Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (S. 896), companion legislation to similar legislation we approved in the House in March to combat the foreclosure crisis. I commend Senator Dodd and the Members of the Senate Committee on Financial Services for their leadership in crafting and fine-tuning this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. According to a leading foreclosure research organization, mortgage foreclosure activity increased by 24 percent during the first quarter of 2009, compared to the first quarter 2008. One in every 159 housing units in the United States received a foreclosure notice during the first quarter of this year. In addition, foreclosures in March increased by 17 percent from February, and by 46 percent compared to March 2008. We must act now, and we must act decisively and comprehensively, to stem this crisis. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act attacks the foreclosure crisis aggressively and approaches the problem from several angles at the same time, but is measured in its application. The bill amends the HOPE for Homeowners Program, to provide greater incentives for mortgage servicers to modify mortgages under the Program, to reduce administrative burdens to loan underwriters, and to permit payments to loan servicers and underwriters for each successful refinancing. It would also re-instate the authority of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct an auction to refinance loans on a wholesale or bulk basis. These modifications use funding already authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act enacted in October 2008. The bill also contains provisions to ensure better that predatory lenders are not allowed to participate in the FHA home mortgage insurance program. At the same time, it protects helpful mortgage lenders and servicers, who might otherwise be subject to litigation for changing the terms of a mortgage after closing. The bill provides a safe harbor from liability to mortgage servicers issuers, trustees, loan sellers, depositors, and others who participate in loan modifications, to the extent they were required to assist and the modification complied with the Hope for Homeowners program or was otherwise consistent with the Administration's foreclosure mitigation programs. Importantly, the bill will also extend through 2013 the temporary increase to $250,000 in deposit insurance coverage for both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-insured deposits and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)-insured deposits, which is currently scheduled to expire in December 2009. It also permanently increases the FDIC's borrowing authority to $100 billion (with an increase until the end of 2010 to $300 billion), and increases the NCUA's borrowing authority to $6 billion (with a temporary increase to $30 billion). And the bill includes the first major reauthorization of funding under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. I was pleased to support $100 million for McKinney-Vento under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted into law earlier this year. This important collaborative program between the public and private sectors has disbursed more than $2 billion in funding to provide shelter, food and support services for homeless and hungry individuals nationwide in just over 20 years of existence, and this bill will authorize that amount for Fiscal Year 2010 alone. I will work with my colleagues to make sure we fully fund this authorized level of funding, to assisting America's neediest and most vulnerable citizens. This bill takes many important and decisive steps to help mitigate the foreclosure crisis and ease the suffering of our Nation's homeless and hungry, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 489, recognizing the twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. In June of 1989, the Chinese government unnecessarily applied the heavy hand of the People's Liberation Army to violently suppress peaceful demonstrators who were calling for an elimination of corruption, the expansion of freedoms, and progress toward political and economic reforms. Twenty years later, there still has been no accurate accounting of those who were killed or injured, and we do not know how many hundreds or thousands of activists remain imprisoned. But we do know that thousands living in exile and millions living in China are unable to freely express themselves in their home country, where censorship and repression still drown out peaceful calls for reform. The People's Republic of China is a proud nation that increasingly is taking its place on the world stage. But if China wants to be fully integrated into the community of nations, it must recognize that the persecution of peaceful movements is unacceptable, and it must act to reverse the objectionable and counterproductive policies exemplified by the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Violations of human rights and international standards of law are not behavior consistent with a modern nation that wants to contribute to the world of international exchange, global trade, and academic cooperation. The freedoms of expression and assembly are universal rights, and the flames of these liberties burn in all mankind. Today, we speak for the brave voices who were wrongfully silenced 20 years ago, for the families who have been unable to publicly mourn the loss of their loved ones, and for all those who continue to stand up for free expression in China and around the world. I fervently hope that this effort will hasten the day that the unfettered voices of the Chinese people may be heard in Tiananmen Square and throughout China. For though freedom's flames may be smothered, its smoldering embers will always prod ice, as Martin Luther King put it, a certain kind of fire that no water can put out.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I voted yesterday in support of our Nation's small business and for the passage of the ``Job Creation through Entrepreneurship Act of 2009'', H.R. 2352. Small businesses play an integral role in the United States economy. Small businesses employ more than half of all workers in the private sector and generate 60 to 80 percent of new jobs in this country. The entrepreneurial development programs developed by this bill will help small businesses not only survive the current downturn, but allow them to expand and create new jobs. I am particularly pleased that this bill creates Veterans Business Centers for veteran entrepreneurs. Our nation was built by citizen- soldiers, yet too often, our veterans have difficulty finding well- paid, rewarding work in the nation they served and protected. According to the Department of Labor, we need to do more to help our youngest veterans find gainful employment. Veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 had an unemployment rate of 14.1 percent; nearly double the rate of those between the ages of 25 to 34 (7.3 percent). It is unacceptable that hundreds of thousands of veterans who have risked their own lives to defend our country can't find jobs, and many endure homelessness and lives of poverty after they return home. Our brave men and women in uniform have given so much for this country; it is right that the Congress help ensure that our returning soldiers have jobs when they come home. I also am pleased that this bill increases the amount of entrepreneurial development training that will be offered through online training. I have long supported greater use of online job training, which is why I introduced H.R. 145, the Online Job Training Act of 2009, which amends the Workforce Investment Act to provide grants to states that establish or improve workforce training programs on the Internet. I have seen the value of online job training first- hand at a successful pilot program in my state run by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Rutgers University. Online training allows workers to access needed development services during the time most convenient for them and in a location most convenient for them--scheduling around jobs, child care, and elder care responsibilities. Offering entrepreneurial development training online will expand the reach of this training to reach more workers and increase the impact of these existing programs. The Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act will build on the investments that this Congress made through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This bill will provide further aid to our small business and continues our efforts to put the economy back on the track to recovery.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. As I'm certain is true of all of my colleagues, my office has been inundated with calls and letters from constituents who are outraged by sudden and arbitrary increases in their credit card rates. Their hard- earned taxpayer dollars were used to shore up financial institutions to prevent economic collapse and, in return, some of the very same financial institutions turned around and doubled the interest rates they charge their customers. I'm pleased we're taking strong action today to combat these abuses--yes, abuses--and I urge my colleagues to support it. However, I have serious concern about the amendment that would allow loaded firearms in our national parks. There is no reason for this provision in the bill. It is not germane. It is not relevant. It is poor public policy. Wait a minute, you say, I thought you were talking about credit cards. To say that this amendment about guns in the parks is out of left field insults the many ball players who, over the years, have held that position--yes, even the bumblers. It insults them. For the past 25 years, the regulations requiring guns in parks to be unloaded and stored has served the Park Service and the park public well. It helps keep our national parks the safest lands in the country. The probability of being a victim of a violent crime in a park is less than 1 in 700,000. These regulations also help prevent mischief and even poaching of endangered species that our parks help protect. Our national parks are national treasures, and they should be granted special protections. It's completely appropriate to have special regulations that are special to the parks. We in Congress should do everything we can to ensure that these invaluable resources are protected for future generations, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against that amendment in this bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill, albeit very reluctantly. This supplemental appropriations bill contains a number of provisions I'm pleased to support. This bill provides long-overdue retroactive ``stop loss'' compensation payments to more than 170,000 servicemembers who had their enlistments involuntarily extended. It also provides nearly $5 billion for additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill renews our commitment to meaningful engagement in the Middle East by providing Israel with $555 million of the $2.8 billion of the 2010 request for security assistance, as well as $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza. I am also pleased that the bill provides $2 billion for pandemic flu response, as well as $500 million for global emergency food assistance. These are all worthy and necessary expenditures. As the chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel (SIOP), I want to briefly discuss our work on this bill. The SIOP reviewed the intelligence activities contained in this request. While the dollar amounts are classified, I can tell my colleagues that this bill contains many of the same justifiable activities we have seen in previous years with two exceptions. The first exception is the administration's request, which this bill includes, for additional funding for the operations in Afghanistan. Intelligence has been a vital component of our overseas military activities, and this bill ensures that proper intelligence will be available to those on the front lines in Afghanistan. The second exception is that this administration has begun the process of shifting continuing activities from emergency supplemental bills to the base appropriations bill. Overall, however, I have grave concerns about the direction of our spending and policy focus in Afghanistan. I recognize that this conflict was neglected for far too long because of our misadventure in Iraq and that we are now paying the price for that neglect. I am concerned that in our haste to try to recover lost ground--literally as well as figuratively--we may commit some of the same errors that bedeviled our efforts in Iraq. I have heard many people in this body and elsewhere in our government say that ``the United States cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.'' That statement presumes that it is a war that is solely ours to win or lose--that the outcome will be decided by our willingness to commit still more blood and treasure to this conflict. That is a fallacy, the same fallacy that caused us to misdirect our efforts in Iraq for so long with such disastrous consequences. We would do well to remember what U.S. counterinsurgency specialist William Polk said in his 2007 book Violent Politics: We should begin by noting what is common to all insurgencies. No matter how they differ in form, duration, and intensity, a single thread runs through them all: opposition to foreigners. As in Iraq, we cannot solve the Afghan's problems for them; we are foreign occupiers of their country and will forever be seen that way by the population. We can support them in their effort to build a stable and just society, but they must be the leaders in that effort. To that end, we should also bear in mind the words of the authors of the current U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual: Long-term success in [counterinsurgency] depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule . . . Political and military leaders and planners should never underestimate its scale and complexity; moreover, they should recognize that the Armed Forces cannot succeed in [counterinsurgency] alone. The supplemental appropriations bill before us spends $47.7 billion on the ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq compared to $4.3 billion for international affairs and stabilization activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Perhaps the ratio should not be reversed, but it should certainly be far more balanced than it is--and there should be some type of timeline for the transition of security responsibilities from our forces to the government of Afghanistan. My recent visit to Iraq with Speaker Pelosi convinced me that the certainty of our withdrawal from that country has focused the minds of Iraq's leaders on the need to deal with their many unresolved domestic problems. We need to create that same sense of urgency among Afghanistan's leaders, but I fear that this bill will not have that effect. I intend to join like-minded House colleagues in seeking ways to create that sense of urgency in this body, and ultimately on leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a first step, I have co-sponsored a bill by my friend from Massachusetts, Representative Jim McGovern, that would require the Secretary of Defense to present to Congress an exit strategy for Afghanistan. The conflict in Afghanistan, and the emerging conflict in Pakistan itself, cannot be solved by us through military means--it can only be solved politically through a joint effort by us and our allies. I hope we will be able to begin making that transition in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget later this year, and by passing Representative McGovern's bill as soon as possible.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, H.R. 1728, and to commend my colleagues Brad Miller, Mel Watt and Chairman Frank for their leadership and hard work on this measure. I note that Rep. Miller has worked on this matter for years, long before it became such a consuming issue. I urge my colleagues to support it. A host of factors contributed to the economic crisis we have been suffering from over the past year, and it is fitting that the term ``perfect storm'' has so often been used to describe it. But the abusive and predatory practices of certain mortgage lenders certainly are among the factors that top the list. Somewhere along the way, prudent business judgment and careful long-term risk assessment were muscled out of the way by short-term profit seeking, with no thought of the impact that would have on the broader economy in the long run. The end result: the highest rate of home foreclosures in a quarter of a century. Today, we take another important step in guiding our economy back towards its once stable footing, by prohibiting predatory lending and abusive lending practices, holding banks responsible for the home mortgages they issue, and protecting tenants whose residences go into foreclosure despite their own timely payment of rent. One of the most prevalent abuses by subprime loan originators has been the practice in which they steer prospective borrowers towards loans that will provide originators with the highest near-term payoff, sometimes through fees the broker or loan officer collects by directing borrowers towards those loans. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act would prohibit mortgage brokers and bank officers from directing borrowers towards loans that will ultimately become more expensive than they can afford, and would mandate that lenders only issue loans that the borrowers can repay. In addition, it will require loan originators to disclose to borrowers any compensation they receive in connection with the mortgage transaction. One of the reasons loan originators have been unconcerned about issuing loans that they know borrowers might not be able to pay off is because loan originators in recent years have tended immediately to resell, or securitize, the mortgage loans they originate. Therefore, they only retained the risk associated with issuing an unstable loan for a brief period, and then the risk was transferred elsewhere. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act calls for new regulations to require loan originators to retain at least a five percent interest in every loan they issue. Once they are required to retain some of the long-term risk of a borrower defaulting on the loan, the issuers should be expected to reinstate more prudent loan origination practices. In addition, the bill would hold the secondary mortgage market--the institutions that have been purchasing and securitizing mortgages--responsible for complying with the same standard when they purchase and package mortgages for resale. And the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act also includes important protections for some of the most innocent and vulnerable victims of the foreclosure crisis--namely, tenants who reliably pay their rent on time, but wind up homeless when their landlords fail to do the same with their mortgage payments, and their properties go into foreclosure. The bill would require that tenants in such circumstances receive adequate advance notice and are provided with an opportunity to relocate before the foreclosure is completed. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act includes many important reforms and protections. I am pleased to support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for his leadership on this issue. As we all know, schools are hampered in carrying out the mission that they have because of constrained operating budgets and aging infrastructure and ever-increasing energy bills. In 2005, I introduced the School Building Enhancement Act after learning that energy bills were the second highest expenditure of schools after personnel costs, and I am pleased to say that that legislation has been incorporated in this bill before us today. The bill will provide $6.4 billion for school construction. For New Jersey that means an estimated $125 million to build and modernize local schools. Most importantly, of course, it will allow States to provide the technical assistance to local educational agencies, local schools, to develop energy-efficiency plans and look at their carbon footprint. So I want to thank Chairman Miller and Representative Loebsack for carrying this bill forward. There is no question that the economic downturn has put added pressure on our schools from a year ago when we considered similar legislation. I am also pleased that the chairman has included my language to allow veteran-owned businesses to have contracting preference, along with small, minority and women-owned businesses. This is a good bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, on Thursday May 7, 2009, I was traveling on official business outside of the country and missed six votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H. Res. 406 (Rollcall 237) providing for further consideration of H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act; ``yes'' on the Frank Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 1728 (Rollcall 238); ``no'' on the Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 1728 (Rollcall 239); ``no'' on the Price Amendment to H.R. 1728 (Rollcall 240); ``no'' on the McHenry Amendment to H.R. 1728 (Rollcall 241); and ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 1728, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (Rollcall 242).

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 413, which recognizes the goals and ideals of IEEE Engineering the Future Day. IEEE traces its roots to the founding of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) on May 13, 1884, at a time when the ability to harness electricity for useful purposes was in its infancy. Since then, electrical power has become central to our way of life, and technologies based on electronics have become ubiquitous. The AIEE evolved to reflect these changes, first by joining with the Institute of Radio Engineers to become the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and later by shortening the organization's official name to IEEE in recognition of the fact that technical fields were transcending traditional definitions and boundaries. Still, the overarching goal of the organization--to apply technology and innovation for the benefit of humanity--has remained constant from the beginning. IEEE has become a global professional organization with 375,000 members in 160 countries. It sponsors hundreds of conferences and professional meetings annually, maintains an electronic library of technical publications, develops international technical standards, hosts educational and professional development programs, and provides a forum for professional interactions and collaborations. As we look to the future, we will rely increasingly on science, engineering, and technology to help us meet our energy challenges, safeguard our environment, grow our economy, and improve our quality of life. I hope that IEEE's Engineering the Future Day will raise awareness about how science and technology affects our daily lives and about the many opportunities available to technical professionals. I congratulate IEEE and its members on the organization's 125th anniversary and past achievements, and I look forward to all of its future contributions.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights Act of 2009 (H.R. 627), which the House approved last week, and to commend my colleague Ms. Maloney for her leadership in crafting and championing this measure. As I am certain is true of all of my colleagues, I am inundated with calls and letters from constituents who are outraged by sudden and arbitrary increases in their credit card interest rates. Their hard- earned taxpayer dollars were used to shore up financial institutions to prevent an economic collapse, and in return, some of the very same financial institutions turned right around and doubled the interest rate they charged their customers. A letter I received from one constituent, whose interest rate was doubled from 15 to 30 percent, said: ``[i]nterest rates such as these are confiscatory. . . . This starts to look like indentured servitude at best, and financial slavery at worst.'' A letter from another said: ``given how much of my taxes are going to bail out these companies, these rates are beyond outrageous and smack of greed.'' And a letter from another, which was entirely in capital letters, said: ``[t]he American people gave billions [in] bail out money because . . . the banks got themselves into trouble. Instead of helping the same taxpayers that helped them by lowering interest rates on credit cards they chose to raise the rates for no reason. . . . When people do the responsible thing it seems they get punished for it. There have to be more controls on what the banks can do to people who honor their commitments.'' I share the outrage of my constituents, and I am pleased to support the Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights. It will tackle not only usurious interest rates, but a host of other abuses. In 2008 alone, credit-card issuers imposed $19 billion in penalty fees on families with credit cards according to an industry consultant for Consumer Reports. In 2009 it is estimated that credit card companies will break all records for late fees, over-limit charges, and other penalties, charging more than $20.5 billion for such fees and penalties. The Credit Cardholder's Bill of Rights would prevent credit card companies from unfairly increasing interest rates on existing card balances. Credit card holders would be allowed to set their own lower credit card limits, at levels they consider appropriate for their financial circumstances. The bill would end ``double cycle'' billing, prohibiting credit card companies from charging interest on balances cardholders have already paid on time. If a cardholder pays on time and in full, the bill prevents card companies from charging additional fees on balances consisting solely of left-over interest. The bill would also require card companies to provide 45 days advance notice of all interest rate increases or significant contract changes such as the addition of new fees or penalties, and would enact into law recently proposed Federal Reserve Board regulations protecting consumers from abusive credit practices. This bill establishes many long-overdue protections for consumers and credit card holders, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Hate crimes are real. They spread fear and intimidation among entire communities. This bill would strengthen local law enforcement's ability to prosecute hate crimes based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the victim. It is patently false to say that we're criminalizing thought. We are criminalizing the brutality that results when these thoughts lead to death and serious injury of an innocent victim. This is no more about criminalizing thought than the antilynching laws were about criminalizing knot tying. And to say that pedophilia somehow belongs in here represents such uninformed, illogical and irrelevant thinking as to say kleptomania, drug abuse, school truancy, parking violation and road rage belongs here. This bill is about hate crimes. This bill has strong support from over 300 civil rights, religious, LGBT, law enforcement and civic organizations, and I'm particularly pleased to identify the support of the Garden State Equality, a group that has fought tirelessly to fight discrimination against all Americans, including discrimination based on gender identity. I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important public safety legislation. The Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program is one of the most successful law enforcement support programs ever initiated by the federal government. As the National Association of Police Organizations noted in their April 21 letter to me on this bill, ``With the support of the COPS Program, community policing has been a dominant force behind the dramatic reduction in crime this nation has witnessed over the past 13 years.'' It's also clear that our communities are desperate to see this program properly funded, after eight years of neglect. NAPO noted in their letter to me that in the last month, the COPS Program office received over 7,200 applications for the COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) grant funding contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the ``stimulus bill.'' Those 7,200 applications amounted to a request for funds to hire 40,000 more officers nationwide. Yet the $1 billion CHRP contained in the stimulus bill would allow local communities to hire only 5,000 to 6,000 new police. For New Jersey, previous COPS funding has meant an additional 628 police officers and/or sheriff deputies were walking the beat in the local communities of my Congressional district. Further, 33 school resource officers were hired to ensure that our children's schools are safe. H.R. 1139 would raise the CHRP authorization level to $1.25 billion, allowing state and local law enforcement to hire more officers. Based on historical funding data, this bill would allow New Jersey alone to hire more than 2,000 additional police, and those would be welcome reinforcements for our current law enforcement officers who are working to improve the quality of life in communities across New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this is a good and much needed bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady. I rise as the sponsor of the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act, which I introduced with others. If this looks familiar, it is because this House--you, my colleagues--passed this legislation by an overwhelming majority, this exact legislation, a little over a month ago. So here we are for take two. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairman Grijalva, and Majority Leader Hoyer for helping to bring this legislation back to the floor after a peculiarity, a quirk in parliamentary procedure, had left the previously passed legislation lying on the roadside. Mr. Speaker, the preservation of tangible history of the United States, especially history of those formative years of our country, is essential for us to see our way forward. Mr. Speaker, history is something we need now more than ever. I urge the passage of this legislation. I rise as the sponsor of H.R. 1694, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act, which I introduced for myself and 12 of my colleagues. This bill may look familiar to many members, a carbon copy passed the House a little over a month ago. However, due to some procedural motions by the other body it is necessary to bring this legislation back to the floor today. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairman Grijalva, and Majority Leader Hoyer for their help in bringing this legislation back to the floor today. This month marks the 234th anniversary of two defining and symbolic moments in our nation's early struggle for independence. On the night of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere began his legendary ride to Lexington, Massachusetts to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them. Along the way, he and his fellow riders alerted countryside residents to the British troops' approach. The next day, dozens of Colonial troops gathered at Lexington to meet the British troops head on officially starting the Revolutionary War. Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem ``The Concord Hymn,'' commemorated this moment as the ``shot heard `round the world.'' Paul Revere's Ride and the shot heard round the world are just a few of the stories of the American Revolution that help bring to life the ideals of liberty and Democracy fostered by our Nation's founders. One can read about the American Revolution and the values that were fought for and established at that time, or read about the War of 1812 when the fledgling country fought to maintain its independence. However, history is best experienced not by reading but by feeling, touching and living what was experienced in those trying times. There is no better way to experience the history of the founding of our great Nation than on the hallowed ground where the epic struggle for our independence took place. Preserving these American historic treasures is essential to remembering the sacrifices that our forefathers made to secure our freedom and our independence, and it is vital for educating the current generations and future generations about our rich cultural heritage. Unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl and unplanned development continually encroach on many of the significant battlefields of that period posing a severe and growing risk to the preservation of these sites. Last spring, the National Park Service published its report to Congress on the status of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 sites. This report demonstrates that there is a great need to act and to act quickly to preserve many of these sites. Out of the 677 naturally significant battlefields and associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, 99 are lost forever already; 234 are fragmented or in poor condition; an additional 170 are in danger of being destroyed within the next decade. This bill would help State and local governments and non-profits protect and preserve these battlefields and historic sites by authorizing the use of money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to provide up to 50 percent of the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. This legislation is patterned after the successful Civil War Battlefield Protection Program that has been in effect for quite some time now. I might add, it was an oversight, I would say, that decades ago, these battlefields and sites of the War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War were not included under the same umbrella. Now is the time to do it. Now is past the time to do it. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln visited Trenton on his historic journey to his inauguration in Washington. There, he told the New Jersey State Assembly ``In the early Revolutionary struggle, few of the States among the old Thirteen had more of the battle-fields of the country within their limits than old New-Jersey.'' A couple years ago, I was pleased when Congress took action to protect the battlefields in historic sites in New Jersey where this conflict took place. We passed legislation that created the Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area, linking hundreds of Revolutionary War sites across 14 counties in New Jersey. New Jersey was truly the crossroads of the American Revolution for a number of reasons, and I'm pleased we are taking steps to preserve the record of those engagements. There's a fundamental misconception that the American Revolution and War of 1812 took place only in the Northeast. In truth, the story of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 crisscrosses 33 States, from New York to Louisiana, from Georgia to Oregon. Enacting this legislation would allow each of these States to preserve better their history and their role in the War of 1812 and the American Revolution. Today, I will be introducing legislation that will provide additional funding for the battlefield protection program created by this bill. My legislation, the American Revolution and War of 1812 Commemorative Coin Act, is modeled after the Civil War Battlefield Commemorative Coin Act of 1992, which has raised over $6 million for battlefield preservation. Enacting that bill will allow many more historic battlefields to be preserved. Enacting this bill will make it possible for our children and their children and other generations to enjoy and learn. We want to give Americans the opportunity to learn history, to feel history, to experience history so that they understand the principles on which this country was founded. People who know history can be better citizens, more engaged in current civic affairs and more cognizant of their place in history. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for this important legislation.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 320, which honors the life and achievements of Dr. John Hope Franklin. Dr. Franklin was a monumental figure in the field of African-American history. In 1947, he published From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans. This groundbreaking work is considered the definitive history of the African-American experience in the United States. He continually updated the book over the next half-century, selling over 3 million copies. In 1979, he again made history by becoming the first African-American to serve as President of the American Historical Association. Dr. Franklin is the recipient of numerous awards including the NAACP's Spingarn Medal, the Kluge Prize for lifetime achievement in the humanities, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Dr. Franklin's work forced millions of Americans to re-examine the history of the United States and illuminated the African-American experience for people of all races and creeds. Perhaps more than any other figure, Dr. Franklin has crafted a true narrative of African- American history that speaks to the core of America's past and present. On March 25, 2009, Dr. Franklin passed away in Durham, North Carolina. As great as his presence was, it is likely that his absence will loom even larger. However, his work will forever serve as a testament to his intellectual rigor and original scholarship. He will continue educating generations of American to come on the issues of race and our complex history. Today, we honor a life of service and achievement that will not be forgotten and I am proud to join with my colleagues in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of H.R. 1256, the ``Family Smoking Prevention And Tobacco Control Act.'' I feel strongly about the dangers of cigarettes and the need for regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The dangers of smoking are well known--about one in five deaths in the United States can be attributed to tobacco products, which adds up to 440,000 Americans killed every year. Another 50,000 people die every year from secondhand smoke. Many of these deaths are linked to the thousands of harmful chemical compounds in every cigarette, including benzene, arsenic, formaldehyde, and ammonia. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the H.R. 1256. This legislation would require the regulation of tobacco products by the FDA. This legislation would also require cigarette manufacturers to print warning labels with text warnings detailing the smoking related diseases such as lung, heart, or mouth cancer. The warning labels are required to occupy 30 percent of the front and rear panels of a cigarette package, carton, or advertisement. Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient regulatory authority means that while the FDA works to keep harmful chemicals out of everyday food products, they have no ability to do the same with cigarettes. This bill, which enjoys the support of almost 700 public health groups, faith associations, and other organizations from around the country, would ensure that consumers are adequately informed about the real risks of tobacco use and protected from misleading advertising. I have long supported giving the FDA clear authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation granting them such authority.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, a budget is a moral document that demonstrates our values and priorities. I want to congratulate Chairman Spratt for again bringing forth a budget that represents values of which we can be proud. This budget would make real investments in education, hometown security, veterans' programs, healthcare, and research and development while halving the budget deficit in four years. I am pleased that this Fiscal Year 2010 budget continues to follow the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) principle that the House restored at the start of the 110th Congress in January 2007. This ensures that every new dollar of spending is offset and will not worsen the deficit. Although the budget resolution does not set tax or spending levels, it does lay out the plan for the coming years to spend money and to raise revenues. This budget validates the President's Inaugural declaration that we will ``restore science to its rightful place.'' This resolution restores science to its rightful place in terms of our national innovation investment by providing $31 billion for the science and research programs. In these troubled economic times, it is important to understand that while research lays the foundation for our long-term prosperity, research also creates jobs now. A report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation estimated that each additional $1 billion investment in research would create approximately 20,000 American jobs a year. This investment would provide jobs not just to scientists but also to research students, electricians who wire the labs, lab technicians who run the instrumentation, construction workers who will renovate the buildings, and many more. This job creation is comparable to or better than job creation for other spending, even in the short term, and over the long term, nothing produces jobs tomorrow like research today. This budget would make a significant investment in our nation's energy future by building on the significant funding and tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that were contained in the recovery bill. The budget increases investments in energy programs by 18.4 percent to create new sources of renewable energy, to improve energy efficiency, and to expand research and technological development. The budget is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensures that Congress has the flexibility to consider legislation for increasing our nation's energy independence. Madam Chair, this budget honors our commitment to our nation's children by investing in education. The budget follows on the bold investments made by the economic recovery bill and provides further support for early childhood education. The budget supports education at a young age through a range of approaches, including strengthening and expanding early childhood education programs, home visiting programs, and child nutrition programs such as school meals. I am pleased that the budget also would help make college more affordable and accessible for students in New Jersey and throughout the country by increasing funding for Pell grants and providing additional assistance for low- income high school graduates. The budget further would expand our scientific workforce by tripling the number of graduate fellowships in science. I am pleased that the budget addresses the fact that 46 million Americans are uninsured, with more than 8 out of 10 of those uninsured living in working families. Specifically, data from The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation show that 16 percent of New Jersey's residents were uninsured in 2007. This is despite the fact that health care spending has grown to about $7,026 per person as of 2007. According to a report from the Institute of Medicine, working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care too late and to receive poorer medical treatment throughout their lives. As a result, they are sick more often and die at a younger age. This budget resolution supports the President's goal for health care reform and provides opportunities for the relevant committees to work this year to draft reform legislation that will help more Americans get health insurance, reduce health care costs, and improve patient safety. I strongly support the provisions in the budget that would invest $53.3 billion for veterans' programs, an increase of 11.5 percent over the 2009 level. I am pleased that the budget reverses the policies of the previous administration and restores health care eligibility for non-disabled veterans with modest incomes. This funding is more important than ever to treat the 908,690 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, many of whom suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, or blast-related injuries. I also am voting for the two alternatives offered by Mr. Scott and Ms. Lee because, although each is imperfect, each in different ways, they would advance the principles of equality and justice in our society and the peaceful resolution of international problems. I expect that neither of those alternatives will prevail over the well-crafted compromise of Mr. Spratt, yet they are worthy of support. Madam Chair, the budget produced by the Budget Committee, under the leadership of Representative Spratt, reflects values of which we can be proud. It supports healthcare, science and engineering research, education, veterans, and national security programs while maintaining our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By adopting this budget and supporting the designated funding levels throughout the appropriations process, we would be investing in priorities important to our future.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has passed the Nuclear Forensics bill. This bill seeks to deter terrorists' use of nuclear weapons or radiological material by creating international mechanisms for identifying and tracking such materials back to their source, ideally before they are used. We have talked for decades now about the need to secure ``loose nukes'' and radiological material, and we have taken some concrete if underfunded steps to do so, such as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. We have not expended a similar effort to widely deploy technologies and implement international agreements to make the tracking of such material so easy and reliable as to make such measures a deterrent themselves. As the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science noted in a 2008 report on this topic: A believable attribution capability may help to discourage behavior that could lead to a nuclear event. The chain of participants in a nuclear terrorist event most likely includes a national government or its agents, since nearly all nuclear weapons usable material is at least notionally the responsibility of governments. A forensics capability that can trace material to the originating reactor or enrichment facility could discourage state cooperation with terrorist elements and encourage better security for nuclear weapon usable materials. In addition, most terrorist organizations will not have members skilled in all aspects of handling nuclear weapons or building an improvised nuclear device. That expertise is found in a small pool of people and a credible attribution capability may deter some who are principally motivated by financial, rather than ideological, concerns. This bill would, among other things, establish within the Department of Homeland Security a National Technical Nuclear Forensics Center to provide centralized stewardship, planning, assessment, gap analysis, exercises, improvement, and integration for all federal nuclear forensics activities. There is a clear need to centralize this activity within the federal government, and this provision is a first step in that direction. At the international level, the bill encourages the President to pursue bilateral and multilateral international agreements to establish an international framework for determining the source of any confiscated nuclear or radiological material or weapon, as well as the source of any detonated weapon and the nuclear or radiological material used in such a weapon. U.S. leadership will be essential to the success of this program, and I will certainly be looking at the President's detailed Fiscal Year 2010 budget submission to see whether this effort will receive the kind of funding it needs to be successful. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources. This bill is the kind of bill that I love. I am especially pleased that we could preserve New Jersey's heritage as one of the leaders of the industrial revolution by giving the American public the Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park and the Edison National Historic Park. And I thank Chairman Rahall for bringing the bill along. When I introduced this H.R. 146, little did I suspect that my bill to protect the battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 would grow to 1,300 pages and attract so much attention. But I am pleased that my bill to protect the battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 has been used as a vehicle to bring this important lands bill through the legislative process. However, I regret that my language to protect the battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 has vanished. And so, I am here to ask the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources if I may have his assurances that he will assist me in moving this noncontroversial legislation to protect the battlefields of the War of 1812 and the American Revolution expeditiously.

Mr. HOLT. I will yield.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I commend him for his good work on this legislation, which would preserve important pieces of America's natural, cultural, and historical resources for future generations. Others have spoken today about valuable parts of this bill. I'd like to address that. In New Jersey, this bill would preserve our heritage as one of the leaders of the Industrial Revolution by creating the Paterson Great Falls National Historic Park and the Edison National Historic Park. Paterson Great Falls will protect and preserve a striking natural resource, the Great Falls, along with cultural and historical sites that tell the stories of our Founders, America's economic rise, and the African American experience. Edison National Historic Park will ensure that future generations have an opportunity to visit the home and laboratory of one of New Jersey's most celebrated and influential citizens and one of America's most prominent inventors, Thomas Edison. I'd like to commend my colleagues from New Jersey, Representatives Pascrell and Payne, for their hard work on these issues, and I'd also like to commend Representative Hinchey for his work on the Washington Rochambeau Trail in this bill. The trail will help link many of the sites in New Jersey's Crossroads of the American Revolution. These sites are of great importance to the residents of central New Jersey, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Berman, for bringing this resolution to the floor. The resolution calls on the Government of Brazil to live up to its obligations under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction by releasing Sean Goldman to the custody of his father, David Goldman of Tinton Falls, New Jersey, my constituent. This bill shines a bright light on the problem of international parental kidnapping, and it is an issue that deserves congressional attention. Let me recount some of the recent background on this issue and why this resolution is before the House today. It is heartrending, as you have heard from my colleague from New Jersey. Nearly 5 years ago in June, 2004, Mr. David Goldman began a long and painful odyssey to rescue his son from an international parental kidnapping. He had driven his wife, Bruna, and their 4-year-old son, Sean, to the Newark airport for a scheduled trip to visit her parents in Brazil. Mr. Goldman was to join them a few days later. Shortly after arriving in Brazil, Mrs. Goldman called her husband to say two things: their marriage was over, and if he ever wanted to see Sean again, he would have to sign over custody of the boy to her. To his credit, Mr. Goldman refused to be blackmailed. Instead, he began a campaign, a relentless campaign, to secure his son's release. There is no question that Mr. Goldman has the law both here in the United States and internationally on his side. It is sad and unfortunate that this father and this little boy must have their personal lives dragged through the public forum. For any of us who have children or grandchildren, we can imagine but not fully comprehend the pain that Mr. Goldman and similar parents have gone through when a spouse kidnaps a child and whisks them away somewhere around the world. Tragically, Sean Goldman's case is just one of over 50 reported cases involving Brazil. Many countries, including key U.S. allies such as Japan, are not even signatories to this Hague Convention. For parents of children kidnapped by a spouse and taken to one of these non-Hague signatory nations, their battle to recover kidnapped children is even more difficult. The resolution before us highlights also the plight of these parents and their children. And it should be viewed as one step toward increasing the tools available to parents to help them recover children. In October, 1980, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction entered into force. The United States and Brazil are both signatories. Under article 3 of the Convention, the removal of a child shall be considered wrongful if ``it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been exercised.'' Well, Sean Goldman had been habitually resident in New Jersey until his mother kidnapped him and took him to Brazil. Shortly after that, Mr. Goldman filed a Hague Convention application in Brazil's federal courts seeking the return of his son under the Convention. Despite the clear legitimacy of Mr. Goldman's claim, the case has crawled along in Brazil's courts, bouncing back and forth and back and forth. Mr. Goldman's wife secured a divorce in Brazil and began a new relationship with a prominent lawyer. In August of last year, his former wife died during childbirth, a fact that Mr. Goldman learned only some time later and a fact that was concealed from the Brazilian courts by Mr. Lins e Silva, her then husband, and Mr. Goldman's late wife's parents. After our individual intercession and with the help of the State Department and my colleague from New Jersey, and I particularly want to note his actions, Brazilian authorities moved to have the case once again sent to Brazil's federal courts to secure visitation rights for Mr. Goldman. Finally just last month, Mr. Goldman was able to see his son for the first time in more than 4 years. It is clear that Sean still loves his father and wants to be with him. It appears that the only thing standing in the way of that is the illegal conduct of Mr. Lins e Silva. I applaud Secretary of State Clinton for raising this issue with Brazil's foreign minister and through other channels. If Sean is not released by the end of this week, I hope that President Obama will continue to bring the issue to the attention of Brazilian President Lula Da Silva and that Sean and his father will be united as they should be. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. Yesterday marked the passage of 50 years since the Tibetan people in Lhasa first rose in protest against the harsh actions of the People's Republic of China to undermine the Tibetan self-government. I am honored to introduce this resolution recognizing the long hardship borne by the Tibetan people, a great people, who continue to labor peacefully for freedom in Tibet and maintain a Tibetan cultural identity and democratic community, even in exile. Importantly, this resolution also recognizes the government and the people of India, who generously have hosted the exiled government and people of Tibet in the city of Dharamsala since 1960. The perseverance and charity exhibited by these peoples should be a model for all. For 50 years the situation in Tibet has deteriorated with too little attention from the outside world. Tibetan culture has been eradicated systematically and relentlessly. Basic freedoms, like freedoms of speech and religion and association and movement, have been repressed. Human rights abuses have been all too common and continue to occur. At this time last year, the Chinese Government was engaged in a fierce crackdown on nonviolent Tibetan protesters that resulted in serious injuries to civilians and an undetermined but significant number of deaths. Even today reports indicate that the Chinese Government has imposed a virtual state of martial law in the Tibetan plateau. Over the same 50 years and in the face of such adversity, the Dalai Lama has sought to bring wisdom to human affairs and has used his position and leadership to promote compassion and nonviolence in the search for a lasting solution to this issue. Last year I had the opportunity to travel to India with a congressional delegation led by Speaker Pelosi. We witnessed firsthand the dedicated Tibetans who crossed the rugged Himalayas to escape oppression, including young children. We also had lengthy meetings with the Dalai Lama, whose commitment to peaceful, steady progress is a powerful beacon of hope to all people seeking freedom and equality. It is long past time for this commitment to be reciprocated by the Chinese Government. The so-called ``Seventeen Point Agreement'' that was signed by Chinese authorities in 1951 provided that ``the central authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The central authorities also will not alter the established status, functions, and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of various ranks shall hold office as usual.'' A few years later, in March of 1959, just days after the Dalai Lama's flight from Lhasa, the Chinese Government abolished the local Tibetan governing structure. The agreement also explicitly stated that ``when the people raise demands for reform, they must be settled through consultation with the leading personnel of Tibet.'' Clearly the terms of this agreement have not been upheld. Tibetans and the international community are asking that the Chinese Government implement autonomy as promised but never granted genuinely. In this spirit the resolution before us calls for an immediate cessation of the repression and abuses being imposed upon the people of Tibet. We urge the Chinese Government to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Dalai Lama in a sustained effort to craft a permanent and just solution that protects the rights and dignity of all Tibetans. The distinctive culture of Tibet must be preserved, and we throughout the world should want it preserved, and a vibrant future must be guaranteed. I'm hopeful that the new administration will answer the call of this resolution to use all of the diplomatic, programmatic, and multilateral tools at its disposal to encourage China to adopt such a course. Last year this body agreed to a resolution introduced by Speaker Pelosi that addressed the rights of the Tibetan people. Today we reiterate that message and recommit ourselves to a sustained effort. Today is a day when this body once again brings a national spotlight to the plight of the Tibetan people, honors those who struggle nonviolently against brutal suppression, and reaffirms our commitment to freedom around the world. It is a day when we recognize, in the words of the Dalai Lama, ``the importance of universal responsibility, nonviolence, and interreligious understanding.'' I would like to thank Chairman Berman and the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their leadership and action on this issue. I appreciate the support of Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and the hard work of Mr. Halpin of the minority staff as well as Mr. Hans Hogrefe of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. The immense contributions of Todd Stein and the International Campaign for Tibet should also be acknowledged. And I would like to pay special tribute to Speaker Pelosi, who has long been a strong champion of human rights in Tibet and around the world, and to thank her for her help with this resolution. We call on the leaders of China for justice and freedom.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as the people today are talking about restoring science and government to its rightful place, President Obama's nominees for Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration await confirmation. John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco are among the Nation's finest scientists, and we urgently need them at the forefront of our Nation's efforts to rebuild our economy with new discoveries and innovations, to transform our energy use with new technologies, and to manage our natural resources with enhanced understanding. Today, I stood in the White House as the President talked about the new science policy; and later I stood in our Capitol dome, gazing up at the fresco of George Washington surrounded by the tools of our founders. My eyes were drawn to two scenes in particular, one named Oceans--or Marine--and the other Science. Our Nation's future prosperity is no less dependent upon a mastery of these fields today. I look forward to confirmation of my good friends, Dr. Lubchenco and Dr. Holdren, soon.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (H.R. 1106), and to commend Chairman Frank, Chairman Conyers, and the Financial Services and Judiciary Committees for their leadership and hard work on this measure. I urge my colleagues to support it. No doubt, the experience of my colleagues is the same at when the economy spiraled out of control last year, my constituents did not call me and write me and come to my Town Hall meetings saying ``please give my hard-earned taxpayer dollars to Wall Street. Wall Street is really hurting, and I want to do my part to help.'' No, they came to me saying ``I am in trouble. I played by the rules. I did everything right, but my life is falling apart, and my home is about to be taken away. Please help me.'' We responded a few weeks ago by enacting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help stimulate the economy and get people back to work while providing for the essential services people need to get by. Today, we are taking another very important step by responding to the foreclosure crisis that is at the root of the recession. The foreclosure crisis is a vicious cycle. Due to plummeting home values in recent years, an estimated 14 million homeowners owe more on their homes than their homes are worth; their mortgages are ``under water''. For a variety of reasons, including predatory lending abuses, exploding adjustable rate mortgage payments, and increasing job losses, homeowners all over the country have tried to refinance their mortgages into lower rates just to make ends meet. But the decreased values of their homes made that impossible. Unable to afford their current mortgage payments, unable to refinance them, and unable to sell the homes due to the depressed housing market, many face foreclosure. According to the trade research organization RealtyTrac, lenders made foreclosure filings on 2.3 million properties last year alone. Each foreclosed home reduces nearby property values by as much as 9 percent, sending those surrounding homes down the path towards being under water. And the cycle continues. Congress must act, must act now, and must act with force and determination. The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act attacks the foreclosure crisis aggressively, and approaches the problem from many angles at once, but is measured in its application. The bill would help millions of homeowners stay in their homes, by including incentives to encourage lenders to negotiate affordable mortgages for homeowners whose mortgages are under water, who are at risk of foreclosure, and who are facing bankruptcy. For example, it would modify the Hope for Homeowners program by reducing the fees that discouraged lenders from voluntarily participating in that program last year, and by providing for a $1,000 incentive payment to servicers for each successful refinancing of an existing loan. The bill also provides special protections for veterans, by allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture to guarantee and/or insure mortgage loans that have been administratively or judicially modified. Therefore the bill would provide additional financial incentives for lenders to voluntarily modify mortgage loans instead of foreclosing. The bill also would expand the FHA's mortgage loan modification abilities by allowing a reduction of interest payments of up to 30 percent of the outstanding loan balance. Most importantly, the bill would pay for adjustments to existing programs by tapping into $2.316 billion in already-authorized funding under the Troubled Assets Relief Program enacted last year. Therefore, to be clear--this is not a ``new bailout.'' This bill gives back to taxpayers more than 2 billion taxpayer dollars that previously had been allocated to Wall Street by previously-enacted legislation. In addition to incentivizing lenders to modify mortgages to keep families in their homes, the bill would give homeowners an important new tool to fend for themselves: judicial modification of primary home loans. By allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of the home mortgages at the core of the economic crisis--the mortgages already issued prior to enactment of this bill under terms, conditions and circumstances that forced so many of them into foreclosure or the brink of failure--we help our constituents remain in their homes under revised payment plans they can afford. This important protection also does not cost taxpayers anything, but it could reduce foreclosures by 20 percent. The mere fact that homeowners have judicial modification of primary home mortgages available as an option, which is already available for vacation home loans and other consumer loans, will further encourage lenders to modify mortgages before borrowers file for bankruptcy. In addition, as it would be further fine-tuned by the Conyers amendment, the bill would apply a ``good faith'' test to deny bankruptcy modification relief to individuals who can afford to repay their mortgages without it, and extend the negotiation period requiring the debtor to certify that he or she contacted the lender and sought to reach agreement on a qualified loan modification. As perfected, the amendment would also allow a court to consider, in lieu of reducing principal in a modification, reducing the interest rate to lower the borrower's monthly payment; enhance the ``good faith'' test restricting the use of judicial modification to reduce principal by requiring courts to determine whether a lender offered to modify the loan and whether the debtor could afford the offered modification; and increase the proportion of appreciation on a home that a lender could recoup in a sale within five years after the modification. The bill already includes a provision protecting mortgage servicers from lawsuits by investors who may be unhappy with the mortgage modifications. Some have expressed the concern that this bankruptcy option will increase the cost of borrowing for other homeowners. Compared to the alternative of foreclosure, however, judicial modification should maximize, rather than decrease, the value of troubled mortgages for the lender. According to economist Mark Zandi, ``[g]iven that the total cost of foreclosure to lenders is much greater than that associated with a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, there is no reason to believe that the cost of mortgage credit across all mortgage loan products should rise.'' In addition, because the bankruptcy modification right only applies to mortgages issued before enactment of the bill, home mortgages issued in the future will be viewed as more stable, reliable and predictable than loans that can be modified in bankruptcy, and capital should again in the future readily flow to the home mortgage industry as it did in the past. The bill also recognizes that unchecked predatory lending activity was one of the root causes of the crisis we face today and attacks that problem directly in several ways. For example, it requires the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to approve all parties participating in the FHA single family mortgage origination process, allows HUD to impose a civil money penalty against loan originators which are not HUD-approved but participate in FHA mortgage originations, and establishes other rigorous conditions on eligibility for would-be participants in the program. Finally, it makes permanent an increase, from $100,000 to $250,000, in the amount of bank or credit union deposits insured by Federal banks and credit union regulators, and increases these regulators' authority to obtain additional liquidity from the US Treasury. It is an aggressive and comprehensive, but thoughtful and measured bill. It puts taxpayers first, and most of it costs nothing or is already paid for by taking taxpayer funds that had been allocated to Wall Street and returning them to Main Street. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this week, I reintroduced the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act, H.R. 1248. Since the attacks occurred, I have pressed for a full investigation into this insidious biowarfare attack on our country. My bill's purpose is simple: to examine and to report on how the attacks occurred and on how we can prevent similar episodes in the future. Numerous experts and advisory committees say that biological attacks or emerging epidemics are our greatest public risks. As you may know, the anthrax attacks in 2001 originated from a postal box, evidently, in the Twelfth Congressional District in New Jersey. They disrupted the lives of people throughout the region and the country. For months, Americans lived in fear of a future attack and of the possibility of receiving cross-contaminated mail. Mail service was delayed, and people wondered whether there was a murderer at large in their midst. Further, my own congressional office and others here in Washington were shut down after it was found to be contaminated with anthrax. These attacks raised the fear of terrorism to a fevered pitch. Since the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced in early August of last year that Dr. Bruce Ivins was their prime suspect before his suicide a month earlier, I've spoken with FBI Director Mueller about the case. He readily has admitted that the case against Dr. Ivins is and was circumstantial and that the FBI has no direct physical evidence tying him to the attack. No anthrax spores were found in his car or his home, and the FBI has no evidence that Ivins actually mailed the letters in New Jersey. Nevertheless, the FBI and the DOJ are closing the case because they believe the available circumstantial evidence against Dr. Ivins is overwhelming and because no evidence has surfaced to suggest that he had any accomplices. A number of important questions about this case remain unanswered: How did the perpetrator or perpetrators manage to pull off these attacks that were somewhat complicated in the first place? Why did the FBI pursue the wrong suspect for so long? Is the science behind the case sound? Should the case be closed? Have we learned the right lessons, and have we implemented the right changes in our defenses to make another such attack less likely? Why are investigators so certain that Ivins acted alone? Indeed, last month in Baltimore, at the conference of the American Society for Microbiology, FBI scientist Jason Bannan told the press something I had not previously heard from the FBI officials, something that only raises more questions about the FBI investigation. Dr. Bannan noted during the investigation that the FBI collected at least 60 water samples from communities where government laboratories work with anthrax. The purpose of collecting the samples was to see if there was any unique chemical signature in one of the water samples that would match with the water that was used to grow the anthrax spores that were mailed. According to the New York Times, Bannan said, ``The water research ultimately was inconclusive about where the anthrax was grown.'' Despite this, the FBI remains adamant that the anthrax could only have come from that site in Maryland that Dr. Ivins used even though the Bureau has never been able to replicate the chemical signature of the material in the attacks. This is just one question. As has so often been the case, each new revelation by the FBI seems only to raise more questions about the conduct and conclusions of the investigation underscoring why an independent review of the investigation is needed badly. In addition, there are important policy and public safety questions that our government has yet to answer satisfactorily. In December 2008, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism--itself an outgrowth of the 9/ 11 Commission and its recommendations--issued a report. It used alarming language to prod our government to act. It affirmed something that was demonstrated with the deadly anthrax attacks: Terrorists will likely use weapons of mass destruction attacks on America which feature biological weapons. However, examining the 2001 anthrax attacks was not an explicit mandate of that Commission. This was in contrast to the 9/11 Commission which was specifically charged with looking at how the September 2001 attacks happened, why the Federal Government failed to prevent the attacks and what remedial measures were necessary to prevent a similar catastrophe in the future. The question is, have we implemented the lessons learned from those attacks in the fall of 2001? The Commission that I am proposing here is similar to this 9/11 Commission that should look at the incident, why it was not prevented, and what we can do to prevent such things in the future. Just as the 9/ 11 Commission looked not only at the attacks that morning but also recommended changes in the structure of government agencies, screening methods and government oversight, so should an anthrax commission look not only at the specific crime but also at measures for prevention, detention, and investigation of future bioterrorism.