Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Eugene J. Vaillancourt in recognition of his 24 years of dedicated service to the City of Boston and the Veterans' Services Department. Throughout his nearly quarter century of service to the City, Gene worked passionately and tirelessly advocating on behalf of veterans. Gene Vaillancourt was born on October 5, 1942, and raised in South Boston. On February 3, 1963, Gene married the late Rita Calla. They had 2 children, Gene and Billy. Gene has 3 grandchildren, Jennifer, Jordan and Erin. After graduating from South Boston High School in 1960, he entered the United States Marine Corps (USMC). During his career he served in all 4 Marine divisions at Hawaii, Alaska, Japan and several stateside bases. A disabled combat veteran, Gene served 2 tours in Vietnam in both the 1st and 3rd Marine divisions from 1966-1967 and 1970-1971; for his brave and admirable contributions, Gene was decorated with a Purple Heart. A highly decorated veteran, he was also awarded the Meritorious Service Medal for Outstanding Service, the Combat Action Ribbon, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Palm. He retired from USMC as a Sgt. Major in 1987 with 27 years of service. In August of 1987, Gene was hired by the city of Boston Veterans' Services Department and was appointed the assistant commissioner in 1992. During his 24 years with the department Gene played a very active role with various veteran related issues and projects including assisting in the installation of many veteran memorials throughout the City of Boston. During his time at the Veterans' Services Department, Gene lobbied for well earned benefits for veterans including real estate abatements, increased annuities for 100 percent disabled veterans, and annuities for both Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Wives. On July 1, 2003, Gene proudly accepted his appointment as the Commissioner of the City of Boston Veterans' Services Department, and continues to advocate on behalf of his fellow veterans. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to join with Gene's family, friends, fellow veterans, and the city of Boston to thank him for his incredible service to his country and his dedication and commitment to veterans. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Gene's distinguished career and in wishing him good health and success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Rooney's resolution. Mr. Speaker, it's a sad irony that at the same time that we're committing our sons and daughters to an armed conflict in Libya in support of democracy and the rule of law, that we are also here at home trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain language of the United States Constitution, which is the supreme rule of law in our land. I've heard several times now an argument that is about politics. Well, in fairness, politics is to Congress like wet is to water. We cannot avoid that. But this issue is really one of substance, and the United States Constitution clearly states that the President's power as Commander in Chief to introduce Armed Forces into hostilities may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances: first, a declaration of war; secondly, a specific statutory authorization; and, number three, a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories. And none of those circumstances is in evidence here today. So despite my great admiration and respect for our President, a lawful premise for this Libyan operation does not exist. I've also heard the argument that we have to join with our international neighbors, that we can't desert them. Well, as a matter of fact, I've been to Iraq now 14 times. I've been to Afghanistan 10 times. When we first went into Afghanistan, when I first went over there after hostilities started, it used to be 50 percent United States and 50 percent the rest of the world. Now when I go, it's about 75 percent the U.S. and 25 percent the rest of the world. So they have migrated out of Afghanistan. At the same time, they're asking us to pick up the load in Libya. Also on my trips, I don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of duty anymore. When I meet our kids, they're on their third, fourth, fifth tour of duty. We're stretched very thin. Our military families are stretched very thin. I think we should allow our international neighbors to pick up this load. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Rooney amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I speak in favor of a measure that will be coming up shortly, offered by my friend Ms. DeLauro, which goes to a major weakness in the underlying bill. The core mission of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is to ensure the integrity and transparency of derivatives markets. Yet, despite the recent spike in gasoline prices and despite the great difficulty we had in this recent financial crisis with respect to commodities-based swaps, we have to come to the floor today to fight for funding for the one agency that would police that activity. It is, indeed, unbelievable that this House would consider a proposal that would eviscerate the agency with the central responsibility for regulating the commodities markets. But here we are. The price of everyday items, from milk to gasoline, depends on the fair and open operation of commodities markets policed by the CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The recent spike in gasoline prices is not due to a shortage of supply, as we have seen, or increased demand. Clearly, this is a problem of unchecked speculative interests making money off the commodities markets as there are some who believe that as much as $27 of a barrel of oil today is the result of sheer speculation. It is our hope that through the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill the CFTC's responsibilities will be expanded to include oversight of the nearly $300 trillion in previously unregulated domestic swaps on the market today. This is a key step to bringing the shadow markets, which helped crash the economy, under sensible regulation. This is where the CDOs, CDSs and other complex derivatives deals were made. This is how AIG helped bring down the economy. We have to regulate this financial market and these financial products. However, the notional size of the market that the CFTC now must supervise has increased seven-fold, and the CFTC needs more resources. But in this bill, we will see its budget slashed. Instead of giving the agency the tools it needs to prevent another financial collapse, we are planting the seeds for the next financial crisis. The result of this Republican legislation to delay reform and the underlying bill to starve this agency would allow large, interconnected financial companies to engage unsupervised in activities and transactions similar to the activities that got us into this crisis in the first place. This would perpetuate an era of no oversight, no regulation and no transparency--in a similar fashion that nearly destroyed our economy. CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has warned that denying funding to this agency and delaying the implementation of Dodd- Frank will greatly ``increase risk to the American people and leave significant uncertainty in the marketplace.'' The CFTC is vital to the proper functioning of our financial markets and the American economy. Underfunding the commission is deeply irresponsible, so I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro amendment to properly fund the CFTC.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Edward M. King in recognition of his 23 years of dedicated service to Boston University and his passionate advocacy on behalf of the University throughout the halls of government and the communities of Boston. Ed began his tenure at Boston University in 1987 as Associate Vice President for Government & Community Affairs. In 1991, Ed became Vice President, overseeing all functions relating to federal, state, city, and community relations. Prior to coming to Boston University, Ed was the Director of Community Relations and Public Affairs for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. He was also the Executive Secretary and Deputy Director of the Youth Activities Commission for the City of Boston and is a former Manager of Little City Hall in South Boston as well as a former assistant to Mayor Kevin White. Throughout his career at Boston University, Ed served under Presidents John Silber, Jon Westling, Aram Chobanian, and Robert Brown. During Ed's tenure, Boston University went through an unprecedented growth that benefited both the University and the economy of the city of Boston. Through Ed's effort at both the community and governmental levels, the University successfully completed such projects as: Biosquare, Sargent College, the John Hancock Student Village complex that includes 1,800 new dormitory beds and the Harry Agganis Arena, the School of Management, the Photonics Center, the Life Science & Engineering building on Cummington Street, and the new East Campus Student Services Center on Bay State Road. There was nearly $1 billion of construction that went through extensive community and government review during Ed's time at Boston University. Additionally, Ed was the University's ambassador to the business and academic communities. He was Boston University's contact to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, A Better City, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Massachusetts, Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Association of Non-Profit Schools & Colleges. He was active in charities such as The Boys and Girls Clubs, the Greater Boston Girl Scouts Council, the West End House, the Little House, Dorchester neighborhood Little Leagues, and Catholic Charities. A 1981 graduate of Boston State College, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology, Ed currently resides with his wife, Kimberly, and their son, Charles, in Hingham. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to join with Ed's family, friends, and the Boston University community to thank him for his incredible dedication and commitment to the University and the city of Boston. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Ed's distinguished career and in wishing him good health and success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank my friend for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. Madam Speaker, it's a sad irony that at the same time that we're committing our sons and daughters to an armed conflict in Libya in support of democracy and the rule of law, that we are also trampling on the fundamental principles of separation of powers and the plain language of our United States Constitution, which is the supreme rule of law here at home. The United States Constitution clearly states that the President's power as Commander in Chief--to introduce our Armed Forces into hostilities--may be exercised only pursuant to three circumstances: number one, a declaration of war; number two, a specific statutory authorization; and, number three, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States. That has not happened. So despite my great respect and affection for our President, a lawful premise for this Libyan operation does not exist. In closing, I'd just like to say that I've been to Iraq 13 times and Afghanistan 10 times. I don't meet any of our kids on their first tour of duty anymore. They're all on their third tour of duty or fourth tour of duty. We are stretched thin, and this was a gratuitous action. We should not be there. There's no lawful basis for the prosecution of this war. So I ask for the support of this resolution.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of M. Shirley Austin, in recognition of her outstanding civic contributions to Holbrook, Massachusetts, and to commend her for a lifetime of dedicated service to her community. Shirley has dedicated over 45 years of loyal service to her town, beginning in 1966. For 39 of those years, she has tirelessly served Holbrook as Town Clerk. Shirley was first elected as Town Clerk in 1972, and has been elected in 13 consecutive elections over the 39 year time span. During her distinct career, Shirley has been a continuous member of the New England Town Clerks Association, and served as the Association's Massachusetts representative. In addition, she was also a member of the Tri-County (Norfolk, Plymouth, Bristol) Town Clerks Association and continued her leadership as the organization's secretary. An active participant in her community, Shirley has been a member of the Holbrook Town Democratic Committee for over 40 years. Her extensive and impressive resume also includes serving as a member of the Holbrook Rotary Club, a leader of the Holbrook Rotary Club's Student Government Day, and a Director for the Randolph Savings Bank. Lastly and most importantly, Shirley has been a trusted advisor and mentor to the town of Holbrook, providing citizens with valuable and experienced advice for decades. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the Floor of the House today to join with Shirley's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank her for her remarkable civic service to her hometown of Holbrook, Massachusetts, and to the United States of America. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Shirley's distinguished career and in wishing her good health and success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a good friend and tremendous labor leader, Joseph J. Hunt. Joe has dedicated his life to improving the lives of working men and women. Joseph J. Hunt was elected General President of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers on February 23, 2001. A native of St. Louis, Missouri, he is a third generation ironworker. His father, Joseph Hunt, Sr., and his grandfather, Jim Hunt, both held offices in Iron Workers Local Union No. 396, St. Louis. As his father and grandfather before him, Joe has held numerous positions in Local No. 396 including that of Business Manager. In 1983 he was appointed a General Organizer and assigned to International Headquarters in Washington, D.C. He first served as Assistant to the Director of Jurisdiction and then became Assistant to the General Treasurer. In 1990, he returned to St. Louis and was elected President of the Iron Workers District Council of St. Louis. In 1994, Joe was appointed General Vice President and in December of 1998 he was appointed General Treasurer. Between May and July of 2001, Joe was both elected as an Executive Board Member of the Maritime Trades Department and as a Vice President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Subsequently, in August of the same year, he was elected as an Executive Board Member of the Metal Trades Department. During his distinct career, Joe served as a member of the Governing Board of Presidents of the Building and Construction Trades Department and the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans. While he served on the Board of Directors of Union Labor Life Insurance Company, Joe was elected as Chairman of the Board on August 3rd, 2003. In addition, Joe has served in other labor related positions including Vice President and Executive Board Member of the St. Louis Building Trades Council, Executive Board Member of the Missouri Building Trades Council, Trustee and Executive Board Member of the St. Louis Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Chairman of the National Stack and Chimney Committee, and Secretary of the Regional Committee of the National Infrastructure Alliance. His extensive and impressive resume also includes serving as a Board Member of the Maria Droste Home, as a Trustee of the Arch Mutual Fund, and as a Board Member of FIRMCO. A 1987 graduate of the Harvard University Trade Union Program, Joe and his wife Jan have four children including son Joe (who is also a member of Local 396), as well as eleven grandchildren. They all currently reside in St. Louis. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to join with Joe's family, friends, and brothers and sisters of labor to thank him for his incredible dedication and commitment to the fight for workers' rights and services. I hope my colleagues will join me in celebrating Joe's distinguished career and in wishing him good health and success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of John M. Gillis, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to his hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts, and to commend him for over fifty years of dedicated service to his community. John was born on May 16, 1925, in Quincy, Massachusetts. He graduated from Quincy High School in 1942, where he served as captain of his football team. Subsequent to his graduation, John enlisted in the United States Marine Corp. He served with distinction in the South Pacific during World War II from 1943-1946. Upon completion of his service, John enrolled at Northeastern University, graduating in 1951. He served as captain of the 1950 Northeastern Football Team. Upon graduation, John served as a Quincy firefighter, and then worked in the office of the state auditor. He was appointed Assistant Quincy City Clerk in 1957, and served until 1959. Additionally, John was the Chairman of the Registrar of Voters in 1959. He then served as Quincy City Clerk from 1959-1992. John was elected Norfolk County Commissioner in 1992, a position he holds to this day. John is also an active member of his community. He served as Clerk of the Quincy City Council from 1959-1992; Chairman of the Licensing Board from 1963-1992, and currently serves as Trustee at the Norfolk Agricultural School, a position he has held since 1992. He is a member of the Quincy High School Athletic Hall of Fame, and is Grand Knight at the Ave Maria Knights of Columbus. Known for his quick sense of humor and for his loyalty to his friends, John has had the good fortune to be married to his wife, Violet, for fifty-nine years. They are the proud parents of two children and three grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the family, friends, and contemporaries of John M. Gillis to thank him for his remarkable service to his hometown of Quincy, Massachusetts, and to the United States of America.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that we're talking about here today isn't just dealing with foreclosures. As we all know in this country, there have been pockets where the foreclosure phenomenon and the wave of foreclosures and property abandonment have been concentrated. I have an area like that in my district, in the area of Brockton, Massachusetts, but I can point to other areas all across this country. What the Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows is for cooperation between communities, banks, lenders, homeowners, and servicers to either preserve homeownership; or in areas across this country such as in Illinois, Nevada, California, and Florida, where thousands and thousands of units have been abandoned in one concentrated area, it allows us to address those abandoned properties where the lender has taken a walk, where the homeowner has taken a walk, where the servicer has taken a walk. The surrounding communities of homeowners who are trying to stay in their homes are having, first of all, their property values lowered because of the density of abandoned properties in their neighborhoods. This Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides the only opportunity for us to address that crisis. We are trying to put a floor under the housing market in this country--some of us are--and this is one program that allows us to do that. So I rise in opposition to this bill. I ask that we rethink this idea about eliminating the four voluntary programs that we've got to support housing and to support families who are in a tough spot right now. I would just urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and to try to preserve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of H.R. 793, which would rename the United States Postal Service facility at 12781 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Inverness, California, as the Specialist Jake Robert Velloza Post Office Building. The measure before us was first introduced by my colleague and friend, Representative Lynn Woolsey from California, on February 17, 2011. The bill is cosponsored by all 52 members of the California delegation. Further, H.R. 793 was taken up by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 10, 2011, and was reported out of the committee on the same day. I would like to briefly highlight some of the achievements and honorable service of Specialist Velloza. The only son of Robert and Susan Velloza, Specialist Jake Velloza was a lifelong resident of Inverness, California. Specialist Velloza graduated from high school in 2004 and attended the College of Marin before enlisting in the Army in 2006. Specialist Velloza was a member of the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division stationed out of Fort Hood, Texas. Army Specialist Velloza was serving in Mosul, Iraq, when he was killed in action by enemy fire on May 2, 2009. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of this young man's bravery and accomplishments, I ask that we pass the underlying bill without reservation and pay tribute to the commitment and sacrifice made by Specialist Velloza on behalf of our country. I urge the passage of H.R. 793. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the lead sponsor of this measure, the gentlewoman from California, Representative Lynn Woolsey.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Raymond L. Flynn in recognition of his lifetime of accomplishment and dedicated public service. Ray was born and raised in South Boston, Massachusetts by his proud parents Steve and Lillian Flynn. He remains a lifelong resident of South Boston with Kathy, his wife of 46 years, raising their six children and seventeen grandchildren. Ray worked several jobs as a kid, including selling newspapers at Fenway Park, Braves Field, and the Boston Garden. It was his time at the Boston Garden that led to him becoming a ball boy for the world famous Boston Celtics. As a student at South Boston High School, Ray was named to the Massachusetts All-Scholastic Basketball Team. After graduating from South Boston High School, Ray attended Providence College and was an honors graduate in 1963 and an Academic All-American; the only Providence College student-athlete to receive such an award. During his playing career at Providence College, Ray was selected as a member of the NCAA College All-Star Team and was named the Most Valuable Player at the 1963 National Invitational Tournament, which at the time was the most prestigious college basketball tournament in the Nation. The following year, Ray was named captain of the nationally ranked Providence Friars' championship basketball team and was selected to the NCAA 25th Anniversary team as one of the top student-athletes in America. In the culmination of his tremendous collegiate basketball career, on February 20, 2011, Providence College retired Ray's #14 jersey to the rafters at the Dunkin Donut's Center (Providence Civic Center), joining other great Friar Basketball Legends. Ray served in the U.S. Army and played professional basketball in Wilmington, Delaware. In 1964, Ray made it to the final cut with the World Champion Boston Celtics. Returning to South Boston, Ray founded the South Boston Summer Basketball League which would later become the Boston Neighborhood Basketball League. Ray was proud to have organized the South Boston Men's Softball League and later coached at the South Boston Boy's Club and at Stonehill College. As an elected official, Ray served as a Massachusetts State Representative from South Boston and Dorchester from 1971 to 1978, Boston City Councilor from 1978 to 1983, Mayor of Boston from 1984 to1993, President of the United States Conference of Mayors from 1991 to 1992, and was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See (Vatican) by President William J. Clinton from 1993 to 1997. Ray Flynn grew up in a family and neighborhood which placed the dignity of a job and hard work as its highest priority. A long time admirer of Pope John Paul II, Ray is the author of two best-selling books, The Accidental Pope and John Paul II, A Personal Portrait of the Pope and the Man. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take to the floor of the House today to join with Raymond L. Flynn's family, friends, and contemporaries to honor him for his lifetime of accomplishment and his dedicated public service.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Well, let me just say this: The idea here, it's a two-step problem. One, the gentlewoman's bill would seek to eliminate voluntary agreements. Okay, so that's a problem. So we are asking the FHA and the homeowner and the lender and the servicer all to agree that this mortgage should be modified and that the homeowner should be allowed to remain in their home, which is a good thing. But for some reason you don't want any of that, so you are eliminating all four of those programs. That's a problem. The underlying problem that we have here specific to this language is compounded by the fact that you are eliminating all voluntary agreements, not only the ones that you seek to eliminate in these four voluntary programs.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Madam Chair, the funding authorization you have already deleted in section 2. So there is no funds and there is no authorization for FHA to issue a letter in connection with a program that no longer exists. So you have eliminated that. But when you are going further, section 3 is saying, and we don't want you even; we don't want you issuing a letter or a notice or an order that is substantially similar to the one we just eliminated. That's the problem, that you are taking the ability of the FHA to work out voluntary agreements that, I think on the merits, for the people in your district you would like to see occur, that are in good faith and that are affecting homeowners.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, look, I will concede that the gentlelady from Illinois has raised a lot of good points. Unfortunately, none of them are relevant to my amendment. If you look at section 2, which is what you just talked about, that remains intact. That remains intact.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the ranking member. I rise in opposition to H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act and also the other bills that will be coming to the floor on the same subject. I want to emphasize one thing that the ranking member has raised, and that is that these are voluntary programs. These are all voluntary programs that are trying to keep American families in their homes. These programs require the banks to agree that this is a good deal and it's deserving of these homeowners. These programs require that the homeowner also agree, obviously, and also that in many cases that the servicer agree. Now, because you're requiring a voluntary agreement and an agreement that has been crafted in such a way that all parties are balanced in their interests, it's been difficult to generate the number of families to be helped so far. I do want to also emphasize that this program started in November. This program started in November. We've had about 4 months to get families on board to be helped by these programs. For much of that 4 months, we have had abject resistance from the servicers. They have been the obstruction in making these programs work. But I am happy to say that in the last 10 days, we have had three major servicers, Allied, GMAC and Wells Fargo, that have finally come forward and said, we're going to work within this program, and we're going to try to help families stay in their homes not out of charity, but because they realize that we need to put a floor under this housing market in order to help sustain the weak economic recovery that we have going forward. What exacerbates the situation is also the way the banks have handled this up until now. In my district, and it's happened all across the country, we've had situations where banks and servicers have employed robosigners to the point where many of these foreclosure documents have been signed without full knowledge by the individuals charged with that responsibility. We've seen many courts in this country look at the foreclosure process used by these banks and have ruled them to be illegal and that, in fact, the banks did not own the homes that they were trying to foreclose on. And this has happened thousands of times across the country. It has not been a smooth process. We've also had a very, very difficult situation for our men and women in uniform. Despite the fact that there's been a law in this country since World War I that we will not foreclose on servicemembers' homes while they are in combat, while they are in Afghanistan or Iraq, we've had banks do hundreds and hundreds of foreclosures on our men and women in uniform. There are needs for these programs, and yet we are conveniently forgetting those facts. Lastly, this bill, with all due respect, has been poorly drafted in a meaningful way. This bill, if adopted, would prohibit all voluntary agreements between parties to stop these foreclosures. And I understand what the targets of my Republican colleagues are, but the bill is drafted so broadly it would prevent the banks, the FHA, the homeowner and the servicer to come to a voluntary agreement. Private enterprise has been something that my colleagues used to encourage, and here we have voluntary agreements that will be prohibited by this bill. And I do not think that is the intent of the gentleman, however, that is the actual impact of his legislation. And I have an amendment more specifically to deal with that at a later time. But we have to slow down the foreclosure process to put a floor under this economy. We have to help the families that can be helped. And this FHA Refinance Program Termination Act would prevent that from happening.

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

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to, first of all, clarify what this bill is intending to do. The goal of the bill by my colleagues is to end the FHA Refinance Program. While I do support voluntary workouts--and I think that's the best way to approach the problem--I want to point out that the bill as it is written does not allow that to be accomplished by the FHA. Not only does the bill eliminate the targeted programs that have been identified, but it also, in its breadth, eliminates the possibility of any voluntary agreements outside this program. That's what my amendment would seek to address. I do know that the CQ House Action Report indicated that I was amending section 2. However, I want to make sure that they understand that the language my amendment addresses is section 3: Termination of FHA Refinance Program. Basically, to understand it, what this amendment would do is: The FHA facilitates mortgage workouts and other actions under its purview through mortgagee letters. These are written guidances to mortgagees, lenders, HUD-approved counselors and appraisers--essentially, anyone who is actively providing services on behalf of or with the permission of HUD. Similar guidance is done for other HUD programs. Administrative law dictates that the agencies can issue administrative guidance that interprets statutes and regulations that we adopt, and it requires public notice and comment, and must be based on an authorizing statute. The FHA's guidance for lenders comes in the form of handbooks and these mortgagee letters, which essentially provide periodic advice and clarification while we are trying to do these voluntary agreements. Last year, the FHA issued 43 separate versions of this mortgagee letter. So far this year, it has issued about 14. My amendment would strike the text that I believe and that the FHA believes would interfere with the rest of the work that the FHA is doing in its operation. These are not areas targeted by the bill by the gentlewoman from Illinois. The bill provides that anything substantially similar to what they have prohibited in section 2, which is a mortgagee letter titled 2010-23, would also be prohibited. That creates a problem. That stops the FHA from doing a lot of the other work that both sides agree needs to be done. We are talking about voluntary agreements where the bank and the servicer and the homeowner agree. Basically, that would be stopped by this legislation. So I'm not trying to undo the targeted work that you're trying to do. I'm just trying to let the FHA do its job in general. I also want to remind the gentlewoman from Illinois that the FHA, by itself, cannot recreate the finance program through a mortgagee letter. It can only do so if it is legislation that is clearly underlying its action. All the mortgagee letters must go through departmental clearance and must be viewed by OMB before they become official guidance. So I am asking that this amendment be accepted to clarify the action of the bill, itself. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I would be remiss if I did not thank the Speaker, Speaker Boehner, for the open rule that we have been working under for the past several days. Even though we have not agreed on much, probably not anything, I do appreciate the fact that we have been able to have a fair and open debate on some of the most profound issues of our time. I am hoping earnestly this is not the last open rule we have. I know that it has turned 3 days of debate into 6 or 7 days of debate. There has been a lot of hot air in this Chamber. I think if this Chamber were a hot air balloon, we could probably make Europe. But I do think there is credit due to the Speaker for allowing this debate to occur. I do want to remind the Members, in spite of some of the pronouncements of the previous speaker, that there is fixed law that prevents Federal funding from being used for abortion. That is really not what this is about. This is about the ability of Planned Parenthood to conduct women's health care, to offer services that are deeply needed in many communities where no other source of health care is available. Planned Parenthood last year carried out 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams and offered nearly 4 million tests and treatments for STDs, including HIV. Those are the services they provide. They are prohibited by law by the Hyde amendment from using Federal funds for abortions. That is a fact. You can be entitled to your own opinion, but that is a fact. I am a pro-life Democrat. I am a pro-life Democrat, and my faith informs my position on this issue. There used to be, I think, a general agreement, as divisive as this debate is and has been in this country for years, there has been a level of agreement that we have reached where I think we agreed at one point in this country that the best way to reduce abortion in this country is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We used to agree on that. This bill, this amendment, will increase the number of abortions in this country. The heart of what Planned Parenthood does is in the area of contraceptives and medical screenings for cervical cancer and breast cancer. But contraception is a big part of what they do in trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. If we take the funding away from them, and it says all funding--all funding. It doesn't distinguish. All funding out of title X is prohibited from Planned Parenthood. So let's not play a game about what you are against and what you are for. This is for all funding. That is what the bill says. And if you prevent Planned Parenthood from providing advice and services on contraception, we know for a certainty, especially in the communities that they provide services to, we are going to have an increase in the number of abortions in this country. That is the natural consequence of what is on the table here in this amendment. You are going to reduce funding for contraception; you are going to have more unwanted pregnancies, and you are going to have more abortions. Is that is what this debate is about? Is that what we are trying to do here? I used to think it was different. I thought we had some level of agreement on this, that the goal was to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and that is how we were going to reduce abortions in this country. I am disheartened by this amendment. I wish that the gentleman would withdraw this amendment because I think it is counterproductive to the goal of reducing the number of abortions in this country. And as a family who has been affected by cervical cancer and breast cancer, I think that is very important work that they do. And I support that. I don't have many friends in the Planned Parenthood community. They don't support me. I am pro-life. But I respect the good work that they do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I don't come here to argue that we don't have to make serious cuts and reduce our spending. I'm sure that we do--and we will. But I do find it remarkable that I stood in this place a matter of weeks ago and fought to have a small increase in taxes for millionaires that would have eased the burden that we face today, but the argument was made-- and made loudly from my colleagues across the aisle--that we couldn't afford to make millionaires pay more taxes. We were talking about increasing the tax rate on amounts over $250,000 from 36 percent to 39 percent, and we were told that we could not do that. Yet here we are today and we're talking about cutting low-income heating assistance for families in the Northeast in New England that are suffering from the worst winter in decades. We're talking about cutting WIC for single moms who are trying to raise kids. We're talking about cutting education and funds for kids. It seems that our priorities are misplaced here. Save the tax cuts for the millionaires but cut everything for people who have nowhere else to turn. It's reverse Robin Hood. We're robbing from the poor to make sure the rich keep their tax cuts. I can't believe it. In that bill not many weeks ago--just a few weeks ago, we actually--I didn't, but those who voted for it did--cut $119 billion out of Social Security, but we kept those tax cuts for those millionaires. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from the tea party, I actually represent the city of Boston, the port of Boston. When you visit the Tea Party Memorial, that's in my district. Just for the record, I want to make sure people understand when the colonists at the tea party revolted, they threw the tea overboard. They didn't throw senior citizens overboard. They didn't throw kids overboard. They didn't throw young mothers on WIC overboard. We have a challenge before us about where our priorities are going to be going forward. I'm proud to say that I grew up in the housing projects in south Boston. I'm not ashamed to say that we struggled as a family when I was a kid. I'm too old to be a WIC baby; but if they had had it, I'm sure my family would have been on it. As my dad used to say, there were times in our family where we had to save up to be poor. But we have a moral obligation here to get our priorities right. I hope that at some point in this process that ideology is set aside and that we really do tackle in a fair way the problems that this country faces. I've been here long enough to understand that fairness does not always carry the day in these debates. Then you see the cuts to people who have nowhere else to turn. You see cuts to Social Security. There was $119 billion cut out of Social Security several weeks ago, and we diverted that out. I'm sure at some point we're going to hear that it's unsustainable, that Social Security is unsustainable, because we cut $119 billion out of it; but we've got seniors in this country who have nowhere else to turn. They're on fixed incomes. We cut Social Security rather than ask millionaires to give a little bit more. I think that is not consistent with what this country is all about. I hope at some point that common sense and mutual interests on behalf of what's really important in this country do prevail in this Chamber, that ideology, both far right and far left, is tossed aside, and that we can actually get down to the business of moving this country forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. The Fifth Amendment: ``No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentiment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.''

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous material.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2010. I would like to start by thanking Chairman Frank and Senator Herb Kohl for their efforts on this bill and their dedication to America's seniors. This legislation simply brings HUD's section 202 program, part of our Nation's safety net for the low- income elderly for nearly 50 years, into the 21st century. Supportive housing of the type funded by section 202 is an effective and cost-efficient program for low-income elderly. Section 202 grants combine high-quality, affordable housing with service coordinators who connect tenants with health, income support, and other community-based services. This produces positive outcomes for the health and quality of life of elderly tenants. Section 202's housing plus services model extends how long seniors can live independently. This turns out to be cost effective as well, given the alternatives of nursing home care coupled with frequent hospitalizations. However, it is clear that HUD needs to streamline administration of this program to reflect a new financing reality. The section 202 program was originally designed to be a one-stop shop for nonprofits to cover their entire project costs--that is capital, operating, and supportive services. Due to funding constraints, HUD's 202 grants no longer do so, especially in high-cost areas like my home State of Massachusetts. This requires nonprofit sponsors to access other sources of financing such as low-income housing tax credits. The bill before us today addresses these concerns while taking into account HUD's legitimate interest in maintaining oversight of its substantial investment in section 202 projects. Senate 118 requires HUD to take advantage of State and local housing finance agencies' better positioning to process mixed finance applications. It also enables nonprofit sponsors to share more fully in the proceeds of refinancing opportunities that are now available in the private sector that some older 202 projects have, so those sponsors can make needed improvements to existing projects and develop desperately needed additional senior housing. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 118. I reserve the balance of my time.