Tom Feeney

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition; although I'm not certain I oppose the amendment.

Mr. FEENEY. I guess at the outset, I'd like, if she would yield, to ask my friend a question because, as I understand the amendment, what it does is to require NASA to contract with a company or companies that have a demonstrated ability to do business and to work with certain companies. Right now, the language gives essentially a requirement that we find small businesses that we can cooperate and work with. I think all of us support that. I don't understand the language in her amendment. It will substitute for small business, substitute the language in quotes, small, minority- owned and women-owned businesses, end of quote; is that conjunctive or disjunctive? If a company has a great record, for example, in its area of working with minority-owned businesses or women-owned businesses or small businesses or, for example, if a contractor has one subcontractor, do they have to demonstrate that they will be able to have three different contractors, one that's a small business, one that's a minority-owned, and one that's a women-owned business? If it's a disjunctive, if they can demonstrate ability really to reach out to smaller companies or minority or women, that's terrific, but it may present a real host of problems if it is conjunctive. I would be happy to yield to my friend to explain whether it's disjunctive or conjunctive.

Mr. FEENEY. Reclaiming my time, I should point out that the minority happily worked on a manager's amendment, where we enthusiastically endorsed the concept that the administrator ought to contract with external organizations to facilitate new technologies for NASA to new businesses. And we were sort of provided this at the last moment. We don't really have a chance to examine what the effects are. There may be a contractor out there that only has one subcontractor. There may not be specific types of the businesses. Though I don't necessarily oppose the amendment, I would suggest that there may be practical problems depending on how this becomes interpreted, and suddenly, we're adding additional requirements. I think all of us want to help women-owned businesses. We've already done a scholarship today. I think minority-owned businesses are part of Federal contracting law. I think this specific language was designed to help all small businesses, without regard to what specific gender or ethnicity or background they had. We certainly support assistance in helping recently returned or long-standing veterans organizations. We don't object to the intent of the gentlelady's amendment. I guess we have some real concerns as a practical matter. Small contractors, we're trying to encourage, by the way, NASA not just to pick the Goliaths that then get to divvy out the work. We're trying to encourage NASA to get down and help do business directly with small contractors that are capable. This may become impossible for small businesses to comply with if they only had one or two contracts and one or two subs. So, with that, I will not oppose the amendment. I will be happy to yield to my friend to respond.

Mr. FEENEY. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentlelady's intent, and actually, I agree with her, given the explanation. I mean, we've got a NASA Web site. NASA does data sharing. Hopefully, they don't exclude anybody that the gentlelady's talking about. I'm not sure what requirements that contractors that have access to NASA data, that may not be publicly shared, have now got to do that they're not doing. But with that, sometimes we just hope that the details get worked out later in the process, as Chairman Gordon has already reminded me earlier today. With that, I will not oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentlelady. I thank my good friend, Mr. Donnelly, and Chairman Frank. Manufactured housing, as has been said, plays a vital role in meeting the needs of families to get affordable, attractive and safe housing throughout our country. There are some 18 million Americans that live in manufactured housing in America. And as the gentleman from Indiana just said, the quality and the attractions just get better every day. It is an important source of quality affordable housing, and it helps new entry-level buyers as well as retirees trying to downsize on both ends of the housing spectrum, whether getting in for the first time or they're living perhaps in the last home that they will own. It is a responsible means of homeownership that can play a major role in the solution to America's affordable housing problem. The average price of today's manufactured housing hovers somewhere around $48,000, and in a challenging mortgage market where fewer and fewer people have access to credit, this is one way to solve the problem that many homeowners have. There are lots of homeowners today throughout America that are losing their homes in foreclosure. And yet because of the affordable nature of manufactured housing, they have not seen a dramatic rise in most places as we have in some communities in the rate of foreclosure throughout the country. Manufactured housing is an important component of the solution for affordability and access to the American Dream for every American. June is designated as the National Home Ownership Month. One of the great choices Americans have is for quality manufactured housing. Again, I thank the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to a champion of the working family, Mr. Garrett from New Jersey.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I move I be able to claim Mr. Neugebauer's time in his temporary absence.

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, and I would say that people in my district, there are some people who are hurting right about now as there are around the country. There are some people, indeed, who are homeowners in very bad shape. Some, for example, were duped or lied to by people that loaned them money. Some, a few, have lost their jobs. Some bought homes at the high of the housing market, say $150,000, now to find that their house is more like $120,000 or $100,000. And we all feel very sympathetic for those people. But I don't feel too terribly bad for speculators that went in search of ways to get higher returns and take higher risks as an exchange, and that's who is getting bailed out today. I also don't have complete sympathy when it comes to using taxpayer money to reimburse people that, for example, put zero money down. They didn't buy that home. They bought an option to buy the home. People that bought into a 3-percent teaser rate knowing that if the interest rate went to 7 percent, they would never be able to stay in that home. People that used no documentation to demonstrate that they ever had the chance to repay. They moved into a home with an option to continue buying it. They didn't make the type of commitment that most homeowners do to put 10 or 20 or 30 percent down and to make sure that they have a mortgage and a loan that they can pay under virtually any circumstance except for a disaster. Who does this bill help? Well, The Wall Street Journal made it very clear who this bill helps. This bill is a bailout from American taxpayers of speculators and imprudent borrowers. Less than 1 percent of borrowers whose homes, under this bill, would be eligible when all is said and done to be helped. I come today to speak on behalf of the forgotten man. And that includes some 50 percent of Americans that either own their home or are renting. Every one of them watching today needs to know that they are bailing out irresponsible speculators and lenders and they will pay the price of this bill. I come here to speak for the 90-plus, 95 percent of homeowners that are making their payments on time, that took out responsible loans. They need to know that they are bailing out irresponsible speculators and people that went in search of higher profits. Investors who take advantage of this program are basically getting a guaranteed gift from the government: 85 percent of a loan that they know is not likely to perform. We are bailing out people that will cherry-pick the very worst loans in their portfolio. Who is here speaking on behalf of the forgotten man? Who is here speaking on behalf of 99 percent of Americans that did not behave irresponsibly, that did not behave foolishly, that ultimately will pay the price for this bill? Well, some of us in the minority are here speaking on behalf of the forgotten man, which is 99 percent of America. And I would leave you with this: Chairman Frank and the CBO and others can estimate how much this bill will cost these forgotten men and women, 99 percent of Americans who were not irresponsible who will pay the price. The answer is we don't know. We don't have a crystal ball. If property prices around the country take off by another 50 percent and go up, there will be no cost. If they go down by 30 percent, the cost will be closer to $3 billion.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FEENEY. I didn't say what the chairman said I said.

Mr. FEENEY. I didn't say what the chairman said I said. I said that it has been the policy of many in this Congress for about 40 years now to criticize lenders all over the spectrum for not pushing more money into low- and moderate-income areas. I think the chairman will agree with me.

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentlewoman. I would say this bill tonight proves at least two maxims about Congress: One is that we have two speeds: zero and that we overreact; and the other is that the law of unintended consequences means that often the adverse or the harmful consequences of the things we do in Congress are much more meaningful than the positive things that we would like to accomplish. Let me give one example. Back in the early sixties and seventies and eighties, and all the way through the nineties, Madam Chairman, there were lots of complaints that low- and middle-income people, especially minorities, didn't have access to loans, that they didn't get the same opportunity that other people of above-modest means had to own a home in America. And there were complaints, and there were all sorts of animosity, to use the Chairman's word from a few minutes ago, towards lenders for being discriminatory against low- and middle-income people again, especially minorities. So the Community Redevelopment Act was enacted in 1977, and at that time one of the things that Congress had the power to do was to oversee and look at every single lender in America in order to determine that they were aggressively making loans in low and poor and minority neighborhoods so that we could measure those institutions so we could insist that there be more access to homeownership. We got exactly what we asked for, and part of that was the subprime loan crisis. And part of that was zero-document loans where people could literally line up without any proof of income. Part of that was instead of making it a 70-percent loan or 75-percent loan, which almost never fails, making 100-percent, or 110-percent loans. Part of that was teaser interest rates to get people into a home at 3 percent, which they could afford to make an $800 or $900 a month payment, and when that teaser rate readjusted to 7 or 8 or 9 percent, all of a sudden what used to be an $800 payment became a $2,000-a-month payment, and they couldn't make it. They got exactly what we anticipated. Countrywide is now bankrupt. Countrywide in 2005 got the Best in Minority Lending Award from the Lending Industry Diversity Conference. This Congress had great intentions. We wanted to make more money available so that everybody could have the American Dream. In fact, as of 2 years ago, America had an all-time high, approaching 69 percent of Americans that owned their own homes. That's great. The truth of the matter is because of easy money from the Feds, because of investor imprudence, because of greedy Wall Street speculators, we have now got a crisis because of a bubble that is collapsing. Who is being bailed out by this bill? The $15 billion will eventually end up, after it goes to the cities and counties, in the pockets of the investors and holders of these mortgages that went seeking higher profits that put people in homes that they couldn't afford. We are doing exactly what economists want us not to do: creating a moral hazard. It is going to make it more likely, rather than less, that foolish loans are made in the future.

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FEENEY. Perhaps the chairman didn't take my point. The point is that it has been aggressive policies by Congress including evaluating everybody under the Community Reinvestment Act.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other readers of the Record the article from Consumer Rights League, which is reprinted below. Predatory Charity: The Self-Interested Self-Help of the Center for Responsible Lending Executive Summary The term ``predatory lending'' seems to have appeared out of thin air in recent years. In reality, the prevalence of the term--and the accompanying public panic--owes much to a sophisticated public relations campaign carried out by the increasingly high-profile Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). As the most visible face of the half-billion dollar team of ``Self-Help'' non-profit organizations, CRL attacks competing loan products. Under the guise of advocating in the interests of its low-income customers, Self-Help makes loans at highly profitable rates and uncharitably takes those low-income customers to court over trivial monetary sums. Worse, CRL's advocacy has worked to the disadvantage of low-income borrowers. This report utilizes documents in the public record to demonstrate: CRL's advocacy agenda--built on pseudoscience that relies on arbitrary and opaque definitions and unreliable estimates and assumptions--has harmed consumers, according to recent Federal Reserve research; CRL's troubling alliances--a spokesman who pled guilty to felony larceny, an employee who engaged in eavesdropping, and a multi-million- dollar grant from a wealthy Wall Street investor with a stake in the outcome of CRL's lobbying activities; the Self-Help network attacks other lenders for allegedly using practices that it employs--taking in charitable grants and low-interest government loans while charging its customers uncharitably high rates and prosecuting low-income customers for amounts as low as $96; the Self-Help network has combined its advantageous loan rates and aggressive legal attacks to build a powerful organization with net assets of a quarter-billion dollars and approximately $12 million in annual profit from its largest loan-making body; the Self-Help network seems to encourage its customers to assume high amounts of debt, Its delinquency loan rate is almost 7 times the rate at comparable credit unions. Its customers carry loan balances over 3 times the rate of those institutions. Many consumer advocates work with financial institutions to meet community needs. Yet the public record shows CRL and its financial web do more harm than good. This report examines CRL's record and concludes that public officials, policymakers, and the media should be skeptical about the group's complaints, while non-profit donors and government bodies need to re-examine the charitable loan rates they provide to CRL's web of financial organizations. An Introduction to Self-Interest What do you call an organization that has made more than $190 million in profit in the last ten years by targeting poor Americans with high interest rate loans? If you were the Center for Responsible Lending, you would call that organization a ``predatory lender.'' However, this is a description that fits ``Self-Help,'' CRL's network of non- profits. CRL is the research and advocacy arm of a large and financially powerful web of organizations under the umbrella of the Center for Community Self-Help. This matrix includes the Self-Help Ventures Fund (the largest loan-making body), the Self-Help Development Corporation, the Self-Help Services Corporation (which pays salaries and many expenses for network staff), and the Self Help Credit Union. According to tax returns, the Self-Help network (except its credit union) increased its assets by nearly 36 percent--from $181 million to 245 million--between 2002 and 2004. According to the National Credit Union Administration, the Self-Help Credit Union reported $292,143,058 in assets as of November 2007. Questions have arisen as to whether this largess has benefited the working poor or if the group's leaders have simply been helping themselves. Critics scoff at Self-Help's 2004 decision to spend a whopping $23 million to buy a high- rise building in downtown Washington, D.C. for its operations. Perhaps more troubling, one report examining tax returns for the Self-Help Credit Union assets found: ``The financial reports of the Self-Help Credit Union reveal that throughout the 1990s Self-Help made loans to its officials and senior executives averaging $30,000 to $40,000, a practice permitted by Self-Help's conflict-of-interest policy. In June 2002, one official received a loan for about $1.2 million, and tax forms show that in March 2004 another official received a large loan, bringing the total borrowed by only two unnamed Self-Help officials to more than $2.7 million. Without explanation, those loans disappeared from the Credit Union's financial report in December 2004.'' Self-Help's credit union provides ample conflicts of interest with CRL's attacks on other lenders. In November 2007, researchers from the Federal Reserve examined the effects of payday loan bans, including the North Carolina law successfully pushed by CRL. The researchers concluded that payday lending was actually preferable to the fees credit unions--like those operated by Self-Help--charge its low- income consumers: ``Payday loans are widely condemned as a ``predatory debt trap.'' We test that claim by researching how households in Georgia and North Carolina have fared since those states banned payday loans in May 2004 and December 2005. Compared with households in all other states, households in Georgia have bounced more checks, complained more to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection at a higher rate. North Carolina households have fared about the same. This negative correlation--reduced payday credit supply, increased credit problems--contradicts the debt trap critique of payday lending, but is consistent with the hypothesis that payday credit is preferable to substitutes such as the bounced-check ``protection'' sold by credit unions and banks or loans from pawnshops.'' These findings raise serious doubt as to the social value of CRL's advocacy and the quality of its research. Further questions have focused on the group's drive for political influence. CRL has publicly signed a letter with the radical group ACORN. It has received significant financial support from George Soros's Open Society Instiute and tens of millions from the left-leaning Ford Foundation. Indeed, it will be the very low-income consumers extolled in CRL's rhetoric that are most hurt by the group's power. Self-Help and the CRL are redefining hypocrisy and creating a new term: ``predatory charity.'' Redefining Predatory Lending: When you make assumptions From elaborate assumptions to dubious omissions, the ``studies'' released by the Center for Responsible Lending have all the indications of advocacy-driven research. CRL's studies make frequent methodological assumptions that artificially inflate their findings. It is clear that their reports are written with a pre-determined conclusion in mind. Federal Reserve Research Sinks ``Financial Quicksand'' CRL has raised its public profile by attacking the practice of ``predatory lending.'' Its media presence is largely in response to its 2006 report, ``Financial Quicksand.'' Unfortunately, CRL has built its argument on a foundation of sand that erodes economic opportunity for the very low-income consumers it purports to protect. If anything, ``Financial Quicksand'' sinks from its own assumptions. The report is best characterized as a series of arbitrary definitions. It uses non-nationally representative estimates, derived from a serious of unjustified assumptions, to argue that payday lenders ``cost'' Americans $4.2 billion dollars each year. Although the report claims to offer a national perspective on the payday lending industry, it samples data from only four states for its central findings. Consider some of the report's problems: ``Financial Quicksand'' makes 18 separate assumptions, many of which would be charitably described as questionable, and rely on another 53 ``estimates'' to reach their conclusions. Crucially, the report hinges on the critical (and flawed) assumption that anyone who takes out five or more loans in a year is likely flipping their loans back-to-back-to-back. However, 22 states prohibit ``flipping'' loans and many more limit rollovers--a fact ignored by the report. The report also suggests that payday loans ``cost Americans'' billions of dollars and argues that banning them could ``save'' billions more. In economics, a ``cost'' typically occurs when capital is eliminated from the economy. For instance, unnecessary inefficiency in a manufacturing process could be seen as a ``cost to Americans.'' However, financial services, including those offered by payday loans operators, do just the opposite. They generate capital for the economy and for each individual loan-taker. Claiming that payday lending bans ``save'' money is equally dubious. Not only does the industry itself generate capital for a state's economy and tax revenue for the government, but payday loans, like any other loan, allow individuals to generate more capital for themselves on the aggregate. By banning payday lending, states don't ``save.'' Instead, they experience a cost through lost tax revenue and lost capital opportunities. Statistical research released from the Federal Reserve suggests CRL's lobbying efforts against payday lending have been misguided at best. In December 2007, the Associated Press reported that, ``A ban on payday loans may be leading to greater financial burdens for low-income residents of two Southern states, according to a researcher at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.'' Indeed, the Federal Reserve report specifically cited CRL's ``research'' against payday lending and its estimate that a ban would ``save'' Georgians $154 million. It concluded that CRL's research was both flawed and costly to low- income consumers: ``Georgians and North Carolinians do not seem better off since their states outlawed payday credit: they have bounced more checks, complained more about lenders and debt collectors, and have filed for Chapter 7 (`no asset') bankruptcy at a higher rate.'' ``The increase in bounced checks represents a potentially huge transfer from depositors to banks and credit unions. Banning payday loans did not save Georgian households $154 million per year, as the CRL projected, it cost them millions per year in returned check fees.'' The Race Card and CRL In its report ``Race Matters,'' CRL strongly implies that payday lending stores target minority neighborhoods in North Carolina. The authors report that minority neighborhoods have three times as many payday lending stores as non-minority neighborhoods. But CRL fails to adequately account for other important factors that predict the existence of payday lending stores, such as a neighborhood's mean income. While the authors recognize this significant shortcoming, they still report the uncontrolled result. The researchers also conducted a multivariate analysis to control for income, home ownership, and other factors. Their analysis found that ``the highest 20 percent of African- American neighborhoods had 4.1 times as many storefronts per capita compared to the lowest 20 percent.'' That said, an examination of their methodology reveals an odd, and likely highly significant statistical decision. Rather than look at all census tracts and include racial and ethnic breakdown in their regression, CRL's researchers created ``dummy variables'' for neighborhoods based on the percentage of minorities that lived in them. They then compared the neighborhoods with the highest concentration of minorities to those with the lowest. This methodology is problematic because a neighborhood's racial or ethnic breakdown is not a black and white issue. By artificially pitting the few neighborhoods with the highest minority concentrations against those with the lowest, they were able to generate a dubious rhetorical point. Indeed, these major flaws led Wesleyan University economics professor Thomas Lehman to say CRL's report ``contains severe weakness and presents conclusions that are overstated at best, and misleading at worst.'' He added, ``It must also be recognized that the overall tone of the study suggests a lack of objectivity perhaps motivated by an ideological bias against the payday lending industry, which may explain why (the authors) appear to overstate their case given the weakness of their research.'' Failure to Lose Ground In ``Losing Ground,'' CRL's report on subprime mortgage foreclosures, the organization again produced a report warning of catastrophic consequences based on an arbitrary definition. In the report, CRL researchers claim that 25 percent of subprime mortgages ``fail'' within five years. This is a critical distinction because the entirety of the report is based on the number of failed mortgages--not the number of foreclosed mortgages. While subprime mortgages have faced significant problems, they have fallen predictably short of CRL's dire predictions. That is understandable given how CRL defines a ``failed'' loan. In fact, their own report admits that only 11 percent of subprime mortgages will be foreclosed within five years. The remaining 14 percent are loans prepaid during distress, such as refinancing or selling a property. But the latter category suggests a wide variety of equally beneficial or negative outcomes. For instance, under CRL's definition, a loan refinanced for a lower interest rate would qualify as a failure. But this in no way indicates a ``failed'' attempt at home ownership. By lumping loan refinancing and home sales during distressed periods into its ``failed'' mortgages category, CRL more than doubles the supposed costs of the subprime mortgage industry. Defining Predatory Charity The Center for Responsible Lending primarily attracts media attention through its attacks on financial institutions that serve low-income and high-risk consumers. CRL frequently complains about interest rates and loan terms offered by traditional and community financial service providers. The group lobbies for laws that ban certain loan types and allow borrowers to change the terms of active loans. The surprising reality, though, is that CRL's family of financial institutions appear more interested in helping themselves than assisting the poor. Buying Low, Selling High As ostensible charities, Self-Help organizations receive support in the form of grants from non-profit foundations and subsidized government loans at preferential interest rates. Self-Help pays typically between zero and four percent interest on the loans it obtains, many of which come from government-supported entities. The Ventures Fund took in more than $2.5 million in loans from the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, with rates ranging from 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent. It also accepted more than $3.9 million from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Intermediary Relending Program, which carries a one percent interest rate. On top of that, the Center for Community Self- Help has carried a zero percent loan from the state of North Carolina for years. But Self-Help charges interest far above the charitable rates at which it borrows. In 1998, the last year it reported interest rates on its publicly disclosed federal tax form, the Self Help Venture Fund reported that their average interest rate was more than 10 percent. For reference, that is approximately three percentage points higher than the average home mortgage rate in 1998, according to HSH Associates Financial Publishers. That adds up to a nearly 40 percent premium over the average rate. The Ventures Fund made other loans at interest rates as high as 13 percent. Since 1997, the Venture Fund has made more than $190 million dollars in profit. It has made as much as $36 million--and no less than $13 million--annually since then. During the same period, the fund turned over $468 million in revenue. If the Venture Fund were officially a for-profit entity, its profit margin would be a staggering 40 percent-- far higher than the margins of the lenders Self-Help and CRL attack. Hauling Customers into Court (and Kicking Them Out on the Street) Lien proceedings and foreclosures are not just the target of CRL's rhetoric--they are the standard operating procedure for CRL's ``Self-Help'' organizations. Despite their denunciations of other lenders, the Self-Help network takes action against its low-income consumers through lawsuits and foreclosure proceedings. Like the lenders it attacks, Self-Help seeks judicial recourse when borrowers do not repay them. But in 2000, Self- Help founder Martin Eakes told PBS that they were better able to gauge how low-income individuals would repay loans: ``[W]e went for ten years, we have had our first loss of a home loan of $10,000 in a total of $120 million of lending directly and indirectly we have made, to mostly minority, single moms. We had our first $10,000 this past year. So, whatever people believe, the truth is, if someone has a chance to get a toehold and own a home, they will be far better borrowers than most of the rest of us.'' That may not be the whole story. The data from the National Credit Union Association, which oversees Self-Help Credit Union, paints a startling picture. As of September 2007, Self-Help's ratio of delinquent loans to loans issued was 598 percent higher than its peer credit unions. Ignoring CRL's critique that payday lenders and subprime mortgage lenders are too aggressive with amounts they offer customers, Self- Help Credit Union's customers carry an average loan balance of $40,733--more than 200 percent higher than at comparable institutions. When loans terms are not met, Self-Help gets aggressive. Records show that Self-Help organizations have taken foreclosure or eviction steps against its low-income customers for as little as $62,332 in 2005 and $50,768 against another in 2002. And despite CRL's public advocacy on behalf of small borrowers, Self-Help's record includes lawsuits against countless small-dollar borrowers, including suits for as little as $96. The Self-Help organizations based in North Carolina have taken legal action against local Southern favorites, including: a fried chicken store in 2001; a BBQ joint in 1997; a NASCAR collectibles company in 2002. Perhaps more troubling, Self-Help has hauled local charitable organizations into court, including: the Appleton Academy in 2000; the Creative Learning Center in 2003; the Calvary Christian Church in 1993; Joyful Noise Daycare in 1998; an eviction of Oz Land Child Care Center in 2003; the Non Profit Consulting & Training Center in 2004 for only $956. Strange (and Criminal) Bedfellows In September 2007, the Center for Responsible Lending arranged news events that sought to damage payday loan companies by providing former industry employees who alleged negative business practices by their former employers. The gambit paid off: several news stories ran with headlines potentially damaging to the industry. Yet the credibility of CRL's witness Michael Donovan, a former employee of leading payday loan company Check `N Go remains clouded in doubt. A lawsuit filed by Check `N Go's parent company alleges Donovan and CRL conspired to defraud the firm and that Donovan lied about his criminal record. The suit alleges: Donovan provided a fake Social Security number to gain employment at Check `N Go; when asked about the problematic Social Security number, Donovan provided a forged Social Security Administration document to gain employment; Donovan illegally provided confidential company information to CRL; Donovan allowed CRL to eavesdrop on a trade association conference call. According to the suit, Donovan's criminal record includes an April 2000 guilty plea in Arlington, Virginia to four counts of forgery, three counts of larceny, and one count of attempted larceny. Donovan was sentenced to four years in jail but served only eight months, according to the suit. Perhaps most shocking was that at the time he applied for the job at Check 'N Go, Donovan was again reportedly facing felony charges of grand larceny. Did CRL Sell Out to Private Equity? Monetary acrobatics by high-flying, high-finance figures can be complex and confusing. Yet CRL mortgaged its name for a $15 million infusion from a billionaire hedge fund manager who profited from the declining value of mortgage-backed securities, caused by borrowers who have difficulty paying their mortgages. CRL has dubbed much of subprime lending--loans to high-risk candidates with low credit ratings--as ``predatory'' despite little evidence to support such claims. Yet the group is lobbying to change existing laws to allow high-risk borrowers to adjust the terms of their mortgages. This would benefit those making a financial gamble on future trouble in subprime mortgages. On October 12, 2007 Business Week published an unusual report on the apparent philanthropy of a billionaire hedge fund investor who gave a multi-million-dollar grant to CRL. But there was more to the story: ``A $20 billion hedge fund may have hit on a unique investment strategy for playing the subprime mortgage bust: fund a consumer-protection group. Paulson & Co., which has seen its assets under management soar this year through fortuitous bets in the subprime market, has given $15 million to the Center for Responsible Lending, a Washington nonprofit that has been lobbying on Capitol Hill for passage of bankruptcy legislation.'' ``Paulson, run by former Bear Stearns (BSC) investment banker John Paulson, stands to rake in a windfall if the measure passes. The key bill, introduced last month, would allow federal judges to restructure mortgage terms and lower payments on the primary homes of borrowers in bankruptcy, a significant legal change. The process, known as a ``cram- down'' in industry jargon, is opposed by investment banks that trade in mortgage-backed securities.'' According to CRL and Paulson, the donation was not to be used for lobbying, but the Washington, D.C.-based Politico noted that CRL is ``a key supporter of pending legislation that would allow homeowners to reduce mortgage payments on their homes by declaring Chapter 13 bankruptcy.'' Enactment of CRL-supported bankruptcy legislation would further erode the value of mortgage-backed securities, which would increase the value of Paulson's holdings. The subprime gamble is a big business opportunity for Paulson, whose firm, according to Bloomberg financial news: ``. . . made big bets predicting the edifice would soon come crashing down. The wager paid off in the first nine months of 2007, when Paulson's Credit Opportunities funds rose an average of 340 percent.'' ``That gain earned Paulson an estimated $1.14 billion in performance fees for the nine months ended on Sept. 28.'' A spokesman for traditional financial institutions added, ``When they start pushing for legislation to make more money, they're lining their own pockets with people's homes, that's a little sticky.'' There is little evidence to suggest that Paulson's donation represents merely a one-time payment to CRL. It seems likely that the original $15 million donation was part of a multi- year campaign to profit off of American consumers' mortgage woes. The press release announcing the first donation disclosed that Paulson ``said he hopes that his firm's donation is just the beginning . . .'' Indeed, as of July 2007, Paulson specifically stated that his investment horizon was two to three years, saying of his subprime bet: ``The performance of these pools will not be decided over one month or two months. They will be decided over the next three years. Our investment (commitment is not based on) looking at what these bonds trade at today or tomorrow, but what the losses in these pools will be two or three years from now.'' Conclusion America's working poor and low-income individuals often benefit from well-intentioned advocates. But when those who claim to speak on behalf of the vulnerable use their position to benefit themselves, it is an act of betrayal. The public record demonstrates clearly that the Center for Responsible Lending and its Self-Help network fit this profile. CRL's research is agenda-driven. Its advocacy has cost consumers more than it has ``saved'' them, according to Federal Reserve research. It relies on race-based claims to generate media interest. And it takes money from self- interested Wall Street billionaires who profit from the mortgage crisis so astutely hyped by CRL. Self-Help takes in money at low rates and charges generous mark-ups to its low-income consumers. Federal records show Self-Help's credit union allows its borrowers a much higher average loan rate compared to similar organizations, a critique at odds with CRL's attacks on lenders who extend too much money to those who may have trouble repaying their loan. Finally, Self-Help loses its charitable image when it takes legal action against its low-income customers. There is a name for such groups: predatory charity.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, there couldn't be a more critical discussion to have this morning before we cast this critical vote. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I must say, I respectfully disagree with in terms of the devastating consequences his proposal would have. The Attorney General of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence have looked at this proposal, and here is what they have said about the majority's proposal: ``Requiring prior court approval to gather foreign intelligence from foreign targets located overseas: the reason Congress did not include such a requirement when it passed the original FISA statute and with good reason, these foreign targets have no right to any court review of such surveillance under our Constitution. We know from experience requiring prior court approval is a formula for delay. Thus, this framework would impede vital foreign intelligence collection and put the Nation at unnecessary and greater risk.'' Ladies and gentlemen, assume that you are the head of a corporation or a business in America after America is attacked, thousands of lives and several cities attacked; assuming that there is imminent threats to dozens of other cities and millions of others; assuming the Attorney General or the President contacts you and say that you have access to information that will save millions of Americans. What would you do? I hope you would cooperate. That is what many companies did, and now they are subject, in San Francisco, to over 50 lawsuits for tens of billions of dollars. The question is whether we ought to protect patriotic companies that for several hundred years have had a privilege to cooperate with government. It's true that technically they may have immunity. But here is what you haven't acknowledged: the immunity is useless to them because they cannot assert it. It would be a violation of Federal law. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record a letter from the general counsel of AT&T, the victim of one of these trial lawyer suits to the tune of tens of billions of dollars as he talks about the state secrets doctrine that prevents them from protecting themselves in a court of law, as he talks about the dilemma that they face in the future going forward if they want to help Americans defend themselves.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, the Central Florida Ballet's ``Children Series,'' has created a performance in tribute to all who suffered in the 9/11 tragedy. This moving performance of ``9/11--An American Moment'' not only pays tribute to the men and women who tragically lost their lives that fateful September day, but also stirs our patriotism. Performed by children, the performance captures the poignancy of tested and proven American courage, resolve and pride in response to the World Trade Center attack. Central Florida Ballet is the only company in the Nation to have choreographed a ballet based on this fateful day in American history. They chose to approach this complex subject motivated by two strong reasons: first to educate; and second to pay tribute to the thousands of victims. The performance is emotionally stirring. Some scenes contain live recordings of the events that unfolded that fateful morning. The end, however, is both patriotic and uplifting. Our national anthem is played and the audience rises and sings in unison with the performers. I could not be prouder of our Orange County students and professionals for their dedication and respect in putting together this production. Together we honor part of our heritage as an American people.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I regret that on January 29, 2008, due to the Florida primary I was unable to be in Washington for votes.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I regret that on January 28, 2008, due to travel complications, I was unable to vote on H.R. 4140 and S. 2110. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm honored to speak today in support of H. Res. 942, recognizing the significance of Black History Month, sponsored by my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Al Green). Just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the life and accomplishments of one great man, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and today we pay tribute to the contributions all African Americans have made to this great country. Each February we express our appreciation of the struggles, determination, and perseverance of the African American community of the past and present. Nothing serves as a better example of this than the civil rights movement itself. Rev. King would tell you that it was not the sole efforts of one man but the collective work of many that achieved so much. Without the civil rights movement, our Nation would not have the strong diversity of which it is so proud. Beyond this, February is also a time to recognize the contributions of African Americans that have enriched our culture and our heritage. We must continue to learn the historical struggles of African American citizens in order to better understand the experiences that have shaped this Nation. There have been great activists, politicians, artists, writers, poets, scientists, economists, athletes, entertainers, and musicians that have all bettered our way of life. The achievements of so many have encouraged today's youth to strive for a more equal and free country. It is impossible to celebrate Black History Month without mentioning such noted leaders as Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and, once again, Dr. King himself. Their historic efforts inspired a Nation and brought past injustices to light, bringing forth beginning to an end of racial inequality. When Harvard scholar Dr. Carter G. Woodson had the idea to create a week-long celebration of black history back in 1926, his goal was to ``make the world see the Negro as a participant, rather than as a lay figure in history.'' Over time, it has become the month-long commemoration that it is today, and it is with great pleasure that I speak today in support of H. Res. 942. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to celebrate Black History Month, and one is that it would take more than a month for even the best student of history to appreciate all of the great things that African Americans have contributed to America. I would note that later this afternoon the House will be considering House Resolution 943, which is the 22nd anniversary of the Challenger disaster. And among the American heroes that perished that day was astronaut Ronald McNair, who, in fact, was an African American.

Mr. FEENEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for this resolution designating February 17, 2008, as ``Race Day in America.'' Next Sunday over 200,000 people from all 50 States and around the world will convene at Daytona International Speedway in Daytona Beach, Florida, for the 50th running of ``The Great American Race,'' the Daytona 500. The most prestigious stock car race in the United States, the Daytona 500 is a 200-lap, 500-mile grand opening to the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. Boasting the largest purse and stock car racing's most coveted trophy, the Harley J. Earl Trophy, the Daytona 500 has become the ``Super Bowl of Stock Car Racing.'' Each year millions of fans, both at home as well as those serving overseas, tune in to the race by television and radio. Since 1995, the television ratings for the Daytona 500 have been higher than any auto race, and in 2006 the race drew the sixth largest television audience of any sporting event that year. For 50 years, the popularity of Daytona, and car racing in general, has grown throughout American society. I believe it is fitting that we celebrate this rising American tradition by passing this resolution in honor of the golden anniversary of its most prestigious event. I invite anybody who's free this Sunday to come to Daytona Beach and enjoy this great tradition with us. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Melancon for shepherding this memorial to the floor today. With this resolution, the House of Representatives joins with all Americans to solemnly remember the loss of the space shuttle Challenger 22 years ago on January 28, 1986. Many Americans remember where they were on that cold January morning when the shuttle Challenger leapt from its launch pad. After receiving the call ``Challenger go at throttle up,'' Challenger disintegrated in clear blue skies just 73 seconds into its flight. We were stunned. One moment Challenger was flawlessly flying on a beautiful winter morning. Then, without warning, it was gone. America turned to mourn its seven astronauts who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the advancement of exploration and discovery: Michael Smith; Dick Scobee; Judith Resnik; Ronald McNair; Ellison Onizuka; Gregory Jarvis; and Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher from Concord, New Hampshire, selected to be the first member of the teaching profession in a space project. That evening, President Reagan spoke from the Oval Office to comfort a grieving Nation. Millions of children had watched the launch because Christa McAuliffe was to later teach science lessons from space. Instead, we were reminded of a deeper lesson. Reagan said: ``I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.'' Reagan concluded his address by saying this: ``The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to ``touch the face of God.' '' Twenty-two years have passed. America has kept its word. We haven't forgotten the Challenger crew. Human space flight is mankind's most difficult endeavor. America has achieved so many successes, space flight seems routine; yet every generation unexpectedly bears witness to space flight's inherent dangers. Before the Challenger disaster, the Apollo I crew was lost on Pad 34 on January 27, 1967, in an accident known simply as ``The Fire.'' After Challenger, we waited on February 1, 2003, at the Kennedy Space Center's landing strip for the voyagers of Columbia who never returned home. January and February are NASA's cruelest months. On each occasion the people of NASA grieved terribly, but they learned from adversity, and then they rededicated themselves to their mission. America landed on the Moon after The Fire. After Challenger, the shuttle flew again to pursue scientific discovery and begin constructing the international space station. After Columbia, we returned to flight, and we will complete and use the international space station. Then we will turn our dreams to exploring beyond Earth's orbit by establishing outposts on the Moon and then going further beyond. Exploration, journey, and bravery define the American people. Each of us comes from a heritage where someone with great courage took a passage to a new beginning, many times with disastrous endings. But the living stubbornly persevered, pushed back vast frontiers, and built a great and glorious Nation. Adversity, including the loss of the Challenger crew, can never extinguish this American spirit. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this resolution honoring the brave and dedicated crew of Challenger. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 943. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.