Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, when you start wondering where all the jobs in America have gone, just read the labels on what you buy. You will know the answer. What's happened to the proud logo, ``Made in America''? Our jobs have gotten shipped out by the millions and millions by the multinationals. They offshored them to places where people who labor in sweatshops can't afford to buy what they make. America will create jobs here again when we start making products here again. We have been amassing a trillion dollars of trade deficit year after year. That means more imports coming in here than our imports going out. So read labels carefully. Maytag washing machines used to be made in Newton, Iowa. Now they are made in Monterrey, Mexico. You know what? The people down there can't afford to buy what they make. Then those machines are shipped back here. And did you notice the price for us didn't go down? Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and thousands and millions of our jobs were outsourced to places where some of our students can't even spell the names. Did you know 10 percent of the exports out of China go to one company? Wal-Mart, you guessed it--clothing, tools, gloves, even frozen fish. When you start wondering where all the jobs have gone, just read the labels on what you buy. You will find the right answer. It's time to make goods in America again.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentlelady would yield one second, there is one figure I could put on the record, that is, during the first 18 months of the Obama administration, we have already created more jobs than in the entire 8 years of the Bush administration, 18 months versus 8 years. We're digging ourselves out of that hole, not as fast as we would like in Ohio, but the damage was so great. We're moving in the right direction, and we need to keep your shoulder to the wheel; and I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the additional time

Ms. KAPTUR. Congresswoman Fudge, I want to thank you very much for organizing this Special Order this evening, and especially from the Buckeye State, being down here every week, using your voice, using your talents to fight for the American people, particularly those who are out of work. And don't we know that well in our beloved State of Ohio. In fact, there was a billboard that was put up, paid for by anonymous donors in Ohio, that read as follows: Recession. Your self-worth is more important than your net worth. And what is happening around States like ours where the unemployment rate is above even the horrendous national unemployment rate, where we have 20 million people out of work, directly out of work, those who have run out of benefits or those who are working part time when they really want to work full time. This is an enormous amount of people. And Congresswoman Edwards, who was down here a while ago, was talking about the fact that with the help of the Obama administration Congress has begun to dig out of this deep job-loss hole that the last administration left us. But the percents really don't tell the full story. Where people finally say, I just simply can't find work. They send out 400 resumes--nothing back. They're told by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, Well, you can't find a job? Start your own business. Create your own job. Where are they supposed to go for capital? How are they supposed to do this when they can barely feed their families at this point? I mean there's a certain unreality and cruelty that attends those who are consistently voting against even extending unemployment benefits, which all of the studies show provide immediate consumer buying power and are the biggest bang for the buck that the Federal Government can actually provide out there in communities across this country to spur purchasing and to allow people to hang on to their homes, to make their car payments--barely, and to try to put food on the table for their families. The situation in States like ours is very, very precarious. One of the communities that I represent has had a string of shootings that I have no doubt when the crimes are solved will probably point to a number of young people who just simply are idle. There could be choices for them. There could be constructive work that they could be doing. But instead, they're getting caught up in the old expression, I guess, the idle mind and the idle hands are the devil's workshop. And it's important for us to think about that. In the major city that I represent, we have had a string of arsons and fires--another one last night--across our community. Innocent lives threatened as these abandoned homes are burned down. Imagine if those who are doing this could be put to constructive ends. It isn't so complicated because all of the destruction takes money, in one way or another. And yet we could do something to help people reposition in this very difficult economy. I favor all of the programs, as a member of the Jobs Now Caucus with my dear colleague Bobby Rush of Chicago and Congresswoman Candice Miller of Michigan, all of those programs that we can't get through here dealing with the re-creation of a Civilian Conservation Corps so any person who'd want to make a positive contribution to our country would be given that opportunity. They wouldn't make wages like the head of those big banks on Wall Street. Nothing close to it. But they would get a living wage. They could at least, like Peace Corps, like VISTA, they could get a wage and maybe opportunity for education beyond. And they could do something constructive. One of the last images I had this morning as I drove through Toledo, Ohio, we have a Mission right in the downtown area that tries to help people who are just falling out of regular society. And right next door they've now built an education and training center. It's small, but they're dealing with some of the most challenged human beings that are residing in our community now. But they're saying we're not giving up on anybody because everybody counts. Everybody has self-worth. Everybody should have self-worth. It isn't net worth, it's self-worth. And America, after all, isn't that what we're supposed to be as a country? We're supposed to be a place where every person matters. Now I wanted to say on the jobs programs that are stalled over in the Senate--and it was embarrassing to watch the laborious effort that the Senate had to go through just to pass extended unemployment benefits--which the people earned. These are benefits they worked for. This is no manna from heaven. I mean, this is something that people paid for. In addition to the troubles they had over there, I'm getting a little bit worried about the trade agreements that we hear rumblings about. If we look back to agreements like NAFTA, China, we outsourced so many jobs to foreign places. If every label in America read ``made in America'' again, we'd have so many jobs we wouldn't know what to do. We would be so full up with production, with purchasing. But we keep handing off jobs to all of these other countries where people work for slave wages. I just had another business person tell me yesterday that he will no longer go back to certain parts of Asia because he has to have a lot of protection when he goes there, and that the products that people are making are of more inferior quality, but they can't afford to buy what they make. Certainly in China, certainly in Malaysia, certainly in Indonesia. How can we as a country make lasting friends in these other places when that stuff is sent over here, they don't even make a decent wage there. And they undercut our markets, these companies, by outsourcing our jobs and paying the people over there nothing. That doesn't seem like a long-term recipe for success for our country as a Republic as it makes its way felt in the world. So I wanted to say to my dear colleague from Cleveland, we know what Mr. Coffee's loss of jobs in Cleveland meant. We know what the loss of jobs in Sandusky, Ohio, and Dixon Ticonderoga's move to Mexico, we know what that means. We know when Whirlpool jobs are outsourced to Mexico, we know what that means for Ohio's workers. And the list is endless of all of these products and services that we've outsourced. This Congress should be renegotiating trade agreements. We should not be approving other trade agreements until we fix what's wrong with the ones we already have. And that's part of the jobs agenda as well because this year America will exact a $1 trillion trade deficit with the world. All of those jobs gone. Somebody else making what we used to make here. And this is costing us dearly. So I want to thank the gentlelady for allowing us to put on the record the number of unemployed, the difficulty we've had in trying to get the Senate to pass its bills, the bills that we've sent over there, the impact of the job loss on people's self-worth and what that means to us as Americans. And finally, what this trade deficit means, over a long, long, period of time with the continued outsourcing of jobs and the efforts that we as a Congress are going to put forward even more for made-in-America again. I think the American people will cheer for that coast to coast because they know that needs to be done. So I want to thank the gentlelady for allowing us to convene this evening. And I know the Cleveland area and Parma and areas that you represent are just as challenged as those over in northwestern Ohio and northern Ohio, the parts that I represent. And our people deserve more fair treatment by their own government. Thank you for allowing us this time this evening.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the kind chairman, Mr. McDermott, for yielding me the 2 minutes. Sometimes when they say gentlewoman, I don't feel so gentle on the subject of unemployment. And in fact, I rise in strong support of this bill, which is long overdue because of the delays in the other Chamber. And I want to thank Chairman McDermott for his extraordinary leadership and our Speaker for bringing this bill forward. All the economic studies show that in fact direct consumer spending that results from the expenditure of unemployment checks on basics-- paying for food, paying your mortgage so you don't lose your home, making your car payment on that old jalopy you use to go to work--that, in fact, this creates the largest bang inside our economy to move it up than any investment we can make other than in infrastructure investment, where we are employing people building bridges, building roads, some of the things that people on the other side of the aisle are making fun of. It's no fun to go over a bridge that collapses. We saw that in Minnesota. These are issues that in a great Nation you take care of. In Ohio, we need unemployment compensation right now. We're one of the platforms that manufactures and grows jobs immediately to hold this country up. And our people, 100,000 of them, still remain out of work and utterly dependent on these benefits. They will be affected directly by the extension of these benefits. Indeed, Ohio has a total of between 600,000 and a million people who are unemployed, working in part-time jobs, or they have fallen out of the workforce through no fault of their own. The Obama administration will have created more jobs by the end of August than the Bush administration did in the whole 8 years that it sat in office and did nothing except create more war and more unemployment and more outsourcing of jobs. I find my colleagues on the other side of the aisle out of touch--I can't even explain them. We don't live in the same world. I respect people who go to work every day. I respect those who get injured on the job. I respect those farmers who are out in the fields right now harvesting crops. I respect those who work for them. I respect the people who work in our auto plants. I respect the people working in hundred-degree weather up on bridges around my district right now trying to fix things up and hold things together until a better day comes. So the least we can do is return to them the money they already paid in, that their employers already paid in, that they already earned. They earned it. I say to the gentleman I support this bill a thousand percent. Ohioans are waiting for their unemployment checks. But most of all, they want to go back to work.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Congresswoman Fudge for taking leadership on this very, very important Special Order this evening on the subject of unemployment and the extension of unemployment benefits during this critical moment for our country. I just got back to Washington after spending the weekend in my district, and I'm telling you that is the issue. People come up to you, whether you are in a parking lot, just leaving a food store, whether you're in a religious institution on Sunday, people are asking what's wrong with Congress. It isn't the House. It's the other body that hasn't passed the extension of unemployment benefits. I want to commend the Congressional Black Caucus for bringing this forward this evening. By the end of this week, nearly 2.5 million Americans will have lost their unemployment benefits because our colleagues over on the other side of the Capitol chose to politicize with unemployed workers, trying to make some kind of political statement over there, rather than extending benefits for people who earn them. You would think that work, as a value, would be undergirded by those that serve us at this level in our country, and I think they really undermine the value of work itself by not allowing people who have earned those benefits as a result of going to work every day to then, when times get hard, reap some of the benefits that they, in fact, have earned. Just in Ohio, Congresswoman Fudge and I know that 112,000 Ohioans will lose their unemployment benefits as we wait for the Senate to act. On July 12, the Toledo Blade ran the following letter to the editor, which I will summarize. It says, ``Cutting off jobless was act of cruelty,'' and this writer, Darlene, from Perrysburg, Ohio, states: ``I do not want to add to the Federal deficit. However, not to extend unemployment benefits to workers who have lost their jobs, most through no fault of their own, is cruel.'' She's right. ``These former workers may lose their homes,'' she says, ``adding to the foreclosure dilemma.'' She's right. ``They paid taxes into the system for years.'' She's right. ``Now the government says they have used up their benefits. I wonder when the government will tell third-and fourth-generation welfare recipients that they have used up their benefits.'' And she was rather strident in her comments there, but she's asking what about people who have been employed. Worse, a week before that, the Toledo Blade ran an article titled, ``Toledoans battle to survive as aid for unemployed vanishes: Area agencies get more requests for help.'' I know I met with the head of Job and Family Services in Lucas County, and they said that immediately they expect an influx of 3,000 individuals that represented 3,000 families. You know how many people--that's over 10,000 people just for the first influx of those who had fallen off their benefits. The article talked about Anita Fitch, a 42-year-old single mother who had gotten two extensions on her unemployment benefits but now she's on her own. Anita stated, ``The unemployment money was not paying the bills, and I went to get food stamps because I have two kids in the house and everything is backing up--the food bill, the electric--and now I am trying to find a job,'' but ``there just aren't any jobs out there.'' So Anita's problem is like that of many Americans. We need to stop being partisan over there in the Senate and work together to support those who have lost their jobs while joining together to create jobs and stabilize our housing market. I wanted to say to Congresswoman Fudge that I have other examples I could give, but I don't want to not allow other Members who have come this evening to also state their piece. We know that we need to make things in America again, and Ms. Fitch was among those in our district who had a well-paying factory job, polishing automotive parts, a solid job that provided for her family, the kind of jobs that we need here in our country. We need less outsourcing. We need fewer bank bailouts--in fact, no bank bailouts--while we work to create jobs and to sustain our unemployed citizens. So I have voted to continue to extend unemployment benefits, and I think the important voices that we will add to the record tonight include those individuals from our district who have been contacting us, pleading with Congress to give them the benefits that they have earned, and if we had enough jobs in our country, people wouldn't be asking. This is a time when we need a little extra cushion inside this economy to help people transition as we begin producing more and more jobs per month, and we had to dig ourselves out of the huge hole that the last President left this President. I think that we helped to turn the corner now, but we have millions of Americans who simply have not been able to find their footing in this economy. One gentleman that wrote has sent out 400 resumes and applied for over 400 jobs in 10 States and has only gotten three interviews in 9 months and zero job offers, and he says it's aggravating that the people who caused this mess are still making several-figure incomes, and the average Joe is suffering. Who knows what is going to happen after August when this gentleman's unemployment benefits run out. So, Congresswoman Fudge, I want to thank you very much for holding this Special Order tonight to encourage our Senate colleagues to put partisanship and politics aside and to act to help those who need these unemployment benefits to put food on the table for their families. They're really not asking for very much. ``Sincerely,'' ``Jennifer'' Jennifer is not alone. Debra also emailed me and she writes, ``Dear Representative Kaptur,'' ``Our family is in dire need of an extension of unemployment benefits. My partner has been unemployed since July 15, 2008. Her unemployment expired June 25, 2010 without notice.'' ``She is over 60 years of age. We have 3 children, 2 elementary age and one high school age. I am self employed and my business is so slow that my adjusted gross income last year was $15,500 and it looks like my AGI will be similar for 2010. We've applied for food stamps but we're not sure how long it will take to get them. We need help.'' ``What can you do for us?'' ``Debra'' Dennis emailed to share his situation and his frustration. He writes, ``Just wanted to let you know what it's like in the real world. In September '09, I was laid-off. I went from $32/hr to $9/hr unemployment benefit. My u/b extension is due to run out in August '10. I have sold items at a loss to get rid of debt. My life is on hold.'' ``I have applied to almost 400 jobs in over 10 states and have only gotten 3 interviews in 9 months with zero job offers. It's aggravating that the people who caused this mess are still making 6/7 figure incomes and the average Joe is suffering. Who knows what is going to happen after August.'' Tonight we gather to encourage our Senate colleagues to put partisanship and politics aside and act to help those who need these unemployment benefits to put food on the table for their families. Sometimes it is too easy to get caught up in politics, and we need to remember that we are here for the people. Too many of the people in this country are suffering. They need our support to survive while we work to create jobs in our country for them.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Well, Congressman Garamendi, I just want to say I thank you so very much. You are from the State of California, a State that's about four times as large as ours, maybe five, with 53 million people. We have over 11 million people in Ohio, but we are a State that has had to grow our way forward, to build our way forward for so many generations. We really aren't federally dependent in the sense that we don't have gigantic bases. We do have Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in the city of Columbus, our capital. But the rest of Ohio has to either mine--and Congressman Wilson comes from a part of our State that actually supplies so much of the coal that is shipped to our region and others. We either have to grow in regions like mine--I represent a major agricultural region that abuts Lake Erie's southern shore--or we have to manufacture. We don't really have any choice. So we have to create wealth, basically. And what's been happening over our country for many decades now is that we are amassing trillion-dollar trade deficits every year, which means all that spending benefits someplace else. Ten percent of the goods that are exported from China go to one company--Wal-Mart. They are a bazaar for Chinese goods. We look at what you have pictures of up there, vehicles and wind turbines. I was just through a part of my district where wind turbines are going up now. We'd like to manufacture them as well as deploy them. And we are the solar capital of the Midwest--Toledo, Ohio, and northern Ohio. We are one of three centers on the continent, actually. People don't realize that we've built that off of our glass industry, and it is a new age for us. In fact, the largest solar field in Ohio was just dedicated in Upper Sandusky recently, and I have bases in my district-- smaller bases, like the F-16 Fighter Wing and the 983rd Engineer Battalion and our Camp Perry--that have deployed solar fields. So we are trying to move our region into the new energy era, but it's tough. It's really tough because we are on such an unlevel global playing field. Other countries aren't open to our products. And there is no question that unless we reduce that trade deficit and stop outsourcing our jobs to China, Mexico, every other place in the world, we are not going to be able to create a strong middle class and maintain the middle class that we have today. So I want to commend you for doing this Special Order tonight. We know that our future lies in wealth creation, and it has to come from places like Ohio that have to stand on their own two feet and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker. I rise today to recall the generous, self- giving life of Sister Ann Brawley, of the Mercy Order of Roman Catholic sisters in Lima who in 2010 has passed from this life into the next. Sr. Ann spent 77 of the 94 years of her life on Earth serving in Christ Jesus' name. She put into practice His words to live by--to ``remain in my love.'' Her joy was complete, as was the joy she conveyed to others. Sr. Ann's imprimatur on our community is large. Starting as a bookkeeper for Mercy and St. Charles Hospitals in Toledo, she befriended all people who worked and visited the hospitals in which she worked. Of deep and committed social conscience, she was key in the establishment of the Toledo Catholic Diocese's Central Development Office. She offered accounting services to several area schools, the Migrant Information Office, Aurora Shelter for Women, and Bittersweet Farms community for adults with autism. She was invited to help in the development of Lima, Ohio's Kibby Corners Neighborhood Project. In addition to Sr. Ann's accounting skill, she had a gift and a passion for the course of the Nation and politics. I came to know her when she offered her counsel, prayers and talents to me during my first campaign in 1982. Her humor, wit, and acumen were sharp and appreciated by all whose lives she touched. Not all business, Sr. Ann also had a passion for sports. Sr. Ann had a compassionate heart and open arms, and the source of her hope was the unconditional love of Jesus. As Sister Joan Nemann, RSM noted in her eulogy, ``More than ten years ago when she asked me to give the homily at her funeral she emphasized these words repeatedly, remain in my love. This was such good news for her--and for us. Today, in her room I found a piece of birch bark that Ann had kept for a number of years. I recall that some years ago I came to the Pines to make a retreat. At that time the birch trees were shedding their bark. I found a lovely piece and wrote on it, `As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you. Remain in my love.' I gave it to Ann, and she kept it all these years since.'' Sister Joan's story illustrates to those of us privileged to know her: to her core, the essence of Love. May Sister be granted eternal rest for her life of abiding good deeds.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the 90th anniversary of the American Legion in Genoa, Ohio. The members and friends of the post and its auxiliary commemorated the milestone during the annual Genoa Homecoming Festival Parade along with hundreds of others celebrating this major community event. The Genoa American Legion has been an anchor in its community since the early days of the last century. Through the decades it has provided a sanctuary and camaraderie to veterans returning from service as its members have worked to move the community and our nation forward. Its civic efforts include public works, while the post has also provided individual assistance in numerous ways to many. Following in the tradition of the American Legion since its national founding, members of the Genoa Post have been among the ``keepers of the flame'' honoring the sacrifice of the victims of combat while teaching the next generations of their place in history. The American Legion ensures we ``will never forget'' and focuses attention on the needs of our nation's veterans and their service for freedom's cause. The Genoa American Legion Auxiliary kept ``the home fires burning'' making significant contributions to the community and nation on our own soil. When veterans return from service, the Auxiliary is there to support and pay special attention to the families' needs. The Legion and its Auxiliary are hand-in-hand in a strong partnership in service to country. Together, these members will continue to meet the needs of veterans and the community of Genoa on their journey toward their centennial. Godspeed.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my major disappointment and key concerns with the so-called Wall Street reform bill that just passed this House and why I voted ``no'' on this measure. Bottom line, the bill does not fundamentally change the skewed financial power relationship between Wall Street and Main Street. That relationship has so gravely hurt our Nation. The bill allows the Wall Street institutions to maintain their choke hold on Main Street's vitals. The big banks that have caused our economic crisis by severely abusing their privilege to create money were treated with kid gloves. Now, the Republican leader said that the bill was like a nuclear weapon aimed at an ant. I say, the bill was a cotton ball thrown at an elephant. The bill does not even create real competition to the handful of big banks that have simply become too big and controlling. Indeed, the bill allows them to keep their vaulted positions with a few modifications to their business practices. It will take years for regulators to sort out and apply, if ever, the mild provisions in the bill. And there are so many loopholes you could read the bill for another year to find them all. A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the Federal Reserve cannot compensate for a banking system that is, at its heart, terribly misformed. Time will prove this view correct. A handful of big banks--Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citicorp, Wells Fargo, HSBC and Morgan Stanley--have so harmed the vast majority of other financial institutions on Main Street that these smaller institutions, which comprise the majority that are still left, are being penalized big time by having to pay exorbitant additional insurance fund fees to the regulators to prop up the losses of the big banks that have so harmed the whole financial architecture of our country. That's why lending remains seized up coast to coast. It's why over 84 more banks have folded this year. And while this is happening for the remains that are left, then the big six go in and gobble up what's there. The bill basically grandfathers the too big to fail big banks that have grown even more unwieldy as the financial crisis has deepened. Today they have been rewarded because they're even growing bigger. Before the crisis, they controlled one-third of the assets of this country. Astoundingly, they now control two-thirds of the assets of our Nation. Can you imagine a handful of banks with that much power? The bill does absolutely nothing about that. It kind of looks the other way. One cannot call this structure free market competition. One has to call it oligopolistic control of our financial marketplace. If you're feeling the pain because you lost your home or you're about to lose your home or you lost your job or you lost some of your pension or you lost some of your IRA, you know who to blame. Their bad behavior has hurt all the other banks in this country and, in fact, other nations and people around the world. For shame. But as a result of their concentration of power in the hands of far too few, it is expected that 20 million American families will lose their homes, 2.4 million more Americans this year. Unemployment rates remain stuck too high, and our economy is not producing the jobs it should because lending has seized up across this Nation. People are losing more equity and their savings, yet Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, HSBC, they're doing just fine, making billions and billions in profits and taking bigger and bigger bonuses to boot. This bill didn't even recoup those bonuses to help pay for the cost of housing modifications for Americans who stand to lose their most important asset this year, their equity. The arrogant power of the big banks is demonstrated by their interconnectedness, when you saw Goldman Sachs and AIG kind of bail one another out. And it's a perfect example of why too big to fail is too big to exist. They are very clever, and they command inordinate power, so much market power that they ignore the laws for themselves when it is convenient. Banks are doing more than just banking. In fact, they are speculating with our money. They just can't help themselves. They take a dollar and turn it into a hundred or more.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I will place the other remarks in the Record tonight. And I might say that it's not a question of if the system will fail again, but only when it will fail again. This used to not be allowed under the Glass-Steagall, which prohibited commercial banks from doing investment activities and investment firms from taking deposits. The two were kept separate. However, in 1999, the Graham-Leach-Bliley bill repealed Glass- Steagall and the walls came down between commercial banking and speculating. Gambling and prudent lending need to be separate again. I have introduced H.R. 4377, the Return to Prudent Lending Banking Act which strengthens the Glass-Steagall separations and repeals some of what Graham-Leach-Bliley did. We know instinctually that we need to break up the big banks and increase competition across our financial system. Instead, the megabanks stay too big to fail, and the American taxpayers will pick up the tab when they implode the economy at some date in the future. That is their pattern. That is their history. This bill took far too many passes. Regulating derivatives is an excellent example of Congress knowing what we need to do but not doing it. Regulating all derivatives openly and clearly should be expected with no exceptions. Nothing less is acceptable. In this bill, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and their colleagues can continue to trade derivatives that are used to specifically hedge the risk that they are undertaking, as well as still being able to trade interest- rate and foreign-exchange swaps. Last week Bloomberg Businessweek stated the following: ``U.S. commercial banks held derivatives with the notional value of $216.5 trillion in the first quarter, of which 92 percent were interest-rate or foreign-exchange derivatives, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.'' So, they can keep the vast majority of business in house. Bloomberg Businessweek also reported that ``The [same] five U.S. banks with the biggest holdings of derivatives--JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo--hold $209 trillion, or 97 percent of the total, the OCC said.'' So, let's review: 5 megabanks, all ``too big to fail'', highly interconnected, hold \2/3\ of the assets of people in our country. They have concentrated vast amounts of financial power amongst themselves and also control 97 percent of the derivatives in the country. Now that's a recipe for more abuse. And that set of facts is a window on future abuse. Perhaps worst of all, according to such experts as William Isaac, former Chair of the FDIC and Henry Blodget, editor-in-chief of The Business Insider, concur that ``reform'' bill would not have prevented the crisis of 2008. So, why didn't Congress assure that it did? Now, some might say we can't predict what the next financial crisis will look like. But we should be able to put reforms into place that would have prevented the crisis we just went through. But Congress did not. The wine glasses and cigars are surely full and lit tonight. Sadly, this House repeated its history in weak financial regulation. We did not make the hard choices. It left the American people vulnerable again. It is not a question of ``if,'' but only ``when.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the distinguished dean of the delegation for yielding to me. And with Speaker Mollohan in the Chair this evening, the people of the Buckeye State of Ohio extend our deepest sympathies to the State of West Virginia, to the Byrd family, to all of the staff that served this truly remarkable human being and American, Senator Robert Byrd. There's a great piece of music called ``Ode to the Common Man'' by Aaron Copeland, and as I'm saying these words this evening, I think of that music and of Senator Byrd's remarkable life. He truly was a wise man of the Legislative branch who belonged to the American people. He gave his life to us. His road had been a hard scrabble one from the very beginning. He's the kind of American that walked a tough road, who when he came here to serve, he never forgot people who came from backgrounds like his. I had the great joy of serving with him on the Appropriations Committee. And being one of the few women that have ever served on that committee, when I arrived there in the 1990s, I can remember him sitting across from me at a conference committee, kind of looking over his glasses with a glint in his eye at this woman who was a bit younger than he was. He exhibited a great sense of welcome with also some surprise that indeed history in America was changing. I respected and liked him so very, very much. And I appreciated his kindness to me. He loved history. I hold in my possession an autographed copy from him of ``The Roman Republic and the Rule of Law'' of the Senate of that era. I loved speaking with him. I loved being on a program with him a few years ago with Leo Gerard, president of the Steelworkers, and listening to Senator Byrd deliver an impassioned speech about the American worker. He was such an exemplary representative for the working men and women of this country. His intellect, his humor, his knowledge of the rules and history, his love of this institution and respect for it, and his passion, his passion on every issue that he handled. He had so much to teach all of us. I happen to be a Democrat. He was a real Democrat. He set the pointer on a compass and that needle to represent all people. He was a gentleman, he was civil, he was enlightened, he worked so hard. I can remember his telling a story about working on the railroads as a young man. That hard work and that sense of honor he carried with him through his entire service of over a half a century to the people of our country. I will end with saying, as I think of ``Ode to the Common Man,'' that the enormous courage that he displayed in the last years of his life is a lesson to us all. He continued to serve, despite illness, despite difficulty, his doggedness, his determination--he truly was an heroic American. I personally shall miss him very, very much. I thank the people of the State of West Virginia for continuing to send him to this Congress. He made us all better by serving with him. He built a better and more humane America. He was loved by this membership. We wish him Godspeed, and eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for allowing me this time tonight to pay tribute to a great and good man and Senator for the ages. In knowing him, we have walked with history, and are grateful.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to next turn to the issue of mortgages and the foreclosure rates around this country which are rising in areas such as I represent. Is this bill that is coming out of the Financial Services Committee, in granting all these powers across our financial system, going to do anything to help the American people who are being foreclosed in their homes? You know what the answer is? No. This year we will lose another 2.4 million families. None of these so-called modification programs are really working, and yet we have a major bill coming to the floor that doesn't address that issue when the very institutions being granted power are the ones that did this to us in the first place. So we should be able to exact from them some type of resolution for the American people who are paying their salaries--literally--by the taxpayer bailout, and yet we're not dealing with the mortgage foreclosure issue. And why aren't we? Because if you look at who is holding the mortgage today and who is servicing the mortgage, guess what? There's a conflict of interest because over half of the mortgages have second mortgages, and the servicing companies owned by the banks are the same institutions that have a relationship with the banks that hold the second mortgage on the home. So, for example, if J.P. Morgan is servicing your loan but JPMorgan also owns the second mortgage, they have no interest in servicing your loan. And that's going on with all the institutions that I listed earlier. So the bill is silent on the issue of mortgage resolutions, and that is a great tragedy. Does the bill do anything to even reference those agencies dedicated to fighting the fraud that has crippled our financial system or is the bill silent? The bill is silent. Even though we know we need additional agents at the Department of Justice--and yes, this bill is coming out of the Financial Services Committee--the bill doesn't even have a finding that references the importance of adding financial fraud agents at the Department of Justice, at the SEC, at the FDIC, to go after the wrongdoers because these fraudulent systems were set up at the very highest levels of finance in this country, but the bill remains silent on that. I mentioned capital margins a little bit earlier. This is really an important issue to get at the question of prudent lending and how much power we grant these institutions and the instruments they create to create money and to check it against the value of the underlying asset. The bill is quite weak on that. Finally, I would present to my colleagues the question: Does the bill create a truly independent systemic risk council or does it merely politicize risk evaluation through the U.S. Department of Treasury, which has caused such confusion in the markets? Credit has seized up across this country, and Treasury seems to play favorites--always with a bent toward the biggest banks on Wall Street and in Charlotte. So these are threshold questions that the Members have to ask. Now, one might wonder why I hold these concerns about the financial regulatory reform bill. And the reasons start with the fact that unless we understand how excess has been rewarded and moral hazard has been encouraged inside the financial system, it will happen again, unless we really get at what's wrong and how we've gotten ourselves into this position. And one of the ways to really understand that is to add up the true cost of the financial crisis we are all living through at this point. A true counting of the cost of the big bank financial crisis to the American people is needed because, unless we understand that, we are on the verge of creating what is called a financial regulatory reform which should aim to prevent similar crises from happening. But we still don't yet have a full accounting of the crisis of 2008 and its causes, and that should really stand as a background to what we do from this point forward. Almost 2 years ago, I fought against the Wall Street bailout that was called the TARP. I did not vote for it the first time, and I did not vote it for the second time. It gave Wall Street 100 cents on the dollar, when people in my district were being thrown out of their homes, and they were getting zero on the dollar. What's fair about that? And it wasn't just people in my district. Twenty million Americans, American families--this is not a small number--are being directly affected, and the real estate values of every single American are being affected by this crisis. Now, what's coming out of Washington is the orthodox tale being spun by Wall Street's PR firms, that the mega banks are paying us back. Why, they're paying us $700 billion, which is some of the money that they were given in the fall of 2008, and so the cost to the American taxpayer will be paid back. Is that really true? The big banks have narrowed the focus of what is owed back to the American people to what is called the TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, and they're not really talking about the big picture, the economic cost of what they have caused to us, as a society, the real cost of the crisis, the real losses thrust on the American people that go far beyond what is called TARP. Yes, the American taxpayers need to be paid back for all the damage the Wall Street bankers have caused. But they're taking away the tax in the committee right now, as we're standing here on the floor, to get them to give some of what they are earning back to the American people. That's how much power they have. We get a true picture of the real cost to the American people as we see millions and millions more of our citizens disgorged out of their homes, while Wall Street's coffers fill up, and they're making greater profits every year. Their bonuses get bigger every year. When Americans are getting pink slips and small businesses can't pay health insurance, there's nothing fair about this playing field. So tonight I want to shine a light in the very dark corner of where the true cost of the bailout sits. So come and look behind the curtain with me where the wizard is really hiding. Secretary Geithner, and even Elizabeth Warren, say the banks are paying us back. But all they are paying back is the TARP money, and they're not even paying all of that back. Even if they paid back all $700 billion, that could not possibly be enough. In fact, there are 12 Treasury programs to bolster Wall Street banks that have cost taxpayers $727 billion. About half of that is what is being paid back by TARP. Plus, there are 24 additional programs at the Federal Reserve that assist private banks, and those costs--are you sitting down--$1.738 trillion dollars. So the total of these federally orchestrated bailouts is $2.4 trillion, not $700 billion; $2.4 trillion and rising. The number is staggering. It's huge. Wall Street has no intention of paying back $2.4 trillion to the American people, and no one is holding them accountable, not this Congress, and not the administration. Now, what has Wall Street done for Main Street? Nothing. All they're doing right now is consolidating their power, as the bill that comes to us later in the week will do. Meanwhile, Wall Street big banks are recording record profits and record bonuses last year on the backs of the American people who are struggling without jobs and fighting to keep their homes. Now, the $2.4 trillion immediate cost of Wall Street's excesses is expected to rise, and here is why. Treasury has promised unending support, regardless of the dollar amount, for the next 3 years, to two mortgage companies that they took over. They are called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're housing organizations. And the taxpayers are being asked to fill the holes in each institution as both companies continue their death spiral losses. Already, our taxpayers have been billed $61 billion on Freddie Mac, and our taxpayers have been billed $83 billion on Fannie Mae. That's a total, just there, of an additional $144 billion. The spiraling bills and costs to our people go far beyond Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At the heart of the financial crisis is the housing crisis. So one must add in the losses of the Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans Housing Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's housing programs. They are all being tapped to pick up the mistakes of the big banks. One also has to add the cost to our economy of the decline in the value of your homes and the homes of our neighbors and friends across this country. It affects every single one of our citizens. And add to that the total cost of all of the unemployment, the loss in earnings that people have suffered, as well as losses that people have suffered in their IRAs and their pension funds. All these losses have resulted from Wall Street's mad money game. Just Ohio's public pension fund losses alone took a $480 million hit with the failure of just Lehman Brothers alone. That hole, of all of these accumulated losses that sits at Wall Street's feet, is what it has cost our society. Now, there's one organization, the Pew Financial Reform Project, that did a report called ``The Cost of the Financial Crisis.'' And it provides some very interesting information. According to Pew, our economy plunged, and I quote, with gross domestic product falling by 5.4 percent and 6.4 percent in the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, the worst 6 months for economic growth since 1958. And Pew, in their report, created some really great charts that I'm going to discuss this evening. One, that is called ``the impact of the crisis on our economy,'' which means our economy would have grown like this, but, in fact, our economy fell like this. That gap represents huge loss, loss in jobs, loss in wages, loss in wealth. The Pew brief states, additional negative shock to our economy from the crisis knocked off another 5.5 million jobs, leaving employment at the end of 2009 with 9.5 million jobs lower than the potential of our economy, the anticipated employment, versus what actually happened. And we all know Americans who've lost their jobs. They are actually subsidizing Wall Street with their job loss, with the loss of value in their home. The largest shift of wealth, actually, in American history is going on from Main Street to Wall Street, and Charlotte, and to those six big banks. These next two charts show the impact of the crisis on household wealth and the impact of the crisis on wages. Both have been damaged severely, and the American people know it. In the district that I represent, our people have suffered this wealth shrinkage. We live it every day. The Pew report states: ``American families''--imagine this-- ``lost $360 billion in wages and salaries as a result of the weak economy.'' And the Pew study shows the anticipated wages versus the actual wages. In addition, the bottom chart shows that the value of families' real estate, which I referenced a little bit earlier, declined sharply over the crisis as well, with a loss of $5.9 trillion. That was from mid- 2007 to March 2009. And a loss of $3.4 trillion from mid-2008 to March 2009. We have all felt this. We all know this is happening. Moreover, half the mortgages in our country are now controlled by the big banks. More and more families are sending their mortgage payments directed to Wall Street institutions or to the two institutions located in Charlotte, further moving capital from our local community. Where you would normally pay your mortgage to your local bank or your local credit union, over half those mortgages are flowing off somewhere else, as well now as your car loans. This raids local communities of real money. The Pew report goes on to say that these wealth losses correspond to more than $52,900 of loss per household, or $30,300 per household for the shorter period. In addition, the value of families' equity holdings fell by $10.9 trillion from the middle of 2007 to the end of March 2009, at a loss of $97,000 per household. That is real money. That is the loss of your retirement dollars; that's a loss of your real estate. For many families it's the loss of the home itself, lost wages. Now we are getting a real sense of what Wall Street's false money creation has cost our country. And the question really for Congress is how much do we want to reward the system that yielded us this. Main Street still keeps losing wealth while Wall Street keeps collecting more chips. In fact, we are experiencing the largest transfer of wealth in our country in modern history. Now, the last chart that I have here talks about the cumulative impact on household wealth from the foreclosure crisis precipitated by the big banks. With the reduction in our gross domestic product, Americans obviously have lost jobs, wages, and wealth. And as they do that, they cannot hold onto their homes. And we look at some of the projections. This is when the crisis started. You see that Americans were having trouble with foreclosures already, but then it just went down; and it continues to go down here. We have experienced this steady decline across our country, some areas being hit harder than others. But nobody on Wall Street or in Charlotte banks really seems to care, because modifications, loan modifications aren't being done. And they aren't being done for the reason that I stated earlier, that most of these same big banks, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, they hold a lot of the second mortgages on the loans, and they're not willing to work with the servicer to do a principal write-down. That would be the way we would normally resolve a loan on the books in past decades. But that isn't the system that we have today when Wall Street holds the power. So it's a bleak picture right now for Main Street. And to gain a true picture of the cost of the financial crisis, much more needs to be added to the ledger, not just this little simple discussion they have here saying it's just paying back the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the TARP money. The ledger is much longer than that. And the banks have to pay back more to the American people because TARP doesn't even make a dent in what is actually owed. One of the most disgusting practices of Wall Street involves their abusive salaries and the bonuses that just keep getting bigger. In 2000, the Standard and Poor's 500 average pay for a CEO on Wall Street was $13 million every year, $13 million. By 2007, that had gone up to $54 million, over $20 million more. And the average worker in our country at minimum wage makes about $11,000 a year minimum wage. The average worker makes about $26,000. And that's as of 2000. And then as of 2007, the minimum-wage worker in our country makes about $12,000 a year, and the average worker makes about $31,000. The pay scales are just so out of whack. CEOs actually made over a thousand times more than someone working minimum wage. So the average wage of a worker in our country is $32,000; the average wage of the CEOs is about $9.2 million. We are not even talking in the same league. And I really say to myself if you make the kind of big mistakes that they made, are they really worth that amount of money? I think that the prudent managers at credit unions in the communities that I represent, our local community bankers, they manage the money much, much better. And that's where we should be placing the power, back in their hands. This bill will not do that. I really do have a question: Are these big institutions really capable of caring about the American people and about the American Republic? Because they certainly seem hell bent on destroying it. The big banks remain too big; and the crisis enabled them, sadly, to get even bigger and more interconnected. Too big to fail is too big to exist. I mentioned earlier that the banks before the crisis controlled one- third of the assets in our country. Now they control two-thirds. That means power is moving away from you to someplace far away from you. The concentration of wealth on Wall Street has sucked the lifeblood out of the rest of our economy. Mid-sized and small banks and credit unions are fighting for their lives right now. In fact, 86 more banks have failed this year alone. Banks are doing more than just banking, the Wall Street ones for sure. They are speculating. This used to not be allowed in our country under an act called the Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited commercial banks from doing investment, and it prohibited investment firms from taking regular bank deposits. It kept gambling and speculating separate from sound prudent commercial banking. That was until the late 1990s. In 1999, a bill called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill repealed that act and created a new kind of holding company they called a financial holding company. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 4773, the Return to Prudent Lending and Banking Act, which would take the Glass-Steagall separations and carry them beyond the Federal Reserve system to all federally insured depository institutions, including national banks; and require that they separate commercial banking and investment arms, as well as repealing the financial holding company's language from the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. The bill before us later this week will not do that. It allows them to conduct this integrated activity under this holding company structure. But separation is what's needed; it is not what will end up being voted on on this floor. Equally, something called the Volcker rule was watered down in the conference committee. This proposal by American economist and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker would have restricted banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments if they are not on behalf of their customers. Volcker has argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis of 2007 to 2010, and he is absolutely right. But the conference report that will come before us allows them to keep their hedge funds and their private equity arms up and running. And they can still do some proprietary trading. Do we really want them to do that? Haven't we gone through enough? Right now Wall Street is choking the life out of our local credit system and the communities they serve. And let me just give you one example of why it's so difficult for local banks. When the big banks, I call them the big six, made all these mistakes, inside the banking system local institutions, be they banks or credit unions, pay into insurance funds. Well, even if they didn't do anything wrong, they are part of the banking system; and their fees went up. They had to pay more into these insurance funds. And so some institutions that were paying $20,000 a year for insurance found their rates going up from $20,000 to $40,000 to $70,000 to $140,000, and this year $700,000, both credit unions and banks in the community that I represent, to shore up the national insurance fund because of the losses of the big banks. What's fair about that? In my hometown of Toledo, Ohio, this week there was a report that talks about one of our community development credit unions being hurt, and they're being hurt all across our country because these fees are being placed on them even when they didn't do anything wrong. They simply can't earn enough to afford to pay these higher fees. Who's going to win in that game? The very six big institutions that have been rewarded again, and those at the local level trying so hard to hang on are being hurt. The little guys cannot expand, and they can't hire or lend more since revenue has to go to insuring their deposits, and they have to send that here to Washington and they can't lend it out. That's why credit has seized up across our country. A local bakery said to me the other day, Marcy, I want to add three employees. I want to get a loan locally so that I can add some equipment. I can't get a loan. I said I know exactly why and I know right where the money is, but I can't get to it because it's up on Wall Street and, frankly, I don't want Wall Street making loans to our local banks. I want local banks to make loans to local businesses. Oh, and by the way, when credit at these small banks and credit unions is seized up and they get in trouble, what's been going on is the big banks have been coming in and buying them up. When they can't make it anymore, they just buy up their deposit bases. So, in coming to work, going out to the airport this week to come back to Washington, I saw a sign go down, National City Bank in Ohio. The sign came down. Another sign went up called PNC out of Pittsburgh, and we are now owned by some institution far, far away from us. According to the L.A. Times on June 26, 2010, it stated that the proposed reform bill won't help protect small banks nor keep competition alive in our banking system. A return to prudent banking would address this concern. Reinstating and strengthening Glass- Steagall would move our financial system to a more competitive mode. The bill that's proposed, from everything I know about it, will not do that. I wanted to reference a report from Bloomberg Businessweek that has two sentences at the beginning of the article that are important, and I quote: ``Legislation to overhaul financial regulation will help curb risk-taking and boost capital requirements. What it won't do is fundamentally reshape Wall Street's biggest banks or prevent another crisis.'' Well, if it can't do that, why would I want to vote for it? So I want to ask my colleagues this: Does the proposed bill make the necessary changes to prevent the financial crisis of 2008? If it can't, why vote for it? Too many experts don't think it can. Look at your own communities and ask: For whom is our financial system working? When you pay your mortgage or your car loan, where do you send your money? If it isn't to your own community, is it to some distant player somewhere? Do they really care about you? If you're a small business and you're trying to expand your business--and that's the only place in our society creating any jobs right now--why should they get their loan from far away? Why shouldn't it come from an institution close to them? This morning on the Marketplace Morning Report produced by American Public Media, Bill Radke was interviewing Henry Blodget, editor-in- chief of the Business Insider, on the subject of the financial regulatory reform bill. Mr. Radke stated, ``You are one of those observers who believes that even with these new rules, we are at risk of another global crisis. What might that crisis look like?'' And Mr. Blodget responded, ``I think the reason that people are saying that is that if you took this legislation and you enacted it in 2005, it would not have prevented the crisis we just had.'' Well, if it can't prevent the crisis we just had, what are we doing? What are we about here? So Blodget said, if we enacted the bill that we are going to vote on in 2005, it would not have the prevented the crisis we faced in 2008. This certainly can't be real financial regulatory reform. The bill doesn't appear to encourage prudent credit accumulation. It does not allow for that power to be devolved to Main Street. The bill allows financial power to create wealth, the bankers' awesome power, to be closely held in a few Wall Street and Charlotte- based megabanks. The bill does not address the business model of credit rating agencies or how interwoven these nongovernmental agencies are with the institutions they rate. The bill does not require that all derivatives be traded through transparent exchanges. The bill does not adequately support both agencies dedicated to finding and fighting fraud in our financial system, and it really doesn't do anything to address the continuing mortgage foreclosure hemorrhage, the crisis going on across our country. So, if it doesn't do that, why are we just nipping at the edges? Sadly, the so-called bill seems all too often, in the end, to support the very same big banks and not the American people and the communities in which we live, in the Main Street that all of us are sworn to represent. The New York Times ran an editorial last week on derivatives, and I really want to reference it because it stated the following: ``This is arguably the most important issue for the big banks because real reform will crimp their huge profits from derivative dealmaking.'' That's where they take a dollar and turn it into $35 or a dollar and turn it into $100. That's gambling, actually. It's not banking; it's gambling. ``It is also arguably the most important issue for the public. The largely unregulated, multitrillion-dollar market in derivatives fed the bubble, intensified the bust, and led to the bailout. Unreformed, it will do so again.'' The New York Times article says, ``The final bill must ensure that derivatives are traded on transparent exchanges and processed through third-party clearinghouses to guarantee payment in case of default. That would end the opacity that masks the size and risk of derivative deals, like those that caused the bailout of American International Group,'' AIG. ``But to be effective the new rules must be broadly applied.'' Another Wall Street expert told a small group of Members of Congress that all derivatives should be openly marketed with transparency on exchanges, and if an institution creates an instrument that is too complex to go through such an open and transparent process, that institution should be subject to higher, in fact, extremely high, capital standards. The bill really doesn't do that. The amendment offered by Senator Blanche Lincoln in the other body would have forbidden any banks receiving Federal support, such as deposit insurance, from engaging in the trading of swaps. If the amendment had not been weakened, it could have resulted in banks having to spin off their swap businesses, but it seems like it's business as usual in Washington. The amendment was weakened and too many exceptions exist. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and their U.S. colleagues can continue to trade derivatives that are used to specifically hedge the risk that they are undertaking, as well as still being able to trade interest rates and foreign exchange swaps. For other types of nonstandard instruments, like some credit default swaps, the banks have 2 years to move that business to a subsidiary which is capitalized separately, and some people say there's even language in the bill that would allow them up to 15 years to try to meet some sort of standard. Well, you can't really call that reform. Bloomberg Businessweek reported last Friday, ``U.S. commercial banks held derivatives--'' get this ``--with the notional value of $216.5 trillion in the first quarter, of which 92 percent were interest rate or foreign exchange derivatives, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.'' It is not a small amount of money, and very few institutions hold the power to trade them. There are five U.S. banks with the biggest holdings of derivatives, and you probably already know the answer. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo hold $209 trillion, or 97 percent of the total, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said. You know, when you keep running into the same rhinos, you ought to start recognizing them out there. What is interesting is these very same companies are not doing mortgage modifications through their servicers across our country. So what is allowed in the bill accounts for 92 percent of the held derivatives, and our five biggest mega banks control nearly all of that 92 percent. So who is this bill helping? Not only are the numbers staggering, but if this is as true as I think it is, did the bill really do anything about derivatives? With essentially, if not every, commercial end user exempted, did we really do anything to restructure the financial system to avoid letting derivatives create such exposure for an institution that is too big to fail in that we, the government, representing the people of the United States--and you, the American taxpayer--must pay hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent its demise? So I say to my colleagues: Read the bill. Perhaps read my comments. In the end, ask yourselves the question I began with: Which bankers do you believe should hold the awesome power to create money? Which bankers have been prudent in their practices? As this bill is debated, do we increase their power or do we decrease their power? If all we do is abdicate more power to JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley, have we really served the American people? Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, tonight I want to devote extra time to talking about the proposed financial reform bill and the conference committee report that is being worked on this moment that is likely to come before the House later this week. And I wanted to put the discussion tonight into a broader context in hopes that my colleagues will listen and consider the bill to be brought before us. Let me begin with this statement: bankers hold a very privileged position in our society because in fact they hold the awesome power to create money. Their use of that power can advance our society, or their use of that power can harm us greatly. We are living through a period of great harm. And so we have to ask, When bankers are given power, how much power do we give them and what do we give them power to do? As we are discussing this this evening, the Financial Services Committee is meeting to take out a proposal that had been a part of the bill that would tax the banks that have done so much harm to us as a society. It is another example of too much power to too few, especially the few institutions that have hurt our entire Nation. So I rise tonight to offer comments on the so-called regulatory reform conference report, and I want to outline some principles that I hope Members and the American people will consider as this bill is debated later in the week. One of the key principles that we should seek in trying to correct what is wrong is the type of power that we give to these institutions to create money. Will in fact the power to create money be more broadly distributed across our society, or will the bill concentrate power in the hands of those few banks that have too much power? Will in fact the power to create money and credit accumulation be redistributed to Main Street--to where all of us live--or remain closely held by about six Wall Street and Charlotte-based megabanks? And here are their names: CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley. They have a whole lot more power than the people in my community in the financial realm. And why is that? Because chances are, if you talk to your relatives and neighbors, you will find that over half of the money that they are spending to pay for their mortgage or pay for their car loan doesn't go to a local financial institution in the town in which you live. It goes to a distant institution somewhere else that sucks money, sucks wealth, sucks power away from your community and places it somewhere else. So this is a really threshold question. What does the bill do with the power to create money? It's shocking, but today, two-thirds of the financial assets of this country are held by those six institutions. Before the financial crisis of 2008, they only held a third of the power. Now they have two-thirds of the power. I say that's way too much. That's not a competitive financial system. That's what economists would call an oligopoly, very few having very much and taking it away from the rest of us. So this issue of banking power is critical, and Members, as they read this very long conference report, ought to say, To whom does this devolve power? Another threshold question is whether the proposed bill will encourage prudent lending or will it allow greater moral hazard by the bill itself pretending to be reform but actually offering the easy money creation of a recent history led by the big banks. What do I mean by that? It used to be when America had a strong middle class, we had a financial system that allowed credit, the creation of money, to be broadly distributed across our country. Probably, to the people in the gallery and people listening on their televisions, you actually knew bankers in your community that started banks, and you'd have several--dozens of banks locally and there was real credit competition. We've seen all that change as the banks became eaten up by bigger banks and bigger banks yet, and States lost money center banks, and power gravitated to Wall Street and Charlotte, North Carolina, banks. But in the days when we had really competitive credit in this country, there was a law of our land that said to banks, When you get $1 in deposit, you can't lend more than $10. You can't blow money up more than 10 times because, you know what? That's imprudent, and you might make a mistake and, therefore, you have to have very careful underwriting and very careful servicing of those loans. That's all changed. One of the reasons we're in this financial mess is the Wall Street institutions took a dollar and they blew it up into $100 where there was no underlying value, there was no way that loan could perform. It would not rise in value if it was a home. Or if it were a commercial loan, it could never produce 100 times more than it was worth at the beginning. So this issue of prudent lending versus moral hazard is an important question in the bill that will be before us. Thirdly, we have to ask about conflicts of interest in the bill between the credit rating agencies, like Moody's and Standard & Poor's and the banks that employ them to rate them. Will there be a tight fence line that's laid between them or will it simply be finessed? So this issue of ``Is conflict of interest really addressed in the bill and shuts the door tight between the rating agencies and the banks, is it sufficient?'' Members have to weigh whether it is or not. Next I would like to turn to derivatives. This is where Wall Street really created money where there's no underlying value. And you can check this in your own community, because now a majority of mortgage loans in this country are actually--the home is not worth as much as the loan is valued at. They call that underwater. They sell overvalued real estate through the derivative instrument and through the way that the loan was leveraged through the bonding of the security. We're all paying the price for this now as home values start to go down, and this year, another 2.4 million Americans appear to be on the verge of losing their homes. So the question becomes: What kind of margin calls will there be in the bill--capital margin requirements will there be in the bill on derivatives, and how will those derivatives be traded? Will all of them be on exchanges? Will they all be transparent and electronic? What will be exempted? And who will own the exchanges? From what I hear, it is the same big banks. They're not going to put an exchange in Toledo, Ohio, the largest city that I represent. And this is a big concern because, in fact, if what I've heard, that the capital margins in the bill are 15 to 1, that's a 150 percent increase over what we formally had as the prudent lending rules that existed in banks when we had a solid middle class and a banking system that was functioning for all the people. When it was $1, you could get $1 in your bank and you could loan $10. Now we're seeing the capital margins on derivatives are 1 to 15. Very interesting.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, please allow me to express my sincerest gratitude to UAW President Ron Gettelfinger for his leadership during this extraordinary moment of transition for the U.S. auto industry. His strength, composure, intellect, and resolve have turned a new day for this bedrock U.S. industry. Ronald A. Gettelfinger, born August 1, 1944, was elected to his first term as president of the UAW at the 33rd Convention in 2002. He was elected to a second term on June 14, 2006, at the UAW's 34th Convention in Las Vegas. A son of the midwest, Ron Gettelfinger is a 1976 graduate of Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, Indiana. He began his union involvement in 1964 in Louisville, Kentucky, at the Louisville Assembly Plant run by Ford Motor Company while working as chassis line repairman. The workers at Ford's Louisville Assembly plant elected Gettelfinger to represent them as committeeperson, bargaining chair and president. He was elected president of local union 862 in 1984. In 1987, he became a member of the Ford-UAW bargaining committee. Afterwards, he held other positions: director of UAW Region 3 and the UAW chaplaincy program. For six years he served as the elected director of UAW Region 3, which represents UAW members in Indiana and Kentucky, before being elected a UAW vice president in 1998. Ron has been an outspoken advocate for national single-payer health care in the United States. Under his leadership, the UAW has lobbied for fair trade agreements that include provisions for workers' rights and environmental provisions; and the union has loudly criticized what it calls ``the corporate global chase for the lowest wage which creates a race to the bottom that no workers, in any country, can win''. Mr. Gettelfinger's leadership of the UAW has led to a more competitive American auto industry. His stalwart and trustworthy negotiations gave new hope to a beleagured industrial sector. The U.S. auto industry, long the backbone of the American economy, reached an important milestone last week--and I think this accomplishment did not get the coverage that it deserved. The respected J.D. Power & Associates initial quality study revealed that U.S. automakers defeated the imports in what the L.A. Times calls ``a key benchmark of quality.'' That's right. The American automakers are Number One again. It has been a long, tough road, but they have gotten the job done-- and they did it in extremely difficult circumstances. This achievement involved a lot of sacrifice and a good measure of ``tough love,'' but it has paid off. A cornerstone industry of the American economy has turned the corner. We congratulate the UAW, because a lot of people--including Members of this body--said it couldn't be done. A lot of people said the automakers weren't worthy of our support. A lot of people wrote them off--and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that the auto industry supports in this country. Truly, the autoworkers, auto dealers, parts suppliers--and all the people who support this giant industry--deserve our commendation. Mr. Speaker, this has never happened before. In the quarter of a century that J.D. Power quality surveys have been conducted, the U.S. automakers never defeated the foreign competition. Until this year. As a J.D. Power official told the L.A. Times: ``This is a landmark in the quality history of the auto industry.'' He got that right. It is a landmark event, and it's a landmark event with great implications for our nation. The day when the buying public regarded imported cars as superior to American cars? It's over. The American automakers have been steadily closing the gap on their foreign competition for several years. And this year, they finally passed them. If you want quality, buy American. Take it from J.D. Power. There is still a lot of work ahead, but make no mistake: the American carmakers are back. Our confidence in them and their workers has been rewarded. And Ron Gettelfinger, as he officially retires, can be confident his life made a difference to millions and millions of others, and to communities across our nation that depended on him to lead his great union into a new era for the U.S. auto industry. Thank you, Ron, for your effort, your service, your patriotism and your achievements. May God bless you and yours in the coming years.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. I ask that my colleagues now do rise and remember him and his service with a moment of silence.

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, it is with a sad but grateful heart that I rise today on behalf of my Ohio colleagues to inform the House that Congressman Thomas Ludlow Ashley of Toledo, Ohio, passed from this life on June 15, 2010. Lud ably served in our Congress from 1955 to 1981, a career that spanned a quarter century, after he returned home as a corporal in the Army during World War II, serving in the Pacific theater. As the Toledo Blade editorial reminds us, ``The late Senator Edward Kennedy once said: 'Americans sleep in better housing today because of Lud Ashley.''' As chair of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, Lud led America in urban and small town revitalization, improving our condition as a society a home and block at a time. He voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and authored many pieces of legislation to rebuild America following the civil rights movement of that period. In 1977, Mr. Ashley was selected by his beloved friend and Speaker, Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill, to lead the House in the first ad hoc Energy Committee after the first Middle East oil embargo threw America into a deep recession. As Speaker O'Neill said at the time, ``Lud has a toughness and a never-say-die attitude, and who, when he was put on the first team, could run with the ball.'' Born on January 11, 1923, in Toledo, Lud was raised on Robinwood Avenue. He has been laid to rest nearby at Woodlawn Cemetery. He was the great grandson of James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio, who served before him from 1859-1869 and coauthored the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery. In that tradition, Lud Ashley's legacy was his abiding spirit of equal justice that moved civil rights forward in the post-World War II era. It is appropriate this Congress has honored both Congressmen in passing legislation that named the Federal courthouse at Toledo forever in their memory. Our prayers go out to the Ashley family: to his daughter Lisa and sons Meredith and his wife Monica, to Mark, brother Charles, sister-in- law Gerry, and many nieces and nephews. He was preceded in death by his wife, Kathleen. Our citizenry in the 9th Congressional District shall miss his great intellect, dogged nature, and incredible sense of humor that lifted us all to carry forward. Thank you, Thomas Ludlow Ashley. [From toledoBlade.com, June 16, 2010] Congressman Known for Aiding Housing, Civil Rights Dies at 87 (By Mark Zaborney) Thomas Ludlow ``Lud'' Ashley, a liberal Democrat who played key roles in passing landmark civil rights, housing, and anti-poverty legislation while representing Toledo in Congress for more than a quarter century, died yesterday of melanoma at his home in Leland, Mich. He was 87. Mr. Ashley cut a large figure on national and local stages, a genial good companion with a ready wit. He was colorful at times but also a thoughtful, skilled legislator capable of reconciling diverse interests to produce bills that would win floor approval. While a student at Yale University in the 1940s, he befriended George H.W. Bush, and the two remained close for more than 60 years. Yesterday, former President Bush said in a statement that he and his wife, Barbara, ``mourn the loss of a very close friend'' and said Mr. Ashley ``might well have been my very best friend in life.'' During Mr. Ashley's congressional tenure from 1955 to 1980, he brought millions of dollars home to northwest Ohio. On Capitol Hill, he was known as ``Mr. Housing,'' shepherding America's public-housing programs through Congress in the 1960s and 1970s--including more than $15 million in public-housing units across Lucas County. Through his efforts, Toledo was one of the first 30 cities in which food stamps were distributed to the poor. With more than $11 million he secured, the Port of Toledo was dredged and improved, creating one of the nation's leading ports. ``It seemed like when the city needed the money, Lud would come through,'' Harry Kessler, Toledo's mayor from 1971-77 and now deceased, told The Blade in 1997. Mr. Ashley's son Meredith, of Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J., said yesterday that of all his father's Washington achievements, the lawmaker was proudest of what he did to help Toledo. ``There was a lot of national legislation that Dad was really proud of, but there was nothing he was more proud of than scoring that $11 million grant for downtown Toledo,'' he said. Known universally as ``Lud,'' Mr. Ashley was the 26th man to represent the 9th Congressional District in the House. Until his defeat in 1980, he served the district longer than anyone before him. His great-grandfather James M. Ashley represented Toledo in Congress from 1859-69 as a Republican, having left the Democratic Party because of his anti-slavery beliefs. The federal courthouse in downtown Toledo was named the James M. and Thomas W. Ludlow Ashley United States Courthouse by an act of Congress two years ago. President George W. Bush signed the measure, which had been sponsored by U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo), in a private White House ceremony, and the official renaming was held in Toledo on June 3, less than two weeks ago. Miss Kaptur, who with her re-election in 2008 surpassed Lud Ashley's record for representing Toledo the longest in Congress, said yesterday that ``Lud Ashley gave true meaning to the term `public servant.' He followed admirably in the footsteps of his abolitionist great-grandfather, James, putting his genius to work in another tumultuous time and helping pass the momentous 1964 Civil Rights Act.'' James Ashley's co-authorship of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and his great-grandson's work on the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1977 ``reflect the Ashley family's place in history on the scales of justice and equality for all people,'' Miss Kaptur said. Mr. Ashley had been a resident in recent years of Leland, Mich., near Traverse City, but noted in 2008 that his great- grandfather chose to settle in Toledo. ``It's where he was buried, and where I'm going to be buried,'' Mr. Ashley told The Blade. ``Toledo's home.'' Mr. Ashley was first elected to Congress in 1954, defeating incumbent Frazier Reams, Sr., an independent, in a three-way race. He proved a redoubtable vote-getter over the years, dispatching some of the best opponents the Republican Party could muster. He rose to a position of leadership in the House of Representatives, becoming a close ally and personal friend of House Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill, Jr. In 1977, Mr. O'Neill named Mr. Ashley chairman of a special committee created to handle a package of bills submitted by President Jimmy Carter to deal with the energy crisis. When energy legislation cleared Congress more than a year later, Mr. O'Neill sent Mr. Ashley a letter of praise. ``Somebody said that it couldn't be done, but they didn't know that Tip O'Neill had a friend who had knowledge, ability, toughness, and a never-say-die attitude, and who, when he was put on the first team, could run with the ball,'' the House Speaker wrote. There were other instances of political courage. In 1959, more than a decade before President Richard Nixon's landmark visit to the People's Republic of China, Mr. Ashley was one of two House members to openly support that nation's admission to the United Nations. In 1961, he was one of only six congressmen who voted to cut off funds for the House Un-American Activities Committee. Mr. Ashley also became a senior and influential member of three permanent House committees: budget; banking, finance, and urban affairs; and merchant marine and fisheries, serving briefly in 1980 as chairman of the latter panel. Mr. Ashley was known especially for his expertise in housing and community development legislation. He was chairman of the housing and community development subcommittee of the House banking, finance, and urban affairs committee, and much of the legislation dealing with urban housing and development problems that was passed in the 1970s bore his imprint. In October, 1979, President Carter, at a White House ceremony marking the anniversary of a community development program, praised Mr. Ashley's legislative abilities. ``He cares about people, and he is superb in his ability to conceive legislative programs and have them passed by Congress,'' President Carter said. Mr. Ashley loyally supported Democratic presidents, but he had good relations with President Gerald Ford, a Republican, and many Republican members of Congress. While Mr. Ashley and President George H.W. Bush were Yale undergraduates, the two were tapped to be members of the elite secret student society Skull and Bones. In an old stone building owned by the society and known as the Tomb, the members confessed deep secrets to one another as part of their initiation. ``It allowed us to come to know more about one another,'' Mr. Ashley told The Blade in 1997. And from that sprang a lifelong friendship. After Mr. Bush was elected president, Mr. Ashley spent many days with him at Camp David and the White House, especially in times of crisis. In 1990, he went to Camp David to buck up the president after his budget was spurned by Congress, leading to a temporary shutdown of the federal government. ``I have a lifetime of memories of friendship between those two that stretch back to my youngest days,'' Meredith Ashley said yesterday. ``We'd go up to Kennebunkport [Maine] during the summer, well before he became vice president and president, and nothing ever changed in their friendship after he became vice president. If anything, their friendship got stronger.'' Mr. Ashley joined Mr. Bush at the opening of the Bush Presidential Library and Museum in Texas, where the Toledo congressman's name appears prominently in biographies and videos of the 41st president. Mr. Ashley, born Jan. 11, 1923, to Alida and William Ashley, was raised on Robinwood Avenue in the Old West End and attended Glenwood Elementary School. His father owned a small steel manufacturing firm on Tracy Road and nearly lost his business during the Great Depression. The business rebounded, and the family moved to Front Street in Perrysburg. His parents sent their son to Kent School in Kent, Conn., from 1939 to 1942. His older brother William, the heir apparent to the Ashley political legacy, was killed at age 22 in May, 1944, when his Army bomber exploded during a training mission over Massachusetts. All 10 aboard died. Decades later, Mr. Ashley said he was greatly affected by the loss. ``We were inseparable friends,'' Mr. Ashley said. Mr. Ashley was a corporal in the Army during World War II, serving in the Pacific Theater. He graduated from Yale in 1948 and was associated with the Toledo Publicity and Efficiency Commission that year. Michael DiSalle, then mayor of Toledo and later governor of Ohio, encouraged him to study law, and Mr. Ashley enrolled in the University of Toledo law school. He later transferred to Ohio State University, from which he received a law degree in 1951. Mr. Ashley was hired to be a special projects coordinator for Radio Free Europe and was stationed briefly in New York City. In 1954, Mr. DiSalle was looking for a candidate to challenge Mr. Reams, the independent 9th District incumbent. Mr. DiSalle provided Mr. Ashley with considerable advice and aid. Mr. Ashley provided the energy and image in what was the first local campaign to make extensive use of television. Mr. Reams was defeated by 4,000 votes. In 1980, when he was defeated by Republican challenger Ed Weber, some political analysts linked it to the landslide presidential victory of Ronald Reagan. But Mr. Ashley told The Blade in 1997 that it was his own fault, saying it was ``tough to get enthusiastic about another campaign. And that's when you get beaten. I just didn't get the job done.'' Miss Kaptur defeated Mr. Weber in 1982. Mr. Ashley was married twice. He and the former Margaret Mary Sherman of Toledo married in August, 1956, in Manassas, Va., but separated that fall. In 1967, he married Kathleen Lucey, a graduate of Georgetown University law school who'd begun working as an assistant in his office in 1962. Mr. Ashley was a student of history and politics with a personal library that testified to those passions. He also loved opera and gardening. His decision to make Leland, Mich., his home came a few years after the death of Kathleen in 1997. Mr. Ashley was a member of the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation at the time of his death and earlier served on numerous other boards including those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nation's two largest mortgage lenders. He is survived by sons Meredith (Monica) Ashley of Ho-Ho- Kus, N.J., and Mark Ashley of Washington; daughter, Lise Murphy of Washington; brother, Charles S. Ashley, and sister- in-law Gerry Ashley, of Leland, and many nieces and nephews. A reception for family and friends will be held from 3-6 p.m. Sunday in the Ashley home, 402 Mill St., Leland. A memorial service will be held later in Washington and interment will be in Toledo's Historic Woodlawn Cemetery. The family requests that any donations be to the Leland Township Library. Martinson Funeral Home is handling arrangements.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on 1-minute speeches dedicated to Congressman Thomas ``Lud'' Ashley.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, please allow me to update my colleagues and citizens across the country on some recent news about Goldman Sachs, one of the white shoe Wall Street outfits that got bailed out by the American taxpayer 2 years ago. We've learned that the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice are looking into Goldman Sachs, but there is more you should know. Today, it was revealed that this privileged firm also wholly owned a mortgage servicing company back from 2007. So it claims it had no knowledge of the housing meltdown, but in fact, it owned a loan servicing company. Back in 2007, Goldman Sachs scooped up Litton Loan Servicing in Houston, Texas. Litton specialized in collecting money from borrowers in California and Florida. Goldman now services around 320,000 loans worth around $50 billion according to the Financial Times. Litton does not seem to be quite on the up-and-up. In fact, it was just recently forced to settle a class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles for over half a million dollars, and the Financial Times reports that the Better Business Bureau has listed almost 800 complaints on Litton. Worse, Litton has only put up about 29 percent of their loans into permanent modifications, leaving the rest of the consumers who tried to get one trying to find money to make up the difference they immediately owe Litton, and oh, of course, then they will owe the accrued late fees. Goldman Sachs says little about this, of course. This is business as usual for them, but bad business as usual it appears. However, the customers of Litton are not the only ones receiving poor services from Goldman Sachs. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress is getting similar treatment. Despite saying that they will cooperate fully, Goldman Sachs is not cooperating fully with the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. In fact, a subpoena had to be issued last week to get documents from Goldman Sachs. The New York Times quotes the chairman of the commission, Mr. Phil Angelides of California, as saying the following: ``Goldman Sachs has not, in our view, been cooperative with our requests for information or forthcoming with respect to documents, information, or interviews.'' Should that surprise any of us? It certainly shows that Goldman Sachs does not respect the law, nor the Congress, nor the executive branch, nor the American citizens, whose hard-earned dollars have poured into Goldman leading it to record profits, huge bonuses, and no results for ordinary people. Worse, it makes one wonder what Goldman Sachs has to hide. Otherwise, why send irrelevant information to the commission and withhold other information? Yet Goldman continues to drag its feet in responding, and the commission had to subpoena. Goldman Sachs could and should do better. They could lead Wall Street in corporate citizenship. We now know that Goldman Sachs could easily reduce the principal on every loan at Litton, write off all the late fees, and give 320,000 citizens some relief from the housing crisis that Goldman, along with the rest of Wall Street's biggest investment banks--or I should say speculators--had in creating. How much do you want to bet that they won't? Anyone want to hedge a bet with a credit default swap or a synthetic collateralized debt obligation? I bet Goldman would be willing to sell you one, but you know, what they're really doing is they're trying to send their lobbyists to try to meet with members of the commission that Mr. Angelides heads. The New York Times reports that, ``Lobbyists representing Goldman in Washington tried to arrange one-on-one meetings with a handful of those commissioners, including Mr. Angelides, but he declined to meet with them.'' Congratulations, Mr. Angelides. Guess what, they do the same thing to the Members of Congress. They wait for us in the hallways. They get on the elevators with us if we refuse to meet with them. They pay their lobbyists here lots of money. So you keep doing what you're doing, Mr. Angelides. You keep digging. I'm glad you declined to meet with them. And you know, according to the people who spoke with the New York Times, many of them said they spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the commission's inner workings. So I'm glad to see that there are some Americans out there who are trying to get to the truth, trying to get to the heart of the matter, trying to get justice for the American people in the housing market where the deck is so strongly stacked against ordinary citizens who should hold one piece of paper they call their mortgage, and yet the note for that is locked up somewhere upstream, held on Wall Street or one of its subsidiaries. And most Americans who are getting thrown out of their houses across this country and being forcibly removed don't even have enough legal advice to know that they should be asking the judge to produce the original note in those proceedings, not a Xeroxed copy. The American people: get yourself legal assistance back home from your fair housing agencies, your counseling agencies. You have a right to your own mortgage, and no one should take it away from you if you have a leg to stand on. And the judge should be on your side if you ask for that original note. [From FT.com, June 16, 2010] U.S Consumers Rage Against Goldman Unit (By Suzanne Kapner and Francesco Guerrera) As ever-darker clouds have gathered over Goldman Sachs in recent months, its executives have relied on a consistent line of defence. As regulators, congressional investigators and activist shareholders have accused Wall Street's most successful investment bank of putting its interests ahead of those of its clients, Goldman's response has been: we deal with sophisticated investors who ought to know how to look after themselves, not powerless individuals. ``We don't have banking branches . . . we provide very few mortgages and don't issue credit cards or loans to consumers,'' is how Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman's chief executive, summarised the bank's modus operandi in a recent appearance before a U.S. Senate subcommittee. Yet, in one small corner of its domain, Goldman interacts directly with ordinary Americans. Through its wholly owned subsidiary Litton Loan Servicing, which is facing a wave of complaints from consumers, Goldman collects payments on 320,000 loans, mainly in California and Florida, with an unpaid principal balance of $50bn. When Goldman acquired Litton in December 2007 for $430m, the deal attracted little attention. Compared with Goldman's $45bn in annual revenue, Litton is tiny. Goldman says Litton services half of 1 per cent of U.S. mortgages. The high-risk mortgages serviced by Litton were like the many loans Goldman--and its rivals--packaged into complex securities that plunged in value once the housing bubble burst, leading to huge losses among investors. Goldman's knowledge of the perilous state of the U.S. property market, and its alleged reluctance to share it with investors, is at the centre of civil fraud charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission--which the bank denies--and were the focus of an 11-hour grilling of Goldman executives by Senate investigators in April. Founded in 1988 by Larry Litton Sr in Houston after the Texas real estate bust, Litton developed expertise in collecting payments on high-risk mortgages that were near default. The company was purchased in 1996 by Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization (C-Bass), which bought troubled loans from banks and used Litton to restructure them. Because of its focus on distressed borrowers, Litton was one of the first companies to experiment with reducing interest payments for customers who had fallen behind to keep them from losing their homes. Such ``loan modifications'' have become common practice. Litton's focus on modifying loans, coupled with its relationship with C-Bass, gave it an edge over rival servicers. Because C-Bass bought bonds that were backed by pools of mortgages, Litton had the right to modify those loans once they soured. According to Moody's Investors Service, Litton has retained the right to modify loans in 95 percent of the securities backed by loans it services. In contrast, other servicers have been blocked and even sued by investors, who claim loan modifications violate the original contract terms. ``Litton has been more aggressive than some of the other servicers,'' said Alan White, an assistant professor at the Valparaiso University School of Law. ``It's part of their culture.'' That approach has at times incurred the wrath of consumers. Concerned about rising complaints against the company, the Houston chapter of the Better Business Bureau conducted an investigation in 2005. ``They were arrogant,'' said Dan Parsons, president of the Houston chapter. ``It was all about how much money they could make.'' The bureau voted to revoke the company's membership but Litton resigned before it could act. Larry Litton Jr, current chief executive of the servicer, told the Financial Times the resignation was prompted by a failure of the bureau to fully grasp its business strategy. He added that Litton had long been an advocate of restructuring consumer debt. ``We do it because it's a good financial decision for investors, but also because it's a good outcome for consumers,'' Mr Litton said. When C-Bass ran into financial trouble in 2007, Goldman snapped up Litton. Goldman said it has extensive procedures in place to ensure that information from Litton is not used inappropriately. A person familiar with the situation said Mr Litton did not report directly to Mr Blankfein or Goldman's senior management, but interacted with lower-level mortgage executives. After buying Litton, Goldman took pains to operate the company separately from its trading and advisory business and does not use Goldman branding on Litton's marketing materials. Such distance is in keeping with Goldman's desire to be seen as a Wall Street firm that deals with high finance only. Many Litton customers did not realise the mortgage servicer was owned by Goldman. Marla Vasquez, a disgruntled customer in California, said she learnt about the SEC investigation from a radio broadcast. ``It surprised me Goldman owns a company like this,'' she said.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to the men and women and children who lost their lives and were wounded in the tornadoes that ravaged northwestern Ohio on June 5 and 6. And that disaster prematurely took the lives of six people. We are talking about Wood County, Fulton County, Ottawa County, across Sandusky County, and adjacent counties. Madison Walters has been tragically orphaned while her family, Mary and Ryan Walters and their 4-year-old son, Hayden, were all killed. We also remember Ted Kranz, Kathy Hammitt, and Bailey Bowman. Over $100 million of estimated damage occurred. Lake High School was leveled. So many businesses, homes, farms affected. While this is a story of pain, it is also a story of hope and human goodness, as waves of thousands of volunteers have come to try to help and assist those facing such destruction. I would like to submit two articles for the record that detail examples of this compassion. And it shows to us again the signs of a great Nation that binds together, and neighbor helping neighbor. I urge the administration, in the strongest manner possible, to declare our region a Federal disaster area so necessary aid can flow to those whose lives have been so dramatically affected in a region already suffering from economic recession. [From toledoblade.com, June 11, 2010] Help, Hope From Volunteers Lift Spirits in Tornado-Wrecked Towns; More Than 1,600 People Turn Out To Lend a Hand (By Claudia Boyd-Barrett) Millbury resident Tim Miller has lost his house, and he wants to say thank you. Not to the tornado which left him and his family homeless last weekend, but to the hundreds of people--most of whom he doesn't know--who have come to help pick up the pieces. Thursday, on what remained of his back deck and next to a hole in the ground that was once his house, Mr. Miller perched a handwritten sign addressed to the volunteers. It read ``Thank You Everyone.'' ``I have to,'' Mr. Miller said. ``All these people come out and help you out, you've gotta thank them somehow.'' With volunteers and emergency crews continuing to pour into Wood, Fulton, and Ottawa counties Thursday, recovery and cleanup efforts were moving full-speed. In Lake Township, site of some of the worst devastation, Police Chief Mark Hummer said he expected the bulk of the cleanup to be done by Saturday. After that, there will be small debris to pick up and rebuilding efforts will begin, he said. Volunteers included schoolchildren, adults taking time off work, retirees, nonprofit groups, and businesspeople. Among them, a dozen employees from the Shelly Co. in Findlay and children from a little league baseball team ferried hundreds of hamburgers, hotdogs, and refreshments to residents and other volunteers in the Lake Township area. Nine-year-old Ryan Kerr was one of the volunteers. He said he wanted to help ``because I feel really bad about all the people losing their homes.'' And, he added, ``it's fun.'' Recruitment of volunteers has been so successful that the United Way announced it would close two of its volunteer reception centers today. With so much of the general cleanup work done, there is only need for specialized volunteers, the agency said. ``The community's response has been absolutely tremendous,'' Bill Kitson, United Way of Greater Toledo president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. ``In the past three days, we have deployed more than 1,600 volunteers to help with clean-up efforts. I'm truly at a loss for words.'' The closed centers were at Grace United Methodist Church at 601 East Boundary St. in Perrysburg and at the Mainstreet Church at 705 North Main St. in Walbridge. United Way officials said that if people still wish to volunteer and think their specialized skills can be used in restoration efforts, they should call 2-1-1 and give their personal information for reference. General volunteers are needed in Ottawa and Fulton counties, however. In Fulton County, volunteers can go to Shiloh Christian Union Church, 2100 County Road 5, between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. today while the location will change to the Swancreek Township Hall, 5565 County Road D for the weekend. Ottawa County has a volunteer reception center at Genoa High School. Bill Walker, the emergency management director for Erie County who has been helping out in Ottawa County, said the cleanup there would likely continue into next week. ``There's still a lot of work to do,'' he said. ``But it's way better than what it was.'' Amid the cleanup efforts, emergency officials also worked to ensure the area is prepared for future storms. They tested sirens yesterday across Wood County and one siren in Lake Township failed to sound. The siren, outside the fire station on Ayers Road, was fixed within a few hours. Police Chief Mark Hummer said the siren had electrical problems and may have been struck by lightning. It was not known whether any other sirens failed to work during the testing that lasted about three minutes and started at noon. The Lake Township site where the siren wasn't working is the closest location to an area of Millbury that was among the hardest hit in the township. Lake Township fire Chief Todd Walters said the siren was tested a week ago and was working when the tornado hit on Saturday night. Other sirens that were activated Thursday in Lake Township were at the Municipal Building in Millbury, Walbridge behind the police department, and on East Broadway in news conference yesterday morning, the township's police and fire chiefs encouraged people to prepare for future storms by having a battery-operated radio, as well as food and water in a safe area of the house, on hand at all times. According to the National Weather Service, there is a chance of showers and thunderstorms today and through the weekend, but severe weather conditions have not been predicted. Also yesterday, Ohio Department of Transportation Director Jolene Molitoris toured the storm-ravaged areas and spoke with officials involved in the recovery efforts. She pledged continued help by ODOT crews in clearing roads and making them safe for emergency personnel and the public. Ms. Molitoris said she was inspired to see the progress made by the various government agencies on the ground and by volunteers. ``Everybody is a team and there's a power in working together,'' Ms. Molitoris said. ``It reminds us of what it means to be Ohioans.'' In another sign that things are slowly recovering, the Lake Township Police Department moved to a former Ohio Highway Patrol substation on Lemoyne Road. Emergency dispatchers for the Lake Township Fire Department and EMS will continue to work out of the Northwood police dispatch center, however. Meanwhile, others were recovering on a more personal level. After losing the house they had moved into just three weeks ago to the tornado, Melody Kisseberth and her fiancee, Steve Avers, said they are gradually coming to terms with their ordeal. ``I was devastated for days, but now I'm trying to see the bright side,'' Ms. Kisseberth said, as she picked up the debris along with dozens of volunteers. ``I realized we need to be thankful because there's a lot of people worse off than us.''

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and deeply thank on her retirement from our congressional staff Ms. Lindsay Potts of Toledo, Ohio, who, for nearly 3 decades of exemplary and extraordinary patriotic service to the people of our district, State, and Nation has turned in her retirement papers. I'd like to thank Lindsay publicly for her exceptional honesty and work ethic, her abiding kindness, her aptitude and inquiring mind, her patience, her fine writing skills, her insatiable intellectual curiosity. She truly is a renaissance woman. Lindsay is also a devoted wife to David Beckwith, and they are parents to two marvelous young people, Schuyler and Judson, and she is sister to Leslie and to brothers near and far. Lindsay's gifts are unmatched, her smile, her sparkle, her uncanny ability to connect to people from all walks of life and draw the best from them for community betterment, as well as empowerment of marginalized people in the days that she wrote ``People Building Neighborhoods'' for the National Neighborhood Commission. I wish her well, as does our entire staff, in the coming days and years. She will always have a home in our congressional family and will be missed by all who value her precious life. From the bottom of my heart and our hearts, Lindsay, thank you always. God bless you, Lindsay Potts.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of the United States, please let me express appreciation to Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States, his Excellency Oleh Shamshur. Since his appointment in December of 2005, he has worked tirelessly to strengthen ties between our two countries. As a co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, I have had the distinct pleasure of working closely with the Ambassador. Ambassador Shamshur was integral in the re-establishment of normal trade relations between our countries and the signing of the Trade and Investment Cooperation Agreement. With his help the United States and Ukraine signed an Agreement on Strategic Cooperation in December 2008, which has fostered democratic growth, transparency, and freedom in Ukraine. In addition, it has established goals to cooperate on concrete issues such as military, energy, and scientific cooperation. During the Ambassador's tenure great steps were taken to strengthen Ukraine's energy security and ensure its progress towards European integration. Ambassador Shamshur worked with the Ukrainian-American community to ensure that the victims of the 1932-33 famine-genocide were given the honor they deserve. He understands that history demands truth. Properly securing a nation's past positions it forward to the future--an important undertaking often undervalued by diplomats and leaders. In addition, he has taken steps to grow Ukrainian-American exchange programs in order to promote democratic values and strengthen the bond between our two nations. We wish him, his wife Tetiana, and his daughter Tetiana all the best as their journey continues. I know Dr. Shamshur will continue to help Ukraine achieve the democratic freedoms she has fought for since achieving her independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. He is a wonderful representative of Ukraine and her people, a good friend, and a true statesman. Thank you, Ambassador Shamshur, for your service.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the people of Ukraine have been struggling to achieve a fair, independent, and strong democracy since the oppressive Soviet yoke was shed in 1991, but recent events in the southern Ukrainian city of Zaporozhia have raised alarm. A seven-foot tall statue of Joseph Stalin, the World War II Communist tyrant of the Soviet Union who was responsible for the Holodomor famine genocide in which millions upon millions of people starved to death, as well as the deaths of millions of Ukrainians, Pols, Russians, and so many others inside that tyranny, has been built outside of the city in front of the Communist Party headquarters. Even worse, Zaporozhia authorities just denied opposition groups the right to assemble to object to the statue's public display. Since World War II, the world has come to know that Joseph Stalin killed over 50 million people inside those borders, and the repressive legions that supported him were responsible for such agony for so many. The elevation of Joseph Stalin with a monument is an affront to those who have fought for freedom around the world. Just as a monument to Adolf Hitler in Germany would be unacceptable, freedom lovers simply cannot stand by silently while a monument to Stalin, the mass murderer of the 20th century, is erected in Ukraine. The story of U.S. citizen Eugenia Sakevych-Dallas, a survivor of the famine genocide in Ukraine, can clearly express how Ukraine and her people were treated under the iron fist of Joseph Stalin. She describes herself as a survivor of the forced famine in Ukraine of 1932-1933. She recounts: It is with tears of joy for the future and salty tears of pain for the past that I write this account of my survival. It is the bone-chilling nightmare of every child to have their parents dragged away by force, never to see them again; siblings sent to prisons, parents sent to their deaths. She was born in Mykolaiv Oblast and came from a happy family living off the land, but that happiness was stolen when, at the age of 5, they were forced to give away their home, their land was confiscated, and all their domestic animals were taken from them. Like many Ukrainians, they were left on the streets to starve. They were called ``Kulacs''-- enemy of the people. Her father was arrested first. The Communists came and picked up her family one by one, leaving her an orphan, an orphan crying with unbearable psychological wounds, alone, afraid, and starving. She remembers her beloved mother during that time trying to feed the children, doing what any mother would to care for her offspring. She found a few rotten potatoes in a field, and, for this, Stalin's lieutenants arrested her and she was sent to Siberia. The prisons during that time were overpopulated with people who had done nothing but try to survive. Memories flood back to her, as do tears, and she remembers the long, long lines of men waiting for stale, molding half loaves of bread for hours upon hours. Etched in her mind is one man whom she did not even know that finally reached the end of the line and, with starvation in his eyes, grabbed the little loaf and started to bite into it, swallowing it as fast as he could and then dropping dead right in front of her. Starvation is an odd thing, she writes. An empty stomach taking in bread is like swallowing cement. It does not absorb the nutrients. It hardens and kills the human body. I lost my dear sister to starvation, a forced death, legalized murder, or murder that the Communists, at Stalin's behest, decided was mercy killing. They were constantly on the run while her family was being picked off one by one by the Communists. And as starvation took hold of the Ukrainian people, hatred filled their hearts for Soviet Moscow. Many faces still haunt her today--the trains of people, families, old, young, starving, sick, hauled off with standing room only in those box crates. She became one of the children of the street, one of the few survivors of that tragic time in history who ate grass, pinecones, and anything that was chewable in the shadows, afraid that they might be taken away. People were begging, starving, eating anything they could find--a dead horse if they were lucky. Thousands of people were falling over dead, millions upon millions of innocent people killed under the Communists. It was a sad time in history where, during the height of the famine, Ukrainian villagers were dying at the rate of 17 per minute, 1,000 per hour, and 25,000 per day, leaving only a few survivors to keep the history alive. They were stacked up like logs. The horror and panic of that time of tyranny is still with her. The hunger that plagued Russia and tortured the Ukrainian people in their scheme to slaughter and take over and annihilate the middle class, she says, Let us not forget. It is our duty to bring the memories and truth to the world. We must expose the hardships, the horrors, and the truths so that these atrocities never can happen again.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, in each of the last 14 years, Ohio has set a record for the number of foreclosures, and this year is on track to be no exception. Every year a new record. That is hard to imagine, and not what I want to say about my home State. Over the last 2 years, Congress has passed what I call hollow legislation that looks like it might stem the tide of foreclosures, but clearly the programs were not intended to work. Then, next, Treasury decided to make homes affordable, they say, by using some of the TARP bailout money, the Troubled Asset Relief Program that was passed back in the fall of 2008 to bail out the Wall Street speculative banks. According to The Wall Street Journal last week, of the handful of homeowners who have now been so-called ``helped'' by Treasury out of the millions and millions that are in trouble, even Treasury's reported that only one in four of the few helped to try to get their mortgage payment to be affordable have now been even more weeded out of that program. This is like the great shrinking blimp. You sort of promise them everything, but give them nothing, and the gas just drains right out of the balloon. The overall program in fact is voluntary and aimed to protect the investor, not the homeowner. People today who are in the program and trying to save their homes are depleting their savings so when they get kicked out of the administration's programs, they are more poor and assured of losing their homes and with little, if anything, to survive on. People are still losing their homes. We are not stemming the tide of foreclosures. You think somebody here in Washington would notice that. That's why I joined with my esteemed colleague, Representative Raul Grijalva, and introduced the Right to Rent Act of 2010, H.R. 5028. And we invite our colleagues to join us. This bill creates a right to rent for homeowners facing foreclosure. The bill is going to help a good portion of those 6 million delinquent homeowners transition from foreclosure to renting a home. And if communities are wise and adopt the old turnkey program, kind of resurrect that, then after 5 years if your payments are good you can end up owning your home, help to save our neighborhoods, save our communities by saving the families who don't deserve to be thrown out. Right to Rent would allow families to stay in their home and keep their family stable, while lowering the family's monthly housing costs by extending the term. In the meantime, the mortgage holder receives a fair market rent on their property. Keeping both families and mortgages stable strengthens communities rather than leaving homes barren and families on the street. In some communities in Ohio, entire neighborhoods are now vacant. Who does that help? Aiming relief directly at middle income homeowners, not speculators or people living in unaffordable mansions, the Right to Rent Act of 2010 allows homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes at a fair market rent for 5 years. Specifically, to be eligible, the home must be a single-family property, a condominium with an undivided interest in common areas, or a similar dwelling in a multi-unit project that has been occupied for at least 2 years. The mortgage must have been originated before July 1, 2007. Furthermore, the home must have been purchased at or below a median purchase price for the local metropolitan area as measured by the National Association of Realtors. The homeowner, upon receiving notice of foreclosure on an eligible property, has 25 business days to petition the court to exercise his or her right to rent the home for up to 5 years at a fair market rate as determined by a court-appointed independent appraiser. The bill does not change existing State foreclosure laws or landlord-tenant laws. In addition, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will monitor compliance with the program. In addition, this right to rent sunsets 5 years after date of enactment. It's not meant to be around forever. Judges can transition middle-income family home foreclosures to rental agreements in a manner consistent with common sense and justice. Right to Rent is but one tool, a workable one, to address our Nation's housing crisis and help stabilize not only our community but also our Nation's mortgage economy. The Right to Rent provides a strong incentive for lenders to modify mortgages, including principal write-downs, to avoid becoming landlords. If the lender chooses to pursue foreclosure, the family can go to court to rent their home, thus preventing the spiral of vacancy, social problems, crime, and lower property values in neighborhoods that follow mass vacancies. Right to Rent is backed by real world results. A model similar to H.R. 5028 is currently used on a limited basis by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and Raul Grijalva in cosponsoring H.R. 5028 to stem the tide of foreclosures still sweeping across this country. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2010] Loan Aid Leaves Some Worse Off One in Four in Government's Mortgage Program Is Dropped; Tales of Exhausted Savings (By James R. Hagerty) The government's mortgage-modification program has left some struggling homeowners worse off than they were before. The Treasury reported Monday that nearly one in four homeowners who were offered lower payments under the Obama administration's 15-month-old effort have been weeded out of the program. Many people were removed from the trials because they failed to make payments, didn't provide all the financial documents needed to qualify or were found to be ineligible. Homeowners are first offered trial modifications under the program, which provides incentive payments to loan servicers, investors and the homeowners. If borrowers make the payments and satisfy other criteria, those trials are made permanent, ensuring a cut in payments for five years. While awaiting answers, some borrowers keep making payments, exhausting their savings in what may be a futile effort to save their homes. They also incur fees from the banks and delay taking action that might give them a fresh start in a more affordable home. Some borrowers had unrealistic expectations about loan- relief programs, which were never designed to prevent all foreclosures. Another big problem is that banks often take six to 12 months to determine whether applicants are eligible. ``I had to learn the hard way and deplete my savings doing it,'' said Mia Parry, a manager at a mortgage brokerage in Scottsdale, Ariz., who has spent nearly two years seeking a loan modification. She now wishes she had put her home on the market. Most struggling borrowers do benefit from seeking help, said Aaron Horvath, a senior vice president at Springboard Inc., a nonprofit counseling service based in Riverside, Calif. Some win modifications, cutting monthly payments by hundreds of dollars. Others who ultimately can't get modifications at least are allowed to stay in their homes for months, making either no payments or reduced payments. But ``if you're draining your savings'' in a vain effort to hang onto a home, he said, you may end up worse off. Eager for quick results, the Obama administration last year prodded banks to start people on trials without first obtaining documents proving they were eligible. That has led to many crushed hopes. The Treasury earlier this year changed its rules and told banks to start trials only after getting documents that proved borrowers qualified. The Treasury said in a monthly report on the government's $50 billion Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, that about 1.2 million trial modifications had been started under the plan, and about 281,000 borrowers had washed out by the end of April. Only about 30 percent of borrowers who seek help from the main foreclosure-prevention counseling program at Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida end up with modifications, said LeeAnn Robinson, chief operating officer of the Miami-based nonprofit Many borrowers don't have enough income to support even reduced loan payments; others give up before completing the paperwork. On average, it takes seven months to resolve a borrower's situation, up from four months a year ago, Ms. Robinson said. Banks and other loan servicers can't keep up with the demand for help, she said. Ms. Parry bought a home in Phoenix in 2005 for $535,000, but she believes it now would sell for around $250,000. She has been seeking a modification from a unit of Citigroup Inc., the servicer of her two mortgage loans, since June 2008. Ms. Parry's application was turned down in late 2008, but President Obama's announcement of HAMP in February 2009 rekindled her hopes. Ms. Parry decided to keep making payments on her loans because she expected to qualify for this new program. Citigroup started her on a HAMP trial in June 2009, and she made three payments. Then Citigroup told her there had been a mistake and she would need to go through another three-month trial. At the end of that second trial, Ms. Parry said, Citigroup told her the investor that owned her first mortgage wasn't participating in HAMP, so she couldn't get a modification under that plan. During her trial period, Citigroup charged her more than $1,300 of ``late charges'' and ``delinquency expenses,'' she said. Ms. Parry said Citigroup should have been able to determine that the investor wasn't participating before she went through the trial. Citigroup recently offered her another type of modification that she said fell short of the HAMP formula and wouldn't lower her costs enough to make keeping the home worthwhile. Unless Citigroup improves the offer, she will try to sell the home. A Citigroup spokesman said: ``We have worked diligently with the borrower and the investor in an effort to find a solution that meets both the borrower's needs and the investor's requirements.'' Martha Wright, a marketing executive whose income has dropped in recent years, has been trying since February 2009 to work out a deal with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the bank that services the $1.1 million mortgage on her Avalon, N.J. home. The bank denied her request last summer, but Ms. Wright said she kept trying because the responses from the bank were unclear and inconsistent, and she believed she still might qualify. Meanwhile, she said, by continuing to make payments, she cut her nonretirement savings to about $500 from $63,000 in early 2009. A spokesman for J.P. Morgan said the bank told Ms. Wright on three occasions that she didn't qualify for a modification. ``Modifying the loan would produce less value to the loan's owner than foreclosing,'' he said.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, in each of the last 14 years, Ohio has set a record for the number of foreclosures, and this year is on track to be no exception. Every year a new record. That is hard to imagine, and not what I want to say about my home State. Over the last 2 years, Congress has passed what I call hollow legislation that looks like it might stem the tide of foreclosures, but clearly the programs were not intended to work. Then, next, Treasury decided to make homes affordable, they say, by using some of the TARP bailout money, the Troubled Asset Relief Program that was passed back in the fall of 2008 to bail out the Wall Street speculative banks. According to The Wall Street Journal last week, of the handful of homeowners who have now been so-called ``helped'' by Treasury out of the millions and millions that are in trouble, even Treasury's reported that only one in four of the few helped to try to get their mortgage payment to be affordable have now been even more weeded out of that program. This is like the great shrinking blimp. You sort of promise them everything, but give them nothing, and the gas just drains right out of the balloon. The overall program in fact is voluntary and aimed to protect the investor, not the homeowner. People today who are in the program and trying to save their homes are depleting their savings so when they get kicked out of the administration's programs, they are more poor and assured of losing their homes and with little, if anything, to survive on. People are still losing their homes. We are not stemming the tide of foreclosures. You think somebody here in Washington would notice that. That's why I joined with my esteemed colleague, Representative Raul Grijalva, and introduced the Right to Rent Act of 2010, H.R. 5028. And we invite our colleagues to join us. This bill creates a right to rent for homeowners facing foreclosure. The bill is going to help a good portion of those 6 million delinquent homeowners transition from foreclosure to renting a home. And if communities are wise and adopt the old turnkey program, kind of resurrect that, then after 5 years if your payments are good you can end up owning your home, help to save our neighborhoods, save our communities by saving the families who don't deserve to be thrown out. Right to Rent would allow families to stay in their home and keep their family stable, while lowering the family's monthly housing costs by extending the term. In the meantime, the mortgage holder receives a fair market rent on their property. Keeping both families and mortgages stable strengthens communities rather than leaving homes barren and families on the street. In some communities in Ohio, entire neighborhoods are now vacant. Who does that help? Aiming relief directly at middle income homeowners, not speculators or people living in unaffordable mansions, the Right to Rent Act of 2010 allows homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes at a fair market rent for 5 years. Specifically, to be eligible, the home must be a single-family property, a condominium with an undivided interest in common areas, or a similar dwelling in a multi-unit project that has been occupied for at least 2 years. The mortgage must have been originated before July 1, 2007. Furthermore, the home must have been purchased at or below a median purchase price for the local metropolitan area as measured by the National Association of Realtors. The homeowner, upon receiving notice of foreclosure on an eligible property, has 25 business days to petition the court to exercise his or her right to rent the home for up to 5 years at a fair market rate as determined by a court-appointed independent appraiser. The bill does not change existing State foreclosure laws or landlord-tenant laws. In addition, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will monitor compliance with the program. In addition, this right to rent sunsets 5 years after date of enactment. It's not meant to be around forever. Judges can transition middle-income family home foreclosures to rental agreements in a manner consistent with common sense and justice. Right to Rent is but one tool, a workable one, to address our Nation's housing crisis and help stabilize not only our community but also our Nation's mortgage economy. The Right to Rent provides a strong incentive for lenders to modify mortgages, including principal write-downs, to avoid becoming landlords. If the lender chooses to pursue foreclosure, the family can go to court to rent their home, thus preventing the spiral of vacancy, social problems, crime, and lower property values in neighborhoods that follow mass vacancies. Right to Rent is backed by real world results. A model similar to H.R. 5028 is currently used on a limited basis by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and Raul Grijalva in cosponsoring H.R. 5028 to stem the tide of foreclosures still sweeping across this country. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2010] Loan Aid Leaves Some Worse Off One in Four in Government's Mortgage Program Is Dropped; Tales of Exhausted Savings (By James R. Hagerty) The government's mortgage-modification program has left some struggling homeowners worse off than they were before. The Treasury reported Monday that nearly one in four homeowners who were offered lower payments under the Obama administration's 15-month-old effort have been weeded out of the program. Many people were removed from the trials because they failed to make payments, didn't provide all the financial documents needed to qualify or were found to be ineligible. Homeowners are first offered trial modifications under the program, which provides incentive payments to loan servicers, investors and the homeowners. If borrowers make the payments and satisfy other criteria, those trials are made permanent, ensuring a cut in payments for five years. While awaiting answers, some borrowers keep making payments, exhausting their savings in what may be a futile effort to save their homes. They also incur fees from the banks and delay taking action that might give them a fresh start in a more affordable home. Some borrowers had unrealistic expectations about loan- relief programs, which were never designed to prevent all foreclosures. Another big problem is that banks often take six to 12 months to determine whether applicants are eligible. ``I had to learn the hard way and deplete my savings doing it,'' said Mia Parry, a manager at a mortgage brokerage in Scottsdale, Ariz., who has spent nearly two years seeking a loan modification. She now wishes she had put her home on the market. Most struggling borrowers do benefit from seeking help, said Aaron Horvath, a senior vice president at Springboard Inc., a nonprofit counseling service based in Riverside, Calif. Some win modifications, cutting monthly payments by hundreds of dollars. Others who ultimately can't get modifications at least are allowed to stay in their homes for months, making either no payments or reduced payments. But ``if you're draining your savings'' in a vain effort to hang onto a home, he said, you may end up worse off. Eager for quick results, the Obama administration last year prodded banks to start people on trials without first obtaining documents proving they were eligible. That has led to many crushed hopes. The Treasury earlier this year changed its rules and told banks to start trials only after getting documents that proved borrowers qualified. The Treasury said in a monthly report on the government's $50 billion Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, that about 1.2 million trial modifications had been started under the plan, and about 281,000 borrowers had washed out by the end of April. Only about 30 percent of borrowers who seek help from the main foreclosure-prevention counseling program at Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida end up with modifications, said LeeAnn Robinson, chief operating officer of the Miami-based nonprofit Many borrowers don't have enough income to support even reduced loan payments; others give up before completing the paperwork. On average, it takes seven months to resolve a borrower's situation, up from four months a year ago, Ms. Robinson said. Banks and other loan servicers can't keep up with the demand for help, she said. Ms. Parry bought a home in Phoenix in 2005 for $535,000, but she believes it now would sell for around $250,000. She has been seeking a modification from a unit of Citigroup Inc., the servicer of her two mortgage loans, since June 2008. Ms. Parry's application was turned down in late 2008, but President Obama's announcement of HAMP in February 2009 rekindled her hopes. Ms. Parry decided to keep making payments on her loans because she expected to qualify for this new program. Citigroup started her on a HAMP trial in June 2009, and she made three payments. Then Citigroup told her there had been a mistake and she would need to go through another three-month trial. At the end of that second trial, Ms. Parry said, Citigroup told her the investor that owned her first mortgage wasn't participating in HAMP, so she couldn't get a modification under that plan. During her trial period, Citigroup charged her more than $1,300 of ``late charges'' and ``delinquency expenses,'' she said. Ms. Parry said Citigroup should have been able to determine that the investor wasn't participating before she went through the trial. Citigroup recently offered her another type of modification that she said fell short of the HAMP formula and wouldn't lower her costs enough to make keeping the home worthwhile. Unless Citigroup improves the offer, she will try to sell the home. A Citigroup spokesman said: ``We have worked diligently with the borrower and the investor in an effort to find a solution that meets both the borrower's needs and the investor's requirements.'' Martha Wright, a marketing executive whose income has dropped in recent years, has been trying since February 2009 to work out a deal with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the bank that services the $1.1 million mortgage on her Avalon, N.J. home. The bank denied her request last summer, but Ms. Wright said she kept trying because the responses from the bank were unclear and inconsistent, and she believed she still might qualify. Meanwhile, she said, by continuing to make payments, she cut her nonretirement savings to about $500 from $63,000 in early 2009. A spokesman for J.P. Morgan said the bank told Ms. Wright on three occasions that she didn't qualify for a modification. ``Modifying the loan would produce less value to the loan's owner than foreclosing,'' he said.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, how many millions more jobs have to be outsourced before Washington wakes up? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week released a report claiming that U.S. trade agreements have support 5.4 million jobs. More than 90 percent of the jobs, according to the Chamber, can be attributed to NAFTA and our NAFTA trading partners, Mexico and Canada. Are we talking about the same country in the same continent? In the United States I know and the district I return to every weekend, the battering effects of NAFTA and NAFTA-like trade agreements are still being felt: lost jobs, shuttered factories, and beleaguered communities. I can't help but wonder if the Chamber of Commerce is some sort of cruel joke: 5.4 million jobs? No way. Try 1 million jobs lost due to NAFTA. Try 2 million manufacturing jobs lost because of all of the off-shoring that has gone on in this country in the last quarter century. Or how about 12,000 to 20,000 service-sector jobs lost every month, many of which have simply been outsourced overseas. In Ohio, employment just in the manufacturing sector has declined by a third. Companies like Silgan Holdings, Delphi, Georgia Pacific, General Motors, Dixon Ticonderoga, Champion Spark Plug, all have moved to Mexico. Things are not much better in Mexico. By the 10th anniversary of NAFTA, The Washington Post reported that 19 million more Mexicans were living in poverty than 20 years ago; 2 million peasant farmers alone were dispossessed from their land with no adjustment inside that country. So guess what they are doing. They are seeking to live anywhere, including crossing our border because they simply have no other choice. NAFTA didn't take care of them in their home country. Now over half of the Mexican population is considered poor, while one in four is considered extremely poor and unable to even afford adequate food. The illegal drug trade has swept across that country and locked in fully at our border and across our country. Remember when NAFTA was held out as the ticket to the promised land with millions of new jobs and a rising standard of living? Right here in this very Chamber, Members voted to outsource America's job to a low-wage country with a state-managed economy. Ross Perot was right: NAFTA has been a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving our country, leaving us behind with a NAFTA trade deficit of over $1.3 trillion since 1994. The deficits from NAFTA and NAFTA-like trade agreements have caused the great manufacturing that our Nation knew to wither as we saw our companies compete against state-managed capitalism in places like Mexico, China, Japan and so many others. Trade deficits are at the heart of our economic challenge. They destroyed jobs, millions and millions and millions of good jobs. We will never get our economy out of the ditch without fundamental changes in our trade policy. When trade accounts began their downward spiral, America's economy started to deteriorate. Do you remember the last time we had a balanced trade account? It was 1974 when we had a thriving middle class. Is it any wonder that our Nation is paying the price of economic policies that led to the current deep recession that Brad DeLong estimates has put a third of our Nation in depression. This was no accident. It is the direct result of over a quarter century of outsourcing U.S. jobs to penny-wage environments and of allowing other nations to keep their markets closed through managed trade practices, substandard environmental systems, and many undemocratic political systems able to exploit their workforces for the benefit of a few owners. In essence, our market capitalism is forced to compete with state- managed capitalism. From Mexico to China to Japan, it is just not a fair fight. These unfair trade agreements have been draining the economic lifeblood of our Nation, and every single American knows it to be true. Free trade among free people should be a bedrock principle on which any trade policy is based. And without it, our workers and companies stand no chance. It is time to wake up, stand up for this country, and renegotiate those trade agreements that keep moving jobs offshore and take more and more and more of our jobs every single year. The same countries block access of our goods into those countries. It hurts our workers, it hurts our communities, and it has hurt this country deeply.