Steve Driehaus

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you to the chairman of the committee and the sponsor of the bill for this very important piece of legislation. I hear with dismay, Madam Speaker, the other side, the Republican minority, suggest that we are moving too quickly on this bill. Now, predatory lending legislation was introduced in this House in 2000, and in 2001 and 2002, and a version of this bill was introduced in 2003. And then they failed to consider it in 2004, in 2005, in 2006--all years when the Republican majority controlled this body. They decided that it wasn't necessary to address predatory lending legislation, that everything was just fine; that the markets would regulate themselves; that, for some reason, these individuals that were preying upon our poorest citizens, these individuals that were preying upon our low-income neighborhoods and our minority communities, that would regulate itself; that they would stop that behavior. This chart, Madam Speaker, shows the results of that inaction. We could have acted in 2003. We could have acted in 2004. We could have prevented the meltdown of the financial industry. We could have prevented this recession. But the Republicans still suggest that we are acting too quickly. The American people understand. They understand that it is the inaction of the Republican majority in these past years that has gotten us to the situation we are in today. This is a critically important piece of legislation that puts us on the right path. We have a choice today as Members of Congress. We can stand with homebuyers, we can stand with the communities that have been impacted by predatory lending, we can stand with those schools and those small businesses who are feeling the impact every day of vacancies in their neighborhoods, or we can stand with the sharks. We can stand with the predatory lenders. We can remain silent and pretend like the problem doesn't exist. This is an important step in the right direction, and I am proud to support the rule and the underlying bill. I appreciate the work of the chairman and the sponsor.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri).

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you, Congressman. I just want to follow up on a point you made and a point that the Congressman from Florida made, and it's about the markets. We have the best economic structure in the world. We have free market capitalism. And that allows for competition, it allows that competition to drive down prices, and that competition is what makes our economy grow. But when the markets don't work, when the markets have disruptions, it is our job, it is the job of government to intervene. We are not elected to protect the barons on Wall Street, although if you sit on Financial Services, you would think that some Members are. But we are elected to protect the public good, protecting the public good. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go so far as to suggest that this economic crisis was precipitated by something called ``predatory borrowing,'' as if the borrower has control, as if the borrower has control in the interaction in a mortgage loan, as if the bank is not allowed to say, you know what, you didn't give me the documentation as to your income, so therefore I am going to deny the loan. We have folks on the other side of the aisle who have just closed their eyes to the crisis, saying the markets will take care of it. And I think that explains the inaction during the 1990s and in 2000 and 2001 and 2002 and 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. I had my staff pull some of the bills that were introduced in the House by the Democrats when the Republicans led the Congress. And in the 106th Congress you have both the Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2000 as well as the Predatory Lending and Consumer Protection Act of 2000, didn't get a vote on the floor. In the 107th, the Protecting Our Communities From Predatory Lending Practices Act, no vote on the floor. The Predatory Mortgage Lending Practices Reduction Act, no vote on the floor. In the 108th Congress, the Predatory Mortgage Lending Practices Reduction Act, nothing. The Prevention of Predatory Lending Through Education Act, no action on the floor by the Republican-led Congress. Again, in the 108th, the Prohibit Predatory Lending Act, no action. And this happens over and over again every single year. It wasn't until the Democrats took control of Congress that this Congress took seriously its role in regulating the markets when it comes to mortgages, when it understood that our primary objective, our primary purpose is to protect the public good. This Congress failed the American people under Republican leadership when it comes to housing. And it was only when the Democrats were elected in 2006 that we started to see action. But before I go through the number of steps that have been taken since 2007, when the Democrats took control, I would like to yield time to our colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko). So, Mr. Tonko, thank you for joining us.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the House today in what is the first of what will be many conversations amongst the new Members of Congress and our observations as to where we are going in this Congress, some of our observations as to the economic conditions and the policies that have gotten us to where we are. I would like to thank the Speaker and the majority leader and the majority whip for giving me this opportunity and for giving my fellow classmates, the new members of the Democratic class, the opportunity to come here today and talk for just a little while about what I believe to be the most pressing issue in the United States, and that is the foreclosure crisis and the lending crisis that has led us into this recession. We would like to talk about some of the reasons we got there. We would like to talk about some of the actions that have been taken since the Democrats have regained control of Congress in order to address the foreclosure crisis. But we have heard much rhetoric over the years about why we are where we are in terms of this economic crisis. I spent 8 years in the State legislature in Ohio, and I will be joined shortly by a former colleague in the State legislature in Ohio. We have seen Ohio hit hard by the foreclosure crisis. Just today in the Cincinnati Inquirer, my hometown newspaper, out of our 52 neighborhoods in Cincinnati, it stated in 33 of those neighborhoods, over 10 percent of all houses currently sit vacant. That is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. But unfortunately, that tragedy is playing out again and again and again across the United States. So we are going to spend a little time in conversation with my Democratic colleagues discussing how we got here and what the impacts are, what the impacts are to our constituents, what the impacts are to American families across the country who are currently suffering under the weight of this foreclosure crisis. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) to talk a little about his observations in northern Ohio.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Reclaiming the time, Mr. Speaker, and as the Congressman noted, we both worked on predatory lending legislation in the State of Ohio. I should mention, we initiated those efforts back in 2001 and in 2002, the same type of efforts that were initiated right here in the United States Congress by our Democratic members here in the United States Congress. Unfortunately, to this day, we do not have Federal predatory lending legislation that has become law in the United States. I think that is a tragedy for our country because, as you have described, Congressman, is how it has played out across the country. I served on the Governor's Foreclosure Task Force in the State of Ohio. What you observed in terms of Bob and Betty Buckeye--and I like the name--but what you observed played out over and over again. We found that the vast majority of these mortgages were in the subprime market. That term is tossed around a lot--these subprime loans. Well, subprime loans are simply loans made to families who have already shown that they have difficulty making payments. That's why they are considered to be subprime--that they have difficulty in terms of their credit report, they have difficulty in terms of their credit history in making payments. So what happened? As you described, we saw these financial entities-- not necessarily State-run banks, not necessarily depositories--but we saw these financial entities come into the State of Ohio, and we saw this over and over again in multitudes of States, where they would make loans available. Sometimes it was no money down, sometimes it was no- doc loans. That is, you didn't have to show any documentation as to your annual income. Yet the folks still qualified for the loan. Well, how did that happen? Because it used to be, as you know, Congressman, that you would go into the local bank or you would go into the local savings and loan and you would ask for a mortgage loan. And they would come out and appraise your house. And the risk associated with that mortgage loan would be held by you and it would be held by the bank. And they would hold that paper in their portfolio. It was a long-term investment for that financial institution. But as you described is how it played out. With the development of these secondary markets and the securitization of mortgages across the country, what we saw was very interesting behavior. So that no longer was it the financial entity that was closing the loan that was carrying the risk, but they immediately transferred that risk onto a secondary market. They sold the loan. The loan was then securitized in a mortgage-backed security on Wall Street and sold to an international investor, sold to a pension fund. So there was no risk at the front end of the closing of the loan. It incentivized all kinds of behaviors. So people who should not have qualified for loans were qualifying for loans. And, very interestingly, the loan products that they were qualifying for were very predatory in nature. Many of these loans, we came to find out, were adjustable rate mortgages--mortgages that had teaser rates up front, but 2 years into the loan, 3 years into the loan, the mortgage rate would adjust. It may adjust in certain cases every 4 months, every 6 months. And you often found the family wanting to get out of that loan, wanting to refinance, but they were unable to do so because of this little instrument contained in almost every one of these loans called a prepayment penalty. So think about it. You've got a family who has a poor credit history, who has difficulty paying off their debts, now finding themselves with a mortgage that used to be affordable. Say it was $700. Now all of a sudden that mortgage is $1,200 after the rate has started to adjust. They want to get out, but this prepayment penalty of maybe $2,000 or $5,000 stops them from refinancing. So they are trapped. They are trapped in a loan that they cannot get out of, and it just repeats itself over and over again when it comes to foreclosures. I will yield to the Congressman.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. They were absolutely predatory in nature. Time and time again, there were those of us in State legislatures across the country who called out to our Congress and said, Look, you have the ability to regulate these entities. You have the ability to crack down on predatory lending. The Republicans in Congress at the time--or the Republicans now--are engaging in revisionist history, where they want to blame the CRA--the Community Reinvestment Act--or they want to blame Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac for the foreclosure crisis, and they seem to forget that they were elected in 1994 and they held the majority in 1995, in 1996, in 1997, in 1998, in 1999, in 2000, in 2001, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, in 2005, all the way until the election in 2006. As this chart demonstrates, we saw the growth of these in early 2000. That's when you saw many initiatives. You saw legislation introduced right here on the floor of this Congress in 2000, trying to address this problem. But the Republicans would have none of it. They said the market will take care of it. The market will address the situation. We saw in 2003, 734,000 foreclosures. That number, as staggering as it is, in 2003, by 2008 had grown to almost 2.5 million foreclosures across the United States. I think it's important--and our colleague from Florida is about to join us, as is another colleague from Ohio--but I think it's important when you talk about the true cost of foreclosures, the cost is not simply with the family that is being foreclosed upon, but it's to everybody in the neighborhood. I have a house two doors down from me that was foreclosed on. That hurts my property value. It hurts the property value of my neighbor across the street. But when you see a multitude of foreclosures and vacancies across a neighborhood, then you see deterioration in the schools. It hurts small businesses. It hurts the entire fabric of the community as you see increasing crime and as you see local governments having to pay the cost of upkeep on those properties. I will now yield to my colleague from Columbus, Ohio, Congresswoman Kilroy.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. If the gentlelady would yield, we have been talking about the impact of the foreclosure crisis and the mortgage lending crisis in the State of Ohio. But we are joined now by Congressman Grayson from Florida. As you know, Florida has been hit hard by this economic crisis as well. I would like to yield some time to Congressman Grayson to share his thoughts on the foreclosure crisis.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Reclaiming my time, we have seen tremendous resources springing up spontaneously across the country, reaching out to homeowners, reaching out to renters who find themselves in difficulty, who are seeking housing assistance. And just like in Columbus, we have the resources for 211 and other avenues, and the Ohio Department of Commerce has done tremendous work in the State of Ohio. And we have talked about what got us here and the inaction of the multitude of Republican Congresses. But I would like to draw attention just for a minute and recognize our colleague Congressman Himes to discuss solutions because we have an opportunity this week. We have an opportunity this week to pass a predatory lending bill. And this will be, I hope, the predatory lending bill that becomes law in this country, that finally when we got here in 2009, we made our mark and we said enough. Enough of the politics as usual. Enough of the Bush administration's saying ``no'' to protecting consumers and protecting homeowners. We have strong predatory lending legislation that we hope will become law. So I yield to my friend Jim Himes.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. You know, Congressman, we used to say in Ohio that you had more protections in buying a toaster than you did a house in the State of Ohio before we passed predatory lending legislation. And the simple fact of the matter is that for far too long in the United States Congress, the Congress has bent over backward to protect the lenders, but they have failed to protect the consumers. And in failing to protect the consumers, it has not only cost those families who were duped into those predatory loans, but it has hurt neighborhoods, it has hurt communities, it has failed entire cities. With that, I would like to yield to Congressman Boccieri from Ohio.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. This is what Hamilton County, Ohio, looks like, Congressman. And thanks for the work of the folks that are working in neighborhoods for providing us this data. But this is what inaction in Congress means. It means foreclosures dotting the entire county. And I think I said earlier that in 33 of our neighborhoods in Cincinnati, we now have at least one in 10 homes standing vacant. We have talked a bit about Ohio, but we have been joined by some of our colleagues from New Mexico and from Virginia. So I would like to recognize Representative Lujan from New Mexico for his comments and his observations as to the situation in New Mexico.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Reclaiming my time, that provision is, in fact, an important part of the predatory lending bill that will be coming before us on this very floor on Thursday. We do understand that not everybody can afford a home, not everybody should be purchasing a home, and there are many, many responsible families that are out there renting. And through no fault of their own, the landlord has gotten in trouble, and the building is now being foreclosed on, and because of that foreclosure, they're out on the streets. This bill provides them protection, necessary protection. The first time this Congress has acted to provide them protection. So I appreciate your efforts on behalf of the renters and your standing up for the renters. And I just want to tell the people that we are standing up for them and that we will take action on Thursday on their behalf. With that, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Perriello from Virginia to offer his comments on this discussion.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Congressman, thank you for your tremendous efforts on behalf of homeowners in Virginia. As you say, we got elected. We got elected because people wanted to see change. Barack Obama was elected President of the United States because people wanted to see change, and they want to see Congress move forward. But they keep hearing, on the other side of the aisle, the same old excuses. And the folks on the other side of the aisle don't want to point the finger at themselves. They forget; they have collective amnesia about their 12 years in power here in the House and their failure to do anything when it comes to predatory lending, when it comes to foreclosures. I yield to Mr. Himes for his observations and try to wrap this up.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Congressman, that's a good point and I have seen all kinds of anomalies in the market that have led to behaviors that you wouldn't want to see. If you were, in fact, elected to protect the public and the public good, you would want to crack down on these pernicious behaviors. And that's exactly what we are doing in the antipredatory lending bill. But time and time again, if you turn on the radio, if you turn on C- SPAN, if you turn on CNN, you turn on Fox News, you hear Republican after Republican getting up and making excuses, not talking about the pernicious behaviors, not talking about what is wrong with the market and how we might correct that, but blaming all kinds of different actions that have been taken by this Congress in the past. They go so far as to suggest the Community Reinvestment Act, the CRA, passed by this Congress in 1977, is the root cause of the housing crisis in the United States. If I have heard this once, I have heard it a thousand times, and it is now talked about all the time on talk radio. But when you look at the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 and what it did, it addressed red-lining, because we knew that there were financial institutions that weren't lending in certain neighborhoods, especially minority and low-income neighborhoods. So we provided incentives for financial institutions to engage in responsible lending in those low-income and minority neighborhoods. It was called the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act was extremely successful. As a matter of fact, 83 percent of the failures, the loan failures that we are talking about, are not even with institutions that are covered by the CRA. That's a remarkable number. Yet Republican after Republican blames the Community Reinvestment Act. So I would like to put this one myth to bed. I would like to do that by reading a letter from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, to Senator Robert Menendez about the CRA. This letter is dated February 25, 2008. ``Dear Senator: ``Thank you for your letter of October 24, 2008, requesting the Board's view on claims that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is to blame for the subprime meltdown and current mortgage foreclosure situation. We are aware of such claims but have not seen any empirical evidence presented to support them. Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties. ``The CRA was enacted in 1977 in response to widespread concerns that discriminatory and often arbitrary limitations on mortgage credit availability were contributing to the deteriorating conditions of America's cities, particularly low-income neighborhoods. The law directs the four Federal banking agencies to use their supervisory authority to encourage insured depository institutions--commercial banks and thrift institutions that take deposits--to help meet the credit needs of their local communities, including low-and moderate- income areas. The CRA statute and regulation have always emphasized that these lending activities be 'consistent with safe and sound operation' of the banking institutions. The Federal Reserve's own research suggests that CRA-covered depository institutions have been able to lend profitably to lower-income households and communities and that the performance of these loans is comparable to other loan activity. ``Further, a recent Board staff analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other data sources does not find evidence that CRA caused high default levels in the subprime market. A staff memorandum discussing the results of this analysis is included as an enclosure.'' He ends like this: ``As the financial crisis has unfolded, many factors have been suggested as contributing to the current mortgage market difficulties. Among these are declining home values, incentives for originators to place loan quantity over quality, and inadequate risk management of complex financial instruments. The available evidence to date, however, does not lend any support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime loan crisis.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit the November 25, 2008, letter to Senator Menendez for the Record. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC, November 25, 2008. Hon. Robert Menendez, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: Thank you for your letter of October 24, 2008, requesting the Board's view on claims that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is to blame for the subprime meltdown and current mortgage foreclosure situation. We are aware of such claims but have not seen any empirical evidence presented to support them. Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties. The CRA was enacted in 1977 in response to widespread concerns that discriminatory and often arbitrary limitations on mortgage credit availability were contributing to the deteriorating condition of America's cities, particularly lower-income neighborhoods. The law directs the four federal banking agencies to use their supervisory authority to encourage insured depository institutions--commercial banks and thrift institutions that take deposits--to help meet the credit needs of their local communities including low- and moderate-income areas. The CRA statute and regulations have always emphasized that these lending activities be ``consistent with safe and sound operation'' of the banking institutions. The Federal Reserve's own research suggests that CRA covered depository institutions have been able to lend profitably to lower-income households and communities and that the performance of these loans is comparable to other loan activity. Further, a recent Board staff analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and other data sources does not find evidence that CRA caused high default levels in the subprime market. A staff memorandum discussing the results of this analysis is included as an enclosure. Sincerely, Ben Bernanke. Enclosure. Yet the myth is perpetuated over and over again by my Republican colleagues. We appreciate this opportunity, the newly elected Members of the Democratic class, to give an analysis of how we got here in terms of the mortgage crisis, how the mortgage crisis has led to the bank failures in this country, how we are now here to help pick up the pieces. We were elected in November, along with the President, to work on solutions, to quit turning a blind eye to the economic crisis in this country. But we know, over and over again, and I certainly saw it as a State legislator, when we asked for Federal intervention in the markets, when we asked for Federal intervention when it came to foreclosures, there was only silence coming from Washington D.C. On Thursday we have an opportunity. On Thursday we have an opportunity to pass antipredatory lending legislation that will make a difference, that will make a difference for every American family. And it is my hope that finally, in the spring of 2009, the Federal Government will step up to its responsibility and pass antipredatory lending legislation and pass a law that will be signed by this President to protect homeowners across the country.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I want to congratulate my colleague from Florida on this amendment. I think it's an important amendment, and I think this bill comes at a very important time. Just today our Ohio EPA director, Chris Korleski, announced funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act coming to the State of Ohio and specifically to Ohio's water projects, over 69 drinking water projects and 255 water pollution control projects. And what the EPA director said in his statements, I think, is very telling. He said this additional Federal funding will provide jobs while also improving Ohio's worn water infrastructure. Yes, we have a worn water infrastructure in the State of Ohio and in many States across the Midwest, and it is particularly taxed at times of natural disaster. So I think assessing the value of looking at tornadoes, looking at floods and looking at the way in which our water resources are impacted is critically important because we do have a system, a system that is aging. When we talk about combined sewers, as we have in Cincinnati, and we have combined sewer systems across the Midwest and on the east coast, we recognize that at times of flooding we have raw sewage coming out into our waterways, into our streams, and they are especially taxed. We need to make sure that the appropriate precautions are in place to try to prevent these overflows, but also to help fix those systems in the aging communities in order that when we have natural disasters, we are able to ensure the population that we have clean drinking water available to everyone. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for her efforts.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I stand today on the floor to also give my support to this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I am one of four Members of this House who is a former Peace Corps volunteer. I had the privilege of serving this country in the United States Peace Corps for almost 2\1/2\ years in West Africa. I can speak on behalf of the returning volunteers in this body and the returning volunteers across this country as to the importance of service, both at home and abroad. This is an important step in the right direction. As we ask so many sons and daughters of this country to serve in our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is critically important that we open up doors of opportunity for young men and women and older men and women across this country to also serve right here at home. Service is critically important to show that they believe in this country, to show that they believe in their community and that they are able to give back. This is an important step in the right direction. I have had the privilege in Cincinnati of working with the Public Allies Program, an AmeriCorps program which has contributed to tremendous work for nonprofit organizations across the region. This expands that opportunity for so many more people. Again I applaud the President for his efforts. I applaud the First Lady for shining the light on service in the United States. I want to thank the chairman and the committee for their tremendous work.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. A happy St. Patrick's Day to you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Missouri and certainly the comments of Mr. Issa from California as well as our chairman. This is an important issue, and I appreciate having the support of both the ranking member and the chairman of the committee as we move forward on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee in really looking at how documents are classified in the United States Government. As was mentioned by the chairman, this is Sunshine Week. And Sunshine Week is about shining the bright light on government to help people better understand what decisions are being made on their behalf because the information is the people's information. But when we look at the records and we look at the classification of documents in the Federal Government, we find confusion. Since 1979 there have been six separate GAO reports talking about the over- classification of documents; yet nothing has been done by Congress to address this growing problem. Today there are over 107 different classifications. Some of these are official classifications, some of these are pseudo-classifications of documents in every administrative body in the Federal Government. This bill is about the systemic issue of over-classification and the existence of these pseudo-classifications within the government. The citizens of our Nation have an inherent right to the information that the government collects so long as it's not of a sensitive nature. The bill promotes transparency and government efficiency by promoting a common language within government. It was introduced by Congressman Waxman last year, who was chairing the committee, and passed this House without objection. Specifically, the bill has several components. It instructs the Archivist to create regulations that control what is classified and how it would be classified with the input of agency stakeholders. It provides training for agency employees who classify information. It calls for random audits of these materials by Inspectors General to ensure compliance. It requires personal identifiers to be placed on classified information in order to track and uphold regulations. And it restricts information from being classified that is not of a sensitive nature. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is it allows the agencies of our government to not only talk with each other, but it allows the people to have access to the information and the decisions being made by their government. It is an important step in the right direction. I would only give you one example to prove the point. In 2008, and I think this was enlightening, there were over 362,000 requests under the Freedom of Information Act to the Federal Government; 121,833 of those requests still remain to be processed, and that is because of overclassification of documents. It's not about documents of a sensitive nature not being turned over to the public, it is about making information available to the public in an easier fashion. That's what this bill is about. I appreciate the support of the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. DRIEHAUS

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the committee for his tremendous work on this bill. I bring before the House a simple amendment, and that amendment simply increases the authorization for combined sewers and sewer overflow grants from $1.8 billion to $2.5 billion over the 5-year period. I think this is critically important, and I think we need to put this in perspective, Madam Chair. The EPA estimates that the total need for combined sewer overflow systems in the United States is $54.8 billion. The need for improvement in sanitary sewers, as estimated by the EPA, is $88.5 billion. That is a total, Madam Chair, of $143 billion in needed investment for sewer infrastructure in these United States. I hail from Cincinnati, Ohio. In Cincinnati, it's estimated that the cost to fix the sewer problem is almost $3 billion. My colleagues around the Midwest and the east coast share our pain. So this is a simple amendment that would simply increase the amount to $2.5 billion. Just as a point of information that I think is important: Since 2003, the United States has allocated $2.7 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure improvement in Iraq. I would think that we could do at least this much in the United States. I would yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I would yield 1 minute to my colleague from Ohio, from northern Ohio, who also shares this problem with his constituency, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri). (Mr. BOCCIERI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks)

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chairman, we certainly are hurting. And this country is hurting because of a failure, a failure to invest in basic infrastructure over decades and decades. That is why this country is hurting. I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this is an authorization. This is an authorization to say we in the United States, the people that inhabit our cities, deserve as much attention as the folks in Iraq. This actually doesn't even get up to the level of spending on sewers and water projects that we have spent in Iraq over the last 5 years. So I would remind my colleagues that this is an authorization, not an appropriation, and that the appropriate committees can determine the prioritization; because this is about priorities. We are saying through this amendment that infrastructure and sewer spending is a priority of this Congress, and I would hope that the Appropriations Committee would take the time to validate that and move forward. This is not about spending more; it is about identifying priorities.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment. The amendment, as stated, inadvertently struck out subsections of the manager's amendment adopted earlier today, and I would ask for conformity.