Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, because I believe that this legislation represents a missed opportunity to modernize the regulation of our Nation's futures and securities markets, I am unable to sign this conference report. Section 13106 of the conference report directs the members of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, to work to ensure that by September 30, 2009, the SEC and CFTC take action under their existing authorities to permit risk-based portfolio margining for security options and security futures products. Depending on when this bill is approved and signed into law, the agencies would have roughly 16 months to achieve this directive. Because the SEC and CFTC have a fundamental disagreement over how to proceed, there is no guarantee that a legislative directive to reconcile their differences will yield a breakthrough in what has become a long-standing turf battle between the two agencies over this issue. Chairman Frank, Mr. Kanjorski and I proffered a solution to this regulatory impasse during conference that would create a clear pathway the agencies must follow in order to realize a state-of-the-art portfolio-based margining system for customers of broker-dealers. Our targeted amendment to the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPA, would extend Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC, insurance to futures positions held in a portfolio margining account under an SEC-approved program, thereby significantly advancing the goal of risk-based portfolio margining. Our amendment is consistent with recent recommendations by the Treasury Department in its Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure, which found that ``the realities of the current marketplace have significantly diminished the original reason for the regulatory bifurcation between the futures and securities markets.'' As Treasury has recognized, there are many policy issues--portfolio margining included--where a lack of action has placed U.S. markets at a competitive disadvantage to other markets that do not draw the same artificial distinctions between securities and futures products. Portfolio margining recognizes the risk-reducing effects of offsetting or hedged positions in calculating customer margin. Thus, a portfolio margin system should align a customer's total margin requirement, the amount of money they have to put up in order to fund their investment positions, with the actual risk the customer is taking. Today, the portfolio margin rules already allow futures positions on broad-based securities indexes such as the S&P 500 to be used to hedge offsetting securities positions such as options and exchange traded funds on the same index. There is uncertainty about how these existing portfolio margin rules fit within the regime that protects investors in the event of the liquidation of their broker-dealer. SIPA governs such liquidations, which specifically excludes futures from the definition of a ``security.'' Single stock securities futures are not excluded as they are both futures and securities. Consequently, if a broker-dealer carrying portfolio margin accounts failed, its customers' net equity claims would not include the value of futures positions in a portfolio margin account. This could result in situations where gains in the futures positions are not allowed to offset losses in the securities positions, thereby reducing the protection the customer would be entitled to under SIPA. It also would create severe operational challenges as the customers' futures positions would need to be unwound separately from the offsetting securities positions. Some have argued that the Financial Services Committee's approach to solving this problem would somehow prejudice the so-called ``one-pot/ two-pot'' debate over whether futures should be allowed to be kept in a securities account. It does not. Allowing futures into a securities account would still require action by the CFTC. Our language would simply provide uniform investor protection in the event of a liquidation of a broker-dealer with portfolio margin accounts for whatever assets are in the securities account. I am disappointed that the CFTC and the Agriculture Committee rejected the Financial Services Committee's proposal, the adoption of which would enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. markets and streamline financial services regulation. While I will not be able to sign a conference report that does not incorporate our language, I will continue to work with Mr. Kanjorski and other members of the Financial Services Committee to eliminate inefficiencies and redundancies in our current financial regulatory regime that place U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage internationally.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4008 and commend the primary sponsors of the legislation, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mahoney, and the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann, for bringing it forward. In 2003, Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, FACT Act, to improve our nationwide credit reporting system and provide consumers with important new protections against identity theft, including the right to a free annual credit report. As the principal House author of the FACT Act, I can personally attest that when Congress passed that landmark legislation, it was never our intent to create opportunities for frivolous litigation. Because H.R. 4008 helps to clarify and underscore that intent, I am proud to cosponsor it. One of the many consumer protections we included in the FACT Act was a provision that prohibited merchants from printing ``more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the card holder at the point of the sale or transaction.'' Unfortunately, enterprising trial lawyers have sought to exploit this provision by bringing hundreds of lawsuits against businesses, large and small, for failing to redact the expiration date from credit and debit card receipts. The suits allege that this failure constitutes a willful violation of the FACT Act, even though many retailers believed they complied with the law by truncating account numbers on receipts. And a ``willful violation'' can put a company out of business: penalties for such violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act are statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000 dollars per consumer, as well as punitive damages and attorney's fees. Thankfully, we can fix this problem, and it is fair and reasonable for us to do so. Truncating the account number is sufficient in almost every instance to protect consumers against identity theft and credit card fraud, and there are no reported cases of consumers suffering harm from the appearance of account expiration dates on their receipts. Common sense alone should tell us that there are no grounds for these punitive suits, but common sense is sometimes not enough. Representatives Bachmann and Mahoney have offered a simple, technical fix that will address this problem where common sense has failed. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support their legislative solution and urge its adoption.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Democratic omnibus housing bill, and also I rise in strong opposition to the procedure under which it comes to the floor today under a contorted rule, which is designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that's allow no Republican amendments, allow no input, allow no open debate of different provisions with any ability to modify those provisions. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record page 24 of a promise that the Democratic majority made to the American people. It's a statement of the Speaker of the House in their document ``A New Direction for America.'' Regular Order for Legislation Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level. Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day. Floor votes should be completed within 15 minutes, with the customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' ability to reach the House Chamber to cast their votes. No vote shall be held open in order to manipulate the outcome. House-Senate conference committees should hold regular meetings (at least weekly) of all conference committee Members. All duly-appointed conferees should be informed of the schedule of conference committee activities in a timely manner and given ample opportunity for input and debate as decisions are made toward final bill language. The Suspension Calendar should be restricted to non- controversial legislation, with minority-authored legislation scheduled in relation to the party ratio in the House. In this document, the Democratic majority promised to the American people in what was called a Congress working for all America, they made this promise: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority a right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.'' Well, that's not what we have here today. Instead, we have what we are calling the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, but, in fact, it started out as a bill here in the House and passed the House as a bill to move the United States towards greater energy independence and security. Absolutely none of that bill remains, it's a total sham. Through some, I suppose, back room, front room, side room, smoke- filled room, who knows, but the Democratic leadership, we, the American people really don't know--but at some point they decided to take every bit of that bill out. The only thing that remains of that bill, actually, is the resolution that brings this bill to the floor. It refers to this bill and the resolution that brings it to the floor. The resolution says, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States towards greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, increasing clean, renewable energy production. That's all gone. But that's still in the Record. That's still the resolution. Mr. Speaker, the procedure outlined here indeed stifles the democratic process. It corrupts the democratic process. Despite ``A New Direction for America,'' despite a specific promise not to do this, we have a process that not only allows no Republican amendments, no substitutes, it does not allow even a vote on final passage of this entire bill. There will be no vote on final passage. There will be a vote on each of the three amendments that go to make up this package, but as the resolution clearly says, it is sort of self-executing, a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the title, the so-called renewable energy bill, shall be considered as adopted. There won't even be a vote on that. Now that is pretty innovative. That is pretty unusual. But above all, as strange and as contorted and convoluted as this is, it is a corruption of the democratic process. It is a corruption of our democratic system, and it is a sad day for this House. It is not the Members of this House who are being denied the full amendment process, it is Americans, those Americans we on this side of the aisle represent. They, as are we, are being shut out of the process. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had been allowed, and we were not allowed to offer a substitute, if we had been allowed to offer an amendment, one of our first substitutes would have contained some of the things that the Democratic alternative has. It is a Democrat alternative, but there is no alternative, nor was one allowed, so I am not sure that we ought to use the word ``alternative.'' Alternative without an alternative is maybe what we should call it. But it has FHA reform in it. When we said we would have liked to have offered a stand-alone amendment or offered legislation to do that, the chairman says that has already passed the House. Certainly it has; so did the renewable energy bill. But it didn't pass the Senate. We would like, because there is agreement in this House, and we could have agreed today and almost unanimously passed a FHA reform bill which all Members of this body say will go a long ways toward solving the problems of Americans stressed by lowering housing prices and their mortgage obligations. We could have done that. But in the Senate there has been no movement. We won't do that today because if we start taking those concrete steps, it will diminish the majority's opportunity to take what is a bad situation and adopt and create a tremendously expensive new omnibus housing bill. GSE reform, we would have liked to have seen that joined with FHA. It is in this bill, and it is offered kind of as a candy or a carrot: take the GSE reform which you want, take the FHA reform which you want and we have all passed, and in doing that, you will have to take a new $300 billion housing program. At a time when we are running a deficit, that makes no sense to most Americans, most of us on this side of the aisle. Most of all what I do oppose is our inability to strike from the overall package this new $300 billion government subsidy that I believe is fundamentally unfair and likely to do more harm than good. Mr. Speaker, let me explain, and in doing so I do not want to minimize the seriousness of the distress many of our citizens are experiencing. When we talk about distress, we sometimes focus on those who are behind on their mortgage payments. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you there are millions of other Americans who are making their mortgage payments; but, nonetheless, they are under an equal stress or a great stress themselves. Last night the gentleman from Vermont said what we want to do with this bill is we want to spread the pain from those million or 2 million Americans who are behind on their mortgage, we want to spread that pain to all Americans. We want to spread that pain to those 34 million Americans who are renting their homes. We want them to take part of that yoke upon them. We want those who are making their mortgage payments on time, we want them to adopt some of this liability and assume some of this liability. We want those 25 million American families who have paid off their mortgages, many of them elderly citizens, we want them to assume some of this pain. We want them as taxpayers to assume some of these liabilities. In other words, 110 million American families who are making their mortgage payments on time, who are renting or who have paid off their mortgages, they are being drug into this process and are being made liable and are on the hook now for these bad loans. They have been reading about it, and now they are going to be responsible for them. Now they are going to have to start paying. And the vast majority of Americans who find themselves struggling with mortgage payments, struggling with high gas prices, struggling with high food prices, are now going to assume responsibility for ill-advised financial decisions and misjudgments of other people. Good and decent people who have absolutely done nothing wrong, don't have a bad mortgage, don't have a problem with their mortgage, are going to be trapped in this dragnet. Now is it necessary to involve the 110 million American families that aren't behind on their mortgages? I say, no. No. In fact, the Federal Government has already extended almost a trillion dollars in guarantees of liquidity. They have brought onto their books, the Federal Reserve, almost a half a trillion dollars worth of these questionable loans and questionable securities backing these loans. And the American people could be on a hook for that. That is why my companion on the Financial Services Committee and 17 of us on the Republican side wrote the chairman and said we need to take a close look. We need to urgently look at the Federal Government extending its guarantees and assuming securities and investments that maybe have no market value, just to pump liquidity into the market. Now what we have agreed to in the past and we continue to agree with and we would have liked to have said let's go further with this, is the Hope Now program. The 1.4 million Americans, those who come closest to making their mortgage payments, they are behind or in default but they were close, and they had an ability to, with adjustments to their mortgage agreements, could make those payments, 1.4 million American families have been helped by Hope Now. And we think that more will be helped. The FHA Secure program, almost 180,000 families have been helped by that program, at some Federal expense. Before we create a massive new government program and put billions of additional taxpayer dollars at risk, we need to think long and hard about asking other Americans to assume this burden. Lenders and securitizers wanted no part of government regulation or interference when house prices were soaring, and they made extraordinary profits. Speculators made millions of dollars. Lenders made millions of dollars. Investors on Wall Street bought high-risk SIVs, securitized investment vehicles, and they made millions of dollars. Sometimes we read where the heads of those hedge funds, private equity funds, and investment banks were paid a billion dollars in profits. They all made a lot of money. But now that the loans that they eagerly made are going bad, this bill offers a mechanism to off- load their problem loans onto the American taxpayers. That is unfair. It is wrong. Because participation in the plan is voluntary, no investor will part with a mortgage if they think it has a reasonable chance of performing. The incentives are designed to ensure that the taxpayer loses. Investors will place the worst mortgages they have into the program. In fact, that is exactly what they are going to do. They are going to off- load the worst of their loans. If there is any chance of people paying, they won't put these loans into this pool. They will take those loans where people are way behind or have no ability to pay and they will put them into a program that will be financed by FHA-guaranteed loans. We all know when those loans go bad, who pays. It is not the lenders, it is not the borrowers, it is not the investors, it is not the speculators, it is the people we all represent. Given the substantial risk these loans present, no lender would refinance them without the FHA guarantee. That is what was said on the floor. They are not going to refinance these with a Federal Government guarantee. There is a reason for that. They anticipate a default. The result is the taxpayers of this country, 110 million American families that acted responsibly during the run-up in housing prices will be left to bear the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible lenders, investors and speculators. That's just not fair. For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this housing package and I express my disappointment that the Republican Party, the minority, that many representatives here were shut out of the process, denied any opportunity to address the bill's many deficiencies through the amendment process or through the motion to recommit.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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.

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. 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.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Let me introduce into the Record a letter that 16 Republicans, including myself and Scott Garrett, sent to Chairman Frank asking for hearings on the Bear Stearns matter and his response in which he said that he had much greater confidence in the decision to fund the bailout of the counterparties of Bear Stearns. So the chairman at that time expressed his support, and we expressed our concern. So now he seems to have changed his opinion and is criticizing the administration for something he defended in these letters. We will be having hearings on this matter, on Bear Stearns I can assure you, because our side is concerned about that bailout. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 7, 2008. Hon. Barney Frank, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to respectfully request you hold a hearing of the full Financial Services Committee regarding the recent collapse of the investment bank Bear Stearns and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal Reserve to facilitate Bear Stearns' sale to J.P. Morgan Chase. These steps have had an immediate impact on the financial markets and are also expected to have a long-term effect on our financial regulatory structure. For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed voted to open its discount window to primary dealers. While this authority has been available to the Fed since 1932, the decision to use it at this time has raised questions about whether and when the Fed should intervene to help a particular industry or firm in the name of market stability. With the Fed approving the financing arrangements of the sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase as well as guaranteeing $29 billion in securities currently held by Bear Stearns, the Fed has possibly exposed the American taxpayers to unknown amounts of financial loss and established a precedent that could lead to future instances of companies in similar financial trouble expecting the same assistance. These extraordinary actions have raised a number of complex and multifaceted questions. As members of the committee of jurisdiction over our nation's financial markets and the regulatory bodies that oversee them, we feel it is imperative to have a full and public vetting of this unique situation. Therefore, we strongly urge you to convene a hearing on this subject of the Financial Services Committee on the soonest possible date. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Scott Garrett, Spencer Bachus, Donald Manzullo, Walter B. Jones, Michele Bachmann, Ginny Brown-Waite, Randy Neugebauer, Tom Feeney, Tom Price, Ron Paul, Adam Putnam, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeb Hensarling, Steve Pearce, Geoff Davis, Judy Biggert, Dean Heller.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Vermont, who is leading the debate of the opposition, I would like to appeal to the gentleman from Vermont. Our constituents today are under a lot of stress because of the high cost of energy, gasoline prices, heating bills this winter. And Vermont, and I congratulate Vermont. Seventy-three percent of their electricity is powered by nuclear energy. Seventy-three percent. That compares to 19 percent in all other States. So I congratulate y'all. Nuclear energy is a source of very cheap energy, very cheap electricity. It could really wean us off our dependency on foreign oil. I would appeal to the Vermont delegation, both Mr. Sanders, Senator Sanders, yourself, we need more nuclear power plants. And we would just urge our representatives from Vermont to stop voting ``no'' and allowing other States to have a source of low-cost energy. So just on a personal basis, I'd appeal to you. Now we find ourselves in a very serious situation, a crisis--it's not too strong a word--in America. We have high food prices. We have high energy prices. And many of our citizens are under stress in paying their mortgages. Fifty-four million American families make a mortgage payment each month. An additional 34 million American families make a rent payment every month. I would say that a great percentage of those are under stress. There's 25 million Americans who own their own home or don't have a mortgage, and some of them are under stress. Now we all agree that foreclosures are serious. They're bad for the community. But we fundamentally disagree in how we address the problem. I, for one, most of my colleagues, say let's not take from the 34 million American families who are renting, let's not take their tax dollars. Let's not take from the 51 million American families who are paying a mortgage payment. Many of them struggling under high gas prices, high food prices. Let's not take from those other 25 million American families who don't have a mortgage on their home, let's not take from them and reward lenders who unwisely extended credit, because that's what this bill is about. It's not about benefiting borrowers because the guarantee doesn't go to borrowers. It goes to lenders. Three years ago we started an effort to rein in subprime lending abuses, and the lenders came before us and they lobbied and they killed our efforts to bring some structure and some control over the mortgage market. They said, thanks but no thanks. You stay out. But, now, now that the chickens have come home to roost, they've come back in and said, bail us out. And they're turning to 110 million American families and saying, we need $300 billion. These are speculators. Many of them speculated. Many of them are investors on Wall Street who bought high-risk, high-yield, structured investment vehicles containing these mortgages. And now they're saying, we're in trouble. And they're saying, we want to offload these bad loans on to the government. And we'll decide today whether we take from 110 million American families, take their hard-earned money, and we bail out these lenders and these speculators, many of which are guilty of criminal, fraudulent acts. They trapped people into these loans, and when the loans have become illiquid, they've asked for the taxpayers to come in and stand behind it. This program is, and y'all have said to us, or you have said, it's a voluntary program. Absolutely, it's voluntary. The lender can choose which loans he offloads on the Federal Government. Which loans will he offload? He'll offload his bad loans. He'll offload the very worst of the loans. And the American taxpayers, those I represent who are making those rent payments, who are making those mortgage payments, and don't assume that those 51 million American families who are making their mortgage payment, don't assume they're not under stress. When you say, We're going to share the pain, why would you ask a renter or an American family that's paying their bills to share the pain? They have enough pain.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. I would yield.

Mr. BACHUS. 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.

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. Well, I'm a great believer in quoting Psalms. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. 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.

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. 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).

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. 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).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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.

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

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