Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Americans are demanding action on an issue of paramount importance to our national security that is being carelessly ignored by this liberal majority.

Nearly 3 weeks, that's how long it's been since Democratic leadership allowed the Protect America Act to expire, removing essential tools from American intelligence officials.

Almost 3 weeks, that's how long it's been since Democrats unilaterally disarmed our Nation, leaving us more vulnerable to attack.

Americans will not be fooled by Democratic rhetoric that there's no threat or that we're prepared enough, safe enough with pre-9/11 intelligence gathering capabilities. They know we are not adequately prepared. They know we cannot be prepared when Congress, this House, takes crucial tools away from those who are charged with keeping us safe.

This careless and irresponsible course of action must not stand. Americans will not stand down and they won't give up until the House does what's right, does what the Senate has already done, and that is to protect the people and the stability of our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, vote on the Protect American Act today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Murphey Candler Little League on the celebration of its 50th anniversary. The league has enjoyed enormous success and growth since it was founded, as ``Brookhaven Baseball,'' way back in 1958. But most significantly, Murphey Candler has played a prominent role in the lives of generations of young athletes who learned to love our national pastime on their storied fields.

Currently, over 850 kids play on 71 different teams in 6 separate leagues. Bringing together the entire community, hundreds of parents and family members participate as board members, coaches, managers, scorekeepers, and most importantly, passionate fans. This association of players and parents, rallied around our beloved baseball and a desire to build a fun and positive environment in which to learn, has provided the means for 50 years worth of improvement, growth, and fun.

Instilling the values of determination, teamwork, and fair play, the members and supporters of Murphey Candler Little League have

created an enduring source of recreation and community for countless families. I join my colleagues in the United States Congress in offering a sincere congratulation on their 50th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, when I go home and I talk to my constituents, they understand and appreciate that it is the primary responsibility of Congress to protect our Nation. All Americans believe we should be able to determine what terrorists are saying to terrorists overseas. Playing politics with our Nation's intelligence capabilities only serves to harm our national security. And despite proof of a bipartisan majority of support in the Senate which passed the FISA bill 68-29, House Democrat leadership allowed these protections to expire without a vote. To expire without a vote. Astounding, Mr. Speaker.

We're now 13 days into a unilateral disarmament on the part of our Nation.

The ability to obtain the right information at the right time is of critical importance in our struggle against radical terrorists who hide among civilian populations and quietly plot deadly attacks. The Protect America Act moved our intelligence capabilities in the right direction. The Senate understood that in a bipartisan way. The American people understand that. We hope and pray that the Speaker and the Democrat leadership will come to their senses and allow a vote on the Protect America Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is now 12:17 p.m. This House came into session today at 10 a.m., 2 hours and 17 minutes ago. Across this Nation, many folks at work are taking a lunch break, others are probably preparing to go to lunch. Those on the second shift

are getting ready to go to work. Those on the night shift are resting or sleeping so they can recover from last night's work and get back and do it again tonight. So, where's the House? Mr. Speaker, the House has gone home. The House has gone home.

Today, we dealt with seven resolutions, seven suspensions, seven bills that I think every person voted for completely, entirely. I don't mean to belittle these resolutions, five of them were to name post offices, United States Post Offices. And although that's not the most important thing we do, we honor individuals when we do so, and the individuals who were honored today were certainly deserving of that honor. Two other resolutions were to determine what the Congress will do with the United States Capitol during next year's Presidential inauguration.

Now, why is this important? Well, it's important because the Protect America Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has been allowed to expire by this leadership, by the Democrat leadership of this House. Thirteen days now we've been blind, a unilateral disarmament of this Nation in our war on terror. You don't have to believe me, Mr. Speaker. A newspaper in Springfield, Massachusetts, yes, Springfield, Massachusetts, said, ``Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House let a crucial deadline come and go without even taking a vote on the matter. And it didn't have to be this way. Both parties in the Senate cooperated, setting aside their differences to try to keep the citizenry safe. The House should have done the same thing. Only our enemies gain from this kind of political gamesmanship.''

Mr. Speaker, many Members on our side of the aisle have come to this well and to the microphones over the last 5 or 6 days that we've been in session and talked about the extreme importance of making certain that the Protect America Act is passed. I was on a radio station this morning in our good State of Georgia, and people on the radio show couldn't believe that the House had let this opportunity, this responsibility go. The folks in my district in the 6th District in Georgia believe that the primary responsibility of every single Member who has the privilege of serving in this House is to protect our Nation.

Many Members of the House travel to Iraq, back and forth to Iraq, some who went just last week and were told by generals in Iraq that not passing the Protect America Act 13 days ago has led to a decrease in their actionable intelligence in Iraq already. Don't let anybody tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this hasn't put America at greater harm in the last 13 days because it has.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this House to act responsibly. It's time for this Speaker and this Democrat leadership to stand up and make certain that we pass the Protect America Act.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, if I may.

Mr. Leader, I just had the opportunity to lead the house in the Pledge, which is a solemn honor. We stand here in an empty Chamber, virtually. Yesterday this House had an opportunity to act and protect our Nation to a greater degree by adopting FISA, which the Senate adopted in a bipartisan manner 68-29. It troubles me and many on our side that we're not proceeding with that business today, and I think that it's important that we know, the Nation knows, Representatives here know that this House is not acting when it could, and I would suggest respectfully, Mr. Leader, we should.

I am happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time and continuing to reserve the right to object, the gentleman certainly knows that this has been extended from August until earlier this month. And then we agreed to a 14-day extension, until this evening. We believe, as I know you know well, our side believes that this needs to be adopted. Bipartisan action in the Senate proceeded along those lines and agrees that it ought to be adopted. We believe that letting the time lapse further only brings significant potential detriment to our Nation. So we strongly believe that it needs to be adopted.

You know that we're not in the majority. We're in the minority. Thirty-four of your Members voted not to extend for 21 days. Not to extend. Your

side, the majority, could have adopted an extension had you been able to muster the votes, but we don't have the majority. We're at your disposal, if you will. But we strongly believe that here we are in a Chamber that is virtually empty, and in fact I would suggest, Mr. Leader, respectfully, that we're abrogating our duties as representatives of the people.

I am happy to yield.

Under my reservation, I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, continuing under my reservation, I would just point out to the gentleman, as he well knows again, that the majority party could have passed a 21-day extension had it desired, but it was unable to do so.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I would just point out once again that this has been delayed from August until earlier this month, and then 14 days, or until this evening. I respect the leader greatly, but frankly many, the vast majority if not all Members on our side, never believed that the majority party would, in fact, allow this to lapse. And so to unilaterally disarm us, as many folks have described this action on the part of the majority, is something that was, we felt, unconscionable.

I'm happy to yield under my reservation to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his response.

I'm happy to yield under the reservation to my friend the leader.

Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate those comments. There's clearly a difference of opinion. Just to set the record straight, it's important that this House and the Nation know that 34 of your Members voted not to extend for 21 days, a little greater number than the 21.

And I appreciate that, Mr. Leader. We slowed that down a little bit and hopefully we spent a little less.

I appreciate that. But our side looks at the world and sees Hezbollah challenging Israel to open war. We look at the world and we see al Qaeda threatening to assassinate the Filipino President. We look at the world in, I believe, realistic eyes, and we cannot believe that this House will leave this Nation exposed to threats in this time in our history. It just is astounding to us.

And so I rise, Mr. Speaker, to reserve the right to object, because I believe strongly that the majority of Members of this House, if given the opportunity, would support the bill that came from the Senate.

I am pleased to yield under the reservation to my friend from California.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that and I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the indulgence of the House in allowing this debate to go forward which I think has been important.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people mostly don't pay

a whole lot of attention to what goes on here on the floor, and it's probably better, but hopefully they're paying attention now because it's a sad day, and they need to take note.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what has happened today on this floor has been an abrogation of duty, an abrogation of our duty as representatives of the people, the finest Nation on the face of the Earth. But given what we've done today, we may not be there long.

Mr. Speaker, there are individuals who have as their stated goal the destruction of the West. You can call them what you will, radical jihadists, terrorists. Their threats are real and they are continuing. And this House, under this liberal Democrat leadership, is ignoring their words.

You don't have to take my word for the fact that these threats are real. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, allegedly on orders from al Qaeda. And one might say, well, that's 6 weeks ago. Well, just in the past 48 hours we have seen threats from other radical jihadists. In Denmark, three jihadists were arrested in a plot to murder a cartoonist for drawing an editorial cartoon years ago that they found objectionable. Mr. Speaker, I know that some on the majority side view this as comic relief, I guess, but the three jihadists who were arrested to plot the murder of a cartoonist in Denmark within the past 48 hours didn't view it as comedy. And this Democrat majority and leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't worry about it. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are paying attention.

In the last 48 hours, in the Philippines, jihadists with two terrorist groups associated with al Qaeda are said to be plotting to assassinate the Filipino President and bomb western embassies. And this Democrat majority leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't worry.

Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours in Iraq, the reputed leader of al Qaeda in Iraq posted on a jihadi Web site a call for war with Israel and for jihadists to use Iraq as a launching pad to seize Jerusalem. And this Democrat majority leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't worry about it.

And just this morning, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah raised the prospect of war with Israel declaring, ``Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open.'' And the Democrat majority leadership in this House said, that's okay, don't worry about it.

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the House of Representatives will leave town today and go home when Saturday of this week the opportunity and the ability of our intelligence community to protect us and other freedom-loving people around the world will expire. I'm astounded.

Most of what we do on this floor my constituents think doesn't make a whole lot of difference in their lives. Mr. Speaker, this makes a whole lot of difference in the lives of my constituents, in the lives of your constituents, in the lives of every single American. And not to have acted today on this bill to allow our intelligence community to keep us safe and protect us, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is an abrogation of duty.

I call on the Democrat leadership and the Speaker of the House to bring us back into session as soon as possible and, on behalf of the American people, act responsibly, live up to your oath, and pass this bill, the Protect America Act.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned on coming down here tonight, but this is a sad and distressing day for this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect you know, some may not, but there are companies in America that are patriotic and they want to help our Nation fight against those who would do us harm. But amazingly, Mr. Speaker, they feel that they can't. And why? They believe that if they do, they will be sued. That is right, Mr. Speaker. Companies in America believe, and have been given counsel by their attorneys, that if they help the United States Government assist in making our Nation safer, they will be sued. The threat of trial lawyers are preventing our Nation from protecting itself.

Outrageous you say? So do I. So do I.

If Congress doesn't act this week, this week, critical tools that allow our intelligence officers to monitor terrorist communications overseas will expire. Yesterday, the Senate approved a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-29, to close the terrorist loophole in our intelligence law. The Senate bill represents a remarkable compromise between Congress and the administration.

It rightly restores the original intent of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, by ensuring that intelligence officials can conduct surveillance on foreign targets without a court order while still protecting the civil liberties of the American people.

It also grants liability protection to telecommunication companies that helped our government after September 11. Allowing these companies to be subject to frivolous lawsuits threatens their cooperation in the future and would cripple America's counterterrorism efforts. This, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, appears to be what the House Democrat majority desires.

Every American will become exposed to greater threats. Every American: moms, dads, sons, daughters. Every single American is exposed to greater threats because this majority refuses to consider a long- term solution to the problems facing our intelligence community.

I haven't read, Mr. Speaker, that terrorists have placed an expiration date on their plots to destroy our way of life. Congress shouldn't put an expiration date on our intelligence community's ability to protect our Nation.

This bill expires this week. We must act. Mr. Speaker, elections have consequences, and it appears that the Democrat left majority now in charge is beholden to trial lawyers. I just didn't think that they would put those trial lawyers ahead of national security.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day. I can only hope that the American people are paying attention.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I want to commend my friend from Wisconsin for his willingness to continue to work on this. We've got some disagreements about it, although we are basically saying the same thing, that we want both of the programs to be treated equally, and I certainly concur with that. I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this as we went through committee, but at this time I rise to oppose this amendment.

H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, really has been a product of significant and extensive thoughtful deliberation over many Congresses. One example, I believe, of that thoughtfulness is section 454, which is included in the manager's amendment, which is a provision asking for an independent audit of the direct loan program and greater disclosure of the program's impact on the national debt. In fact, that provision was unanimously adopted in our committee during markup.

Now, why is this important? Well, it's important because the direct loan program amazingly is not currently subject to the routine audits that examine all of these issues. Further, the government finances the direct loan program by borrowing, and so it contributes in some way that we believe ought to be determined, and that was the purpose of the amendment. It contributes in some way directly to that national debt.

Now, we all talk about transparency, and I'm all for transparency. Transparency is critical if we are going to, here in Congress, get a handle on evaluating the student lending program and make the best decisions for college access and affordability. Unfortunately, I believe that this amendment being offered undermines that congressional oversight and paralyzes section 454.

I also believe that it weakens the independent audit portion of the direct loan program. Private lenders under the FFEL, the Federal Family Education Loan program, are subject to full and regular audits, and this section in the bill is intended to subject the direct loan program to similar full and regular audits. That's the common ground that we talk about and hopefully will be able to find as we move forward.

As an example, the amendment also eliminates a requirement to the direct loan audit that includes an examination of the unreconciled balances of loans by year of origination. This is a key piece of information for the FFEL program, the loans must be reconciled every year, while the direct loan program is not held to the same standards. So by weakening the independent audit of the direct loan program, the amendment would eliminate the portion requiring disclosure of the program's impact on the national debt.

And just as a matter of information, we all here in Congress should know about that.

In closing, Members, I believe, need to remember that all of this that is being done, in essence, would add a duplicate audit ability for the FFEL programs and not the same for the direct loan programs. I look forward to working with my colleague from Wisconsin and the chairman and ranking member as we move forward. Both the direct loan and FFEL program should be held up to the light of day so the taxpayers know what they're getting from their tax dollars.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I want to once again say we are happy to have the same review in the audit of both the lending programs. You have heard that some individuals believe that the direct loans are cheaper than the FFEL programs, the loans, and, in fact, official government reports all agree that the budget scoring rules do not, I repeat, do not capture the real economic cost of both of these student loan programs. They agree all of the costs should be accounted for when comparing the two programs. Madam Chairwoman, I think we are, in fact, saying a lot of the same thing.

I look forward to working with my friend from Wisconsin, with the ranking member, and with the chairman as we move forward to the conference committee. In the meantime, however, I'm obliged to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I want to commend the author of what I think is an appropriate amendment of loan forgiveness.

As an orthopedic surgeon, I worked closely with physical therapists, and they are integral to the healing process in so many areas. Another group also is the occupational therapists. And we have been contacted by them, and I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy or ask my friend if he would consider throughout the process if we can work toward including the occupational therapists in this area as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman. That being the case and as we move forward, I look forward to supporting this as we broaden the therapists that are included.

I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and his yielding time.

Regrettably, Madam Speaker, the New Year didn't bring any new ideas or new strategy on the part of our majority here. Less than 1 week into this new session, it remains all politics all the time. And you don't have to believe me. Just listen to their chairman, who was quoted in the New York Times on September 17 of last year: ``If the President vetoes this bill, it's a political victory for us.'' So all politics all the time.

As has been stated by others, we solved this issue for the time being, the next 18 months, in a bipartisan manner last year, 411-3. And don't believe me if you don't want to. Believe the Atlanta Journal- Constitution, no great friend of our side of the aisle, which says, ``Thanks to the infusion of Federal dollars, Georgia's embattled health insurance program for working class children is safe for another year and even has room to grow if the economy declines. The program called PeachCare, which was disrupted and debated last year by State officials, Congress, and the President, will have enough funding to cover the 254,820 children now enrolled and to grow by up to 40,000 children. `I'm just relieved,' said the State Health Department Commissioner Dr. Rhonda Medows. `This will ensure these children are taken care of.'

``Relief echoed Monday through the Georgia health care advocacy community, which fought throughout the last year to save the program known as SCHIP. `The advocacy community can do nothing but rejoice.' '' And these comments have been voiced all around the Nation.

Last Thursday the Congressional Research Service issued a statement to Georgia officials that said that the State will receive $325 million for the 2008 Federal budget, which runs through October of this year, and that funding level is expected to continue through March of 2009.

So this isn't about policy. This isn't about policy. It's all about politics, self-admitted on the other side.

Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and to congratulate Mayor Cecil Pruett of Canton, Georgia, on a tremendous career and a well-deserved retirement. A true public servant and outstanding leader, Mayor Pruett will be retiring this month after 12 years as mayor of the City of Canton in Cherokee County, Georgia.

Mayor Pruett has always strived to better his community, and his broad experience has served his constituents well. The mayor was formerly the president of the Georgia Municipal Association, president of the Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Atlanta Regional Executive Committee.

An educator, he remains active in leadership posts at Reinhardt College, Georgia Baptist Children's Home, North Georgia Regional Development Center, and his own church where he serves as a deacon.

Mayor Pruett oversaw substantial economic growth in Canton over his 12 years, but he has always worked to preserve the small town charm that is a hallmark of Cherokee County. A southern gentleman in every way, Mayor Pruett and his honest leadership will be sincerely missed. We wish Cecil and his wife, Myrna, a happy and a healthy retirement.

I thank my friend for yielding and for his leadership.

There's a recurrent theme that we've heard this month and that is from this majority party that continues to lament the work product of this 110th Congress. You'd think they weren't in the majority.

But it's time to set the record straight about a couple of items. One is SCHIP. The reason that SCHIP hasn't moved forward in the way that they envisioned is because the American people didn't believe that over half of the American children ought to be on a government-run system.

Were there alternatives? Absolutely. The alternative that we put on the table was to reauthorize the program, provide premium assistance for families up to $63,000 and give States greater flexibility. That's a positive solution.

In the area of SGR or the physician reimbursement in Medicare, it's important to appreciate that this 6-month extension is wrong. Medicare is woefully flawed. The 6-month extension is an insult to both patients and physicians.

What we call for is for bipartisanship, for working together to solve the Medicare physician payment program that works well for patients and works for physicians and makes certain that patients and their families control health care, not government.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and for his leadership, and I want to thank the chairman as well for his leadership, commend my colleagues in the United States Senate, Senator Isakson and Senator Chambliss, for their assistance on this as well, and thank my physician colleague from Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, for assisting in moving this forward, also.

As a physician, I clearly understand and appreciate the need for facility improvements at the facility in Decatur, in Atlanta, Georgia. I recognized that during my training, Madam Speaker, when I did some of my training at the VA hospital in Decatur, and that was nearly 30 years ago, so it's high time that we finally get around to providing the resources to improve the infrastructure within the VA facility in Atlanta, in Decatur.

I had the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to visit the VA hospital last week and delivered some Christmas cards, holiday cards to our veterans who were there, had a wonderful tour of the facility, and some of it had undergone significant refurbishment and improvement. Some of it had not.

There are many wonderful men and women who are working diligently there to provide the highest quality care for our veterans. That will be facilitated by the work that this bill will allow, and so I'm pleased to stand with my colleagues in support of this bill and urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, have you seen the news? Democrat inaction on the alternative minimum tax is leading to a delay of tax refunds for millions of hardworking Americans. The carelessness of this new majority is poised again to strike the American people, this time in their wallet.

This AMT problem's been known for months. Yet we still have no action in this Congress.

The average tax refund last year was more than $2,000, $2,000, Mr. Speaker. That's a mortgage payment. That's college tuition. That's a holiday credit card bill.

While the new majority has made clear that, in good faith, they support policies to raise taxes, this expensive predicament with the AMT is simply the result of congressional negligence. Now, the American people expect more than this from Congress. They want less partisanship and more leadership.

Mr. Speaker, let's act now to ensure the American people are not forced to pick up the tab for the carelessness of this majority. Let's put politics aside and put hardworking taxpayers first.

I thank my ranking member for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to this legislation, legislation that prompted the Wall Street Journal to say that this bill is essentially a ``Sarbanes-Oxley for housing, an attempt to punish business in general for the excesses of an unscrupulous few.''

Now, while the chairman and ranking member and other members of the staff have done really remarkable work to address some of the most problematic provisions, this legislation still raises serious concerns about the future access to credit. I believe that this bill will lower homeownership. It will harm the American Dream.

A good number of the new duties and requirements which this legislation imposes on loan originators are both vague and highly subject. Words like ``reasonable ability to pay'' and ``net tangible benefit,'' these are required of lenders. This is greater regulation, and, as my friend from Texas said, greater regulation means less liquidity. That means not as much money in the market. That means fewer individuals able to buy homes.

Dr. Ronald Utt with the Heritage Foundation says, ``This provision effectively deputizes the mortgage industry as a quality of life police force by requiring them to pass judgment upon what it exactly is that a borrower intends to do with any additional moneys required by the way of loan refinancing.'' This creates increased litigation.

In fact, when H.R. 3915 was being marked up in committee, I asked him, the chairman himself, if there was a disagreement between the lender and the borrower about whether something achieved a net tangible benefit, where would that disagreement be settled, and he said, ``Like any disagreements in this country, they go to court.''

The legislation also creates a new civil action for rescission, the ability to get all of one's money back. Clearly the result of this will be less availability of money to buy a house for all, but mostly for those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

Now, there are alternatives. There are positive alternatives: increasing financial literacy, greater flexibility in refinancing, and greater penalties for fraud. And I hope as this process moves forward that we will be able to incorporate those things in a stand-alone bill that increases the ability to achieve the American Dream.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw my colleagues' attention to what it is we are doing here today and what they think we might be doing. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that will change the way the mortgage industry is regulated in its entirety. Not just for the subprime market, in its entirety.

I and others are fond of saying that Congress does two things very well: one is nothing and two is overreact. And here today we are considering what the Wall Street Journal has dubbed the Sarbanes-Oxley for the housing industry. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, there is general consensus that the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation that was passed was indeed an overreaction and resulted in damage to the business arena and also decreased jobs across our Nation.

What the Wall Street Journal has said about this bill is that it's ``an attempt to punish business in general for the excesses of an unscrupulous few and the perverse incentives created by Washington policy.'' Hence Sarbanes-Oxley for the housing industry.

Now, we have had a period here where some credit, some loans were unwisely given and that allowing individuals, allowing Americans to purchase homes and to realize their American Dream is a good thing.

For this reason I am offering an amendment that would limit this legislation to the area of lending that is of most concern today, that is, the subprime arena. Again, this bill regulates more than just the subprime market. Despite the fact that at our hearing in our committee on the legislative proposals, and we had an array of witnesses from all across the market and all across the political spectrum, during 9 hours of hearings, not a single individual, not one, advocated that we change the way that all mortgages are regulated. But that's what we are doing here with this bill today.

What we heard from those testifying was that they agreed that the subprime market might be underregulated, but not the prime market, not the jumbo market, not the other markets. What they said was that something needed to be done with the subprime market. Now, why are we here today? Well, there must be something else going on.

Later in that hearing, Chairman Frank asked the third panel, comprised of representatives of various segments of the industry, a similar question: Do you think that all of the loans that were made over the last couple of years in the subprime area should have been made? And the panel's answer was clear: no, not all loans.

It's worth noting that Mr. Lackritz, the president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, appropriately pointed out to the chairman that there was obviously credit that was imprudently granted, but that we have to also think at the same time that it's important that we take a lot of pride in what this committee has done and in what the industry has done to broaden the circle of homeownership. Don't ban that, he said. Don't ban that. Yet that's exactly what will happen if this legislation passes.

Mr. Dugan, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, testified that as a result of this legislation ``some creditworthy borrowers would be denied loans.''

For that reason, I believe it is important that we focus and take a measured approach. Adopt this amendment and we will confine the bill to the area that everyone says needs some assistance, where everyone says there is a problem: the subprime arena.

Mr. Chairman, there are 44 million mortgages out there across our Nation. Fourteen percent of them are in the subprime arena. Fifteen percent of those are challenged. That is a challenge for those individuals who are having that difficulty right now, but that doesn't call for entire re-regulation of the overall market. In the prime area, 3 percent of those loans are challenged. All loans, all loans, including prime loans, would be subject to the murky new requirements of this legislation which would require lenders to determine if borrowers have ``a reasonable ability to pay'' or a ``net tangible benefit'' from the refinancing of their loan. There is no reason to restrict the availability and the affordability of prime loans to eligible borrowers, especially when we have demonstrated how well these loans are operating even in today's market.

For that reason, I urge the adoption of the amendment. Let's not subject prime loans that are operating well today to the same burdensome regulation that is proposed for subprime loans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.