stifling lending. These conflicting signals are creating uncertainty that prevents banks from lending to small businesses, and in extreme cases they have caused the failures of those very banks. This uncertainty, in turn, impedes economic growth and costs jobs.

Let me conclude by saying this Congress was elected to limit the scope of the Federal Government, not to expand it. Our forefathers who fashioned the 10th Amendment would be pleased with our debate and our efforts today.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is the size of the Federal Government and the size of our regulations.

In the last 4 years of our Democratic Congress, which took power in January of 2007--and I will remind everyone that that was prior to the financial crisis--our national debt doubled in that period of time. In other words, we have incurred more debt in the past 4 years under a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House and in the last 2 years under a Democrat President than we had in the 220 years before. We are talking about a record national debt of

$14 trillion. We are talking about a growth in the size of the Federal Government which in 10 years will absorb every dollar and every dime and every penny generated by our economy.

Now think of such a thing--every dollar being spent by the Federal Government.

You have to ask yourself: With record deficits and record debt, don't we have too much Federal Government? Don't we have more government than we can afford? Don't we have more government than we need?

So I think it is entirely fitting for us to look at each government program and ask ourselves: Is there a benefit from this program? Is there a cost to this program? Does it eliminate jobs?

If you will go through a list of comments that people have made to these regulations, you will see comment after comment after comment: this regulation will cost my business this much money. This regulation will cost this much money. I won't be able to create a job.

So the government is spending record amounts of money. Yet it's adding to the cost, not only to the taxpayers, but to the cost for them to earn a living themselves.

Our Secretary of Defense, a member of the administration, has warned--he said that this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in order. He actually says that our financial situation is affecting our credibility, and that's absolutely true. Didn't we see Japan's sovereign debt downgraded recently? Standard & Poor's has said, if we don't act, our debt will be downgraded.

We talk about foreclosures. If our credit rating goes down, can you imagine the wave of foreclosures, the wave of job losses? We talk about foreclosures. What causes foreclosures? Most of it is job loss. We have testified here today--and we will tomorrow--that this regulation will cost jobs. You talk about foreclosures. Regulations that cost jobs cause foreclosures. It's that simple. We talk about the State and local governments not having tax revenue. When people lose their jobs, they don't pay the State; they don't pay the city; they don't pay the Federal Government. They can't. Yet we continue to add cost and job- killing regulations.

Admiral Mullen, our own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this: Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.

What does it take for us to finally realize that we are putting our country in jeopardy? We for 224 years have lived and enjoyed an independent democracy, a Republic, but we are threatening that by our inability to say ``no,'' by our inability to say ``no'' to more Federal Government.

Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is not growing government. It's turning the private sector loose.

Madam Speaker, on February 9, 2011, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 27 and 28 due to the funeral of a very close friend in Athens, Georgia. Had I been present, I would

have voted ``yea'' on No. 27 and ``yea'' on No. 28.

Mr. Speaker, the first rule of the physician is ``do no harm.'' The government takeover of health care does a lot of harm, and the damage will get worse.

Just on pure economics, it's a bitter pill. Small businesses are bracing for tax increases and higher costs. They are dropping coverage; they are holding off on new hires. The Federal Government is taking on a new open-ended entitlement it can't afford, and that at a time of historically high deficits, annual deficits and a national debt. Washington yet again is building a new bureaucracy to tell people what to do.

The Federal Government has no business making private medical decisions that ought to be between you and the doctor. It violates the principles on which this country was established, American exceptionalism. America is not Europe. Our system is based on the individual, on choice, on freedom, on individual initiative and competition.

The mandate that asks individuals to buy health insurance is an intrusion on our personal liberty and a violation of our constitutional principles.

Allowing taxpayer money to pay for abortions is reprehensible and cannot be allowed to stand.

We can address the issues in our health care system without the government running everything and spending uncontrollably. We heard what the American people said last November and in our town halls. To get health care right, we have to start by repealing a misguided law that is bad policy and bad medicine.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to congratulate Larry Lavender and his wife Kathryn on the birth of their new son, Mr. Harrison Clay Lavender. Harrison was born on December 16, 2010, at 11:14 in the morning.

I am excited for this new blessing to the Lavender family and wish them all the best.

I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding to me, and I thank he and Mr. Lewis for bringing this resolution.

On the way over to the floor, I was on the elevator with two of my colleagues, John Culberson and Jo Ann Emerson, the gentleman from Texas and the gentlelady from Missouri, and they both had the same comment when I told them I was coming to speak about Cam Newton. They said: He is a phenomenal athlete, but he gave glory to God and he persevered.

I think that Cam Newton is a reflection of each and every one of us. Hardship and difficulty is a part of life; either we have experienced it or we will experience it.

We have seen Cam Newton and his family go through a challenging time; and, in doing so, he was not distracted. He persevered. He maintained a positive attitude. I think we have all seen his winning smile, a wonderful smile, and that smile sustained him and I think encouraged a lot of us through some pretty difficult times. In fact, I think he used some of the criticism and some of the difficulty and some of the challenges as a motivation. He appeared to even play better on the field.

He is a phenomenal athlete. In many respects, he is almost superhuman in what he does; but in another respect, he is very human. And the one thing that I think is a story for each and every one of us, and I think Cam Newton is a great example, is that throughout it all, he expressed his faith--his faith in God and his faith that God would see him through.

You know, our God is a God of second chances, a God of redemption; and I think it is important for us, when we think about Cam Newton, to think about a young man that improved himself, that did better, that resolved to learn from the experiences he had.

To me, Cam is an inspiration, and he ought to be an inspiration to each and every one of us, any of us that, for whatever reason, find ourselves in a difficult or challenging situation, not to strike back at our critics, but simply to use it as a motivation.

In such times that we do face difficulty, it is important to surround ourselves with good people, people that can be mentors and encouragers. He found that in the Auburn team. He expressed that in his Heisman speech, that his teammates were a big part of his success and had encouraged him. They had not lost faith in him.

I believe the coaching staff and the atmosphere at Auburn University provided a loving environment, an encouraging environment. I commend coach Gene Chizik for believing in Cam, for giving Cam an opportunity to better himself and to prove himself. As a graduate of that school, I am proud of Auburn University for providing support and encouragement to Cam.

Last year, I introduced a resolution congratulating Mark Ingram, another fine young man who preceded Cam Newton in winning the Heisman Trophy. Mark Ingram and the University of Alabama played for and won the national championship. Auburn University will try to attain that same goal.

Mark Ingram from Alabama and Cam Newton from Auburn highlight a very special relationship in our State of Alabama between our two finest universities. They compete on the field. They compete intensely. The fans come together, both wanting to win, but they take pride in the fact that our State and our universities do have a competitive spirit, but also a spirit of friendship.

I can tell you that the people of Alabama take great pride in our State in the fact that two of our finest universities have won consecutive Heisman Trophies and are competing for consecutive national championships. It once again highlights what is a wonderful, intense, and enjoyable competition that our two schools in Alabama have. It is another reason why I am proud to call Alabama my home.

In closing, again I thank the gentleman from Anniston, Alabama (Mr. Rogers) who represents Auburn University well, and I say that to you as an alumnus of Auburn University. You are a credit to our university.

Madam Speaker, on December 31, 2010, Michael L. Kerley, Esq. will retire from the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors after 41 years of dedicated service.

It is a rarity in our Nation's Capital to find someone who has worked in one place for more than 10 years. For Mike to have been with NAIFA for over four decades is a tremendous achievement and a testament to his devotion and his character.

Many of us in Washington know Mike as a passionate advocate for the life insurance industry and those individual agents who work tirelessly to help Americans take the steps necessary to protect their loves ones and their employees from financial disaster in the wake of life's inevitable risks. Members on both sides of the aisle have had the pleasure of working with Mike and know him to be a man of high integrity and sincerity.

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mike on an incredibly successful career and wishing him well.

Madam Speaker, as we honor our veterans on Veterans Day 2010, it is an appropriate time to commend the service of Colonel Bill Voigt for his dedicated work as the President of National Veterans Day in Birmingham.

Birmingham, Alabama is the proud birthplace of Veterans Day. National Veterans Day in Birmingham is recognized by the U.S. Veterans Administration as the oldest largest observance of its kind in the nation. As the organizing director for more than 20 years, Colonel Voigt has honored and built on this legacy which has become the model for paying tribute to our troops in uniform and esteemed veterans for their service and sacrifice for the cause of freedom. The annual parade in downtown Birmingham attracts more than 5,000 participants and 20,000 spectators, and the associated luncheons and dinners have provided a forum for recognizing our nation's most prominent patriots. The success of National Veterans Day in Birmingham every year can be traced to the leadership of Colonel Bill Voigt.

Colonel Voigt has spent his career serving his nation in the military as well as the State of Alabama. His family's roots are in Walker County and, while born in California, he was raised here at home. He attained his undergraduate degree at Auburn University and his Masters of Business Administration at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Colonel Voigt was a member of the Alabama Air National Guard for over 30 years and served in the United States Air Force Reserve as well. His many community awards and accolades include his selection as a permanent Member of the Alabama Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and his service on the Board of Directors of Birmingham Honor Flight.

Colonel Bill Voigt has devoted his life to his family, his country, and our brave men and women in uniform. As he retires as the President of National Veterans Day in Birmingham, we properly take pause to salute him for his selfless dedication to the United States of America, his concern for the well-being of our troops and veterans, and the enduring qualities of duty, honor, and service that he has exemplified with such distinction in our Birmingham community.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the contributions of Johnnie Aycock, the President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of West Alabama, for his dedicated and tireless work to bring greater opportunity to the people of our region and State. Johnnie has announced plans to retire from the Chamber effective March 21, 2011 after 28 years of exemplary service.

During Johnnie's tenure, the West Alabama Chamber of Commerce has earned statewide recognition and respect for economic and workforce development, education initiatives and innovation in community development programming. West Alabama has enjoyed significant economic achievements, from the recruitment of large manufacturing plants to the development of many new small businesses. Johnnie's ability to build partnerships among the private sector, educational institutions, and government has been an integral part of this success.

Johnnie has stressed the importance of business leaders being active in public affairs and in their communities. He founded Leadership Tuscaloosa, which has trained more than 900 citizens in leadership. He has served on the Alabama Governor's Commission on Existing Industries and as Co-Chair of the Committee on Tax, Incentives & Fiscal Policy and has freely given of his time and talents to numerous civic organizations including the Alabama Jaycees, the Literacy Council of West Alabama, Junior Achievement, and the Rotary Club of Tuscaloosa. Johnnie has been recognized for his outstanding work with honors that include the Phi Delta Kappa's Outstanding Citizen For Education in Tuscaloosa County, the Tuscaloosa Advertising Federation's Bronze Oak Wreath Award for Community Service, the Outstanding Commitment to Public Service Award from the University of Alabama, and induction into the Tuscaloosa County Civic Hall of Fame.

A skilled communicator, Johnnie is the author of ``Tuscaloosa: The Tradition, The Spirit, The Vision'' and a contributor to the book, ``Tuscaloosa: Centennial Progress, Millennial Hopes.'' He has been a columnist for the Tuscaloosa Business Ink Magazine, Planet Weekly, and Tuscaloosa Christian Family Magazine and for 7 years wrote a weekly column for the Tuscaloosa News.

Johnnie Aycock is a graduate of Auburn University and the Institute of Organization Management at the University of Notre Dame. He is also a graduate of the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. Johnnie is a former member of the faculty of the Kettering Foundation's Public Policy Institute and has served as an adjunct professor at Stillman College's Management Institute.

The sound economic base and high quality of life that distinguishes West Alabama can be traced in no small part to the energy and enthusiasm of Johnnie Aycock. It is has been my pleasure to work with Johnnie on many economic development, education, and service initiatives during my time in Congress. Though Johnnie is retiring from his leadership position at the West Alabama Chamber of Commerce, I have no doubt that he will continue to be a devoted servant to the community that he so dearly loves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this legislation, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 5458 requires private education loan lenders to provide disclosures to students about the benefits of creating a durable power of attorney. For most traditional students, a student loan is the first large financial decision he or she will be making. As such, a student and the cosigner of the loan--often a parent, as with the Bryskis-- should be aware of their repayment responsibilities, including those responsibilities if the student should become unable to make payments. And so disclosures, I think, are always helpful.

In addition to existing disclosures for loans, this bill requires private education loan lenders to provide additional information to students and cosigners about the benefits of durable powers of attorney for financial decision-making. A college's financial aid administrator would also be required to provide information to students and their cosigners about creating a durable power of attorney.

I do have some concerns not addressed to this bill itself but that the Federal Government is nearing the point of requiring so many disclosures that they may overwhelm the consumer. I also fear that the requirement that the Federal Reserve Board create 50 different forms based on various State laws surrounding durable powers of attorney will be especially burdensome to the Board. But that's a minor concern.

While a better solution long term would be to provide two simple disclosures that ensure that the cosigners and the students understand the responsibilities of loan repayment and are provided a place to do their own research about durable powers of attorney, this may be the first time that an individual may have a need for this sort of legal document, and these additional disclosures could help better inform the borrowers and cosigners. So for that reason I do not rise in opposition to this legislation.

I want to extend my prayers and thoughts to the Bryski family and other families who experience such a tragedy as this. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his kind words.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H.R. 3421. Credit scores and the evolution of a robust credit reporting system have done much to improve access to credit for millions of Americans, and they are an integral component of our economy. Information found in credit reports and captured by credit scores is used in today's economy for much more than for just making credit decisions. A well-functioning national credit reporting system helps those deciding whether to extend credit to properly manage the associated risk, which in turn helps keep the cost of credit lower for those who wish to borrow. Anything that undermines the reliability or integrity of a consumer credit report is likely to result in less credit being available to average Americans.

The question before us today is whether Congress should micromanage the credit reporting system and restrict the ability of businesses and creditors to review information about the credit history of a customer. When evaluating H.R. 3421, it is important to remember that the right to credit is not a right guaranteed by the government. It is made available by lenders, and I think lenders have a right to all the information about the borrower in making those decisions. Government micromanagement of a consumer credit file could misallocate credit and distort lending practices--two serious causes of the economic crisis we are still struggling to escape.

Congresswoman Kilroy mentioned certain situations, and I certainly sympathize with those situations. There may be other situations, though, that we could imagine in which that information would indicate something else. It may indicate an inability to pay on a loan that someone was getting.

As we consider proposals such as the one the gentlewoman brings to us in dealing with the use of credit reports, we must consider that, in certain cases, unintended consequences may result from a less than complete picture of a prospective borrower, and it may result in losses by the lender. This is something we can't just totally block out.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman talked about certain situations. Let me say that I am sympathetic to the purpose of this bill. You will see there are three Republican cosponsors on the bill. What I'm saying and what, I think, the American people are beginning to say pretty loudly is that they are uncomfortable with the government's making these decisions as to what will be disclosed and what will be withheld. I think the American people are sympathetic. I don't know of a family in America who has not faced a medical emergency or who has not faced a relative or a family member who has had a large medical bill. So it sounds like something that would benefit people who have gone through medical crises.

With each example of that, you could select another example of someone, let's say, who had had elective surgery or a type of plastic surgery who then had just not paid his bills for a few years. That might be an example to which we would all say, well, that wasn't intended, and that information would not be shared with lenders or with a landlord or whomever.

As I say, I think that this is something Congress can decide, and you obviously have some bipartisan support for this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me say this to both gentlemen offering this legislation: As the father of a marine, I want to commend you for doing this. These young men and women are our true heroes of

today, and their families face many hardships, many challenges, and this ought to be a priority. It's something that everyone in this body should embrace, and I'd like to commend you for standing up for our men and women in uniform and their families. Thank you very much.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3717. At the risk of some political damage, I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Frank.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the chairman.

This amendment repeals section 929I of the Dodd-Frank bill that grants the Securities and Exchange Commission a broad exemption for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

A hearing that the Financial Services Committee held on this provision last week yielded a bipartisan agreement that the section needed to be tailored more narrowly. And this was consistent with what Chairman Ed Towns and Ranking Member Darrell Issa had determined in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I want to commend Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Darrell Issa for their leadership on this matter and for their draftsmanship on amendments which we think are actually more proper than the Senate amendment. But as Chairman Frank said, the Senate amendment is an improvement over the existing provision. I think it merits bipartisan support.

Additionally, I want to thank SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who expressed her willingness early on to

work with the committee in a spirit of cooperation to address the concerns that we had raised about the section.

Madam Speaker, the Dodd-Frank Act confers significant new supervisory, rulemaking, and investigative powers on the SEC. Combining these broad powers with the existing powers, and then with the provision that appears to insulate the SEC, or could be interpreted as insulating the SEC, from public scrutiny has caused an understandable alarm and angst among Members on both sides of the aisle.

Congress must support a legislative fix; but as Chairman Frank said, they must support one that not only ensures proper accountability at the SEC, but also doesn't undermine the agency's ability to effectively exercise supervision over the thousands of companies that it's responsible for overseeing in a post-Dodd-Frank world.

Now, someone might ask, well, why wouldn't they disclose all information? To give you an example a little closer to home, the IRS requires us to file documentation every year, our income tax returns, and they have a proper motive behind that. But, obviously, I think most of us would agree that the general public does not have a right to that information in a carte blanche way. That's also true of our health records. We place great value on the confidentiality and our privilege that our health records won't be disclosed. And we have faced those matters before in this House.

And that's true of companies that have confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information, that they have some assurance that that information will not be shared. Because the purpose of the SEC is not to share that information. The purpose is to investigate and enforce their rules. To her credit, as I said, Chairman Schapiro has been forthright with Congress and the American people in acknowledging past failures at the SEC in protecting investors and regulating large investment banks.

We can all agree that the agency that presided over the collapse of some of the largest financial institutions on Wall Street and allowed Bernie Madoff to perpetrate the largest financial fraud in American history must be fully transparent in its operations, and that any statutory departures from that general rule of openness must be narrowly defined because they should be accountable to the American people, and also to scrutiny of the media and the press, which can be an important governor or safeguard.

While this bill coming over from the Senate makes some improvements to section 929I, it's not a perfect solution. As I said, we would have preferred something more in line with what Chairman Towns and in my mind Ranking Member Issa have proposed; and we look forward to working with Chairman Frank and Chairman Schapiro of the SEC as well as Chairman Towns.

However, we are sensitive to the fact that an outright repeal of the section could result in the SEC being compelled to release proprietary information in response to subpoenas issued in litigation to which the commission is not a party; and as Chairman Frank said, it could actually result in an increase in litigation of companies not willing to disclose certain information or gaining injunctions by courts, and there would be some basis without some information being privileged. I commend Chairman Frank for also acknowledging their legitimate concern, and that is the SEC's legitimate concern during the committee's hearing on the issue last week when he stated that whatever amendment we propose for section 929I should not provide an opportunity for third parties to engage in an SEC ``fishing expedition'' seeking a company's proprietary information; and I think that was a very succinct description of what we want to avoid.

In closing, Madam Speaker, the challenge for this Congress is to strike a proper balance, one that ensures that the SEC has real-time access to the kind of sensitive, proprietary information it needs to catch the next Bernie Madoff, while also giving the public the tools it needs to hold the agency accountable when it fails to fulfill its mission of protecting investors and policing our financial markets. Acknowledging the amendment we are considering is an important and significant improvement over the status quo--and as Chairman Frank we are actually very encouraged that our colleagues on the other side of this Capitol have acted in a speedy manner--it will still be necessary to revisit this issue. With Chairman Schapiro's cooperation, I am confident that we, working in a bipartisan way, can arrive at a solution that achieves a proper balance between disclosure and protection of sensitive proprietary information in the next Congress. The American people, and those dealing with the SEC, deserve nothing less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very capable ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of S. 1055, sponsored by Senator Boxer and recently passed by the Senate.

At this time I want to say to Congressman Carson that I have many fond memories of his grandmother. Julia Carson and I served as cochairmen of the Zoo and Aquarium Caucus. She was a real lady, and I know she is very proud that you have taken her place representing the good citizens of Indianapolis. I would just like to acknowledge what a fine lady she was, and that's a heritage you can be proud of.

This legislation, as Congressman Carson said, would award a Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the United States Army's 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team in recognition of their exemplary service during World War II.

This bill makes minor additions to its House companion bill that Mr. Carson mentioned by adding language in the findings and the existing Sense of Congress section that points out the contributions made by the Military Intelligence Service, which was made up of 6,000 Japanese American soldiers.

The House bill was cosponsored by 296 Members and agreed to by this Chamber in May of last year. I urge my colleagues to again support this legislation.

As we all know, the world changed instantly after the dreadful attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. I think for the first time, on 9/ 11, many Americans could get some sense of what it must have been like to have lived during those times. And though its impact was felt by every American, Japanese Americans were hit particularly hard.

Six weeks after the attack, the U.S. Army discharged all Japanese Americans in the Reserve Officers Training Corps and changed their draft status to ``enemy alien.'' Active military Japanese Americans were segregated out of their units. We all know what happened afterwards. The U.S. and Canadian Governments gathered Japanese Americans in all the Western States and moved them to internment camps.

In June of 1942, the 1,400 members of the Hawaii Provisional Infantry Battalion were shipped from the Islands to Oakland and formed into the 100th Infantry Battalion, and then they were shipped to Wisconsin by train for training. Eight months later, based on the battalion's excellent training record, the President and War Department agreed to let second-generation Japanese Americans into the service, and they were formed into the 442nd Regimental.

Madam Speaker, the 100th Infantry Battalion was deployed the next year to the Italian front in September 1943, and while it encountered heavy fighting, it handled itself so well that its members earned six Distinguished Service Crosses in their first 2 months of action. The 442nd arrived in Italy 9 months later, after which the two units joined forces, fighting with distinction in Italy, France, and Germany to the war's conclusion.

Together, they received seven Presidential Unit Citations, 21 Medals of Honor, 29 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars with 28 Oak Leaf Clusters, 4,000 Bronze Stars with 1,200 Oak Leaf Clusters, and more than 9,000 Purple Hearts.

This bill recognizes their service and appropriately provides for the collective awarding of a Congressional Gold Medal. It would be given to the Smithsonian Institution for display and for research purposes.

Madam Speaker, this award is long overdue. I urge its immediate passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Djou).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman such additional time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will make the offer that if additional time is needed on the majority side, I would be willing to yield time to Mr. McDermott or to others.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 846, a bill that would authorize the award of a Congressional Gold Medal to one of the great humanitarians of our time, Dr. Muhammad Yunus.

Over the last couple of years, we have talked on the floor of this Chamber and in committees about the effects of the recent economic crisis and how it has limited our ability to procure loans in this country. We all know that credit is the lifeblood of both business and daily life and that businesses need capital to invest in tools, labor, and raw materials, and that individuals need credit for both short-term needs and long-term investments such as college educations or to buy a house or a car.

The need to free up credit in the United States is important, but in this great country that offers so much for us to enjoy, it is easy to lose sight of how serious the need for credit is elsewhere. There it's sometimes a matter of surviving or being able to eke out a living. Americans may need a loan to purchase a new car, whereas a person in Bangladesh may need a loan to merely survive.

Madam Speaker, it is a testament to a man we honor today that he both recognized the needs of many for loans of very small amounts of money and devised a system, a system that can be replicated anywhere, to address that need.

Dr. Yunus, born in Bangladesh and the holder of a doctorate from Vanderbilt, made his first step toward solving this problem in 1976 in his native country--and Mr. Carson mentioned this--when he loaned an equivalent of $27 to 42 women and made each a co-guarantor with the responsibility of ensuring that the money was paid back in full. These women then used the money to make bamboo furniture. Previously to buy bamboo, they had been forced to borrow at interest rates that we would consider criminal and certainly usurious. With the loans, they were able to make furniture at a small profit.

Soon, with a small grant from the government of his newly independent country, Dr. Yunus founded what became the Grameen Bank, and lenders, using that model, have made billions of dollars of so-called microloans to millions of people.

I know Chairman Waters has spoken about this and many other Members as to what this has meant to men and women in poor countries around the world. More than 90 percent of the borrowers are said to have been women.

In the year since the founding of the bank, the Grameen model has blossomed, spawning variations that include nonprofits and for-profit investments in projects ranging from information technology and communications to food production with partners ranging from small local companies to giant multinationals. One project has funded the installation of nearly half a million small solar electrical plants producing power for off-the-grid people in Bangladesh.

I remember reading Robert Caro's book about Lyndon Johnson and what electricity meant to the hill country of Texas. The miracle that we saw in America a century ago is being repeated in these countries now--the miracle of electricity.

But this microlending model is not confined to small, poor, developing countries. It's found its way to Canada and even to the United States.

Dr. Yunus holds out the possibility that another offshoot he calls ``social

business'' might be a way to help redevelop Haiti and bring its people out of poverty, as well as in developed countries to provide a path to help the poor become self-supporting without the need for welfare.

Through all of this, Dr. Yunus has been not only a visionary innovator but a tireless advocate for the model that he believes can ease and even end poverty. For this he's been recognized several times and in many ways. He and the Grameen Bank were co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. And in 2009, Dr. Yunus received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama.

It is now time that Congress in a bipartisan way honors such a devoted and selfless individual. And that's what we do today with 296 cosponsors.

I commend Senator Durbin for introducing this bill. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who introduced the House companion bill, H.R. 2000. With passage today, this bill will go directly to the President's desk.

This is just one of many examples of how a small amount of money changed the lives and the fortunes and the futures of families in countries around this world.

I think of a book I just completed in the last year, Greg Mortenson's ``Three Cups of Tea,'' where a gentleman from California went to really the tribal areas of Pakistan and helped build a school and educate children for just, what we would call an insignificant amount. And it truly is, I think, an inspiring thing to read of people of this character and this commitment.

Madam Speaker, let me close by saying this is an overdue recognition of a vastly important concept and the man who devised it. I urge immediate passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, September 17th is Constitution Day, a time to show appreciation for the foundational and supreme law of our land that deserves special attention this year. The principles of the U.S. Constitution have successfully guided our Nation through times of both prosperity and challenge. The genius of our Constitution rests in the Founding Fathers' intricate system of checks and balances and the division of powers between the states and the national government. This has helped ensure that the people are the masters of their government, rather than its servants. The 10th Amendment was particularly prescient in recognizing that the most effective, responsive, and representative government is that which is closest to its citizens. It has long been my practice to distribute copies of the Constitution to the school groups with whom I meet, and I am greatly encouraged by the millions of patriotic Americans who are now dedicating themselves to reaffirming and restoring the principles of limited government and personal freedom. Public and personal readings of the Constitution are taking place throughout Alabama and our country in recognition of Constitution Day. All Americans should reflect on an enduring document that has given us the magnificent gifts of

democracy and freedom and remained relevant to providing guidance for our government despite the passage of more than two centuries.