David Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Well, just finally, in conclusion, I just want to say that I know that I speak for every single Member of the House of Representatives, both Democrat and Republican, when I say that foremost in all of our minds, foremost is the security of the United States of America, and foremost in our minds is that we do that in the context of the foundations of this country, which are freedom and openness. We walk a very delicate balance this evening. Let us hope we walk it right. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to very briefly come down because I think we need to remember, first of all, that we are standing on some very hallowed ground here. We are standing on the grounds of the citadel of this Nation where some heavy prices were paid for the foundation of our government, the hallmark of which is openness and freedom. So when we take a step to close our proceedings to the American people, we are treading on treacherous ground. And so I believe, I think that it is very important, Mr. Minority Whip, that I ask you this question because I think you certainly need to answer this for those of us here and the American people, and that question is: Is this a political ploy? In the land of Greek mythology was a land called Troy, and in that land they brought a Trojan horse. And so when you look at the facts that have been exposed in this discourse this evening, you say you have information that is of high intelligence matter, that you are asking us to undermine the very hallmark and foundation of our free, open Republic to present, that has not even been presented to the proper channels of our Intelligence Committee on the eve of a vote that has been moving around these Chambers for well over a month. Here, just before we are about to go for a 2-week recess, we come with this mysterious information. So the question has to be answered: Is this a Trojan horse? Is this a political ploy? To call a meeting in secret to give secret information, those of us that would come have to abide by the secrecy, then when the vote takes place, if it doesn't go the way that you want it, you can say to the press, well, hey, we called a secret meeting. We gave them valuable information, and see what they did. It puts this whole situation in a very confounding box, and I ask you to answer that question. Is this not a political ploy? Is this not a Trojan horse? And if so, could it not be a misuse of the sanctity of the House of Representatives?

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with tomorrow.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of America's most courageous groups of men who fought during World War II, the Tuskegee Airmen. These brave African American men refused to let discrimination topple their dreams as they fought to defend America during World War II and protect our freedom. They are nationally known for being the first group of black military airmen at a time when people believed all blacks lacked intelligence, skill, courage, and patriotism. It was not until 1941 when the Tuskegee Airmen were given an opportunity to learn about aviation at Tuskegee Institute in Tuskegee, Alabama, founded by Booker T. Washington. There is no greater story of freedom and American democracy than that of the Tuskegee Airmen, who with bravery and courage fought for the freedom of this country and the world, while at home African Americans were second-class citizens. Coming out of the Tuskegee Institute as some of the best and brightest of their programs, they went on to fight against all odds. These men were a vital part of the battles against the Luftwaffe in Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Germany. They flew more than 15,000 sorties, escorted bombers in raids against enemies over Europe and North Africa, and destroyed enemy targets and supply lines in Germany. Their efforts and successes in the Air Force directly influenced President Truman's decision to desegregate the U.S. military. Due to their patriotism and valor in World War II, on March 27, 2007, they received one of the highest honors in the United States, the Congressional Gold Medal. So when anyone talks about the Tuskegee Airmen, it is more than just their flying. It is their extraordinary stand for courage in the face of difficulty. This month I salute the Tuskegee Airmen.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. To my two distinguished colleagues who have taken the leadership on this time on the floor, I thank you for your graciousness in allowing us to bring up H. Res. 944 and at the same time to recognize what is arguably an extraordinary and great moment in American history. For this man, Lieutenant General Russel Honore, the only word that comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, is that word ``great.'' There have been some great moments and great events in the last 7 years of this country that have threatened the very foundation of our country. The 9/11 of 2001 that launched the vicious attack on this country that led us into this extraordinary period of this war on terror, and then just 4 years later a great catastrophe, one of the greatest natural disasters to have ever hit the United States of America and to the gulf coast of this country: Hurricane Katrina. Great events, great occasions bring forth the need to rise up to this occasion and these great occasions great men. We are here today to honor a great American, and we ought to pause for a moment and think about this word ``great'' that we are using to describe this great American, Lieutenant General Russel Honore. The word ``great'' means something of great magnificence. When that question was put to the great philosopher Aristotle, what does it take to be a great man, Aristotle said the first thing you've got to do is know thyself. Well, I am here to tell you, Mr. Speaker, Russel Honore knew himself, and not only did he know who he was, Russel Honore knew whose he was, that he was foremost and first of all a child of God that had been brought on this Earth for a great need and a great occasion. Later on in history that question was put to the great Roman general and soldier Marcus Aurelius. The question was put to Marcus Aurelius, what does it take to be a great man? Marcus Aurelius said, in order to be a great man, you must, first of all, discipline yourself. And so much has been said about the great soldiering of this great American. The hallmark word is ``discipline,'' ``focus.'' He endured hardness and toughness as a good soldier, and through that discipline came the loyalty, came the courage that it took to fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but, more than that, to expound the toughness and the discipline that was needed to our fellow soldiers that came under his care. For there is no greater thing of General Honore than the love of his soldiers, and he exemplified that by heading up the commandant post in my district at Fort Gillem, Georgia. For three-quarters of the National Guard that had to be positioned, had to be trained, had to be deployed into the war zones came through the hand of Russel Honore at Fort Gillem in Clayton County and Forest Park in Georgia and my congressional district. And, finally, that question was put to the great Messiah and prophet Jesus Christ when He was asked, Jesus, what does it take to be a great man? And Jesus replied, first of all, in order to be a great man, you must sacrifice yourself. And, oh, what a great sacrifice. And you must love your fellow man as you do yourself. And what greater exemplary of that was in going down into Katrina and not just soldiering, not just taking the time to protect the area, but clothing the people there, finding food and shelter for them, and taking the time to stop beside the road of the agony that they were experiencing, put an arm around them, and help that gulf coast to recovery. Yes, ``greatness'' is the word for General Russel Honore. And we are so grateful for him, for the role that he has played, and for the greatness of this man. For he came at the most opportune time to provide the most opportune service, and he is truly a great American serving a great Nation.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand before the House and to thank the distinguished chairman of our Ways and Means Committee for doing a yeoman's job on a very difficult issue, in bringing both parties together, in bringing both Chambers together, and responding in a timely way to help the American people who are struggling to make ends meet. There are some who say we're not in a recession, but I can tell you this from my constituency and others all across this country, a recession is upon us. And in some areas with high unemployment, it borders on a depression. So this is much needed. It comes in a timely manner. We are putting money into the hands of those who will spend it the quickest, and that means the moderate and lower income individuals. And at the same time, I am proud as a member of the Financial Services Committee to have played a small role in helping this move forward, especially in expanding the limits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and our FHA loan extensions. Madam Speaker, I thank again the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate in here this afternoon. What is on the American people's mind right now are two words: ``quickly'' and ``now.'' They want this economy turned around quickly and now. The best way to do that is in our plans, getting money to the people who will spend it quickly and now, extending the limits on our lending capacity in FHA quickly and now, and in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Speaker, about 143 years ago, Abraham Lincoln, as well as Robert E. Lee, came before this Congress at the end of the Civil War, and they said to this Congress: we need to move. It is not incumbent upon us to complete this task, but neither are we free to desist from doing all we possibly can quickly and now. Those are the words that are tripping off the tongues of the American people. We need to stop them from being put out of their homes with foreclosures. That is why we have the limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as for the FHA loans. Americans want to be able to have their jobs. You do that by stimulating the economy and putting the money in the hands of the people who will spend it quickly and now.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let it be noted that the gentleman from Iowa, my good friend, is the one who brought up the race card, not I. But I will be the one who quickly puts it back into the middle of the deck, where it should stay and belong forever. The fact of the matter is this: For 77 years, Mr. Chairman, this country has had the prevailing wage. Not a union wage. The prevailing wage standards are set by scientific surveys of actual wages paid in the local communities, and anyone awarded a government contract pays at least those prevailing wages. It is not a union scale. If you had union scale, that is it no matter where you go. Prevailing wages are what is established based upon that local economy, that local situation. You talk about New York. When Hoover put this in in 1931, he didn't put it in for New York. It was for the entire Nation, because we were at the throes of the depression, at the beginning of the depression. And now in a similar situation, while we are not in the beginning of a depression, but certainly in a recession, you misguidedly, my good friend, want to remove it. How ironic. Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible amendment. It certainly is not the right time to even think about in any fashion any measure that would constrict the economic sector in this country rather than at a much greater need when we need to expand it, and we need to stand and protect the wage earner and working America on this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa very cleverly uses the words ``union scale.'' This is not union scale; this is prevailing wage scale. This is set by scientific surveys within a community, based upon what is the prevailing wage in that community. It moves from community to community. There is a reason for that. Davis-Bacon has been one of the foremost agents that we have been able to use in our entire economic structure to make sure that the American worker has a livable wage that maintains the standards in that community. The Davis-Bacon requirement has been on the books since 1931, and, if I might add, put on by a Republican, one of my opponents' party members, President Hoover, and it has served us well. Now, this amendment is certainly an amendment that is very timely. Here we are in the throes of a recession, one of the most damaging economic crises that this Nation has faced in the last quarter of a century, and we have the gentleman from Iowa wanting to put on an amendment that would diametrically affect the living wages of the people who need the help the most. Now, by preventing workers on HOPE VI projects from earning a living wage is certainly not the right way to go. It is a hole in the head bucket strategy, given that those very same workers in the absence of Davis-Bacon protections would be unable to find housing themselves. A part of the HOPE VI mission, Mr. Chairman, is to make construction of units more efficient and to ensure that the HOPE VI housing units are more environmentally friendly and cost effective. The Davis-Bacon prevailing wages helps attract the necessary skilled workforce to build housing in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This is a bad amendment. I yield 2 minutes to Mr. George Miller to put his statement in the Record at this point.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in order to recognize the 175th anniversary of the founding of Cobb County, GA. On December 3, 2007, residents of Cobb County came together to celebrate a community that has managed to remain united through many trying times. It was the spirit of community that held Cobb together after many bloody battles of the Civil War took place here, or when the murder of Leo Frank in 1913 threatened to pull the community apart. This deep reverence for community is one of the primary reasons that Marietta, one of Cobb's largest cities, was the first city in Georgia to be awarded the All American Cities Award by the National Civic League. Today, Cobb County continues to meet the challenges that face our Nation with strength, resilience and innovation. Several cities in Cobb County have partnered with cities around the world, developing trade relationships that keep Cobb County and Georgia relevant in the global economy. Cobb County is proud to be the home of Home Depot's headquarters as well as several other companies that keep Georgia's, as well as America's, economy strong. As our Nation has grown more diverse, so has Cobb County. Cobb County has demonstrated how much progress can come from people working together as neighbors and partners rather than focusing on those things that keep communities divided. Cobb County is a place that all Americans can be proud of and look to as an example of what every community should strive to emulate. I am proud to represent Cobb and commit these statements to the Congressional Record so generations can reflect on what has been, is, and will continue to be an exemplary community.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this issue boils down to a practicality of ideology. The Republicans and the Bush administration has repeatedly shown that they really quite honestly do not get it when it comes down to health care, and particularly for those who need the health care the most. This is not just the beginning of this. This argument started back during the winter when there were 17 States who came up short, and we fought and we fought to try to get that shortage fixed. But there was no help until I drafted an amendment, went to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and we attached it to the Iraq war supplemental. That is the only way President Bush and the administration signed it. Now, let me just point out two important points. There are scare tactics being used here. Anytime the Republicans and those on the other side want to score a point, they bring up the bogeyman of illegal immigration; these people are going to be illegal aliens. There's nothing in this bill. As a matter of fact, there's express language that prohibits in this bill any illegal immigrant or undocumented person from being eligible for this children's health program. You talk about there are adults on the bill. There are no adults on this bill except an adult who happens to be pregnant with child for prenatal care. Should they not have that care? That strikes at the heart of this bill. I urge everyone to not go with this sad argument and let's sustain and override this veto coming up on January 23.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Neal, I want to thank you and Chairman Rangel for your leadership on this extremely important bill. There are several points I would like to make. First of all, my good friends, my Republicans on the other side of the aisle, it must be clear. There's no question about it. What the Republicans want to do is borrow the money to pay for this tax from China, from Japan, and have our children and grandchildren pay for it. But they don't want to just stop there. They also want to protect those wealthy 1 percent who are using tax loopholes to hide their money away from taxation in offshore accounts. That is what our Republican colleagues want to do. We, on the Democratic side, want to look at this in the responsible way, as the American people expect. We have to provide tax relief for 23 million American families. How to do that is most assuredly to pay for it. And we're doing it by closing these offshore loopholes.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it baffles me when, on this floor, we, who are Members of the House of Representatives, so quickly, so easily want to abdicate our responsibilities to the Senate. No wonder the Senate does what it does. Well, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to abdicate our responsibilities to the Senate. The Founders of this Constitution and this country dedicated two Houses, one, the Senate, that runs every 6 years, and they made a distinct decision to have the Members of the House of Representatives run every other year because the power of the House closest to the people is that House that the people look to to be most responsive to the day-to-day delicacies of their needs. This is what we're doing here. And the day-to-day delicacies says we've got to pass the most significant, the most meaningful terrorism risk insurance program possible. There's no greater threat we face. My colleagues on the other side have said, well, why can't the private sector do this? The private sector has come to us. We don't know how catastrophic these events may be. But one thing is for certain, Mr. Speaker, we must not allow the terrorists to shut down and destroy our economy. And unless we have this backstop, the insurers have said they cannot rebuild. Not only that, the insurers have come to us, who we've got to listen to, to say we need this backstop so that the economy will be stable. Perhaps we may not need to use it. Let us hope and let us pray that we will not have to. But, Mr. Speaker, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we must prepare for the storm before the hurricane is raging. This is not a giveaway program. This is not a subsidy program. This is an insurance program, insurance that we hope and we pray that we will not need. But if we do, it is the House of Representatives who are responding to say, We need to insure life, not just property. You ask the American people. Property you can get again and again. Buildings you can rebuild. But a life, a life is gone like that and must be insured. This is the House of Representatives speaking, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. In conclusion, I would just simply say that I urge that we support this rule. It is very important and timely.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is probably, timing-wise, no greater, no more important piece of legislation for the protection of this country than this TRIA risk insurance program. It is very important that I just start my remarks by responding to some of the concerns that the gentleman raised. First of all, in our Financial Services Committee, this is indeed a bipartisan product. Republicans and Democrats worked on this together. This is also a bicameral institution. It is important for the House to have its input. It is important for the Senate to have its input. As a timing matter, it is critically important for us to make sure that we have incorporated into this legislation important issues that the Senate has left out. So what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is simply a joint product. We asked for the conference. The conference was not permitted. So we have no other choice except to take what the Senate has offered, and we are accepting that. But there are some other important points of this legislation that need to be incorporated into this bill. And so this revised bill is not a repudiation of what the Senate has done. It is an acceptance of what the Senate has done. And it is also recognizing and acquiescing to some of the issues that they raised that we agreed with. The nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological we agreed with that we would not include. So what do we have here? And I think it is important for the American people to know exactly this product that we have that we are putting forward at this point. This revised bill would extend TRIA for 7 years just as the Senate favors. Now, we in the House asked for a 15-year renewal for this. You talk about stability. You talk about making sure that we are responding. This is a heavy, heavy issue with the terrorist attack. We also feel genuinely that if we are going to offer this insurance protection for property, for buildings, my Lord, the most valuable commodity that we lose in a terrorist attack is human life. Group life insurance should be included in this. We are just simply taking what the Senate has offered and again extending back and saying group life insurance must be offered in this bill. The reset mechanism and lowering of the trigger, the Senate wants $100 million. We say $50 million to increase the capacity by encouraging smaller insurers to provide coverage. This is very important as well. And as Chairman Frank just mentioned, life insurance for foreign travel. Why shouldn't people who decide they want to go to a somewhat dangerous destination as Israel have that life insurance covered? So we are certainly adding the reset mechanism for significant terrorist attacks, over $1 billion, to lower the deductibles and triggers to rebuild market capacity and then gradually increase private sector obligations over time. We took a lot of time, my colleague. I am on the Financial Services Committee. We have worked very hard. We had hearings on it. We heard from every factor of the community in the financial services, and this product that we offer reflected that. All we are simply saying is, timing is important. But why not allow the House, which has just as much right as the Senate, to perfect this important legislation? We are taking what they want, we have accepted some of the things that they felt were excesses, and we are simply adding these four major components back to the bill, reset mechanism, group life insurance, lowering the trigger and life insurance coverage for foreign travel.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. We are negotiating with whoever would present themselves to negotiate on the Senate side. But, unfortunately, that has not been successful.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague Mr. Roskam for his hard work on this bill and for his contribution, and also the leadership of our Financial Services Committee under the chairmanship of Chairman Barney Frank for his work on this measure as well. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3505) to make various technical and clerical amendments to the Federal securities laws, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3505, is the Securities Law Technical Corrections Act, and it consists entirely of technical and clerical amendments to the Federal securities laws which were requested by the Securities and Exchange Commission as a minor part of a larger legislative agenda. Included are the Security Act of 1934, the Investment Act of 1940 and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. Mr. Speaker, periodically we in Congress should review our laws in order to make sure that they are current and that they are up to date. Furthermore, this bill addresses certain changes to be made to reduce confusion. We want to ensure that the laws we pass are current, and periodically clarifying certain aspects of these somewhat complex and complicated laws is a very valuable undertaking. The amendments made by this bill correct drafting errors and remove obsolete references to the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, which was repealed in 2005. It further corrects numbering and punctuation errors. There are several technical changes that need to be made to the bill, as introduced, one to correct statutory citations and punctuation and also for clarification. Mr. Speaker, as security laws are very complicated, very complex and highly technical, and with many of these laws having been written in the 1930s and the 1940s, periodic overview is very, very important and essential to the financial security of our great Nation, and this, Mr. Speaker, is the purpose of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on this legislation and on H.R. 3526, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Price amendment attempts to exempt prime loans from the requirement of the bill. The Price amendment takes out prime loans from the definition of residential mortgage loans. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most significant financial crises that has impacted every sphere of our economy. While, yes, subprime issues may be at the eye of the storm, these winds are howling and they are blowing fierce and hard throughout every length and breadth of this country. More than three-fourths of Americans with mortgages have prime loans. The Price amendment will do one essential thing. It will deprive the vast majority of Americans, 78 percent of Americans will be deprived by his amendment of the many important critical protections in this bill. Mr. Chairman, all Americans need consumer protections against risky loans. This crisis has weakened the entire American economy. Look at Citigroup. Look at Countrywide. Major Fortune 200, 500 corporations have suffered tremendously. That has a ripple effect and has made millions of middle- and upper-income American families, as well as the lower-income families less secure. All Americans deserve to have the protections to stop bad loans from being made in the first place. We need to make sure that both prime and subprime consumers get mortgages that they can repay. We need to make sure that prime and subprime mortgageholders are strengthened by consumer protections against reckless, abusive lending practices for both prime and subprime, and we need to make sure that both prime and subprime borrowers are not steered into more expensive mortgages. For example, Mr. Chairman, for prime borrowers, the Price amendment removes the important requirement in this bill that mortgage originators comply with what is known as ``Federal duty of care.'' By that we mean what we have under this bill, where mortgage originators have to offer prime borrowers full disclosures that are mandated by the bill. This bill ensures that all borrowers can make informed decisions when taking out loans. All borrowers deserve that, both prime and subprime. Also under our bill, mortgage originators must present all borrowers, including prime borrowers, with the range of loan products that the borrowers can repay or that provide them with a net tangible benefit. The question was raised, what is net tangible benefit? It is making sure that the loan doesn't leave you in a worse-off position, for example, such as when you refinance, where your cash-out is less than the fees that you are paying. The Price amendment also would take away this important protection from our borrowers. It removes the protection of prime borrowers against steering. This is critically important, as the gentleman from North Carolina that preceded me talked about. This carefully crafted bill requires strong rules against talking borrowers into more expensive loans that they cannot afford. Mr. Chairman, both subprime and prime borrowers deserve that. These 78 percent of homeowners, borrowers would not have that kind of protection if we adopt the Price amendment. We need to protect our borrowers, both prime and sub, from having borrowers being talked into loans that have predatory characteristics like equity stripping, they do that for prime as well as subprime, excessive fees that leave them in a worse position than they were before. The Price amendment would take away the important consumer protection that protects a consumer from loans they cannot repay, does not provide the tangible benefit, and then, Mr. Chairman, one important measure that treats borrowers differently based on race. At the bottom of this is this tug of war in this whole fight because this is targeted. There are many African Americans who are target or are prime, but they are targeted to move into subprime. This issue bleeds all across the horizon, Mr. Chairman. This amendment that Mr. Price is offering severely weakens and guts this measure and deprives all Americans from having the equality of protection under the law. It must be rejected.