Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007

I thank the gentlewoman, the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee who has worked so hard all year on a number of very important pieces of legislation. And I appreciate the kind words of the ranking member. I congratulate him on the newest addition to his extended family. And he correctly says, there is a lot in this bill that we agree with; there are some things that we disagree.

Now, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Illinois, the ranking member of the full committee. I should note, the gentlewoman from Illinois is no longer the ranking member of this subcommittee, she was recently moved, but she was during the pendency of this bill. They noted that last year a bill passed the House by 400 to a handful on the FHA, and that is true. And the reason is, that is the difference between us and them.

Last year, when they were in the majority, they came out with a bill that had some things in it that we liked, a couple things that we didn't like, so we were reasonable and conciliatory and voted for it. And now we are in the majority. And it is an odd argument to say that the bill that they passed when they were in the majority, having defeated some of our amendments, somehow now, because we were conciliatory last year and supported it, we are obligated to do the same thing.

The principle of deja vu all over again is not to be found in Jefferson's Manual. It is not binding. We built on what we agreed to last year and we added some things. Let me talk about where we disagree.

Oddly, the administration insists that when we do mortgage insurance for lower income people, we agree, that going forward, and even in fact in helping in the current crisis, FHA mortgage insurance should be available for people with weaker credit who are in the subprime category, now, if they can refinance at a steady rate in the future so they can go there in the first place.

But what the administration says is this: If you are a woman making $48,000 a year and your credit isn't great for a variety of reasons and you get mortgage insurance from the FHA, this administration and the approach of my Republican colleagues is to charge her more than any Member of this House would be charged for the same mortgage insurance, because what they say is, we will extend it to people with weaker credit, but we will charge them more, because people with weaker credit are likely to default. It is true people with weaker credit are likelier to default, but should everybody be penalized financially because some people with weaker credit will default?

What we say is, if you are in that higher risk category and you go forward and make your payments on time, you should be refunded that money after 5 years automatically, 3 years at the discretion of HUD.

So I reject the notion that we should make the person in the lower credit category who conscientiously makes her payments be the one who has to bear the cost of a loan loss rate that is higher for people like her. That is not her fault.

Secondly, we have in here tougher restrictions than last year on the ability of HUD to raise FHA rates. Members will note, the FHA has been making a surplus recently, and the administration likes that and they can use that to put into the general budget so Housing and the FHA subsidize the rest of the budget. And a couple of times on a fully bipartisan basis, through the appropriators and through our committee, we have written to HUD saying, no, don't do that. Don't raise FHA fees when you are already making a profit.

This bill, in fact, reduces the ability of HUD to raise fees unless they can document that they are going to go in the red, and that is one of the differences. If you vote for a substitute, you will be voting for a weaker set of restrictions on HUD's ability to raise FHA fees. That is why the home builders and the realtors have generally been supportive of the approach that we are taking, because we don't want HUD to have the freedom to raise the fees just to make a surplus for the rest of the government and make homeowners do that initial surplus.

In addition, by the way, we take the cap off home equity mortgages, and that is what generates the money. We don't generate the money for the affordable housing fund here by raising fees on mortgage insurance in general; in fact, we restrict HUD's ability to do that. We do take the cap off mortgage insurance. So what we are saying is, there will be more home equity mortgages granted. And, in fact, we put a restriction on the fee that can be charged by those who originate them. Not in the minority's substitute, I believe. And we say that extra money that comes not from raising anybody's fees but increasing the volume is what we can use for affordable housing. We also say that you should raise the limit.

Now, the administration had been opposed to it and they are parading it some but I believe not enough. We now have a situation in which the market is telling us that they will not do mortgages if they go above the FHA-GSE limit. And what this bill does is, A, to raise the limit based on the regional variation in house prices, but, in addition, says to the Secretary of HUD: If

the market freezes up as it now does, you have discretion, the discretion of the Secretary of HUD, to do a temporary increase in the limits. And I think that is a reasonable approach.

Finally, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Be very clear. Look at the bill. Not a penny can go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund under the legislation before us today until the Secretary of HUD certifies that the FHA fund is fully solvent. That is, there is no way under this bill that a penny can go to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund if it would in any way cause an increase in FHA mortgage insurance or in any way jeopardize the fund.

The question is, if there is a surplus generated by the mortgage insurance rates, and remember, we are saying to HUD you can't charge as much as you want to. So at the lower rate we impose and with the increase in the volume of home equity mortgages that generates a surplus, does it go into the Treasury to do as they wish or can we set it aside for an affordable housing program? And for the first time, because you do not have now a lot, there are a lot of HUD programs, but there aren't any now that help build family affordable housing. We have some for the elderly; HUD tries to cut it. We have some for the disabled; HUD tries to cut it. We do not have a general program for helping to build affordable family housing, and that is what this bill would do. But only if by raising revenue. And, by the way, when we increased it, there was an odd statement in which they said don't raise the upper limit, have the program be focused on the lower income people. They are not competitive.

In fact, raising the upper limit makes money for the FHA. CBO has told us that when you raise the limit, that is a profit for FHA. In fact, raising the limit at the top is one of the reasons why we can avoid charging the people with weaker credit more, which the FHA wants to do, because we recycle some of that profit that they will make from right in the upper end into helping offset the higher loan loss rate from people at the lower end.

So the notion that in any way we are deteriorating our ability to help the moderate people is just nonsense. It is literal nonsense. Because raising the upper limit, all it does is provide more funds which can be used, because the alternative, and again this is in the Bush administration's approach: Yes, we will extend credit to people with weaker credit, but we will charge those individuals more than somebody who is richer even if that individual is making the payment. I don't think that is appropriate for the Federal Government.

There has been a lot of bipartisan cooperation on this bill. There were a couple amendments offered. One amendment is jointly offered by myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). There are amendments offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) which we think is a good idea. Mr. Miller has another one dealing with down payment assistance. Mr. Tiberi's deals with the question of counseling. We are supportive of those. There is a great deal of bipartisanship here.

The realtors and home builders, two of the private sector groups strongly committed to helping with homeownership and home building, support this bill and support our versions of it. All the consumer groups, the people who advocate for low income housing do. I hope that the bill is adopted. There are some amendments that would kill it. I will say there is an amendment to strike the funds for the Affordable Housing Fund. Members might want to check. A virtually identical amendment was offered during the appropriations bill to prohibit any FHA money from going there. It was defeated by 2-1. It was a very large vote on this side, obviously, but a significant vote on the other side. We have debated all these issues. I hope by the end of the day we will send the FHA bill through.

And let me just close by saying I welcome what the administration did. We are moving closer. I hope by the end of today we will have sent this bill to the Senate, along with the GSE bill. And I have spoken to Secretary Paulson and I have spoken with Members of the Senate. If the Senate will then take up the GSE bills and the FHA bills, I know there are differences, we want a signature on both bills. We will have a genuine three-sided conference; ourselves, both parties; the Senate, both parties; the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of HUD. And I believe if the Senate will act well before Thanksgiving, we can have a good package in which the GSEs and FHA are made sounder and more solid and better able to serve the people.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would say that I really am very proud that on our committee, and the gentlewoman is right, there are some areas of disagreement, I think we have shown how you can have legitimate disagreements of governmental philosophy within a framework of some agreement and be able to deal with them so that the disagreements can be reasonably debated and don't spill over and don't interfere.

And the gentlewoman is right, we have been very active; but we could not have been active in a very constructive way if it hadn't been for that spirit, and I thank her for it. And obviously we will still be working with her, but we do want to acknowledge how helpful she was and how constructive in her role as the ranking minority member.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois. She is absolutely right. If I thought this would in any way impinge on our ability to help middle- and lower-income people, I would be opposed to it. In fact, if this works as we believe it will work, it will be the opposite. Because CBO has consistently scored, we haven't had this particular amendment scored, but prior amendments that have raised the limit at which the FHA can operate have been scored by CBO as generating a surplus, a positive number. That is some of the money that we are going to use. As the gentlewoman knows, while there is some controversy about this thing, we significantly increase in this bill the amount for counseling, because if there had been proper counseling, a lot of people wouldn't have been stuck at pre-prime. The counseling is aimed at people in the lower brackets. This is part of the money for it.

I would be willing, when we get to conference, to say, if, in any way, this would appear to be impinging on the ability to do the rest of the mission, we would cut it off. But the way it is going to work, it will, in fact, generate a surplus which we intend to use to help precisely the people whom the gentlewoman refers to.

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his advocacy of this. He has been one of those who, from California, has been most vigorous in reminding us of the need to do it.

Madam Chairman, I rise to seek the time to discuss this, with a certain ambiguity as to my position.

To two aspects of it, yes, Madam Chair.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California such time as she may consume.

Madam Chairman, I claimed the time in opposition, but having listened to my two very persuasive colleagues, I have been converted and I now support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I did want to ask a question of the gentleman from New York. I have a concern about his amendment, only because it does not seem to me to go far enough.

One of the things we have tried very hard to do in our committee is to end what has been a kind of discrimination against manufactured housing, because if we are going to get to more people being able to own homes without getting into a subprime type of situation where people are induced to borrow more than they should, manufactured housing should be part of it.

The gentleman's amendment is properly, from his standpoint, addressed to a situation in his own district where fixed-foundation housing is involved. But my question here would be, and I realize it is under the rule not possible to change the amendment now, but I would have this question: If his amendment would be adopted, if as the process went forward some of us were able to work to expand this so it wasn't limited to fixed foundation, would the gentleman from New York have any objection to that?

And I will yield to him.

Madam Chairman, in the face of that degree of reasonableness, I withdraw my opposition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to sincerely seek time in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We have been debating this. It is a legitimate issue. We debated it when the gentleman from Georgia offered a version of it in the appropriations bill. We debated it previously. We debated a similar argument when we had the GSE bill.

The gentleman says there are 80 HUD programs and HUD money has gone up. The major reason the HUD funding has gone up, the single biggest one, has been in the section 8 rental program. There is a problem with section 8. Section 8 adds equity. But the current section 8 program provides rental assistance for one year at a time. No one can build affordable housing based on an annual grant. So what section 8 does, while it does provide some equity and I have been supportive of it, it increases the demand for housing without increasing the supply.

So in the current formation of Federal policies, the Federal Government puts upward pressure on rentals in the moderate- and low- income areas, because we give people billions of dollars to rent apartments in a way that does not lead to any construction.

This tries to make it a more balanced program. This and the GSE bill take money to begin the process of constructing affordable housing, which in the end could save us money, because it will then say that the rental levels which section 8 is driving up will no longer be driven up.

The gentleman says it is going to be a tax on the FHA. In fact, I hope the gentleman, given his concern about a tax on the people who get mortgage insurance from the FHA, will vote against the amendment to be offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois, because in this bill, unlike the gentlewoman's amendment, we have very tough restrictions on HUD's ability to raise the FHA fund unless it is necessary for solvency.

In a bipartisan basis last year, we wrote to them and we did it in the appropriations bill, because HUD was being told by OMB, not HUD, HUD made it very clear, this was an OMB directive, raise the FHA fees because FHA isn't contributing enough to the budget.

We put into our bill's restrictions, we have a restriction in our bill on the amount that can be charged for home equity mortgages by the originators. It is not in the gentlewoman from Illinois's amendment. We put caps on the FHA. So exactly the opposite is the case. And as far as this is concerned, the bill specifically says that no money can go to the Housing Trust Fund until the HUD Secretary has certified that the fund will be totally solvent and this will not endanger it.

The money that would go to affordable housing does not come from raising anybody's fee. It comes from an increase in volume. We capped the fees. I want to emphasize this. In the bill that we have, as opposed to the gentlewoman from Illinois's substitute, there are two separate restrictions on FHA's ability to raise fees that she doesn't have.

What we do is the law now says FHA can only do 65,000 home equity reverse mortgages a year. We say, no, there is no reason for that limit. We say do as many as the market will bear, with a restriction on what can be charged.

That is what generates the money. It is an increase in volume at a lower price to the consumer that generates the money; and if that increased volume and the lower price to the consumer results in there being a surplus that we can spend to build rental housing, as long as HUD certifies that that would not in any way require any increase in the FHA, we say, go ahead.

As to affordable housing, there is a severe crisis in rental housing in this country, and you had some of the people pushed into subprime situations because there wasn't enough rental housing. We think the Affordable Housing Trust Fund helps deal with that.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I appreciate the candor of the gentleman from California. He is against Federal programs that help build affordable housing; I understand that. By the way, this is not, of course, the old forms of public housing. This is going to be a private corporation.

But I would say to my friends on the other side, I don't think that you can argue both that we already have enough programs to do this and that we shouldn't have any at all. In fact, we do not now have programs that help build family affordable housing. We think in cooperation with the private sector, and the gentleman mentions the market, every private market entity, the Realtors, the home builders who are involved in construction in the private market, support the creation of the housing fund.

Madam Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman's dexterity, on his ability to go 180 degrees opposite on his argument mid-amendment.

He started out saying we can't do this because it will jeopardize the FHA. We point out that in the bill that couldn't happen. This bill says this money cannot be used if it would in any way jeopardize an FHA situation. So he says okay, let's take the surplus and put it into the regular budget. That is a debate. Do we take surplus and put it into the budget to detract from other spending? I don't think so. I guess the question is this. If you take out an FHA mortgage and get mortgage insurance, and if our bill doesn't pass, this administration will raise that fee to make more money, should that go to the war in Iraq and for contractors in Iraq who are wasting money? Or should it go to build affordable housing in our cities, because that is where the money is going. The money is not going to reduce the deficit; it is going to be wasted elsewhere.

What we say is this. We should be building affordable housing. Some Members say don't give money to the States. No, I think that is a very good way to go. I think the States and the localities are best able to respond, and I hope the amendment is defeated.

I would say to my friend from Ohio, and we have worked together on a lot of things, I understand his purpose is a good one, but I share some of the concerns of the gentlewoman from Illinois.

I hope the gentleman understands that if this becomes part of the bill, as I believe it will, we haven't had a chance to consult with the FHA. We would like their advice. We could wind up strengthening the urging but allow for some exceptions. I would hope as we went forward the gentleman could work with us on doing that.

If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, there are some differences that we have of an ideological sort. There are a lot of general areas of agreement. Mr. Montgomery, the head of the FHA, has been, I think, a responsible and thoughtful administrator of the program. We have a common interest in this, and I would look forward to having him in on this conversation with us, and I think we can move in that direction with some of the flexibility that the gentlewoman asked for.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The gentlewoman, incredibly, says this will jeopardize the solvency of the fund if we put money into affordable housing. I thought reading was one of the basic things we did around here. In the bill it says nothing can go to the Affordable Housing Fund if it would jeopardize solvency. Simply denying plain facts is not an appropriate way to debate.

In much of her argument she talks about another piece that represents the difference between us. We say that if you are someone with a weaker credible, a lower FICO score, the great god, FICO, that governs the lives of lower-income people, if you get your mortgage insured and you work hard and make all your payments, you should still be charged more than the gentlewoman from Illinois or I would be charged for a mortgage, because that is the insurance principle.

It is an appropriate principle for a private insurance company. For the Federal Government to say to hardworking people who are making their payments that they will be held accountable for the fact that other people didn't make their payments, and I won't be and the gentlewoman from Illinois wouldn't be, that is not appropriate.

So this principle of, yes, they say if you are healthy, you shouldn't get your money back, if you work hard and make your mortgage payments, why should you be charged more because somebody else like you defaulted? Let's all share that burden.

The gentlewoman said, well, it will be hard to give lower-income people loans. Those are crocodile tears. You are going to help these lower-income people by making them pay more for their mortgage than we would pay.

I would also note, and I wasn't in charge of the drafting, but we did adopt several amendments today. The gentlewoman's amendment would, of course, wipe all of them out because it would go back to last year's bill.

I understand there is regret on the part of many of my colleagues at the results of last November's election, and it is appropriate to try to undue last year's election. The appropriate time to do that is in next November's election, not by bills that passed a year ago with a differently constructed House and say let's not make any changes.

We made changes to accommodate refinancing for people caught in the subprime crisis. That is in this bill. It is not in the gentlewoman's substitute. Taking a year-old bill, with none of the improvements we have made, it goes beyond the philosophy.

Now, I understand Members don't want to do an affordable housing fund. That was the gentleman from Texas's amendment. I oppose it. That one makes some sense in terms of ideological division. But to say let's ignore everything that has happened in the last year, amendments adopted here today, several amendments by Members of both parties, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop). We adopted their amendments. The gentlewoman wants to wipe them out. That is not an appropriate way to legislate.

I hope that the amendment is defeated, that we do not say in particular

that if you are someone in a lower-income category and you make your mortgage payments, the Federal Government will charge you more.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think the gentlewoman confused a couple of issues. When I talk about not charging someone more because she has a lower credit score, and it is often a ``she'' that is in that category, it is not the no-down-payment category. What the bill does that the gentlewoman has is to say if you are someone with a lower credit score and get a loan with a down payment, you get charged more even if you make your payments.

By the way, the bill that she would replace with last year's bill would also knock out several protections we have in this bill against FHA fees being raised. The FHA doesn't want to raise fees. OMB has ordered FHA to try to raise fees. Congress has had to intervene.

There are in our version, unlike the version the gentlewoman is offering, protections against fee increases. We have an amendment that was advocated by the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, and the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Marshall, to limit the amount that can be charged to older people taking out reverse equity mortgages. That is in the bill that the gentlewoman wants to displace, and she would displace it with a bill that has no such protection for older people.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The gentlewoman has quite honestly joined this one issue. She says it is the principle of insurance. If you are healthy, you should pay less for insurance than if you are sick. That is not the principle we follow in the Federal Government. That is the point the gentlewoman misses.

Yes, if you go to a private company, they will do that. You don't pay more in a Medicare premium if you are sick than if you are healthy. That is apparently what the gentlewoman is advocating, that senior citizens who are sick should pay more premiums than senior citizens who are healthy.

The question is whether a principle that is necessary in a private insurance scheme is appropriate for the Federal Government. She says just because you are low income doesn't mean you have poor credit. True. Not in every case. She knows there is a correlation; that the weaker the credit, the likely the people are to have low income. She, again, is saying explicitly that she believes, and she doesn't deny it, that it is the principle of insurance.

You are a working woman making in the forties, you get FHA insurance, you make all your payments, and you have got weaker credit than somebody who serves in Congress and makes $180,000 a year. You have to pay more, according to the gentlewoman, than I would pay, even if you made all your payments.

What we are saying is at the outset it may be that you want to charge more. Yes, we will give FHA the ability to do that upfront. But you can earn your way out of that. If you have weaker credit, but you work hard, you are diligent and you make your payments, why should the Federal Government charge you more than someone far wealthier than you?

The gentlewoman is wrong to think that is the precedent. In the health insurance field and the Federal Government field, if you are under Medicare, you don't pay more in Medicare premiums if you were sick than if you were healthy. This is what we are saying, that you should not charge people more.

I would also point out, again, that she said we don't want to raise fees to people. Our bill limits what the FHA can be forced to charge by OMB. We have three separate provisions. I will point out again to the gentlewoman, we adopted a provision, there were negotiations between AARP and the originators of the home equity mortgages, the services, and we have in there a reduction, we put a cap on. We cut by one-third the maximum fee elderly people can be charged for an FHA-insured home mortgage.

We reduced the fee that elderly people can be charged by one-third. The gentlewoman's amendment, it is not her fault, she is not gratuitously trying to hurt older people; she just picked up this old amendment from a year ago, this old bill, and offered it without taking into account the progress we have made. That is not a good way to legislate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, let me ask the gentlewoman from Illinois: If someone has weaker credit and gets mortgage insurance but makes all the payments for 5 years, why does the gentlewoman think that she should be charged more? And how does it hurt the FHA's ability to go forward if, after someone has

made the payments for 5 years, she gets refunded the extra? I would yield to the gentlewoman to answer that question, a fundamental difference on the bill.

No. Answer the question. They are not refunded under your bill. They are under, the gentlewoman would not refund them. How does it hurt the FHA in their ability to lend to people with weaker credit if they say to people with weaker credit, if you make your payments for 5 years, we will refund the extra we charged you?

I yield.

I take back my time because the gentlewoman is simply, I understand her answer. It is, if there is a higher loan loss rate from lending to lower-income people, people with weaker credit, they have to subsidize each other.

We say, no; raise the jumbo limit, and let those people in California and Massachusetts and New York who are getting mortgages at $600,000 and $500,000, let them subsidize it. Nobody is subsidizing. You shouldn't have to subsidize if you are making your own payments.

National Association of Realtors,

Washington, DC, September 14, 2007.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members

of the National Association of REALTORS, I urge you to

support H.R. 1852, the ``Expanding American Homeownership Act

of 2007'', when the bill is considered by the full House.

This is an important measure that will allow FHA to function

in the 21st century. Equally important and worthy of your

strongest support is an amendment to be offered by

Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Gary Miller (R-CA) and

Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) that is vital to improving the

stability of mortgage markets, a critical component of our

national economy.

The Frank/Miller/Cardoza amendment would increase the

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan limits beyond the

language originally included in H.R. 1852. Such an increase

is now needed in light of the significant housing and

mortgage market turmoil that has severely limited the ability

of families to refinance a problematic existing loan or,

alternatively, purchase a home in a high cost market with a

safe and affordable mortgage.

As you well know, many American homeowners now have

mortgages with payments that will soon increase dramatically,

putting them at risk of foreclosure. Raising the FHA loan

limits will provide many of these homeowners living in the

nation's high housing cost markets with a safe FHA loan

alternative. In addition, with the even more recent

tightening of the jumbo market, many homebuyers may not be

able to find a safe, affordable financing option without an

increase in the FHA loan limits.

Although the underlying bill would increase the loan

limits, we strongly believe that the Frank/Miller/Cardoza

amendment is needed to affect real change. H.R. 1852 creates

a new loan ceiling of $417,000. Many markets are

significantly higher than this limit. Median home prices of

communities in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California,

Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania are already far above this

limit. The Frank/Miller/Cardoza amendment creates geographic

fairness by raising the loan limit to 125% of the area median

home price. Under the amendment working families in Newark,

NJ can buy a home for $512,000, and families in Los Angeles,

CA can buy homes for $650,000--both median price homes for

their area.

FHA reform is needed now, more than ever. Please vote for

H.R. 1852 and the Frank/Miller/Cardoza amendment when these

measures come to the Floor.

Thank you,

Pat V. Combs,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to follow closely because there are some unusual twists and turns even to this.

In the first place, the gentleman talked about people getting FHA loans who weren't here legally, and he made a big point of that. As he later acknowledged, the bill, as reported, already deals with that.

The gentleman from Georgia is so enamored of this amendment that he's offering it twice to this bill. Now, he's making up for the fact that last week he wanted to offer it and couldn't. The gentleman from Georgia had filed in the Congressional Record a version of this amendment to offer to the Native American housing bill to prevent illegal immigrant Native Americans from sneaking in. And when we pointed that out, the gentleman from Georgia for once thought better of it and didn't offer the amendment. I think he was afraid that the Indians would have said, you know, sir, that's a good idea, why didn't we think of it?

But now, in the amendment, the gentleman offered this amendment in committee, so the illustration he gave of how they are getting FHA loans when they shouldn't, that's already in the bill. What he has done now is to say that this should apply to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is not created by this bill. The bill does say that if we later, on the floor of this House, created an affordable housing trust fund, funds from the FHA excess, if there are any, will go into it. So there is plenty of time when we deal with the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

So last week he couldn't offer the amendment to keep the illegal immigrants out of the Navajo housing. This week, he's already got it in the bill that covers the bill before us, but he has now got amendment envy in the worst way, so he's going to offer it to a program that doesn't exist yet, preempting our chance to do it. Even that wouldn't be a problem except that he could have said ``forthwith.'' He said ``promptly.'' It doesn't kill the bill; it significantly delays it.

If this comes back to the Committee on Financial Services, it is now wide open. The committee then has a markup, and any amendment can be offered. And I will tell my colleagues that there are Members, yes, there is your indication of what will happen, this will be filibustered again. Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate it. If this bill comes back to committee, it will be wide open.

We are in the midst of a crisis. The President said last month, please pass the FHA bill promptly. Even the United States Senate is now acting on this bill. If it comes back to committee, I have 3 days to notice a markup. How quickly could we do it? Well, I don't think I can have this markup on Yom Kippur. There may be a lot to atone for in this amendment, but I can't have it on Friday.

So we go over to next week. We have markups scheduled next week on HOPE VI and on flood insurance and other important issues, so we couldn't get to this for a couple of weeks. And then when we do get to it, the clappers over there are going to offer a whole bunch of amendments.

Now, if the gentleman just wanted to put this into the program that doesn't yet exist, and that he will have a chance to do it later, he could have said ``forthwith.'' Members are asked, when they rise on a recommit, are you opposed to the bill? The gentleman from Georgia honestly answered that he is. And he used the choice he had to substantially delay this bill. No, not kill it, but this will delay this bill by several weeks in the midst of this subprime crisis.

I would say to Members, preventing the FHA loans from going there, that's already in the bill. Read pages 54 and following. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund, it will be created later. I'm sure the gentleman will offer that amendment again and you will have a chance to vote on it.

So the sole effect of voting for this recommit is substantially to delay the bill on the FHA because the program that the bill covers, this amendment applies already from the committee. And the program that he would apply it to is not yet in existence and won't be in existence until we vote.

And for Members who worry about some cheap shot ad that says, oh, well, ``promptly,'' ``forthwith,'' too complicated, I hope people don't vote for this amendment. Many of them will. You will have a chance to vote for it. Long before the next election, the gentleman from Georgia will have offered this amendment four more times, at least. We've got more bills in our committee, and so you will have the chance to vote for it.

Please, if you support the low-income Housing Trust Fund as a concept and want the funding available when we set it up, if you support, in particular, the President's request that we move promptly to let the FHA be available for the subprime crisis, do not vote for a recommit whose sole effect will be to delay for several weeks passage of this bill. It won't kill it, but a several-week delay. I've got to hold off and call the hearing, we have to then have a long markup, they will be offering more amendments. It will substantially delay a very important bill, and I hope Members will defeat it.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, for 7 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to Ranking Member Bachus.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I'd like to start out on a positive note, but I guess I must say that I'm disappointed about the bill, the way it is as we're considering it today.

While the bill has improved since its introduction, I had hoped that we could take up the same bipartisan FHA Modernization Bill, H.R. 5121, that passed House last year. And since we've been talking about it, I might say it was cosponsored by 54 Republicans and 51 Democrats and one Independent, so it was a good bill and a bipartisan compromise that was agreed to by Chairman Waters, Chairman Frank, and then Chairman Mike Oxley.

And given the overwhelming vote, and the exact number was 415-7 for last year's bill, I had hoped that we could take it up and move it quickly to the floor. But instead we have two bills this year. We have the bill, H.R. 1752, which I introduced, which was identical to last year's bipartisan bill, and we have Chairman Waters' bill. And so I think we're today considering a new bill with new provisions that are not bipartisan, and I think it has delayed the FHA modernization and will serve fewer borrowers than last year's bill. But it's an important bill.

There are some key differences between these bills. There is one that has caused the greatest concern for me and many of my colleagues, and that is the inclusion of a provision in H.R. 1852 that creates a funding placeholder and siphons off FHA funds to a brand-new government trust fund. And it's admirable, affordable housing. We all want affordable housing in all forms, whether it's section 8, whether it's public housing, whether it's FHA modernization. But I think that taking the funds out of FHA and using them for a purpose unrelated to its core mission of the FHA would threaten the solvency of the FHA fund and its ability to pay off the insurance claims. And we are reaching a crisis there, where we are going to have to have some credit influx into the FHA fund. So we'll hear more discussion on that during the consideration of Mr. Hensarling's amendment during this debate.

So it's my hope that we can work together to address Members' concerns through the amendment process so that a modernized FHA bill can help assist more low- and moderate-income Americans in buying and keeping their homes.

I'd like to just briefly talk about and thank Chairman Waters for offering a specific provision in this manager's amendment. The chairwoman's original draft only permitted first-time home buyers to participate in new low- and no down payment loan programs. But the amendment under consideration corrects that and mirrors the provision in the FHA modernization bill that allows any FHA qualified borrower to participate in the new FHA low and no down payment loan program. So clearly, the FHA has a role to play in the solution to this country's rising foreclosure rate.

And as I think I said on April 19, during our first committee hearing on this, this bill, one of the most important things that Congress can do, as we search for ways to help those that have been harmed by the subprime market, is to give FHA the tools it needs to be a viable alternative for the first-time and low-income borrowers.

And then I'd like to address an issue that Chairman Frank did bring up, and even though he's not on the floor. But the legislation that I have included another bipartisan agreement last year, and that was the automatic reduction of annual premiums in FHA to no more than 55 basis points for loans that remain active after 5 years. And automatic premium reductions can be a good thing. They can reduce refinancing and perhaps some defaults and foreclosures as well.

In contrast, I think that the Franks-Waters bill requires the refund of excess upfront premiums charged to higher-risk borrowers, those with FICO scores under 560. So I'm concerned that this provision would have the unintended consequences of limiting the number of borrowers that could be served by the FHA program because it requires initial premiums to be even higher. And I think that the refund provision would also be very difficult to implement.

This is an insurance program. And when you have car insurance, you don't get a refund if you don't have an accident. You might have your rate lowered, which is what was in the former bill. So I think that that is an issue that he talked about that I wanted to clarify.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for all his hard work on our Financial Literacy and Education Caucus. I really enjoy working with him, and the counseling really fits right into the purview of financial literacy, so again I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who is now going to assume the role as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I would really like to thank Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for her work on this bill. I am pleased that the FHA modernization bill is moving forward, and I think that the bill that we will vote on today is much improved from the original draft as a result of constructive input from Members from both sides of the aisle. It contains many bipartisan provisions that I support and still contains a few provisions that I do not support. But it is my hope that the provision siphoning money away from the fund will be struck and that true risk-based pricing will be implemented so that FHA can serve the maximum number of borrowers possible. But those arguments have been made and have been rejected by the majority, so it is my sincere hope that we can further improve the bill as it continues to move through the legislative process.

As I understand it, the Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up its version of FHA reform tomorrow. So unlike last year, it appears that FHA reform is gaining traction in the Senate, and I hope that we can move this bill beyond the House during this Congress and that the Senate and the administration will work with us to reform this important program.

I think American families deserve a 21st-century FHA program to have a safe and secure mortgage product as an alternative to the dangerous products offered by predatory lenders. Qualified American families looking to keep their homes and refinance their bad mortgages, many of which are currently in default, deserve to do so through a modernized

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

In all my thanking, I forgot to thank the staff, which I would really like to do, the staff of the subcommittee, Cindy Chetti, Tallman Johnson, Nicole Austin, Robert Gordon and Jim Clinger for all the work that they've done on the minority side of the aisle. And also, to thank, on the other side of the aisle, the Democrat staff who have been so helpful to us: Scott Olson, Gail Lester, Jonathan Harwitz, Kellie Larkin, Tom Duncan and Himay Lazarga. I thank all of them for all the work that they've put into this bill. And also, one of our new members on this side, Jason Britt, one of our new members of the staff. Thank you so much.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Madam Chairman, I recognize myself for 1 minute.

I really believe in the concept of this. I think that there are a lot of high-cost areas that will really benefit from this. I hope that this will not hurt some of the low-cost areas; in other words, I think that the administration has said something about the fact that some of the areas across the country would be hurt and would lower, go below the $419,000 limit. So I hope that that will be addressed. I see Mr. Frank getting up. Maybe he would like to comment on that.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I have some concerns about what we would call unintended consequences. I am a big supporter of financial literacy, and I chair the caucus. It is so important home buyers know what they are getting into, and I think that counseling is very important. I think that if we have an educated home buyer, we might not see so many of these foreclosures or near foreclosures or bankruptcy with the counseling.

My concern is the mandatory counseling for FHA, and only because of something that has happened in Illinois, that happened in Chicago when this mandatory counseling was put in for FHA mortgages.

What happened was that the lenders withdrew from the area. It was put in first by a ZIP Code in the city of Chicago and then put in for all of Cook County. The lenders withdrew from the area so there were no mortgages or very few available for those in that area because they weren't able to get the counseling that was needed in time to get the mortgages.

It takes time for counseling, and I know that you put in, and I think this would help, is that people could get counseling on the Internet. I think it is a very important thing. I just worry about when it is mandatory that we are going to have less availability of FHA involvement than when it is discretionary as in the bill.

I think that it makes FHA less attractive. If you are a prospective home buyer and one lender, a non-FHA, offers to put you into a mortgage that day while the FHA loan requires you to go through a counseling course, which will you pick? People will leave FHA, and we don't want that to happen. I know it is important that we have counseling and get people into this type of loan. The whole thing is, FHA is much better than the more exotic subprime loans, and that is the whole focus of this bill. I would hope that we can promote FHA, and I hope as this amendment moves forward, we can take a look at.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chairman, with that, I withdraw my objection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment strikes the bill in its entirety and inserts language that is identical to last year's bipartisan FHA modernization bill, H.R. 5121. Last year the bill had 54 Republicans, 51 Democrats, and one1 Independent cosponsor. Last year the bill was the bipartisan compromise that was agreed to by Chairman Waters and Chairman Frank and then chairman Mike Oxley. Last year's bill passed the House by a vote of 415-7 on July 25, 2006.

There are differences in the bills. This amendment, last year's bipartisan bill, I would like to highlight a couple of important differences. The Frank-Waters bill authorizes the FHA to implement risk-based pricing, but leaves in place the current, I think, outdated premium caps. My concern is that these limits on the premium caps will prevent FHA from serving riskier borrowers who could be prudently served by charging a slightly higher premium.

With the flexibility to charge slightly higher premiums, FHA would be able to serve borrowers with lower FICO scores who are currently being served only by the subprime market at very high interest rates. Just like last year's bipartisan House-passed bill, my amendment modernizes and updates premium caps, enabling FHA to reach down and serve riskier borrowers, but in a prudent manner. I think this is where growth comes in, because there will be more loans that FHA will be able to make.

Second, the Frank-Waters bill requires the refund of excess upfront premiums charged to higher-risk borrowers, those with FICO scores below 560. I am concerned that this new provision may treat your higher initial premiums and unintentionally limit the number of borrowers that could be served by FHA.

A refund provision also would be difficult to implement. Perhaps most importantly, refunds like this undercut the very concept of insurance. It is the logical equivalent of a healthy person requesting a 100 percent refund of his or her health insurance premium, or a driver who doesn't get into an accident demanding all of his car insurance back.

Just like last year's House-passed bill, my amendment includes another bipartisan agreement, the automatic reduction of annual premiums to no more than 55 base points for loans, and remains active after 5 years. Automatic premium reductions can be a good thing. They can reduce refinancing and perhaps some defaults and foreclosures as well.

Finally, the most significant difference between the bill I have introduced and the Frank-Waters FHA reform proposal, which has been of great concern to me and many of my colleagues, is the inclusion of a provision that creates a funding placeholder that you have heard talked about so much today that siphons off the FHA funds to create a brand- new government trust fund.

The other provisions that I mentioned are ones that represent significant differences between our introduced bills. Using FHA program funds to create a housing trust fund, to me, is where we have the most difference, and I believe it is not an appropriate use of FHA funds. Taking funds out of FHA and using them for a purpose unrelated to its core mission would threaten the solvency of the FHA fund and its ability to pay out the insurance claims. We don't want to have to come back here and do a bailout because FHA funds were diverted for other projects.

There is general agreement on the need for FHA modernization legislation. By modernizing FHA with my amendment, we can expand FHA and give a viable alternative to more low-income borrowers who may otherwise lose their home or be forced into the higher-cost subprime loans, or even predatory products. It is true that FHA cannot help all homeowners that are in the red, but it may help a good portion of them.

I would urge my colleagues to support my amendment, last year's bipartisan bill, the House-passed bill that many of my colleagues supported last year.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we could have passed this bill 9 months ago, and then we would have added on to it. Unfortunately, this is my opportunity to do it, and this is the bill that I have had. I bring it up now.

As I said before, there are good things that have come out in the discussion today; there are some good things that have been added onto the bill that you have brought forward. The reason for bringing this up is I have some real concerns about some of the things that are in there, and this is my opportunity.

I don't think that we are penalizing low-income people that much. I know that in the discussion that we had in committee when this came up about no down payment, there are people that can't afford a mortgage with no down payment and can meet the monthly payments, but there was no risk with those people, no premium for FHA to ensure that kind of mortgage.

That isn't fair for other people that based on their credit scores are having to pay a premium. I would just disagree. If you are able to always meet those, then the risk should be dependent on what you do, not what somebody else does either. I would agree with that.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, just because someone is low income does not mean that they have poor credit. I think that is not where they are going to have to pay higher premiums, necessarily. It is inevitable in an insurance fund that lower-risk borrowers will subsidize higher-risk borrowers. Refunds of the nature that is in your bill would undercut the concept of insurance, as I said before, being the equivalent of a healthy person requiring a percent refund of his or her insurance premium, or a driver that does not get into an accident requiring their insurance back.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, looking at the two bills, let's look at flexibility risk-based premiums. H.R. 1752 permits upfront or annual premiums or both. Premium rates may vary over loan term if basis for change is determined at origination.

Under your bill, the same: requires annual report on risk-based premiums and how they were determined, authorizes premiums based on product risk.

The maximum upfront premium amounts, H.R. 1752: 3 percent, or 1.5 percent if annual premium is at its maximum. Under your bill, 2.25 percent for standard-risk and higher-risk mortgages, 3.0 for zero and lower down mortgages for first-time buyers. And then the maximum annual premium amounts in H.R. 1752, 2.0, or 1.0 if upfront premium is at its maximum. Under yours, 0.55 percent for standard and high-risk mortgages, 0.75 for zero down mortgages. And then the limit on premium charged for certain mortgages. If a borrower has 3 percent cash contribution and a score of 560 or more, the upfront premium is limited to 2.25 percent and the annual 0.55 percent. And then, under your bill it is included by creation of the standard-risk and higher-risk mortgage categories.

I guess we disagree on this, but I think I want the same thing. I want FHA to be used. I want it to be used for low-income, first-time home buyers and those that are trying to refinance. This is critical right now, and I just think there is some differences in what we have.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think under the bill, H.R. 1752, their premiums are reduced; they are not refunded.

If the gentleman will yield.

Because the FHA is self-funded. It is not funded by the government just putting money into it just so that they can do other mortgages. It is self-funded and it is an insurance program. Now, we haven't been able to use it because it has been so capped in the amount of what they can do.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree that last year's bill would have served more borrowers. And we are moving forward here, so I would urge Members to support my amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. I'd like to commend Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Bachus and Subcommittee Chairman Maxine Waters and Ranking Member Judy Biggert for their hard work. This has been a long time coming.

If you watch what the Federal Reserve is doing today, they're injecting short-term dollars into the marketplace trying to stabilize the marketplace. But what the marketplace and housing needs today is long-term dollars and revenues to ensure that people can own a home and get a long-term loan and pay that back.

When I talk to brokers and lenders in my district, it is clear that the FHA program as currently structured has not kept pace. In the past, moderate-income home buyers who could not qualify for conventional loans because of high loan to value ratios or high payment to income ratios could still achieve the dream of homeownership through the FHA program.

Today, the FHA program is no longer a useful product to home buyers. Instead, working families are faced with a situation where they are either unable to own a home, or they're forced to resort to a risky loan product that might make their ability to keep the home difficult.

With all this occurring in the subprime market, FHA reform is more critical today than ever. The need for this legislation is immediate.

Many times exotic products such as interest-only loans, negative amortizations are the only options available to working families to achieve homeownership. This is because the FHA program became virtually irrelevant for many home buyers.

Not only can the bill before us today provide a viable alternative for families seeking to purchase a home, but it can also help families facing uncertainty about being able to keep their current home.

The bottom line is to make the FHA program a viable mortgage option, we must ensure that the program's products are available across the country and they meet the needs of borrowers. This includes not only eliminating the geographic barriers to utilization of the program in high-cost areas, but also facilitating the purchase of entry-level homes, including condos and manufactured housing.

These forms of housing are an affordable option for entry-level home buyers, and they should be included under this program if we truly want to help families climb the first rung on the ladder of homeownership.

In addition to reforming what can be purchased under the program, we must also improve the competitiveness of the FHA product among the mortgage options available. In other words, we must address the problems in FHA programs that cause it not to be utilized when it is an available mortgage product for the potential home buyer.

The answer is that the program in flexibility and burdensome processes have left many in the industry hesitant or, in the case of mortgage brokers, unable to offer FHA products.

The legislation before us today includes a number of reforms to make the FHA program relevant in today's marketplace. For example, today's mortgage brokers originate the majority of mortgage loans and, therefore, provide HUD with the most available and efficient distribution channel to bring the FHA loan products to the marketplace.

While mortgage brokers originate the majority of loans, many are not able to offer FHA products because of the cost-prohibitive and time- consuming financial audit and net worth requirements. This effectively leaves subprime loan products as the only option for many borrowers who would otherwise qualify for an FHA.

Now, let me say the subprime market is extremely beneficial and it needs to be relevant. But today you have many predators in that marketplace that are making loans to people that they know they cannot repay. The bill before us today includes language to replace FHA's net worth and audit requirement with a surety bond to allow more mortgage brokers to offer FHA products. This will ensure that the home buyers are given the option of a FHA product when they seek the services of a mortgage broker.

I would like to say a word about the affordable housing fund included in this bill. While I opposed a similar fund when it was attached to the GSE reform bill, I want my colleagues to know that I support this fund because an amendment I offered at the markup was accepted by Chairman Frank to essentially say, and these are arguments that have been made against this, that the HUD must ensure that FHA insurance premiums are, one, as low as possible; two, that the insurance fund is solvent; and, three, that any FHA needs are met before excess dollars are sent to the housing fund. Virtually it says that FHA has the dollars, they will use the dollars, and when it's not needed, then those dollars will be forwarded to the fund.

After that I firmly believe that the FHA funds should be dedicated to housing. We do this for the highway fund when we charge a gas tax. Those taxes are dedicated to repairing our roads and highways in this country. We should do this with the FHA too. The FHA money we are talking about is money that currently is going to the treasury.

Now more than ever Congress must pass FHA legislation so that we can remove the impediments to the utilization of the FHA and ensure that it once again helps working families across the country so that they have an opportunity to achieve and maintain homeownership. This is an important reform that will help many families avoid foreclosures.

Most of the people, and I would say, all the organizations in the industry who are looking to help people who are in trouble today support this bill. They also support the GSE reform bill that we put forward because it does one thing: It provides long-term stability and liquidity to the marketplace. The goal of this bill is to ease the burdensome problems people are facing today. They are looking at losing their homes. We are saying let's provide long-term liquidity and help them maintain their homes.

Madam Chairman, I'm rising asking for strong support of this amendment, so it's not really in opposition to the amendment.

This bill, and this amendment, particularly, is to encourage the FHA program and products and make sure they're available across this country to help working families to achieve and maintain homeownership through the FHA program.

The bill we are considering here today reforms the FHA single-family mortgage insurance program so that we can reach working families it was created to serve. I don't think there is any question that the FHA program, as currently structured, has not kept pace.

Today, FHA is no longer a useful product to prospective home buyers. The problem is that statutory limitations preclude the FHA from adopting a rapidly changing marketplace that we experience today.

As the private sector mortgage markets become more efficient, the FHA program's inflexible rules and requirements left it virtually irrelevant as a financing option. Under the current limitations, FHA products are not available for home buyers in high-cost areas of the country because the maximum loan limits are so much lower than the median home prices in that area.

We did something very similar to this when we did the GSE in the high-cost areas. And the only people arguing against raising this conforming loan limit to high-cost areas were those whose home median prices fell far lower than the median amount they were able to loan on. If your median home area is 200,000 and it isn't 435, you don't care. But in California and other areas, it is quite the opposite.

Now California's drop in FHA volumes have been nothing short of stunning. In 2000, FHA insured 109,074 mortgages in California, but last year it only insured 5,137. In my district, FHA insured 7,000 mortgages in 2000 and only 80 mortgages in 2005. These figures represent a 99 percent drop in what FHA is able to loan in these high- cost areas. That in and of itself states that there is a huge problem that this amendment is trying to cover and create the shortfall that currently exists in the program. Arguably, working families in high- cost areas of the country are just the kind of underserved populations the FHA program was originally intended to serve.

If we want to ensure that FHA is relevant for all those who need it, we must reform the program so it is available to low- and moderate- income families across the country, even those in high-cost areas.

On August 31, the President announced his goal to help an estimated 240,000 families avoid foreclosures by enhancing the FHA program. Under the President's plan, FHA will allow families with strong credit histories who have been making timely mortgage payments before their loan reset, but are now in default, to qualify for refinancing. Unfortunately, without an increase in the loan limits, this program will not help families in high-cost areas.

This amendment, supported by Mr. Frank, Mr. Cardoza and myself, would make sure that families can refinance in the FHA products by raising the FHA single-family loan limits in each local area to the lower of 125 percent of the area median home price, or 175 percent of the national GSE conforming loan amendments.

The amendment also gives HUD authority to raise these loan limit amounts by up to $100,000 ``if market conditions warrant.''

The NAHB, National Association of Home Builders, has written a very strong letter in support of what we are trying to do. Many builders are selling homes today, and the problem they have is the person buying their home cannot find financing to sell their home. And this will help those people who are looking for financing and dealing with liquidity shortages in the marketplace.

The National Association of Realtors has also written a very strong letter supporting what we're trying to do today. The problem they're facing today with people in the mortgage bracket that we're trying to deal with in this amendment, this will go a long way to providing liquidity and competition in the marketplace to ensure that American home buyers and families have the best and most opportunities that can be achieved through the marketplace through this amendment. So this is a very good amendment, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007.

My amendment would allow qualified down payment assistance providers to participate in the FHA program if certain conditions are satisfied to ensure that the down payment assistance program is legitimate and that the gift that is provided to the homeowner and the home buyer is truly a gift.

One of the primary barriers for many Americans to achieving the dream of homeownership is the lack of accumulated wealth and disposable income required to come up with the down payment and closing costs needed to purchase a home. While they can afford monthly payments, some families have not been able to accumulate enough to cover down payment and closing costs.

Fortunately, some charitable organizations have developed programs to help provide down payments to families that would qualify for the mortgage for the FHA program but for the lack of cash for a down payment. These down payment assistance programs have been successful in expanding homeownership opportunity for millions of families. The private sector has been working without government intervention to assist individuals and families who lack the necessary funds for down payments and other related costs become home buyers. In fact, Congress looked at the success of these

programs when it created the American Dream Downpayment Act, a government program passed in 2003 to provide up to $10,000 in down payment and closing cost assistance to first-time home buyers.

Similarly, H.R. 1852, the bill you are reviewing today, authorizes HUD to allow zero down payment FHA loans for home buyers who could not otherwise make the down payment required under the FHA rule.

In the past, HUD has permitted the use of charitable down payment assistance programs in conjunction with FHA insured loans. Recently, however, HUD issued a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate many legitimate down payment assistance providers from assisting in FHA programs.

We are hearing that just last week HUD sent a rule over to OMB for final approval. I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed rule on homeownership in our country.

Rather than going too far by eliminating all down payment assistance providers, all that is really needed is a reasonable and fair criteria by which these programs can continue to operate while also protecting the FHA insurance fund. If there are legitimate problems that have been identified by HUD, then we should absolutely fix these problems. In fact, the full House has agreed that we should strengthen the rules for down payment assistance providers rather than eliminate them completely from the FHA program.

In July, the House unanimously passed an amendment I offered with Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee Chairman Waters and Representative Al Green to the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, which prohibited HUD from taking any action to issue its final rule or otherwise implement all or any part of the proposed rule.

The amendment prevented HUD from finalizing or implementing the rule to end participation of down payment assistance providers in the FHA program. Our argument, then, was that HUD's proposal was too harsh a step and we would work to include language in the FHA bill to fix the problems that HUD has identified with some down payment assistance providers.

This is what my amendment before you today seeks to do. The amendment I offer today is a followup on our work during the THUD bill to put the brakes on the HUD rule and instead address the problem HUD has identified with certain down payment assistance providers. This amendment would put the controls in place to weed out the bad actors while allowing those who help millions become homeowners continue to do the good work they are doing. Unlike the HUD rule, my amendment would preserve the down payment assistance programs' participation in FHA while ensuring they are legitimate and helpful to the home buyers.

As you know, H.R. 1582 already includes language to end the practice of inflated appraisals, which was a key argument HUD used against the down payment assistance programs. My amendment builds on this provision and says that down payment assistance providers may participate in FHA so long as the down payment they are offering is truly a gift; in other words, that it reduces the amount owed on the home. My amendment also imposes a net worth requirement on such providers to alleviate the quality and quantity involved within the activity. This provision specifically responds to HUD's complaints regarding the plethora of small, fly-by-night operators that open up and that close down on a regular basis to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Many of these groups are starting business one day, getting involved in things they should not, and closing down immediately.

These three improvements to the current situation, number one, prohibiting inflated appraisals; two, ensuring DPA providers offer an actual gift; and three, imposing a net worth requirement, will weed out the bad actors while not prohibiting all down payment assistance providers from participating in FHA, as the HUD proposal would have done.

With limited resources at the Federal level, Congress viewed the American Dream Downpayment Act as a complement, rather than a replacement, to the tremendous work down payment assistance providers were already doing to help build communities. There are simply not enough resources at the Federal level to do this alone.

To address HUD's concerns, we should implement the same underwriting criteria that would be used on the new zero down payment program within FHA and what HUD already uses on the American Dream Downpayment Act.

If we have come up with a reasonable system of underwriting to give Federal dollars to assist a family in buying a home, then we can certainly use the same criteria to allow the private sector to put forth people and moneys in these programs to allow people to own their homes.

If FHA can offer a zero down payment loan under a given underwriting criteria, as proposed by this bill, then the private sector down payment assistance programs should also certainly be subject to this same criteria.

To eliminate the possibility for a million families to own a home through down payment assistance providers but allow them to use the Federal Government for a down payment grant seems contradictory. If it works for the Federal program, then it should work for the private sector alternative, as well.

My amendment addresses the problems with certain down payment assistance providers that HUD has identified. Rather than eliminating all providers, as the HUD rule attempts to do, it puts the protections in place to ensure the home buyers are getting a legitimate helping hand from these charitable entities.

Madam Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I want to thank Maxine Waters for her kind comments. I remember when we were debating the American Dream Down Payment Assistance Act, and we used the private sector down payment assistance program as the tool and the argument to expand upon and have government also get involved. These private sector groups have put over 1 million people in homes that could not otherwise be in homes.

This continues a program that has worked very well and eliminates the bad actors that HUD is talking about. I think if this is implemented, this bill will be a very strong bill, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007, H.R. 3096, which was debated on the House Floor yesterday, September 17, 2007, and which passed overwhelmingly this afternoon, I would like to include in the record portions of the trial proceedings for Attorney Nguyen Van Dai and Attorney Le Thi Cong Nhan who are referenced in this legislation. Both individuals were ruthlessly seized by the Government of Vietnam on March 6, 2007, in Vietnam's most recent crackdown on democracy and human rights advocates. The accused each received years of imprisonment after being found guilty of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' I urge each and every one of my colleagues to read this chilling account of the Vietnamese justice system.

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Independence--Liberty--Happiness

The People's Court of Hanoi City

Preliminary criminal sentence, No. 153/2007/HSST, May 11,

2007. In the name of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, The

People's Court of Hanoi City. The Preliminary Trial Committee

is composed of:

Presiding Judge: Mr. Nguyen Huu Chinh. People's Jurors: 1.

Mr. Nguyen Thanh Ha, 2. Mrs. Tran Hong Thuy. Court clerk/

recorder: Mrs. Nguyen Thi Huyen, cadre of the People's Court

of Hanoi City, Representative of The Hanoi City People's

Office of Procuracy: 1. Mr. Dinh Trong Nghia, Procurator, 2.

Mr. Dinh Quoc Thai, Procurator.

On May 11, 2007, the following defendants were

preliminarily tried by the People's Court of Hanoi City under

Criminal Docket No. 138/2007/HSST of April 24, 2007:

1. NGUYEN VAN DAI born 1969, in Da Trach, Khoai Chau

District, Hung Yen Province; domiciled at Apartment 302,

House Z8, Back Khoa Communal Building, Bach Khoa Ward, Hai Ba

Trung Precinct, Ha Noi City; occupation at the time of

committing crimes: Head Attorney of the Thien An Law Office;

educational background: Grade 12/12; born of Mr. Nguyen Van

Cap and Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thom; married to Vu Minh Khanh;

arrested and placed under temporary detention since March 6,

2007; is present at the trial.

2. LE THI CONG NHAN: born 1979 in Go Cong Tay, Tien Giang

Province; domiciled at Apartment 48 (currently Apartment

316), House A7, Government Office Employees' Communal

Building, Phuong Mai Ward, Dong Da Precinct, Ha Noi City;

occupation at the time of committing crimes: Staff Attorney

of the Thien An Law Office; educational background: Grade 12/

12; born of Mr. Le Minh Duc and Mrs. Tran Thi Le; arrested

and placed under temporary detention since March 6, 2007; is

present at the trial.

Defendant Nguyen Van Dai's trial attorneys: Mr. Tran Lam,

Hai Phong City Lawyers Bar (in attendance), Mr. Dam Van Hieu,

Attorney, Thong Nhat Law Office, Ha Noi City Lawyers Bar (in

attendance), Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan's trial attorney, Mr.

Tran Lam, Hai Phong City Lawyers' Bar (in attendance).

BE IT JUDGED THAT: 1. Relative to defendant Nguyen Van Dai.

At both the investigative offices and the trial, defendant

Nguyen Van Dai admitted that he had written a number of

articles, e.g. ``Freedom to Form a [Political] Party'' and

``Vietnamese People Have the Ability to Build a Multi-Party

System''. The defendants had distributed these articles

through the media of reactionary Vietnamese organizations

overseas, and participated in interviews via the Internet

with overseas anti-socialist elements. The contents of

these articles were meant to smear and degrade the leading

role of the VCP. He maintained that under current

circumstances, because the VCP did not have enough ability

to lead the Revolution Vietnam is in dire need of a change

of the ruling party or to a pluralistic, multi-party

system in order to emerge out of poverty.

As provided for in Article 4 of the SVN's Constitution, the

VCP--the vanguard of the worker class and loyal

representative serving the interests of the worker class and

the working people--is the leading force of the State and

society. That positively affirms that since the VCP is the

only preferred leader of the Vietnam Revolution all other

political parties and their activities are in fact in non-

compliance and illegal. Because of the fact that the

defendant is the one who drafted the ``Bylaws'' of the

Democratic Party and supported the platforms of Hoang Minh

Chinh's Democratic Party, and that he has also written a

number of articles, criticizing the VCP and advocating a

pluralistic and multi-party regime, Dai has obviously

committed a serious violation of the Constitution and laws of

Vietnam.

Based on the admissible evidences and Dai's own admissions

at the trial, from the time when the Thien An Law Office was

founded to his arrest, Dai had never served as a trial lawyer

and acted according to his duties, as specified in his

professional license. Instead, he had made contacts and

exchanged information regarding democracy and human rights

with a number of political opportunists who acted in

opposition to the VCP and against the SRV. The defendant had

joined and enthusiastically supported the platforms of the

so-called Vietnam Progression Party (VPP) and Bloc 8406, a

[political] organization founded illegally by Nguyen Van Ly

in Vietnam. The defendant had conferred and concurred with

Nguyen Van Ly on the platform of the VPP, as well as visited

Ho Chi Minh City to engage a number of Do Nam Hai's

supporters in various efforts to support both Bloc 8406 and

the VPP.

The defendant was also a member of the ``Independent Trade

Union''. He admitted to his contacts with such overseas

individuals as Nguyen Dinh Thang, Vu Quoc Dung, Tran Ngoc

Thanh, etc., which focused on ``democracy and human rights

issues''. However, seized documents and evidences have

attested to the intentions of these exiled Vietnamese who are

fiercely opposed to the State. The defendant's contacts with

these subjects have gone beyond the discussion of democracy

and human rights issues, and they have in fact intended to

form a number of organizations and political parties in

opposition to the VCP and the SRV. According to witness Tran

Van Hoa's statements, on September 2006 defendant Dai asked

the former to come to Hanoi so that they could together make

a trip to China, where they planned to meet with Tran Ngoc

Thanh, an overseas Vietnamese in Poland to discuss the

founding of the ``so-called'' Independent Trade Union.

Having searched the Thien An Law Office headed by Nguyen

Van Dai, and the residence of Nguyen Van Dai, the

investigative authorities seized numerous documents, among

which there were 121 stacks of documents. Some documents

containing contents of extremely reactionary nature are meant

to twist the facts about the VCP, and to smear the honor and

tarnish the reputations of the Party, President Ho Chi Minh

and the top leaderships of the Party and the State, e.g. a

document titled ``The Vietnamese Communist Party is Bad

Karma,'' and ``The Secrets of the New Vietnamese Prime

Minister.'' Another 475-page document, authored by a ``Quoc-

Quoc,'' is full of distortions with regard to the history of

the revolutionary struggle, the policies of the VCP and the

State throughout the different stages of the Revolution, as

well as blemishes and badmouthing against the high-ranking

officials and top cadres of the Party.

The document, titled ``Diary of a Victim of Injustice,''

contains the slants and distortions of facts, and false

allegations that the government and police brutally repressed

legal complainants. In addition, the authorities also

captured many documents written by other anti-State political

opportunists, notably ``Democracy and Human Rights in VN''

and ``Eternal Aspirations,'' authored by Nguyen Thanh Giang.

Scores of other documents and publications circulated by

overseas Vietnamese organizations include the bi-monthly ``Tu

Do Ngon Luan,'' (Freedom of Speech) the ``To Quoc''

(Fatherland) magazine, the ``Tu Do Dan Chu'' (Freedom &

Democracy) newsletter, the Bloc 8406-proclaimed ``The

Declaration of Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam''. Being

very reactionary in content, these documents are full of

distortions of the current realities of Vietnam and

allegations that all the inalienable rights of the Vietnamese

people are being brutally trampled upon and the contentions

that their goal is to struggle for a change of regime in

Vietnam.

At the trial, the defendant admitted to having contacts and

Internet direct-linked interviews with foreign newspapers and

radio stations regarding the issues of democracy and human

rights in Vietnam. However, documented evidences have

revealed that during these contacts and interviews the

defendant always provided untruths and distortions regarding

the democracy and human rights situation in Vietnam, and

provocative badmouthing against the socialist regime and the

VCP, and he called for a change of regime as well. At the

same time, he had received other documents calling for a

boycott of the 2007 National Assembly Election. Another

document ``Wear White on the 1st and 15th of the Month in

Support of Democracy,'' a campaign document published by Bloc

8406 proclaiming 10 conditions for a multi-party National

Assembly election. Another Bloc 8406 document initiated the

launching of a boycott of the 2007 One-Party National

Assembly Election.

Nguyen Van Dai held classes regularly at the Thien An law

office to provide propaganda on the subject of Democracy,

Human Dignity and Human Rights. Witnesses Dong Thi Giang,

Khong Van Thanh, Nguyen Ba Truc, and Giap Van Hieu that Dai

had invited to participate in the classes, all affirmed that

during those class lectures both Dai and Nhan had zealously

badmouthed the political and social state of the nation, the

Government of the SRV. Dai had alleged that the SRV does not

respect human rights and has employed torture and violence

against innocent citizens. The defendant, while maintaining

that the ``Party Nominates, Citizen Elects'' election trick

is undemocratic, called for a change of the socialist regime

that would deny the VCP its monopoly of power in order to

achieve social equality.

The defendant's criminal conduct has constituted the crime

of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic

of Vietnam,'' as stipulated in Article 88 of the Criminal

Code and determined in the indictment of the Hanoi City

People's Office of Procuracy. :

2. Relative to defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan. At the

investigative offices and at the trial, the defendant

admitted that she was a member of the Vietnam Progression

Party (VPP) and that of Bloc 8406 (founded by Nguyen Van Ly).

Nhan participated as the VPP spokesperson. She indicated that

she had joined the party voluntarily. The Trial Committee is

of the opinion that the purpose of this organization is to

act against the VCP and the SRV in order to drastically

change the political regime of Vietnam. Her organization

appealed for a pluralistic, multi-party system and incited

the people to ``Wear White'' as a demonstration of support

for democracy. As such, the defendant's participation and

support of the VPP's platform is a violation of State laws.

The defendant herself wrote the article, ``The Truth about

the Repeal of Decree 31/CP of April 14, 1997''. The content

of her article indicates that the repeal of this decree was

phony with the intent to misdirect public opinion. In her

interviews, the defendant also commented on Directive 37

issued by the Prime Minister that this directive is

undemocratic as it prohibits freedom of the press. All her

articles contain fabrications, defamations, ridicules, and

attacks on the regime. The defendant maintained that the

Vietnamese political structure is dictatorial, infantile,

and uncivilized. Nhan's articles and documents were

distributed in the form of direct answers to foreign radio

networks such as BBC, RFA (Radio Free Asia), or Internet-

linked interviews with overseas Vietnamese exiles.

In a house search, the investigative authorities have

seized many stacks of documents which had been circulated by

both domestic and overseas political opportunists. These

documents contain bad-intent distortions of the facts and

protests against the current directions and policies of the

Party and the State. They include: appeals to ``boycott the

National Assembly Election of 2007; demands for a

pluralistic, multi-party system, etc.; instructions for the

populace to ``Wear White'' on the first and 15th day of the

month to support democracy in Vietnam; ``Let's Paint a

Portrait of a Free and Democratic Vietnam''; ``How to Fight

Fear'' (written by Nguyen Van Ly); ``The Declaration of

Democracy for Vietnam 2006''; ``The Preliminary Platform of

the Vietnam Progression Party''; ``The Founding of an

Alliance of National Forces for Freedom, Democracy and Human

Rights''; ``Bloc 8406 To Announce 10 Conditions for a Multi-

Party National Assembly Election and How To Boycott This

Election''; ``Bloc 8406 initiating a Campaign to Reject the

Single-Party National Assembly Election of 2007''.

The defendant has also provided her students with

propaganda in her so-called ``Democracy'' course. With great

discontent, she has criticized and smeared our regime,

falsified the history of the People's VCP-led revolutionary

struggle, as well as called for the replacement of the

current VCP by another political party or a pluralistic,

multi-party system.

The defendant's criminal conduct has constituted the crime

of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist Republic

of Vietnam,'' as stipulated by Article 88 of the Criminal

Code and charged with in the indictment of the Hanoi City

People's Office of Procuracy.

The crimes both defendants have committed are very severe.

They have taken advantage of their democratic rights and

freedom to produce, possess, and distribute various documents

meant to libel the People's Government and oppose the SRV.

Their conduct is deemed to be dangerous to society. It has

generated bad opinion both in and outside of the country, and

has directly damaged our national security interests, as well

as the benefits and achievements that the Vietnamese people

have made throughout our long struggle for building and

safeguarding the nation. Their conduct has resulted in the

tarnished reputations of the VCP, the socialist regime, and

our leaders among the populace. They, being Vietnamese

citizens, shall have the absolute obligations to abide by the

laws of Vietnam. Consequently, they are to be severely

punished, once found to be in violation, as provided for by

the laws of Vietnam.

Although still at young age and having yet made

contributions to the country, both defendants Nguyen Van Dai

and Le Thi Cong Nhan have committed serious crimes to the

detriment of our national interests and security. They need

to be severely punished before the court of law in order to

appreciate fully the effects of reform, education, and

deterrence. In this case, defendant Nguyen Van Dai has been

found to have actively engaged in carrying out his crimes

although his admissions were not truly sincere, Dai is to

deserve a heavier punishment. Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan has

also actively committed her crimes. As she was found not to

be fully cooperative in her admission at the investigative

offices and at the trial, she is to be punished according to

the severity of her crimes.

House arrest shall be an additional requirement to their

main punishments, as stipulated by Article 92 of the Criminal

Code.

Evidential material: The investigative authorities have

seized numerous evidences from the Thien An Law Office, as

well as the residences of defendants Nguyen Van Dai and Le

Thi Cong Nhan. It is determined that these evidences were

used as a means to have committed their crimes, and therefore

shall be confiscated and kept in State's depositories. Other

captured evidences, of insignificant values, shall be

destroyed.

For the above-mentioned reasons, BE IT DECIDED THAT:

Verdict: Defendants Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan are

guilty of ``disseminating propaganda against the Socialist

Republic of Vietnam''.

Penalty: Nguyen Van Dai is sentenced to 5 (five) years of

imprisonment, effective as of his temporary detention which

began on March 6, 2007.

Penalty: Le Thi Cong Nhan is sentenced to 4 (four) years of

imprisonment, effective as of her temporary detention which

began on March 6, 2007.

Additional penalty: Defendant Nguyen Van Dai is sentenced

to 4 (four) years of house arrest upon completion of his

imprisonment term. Defendant Le Thi Cong Nhan is sentenced to

3 (three) years of house arrest upon completion of her

imprisonment term.

Evidential material: to be confiscated and kept in State

depositories 6 CPUs, 1 flat-screen monitor, 1 desktop

computer (16 inch, make Samsung), 1 digital recorder (make

Digital Live SDR-6404), 1 Card Reader (make QS 034 Ba07), 1

desktop computer cable, 1 notebook (make HP:S/NCND604172F; PN

EP412UA # ABA), 1 scanner (make Canon F915800), 1 modem (make

AR 325W, 6H057-15379), 1 Webcam (Colorvis). Destroyed 2 hard

drive, 1 hard disk (make HD080HJ-PIN 137216FL740777P/ V FS S/

N081KL702016), 1 hard disk (make SP4011N-S/NSO1JJ50YB41562-

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague, Mr. Faleomavaega, for his leadership on human rights. We have worked together on those issues around the world. We have served on the Human Rights Committee for years, and he has been one of those champions with whom I am just so glad to associate myself. And I want to thank Mr. Lantos, the chairman of our committee, for bringing this bill to the floor and express my strong gratitude to him and to Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and to the leadership for posting this bill for consideration today.

Mr. Speaker, Vietnam has long been known as a major violator of human rights. Sadly, in recent months the human rights situation in Vietnam has deteriorated and become substantially worse, and a new ugly wave of brutal repression has been launched by Hanoi. Over the last couple of months, some of the bravest champions of democracy have been dragged into court and sent to the gulag for simply promoting human rights and justice and free trade unions.

I would note to my colleagues that the House of Representatives has gone on record time and time again condemning and deploring these violations, but this is a new wave that comes on the heels of PNTR, as well as the WTO accession by the Vietnamese Government.

I would note that on May 2 of this year, this House unanimously adopted a resolution that I sponsored which called on the Government of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, Le Thi Cong Nhan, and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. During consideration of that resolution, Mr. Speaker, I noted that I had been to Vietnam on many human rights trips. I have chaired several hearings on the issue of human rights in Vietnam and have been joined by my friend Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Royce and others in those hearings. But on one of the most recent trips, I actually met with Father Ly, who was just sentenced to 8 years in prison. Just sentenced. I also met with Nguyen Van Dai and about 60 other human rights activists and religious leaders and people who are pressing for reform in that country. And one by one those individuals are being caught in this dragnet.

I was struck when I met with these individuals, Mr. Speaker, by how extraordinarily generous, compassionate, talented, and kind hearted these people are. They are extraordinary. They are Vietnam's best and brightest and certainly their bravest. I was amazed at how they harbored no malice, no hate towards the government that hates them, nor do they hate the government leaders. They only want a better future for their country. Each and every one of the people I met with is committed to peaceful, nonviolent reform.

I met with Father Ly when he was under house arrest, and he sounded just like the activists that I had met and spoken to during the dark years of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. My first human rights trip, I would note parenthetically, was in 1982 on behalf of Soviet refuzniks. It was like being right back there, deja vu, talking to these individuals just like back then, the Shcharanskys of this world or Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa, people like the folks in Charter 77 in the Czech Republic who only wanted freedom, democracy, and human rights.

And none of them wanted violence. And these reformers of Vietnam want nothing whatsoever to do with violence. And yet, they are accused of slandering the state. To criticize an unjust policy is construed by the state to be slander. Father Ly has now been sentenced to 8 years, and that's in addition to the 14 years he had previously served in the Gulag on trumped-up charges.

Just days after the House adopted the Resolution 243 calling for a reversal of human rights violations, Nguyen Van Dai was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 4 years of house arrest. Attorney Van Dai is a tenacious campaigner for human rights who uses the rule of law in a nonviolent manner to press his case.

On the same day that Mr. Van Dai was sentenced, another human rights lawyer, a labor activist, Le Thi Cong Nhan, received 4 years imprisonment and 3 years of house arrest from the same ruthless regime. She, too, punished for engaging in activities recognized internationally as protected human rights.

I've read the 2007 trial proceedings and the government sentencing record, which I intend to put into the Record. And I ask every Member to read that and to read it very carefully. It reads like a chilling chapter out of George Orwell's book, ``1984.''

At the trial, the presiding judge, Nguyen Huu Chinh, accused and condemned Dai of being a member of an Independent Trade Union. A member of the Communist party in Poland, Jaruzelski, accused Lech Walesa of that same thing, an independent trade union. That accusation carries with it a time in the Gulag in Vietnam today.

In Vietnam today, men and women are going to jail for very long periods of time for what the government calls ``disseminating propaganda against the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.''

I point out to my colleagues that the day after the House passed the resolution on May 2, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom indicated in its annual report that the removal of Vietnam from the State Department's List of Countries of Particular Concern was premature based on the evidence that the current situation in the country has not allowed religious freedom. Again, it was part of an effort, I think, of suggesting that if they just got into the World Trade Organization, somehow they would matriculate from dictatorship to democracy. Regrettably, that has not happened. And we've seen a snapback to repression that is very, very severe, cruel, and very, very ugly.

The legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, would prohibit an increase in U.S. nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam unless the government makes substantial progress in the following areas: the release of political and religious prisoners; respect for religious freedom; allowing open access to the United States for our refugee program, because very often those who would like to become a part of that have to pay bribes to communist officials or they are simply detained and not allowed to apply; and respect for the rights of ethnic minority groups, including the Montagnard.

Beginning in fiscal year 2009, there would also be a need to show that neither any official of the government nor any government agency was complicit in the trafficking of human persons. The president may waive this restriction on assistance if he determines that the assistance would promote human rights or would otherwise be in the national interests of the U.S.

Other important provisions would authorize $2 million of assistance in both 2008 and 2009 to support democracy in Vietnam, and approximately $10 million over 2 years to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia by Vietnam. Let me tell my colleagues, they're jamming Radio Free Asia, jamming it, so the message that we think is so important simply cannot get through. And again, the only thing that any dictatorship needs anywhere to survive and prosper is a secret police, got that in Vietnam, and a control of the message, the propaganda. And by jamming Radio Free Asia, they preclude other voices, other opinions from reaching the people.

The bill would also extend U.S. refugee programs to Vietnamese who were previously eligible but were unable to apply for reasons beyond their control, like I said, like not wanting to pay bribes to Vietnamese officials.

Mr. Speaker, in November of 2006, pursuant to a boatload of assurances and solemn promises that the human

rights situation would improve, Vietnam became the first country to be removed from the Countries of Particular Concern. It was also part of an effort to try to get into the World Trade Organization.

Despite this flurry of international recognition, tangible economic benefit, despite the hopes of many, including and especially the Vietnamese people, Vietnam has reverted with a vengeance to its repressive practices and has arrested, imprisoned and imposed lengthy prison sentences on numerous individuals who only want freedom.

Mr. Speaker, these massive human rights violations perpetrated by the Government of Vietnam cannot be overlooked, they cannot be trivialized. These human rights violations occur as we meet here today, and they cannot continue without equally serious consequences.

I do believe that this snapback to human rights abuse underscores perhaps the unwitting naivete on the part of some who think if we just trade, things will get better. It has not.

And finally, I would ask my colleagues to take a look at pages H 4248 and H4249 from the May 1, 2007 Congressional Record, a manifesto that was written and signed on April 8, 2006, called the 8406 Block. It is a call for freedom and democracy and nonviolence.

One by one, those who have signed this very important human rights document in Vietnam have been hunted down, arrested and incarcerated by the government. That's like the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, or again, during the Soviet years, those who would sign manifestos calling for human rights, like Charter 77, who because they espoused freedom, found themselves in a Gulag or being mistreated by the government.

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this. This is a bipartisan bill, and I appreciate that. This is the kind of expression that I think this body is known for, speaking with one voice, truth to power, on behalf of human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who has spoken out on behalf of human rights in Vietnam with great faithfulness, is also a cosponsor of this legislation, and also promoted legislation that was successful in expanding Radio Free Asia.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding back the balance of our time, again, I want to thank Mr. Faleomavaega and just remind my colleagues that this is the third time this legislation, both under the Republican leadership, and now, thankfully, the Speaker has seen fit to bring this to the floor, as well, the third time I have brought this bill to the floor. Twice it passed the House. Hopefully, it will pass it again.

I think there is a greater sense of urgency now because there is this new, and I would call it an ugly and pervasive, crackdown. They got all their economic benefits. They got their World Trade Organization accession, and, as I said before, PNTR was passed by this House and the bilateral agreement before that. So they got all of that. Now, they just have gone right back to the ugliest commissions of crimes against their own people.

Mr. Speaker, let me just also say to my colleagues that we have heard from some very reliable sources that those who have been incarcerated, those who are being intimidated are being told that the United States really doesn't care about human rights; that all that we care about is the almighty buck, the dollar, and making profits. I want to remind them that we have not walked away. This is a bipartisan expression of concern for their well-being.

Of course, we know why they do this. I will never forget Wei Jingsheng, the great human rights Democracy Wall leader, who spent years in the Chinese laogai, or gulag, coming and testifying at a hearing that I convened on human rights abuses in China. He said that one of the ways that they break people in prison is to say that nobody cares and that everybody has forgotten. It says in the Bible that without hope, the people perish. And that is I think doubly, triply true when you are an incarcerated political prisoner and you are told that you have been abandoned.

I want those individuals to know we have not abandoned them. We care deeply for them. We pray for them; and we are trying to do what we can do, using legislation to try to effectuate their release and hopefully, some day, welcome a Vietnam that is democratic, free, and a protector of human rights, not a violator.

Mr. Speaker, let me also finally say that right after we passed this legislation out of committee in the International Relations Committee in a totally bipartisan effort, the Communist Party of Vietnam's online newspaper berated me and my colleagues very, very, I think, viciously. They did what all human rights abusers always do. They said, Don't interfere with our internal affairs.

Well, we have heard that before, Mr. Speaker. We have heard it from the Soviet Union. We have heard it from Cuba. We have heard it from countries where gulags are filled with human rights activists and freedom-loving individuals. We heard it from South Africa in the 1980s when many of us spoke out passionately against apartheid. They said, Don't intervene in our internal affairs.

I hope the Senate takes note. I hope my colleagues will read what is truly going on in Vietnam today. I have put this in the Record, the 8406 Manifesto, a great statement of human rights call, and will include as the judge's findings in the sentencing of the two people, including Dai that I mentioned earlier. You read this and you realize why we get so concerned, those of us like Mr. Faleomavaega and others who follow this day in and day out. This is an indictment on the system, not on the individuals who have been sent to prison.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read this. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

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