Michael Capuano

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. I will make the offer right here, right now. I will trade every earmark that will be designated for Boston for all of those designated for Chicago any day of the week. And if this gentleman can make it happen, count me in. As far as where the money comes from, let me point out that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a donor State across the board. We pay more in taxes than we get back. I dare say that the gentleman's State is not in that category, and I don't mind that. I don't mind that because I see myself as an American, not just a citizen of Boston or a citizen of Massachusetts. I think that's the way we built this great country. So I don't have a problem with that. On occasion, do I think we have some good ideas in Boston? Yes, I do. As far as the gentleman is concerned about our deficit, I think he's 1 million percent right; actually, 1 trillion percent right. And I would join him in anything he would like to do to actually deal with the deficit. One earmark at a time doesn't do it. It makes good PR. It gets the gentleman up and talking, and it gets other Members--I would really rather be reading the health bill right now, but that's okay. But I ask the gentleman where was he on November 14, 2002, when this House was voting on roll call No. 482, which was the roll call to maintain the PAYGO rules that were the only things that kept the entire Federal Government constrained? Only 19 of us voted to keep the PAYGO rules. I was one of them because I share the gentleman's concern about deficits. You don't deal with deficits one nickel or one dime or $1 million at a time. You deal with them across the board, if that's the concern. If the concern is this particular earmark, I didn't hear too many things that designated this. If the concern is the concept of earmarks, well, I didn't run for office to do nothing. I did not run for office to allow the President or the Governor of the State--and I was a mayor. I don't believe in imperial executives. So we disagree on that issue. If it is deficit, I will join the gentleman anytime to truly address the deficit problem we have in this country because I think he has a good point on that issue, not on this earmark, which is exactly why I hope this particular amendment is defeated. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kayem Foods, Inc. of Chelsea, Massachusetts on its 100th anniversary. From humble beginnings in 1909 to a much higher profile in 2009 after being named the official hot dog of historic Fenway Park and Red Sox Nation, Kayem has developed a stellar reputation in the Greater Boston community for its dedication to quality products and community causes. In 1909, Kazimierz Monkiewicz emigrated from Poland with his wife, Helena, and started a small business making kielbasa--native sausages from Poland--in their backyard in Chelsea. From there, he went on to achieve the American Dream, laying strong roots in the community and establishing a successful family business called Kayem--so named for Mr. Monkiewicz's initials. As Kayem's reputation for quality meats spread, Monkiewicz began delivering to nearby communities via horse-drawn carriage. As the business grew further, Monkiewicz's four sons assumed roles in the burgeoning family enterprise. A century later, Kayem is still a family business with grandson Ray, recently retired as company president, now serving as chairman of the board of directors and 13 other family members working there as well. In recent years, Kayem has expanded its market beyond New England. In addition to making 1 million hot dogs each day, Kayem is now known for its al fresco all natural chicken sausages, which have received several ``best of'' awards from national publications, and its line of delicious Kayem Brats. Through its successful enterprise, Kayem is the city of Chelsea's largest employer, with more than 500 workers representing immigrants from more than 25 different nations. Kayem serves the Greater Boston community in ways beyond being a stable employer. A leading supporter of Chelsea institutions like the Jordan Boys & Girls Club, Centro Latino and Bunker Hill Community College, Kayem is known for its generosity, including regular food donations to dozens of local charitable events. Kayem recently established ``Kayem Cares,'' a program that supports the fight against breast cancer through donations based on sales. For its commendable history and contributions to the community over the past 100 years, I would like to extend my congratulations to Kayem Foods and the Monkiewicz family.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, on June 24, 2009, due to a medical situation involving a member of my immediate family, I had to return to my district and was unable to participate in rollcall votes 435 through 452. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``yes'' on rollcall 435; ``yes'' on rollcall 436; ``no'' on rollcall 437; ``yes'' on rollcall 438; ``no'' on rollcall 439; ``no'' on rollcall 440; ``no'' on rollcall 441; ``yes'' on rollcall 442; ``no'' on rollcall 443; ``no'' on rollcall 444; ``no'' on rollcall 445; ``no'' on rollcall 446; ``no'' on rollcall 447; ``no'' on rollcall 448; ``no'' on rollcall 449; ``yes'' on rollcall 450; ``yes'' on rollcall 451; ``yes'' on rollcall 452.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, my friend, Senator Richard T. Moore was honored recently at the commencement of the New England College of Optometry. I wanted to share his remarks, as his address justly paid tribute to the school, its faculty, and graduates for their commitment to public service. A Vision for Health Care President Chen, Chairman Manfredi, Vice Chairman Ferrucci (my friend and personal Optometrist), Members of the Board of Trustees, parents, alumni, friends, and most especially, my fellow graduates of the Class of 2009 . . . I'm honored to share in your celebration today and to receive a degree from this prestigious institution with its well-deserved reputation for improving access to care, enhancing the quality of life by preventing blindness, and developing innovative, economically viable models of eye care. Visus per mentem, vision through the mind, has long been the motto of this great College. It is a phrase that reflects a sincere commitment to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to serve others, as well as a deeply felt belief that you can help people to see the world with more clarity and purpose--to give in a way, the gift of sight--or at least improved vision. Hopefully, your clinical experience working at the New England Eye Institute and in community health centers and school or elderly vision clinics, has kindled in you to a desire to devote some portion of your time, treasure and talent to bring quality eye care to the underserved of our society. Few, if any of you, in the Class of 2009 could have attended New England College of Optometry for four or more years without deriving from your studies, from your outstanding instructors and most of all from your own inner hearts some sense of inspiration and idealism as well as an appreciation of your social responsibility as a newly-minted health care professional. Continue the Legacy of Community Service Graduates of New England College of Optometry who preceded you have blazed a trail of community service through vision research and care that is almost legendary! They left an inspiring legacy upon which you and your classmates can now build. With your OD degree in hand, challenge yourselves to follow in the footsteps of exemplary alumni such as Charlie Mullen OD ``69 (who addressed you a few moments ago) and Kenneth Myers OD ``74, who firmly established vision care as a focus of the U.S. Veterans Administration. Their pioneering work is, today, helping wounded veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to see beyond the trauma of war and return to productive lives in our communities. Then, there's Edward Goodnig OD ``76. He brought his knowledge and skills to underserved regions expanding primary care opportunities for Alaska's Native American settlements and schools. You may also know of Frank Thorn OD ``79, today's Commencement Marshal and an expert on the causes and development of Myopia, who has shared his professional knowledge and restless energy from this campus on the banks of the Charles River to remote villages in the Amazon Rain Forest and--in Marco Polo fashion--from Europe to China. Their exciting and fulfilling careers, chronicled in the College's 2008 Annual Report, offer a glimpse of the potential that awaits you as today's graduates. Such stories of successful graduates can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply the courage to follow your own path. For that each of you must look into your own hearts. Accept your degrees today with the same pride, enthusiasm, and commitment that launched those pioneers of Optometry into rewarding lives of caring service. Continue to Learn and Share Knowledge Never be too busy to keep from learning how to better serve your patients. That includes sharing your real world knowledge of your patients and the condition of their eyes with those involved in academic research here at New England College of Optometry and elsewhere. It also means staying informed about the rapidly changing science of your profession. Each of you, my fellow graduates, as our newest health care professionals, have a responsibility to continue your education by maintaining competency in vision care and in the technology necessary to deliver the best quality of care to all who seek better vision. Whether your career takes you to remote regions of America or the world, or takes you back to wherever you may call ``home,'' remember one of the basic concepts that you learned here in the Back Bay, that eye care professionals are an integral part of the team of primary care providers, and deserve to be treated with the same degree of professional respect as any other health care professional! In this era of health care reform, each of you will play an essential role in not only diagnosing and treating conditions of the eye, but you will also serve as part of the team of professional caregivers who assist and support each other for the benefit of every patient. Massachusetts as a Model for the Nation For the past four years, as each of you have been immersed in becoming competent, dedicated vision care professionals in the classrooms at 424 Beacon Street, I've been learning the lessons of health care reform about a mile away in the State House meeting rooms at 24 Beacon Street. The grades are now in, and the results are clearly informing the growing national debate on health care. Massachusetts is leading the way in health care reform! We are: First in the nation in health care access. First in electronic health records and e-prescribing. In the forefront of patient safety, quality improvement, and cost containment. Leading the way in prescription drug ethics. In just three years, 432,000 Massachusetts residents, who were previously un-insured, have gained access to health care and the many stories of lives saved or improved are truly heart-warming. Optometry's Contribution to Health Reform One of the challenges facing Massachusetts and the Nation in fully realizing the health improvement and cost savings benefits of health care reform is the need to expand patient access to primary care. It is just as important--and less expensive--to keep people healthy, as well as to treat those who are ill. We have made great progress in expanding access to health insurance for the people of Massachusetts, but there is still an unmet need for easy access to primary care providers. I believe that optometrists, such as each of you, are ready--even anxious--to help to fill some of that void. To address this challenge, those who pay for health care need to embrace new payment models that support wellness as well as coordinating care for those who suffer from illness, injury or less than good health. Any such wellness effort needs to include regular screening--such as vision screening--and be coordinated with health information technology such as through a centralized vision care registry. Major stakeholders in health care reform obviously include the physician community. The Massachusetts Medical Society, the oldest, continuously operating state medical society in the United States, is the primary voice of physicians in the development of public policy. However, it sometimes seems to me that the society's policy positions have evolved far more slowly than the progress of science itself. An old baseball player once said, ``I don't question the integrity of an umpire, just his eyesight.'' Similarly, I don't question the integrity of our state medical society, just their vision! As fewer medical doctors enter the field of primary care, the medical profession needs to embrace other health professionals who, with appropriate training such as that provided by the New England College of Optometry, can do much to provide safe, cost-effective care for patients needing attention. It's high time for all Massachusetts physicians to rise above the tradition-bound guild-mentality that confounds health care progress, and respect the education and experience of all health professions in treating the whole person. It's time for Massachusetts to embrace treatment regimens for optometrists that are already fully accepted in 49 other states, if we are to offer quality care that is convenient and affordable for patients. You, the Class of 2009, must make your voices heard as that debate unfolds! It was Robert Kennedy who once challenged an earlier graduating class at another college--``to decide, as Goethe put it, whether you will be a hammer--or an anvil. The question is whether you are to be a hammer--whether you are to give to the world in which you were reared and educated, the broadest possible benefits of that education.'' So I challenge you to get involved in writing the health care policy of your generation--be a hammer! A Vision for Health Care in America You are graduating at a most exciting time in health care! As you begin your professional careers in vision care, health reform is about to take center stage in the national arena. National health reform is likely to include minimum standards for benefits, an individual insurance mandate, a guaranteed issue requirement for health insurance, a prohibition on excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions, the creation of an insurance exchange where people can sign up for coverage--all factors that are included in the Massachusetts health reform effort. If we view health reform through the lens of the ongoing Massachusetts experiment, there are some fundamental principles to anchor the national effort. 1. Each of us has an individual responsibility to take care of our health--including screenings and check-ups, as well as maintaining health insurance to help pay for our care and that of our families. 2. Each of us has a collective responsibility, as citizens of a caring society, to support public policies that guarantee access to safe, high quality, affordable and patient-centered health care for everyone in society. 3. Each of us, in the field of health care, has a professional responsibility to strive for the highest level of competency, to ensure that we, and our colleagues in the patient care team, deliver the right care at the right time and in the right place. These principles can serve as a shining beacon for health reform in the nation, much as this Commonwealth led the nation in propagating the principles of democratic government, social progress, and educational excellence throughout its proud history. Massachusetts'' first Governor, John Winthrop, wrote in 1630 about the social experiment being launched in this New World. He called upon his Puritan brethren and all their descendants to share their resources and gifts with others, ``rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together so that--``the world will say of succeeding plantations, may the Lord make it like that of New England . . . we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.'' Sharing our gifts with others is the cornerstone of health care reform in Massachusetts and, I hope, it will be your personal cornerstone in your health care careers as well. Truly, the eyes of all people in America are focused on the Massachusetts health reform experience as a framework for bringing expanded access to quality care to all Americans. But that's not all we're contributing to health care. This morning, Massachusetts is sending forth from this city upon a hill, a new class of highly skilled, and energized health care professionals with their degree in optometry in hand! While past experience may teach us to be skeptical of the promises of any politician, to those of you who will dedicate your health care careers to the betterment of your state and all her people--I can promise a lifetime of challenge and opportunity, sometimes exciting and rewarding, sometimes slow and difficult, but always, always worthwhile. And let me add one final bit of parting wisdom: No one ever injured his or her eyesight by looking on the bright side of things! The economy will improve! You'll earn a good living! And those of us in government can't wait to share in your success every April 15th!

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, June 25, 2009, due to a medical situation involving a member of my family, I was not present for rollcall votes 453 through 460. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: ``Aye'' on rollcall 453: The McGovern/Jones/Pingree Amendment; ``Aye'' on rollcall 454: The McGovern/Sestak/Bishop/Lewis Amendment; ``No'' on rollcall 455: The Franks/Cantor Amendment; ``No'' on rollcall 456: The Akin/Forbes Amendment; ``Aye'' on rollcall 457: The Holt Amendment; ``Aye'' on rollcall 458: The Connolly Amendment; ``No'' on rollcall 459: The Motion to Recommit on H.R. 2647; ``No'' on rollcall 460: Final Passage of H.R. 2647.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the courageous women of Darfur, refugees in the Farchana Camp in Chad, who issued their Farchana Manifesto one year ago this month. I honor also the efforts of Physicians for Human Rights who have worked to treat and comfort survivors of the Darfur genocide and support them in their struggles for human rights and personal dignity. No advocate, however, could speak more powerfully of their plight than the women themselves. The Manifesto has been translated into English and French from the hand-written Arabic original, posted in the Farchana Camp on June 10, 2008. We, the women of Farchana Camp, have many concerns and problems with the lack of freedom and having the opportunity to speak about freedom. We can assign these problems to a number of items, including the following: 1. Lack of opportunity for freedom of speech, and no one to listen to what women say. 2. Lack of freedom to go to work or engage in life's activities. If a woman is working in some occupations, responsibility is left to the woman alone in all cases, such as: illness, home activities, and responsibility for the children. While the man does what he wants with money, the responsibility is left to the woman. 3. Lack of women's equality. One man, if he has the notion, can have one wife or two or more wives. 4. Lack of freedom for women even with their own private property; for example: money, gold, household pots and pans, and livestock. 5. Women are not allowed to make contact with people outside the community. For example: visiting neighbors, family, and friends. And women are not allowed [illegible] to travel far, and if he allows her, he does not give her money, and he tells her, ``This trip is of your own accord.'' 6. Lack of acceptance of higher education and universities to enable women to get ahead. 7. Failure to encourage girls in the schools and leaving the responsibility to the mothers. 8. Failure of fathers to take responsibility for girls. If something happens, the mother is blamed, and they make her hear harsh words from the family, and sometimes divorce even takes place. 9. Outside chores, such as: [illegible], provisions, construction, and feeding livestock--that is, all physical demands--are the responsibility of the woman. 10. Failure to show confidence in women, such as leaving the house without the man's knowledge and he tells her, ``You went out to commit adultery.'' 11. Failure to value the life of the woman. They only value her in bed. They like a lot of births, but they do not like raising sons and children. 12. Early marriage for girls and compulsory marriage without consent. 13. In the case of meetings, women do not have the freedom to speak at organizations; only men's statements are heard. 14. Women do not know how to submit their complaints--the place and the organization that is concerned about them. Thank you. We hope to achieve freedom for women in the whole world. More than sixty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the women of the Farchana Camp challenge us to realize its long-promulgated ideals.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, due to the fact that I had to return to my district for family reasons, I was unable to take rollcall votes 308, 309, and 310. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 308; ``no'' on rollcall vote 309; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 310, in favor of final passage of H.R. 626, The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 4, 2009, and Tuesday, May 5, 2009, I was unable to be in attendance and missed several rollcall votes as a result of an illness. I wish to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present: Rollcall No. 229--``yes''; Rollcall No. 230--``yes''; Rollcall No. 231--``yes''; Rollcall No. 232--``yes''; Rollcall No. 233--``yes.''

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, I would.

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about some of the fiscal issues that have affected this country and how they were caused and maybe a little bit of who caused them and who didn't cause them. Over the last several months, obviously there has been a lot of debate about this and there have been a lot of people who want to point a lot of fingers at other people. And that is natural. We all tend to do some of that in our lives, and it is particularly natural here in Washington. People love to point fingers at somebody else when there are bad things going on, and people love to point fingers at themselves when there is something good that goes on. In this particular case, with the financial crisis that we have, instead of stepping up and understanding that, I believe every single American, including me, has some degree of blame in the current fiscal situation. Everybody tried to get a piece of the American dream. Everybody tried to punch up whatever retirement plans they had. Everybody tried to get better rates on their loans. Everybody tried to get better rates on their credit cards. Everybody tried to get more mortgages than they could afford. Everybody tried to do it. And, of course, some people in business were there to try to provide those things. So I think it is a little ludicrous to try to blame anyone in particular, or actually any group of people. I think it is all of us that have some degree of blame. As I heard some of my colleagues just a few minutes ago try to blame Fannie and Freddie or try to blame individual Members of the House or individual Members of the Senate, I think that is ridiculous, and I actually have more faith in the average American than to think they would think any individual or any one group could do it. In this particular case, let's go back just a little bit. What were Fannie and Freddie created for? They were created to help the middle class be able to purchase a home. That is why they were created. Because before their creation, home ownership was limited to only about 20 to 30 percent of Americans. About 60 to 70 percent of Americans were never able to afford a home because banks simply wouldn't make loans unless they were absolutely guaranteed of always getting their money back. They wouldn't take any risk whatsoever. So Fannie and Freddie were created in order to stabilize home ownership that was on the border. They were also created, most importantly, to expand the availability of mortgages to working people. And it happened slowly, over time. This country went from a place where only 30 percent of Americans own homes, to now in today's world approximately 70 percent of Americans own their own homes. That is in contrast to most of Western Europe, where it is about 90 percent of people own their own homes. I personally think, having been raised in a middle-class, lower- middle-class family, that home ownership is still the best way to guarantee entry and maintenance of a middle-class lifestyle, because it is the largest purchase any of us will ever make, most of us will ever make. It is the most important purchase. In the normal course of events, over time, you build up equity in a home. And most of us have to remortgage it to send our kids to college. That is how most of us afforded to be able to send our kids to college. All that being said, Fannie and Freddie and their concept of a government-sponsored enterprise have created over time an immense number of homeowners, an immense number of people who would not otherwise have had an opportunity to get a mortgage. I have no doubt. I totally agree that over the last 10 or so years, like everybody else, they decided to stretch some of the definitions to do some things that maybe were questionable, not necessarily for any nefarious reasons, but for the same reason banks were doing it, for the same reason hedge funds were created, for the same reason private equity firms were created, to get a little bit better return. Now, there were many of us at the time, now I'm talking back in 2005 and earlier, who said, you know, maybe they've gone too far; maybe they've expanded it just a little bit too much; maybe they have to be reined back in. And back at that time, our friends, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, were in charge of the House, they were in charge of the Senate, and they were in charge of the White House. And we worked with them. We worked with Chairman Mike Oxley of the Financial Services Committee to try to come up with a bill that would address some of these very issues, and we did. We got a bill out of committee and on to the floor of this House in a bipartisan fashion that would have reined in some of the concerns that these people that have just talked have about Fannie and Freddie, and not just Fannie and Freddie. I don't want to pretend in any way that they were the only ones doing this, but they were also the ones that we were responsible for. It would have reined them in. And it was done in a responsible way, in a bipartisan way, with Chairman Oxley and at that time Ranking Member Barney Frank and the White House, the Bush White House, not the Obama White House, not the Clinton White House, but with the Bush White House. When the bill got out here some of the more extreme Members wanted to shut down the whole thing, having no clue how most of their own constituents were able to afford a home, and they raised all their concerns, all the same ones you've heard tonight, that government should have nothing to do with mortgage rates. Well, that's ridiculous. That is ridiculous. And they just decided to kill it. This is back in 2003, 2004 and 2005. And if you don't believe me, we have quotes here from Chairman Oxley himself, who was quoted as saying--now, this is after the fact. This is dated September 2008, talking about those times. And Chairman Oxley himself, this is a quote from the Financial Times, not necessarily the bastion of liberal thinking. He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. This is a quote: ``All the hand-wringing and bed wetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,'' he says. What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute. When we tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, the right-wing members of the Republican Party decided to say ``no.'' They decided to let it ride. Now, I understand what they were doing for political purposes. I don't understand, still don't to this day understand what they were trying do for financial purposes or government purposes. But ideologues around this place never understand that sometimes doing what's right for people is better than winning an ideological argument. In this case, if we had simply done that one thing, according to, again, this is the Republican chairman of the Financial Services Committee at the time, when the House was run by Republicans, the Senate was run by them and they had the White House. This is a direct quote. ``We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now.'' That's his quote, not mine. I happen to agree with him, obviously. We didn't take the opportunity. And what happened? A few years after that things got a little worse. Democrats finally took the House back. What was one of the very first things we did? We passed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie. We passed a bill to reduce and restrict subprime loans as quickly as we could. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. This was 2007, after most of the problems had been caused. Now, that doesn't mean, I won't pretend that myself and others don't have some degree of blame. I am happy to accept my degree. What did I do? What did people who agreed with me do? I was happy to push to allow more people to qualify for mortgages. I thought at that time, and I still believe, that that is a good goal. I will admit, knowing what we know now, maybe we pushed a little too hard for some people. I agree with that. I understand that. That doesn't mean when times get better, people like me won't push again, because I still believe that the best way into the middle class and the best way to stay in the middle class is home ownership. And I don't know anyone who disagrees with that, except people that are already in the higher income brackets, who they have theirs, and they're more than happy to pull up the ladder for the next people trying to make it to the middle class. People want to rewrite history. I understand that. It's not new. It's an old political game. But facts are facts. When the government agencies had overstepped some of their boundaries, we were there to try to help them, help get them back within those boundaries. We worked with Republicans. We got a good bipartisan bill out of committee, and then that bill fell into the hands of the Newt Gingriches and others of the world who just let their ideology control everything they do and everything they say. And we didn't have the votes. As soon as we got the votes, we addressed the issues, and we are still addressing them now. Yes, we're trying to fix the mess that we inherited and we will continue to try to do so. But we're also trying to make sure, while we're doing that, that these things can't happen again. And we have done that already, to some degree. We have a few more things that we have to do. As a matter of fact, today we spent a fair amount of time in Financial Services passing a bill that hopefully will be on the floor next week, or the week after, that will continue that process, to make sure that future mortgages, Number 1, are given to people who deserve it, Number 2, can be paid back, and yet, that balance to allow people to continue to access mortgages, to continue to build themselves up in the middle class, and to continue to be able to stay there. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield as much time as she might desire to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. CAPUANO. I would like to thank the gentleman. I would like to just read one little fact. May 25, 2005, there was a vote in the Financial Services Committee of the House that was then under the control of Republicans. The chairman was Mike Oxley, who's been mentioned here a couple of times. I knew him. I served with him. He was a good man. He was a true conservative. But he was a good man. He fought for his ideals as we all fight for ours. And he, at that time, had control. He won a fair number of times, but he would talk to you openly, honestly, and didn't pull any punches. Chairman Oxley at the head, Representative Frank as the ranking member of the minority party, May 25, 2005, H.R. 1461, a vote of 65-5. Every single Democrat and, obviously, most of the Republicans on that committee voted for a reform bill of Fannie and Freddie. That bill came out, went to the Rules Committee, and was changed. Dramatically changed. Why was it changed? Pure ideology. The Republicans--as the Democrats do now--if the Democrats stick together, we can pretty much pass any bill we want out of Financial Services or any other committee. That's the way the House works. At the time, the Republicans were in the majority. They could have passed any bill they wanted without a single Democratic vote if they chose to do so. Chairman Oxley preferred to take an important issue and work hard to get bipartisan support. And he did. My colleagues here all serve on the Financial Service Committee. You can't name me too many times we have a rollcall vote that we get a 65-5 vote on any issue of major importance today or almost ever. I have been on the committee 11 years now. It almost never happens. That is hard work. That is work that deserves credit. That is work that says it's a serious issue that should rise above ideology of either side. The bill wasn't perfect, in my opinion, but it was pretty good. And it was the best we could get at the time. We were in the minority. Understand that. Something is better than nothing. So 65-5, the bill comes out and gets tossed aside by people that didn't know much about the issue, yet ran this House, because of ideological purposes. That tells you--I think it should tell you--there was an attempt to take action even in 2005. When that happens, you send the bill out, the committee has done its work, you think everything is going well, you think people are in agreement; and when the leadership of this House says, ``Forget about it. We're doing what we want to do on an ideological basis. We don't care about this bipartisanship,'' that tells you, don't even try this again. Don't waste your time. And there was nothing else that happened until Democrats took the House back, and we acted quickly. Representative Ellison just listed a whole bunch of those items, and as he said, we're doing more today.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take two seconds and show this chart. As you can see, this chart shows the number of subprime loans over a period from 1996 to 2005. Pretty obvious what happened. Within the first couple of years, subprime loans were reasonable, and a number of them given out. This entire time the House was controlled by the Republican Party, the entire time of this chart. As you can see from this hashed section, that is when the White House was taken by the Republican Party. And you can see what happened to subprime loans, they skyrocketed. They skyrocketed. And they didn't stop until 2008--actually, they didn't stop. They started slowing down in 2008 and they stopped in 2009. What happened in 2007 was the Democrats took over the House and they passed legislation to deal with this. That same legislation--or similar, I shouldn't say the same, but similar legislation was passed through the Financial Services Committee in the year 2005 that would have done the same things earlier. Now, it wouldn't have stopped the problems, but it would have lessened the problems. And this chart speaks for itself. It is amazing to me that people can blame others when the ones on the receiving end of that did not control this House, did not control the Senate, did not control the administration, did not control any of the appointments to any of the regulatory agencies, yet somehow they can be blamed for a lack of action. That is unbelievable rewriting of history. And I just think the people who know the facts will draw their own conclusions. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado for as much time as he would like.

Mr. CAPUANO. There are just a few things I want to say before I pass it off to the gentlelady from Wisconsin. There are a couple of things that people have to understand; yes, Fannie and Freddie have some blame in it, like we all do, but they didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing as well. They didn't create credit default swaps. They didn't create excessive leverage. Yes, they did invest in them heavily. Why did they invest in them heavily? They did it because the rate of return was so high they couldn't walk away, because that higher rate of return allowed them to then put more money up for mortgages. They didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing. So yes, we are talking about them tonight because they are government-sponsored entities, but a lot of this was created by people other than them, the private market. There is one other thing I do want to say. The other thing I have heard an awful lot of is that somehow the CRA, Community Reinvestment Act, is somehow to blame for all of this. The CRA was a law that was passed because banks were happy to take money out of poor and lower income neighborhoods without putting any of it back in. People were allowed to deposit their money, but they weren't allowed to get mortgages. Simple law says, if you take the money out of these communities, you have to put some of that money back in. Nothing in the CRA says a single loan should be given that is inappropriate. Nothing in the CRA says a single loan should be done in an unsafe or in an unprofitable manner. That's not what it says. As a matter of fact, it says things just quite the opposite. It simply says, if you want to do business in a certain community, you have to then do business in that community. It's quite simple. One little fact: In 2006, 84 percent of the high-cost loans were originated by non-CRA covered banks. I'll say it again to make the point. Eighty-four percent of the loans given that were high-cost loans--all of these loans that mostly get a lot of people in trouble-- were not given by banks covered by the CRA. How could they possibly then or how could that law possibly have caused this trouble if they were only giving out 16 percent of the troubled loans? No one else is to blame, just the ones that they don't like.

Mr. CAPUANO. Absolutely.

Mr. CAPUANO. I'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for as long as she might take.

Mr. CAPUANO. It certainly is uncomfortable for a lot of us, and it certainly is real. I totally agree with everything the gentlewoman just said. By the way, if it were a race item, in reality, wouldn't everyone losing their homes today be black? The answer is that it's not. It's across all lines. Blacks are losing their houses. Whites are losing their houses. Hispanics are losing their houses. Why? We've all been victimized. I want to be clear. I want to repeat again: Fannie and Freddie didn't do anything that everybody else wasn't doing. I'm not saying they're not without blame. They are as I am and as, I think, everyone is. We all have some degree of blame. Okay. At the same time, what about those who were in charge at the time? I'll go back to the chart of subprime loans. During that entire time that subprime loans were charging upward, this House was controlled by Republicans. The Senate was controlled by Republicans almost that entire time. Particularly when they went through the roof, that's when they took over the White House. Why? Why did it happen overnight? Nobody sat down and said, ``Let's do subprime loans.'' What happened is we got an administration at the White House that said, ``We don't need regulation. Let the market do whatever it wants. Let human greed go unregulated.'' Now, there's nothing wrong with human greed. We're all greedy. It's what drives a lot of us--we all want more--but unfettered greed, unregulated greed, unlimited greed always leads to disaster. It always does. We had an administration that believed the market could regulate itself, period. Now, the market can regulate itself to some degree, but when you say to the SEC, ``Do nothing. Look the other way on credit default swaps. Sit on your hands when anybody comes up with new instrumentations and when banks have special investment vehicles that are off the books,'' this is the result. Congress has some blame. No question about it. Personally, I should have screamed louder. Now we have the votes. Those people with the votes should have done something. I want to point to the chart behind the gentleman from Colorado again. During the time period when Republicans had control, they did nothing. Nothing. Since we took over--and I'll go through the litany later because I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota--we have taken action. With action sometimes--there's no question about it--the horse is out of the barn to some degree. You can only do so much when that has happened, but we have done what we could do when we could do it. We will continue doing it this week and again next week. With that, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. CAPUANO. I recognize the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAPUANO. Well, I am leaving in a few minutes, but I will come back. I don't have the records in front of me, and that's fine.

Mr. CAPUANO. And that's fine. But would the gentleman agree that the Democrats didn't run the House?

Mr. CAPUANO. I totally agree.

Mr. CAPUANO. It's nice to agree for a change.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise in sorrow and in solidarity with Armenians, with our fellow citizens of Armenian descent, and with all men and women of good will to recall the atrocities Armenians suffered in the early years of the last century. Contemporary accounts leave no doubt that indiscriminate massacres took place. I understand that this topic evokes painful memories and raises difficult issues of national identity for persons of both Armenian and Turkish ancestry. Nonetheless, I believe that we must call genocide by its proper name and acknowledge it when it has occurred so that we may better learn to recognize and resist its horrors in the future. That includes recognizing the policies of the Ottoman Empire during World War I and its aftermath as genocidal. International response to genocide has historically been inadequate at best, and we must do all we can to strengthen our resolve to prevent and punish such atrocities. Moreover, I believe that nations can move forward in fellowship when the past is confronted with honesty and courage. I hope to see the republics of Armenia and Turkey cooperate and jointly contribute to the stability of their troubled region.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to some of the things that have been said about Oversight and Government Reform. First of all, I want to make it very clear I think they do a great job. I think they've done a great job for years, even though, in my opinion, for a long time with the Bush administration there was virtually no oversight of any significant nature whatsoever, which is, I think, one of the reasons we are in some of the problems we're in now economically. Be that as it may, people have to understand that, first of all, there is a limited amount of money. We are all trying to cut ends here and there. And in this particular case, this particular committee is still the second largest funded committee in Congress at almost, I think, $11 million or $12 million, if I remember correctly. And that is fine. On top of that, the committee turned back several hundred thousand dollars last year for reasons that are up to them, I assume it is sufficiency, but it just says that the budget should be sufficient. The most important thing that I want to comment on is the suggestion that somehow if this money isn't given, if the gun to our head is not answered appropriately, then oversight won't happen in this term. Well, that is patently ludicrous. And it is, because very simply the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, has specifically asked each and every one of the 20 standing committees to do more oversight on their own. Every one of those committees, to my knowledge, has submitted detailed plans on what they plan on doing this year. I myself am on three of those committees, and I can tell you from personal experience all of those committees are already doing more oversight this term than they have done in the past. Now, I understand that if there was no other oversight going on, I would be up here advocating the exact same thing. But if you have got 20 other committees stepping up to the plate, doing more work--and I do disagree strongly that those committees somehow aren't capable of overseeing the administration, because that is effectively what we do. We are not overseeing Congress, that is what the Ethics Committee does, we are overseeing the administration. And to suggest that Members of Congress somehow can't read the laws that they are required to write and read and enforce, I find that a little bit insulting and a little bit difficult to believe. Of course, the Financial Services Committee is the best committee to oversee financial services matters. They understand the issues. They ask the right questions. They know the right people to talk to. I understand and accept and appreciate the fact that Oversight and Government Reform fills in the holes and does oversight of some of that oversight. I appreciate that, and I agree. That is why they still have the second largest funding of all the committees; otherwise, we wouldn't need them at all. We could just get rid of them. I don't think we should. I think they have a valuable part to play. I think the Speaker has an important and thoughtful and rightful approach to have everybody in Congress participate in oversight. I think that is the appropriate way to go. This particular authorization bill recognizes that, accepts that, and suggests that not just a few Members of Congress can do oversight, but that every Member of Congress is responsible for some degree of oversight. That is why there will be over 200 additional hearings this year by various committees. Again, the committees I am on have already had some that have never had them before. I think the Speaker's approach is correct, and I think in the long run it will prove that every Member of Congress has a role to play, and every Member of Congress will participate, rightfully. And, I believe that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, number one, will continue to do a good job, will continue to fill in the holes that the other committees can't do, do the broader oversight that they have been so good at; and, I think in the final analysis the taxpayers will get more bang for their dollar, and I think they will be better served. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO

Mr. CAPUANO. Madam Speaker, I rise in tribute to the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, and to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences which has just honored Senator Kennedy with its ``Scholar-Patriot Award.'' Nearly 230 years ago in Cambridge, in what would become the Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts, John Adams, James Bowdoin, John Hancock, and other ``scholar-patriots'' established the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The Academy was created, during the American Revolution, to provide a forum for leaders from science, scholarship, business, public affairs, and the arts, to work together as citizens in support of a democratic republic. In the words of the Academy's charter, enacted in 1780, the ``end and design of the institution is . . . to cultivate every art and science which may tend to advance the interest, honor, dignity, and happiness of a free, independent, and virtuous people.'' Today, the Academy, still in Cambridge, flourishes as an independent policy research center. Its members remain true to the original mission, conducting multidisciplinary studies of complex and emerging problems. Current Academy research focuses on science and global security; social policy; the humanities and culture; and education. On March 9, 2009, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences convened a meeting in Washington, D.C. on the topic of The Humanities in a Civil Society. As part of the program, the Academy announced the presentation of its Scholar-Patriot Award to the dean of our state's congressional delegation, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Throughout his career, Sen. Kennedy has been a stalwart champion of the humanities. I am proud to enter into the Congressional Record the citation from the Academy, and I congratulate my friend and colleague for this well-deserved recognition. ``The American Academy bestows its Scholar-Patriot Award on Edward M. Kennedy for his extraordinary service to the Academy, the community, and the nation. ``For four decades you have been a fierce defender of the ideals of opportunity, equity, and justice. Master of quiet collaboration and inspired oratory, you have achieved an unparalleled legislative record. Your efforts to insure quality education and health care for all Americans, including your leadership on the Americans with Disabilities Act, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, have earned you the respect of men and women across the political spectrum. From your first major bill on immigration reform to your recent call for a renewed commitment to community service, you have championed an open and inclusive society. To your family and the nation, you are a profile of courageous leadership, the guardian of a dream that lives on. ``The founding members of the American Academy were pragmatic visionaries, anticipating the needs of a young republic for both wise governance and fresh ideas. You follow in their footsteps as a Scholar- Patriot for our time. Asserting that ``our future does not belong to those who are content with today,'' you have fulfilled the Academy's historic mission, translating knowledge into action and celebrating the life of the mind in service to the community, the nation, and the world.''