Al Green

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 403.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 403) to provide housing assistance for very low- income veterans.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 529 and to express my outrage at the violent attack on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 10, 2009, along with my deepest sympathies to all of those who knew Stephen T. Johns, the brave and honorable security guard who tragically died in the attack. Stephen T. Johns, 39, died tragically in the line of duty as he defended the Holocaust Memorial Museum from an attack by acknowledged white supremacist, racist and anti-Semite James von Brunn. He leaves behind his sister, his wife and his 11-year-old son. It is tragic that, as this incident demonstrates all too vividly, racism and anti-Semitism are still alive in America. It is tragic whenever there is a revolting act of violence that takes the life of an innocent person. It is especially tragic that, in this situation, the forces of hate and violence were unleashed at this august institution that is dedicated to memorializing and preventing a recurrence of the Holocaust that appallingly took the lives of millions of innocent civilians. Mr. Johns and all the rest of the security guards in the Holocaust Memorial Museum deserve our fullest commendation, as they acted heroically to prevent the museum's despicable attacker from enacting even more harm. I condemn the shooting completely, fully and without reservation. This type of attack is totally unacceptable, as are the racist and anti-Semitic motivations underlying it. I thank my friend, Rep. Klein, for introducing this important resolution.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm supporting this legislation because it addresses both war and peace. And if I may, I'd like to focus on the peace initiative because, truth be told, the great issue of our time is not whether a superpower can police the world. A superpower can police the world. The great issue of our time is whether a superpower can bring peace to the world. This piece of legislation helps us not only with war but also with peace because it helps us with economic development. It helps us to give people the opportunity to take care of themselves and sustain themselves, but it also helps us with education. The wealth of a nation is the education of its people. It helps us to bring the peace and stability that will be needed when the war is over. War can help us to provide a certain degree of security, but it won't provide the salvation that we need to have the peace. I support this bill because it helps us when the war is over to have the peace and stability that Pakistan will need. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a great piece of legislation.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I support H. Res 502, recognizing June as National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Since the founding of this great nation, homeownership has been fundamentally tied to the American Dream. However, the right to own land or a home has not always been an inclusive one--for many generations homeownership was denied to communities of color and women. While we have taken great strides to rectify past injustices, much remains to be done, which reflects the importance of this resolution. Owning a home represents much more than a roof and walls to protect one's family from the elements, or a space to raise a family. A home is the single most valuable asset one can own, and the wealth it can generate over time is crucially important for rising out of poverty. This reason alone, reflects the irrevocable damage that the foreclosure crisis is inflicting on our communities. The bursting of the housing bubble and the economic crisis have resulted in the loss of countless American homes; countless dreams have been disrupted, and countless Americans are now struggling to deal with the ramifications of the actions of greedy, dishonest businesspeople more focused on personal gain than on truly honoring the dream of homeownership. We now find ourselves at a critical point in American history. The housing and financial markets are undergoing fundamental changes; and while the Administration and this legislative body continue to work to implement programs to sustain homeownership, we must not forget those of us who are still working to realize the dream of owning their own home. I firmly believe that homeownership should be a dream realized by every responsible American, and believe that we should continue to work to provide opportunities to make those realizations possible.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in support of H. Res. 498, a resolution honoring and celebrating the United States Border Patrol on its 85th Anniversary. The United States Border Patrol is a federal law enforcement agency within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Border Patrol was founded on May 28, 1924 as an agency of the United States Department of Labor to prevent illegal entries along the Mexico-United States border. The Border Patrol's mission remains as the deterrence, detection and apprehension of illegal immigrants and individuals involved in the illegal drug trade who generally do not enter the United States through designated ports of entry. Ever since its founding, the U.S. Border Patrol has been there defending our borders and homeland. They were there to prevent Ahmed Ressam, also known as the ``Millennium Bomber,'' from entering this country and killing our citizens with explosives he intended to detonate at the Los Angeles International Airport during the holiday season prior to the 2000 millennium. They were there to apprehend Richard Goldberg, a suspected child molester, after he was arrested in Ottawa, Canada. Goldberg was on the FBI's ``Top 10 Fugitive List'' and was featured on ``America's Most Wanted.'' Further, just this month, they were there to seize close to $1.5 million in cocaine and marijuana along the Southern border. The Border Patrol is this nation's first line of defense against many threats. They patrol over 8,000 miles of international borders with Mexico and Canada as well as the coastal waters around Florida and Puerto Rico. The brave men and women of the Border Patrol work tirelessly to secure and facilitate trade and travel while enforcing hundreds of U.S. regulations, including immigration and drug laws. They keep our country safe from threats such as terrorists, illicit drugs, weapons, and criminals. Today over 18,800 Border Patrol Agents risk their lives in defense of our country. These brave men and women join thousands of others who have served our country in the Border Patrol over the last 85 years. America can rest assured that its borders and homeland will be protected by the courageous men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol. I commend the U.S. Patrol on its proud and distinguished history of protecting the United States and strongly urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill because this bill is inclusive in approach and comprehensive in scope. It's not perfect, Mr. Chairman, yet it does help perfect Homeland Security. It provides for surface transportation, security enhancement by tripling the funds available. It provides security training and performance enhancement for significant employees. It provides that airport security and screening enhancement policies be put in place. It provides, Mr. Chairman, that foreign repair stations' security be elevated to U.S. standards. It provides transportation security credential improvements to guard against intruders. It provides for domestic air cargo and checked baggage security to better protect the traveling public. It provides for a general aviation enhancement grant program to help general aviation airports. It provides K-9 detection resources to sniff out drugs. It provides research and development to integrate transportation and security technologies. It's not perfect, yet it does help to perfect Homeland Security. It is inclusive in approach in that we had the inclusion of all parties interested--the partners, all of the stakeholders were brought into this, Republicans and Democrats alike, labor and industry as well. It is comprehensive in scope. I support this bill. I thank the chairman for the wonderful work he has done, the ranking member, and also the subcommittee chair, Sheila Jackson-Lee, the Congresswoman from Texas, my colleague, as well as Mr. Dent, the ranking member.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. At this time, Madam Chair, I'm grateful to Mr. Lynch. I'm also grateful to Mrs. Maloney for her outstanding work on this. It has been a tireless effort over many years, and I'm honored that they are accepting this amendment. And I am going to ask all of my colleagues to please vote for it if a recorded vote is called for. I shall not be calling for one. I yield back.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Chair, this bill allows OPM, that is the Office of Personnel Management, to increase the amount of paid parental leave up to 8 weeks. It allows this after considering a variety of factors: benefits to the Federal Government, cost to the Federal Government, trends in the private sector, the government's role as a model employer, and such other factors as the director considers necessary. This amendment, Madam Chair, will require the Office of Personnel Management to consider the needs of some of our lower-level employees. This amendment would not require any additional funding. It merely requires the office to consider the impact that increasing the number of weeks will have on some of our lower-level employees. Now, I would like to introduce a term that I'm not exceedingly pleased with. It is called a ``poverty spell.'' A poverty spell is defined as entering poverty for at least 2 months. Twenty-five percent of all poverty spells begin with the birth of a child, 25 percent. I would also note that 78 percent of the persons who are eligible for FMA, this leave that we have been discussing today, do not take it because they cannot afford to lose a paycheck. No one should go into poverty because of the birth of a child if we can prevent it. This bill will help many of our lower-level employees avoid a poverty spell. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Chair, I will yield to the manager such time as he may consume.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. I want to thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership. I am reminded, friends, that there is a difference between leadership and management. A manager wants to do things right, and a leader wants to do the right thing. Chairman Thompson has not only wanted to get this right procedurally; he has wanted to make sure that we do the right thing. He has proceeded on the premise that there is safety in the counsel of the multitudes. Everybody who wanted to be heard was heard on this bill. Labor was heard. Industry was heard. Republicans were heard. Democrats were heard. Everybody who wanted to be heard was heard. I know of no one who wanted to be heard at the subcommittee level more than the Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, who was not heard. There was nobody on the committee who had an issue that was not embraced and heard. I was there. What I'm about to say is not something that I know from secondhand, or secondarily. I don't know it tertiarily and I don't know it quarternarily. I know this from being there in person. This issue about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was aired adequately, sufficiently, totally, completely, and absolutely. The man who spoke, who is my friend and who is a man I respect greatly, had his issue heard, and he did not vote against it. He did not vote against it. He was the only abstention. My brothers and sisters on the Republican side supported this as well. I say ``brothers and sisters'' because I believe there is just one race--the human race--and we're all related. We're probably cousins if we're not brothers and sisters. But my point is this: This was totally, completely and absolutely thoroughly aired. Everybody had a say. I am going to support the rule because I support the notion that there is safety in the counsel of the multitudes and that the multitudes were heard.

Mr. GREEN of Texas

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I wish to honor our fallen veterans this Memorial Day on May 25, 2009. Our veterans, as well as our troops, risked their lives and their livelihoods for their country and for our freedom. They deserve our utmost respect and appreciation. Memorial Day was initially called Decoration Day. After the Civil War, Americans honored fallen soldiers in the Union and Confederacy by decorating the soldiers' graves. After World War I, Memorial Day became a day to honor all American soldiers who died in war. In 1971, Congress declared Memorial Day as a national holiday celebrated on the last Monday in May. Today, the national celebration of Memorial Day is held at Arlington National Cemetery. It is a ceremony of sincere solemnity, as well as one of great pride because it pays tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice while defending the American flag. While we pay tribute to our fallen heroes, it is important that we also recognize those veterans who fought valiantly and returned home to their loved ones. Our nation's heroes who fought so bravely to defend the American Dream also deserve the opportunity to achieve it. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), on any given night in this country, between 150,000 and 200,000 adult veterans live on the streets, in shelters or in community-based organizations. Unfortunately, approximately 150,000 homeless heroes do not have access to the vital permanent housing and supportive services they need each year. Last year, I introduced H.R. 3329: The Homes for Heroes Act to address this problem. My bill will provide shelter for homeless veterans and their families and help prevent low-income veteran families from falling into homelessness. On July 9, 2008, the Homes for Heroes Act passed the House by a vote of 412-9, but did not make it through both chambers. Fortunately, the author of the Senate companion bill, former Senator Barack Obama, is now the President of the United States. Therefore, I look forward to working with this Congress and our current President to pass this very important legislation in the 111th Congress. The Homes for Heroes Act will truly honor those who have sacrificed for our country by providing them with the assistance they deserve and have so deeply earned. I ask all of my colleagues and fellow Americans to pause and observe the great sacrifice that our fallen heroes and veterans made for our beloved country. Our military men and women were there to answer their nation's call to duty and now our government must prove that we will be there for them. In words, deeds and actions, our nation's heroes have earned it. This is the least a grateful nation can do.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. I supported H.R. 1106 when it left the House, and while lacking the provision to allow for judicial ``cramdown,'' I am pleased with many of the improvements that S. 896 brings. This bill reflects an affirmation of this legislative body's dedication to ensure that the American dream of homeownership is not lost for millions of American families. The foreclosure crisis has devastated our economy and this bill is another step towards stabilizing our housing market and restoring confidence in the American people. S. 896 improves the HOPE for Homeowners program, making it a more viable option for helping families sustain homeownership; it provides a safe harbor for those who would engage in legitimate loan modifications or utilize the HOPE for Homeowners Program. The bill strengthens the FDIC and credit unions to ensure the availability of credit for consumers, which is crucial in this time of economic downturn. S. 896 reauthorizes the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Grants for the first time in 20 years, and authorizes $2.2 billion for the programs for FY 2010 and 2011. It also provides funding to HUD to increase public awareness regarding foreclosure scams. Finally, the tenant protections included in the bill ensure that bona fide tenants are not unfairly removed from their residences when foreclosures occur that they could not control. Overcoming the foreclosure crisis and the damage that it has wrought will take time and dedication. However, by passing the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, we are taking a critical step forward in protecting the American homeowner.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the House Resolution celebrating May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. As we continue to struggle through one of the deepest economic crises in recent history, we must not forget to recognize and appreciate the contributions of the Asian Pacific Islander American (APIA) communities of our great country. If one looks at the long history of the Asian American experience, they will undoubtedly see a collective story of perseverance and triumph. They will also see that this story is ongoing, and is defined by the tremendous contributions that Asian and Pacific Islander Americans continue to make. They will see the earliest Asian immigrants, who in spite of being completely excluded from American citizenship and its basic protections, shouldered the labor to build a railroad system and support a growing agricultural sector that changed the face of America. They will see the countless Japanese Americans, who despite being interned, stripped of their hard-earned wealth and forced to rebuild their lives, served their country faithfully and without question. They will see the numerous Asian Pacific Islander Americans, who despite all that has been endured, now serve as exemplary public servants leading our county. From city councilors, to the President of the United States, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, the APIA community deserves recognition and has much to be proud about. Finally, they will see that despite all that has been accomplished, despite everything that there is to be proud of, we cannot lose sight of the fact that much remains to be done. We must continue to help the many Asian Pacific Islander Americans who endure racism, struggle against poverty and are fighting for equal access to the fundamental institutions of our country. America has always been a reflection of its people. As we recognize May as Asian American Heritage Month, let us recognize that America would not be the grand nation it is today without our friends in the Asian Pacific Islander American communities.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the chairman for yielding. This is a great piece of legislation that you have allowed me to cosponsor with you. This is going to help the schools in my district. Many of them have suffered enormous damage. This Member has done us a service. I salute him for what he has done. I also thank the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, for agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I spoke on the floor earlier today in support of H.R. 2187: The 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act and the amendment that I cosponsored with Mr. Bright (AL), Ms. Kosmas (FL) and Mr. Cuellar (TX). Because my time on the floor was limited, I was unable to explain my reasons for supporting this legislation in detail. Since this legislation will have a profound and positive impact on school districts and school children in my district, I would like to take this opportunity to cover the details regarding its merits. Our schools should be safe and healthy learning environments for our children. H.R. 2187 gives us a chance to upgrade our school buildings and boost student achievement while creating good local jobs in new, clean energy industries. In particular, this bill provides $6.4 billion in Federal funds for school modernization projects that will make schools safer, more energy-efficient, and up-to-date technologically. According to estimates from the House Education and Labor Committee, Texas schools will receive approximately $605 million and school districts in my congressional district, TX-09, would receive approximately $66 million in total. Houston Independent School District (HISD) is estimated to receive $54,109,000; Alief ISD will receive $8,482,000; Fort Bend ISD will receive $3,262,000; and Stafford MSD will receive $155,000. Title II of this bill also authorizes separate funds--$600 million over 6 years--for schools that were damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Schools in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama trying to recover from the devastation caused by these two hurricanes would be eligible to apply for funding under this section. In addition, since this funding does not extend to schools impacted by Hurricane Ike in 2008, I am cosponsoring an amendment along with Representatives Bobby Bright, Suzanne Kosmas and Henry Cuellar that will set aside 5 percent of the $6.4 billion (or about $320 million) for schools impacted by, natural disasters other than Katrina and Rita and for schools experiencing significant economic distress. This amendment will allow schools in my district that were devastated or destroyed by Hurricane Ike in 2008 to be eligible to receive funding for new construction, modernization and repairs. For example, Houston Independent School District (HISD) had damages that cost $30-$60 million. In fact, while 14 of HISD's schools are designated as ``shelters of last resort'' by the City of Houston, none of HISD's facilities are designed to sustain winds in a storm above Category 2. To ensure safety in future natural disasters, facility upgrades are needed to shore up roofs and replace windows that can withstand Category 3+ winds. Generators are needed, as well, in the event of power outages. Federal funding is especially needed in light of the fact that 80 percent of students in HISD schools are economically disadvantaged. Additional reports indicate that over 40 buildings within the Alief Independent School District (Alief ISD) experienced some level of damage from Hurricane Ike and eight facilities endured significant damage totaling $5.8 million in costs. All told, schools in my district and in districts across the Nation that have experienced natural disasters and significant economic distress will benefit from our amendment to this legislation. More importantly, it is the children and teachers in these adversely affected communities that will benefit the most once funding from this amendment is used to fix their schools. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. It is important to point out, also, that this credit default swap market was not regulated; that AIG had about $440 billion plus of credit default swaps. It is also important to point out that the AIGs of the world, in an effort to cover themselves, would go to bond rating agencies and they were paying those agencies to rate these bonds. And, in so doing, they were getting products that were not totally reliable because of the way the payment system was working.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. You are exactly correct. Poor people did not create this crisis, and people living in areas covered by the CRA did not create this crisis. Let us take a look at the yield spread premium. The yield spread premium says that if you are a seeker of a loan for a home mortgage and your originator can qualify you for a 5 percent loan, by way of example, if that originator can get you to take a loan for 8 percent when you qualified for 5 percent, that originator will get a lawful kickback by causing you to go into a higher mortgage than you qualified for, and never have to tell you that you qualified for the 5 percent premium. That premium that is paid to the originator is a part of this process which we now call the yield spread premium. This was invidious, and it did cause a lot of persons to take out loans that were much higher than the loans that they qualified for. But to further evidence the fact that poor people didn't create this problem, negative amortization, many people received loans that were negative in the sense that you could pay your principal, pay your interest, but if you didn't pay enough interest, you would find that that which you didn't pay would be tacked on to your principal. So you had a loan where your principal was growing, and it was growing such that you could literally never pay for the loan and always owe more than you actually decided that you wanted to have as a mortgage amount. We also had the situation with the no-document loans. Poor people didn't get a lot of no-document loans, loans wherein you didn't have to prove that you were working. Usually these were persons said to be associated with some sort of business and they had difficulty verifying income, but no-document loans were made and they were usually in the subprime market, they were either the Alt-A loans or subprime because they were said to be riskier. But these loans were not originated because of the CRA. They loans were not mandated because of the CRA. I would also call to your attention prepayment penalties. There were loans that had prepayment penalties that coincided with these teaser rates. None of this was mandated by the CRA. The CRA did not require teaser rates. It did not require loans to have prepayment penalties at all. When these prepayment penalties coincided with the teaser rate, it simply meant that the person who wanted to refinance the loan when you were getting to that period or that time when the loan would adjust, would have to pay a large penalty just to get out of the loan into another loan. These teaser rates and prepayment penalties became a detriment to many people who were locked into these 327s and 228s. I would call to your attention also the fact that there were loans that were interest only. The CRA did not mandate interest-only loans. These loans were loans created by mortgage companies. They were loans that were originated by entities that were not covered by the CRA for the most part. And these loans, if they were covered by the CRA, institutions that were regulated by the CRA, the CRA did not mandate an interest-only loan which means you would simply pay interest, not pay the principal and you would continually owe after some period of time what you started out with as your loan amount. The CRA did not require credit default swaps wherein one party would agree to pay a second party if a third party defaulted. This is what AIG was infamous for, these notorious credit default swaps, not mandated by the CRA. The CRA did not cause us to conclude that hedging was a good means of managing risk. The CRA didn't have any mandates with reference to hedging and hedge funds. It did not require outsourcing as a risk management means. Some of these large institutions were literally allowing credit rating agencies to manage their risk because they would ask a credit rating agency to give them an opinion about a certain instrument, and they were relying on that as their risk management tool. The CRA did not mandate any of this. One really important thing, CRA did not create the circumstance wherein the lender was no longer concerned about whether the borrower could repay his or her loan. This was not in any way mandated by the CRA. It wasn't regulated by the CRA. It had nothing to do with the CRA. When this occurred, lenders no longer had to concern themselves with the liability associated with the loan if there was a default. So originators started simply originating loans so they could put them in the secondary market, and by getting them out in that market, they would get payment for the loan itself. Somebody else was now responsible for the loans, and the loans were bundled. The CRA did not mandate nor did it require that these loans be placed in these bundles called securities and sold to investors. The CRA had nothing to do with any of these things. The CRA simply said if you are a lending institution covered by the CRA, you must lend to all persons within your area of influence. And thank God the CRA did this because there are many persons who but for the CRA wouldn't have homes. There are many communities that would not have been revitalized by dollars that were actually made available to communities to revitalize them. Nursing homes received CRA moneys by way of loan, and the elderly, homes for the elderly received CRA moneys. The CRA has been a benefit to all Americans, and I just regret there is this notion afoot by many that the CRA somehow created a crisis that it had absolutely nothing to do with. The empirical evidence is completely contrary to this notion that the CRA created the crisis.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. That is exactly right. It also promoted, as a result of this, this new industry that AIG became sort of the father of, in a sense, or at least the biggest benefactor of this credit default swap industry, such that they could capitalize on what became a form of gambling, if you want to know the truth. It really was a means by which one person was willing to bet that a default wouldn't take place on something that a third party was ultimately going to have to pay for at some point in time. It really was a lot of confusion that was created. I would like to say this and digress for just a moment, because I think it is important. Our chairperson, the Honorable Barney Frank, has been wrongfully accused in this process. And I want to stand and say before the world that this is absolutely untrue that he is in any way associated with the ills that we find ourselves having to cope with. I say this because at the time when all of this was taking place, the persons across the aisle who had the opportunity to do something about it, they had the House, they had the Senate, they had the Supreme Court, they had the executive branch of government, yet they didn't do anything about it. But now that the Honorable Barney Frank happens to have some influence because he is the chairperson of Financial Services, but all of this took place before he became chairperson and, as a result, he is trying to clean up something that took place on someone else's watch. He is dutiful and mindful of his watch, and I think we ought to let the world know that he has been a fine chairperson who has tried to clean up the problems that have been created.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you so much, Congressman Cleaver. I greatly appreciate the history that you have afforded us. It is meaningful for us to understand history, because in understanding history, we can understand the benefits that have been accorded by way of the CRA. The CRA has clearly been of great benefit to all Americans, because when you help some Americans, you really do help all Americans. Dr. King reminded us that ``life is an inescapable network of mutuality tied to a single garment of destiny.'' Whatever impacts one directly impacts all indirectly. So by directly helping some, we have indirectly helped all Americans. And I regret that there are many who contend that the current credit crisis is based upon some of the actions that the CRA might have mandated, which is totally not true. It really is not. And there does come a time, there really does come a time when every woman and every man must on truth stand. So tonight, I appreciate what you have said because I think we have to take the ax of truth and slam it into the tree of circumstance. And we just have to let the chips fall wherever they may, because there really is some truth in the notion that the truth will set you free. So let us see if we can free some souls as it relates to the CRA and its benefits to all Americans. You see, the truth is that the Community Reinvestment Act that Congressman Cleaver has given us a great recitation of its history, of the history of the act itself, the Community Reinvestment Act did not cause the current credit crisis. Now if you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe the Honorable Mark Morial. I have in my hand a copy of his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, October 16, 2008. In his testimony, he indicates that the CRA is not the cause of the current crisis. This may not be enough for some people. If you don't believe Mark Morial and you don't believe me, then maybe you will believe the Honorable Ben Bernanke, who is, of course, the head of the Fed. He has a letter that he has written to the Honorable Robert Menendez, who is a member of the United States Senate. And he indicates that the CRA is not the cause of the crisis and that there is no evidence to support this. And if this is not enough, then perhaps a summary from the analysts over at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system. They have indicated by way of a report that the CRA is not at the root of the current crisis. So the truth, you see, is this, that the CRA has been of great benefit, that it does not regulate lending, that it does not legislate and that it does not mandate. The CRA does not even apply to all financial institutions. And I can really understand how some people might conclude, based on some of the propaganda that I have heard, that the CRA regulates lending worldwide. But it really does not. It doesn't apply to all institutions within this country. For example, it doesn't apply to financial institutions like the defunct Countrywide, which at one time was one of the largest lending institutions with reference to mortgages in this country. It does not apply to financial institutions like the ruined Bear Stearns. It doesn't apply to AIG. It did not apply to Lehman's. The CRA has been an institution and, if you will, it requires lending institutions to lend money into areas that had been redlined, as you indicated, and had literally been locked out of receiving the financial bootstraps that many communities receive so as to lift themselves out of poverty by way of wealth building through home purchases, as well as some other things that transform houses into worthwhile neighborhoods to live in. Approximately 70 percent of the foreclosure filings from January 6 to September 8 took place in middle to high income, non-CRA-related neighborhoods. Now it is important to note that the CRA, while it does encourage lending, it doesn't mandate it. And the lending that did take place with reference to foreclosures, 70 percent of this lending that took place between September of 2008 and January of 2006 was in higher income neighborhoods, income neighborhoods that the CRA did not address. I will call them non-CRA neighborhoods. The CRA doesn't regulate. It simply says that banking institutions are encouraged to cover and relate to and lend to all segments of the communities that they serve. And they are to do so without goals, they are to do so without targets, they are to do so without quotas. The CRA doesn't encourage bad lending. It doesn't mandate bad lending. It doesn't condone bad lending. It doesn't generate any loans. The CRA does not regulate nor does it create any of these exotic loans that we are aware of. And many of them are at the root of this subprime crisis. So I'm honored to tell you, Mr. Cleaver, and I thank you for your history, that the CRA has been of great benefit to us. And I regret that there is a distortion of the facts that relate to the CRA and what it has meant to us. I think that we have an opportunity tonight to clear up some of the confusion and to make clear what the benefits of the CRA are and to also talk about some of the areas wherein the other institutions, other than the CRA--and I call it an institution, it is really an act of Congress--but wherein other institutions have created products that have created a lot of the subprime crisis that we suffer from today. So I will yield back to you and trust that as we go through this process tonight, we can talk about some of these products. And I'm prepared to talk about a few of them. I will go ahead and talk about just a couple if I may. I will talk about the exploding ARMs that were not created by the CRA and not regulated by the CRA. You're aware of them, the 327s and the 228s wherein persons literally had 2 years of a fixed rate and 28 years of a variable rate. They had a teaser rate that would, at the end of 2 years, an entry level rate that was usually low, at the end of 2 years would increase to sometimes 30 to 40 percent of what that teaser rate was. And there were many other products like this that the CRA had nothing at all to do with that have helped to create this crisis that we have to contend with.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Let me say, before I make my comment, Mr. Ellison, I want to give you a note of appreciation for some legislation that you have recently introduced to help us cope with some of the problems that we are contending with as a result of this crisis, some of your work in the area with tenants and helping tenants who are being evicted, rent paid but still being evicted because a person who purchased property is in default. You are to be highly commended for the efforts that you are making to help out these tenants. But I wanted to make this comment with reference to the evidence that is out there. The empirical evidence all supports the notion that the CRA is not at fault. It is unfortunate, as has been indicated, that there are many who would contend that the CRA is at fault; that the CRA ought to somehow now be eliminated because it is at fault. I think that what we should be doing, in addition to pointing this out, we should also point out that the banks that have been good stewards, that have been making good, decent loans using sound banking policies in areas where persons traditionally could not acquire loans, these banks ought to be commended. We should not allow the distractions from the other side to prevent us from giving kudos when they are deserved. So to all of the banks, those who have been making these loans and doing so with a good degree of safety and soundness, we want to compliment you. But we also have to remember as we do this that, in addition to making some of these loans, we had other things that were happening that were not in the best interest of good banking, and these are the things that the legislation that we passed today out of the House, or that we put before the House today, is going to address this predatory lending that took place. It was the predatory lending that was a part of the problem, people having to get the loans that they did not want. Because no one wants a 9 percent loan if you qualified for 7 percent or 5 percent. You want the loan that you are qualified for. Steering people into the higher loans, higher interest rates, so as to make more money for the originator. These are the kinds of things that we have to deplore. These are the kinds of things that happened chiefly with originators that were not regulated by the CRA. I will yield back to the gentleman, and thank him again for yielding to me.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Well, I thank you, my friend. I will pick up where you left off because I happen to have a copy of the letter that Chairman Bernanke sent to the Honorable Robert Menendez. This ties into what you said as well, Congressman Cleaver. In this letter he indicates, ``A recent board staff analysis of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and data sources does not find evidence that CRA caused high default levels in the subprime market.'' He also goes on to say, ``The CRA statute and regulations have always emphasized that these lending activities be consistent with safe and sound operation of the banking institutions,'' clearly indicating that the CRA is not at fault. I would like to do this just for a moment and then we will come back to more of why it's not at fault. But I'd just like to say this. Assume for just a moment for the sake of wholesome argument and helpful debate that the CRA is at fault, just for a moment. Then we have to ask ourselves: As those who, by the way, have been saying and continue to say that it's at fault, we would have to ask ourselves if they had control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate. They had control of the executive branch of the government, even had control of the Supreme Court, and they had all of this at the same time. If the CRA posed the hazard that they contend it poses, and they said that they made statements at the time that the CRA was not functioning as it should, then why didn't they do something when they had control of the House, the Senate, the executive branch of government as well as the Supreme Court? It would have been easy to generate legislation that could have gone from one House to the other. It would have been very easy to get the President, who apparently would have been in agreement, to sign it. But the truth is that the CRA was functioning well and has functioned well. In times of crisis, it is very unfortunate that the least among us will sometimes be blamed for what others have done. This is not the time to blame the CRA or the persons that the CRA might benefit for what has happened. Why? Because if we do this, we will allow ourselves to be distracted from the real causes--these exotic products. And not all exotic products are bad, but many of them are harmful and hurtful. These exotic products like these 3/27s and 2/28s that we talk about, exotic products that allowed people to get into homes, but it didn't enure to their becoming homeowners. We developed a society wherein people became homebuyers such that they could simply get into a home with no assurance that they could pay for the loan that they were purchasing. So we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted with this CRA stalking horse, if you will. We must focus on the real causes so that we can come up with real solutions. I would yield to you, Mr. Cleaver.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009. The bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent deterioration of the economy revealed fundamental weaknesses in our mortgage and financial industries. Predatory lending and discriminatory practices coupled with a lack of regulation and oversight resulted in many people being steered towards loans that they could not afford, or being given higher cost loans than they qualified for. Fraud, by definition, is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them--usually to obtain property or services unjustly. The practices that I just discussed certainly fit this definition. Mr. Speaker, during the height of the housing bubble, many were blinded by greed, and their actions played a large role in bringing about the economic hardships that we hear about on a daily basis. We must never allow such practices to happen again, and those guilty of mortgage fraud should be sought out and prosecuted. This bill would do precisely that. It would expand the definition of ``financial institution'' to include mortgage lending businesses or any person who makes federally related mortgage loans. It also extends the prohibition of providing false information for mortgage documents to employees and agents of the mortgage lending business. This bill also takes a comprehensive approach to investigating and enforcing mortgage fraud. It authorizes monies for a wide swath of government agencies to strengthen their individual efforts and therefore strengthening their collective efforts. Mr. Speaker, much work remains to be done as we move forward, and while this piece of legislation is not the be-all-end-all solution, it is a meaningful first step, and I support it in full. I thank my friend and colleague Representative John Conyers Jr. for introducing this legislation.

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the chairpersons for the stellar job that they have done. I especially thank you, Mr. Frank, for the fine work that you have done in leading us. Mr. Chairman, this is not just a good deal, it really is a great piece of legislation. Because after the exotic products that were placed in the marketplace--3/27s, 3 years of fixed rates, 27 years of variable rates, 2/28s, prepayment penalties that coincided with teaser rates--after these exotic products, this bill is necessary. This bill addresses these exotic products. It makes sure that lenders are making loans to people who can afford the loans, they can afford to pay the loans back. A relationship between borrower and lender was fractured. This bill seeks to restore that relationship, but it does something else that is exceedingly important, and it was mentioned very briefly. It addresses the concerns of people who are paying their rent. Their rent is paid and they find themselves being evicted because the property they are living in is being foreclosed on. The foreclosure was no fault of the tenant, yet the tenant now has to move away from the school that the child attends. They have to move from the job where they work, the community that they reside in, simply because the owner was foreclosed on, and the tenant did not have anything to do with the foreclosure. This bill addresses it. It gives either a fair amount of notice or it allows the tenant to continue with the lease that has been in place. This is a good piece of legislation. I am going to ask that all of my colleagues please support it. Mr. Watt, I thank you for the fine job you have done. Chairwoman Waters, I thank you for the fine job that you have done. I beg that that legislation pass.