Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, imagine a country where women are systematically raped, children are given guns to fight wars and most of the population struggles to live on $2 a day. This horrific almost unimaginable scenario is the reality for women and children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This month, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights held a very timely and important hearing on the crisis in the DRC and what America can do to help address the situation and end the violence.

The systematic and relentless sexual violence faced by women in the DRC is an unconscionable violation of human rights. In 2008, I introduced H. Res. 1227 which reaffirmed our chamber's abhoration and condemnation of rape as a weapon of war in the Congo.

The systematic rape of women in the DRC must end and this was forcefully were raised at the hearing by witnesses including Cindy McCain and Ms. Francisca Vigaud-Walsh of Catholic Relief Services. I could not agree more.

In the Congo, many international actors are working to end the violence and they need the support of the US as they work in a very difficult political environment to end the violence.

UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, plays a key leadership role on the ground in addressing sexual based violence in the DRC. UNFPA aids survivors of sexual violence by providing medical care, economic and social rehabilitation, and legal assistance. The Fund has trained thousands of armed forces on protection and care for survivors.

In Kasai Oriental, North and South Kivu, thanks to global support for UNFPA's efforts, over 15,000 sexual violence survivors have received medical care. In camp Kibaki, home to 200,000 displaced people, UNFPA provides kits to test for and treat sexually transmitted infections, post exposure cleansing for rape cases and clean safe delivery kits.

Moreover, UNFPA played a key advocacy role in the 2006 adoption of the DRC law on sexual violence, expanding it to include sexual harassment, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization and other brutal practices.

Yet, the House Republicans passed an appropriations bill calling for zero funding for UNFPA. This is both unconscionable and nonsensical. Why would we have a hearing to call attention to the dire situation in the DRC and how America can help and then at the same time defund one of the key international organizations addressing the needs and well being of rape survivors?

I recall back to 2008 when my colleagues in the U.S. Senate held a similar hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee several Republican Senators expressed their shock and dismay in learning about the violence and in particular the incidence of traumatic fistula from rape. Why, they asked, is not more being done? These were the same Senators who had voted to defund U.S. support to UNFPA--the lead agency addressing fistula. This would be ironic if it was not so irresponsible.

My Republican colleagues raised the same tired and discredited arguments about UNFPA's country program in China earlier this month. UNFPA is clearly and firmly on the record in opposition to the heinous ``one-child policy'' and continue to promote changes in China to a human-rights-based and voluntary approach to family planning. It is UNFPA who has raised the issue about the dramatic gender disparity and societal imbalance that results from sex-selection abortion and how critical it is to end this practice and promote the well being of girls. Indeed, what UNFPA's small human rights based program in China is doing are exactly the kind of pressure my Republican colleagues claim they want to see happen in there. Moreover, we have a longstanding agreement on language that ensures that in our contribution to UNFPA, no U.S. funds are spent in China, no U.S. funds are spent on abortion services and all U.S. funds are kept in a segregated account to be able to track these things. We are the only one of UNFPA's 180 donors who put restrictions on our contribution.

In the coming weeks as decisions are made on the final budget, it is imperative that the United States continues its financial and moral support for the life-saving work of UNFPA. The women in the Democratic Republic of Congo and everywhere else where UNFPA works are counting on us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Edie Fraser, a remarkable woman who has devoted herself to promoting diversity, advancing women's equality, and serving others throughout her career, and who I am proud to call my friend.

A remarkably devoted and effective activist and philanthropist, Edie D. Fraser is a successful entrepreneur, an inspirational and visionary leader, and a selfless and dedicated philanthropist and mentor to countless other women and girls. She has a long and distinguished track record as an advocate for diversity in the corporate sector. The remarkable effectiveness and astonishing energy that she has demonstrated in her advocacy inspired her friend Cynthia de Lorenzi, the founder of the ``Success in the City'' program, to give her the nickname, ``the Magical Bumblebee.''

A top official at Diversified Search Odgers Berndtson, Edie Fraser is widely respected throughout corporate America. She has a rich history in diversity advocacy, having been the founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Business Women's Network and the Public Affairs Group, Inc., whose divisions include Diversity Best Practices and Best Practices in Corporate Communications. More than 135 corporations participated in the programs created and developed by her company. She currently serves on the Boards of Directors of several important organizations dedicated to promoting diversity in the workforce and to encouraging women's equal participation in every sector of business and society. She was recently featured on the cover of WOW magazine's ``Mentoring Leaders'' issue, and is being honored in Washington this month.

Edie Fraser has dedicated her life to serving others in countless ways. She is the co-author of Do Your Giving While You're Living, a work that reached the best-seller list of BusinessWeek magazine and which offers inspirational portraits of prominent women leaders like Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, the Chair of the Board of Red Cross; Jennie Chin Hansen, the President of the American Association of Retired Persons, and the renowned singer and recording artist Dionne Warwick. Ms. Fraser is also a longtime supporter of Latina Style and of Robert Bard, as well as non-profit institutions like Big Brothers and organizations serving persons with disabilities. In recognition of her service to others, she has won more than 35 major awards for promoting diversity, advancing women's equality, and far-sighted philanthropy. She has served as Chair of the Public Affairs and Government Relations Sections of the Public Relations Society of America, and has been a keynote speaker for the International Association of Business Communicators. Edie won the highest award possible in the field or communications, the Silver Anvil, for a specialized international campaign

on U.S. and Japan communications and trade promotion. Throughout her long career as a corporate leader and community and civic activist, Edie Fraser has been deeply devoted to her family and friends, above all to her beloved husband, Joe Oppenheimer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing the enormous contributions to our civic and political life made by Edie D. Fraser, a leader, activist, and philanthropist in the finest traditions of our great republic.

Mr. Speaker, today, I proudly join in a bipartisan effort with Representatives Jean Schmidt, Gwen Moore, Susan Davis, Barbara Lee, Tammy Baldwin, Janice Schakowsky, Doris Matsui, Raul Grijalva, Karen Bass, Pete Stark, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Jackie Speier, Cynthia Lummis, Sandy Adams, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Marsha Blackburn, Madeleine Bordallo, Barney Frank, Judy Biggert, Alcee Hastings, Jo Ann Emerson, Marcy Kaptur, James Moran, and Yvette Clarke in introducing the National Women's History Museum Act of 2011.

This bill directs the General Services Administration, GSA, to house a National Women's History Museum (NWHM) in one of their properties in Washington, DC. NWHM must pay fair market value for the property and reasonable timeframes are included for the transfer of the property and for construction to begin. NWHM will be built and maintained with private funds. No federal dollars will be spent on this important, new museum.

Women's history is largely missing from textbooks, memorials, museum exhibits and many other venues. In contrast, men have hundreds of years of written and available history to reflect upon and use for inspiration. Of the 210 statues in the United States Capitol, only 9 are of female leaders. Less than 5 percent of the 2,400 national historic landmarks chronicle women's achievement and according to a survey of 18 history textbooks, only 10 percent were dedicated to women.

The museums and memorials in our Nation's Capital demonstrate what we value. We have museums dedicated to flight, postage stamps, law enforcement and many other important people and issues of interest, but not to women. This bill would provide women, comprising 53 percent of our population, a long overdue home on our National Mall to honor their many contributions that are the very fabric of our country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in filling this void and honoring our Nation's foremothers by becoming cosponsors of the National Women's History Museum Act of 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember the late Geraldine Ferraro. There will be services held for her tomorrow in New York, which many of us will be attending.

It was the night of July 19, 1984, in San Francisco that Geraldine Ferraro changed the game, changed the rules, and changed history when she accepted the Democratic Party's nomination as Vice President of the United States of America.

I was there on the floor that night as a young delegate, and when Geraldine Ferraro walked out on that stage it was electrifying and inspiring beyond words. What her nomination meant to me and to millions of women everywhere, what she accomplished in that moment and what she said that night was all so important that her words still ring in my ear as if it were yesterday.

She said, ``By choosing a woman to run for our Nation's second highest office, you send a powerful signal to all Americans. There are no doors we cannot unlock. We will place no limits on achievement. If we can do this, we can do anything.''

That moment served as a hammer blow to the glass ceiling and a clarion call for a greater gender equality in our country.

I remember reading Time Magazine, and Time Magazine heralded her selection as ``A Historic Choice.'' But even more than that, it was a life-changing event. It changed the course of women's lives for the better. I know beyond question that it changed mine.

Because even in that not too distant era, it had been all too commonplace for those in power to believe that: She simply cannot do that. She is a woman. It didn't matter if you had the talents, the education, the abilities and the drive to be the best one to get the job done if it was a job that many believed women simply could not do. That was the kind of thinking that was all too often applied to roles in politics, to career choices, and to sports. And Geraldine Ferraro changed all of that.

When she gained admission to Fordham Law School, an admissions officer said to her: You're taking a man's place, you know. You really should not go to law school.

Geraldine Ferraro knew a woman's place was in the House, the Senate, or any job she wanted to take. When she first ran for Congress in 1978, all the political experts said she could not win in her home district in Queens. She not only won; she went on to become a leader here in Congress, and she went on to become a friend, a mentor, and a role model.

That is one of the reasons that, to honor her, I have redoubled my efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment and to add to our Constitution the simple words: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States on or by any State on account of sex.'' Those words embody the principles that Geraldine Ferraro lived by and the equality of opportunity that she sought.

I saw her several weeks ago. She was full of energy and plans and had some constituent issues she wanted me to take care of. She never gave up. She never gave in.

Towards the end, Geraldine Ferraro fought her own battle against cancer with the same dignity, courage, tenacity, and grace that she brought to all of her fights, whether it was battling for equal rights or for human rights, for women and men alike.

It can truly be said of Geraldine Ferraro, this heroin and role model for the ages, what was once said of the great heroes of old. She was, as Tennyson wrote, ``One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.''

Geraldine Ferraro. We shall never forget her. And I remember one of her great sayings was, ``Every time a woman runs, women win.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 471, the DC voucher bill. I opposed the creation of the DC Voucher Program when it came before the House in the 108th Congress and I oppose today's bill that would extend this unsuccessful program. As a mother and a former educator, I understand the desire and the value of giving children the best educational opportunities. That is not what this bill would do.

This program has neither the same accountability standards for improving student academic achievement as public schools nor do students in the program have the same civil rights protections as students in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) evaluated the Washington, DC voucher program in both the Bush and Obama Administrations and issued reports indicating the program was ineffective and has not lived up to its promises. In its 2010 Final Report, the ED concluded that the use of a voucher had no statistically significant impact on overall student achievement in reading and math. There also is concern that students in the voucher program who have special needs, including those with learning disabilities and those in ESL courses, do not have access to programs or resources to address these needs.

Unlike our nation's public schools, the private schools in the DC voucher program are not accountable for the public dollars they receive. In 2007, GAO issued a report on the DC voucher program documenting concerns with the accountability of the program operator, questioning whether the operator has sufficient oversight to govern the use of federal funds. Furthermore, the GAO report found that this program does not proportionally reach the students it is meant to target, those from schools in need of improvement. It also raised concerns that many teachers in the voucher program do not have adequate educational attainment or certification to teach.

This bill extends and expands the only federally funded voucher program in the U.S. At a time when the utmost fiscal responsibility is needed, and especially when our public schools are facing giant cuts, we should not be wasting money on programs that do not work and fail our students. My colleagues who support this bill have neither paid for the $300 million cost nor have they kept to their own legislative rules by making the cost offset by cuts to other programs. This voucher program is clearly not the best use of federal taxpayer dollars and does not provide the youth of our nation's capital with the best learning opportunities.

I fully support measures that encourage our children and youth to rise to new heights. However, this legislation extends a program that does not do what the title suggests and usurps DC's prerogative of self-governance. Congress should be focusing on providing the best educational resources to youth from every part of our nation. I repeat, that is not what this bill would do. I oppose H.R. 471.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chair, for everyone that cares about the issues of poverty, housing, economic growth, and community life, the last couple of weeks have brought some troubling news. Wednesday came the news that purchases of new U.S. homes declined last month to the slowest pace on record, and new home prices dropped to the lowest level since December, 2003. And yet over the past 2 weeks, House Republicans have said with their votes again and again that their policy to help homeowners is to just give up; to throw in the towel and to say that there's just nothing that Congress can do or will do to address the problem to help struggling American families. They have already voted to terminate three Federal programs that help Americans who are struggling to stay in their homes. And now we are considering yet another one that has helped more than 32,000 New Yorkers stay in their homes--over 600,000 across our great country.

What bothers me is that they are leading the effort to eliminate these programs, voting against them, and yet they have no plans of their own to address the foreclosure crisis that is hurting neighborhoods and disrupting lives throughout their country, like the jobs bills they said they would have. We have yet to see them. The only initiative to help housing is to eliminate the programs that are already there.

The HAMP program has been successful in helping, as I said, over 600,000. And with over 30,000 mortgages modified each month nationally, HAMP is continuing to provide relief to struggling families across this country. My amendment will add findings to the bill with the number of trial and permanent modifications stated under the HAMP program. The findings will also state the number of seriously delinquent mortgages in the U.S. that may be eligible for HAMP modifications but won't be because the program is being terminated. I believe it is important for the public to understand State by State the number of mortgages--the number of families--who are still in their homes because of the HAMP program. Families are saving an average of over $500 per month on their mortgage payments. This amounts to nearly $5 billion in savings since the program started. These are real families and real savings. If our friends who have proposed to terminate this program want to talk about savings, they should think about the number of people in these States who have benefited from HAMP and are now saving money every single month. They should also think about the number of seriously delinquent mortgages out there that are on the verge of foreclosure. Currently, over 2 million families in our country are in this situation. Many of these could be eligible to participate in the HAMP program. But by terminating it now, our friends are saying that these families are on their own. The numbers speak for themselves, and I think it is important that we highlight how we have helped families across this country and how many more are not going to be helped or are not being helped by terminating and closing this program.

So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose the underlying bill, and I will place in the Record a statement of administration policy from the Executive Office of President Barack Obama in support of the HAMP program, urging a ``no'' vote on the efforts by the Republican majority.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 839--HAMP Termination Act

(Rep. McHenry, R-NC, and 8 cosponsor)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

839 which would eliminate the Department of the Treasury's

Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). This program

offers eligible homeowners an opportunity to lower their

mortgage payments, helping individuals avoid foreclosure and

leading to the protection of home values and the preservation

of homeownership. The Administration is committed to helping

struggling American homeowners stay in their homes, and has

taken many steps over the last two years to stabilize what

was a rapidly-declining housing market. As tens of thousands

of responsible American homeowners struggling with their

mortgages receive permanent assistance each month from HAMP,

the Administration believes that continuation of HAMP is

important to the Nation's sustained economic recovery.

If the President is presented with H.R. 839, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The number of over 2 million delinquent mortgages in the United States is the range of people that could be eligible, who could apply for the program, but not all of them would qualify. You have to reach certain standards to qualify to enter the program. So this is the range of the people who could be helped.

The difficulty with my Republican colleagues is that they have no alternative. They're abolishing a program without coming forward with any idea to help themselves. As Mark Zandi said in his recent report, housing remains fragile in America. And housing is roughly 25 percent of our economy. So to the extent that we can help people stay in their homes, thereby not only helping that family but helping their community and helping their country, helping to stabilize the housing prices around that house so it doesn't become delinquent and abandoned, pulling down the values in the communities, this is an important program. And it should be continued. It's no taxpayer dollars used. It's from the TARP program, funded by the banks. This is an effort to help the overall economy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to honor and recognize the heroes of the Battle of Crete and commend the PanCretan Association of America for preserving and promoting the history of Crete and its people.

During the Battle of Crete in May 1941, Allied forces and the people of Crete joined together to fight against an advancing Nazi army. Although unsuccessful in defeating the Nazi invaders, this coalition of forces inflicted enormous casualities to the airborne Nazi assault, resulting in more than 3,700 German troops killed and the destruction of multiple transport aircraft. In addition to these losses, the Allied forces were able to hold off the Nazi victory long enough to ensure that the German army would face a harsh and destructive winter as it proceeded to Russia.

This resolution observes the memory of the brave men and women who perished and honors the living that fought in the Battle of Crete.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation along with my colleagues Representatives Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, Jerrold Nadler, Ted Deutch, Luis Gutierrez, Maurice Hinchey, Allen West, Gary Ackerman, Elijah Cummings, Chris Van Hollen, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz that will finally grant holocaust rail victims justice in their lifetimes.

During World War II, more than 75,000 Jews and other ``undesirables'' were transported from France to Nazi death camps aboard trains operated by the Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais (``SNCF''). Among those transported to death camps on SNCF trains were American airmen shot down over France. SNCF operated the trains as a commercial venture and were paid per head, per kilometer to deliver thousands to their ultimate deaths.

In the 66 years since the end of World War II, SNCF has never made restitution or reparations to its victims, and recently went so far as to tell a member of the California Assembly that ``SNCF will never pay the survivors anything'' and that the company ``would rather not do business in California'' than pay reparations.

Hundreds of known survivors and family members of those who have perished live in the United States today--although the number of living survivors is rapidly growing smaller--and litigation seeking to hold SNCF accountable for its actions during World War II has been ongoing for over ten years. SNCF has unfortunately thus far succeeded in cloaking itself in the veil of foreign sovereign immunity and thus evaded jurisdiction in United States courts.

This legislation would simply preclude, in this one limited instance, the defense of foreign sovereign immunity from being raised. As the facts make clear, this is not the type of situation foreign sovereign immunity was intended to cover.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation that would finally hold SNCF accountable for its wartime actions and provide survivors with what is likely their last opportunity for justice in their lifetimes.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation urging Turkey to respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

In 1993 the European Union defined the membership criteria for accession to the European Union at the Copenhagen European Council, obligating candidate countries to have achieved certain levels of reform, including stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities. Turkey, which began accession negotiations with the EU on October 3, 2005, has failed to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate's international status as the spiritual home of the world's oldest and second largest Christian Church including more than 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. Moreover, the Government of Turkey has limited to Turkish nationals the candidates available to the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church for selection as the Ecumenical Patriarchate and reneged on its agreement to reopen the Theological School at Halki, thus impeding training for the Orthodox clergy in Turkey.

This resolution calls on Turkey to respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by granting it the right to train clergy of all nationalities, not just Turkish nationals, and respecting the human rights and property rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Additionally, the resolution encourages Turkey to continue the achievement of processes and programs to modernize and democratize its own society and prove that it is ready to meet the criteria set forth by the Copenhagen European Council prior to its accession into the EU.

Mr. Speaker, once again we are debating this issue. And once again I will vote in support of ending our involvement in Afghanistan.

Our ongoing commitment in Afghanistan has proved exceedingly difficult and costly--and at a time when we can ill-afford the $100 billion a year to sustain it. After years of war, the economic and military costs are straining our servicemembers, their families, and the country--they are simply too high.

President Obama increased our commitment there while also defining a goal of withdrawal. But our increased efforts have not yielded enough progress.

I have joined with my colleagues in sending a letter, led by Rep. Barbara Lee, to the President supporting his planned drawdown of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beginning no later than July of this year.

It is time to bring this war to a responsible end.

Our brave men and women in uniform have fought well and continue to deserve our full support and commitment to return them home safely to their families and loved ones. They have fought with honor, at great cost, in the face of great challenges. I am humbled by their sacrifice.

While I support the President and our military leadership, I believe we must send a message that the U.S. cannot sustain further commitments in Afghanistan.

I believe the resolution before us today sends that message, and that is why I support it.

Mr. Speaker, a study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies found that those who said they received most of their news from NPR were only about one-fourth as likely to hold a demonstrably false belief about important issues relating to the Iraq war as those who primarily consumed news from our colleagues' favorite news channel. A similar study conducted last year on mainly economic issues produced similar results. Those who primarily listened to NPR were considerably less likely to hold demonstrably false beliefs.

So now our colleagues across the aisle want to pull the plug on NPR, one of the most accurate sources of demonstrably true news and information. Our colleagues want to fire the messenger. This is not a move to create jobs or save money. This is a move to save face at the expense of truth. And I believe that such a move comes at a price that we simply cannot afford to pay.

This country needs NPR. Vote against the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a new version of the StartUp Visa Act, a bill that would encourage innovation and economic growth by permitting immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to temporary U.S. visas. The bill matches legislation introduced this week by Senators John Kerry, Richard Lugar, and Mark Udall in the Senate.

What do American household names such as Google, eBay and Proctor & Gamble have in common? They are all former start-ups founded by immigrants.

Our current visa laws have made it unnecessarily difficult for immigrants to launch new companies in the United States. I am reintroducing the StartUp Visa Act because the economic dynamism of foreign-born talent has always been a crucial factor in our country's growth, and we must take steps to enable it to continue. By allowing immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to American visas, we truly can drive American job creation and channel the power of innovation.

This legislation would be an expansion of the bill from last Congress, extending the pool of eligible immigrants to include holders of H-18 visas and entrepreneurs living outside the United States with a market presence in the country.

The entrepreneurial spirit is ingrained in our country's history and success. I believe that this legislation is a vital component of promoting our global competitiveness. We must ensure a strong foundation for foreign-born, highly-skilled talent to create American jobs and promote economic prosperity and this bill works toward that end.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk which is in order under the rule.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which will quantify the number of vacant homes across the country and add findings to the bill listing these numbers in every State so that it will be transparent exactly what the impact will be in not continuing this program that is needed.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of four programs that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to eliminate. All of these programs in one way or another help to stabilize neighborhoods and help to provide affordable housing to keep people in their homes.

Economists have testified before our committee and other committees that housing is as much as 25 percent of our economy, so it is critical that we do what we can to stabilize housing, not just for the benefit of the families benefiting from the housing, but also for their neighbors, for their localities, for their cities, for their States and for the overall economy.

Foreclosed properties lead to volatile housing prices, blight and the deterioration of communities. The mayor of New York cited at a recent meeting of the delegation how important the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has been to help New York recover from the housing crisis. He said that over 500 units were rehabbed and converted into affordable rental housing through the three rounds of funding that have come forward.

Now, some of my colleagues say this is not important or should not be a priority, but I can tell you it has been a lifesaving program, particularly to the families that are living there now and to their neighbors and to the housing prices and the neighbors where these housing units are located.

Funding has also been used to assist multifamily buildings in distress and has provided long-term affordability for renters. It also has provided jobs. The two main priorities of most communities across this country are housing and jobs, and this program helps provide both.

My amendment points out why the program is so desperately needed by listing, through findings, the number of vacant homes that could be eligible for funding by State. For example, in the home State of my good friend and colleague Mr. Miller, California, there are over 92,000 homes that have been vacant for 90 or more days. In my State of New York, there are over 16,000 homes that have been vacant for over 90 days.

The amendment clarifies that by terminating the program, vacant homes across the country cannot benefit from the Neighborhood Stabilization funds that could help acquire, demolish in some cases, rehab in some cases and redevelop in other cases.

We have all seen the pictures on television of bulldozers plowing vacant homes under because they are pulling down the prices and are a blight in neighborhoods. This is one program that I have received phone calls on, not just from the mayor in the city in which I serve, but in cities across this country, where they have expressed the importance of the program in helping them to stabilize and to recover from this financial crisis caused primarily from the subprime mortgages.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program accomplishes the dual goals of incentivizing homeownership while also improving the housing stock in neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. Vacant, foreclosed properties have a very negative effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and on the property values of homes in those neighborhoods.

I believe this is an important amendment to highlight the potential housing stock in this country that Neighborhood Stabilization funds could be used to help, to rehab, to redevelop, to resell, to preserve neighborhood property values in communities across our great country; so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The problem is the other side of the aisle wants to abolish four programs that help people stay in their homes, helps affordable housing. They have no idea or no program to be helpful. They say it will be taxpayers' money. But if they supported the Democratic plan, it would have come out of an assessment on the banks.

I understand the chairman will be introducing a bill, and I would like to cosponsor that.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 861--NSP Termination Act

(Rep. Miller, R-CA, and 4 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

861, which would eliminate the Department of Housing and

Urban Development's Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)

and rescind $1 billion of funding from the program's current

efforts. This program allows States and select local

governments to stabilize neighborhoods by redeveloping

foreclosed and abandoned properties, leading to increased

property values and lowered risk of foreclosure from

remaining residents. The Administration is committed to

helping struggling American homeowners stay in their homes,

and has taken many steps over the last two years to stabilize

what was a rapidly-declining housing market. With many

communities still struggling with the impact of the severe

decline in the housing market, the Administration believes

that continued funding of the NSP grants is important to the

Nation's sustained economic recovery.

If the President is presented with H.R. 861, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a new version of the StartUp Visa Act, a bill that would encourage innovation and economic growth by permitting immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to temporary U.S. visas. The bill matches legislation introduced this week by Senators John Kerry, Richard Lugar, and Mark Udall in the Senate.

What do American household names such as Google, eBay and Proctor & Gamble have in common? They are all former start-ups founded by immigrants.

Our current visa laws have made it unnecessarily difficult for immigrants to launch new companies in the United States. I am reintroducing the StartUp Visa Act because the economic dynamism of foreign-born talent has always been a crucial factor in our country's growth, and we must take steps to enable it to continue. By allowing immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to American visas, we truly can drive American job creation and channel the power of innovation.

This legislation would be an expansion of the bill from last Congress, extending the pool of eligible immigrants to include holders of H-1B visas and entrepreneurs living outside the United States with a market presence in the country.

The entrepreneurial spirit is ingrained in our country's history and success. I believe that this legislation is a vital component of promoting our global competitiveness. We must ensure a strong foundation for foreign-born, highly-skilled talent to create American jobs and promote economic prosperity and this bill works toward that end.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 836. This is one of four anti- foreclosure programs that the majority is voting to terminate. This particular program they want to terminate today is designed to assist homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income or are at risk of foreclosure due to loss of a job, involuntary unemployment, underemployment, or a medical condition.

This is a group that needs our help. There are 1.2 million households with a mortgage where a head of household or spouse is unemployed. And in my home State of New York, where Mr. Grimm--I wish I had the opportunity to ask him, was he aware that 142,000 households in our home State have a mortgage with a person who is the head of the household or spouse is unemployed. And this program potentially could have helped those people.

The majority leader who spoke earlier, in his home State, the great State of Virginia, there are over 59,000 households that have a mortgage in which someone in the family is underemployed or unemployed. And in the great State of Texas, the largest number of households with a mortgage and a spouse or head of household who is unemployed, there are over 172,000 families in this terrible situation.

Families across the country would benefit from the program. But instead, they are cutting it. The program fulfills an important gap because it addresses a temporary loss of income and helps homeowners when they are most vulnerable. It has been successful in Pennsylvania, which has its own State-run program. Over 45,000 homeowners have been assisted, with an average loan of $11,000; and 85 percent of these recipients have been able to stay in their homes as a result. If we continued this program, we would be able to help families across the country.

So I oppose terminating the program, and I oppose tossing hardworking Americans out in the street. I oppose this mean-spirited effort to terminate help for unemployed Americans.

Now, to put this in perspective, this program is one of four that the majority is putting forward to terminate programs that would help people stay in their homes. Yesterday, they terminated the FHA Refinance Program. Next week they're going to attempt to terminate HAMP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Yet economist after economist tell us that in order to strengthen our economy we have to stabilize the housing market.

So these cuts are wrong. They are wrong in the first place, and they are certainly wrong at this time when we are working to dig our way out of this hole and to get people back to work.

This program, like the others, is narrowly tailored to help a specific class of homeowners because of this economy and because of the high level of unemployment. During the financial crisis, we lost 7 million jobs in this country. We are slowly gaining jobs again, but we are not even at the point where we are keeping place with the workforce.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.