Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the ``OPEN Government Act.''

Since coming to Congress, I have been working for an improved Freedom of Information Act process, a critical component to ensuring an open and transparent government. In 1996 Congress passed important legislation that reflected the changing technological times, the ``Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996.'' This important law helped to make FOIA more efficient by providing public access to information including in an electronic format.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee, of which I am a member, has held several hearings during the past few years about the FOIA process where we learned that it has not progressed as well as we had hoped. Some agencies and departments are doing a better job of fulfilling freedom of information requests while some continue to lag behind.

Requesters often wait months or years to find out the status of their requests or to obtain the information. As a result, the backlogs at agencies and departments continue to grow. Frequently, the only recourse for the denial of requested information is to file lawsuits. However, many requesters cannot afford the high costs associated with court cases.

The ``OPEN Government Act'' includes many important provisions that I hope will improve the process and eliminate many of the problems that exist in today's system including an amendment that I offered in committee that would provide for greater disclosure to the FOIA requester about the exemption under which a deletion has been made from requested material.

I have heard from constituents who say that when they receive a response from the agency, they are unable to determine why certain information was redacted. While I recognize that in some cases linking a redaction to an exemption may reveal sensitive information, where possible I believe that agencies should specify which exemption applies to which redaction.

Passage of today's legislation is long overdue, and I commend Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis and their staffs for bringing this bill to the Floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Energy Independence and Security Act. I'll let some of the numbers stand on their own:

This historic legislation will increase vehicle fuel standards to 35 miles per gallon in 2020, the first such increase in over 30 years. In 2020, these fuel standards will give consumers in my State of New York an estimated $894 million in annual net consumer savings. The bill is also expected to save consumers across the country $400 billion through 2030 by energy efficiencies in buildings, appliances and lighting. Additionally, according to analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, provisions in the bill will support the creation of nearly 150,000 jobs, nationwide--a full 8,200 in New York alone. Finally, by 2030, the legislation will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 24 percent.

All these numbers--increased efficiencies, savings, and jobs and reduced global warming--and many more add up to the new direction this Congress is taking in energy policy. I thank the Speaker and all my colleagues for their hard work on this challenging legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FY08 Consolidated Appropriations Legislation. Although this bill does not accomplish everything that we had wanted for the next fiscal year, the bill will provide critical funding to many programs that for too long have been underfunded.

Among many other important provisions, this legislation will provide $607 million above the President's request for medical research of diseases including Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's and diabetes. It will make investments in education including K through 12, Pell Grants, and vocational education. It will help make communities across the country safer by providing $1.2 billion above the President's request for state and local law enforcement. Lastly, it will provide critical homeland security funding at $1.8 billion above the President's request.

I want to note several other items in this bill that are of particular interest to me and many of my constituents.

The bill provides $108 million for the health needs of World Trade Center responders, residents, students, and others exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero, to be administered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The legislation also requests that the Administration prepare a plan for a comprehensive program for health screenings, analysis, and medical treatment for the entire exposed community. I want to sincerely thank Chairman Obey and his incredibly able staff for their continued dedication to the heroes of 9/11.

I commend the Appropriations Committee for including enough baseline funding to continue the invaluable Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) in FY 2008, despite the Bush Administration's initial desire to eliminate the survey. The SIPP provides the most comprehensive data on the economic well-being of American families, and I am glad that the Committee understood its importance.

The legislation before us will provide $75 million to help Afghan women and girls including funding for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission which does essential work in Afghanistan to combat human rights abuses. Additionally, the bill provides more than $147,000,000 for processing the backlog of DNA evidence kits as provided by the Debbie Smith Act, legislation I first introduced in 2001.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and the Appropriations Committee for its work under very difficult conditions, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, last night when Congress passed its year-end spending bill, our Nation took another step forward in caring for the heroes and heroines of 9/11.

By including $108 million for the health needs of the World Trade Center first responders, residents, students, and others exposed to the deadly toxins at Ground Zero, we again show that we will not turn our backs on those who came to New York from every single State in our Nation to help in the aftermath of 9/11.

And in the new year, I look forward to continuing to build support for the bipartisan 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which I introduced with my colleagues Jerry Nadler, Vito Fossella, and George Miller.

Caring for the heroes and heroines of 9/11 is our duty. They were there for us, we were there for them last night in our budget, and we need to be there in the future.

I thank my colleagues for their support, especially for the leadership of Mr. Obey and Speaker Pelosi.

I thank my colleague for his work on this bill.

The bill we are moving forward today is necessary, significant, and timely. There are few issues that are more important to our Nation's economy than a stable, long-term Federal support system for our terrorism risk insurance.

I am disappointed that this final TRIA bill omits key elements of our stronger House legislation, but this is a solid compromise law that will help stabilize the market and ensure the ongoing availability of affordable terrorism risk insurance.

TRIA keeps Americans working, even in the face of terrorist threats. It is a powerful statement of our determination to keep our markets open, our cities vibrant, and our productivity strong.

What markets hate most is uncertainty. This longer term bill will allow our economy to grow while protecting our economic security, which is an important part of our homeland security and our national defense.

I am delighted to see this bill on the floor. I thank Chairman Frank, the New York delegation, Ranking Member Bachus and many, many others for their support of this important legislation.

By renewing TIRA with a long-term extension we stand strong in our resolve not to allow terrorists to destroy our economy and our way of life.

That requires a Federal commitment to provide a backstop and cut off the tail of an otherwise almost infinite risk curve so that the private sector can plan and put in place a framework of insurance that protects all of us.

Madam Speaker, next week retired New York Giants cocaptain and Super Bowl champion George Martin will walk the 1,000th mile of his 3,000-mile trek across America to raise funding and awareness for sick Ground Zero rescue and recovery workers, the heroes of 9/11. His walk from New York to California, called A Journey for 9/11, began just after the sixth anniversary of that tragic day. This week his walk continues through Tennessee as he approaches his 100th mile.

George is an inspiration and a true all-star. And as he walks, this Congress is responding to the need, providing $109 million for treatment in this budget. But we need to pass the 9/11 Health Act to help all those suffering from 9/11 injuries. It is the least a grateful nation can do.

I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership and for yielding.

I would like to respond to some of the comments of my good friend on the other side of the aisle and to remind my colleagues that New York, and he mentioned it several times in his statement, was attacked not as a city, and our State was not attacked as a State. This was a national attack against our country, at our Pentagon, a symbol of our military strength, and New York, one of the symbols of our economic strength. And after that attack, this body was united and determined, and I thank all of my colleagues for your aid and support.

But the most important act by this body to get New York moving again and our other economic centers was voting for TRIA, the anti-terrorism risk insurance plan.

My good friend stated that construction can go forward without it. After 9/11 you could not even build a hot dog stand. Nothing moved until we got the anti-terrorism risk insurance in place.

I am told by the businesses in New York and other large cities in our country that they cannot get insurance now. They get insurance up to the date that TRIA expires, and they are not given insurance unless there is agreement or a condition that TRIA will continue.

He argued that TRIA was not homeland security. I will say very strongly that part of our homeland security is our economic security, and a very important part of our economic security is having a Federal support system for terrorism risk insurance.

The TRIA bill was a top priority of the Financial Services Committee. It was one of the first bills reported out, and I thank Chairman Frank for his continued support for a long-term TRIA, including a reset provision to increase the availability of terrorism insurance for areas that have been targets of terror acts like my city of New York.

The reset language in this bill, though, treats equally everyone across this country. We are including in this bill absolutely everything that was in the Senate-passed bill. The only change is we come from the 15 years down to the 7 years of the Senate. But the other key provisions that were dropped, we are putting back in, such as the lower trigger level so that more insurers can be part of this program. This is very important. Group life insurance. Life insurance for fairness for travelers, and the very important reset mechanism for the anti-terrorism risk insurance.

We need this bill and we need it promptly to avoid interruptions in coverage and the disruptions that that will cause in our economy.

I would say that TRIA has created jobs and helped America's economy grow despite the continuing terrorist threat. I thank the chairman and this body on both sides for supporting it.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this bill.

I would like to thank Chairman Frank for his continued strong support for a long term renewal of TRIA including the reset provisions to increase the availability of terrorism insurance for areas that have been targets of terror attacks like my city of New York.

I appreciate the chairman's insistence on having the House debate and vote on a bill that includes four key provisions from the original House-passed bill.

Most important of these, in my view, is the reset provision. To encourage companies to write insurance in an area that has been a target of terrorism, after a significant terrorist attack, that is, an attack causing over $1 billion in damages, the bill would lower both the deductible and the trigger for terrorism insurance policies in the targeted area, to rebuild market capacity and then gradually increase private sector obligations over time.

This reset mechanism applies equally for everyone across the country. For example, the lower deductible would apply to all the insurers that were affected by the significant terrorist attack, regardless of where the attack occurred.

Also, the bill lowers the ``trigger'' level--the size of an attack at which the Federal Government would provide aid to insurers--back to the $50 million in the original House bill. The TRIA extension enacted in 2005 set the limit at $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007. The Senate bill provides a trigger of $100 million. A lower trigger will allow more insurers to participate in the program and thereby increase the availability of terrorism insurance, and will also address a serious concern of the small insurers who fear they will be driven out of business by terrorist attacks that cause less than $100 million in insured losses that would not trigger the protection provided by TRIA.

The bill includes the provision from the House bill putting group life insurance in TRIA. TRIA should cover not only buildings but also the people who work in them. Group life carriers face insolvency if a terrorist event affects a large group of people. It is important to the economic security of America's workers and their families that group life carriers remain solvent and capable of paying claims after a terrorist attack.

Finally, like the original House bill, the bill prohibits life insurance companies from denying or reducing coverage to an individual based on their foreign travel.

It is critical that these provisions be included in the bill we send back to the Senate. We need to send a strong message that these provision are important, and that this body will not be cowed by the White House's foolish threat to veto this legislation.

I could not more strongly disagree with the White House when they insist the program should be short term and temporary. That will exacerbate market disarray and harm our economy--exactly what the terrorists want.

The administration's continued opposition to this bill is another example of the stubborn wrongheadedness for which this White House has become renowned.

On a bipartisan basis, business leaders, law enforcement, and the American people strongly support a long term TRIA bill that protects our economy and our security.

Recognizing the significant benefits that TRIA has for our entire economy, the US Chamber of Commerce said, and I quote:

The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act has promoted long-term

availability of terrorism risk insurance for catastrophic

terror events and has provided a standard of stability for

financial markets and recovery after such an attack. [TRIA]

has created jobs and helped America's economy grow despite

the continuing terrorist threats against the United

States. . . . It is essential that Congress not allow this

vital law to expire.

There are few issues so important to our Nation's economy as a stable long term federal support system for terrorism risk insurance.

We need a new TRIA bill and we need it promptly, to avoid interruptions in coverage and the disruptions that will cause.

We all fervently hope there will be no more terrorist attacks on our soil. But we must recognize that insuring against that dreadful contingency is a fundamental part of making our country safer. It is a part of homeland security that we cannot afford to ignore. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will provide relief to over 100,000 of my constituents.

This week, the House will once again restate our commitment to fiscal responsibility and pass legislation to provide millions of middle-class families with tax cuts to grow our economy without increasing the national debt.

The AMT Relief Act contains must-pass provisions that will provide $50 billion in immediate tax relief for working families by preventing 23 million middle class families from paying higher taxes this April.

Without this legislation, these 23 million families will be subjected to the alternative minimum tax, including almost 111,000 of my constituents.

When the AMT was enacted, it was meant to ensure the wealthiest among us paid their fair share of a tax that was never designed to hit the pocketbooks of middle-class families.

While this is only a temporary fix, I want to be clear that I hope we can move forward in the near future to provide a long-term solution to this problem.

I am proud that Chairman Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have brought this fix to the floor today while still adhering to the pay-as-you-go promise this Democratic controlled Congress has promised the American people.

Their leadership have truly brought our country in a new direction.

On the other hand, President Bush has threatened to veto and Senate Republicans voted against the earlier House-passed AMT bill because it adhered to our pay-as-you-go promise.

The stubborn fiscal irresponsibility of President Bush and Senate Republicans has delayed getting middle-class tax relief approved in a timely fashion and resulted in the Senate passing AMT relief legislation that is not paid for--passing debt instead of prosperity onto our children and grandchildren.

We are trying every possible alternative to adhere to pay-as-you-go budget rules--reversing the years of failed Republican policies that have mortgaged our grandchildren's future with additional foreign-owned debt--giving the Senate one more chance to do the right thing.

While fixing the AMT is of outmost importance, we cannot afford to mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future to pay for this tax relief.

Our country is currently burdened with over $9 trillion of national debt, with each American's share at nearly $30,000.

We simply cannot afford to keep adding to this.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in Congress are providing common sense tax relief for middle-class American families, and we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

I urge this bill's adoption.

Madam Speaker, this bill, the ``Financial Consumer Hotline Act of 2007,'' would establish a single, toll-free telephone number consumers can call if they have a question for or problem with their bank and want to speak to the bank's federal or state regulator. A number of different governing bodies currently regulate banks, which can make it difficult for consumers to figure out who they should contact with concerns and complaints. The bill would also establish a corresponding informational website.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a very special occasion that will take place in New York's 14th Congressional District this week. Eight New York City high schools, including the Life Sciences Secondary School and Company High School for Theatre Art, will participate in a musical and cultural exchange event at New York City's world-renowned Carnegie Hall on December 5, 2007.

Carnegie Hall's cultural exchange program will bring together a select group of eight classrooms in New York City and an equal number in Istanbul, Turkey. Students in both countries have worked in their respective classrooms for the past ten weeks to learn about each other's nation and culture. On Wednesday, students and teachers will meet face to face via teleconferencing technology to share a real-time cultural exchange using music as the common language. American and Turkish teachers and students in the program will continue to communicate with one another on a dedicated internet space for the duration of the school year. Carnegie Hall has developed this unique exchange program in partnership with the U.S. Department of State, and I am pleased that this public-private partnership will produce a meaningful, enriching and lasting experience for students in New York City and Istanbul.

Music is a universal language through which improved understanding among our Nation's respective citizenry can be found. I commend Carnegie Hall, the U.S. Department of State, and the private sector sponsors of this program. Most importantly, I congratulate the young men and women participating in this program and add my encouragement for their continued pursuit of improved cultural understanding through music and the arts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, that I believe it is fair to describe as historic. As cochair of the Human Trafficking Caucus and as an original cosponsor, I am pleased that this bill

will provide strong, new, innovative, flexible tools to combat modern- day slavery, whether labor exploiters, diplomats who abuse their servants, or brutal pimps.

I want to commend the extra offered leadership of Chairman Lantos and Chairman Conyers, as well as Lamar Smith and Randy Forbes, and their staffs, for bringing this important bill to the floor. I truly do believe that books will be written about this effort, a major one, to end this terrible abuse of human people.

I ask my colleagues to look at this picture. I want them to see that the lives of trafficking victims are pure horror. If you look at the first line, each girl looks different, but after one or two years, they all look the same, shells of people. In the end, they have been abused, psychologically captured, broken and devastated at the hands of their pimps.

The fight against human trafficking has brought together Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, religious leaders and secular leaders. I will place in the Record a list of the very large bipartisan coalition that was sent to the Department of Justice and our colleagues and signed by many advocates, including Gloria Steinem, Jessica Neuwirth, Kim Gandy, Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Walter Fauntroy and Beverly LaHaye, among many others.

The bipartisan bill before us is historic and will dramatically strengthen our capability to fight human trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I became interested in this when Big Apple Oriental Tours in my district was advertising sex tours, sex trafficking. Come to the Philippines, come here, come there, and we will give you a young girl, many young girls. We could not close them down.

With this Congress in a bipartisan way, we have strengthened the laws to crack down on this terrible human abuse. This bill before us gives law enforcement even greater tools to go after the predators.

Coalition Against

Trafficking in Women,

New York, NY, October 5, 2007.

Hon. Peter Keisler,

Acting Attorney General of the United States, Department of

Justice, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Acting Attorney General: Founded in 1988, the

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women is the first

international non-governmental organization to challenge the

trafficking of women and girls as an acute form of gender

discrimination and a severe violation of human rights. The

one hundred representative signers of this letter include

leaders of organizations and communities that range across

the country's religious, ideological and political spectrums.

What unites us is our collective outrage at human trafficking

and our commitment to end it.

More than six months ago, Congresswoman Maloney and

Congressmen Wolf and Scott wrote to former Attorney General

Gonzales to express their concerns with the Department's

anti-trafficking policies and strategies. They did so in the

context of his public statements that the initiative against

domestic trafficking was a matter of high priority to the

Department. We share these views and applaud these

statements. The multibillion dollar ``industry'' operated

within the United States by criminal traffickers enslaves and

devastates hundreds of thousands of girls and women in a

manner eerily reminiscent of the 19th Century African slave

trade.

We write because of the Department's apparent rejection of

the views expressed in the Maloney-Scott-Wolf letter and

because of our serious concerns about the Department's anti-

trafficking activities. First, we fail to understand why the

Department has called on States to enact a model statute that

effectively requires proof of fraud, force or coercion for

the conviction of sex traffickers, instead of encouraging

State and local prosecutors to strengthen and enforce

existing statutes under which traffickers can be convicted on

proof that they have ``merely'' engaged in sex trafficking.

Our concern about the Department's model law is made

particularly grave by its seriously misguided definition of

prostitution as a form of ``labor or services.'' The effect

of conceptualizing prostitution as a form of ``work'' not

only conflicts with public statements that former Attorney

Generals Ashcroft and Gonzales and other administration

officials have made, it also effectively converts the pimps,

brothel owners and others who profit from the prostitution

``industry'' into presumptively legal employers. The

Department's ``labor or services'' definition is thus in

clear conflict with repeated statements of the President,

with his National Security Policy Directive 22 and with

almost all State and local laws on the subject.

What the Department's trafficking policy as embodied in the

model law dangerously ignores is the acute difficulty of

gaining testimonial evidence of fraud, force or coercion from

terrified and brutalized victims of trafficking, and the

potential danger that such a requirement poses to victims'

safety. It is well documented that many victims enslaved by

traffickers suffer from traumatic bonding and related

conditions that make it impossible for them to give the

testimony essential to the prosecution of fraud, force or

coercion cases. In fact, we believe that the Department's

policy will cause predatory traffickers to increase their

acts of violence and psychological abuse in order to ensure

that the persons they abuse will not serve as prosecution

witnesses.

Requiring proof of force, fraud, and coercion has not only

had a detrimental effect on the prosecution of cases of

domestic trafficking. Such proof requirements have been cited

by anti-trafficking leaders in other countries as obstacles

to holding traffickers accountable for their systematic acts

of violence against girls and women. If trafficking victims

are afraid to testify against their traffickers in the U.S.,

as they are, they are more afraid to do so in foreign

countries with even more violent traffickers and often less

protective legal systems.

The approach of the Department's model law appears to be

replicated in the Department's prosecution policies and

strategies. We are gravely concerned by the Department's

failure to more fully utilize D.C. Criminal Code Sec. 22-

2707, which makes sex trafficking per se a felony offense. In

enforcing the D.C. Criminal Code, the Department functions

much like State and local prosecutors, so that vigorous

utilization of Section 22-2707 would send a powerful

leadership message to those prosecutors, one that would

help ameliorate the negative effects of the Department's

model State law. In the same vein, we are troubled by the

Department's failure to more fully utilize 18 U.S. Code

Sec. 2422(a), a statute recently amended by Congress that

requires no proof of fraud, force or coercion and that

would be of particular value in jurisdictions where major

cities in different States border each other.

There are a number of additional aspects of the

Department's anti-trafficking policies and strategies that

trouble us, and about which we ask your views:

The Department has given domestic traffickers effective

immunity from criminal tax laws, when otherwise legal

business owners are prosecuted for such acts as failing to

provide W-2 forms. Congresswoman Maloney has recently

introduced legislation that would ensure that traffickers are

prosecuted for violating criminal tax laws, a leadership act

that builds on Senator Grassley's leadership in the 109th

Congress. The Grassley bill was unanimously endorsed by the

Senate Finance Committee. Will the Department support this

initiative?

In the face of persuasive research conducted by Equality

Now, the Department has failed to utilize existing criminal

statutes to prosecute so-called ``sex tourism'' operators. Do

you agree?

The Department prioritizes the prosecution of traffickers

of girls and women brought into the United States from

foreign countries. Are American citizens who have been

subjected to trafficking any less worthy of the Department's

protection?

The Department, through its grants under the Violence

Against Women Act and like programs, often denies support to

applicants who operate programs for trafficking survivors.

Clearly, victims of domestic trafficking, routinely subjected

to rape and battery, are as much in need of and as much

entitled to assistance and services as victims of other forms

of gender-based violence. Do you share this view, and do you

believe that victims of domestic trafficking are underserved?

The Department has failed to pursue funds for the grant

programs and the survey of the unlawful domestic commercial

sex industry that were authorized by the Trafficking Victims

Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. Is it not important

for the Department, and the country, to know as much about

the predatory world of trafficking as is known about the

country's gambling and drug operations?

There is an apparent lack of coordination within the

Department of its anti-trafficking activities. We believe it

essential, as called for in the Maloney-Scott-Wolf letter,

for there to be a single, accountable office headed by an

experienced criminal prosecutor to whom Congress and the

American public can look for results in the conduct of the

Department's anti-trafficking activities. Do you share this

view?

The Departmental leadership on the trafficking issue has

been vested in the Civil Rights Division even though the

Division's sole jurisdiction is the prosecution of

traffickers who have committed provable acts of fraud, force,

or coercion against adult victims. While we celebrate the

highly professional and committed prosecutors who have

brought such cases, we are deeply concerned that the anti-

trafficking strategy adopted by the Department will shield

traffickers from prosecution while encouraging them to

intensify their acts of violence and psychological abuse. Do

you believe this concern legitimate?

Attached is a report prepared by Professor Donna Hughes of

the March 13 Human Trafficking Training session conducted by

the head of the Civil Rights Division's Anti- Trafficking

Unit--a session broadcast to United States Attorneys

throughout the country. The Hughes report demonstrates the

Department's seeming disinterest in enforcing per se statutes

against trafficking.

The report also shows that the Department's anti-

trafficking initiative is directed against provable

physical violence rather than trafficking per se.

We are dismayed by the comments of Department officials

described in the Hughes report that leaders of the country's

trafficking survivor community are ``not . . . ready'' to

engage in education, awareness and service initiatives on

behalf of trafficked women. Is this your perception, or the

Department's, of the groundbreaking and courageous work of

such survivor-led groups as GEMS, Dignity House, Veronica's

Voice, SAGE, and Breaking Free?

Congress, the administration, and a broad and fully engaged

anti-trafficking coalition now in place can in our view make

history, and do so this year, in ending the reign of terror

and enslavement long practiced by traffickers operating

within this country.

Additionally, effective prosecution of domestic

traffickers, and committed Federal government support for

their victims, will strengthen the capacity of the State

Department's Trafficking in Persons Office to deal with

countries that are complicit or indifferent to mass

trafficking within their borders. Such action would save

millions of trafficked and at risk girls and women throughout

the world.

The Department has significantly increased the number of

its trafficking prosecutions and the resources it has

committed to anti-trafficking activities. Yet in spite of

this, there has been no decline in the incidence of domestic

trafficking or in the number of girls and women abused and

destroyed by domestic traffickers during the five year period

in which the Department has conducted its costly

antitrafficking initiative. Moreover and critically, the

model law promoted by the Department has produced few if any

State prosecutions or convictions--an outcome that we are

certain will continue for the reasons set forth in this

letter. Until the Department begins prosecuting and calling

for the prosecution of traffickers on a per se basis, and

ends its effective call for limiting such prosecutions to

cases where fraud, force or coercion can be proven, domestic

and international trafficking will continue to flourish and

grow. Human trafficking can and must be ended within our

borders. But it is only through strong and strategic measures

that we will do so. Accordingly, we respectfully request a

meeting to discuss the matters set forth in this letter.

Respectfully,

Dorchen Leidholdt, President, Coalition Against Trafficking

in Women.

Norma Ramos, Co-Executive Director, Coalition Against

Trafficking in Women.

Winnie Bartel, Board Member, National Association of

Evangelicals.

Michelle Battle, Chief Operating Officer, The National

Congress of Black Women, Inc.

Gary Bauer, President, American Values.

Dr. David Black, President, Eastern University.

Twiss Butler, Board Member, Coalition Against Trafficking

in Women.

Tony Campolo, Professor Emeritus, Eastern University.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., Co-Founder, National Women's Health

Network.

Hon. David N. Cicilline, Mayor, Providence, Rhode Island.

Richard Cizik, VP, Government Affairs, National Association

of Evangelicals.

Michael Cromartie, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Catherine J. Douglass, Executive Director, inMotion, Inc..

Janice Shaw Crouse, Director, Beverly LaHaye Institute,

Concerned Women for America.

Barrett Duke, PhD, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission,

Southern Baptist Convention.

Geri B. Elias, LCSW, National Outreach Manager, Jewish

Women International.

Bonnie Erbe, Scripps Howard Columnist.

Bonaventure N. Ezekwenna, Publisher, Africans in America.

Melissa Farley, PhD Director, Prostitution Research &

Education.

Rev. Walter Fauntroy, Former DC Delegate to Congress,

Pastor, New Bethel Church.

Georgette Forney, President, Anglicans for Life.

Commissioner Israel Gaither, National Commander, The

Salvation Army USA.

Commissioner Eva Gaither, National President of Women's

Ministries, The Salvation Army USA.

Kim A. Gandy, President, National Organization for Women.

Todd Gitlin, Professor of Journalism and Sociology,

Columbia University.

Victor Goode, Former Executive Director, National

Association for Black Lawyers.

Rabbi David Greenstein, The Academy for Jewish Religion,

Riverdale, NY.

Joseph K. Grieboski, President, Institute on Religion and

Public Policy.

Agnes Gund, Art Historian, Activist.

Dr. David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of

Christian Studies, Mercer University.

Mimi Haddad, PhD, President, Christians for Biblical

Equality.

Rev. Dr. James V. Heidinger, II, President Good News

Movement.

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld Coalition of Jewish Concerns--Amcha.

Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute.

Bishop Clyde M. Hughes, International Pentecostal Church of

Christ.

Donna M. Hughes, Carlson Chair Professor, Women's Studies

Program, University of Rhode Island.

Sandra Hunnicutt, Executive Director, Captive Daughters.

Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, Episcopal

Church.

Richard Israel, Former Attorney General, Rhode Island.

Kristin Komamicki, Editor, PRISM Magazine, Evangelicals for

Social Justice.

James M. Kushiner, Executive Director, The Fellowship of

St. James.

Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, Founder, Chair, Concerned Women for

America.

Nancy Lewis, UN Representative, International Immigrants

Foundation.

Sister LeeAnn Mackeprang, Good Shepherd, Contemplative

Sisters.

Catharine A. MacKinnon, Elizabeth A. Long, Professor,

University of Michigan Law School.

Frederica Mathewes-Green, Speaker, Author.

Faith McDonnell, Director, Religious Liberty Program,

Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Alyssa Milano, Actress, Human Rights Activist.

John R. Miller, Research Professor in International

Studies, George Washington University.

Ronna J. Miller, Director, MHGS Conferences.

Richard J. Mouw, President, Fuller Seminary.

Patricia Murphy, North American Coordinating Center, School

Sisters of Notre Dame.

Jessica Neuwirth, President, Equality Now.

Susan O'Malley, Business and Professional Women

International.

Katherine R. Parisi, CSJP, PhD, Justice & Peace

Coordinator, Congregation of the Sisters, St. Joseph of

Peace.

Kathryn Cameron Porter, Founder, President, Leadership

Council for Human Rights.

Margaret Purvis, Founder, President, Faces of Children,

Midland, TX.

Dana Raphael, PhD, Director, Human Lactation Center.

Judith A. Reisman, PhD, President, Institute for Media

Education.

Shirley Rodriguez Remeneski, President, 100 Hispanic Women,

Inc.

Eva H. Richter, International Federation of Business and

Professional Women.

Elizabeth D. Rios, Founder, Board President, Center for

Emerging Female Leadership.

Rev. David Runnion-Bareford, Executive Director, Biblical

Witness Fellowship, United Church of Christ.

Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family & Human Rights

Institute.

Diana E.H. Russell, PhD, Emerita Professor of Sociology,

Mills College.

Denise Scotto, International Federation of Women in Legal

Careers (FIFCJ).

Nadia Shmigel, World Federation of Ukrainian Women's

Organizations.

L. Faye Short, President, RENEW Women's Network.

Ron Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action.

Lucianne Siers, Director, Partnership for Global Justice.

Deborah Sigmund, Founder, Innocence at Risk.

Carol Smolenski, Executive Director, ECPAT-USA.

Gloria Steinem, Co-Founder, Ms. Magazine.

Cheryl Thomas, Director, Women's Human Rights Program,

Advocates for Human Rights.

Jim Wallis, President, CEO, Sojourners/Call to Renewal.

Rev. Gloria E. White-Hammond, M.D., Co-Founder, My Sister's

Keeper, Co-Pastor, Bethel AME Church.

Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America.

Service Providers

Anne Bissell, Executive Director, Voices for Justice.

Vednita Carter, Executive Director, Breaking Free.

Rita Chaikin, Anti-Trafficking Project Coordinator, Isha

L'Isha--Haifa Feminist Center, Haifa, Israel.

Kristy Childs, Executive Director, Founder VERONICA'S

Voice.

Katherine Chon, Executive Director, Co-Founder, Polaris

Project.

Rachel Durchslag, Executive Director, Chicago Alliance

Against Sexual Exploitation.

Laurel W. Eisner, Executive Director, Sanctuary for

Families, New York, NY.

Juliette Engel, Founding Director, MiraMed Institute,

Moscow, Russia.

Sid Ford, Founder, Director, YANA (You are Never Alone),

Baltimore, MD.

Leah Gruenptere Gold, Director, Machon Toda'a Awareness

Center, Israel.

Patricia Green, Founder, RAHAB INTERNATIONAL, World

Outreach International, Berlin, Germany.

Norma Hotaling, Founder, Director, SAGE, San Francisco, CA.

Phyllis Kilbourn, Director, Crisis Care Training

International, Rainbows of Hope.

Chong N. Kim, Founder, MASIE (Minorities & Survivor

Improving Empowerment), USA.

Donna Robin Lippman, Director, Incest and Rape Recovery

Center, New York.

Rachel Lloyd, Executive Director, Founder, GEMS, New York

City.

Kathleen Mitchell, Founder, Catholic Charities DIGNITY

Services.

Beatrice Okezie, Founding Board Member, Chairperson of

Board of Directors, Africans in America, Inc.

Moira Olson, Adults Saving Kids, Minneapolis, MN.

Artika Roller, PRIDE, Minneapolis, MN.

Donna Sabella, M.Ed, MSN, RN, Director, Phoenix Project,

Philadelphia, PA.

Ed Shurna, Executive Director, Coalition for the Homeless,

Chicago, IL.

Shaleen Horrocks Silva, Executive Director, The Paul & Lisa

Program, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4156, the ``Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act,'' and I want to commend Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership for bringing this bill to the Floor today.

The American people want a new direction in Iraq. By every measure, this war has cost Americans far too much--whether it's lives lost, dollars spent, or our reputation tarnished around the world.

H.R. 4156 would provide critical funding for the troops while also requiring that troops begin to redeploy from Iraq within 30 days of enactment with a goal of completion by December 15, 2008. The legislation would ensure that troops are not deployed to Iraq unless they have been fully trained and equipped. H.R. 4156 also would extend to all U.S. Government agencies and personnel the current prohibitions contained in the Army Field Manual against torture.

Just this week the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am a vice chair, released a study to examine the broader impact of the war on the American economy. So far the full economic costs of the Iraq war are about double the immense Federal budget costs that have been reported to the American people.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Federal spending on the war could reach $2.4 trillion by 2017. Our JEC report finds that when you add in the ``hidden costs'' of the war, the total economic costs will rise by over $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion. The report reveals how we are all paying for this war one way or another--whether it's higher prices at the pump, lost business investment, rising interest payments on the debt, or fixing all the broken bodies and our stretched military.

The President has asked Congress for an additional $200 billion for Iraq, bringing the total request to $607 billion in direct expenditures since the start of the war. This is well over 10 times more than the $50 to $60 billion cost estimated by the Administration prior to the start of the war, with no end in sight from this President.

This legislation sends the President an important message: start bringing our troops home, now.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last night House Democrats voted to send the President a smaller war-funding package with a clear message, send our troops home now. We know this rapid redeployment will save countless American lives.

The Joint Economic Committee estimates that a sharp downturn in U.S. forces in Iraq, like the plan we are advancing, would also lower the war's economic costs by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

The cost of this war has simply been too great and the human toll too high. We have already lost more people than this country lost on 9/11, 162 from my home State of New York. In so many ways, we can no longer afford to stay in Iraq.

Democrats in Congress are committed to bringing our troops home soon; repairing our military; caring for our veterans; and charting a new, more responsible, course, a more secure course in Iraq.

I thank my colleague from the Empire State, the Great State of New York, for yielding to me, and for his leadership on the Rules Committee and in so many other areas in our Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. I would like to thank the Rules Committee Chairwoman, Louise Slaughter, for crafting this rule, and I would like to thank her for making in order 18 amendments, and one amendment that I will offer later on reforms for prepayment penalties on subprime loans.

I congratulate Chairman Frank for his stewardship on this difficult legislation, and I thank my colleagues, Congressman Watt and Congressman Miller from the Great State of North Carolina, which passed antipredatory lending in their State legislature that has been referenced many times in committee meetings and hearings.

I also thank the staff on the Democratic and Republican side that have worked very, very hard, our individual staffs and staffs of the committee, on facing this difficult challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation has been done in a fair, open, and bipartisan process. During the committee markup last week, we entertained numerous amendments and consistently worked with the ranking member and the other Republicans on the committee. The result of all the chairman's hard work on this bill was demonstrated when this bill passed the committee on a bipartisan vote of 45-19.

The bill we are considering today is carefully crafted legislation that was developed after our committee carefully considered the testimony and advice of many experts and witnesses.

I know the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, which I chair, held a series of hearings looking into what can and should be done. I am happy to see a number of suggestions recommended by witnesses reflected in this legislation.

This was no easy task. As each and every one of us knows, the mortgage market is incredibly complex and any new proposal to clamp down on abusive practices must be done in a way that does not disrupt what is working correctly. I am proud to say that I believe this legislation has struck that delicate balance. The rule protects this legislation from amendments that may disrupt that balance, yet fairly allows for amendments that could enhance this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and for the underlying legislation.

Any legislation on this issue must strike a very careful balance that provides enhanced consumer protections without unnecessarily limiting the availability of loans to creditworthy borrowers. This bill contains a number of provisions that strengthen underwriting standards and provide additional protections for consumers while not unduly constraining sound lending and the secondary market. These include setting a clear standard that mortgages should be made based on a borrower's ability to repay, which is absolute common sense; setting up a system for licensing nationally; setting professional standards for mortgage brokers and an appropriate system of registration for loan officers; and setting a reasonable limits on assignee liability to ensure that investors will want to provide liquidity for housing finance.

This bill, I think, is a very strong one. It adds accountability and transparency to the system. It builds investor confidence in the system; and without that confidence, we will continue to face a growing market crisis.

We heard in our hearings from 2 to 5 million people, depending on the economists who were testifying, may lose their homes. That is more than lost their homes during the Great Depression. So the committee focused in two areas: first, on helping people stay in their homes with various measures that we passed, and this legislation going forward will prevent the types of abuses and really the turmoil in the market that was not in place because there were not oversight transparency and safeguards.

I congratulate Chairman Frank on a very difficult balancing act, and I believe the legislation before us will not only help individuals stay in their homes, prevent abuses in the future, but will help the liquidity, stability, and creditworthiness of our entire economy. I no longer call it a subprime crisis; it's a credit crisis. We need to address it. This is tremendously important. We must pass this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

I thank Chairman Frank and my colleagues, Congressmen Watt and Miller, from the great State of North Carolina, who passed legislation in the

State legislature first and helped build a strong bipartisan bill in our committee that passed with a strong vote of 45-19. The economic crisis we are facing is no longer just a subprime crisis, but a credit crisis. Subprime losses are mounting and the economic pain is being felt in communities across this country, as the ripple of foreclosures spreads to neighborhoods and local economies. Economists estimate that between 2 million and 5 million families could lose their homes by the end of 2008, more than the number of families that lost their homes during the Great Depression.

Democrats are working hard to help families stay in their homes and prevent another crisis like this from happening in the future. I submit for the Record a list of legislative actions and other actions that Democrats in Congress have passed to help families stay in their homes. With this bill, we take the first step towards reforms for the future. The bill would bring mortgage brokers who are currently regulated on a state-by-state basis under a nationwide licensing registry, establish minimum standards for home loans, and expand certain limits on high- cost mortgages.

It also would prohibit brokers from steering consumers to mortgages they are unlikely to be able to repay. It changes the incentives for all market participants.

The bill would also establish some legal liability for securitizers, but it also provides some liability protection to those companies if they meet certain due diligence requirements in reviewing the loans they are packaging. Any legislation on this issue must strike a very delicate balance that provides consumer protections without unnecessarily limiting the availability of loans to creditworthy borrowers.

I congratulate the chairman for coming forward with a well-balanced bill on a very difficult subject that is incredibly important. I urge my colleagues, we must pass this bill.

Tackling the problem of subprime mortgage reform is like slaying the many-headed Hydra of Greek mythology--unless you go about it the right way, for each head you chop off, two more vicious ones will grow in its place.

I congratulate Chairman Frank for producing an ambitious and comprehensive bill that deals with many key aspects of this difficult issue.

It is a comprehensive and sweeping reform of the mortgage industry that would require all actors in the mortgage market to operate with the kind of accountability and regard for the consumer's best interest that the best mortgage lenders have always observed.

In this respect, the bill tracks the comments of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who said in testimony before the JEC that limited and clearly defined assignee liability could prove beneficial.

To do this, the bill preempts State laws in the section dealing with securitizers, reflecting the concern that differing State laws would interfere with oversight of a national market. But it leaves States free to regulate in other areas where States have traditionally led the way in consumer protection for their citizens.

This is a well-balanced bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Democrats in Congress Are Working to Help Families Stay in Their Homes

We need to act quickly to stem the tide of foreclosures

that could ruin families, communities, and the economy.

The House has passed legislation to enable the FHA to serve

more subprime borrowers at affordable rates and terms,

attract borrowers who have turned to predatory loans in

recent years, and offer refinancing to homeowners struggling

to meet their mortgage payments.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are providing much needed

liquidity in the prime market right now. We passed a GSE

reform bill in the House, but we should also raise the cap on

these entities portfolio limits, at least temporarily, and

direct all of those funds to help borrowers who are stuck in

risky adjustable rate mortgages refinance to safer mortgages.

To make servicers more able to engage in workouts with

strapped borrowers, we pushed FASB to clarify what its

Standard 140 allows for modification of a loan when default

is reasonably foreseeable, not just after default.

Congress should eliminate the cruel anomaly under Chapter

13 of the Bankruptcy Code which allows judges to modify

mortgages on a borrower's vacation home or investment

property, but not the home they actually live in. This allows

families to stay in their home while new loan terms are

worked out.

I think we should also eliminate the tax on debt

forgiveness, sparing families the double-whammy of paying

taxes on the lost value of their homes.

Democrats in Congress Are Working to Prevent Another Crisis

Our regulatory system is in serious need of renovation to

catch up to the financial innovation that has surpassed our

ability to protect consumers and hold institutions

accountable.