Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009, and I would like to thank our chairman, Chairman Frank, for his hard work and his leadership on drafting this most important piece of legislation.

As a Congress, we have experienced numerous disappointments with the TARP program's implementation, most notably the Treasury's refusal to use TARP funds for loan modifications and homeowner relief. The need to address the foreclosure crisis head on is why I lend my support to H.R. 384 and its requirements for foreclosure mitigation.

When we passed the first TARP bill last year, we intended for the Treasury to use its unprecedented authority to remove toxic assets and nonperforming loans from the marketplace, modify mortgages, and increase the availability of credit. To date, no TARP funds have been used or directed to systematic loan modification or increased lending.

Foreclosures are affecting homeowners, renters, and communities. Homelessness levels are rising as a result of renters who have dutifully paid rent on time being evicted from their homes because the owner is in foreclosure. Stopping foreclosures is key to reducing homelessness, helping the economy to recover, and rebuilding communities.

H.R. 384 has the components homeowners, mortgage servicers, and lenders need to effectively confront the foreclosure crisis. The bill provides from $40 to $100 billion for funding foreclosure mitigation. We may need a larger funding level for foreclosure mitigation, perhaps up to $70 billion; however, I appreciate the chairman's efforts to direct resources to this crisis.

The bill also provides several alternatives for foreclosure mitigation, such as a systematic mortgage modification program, whole loan purchasing, buy-down of second mortgages, reduction of costs in the Hope for Homeowners Program, and incentives and assistance to servicers to modify loans.

But most importantly, in the manager's amendment, the bill will now require implementation of the systematic foreclosure prevention and mortgage modification program that I've been calling for since last year. On the first day of the 111th Congress, I introduced H.R. 37, the Systematic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act of 2009, to give the power of law to the successful systematic mortgage modification program developed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and currently in use at the IndyMac Federal Bank, where it has resulted in over 5,000 IndyMac borrowers avoiding foreclosures. I applaud Chairman Frank for including this legislation in H.R. 384.

The housing crisis must be corrected through our efforts with TARP. I believe that H.R. 384 will finally put us on track to addressing the foreclosure crisis. I support H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

First I would like to thank Chairman Frank for the extraordinary work he has put into making sure we address this financial crisis, and do it in a way that will certainly protect our homeowners who are at risk.

There are a number of Members who have been worried about whether or not this bill is going to protect our citizens on Main Street, as they refer to it. I worked with Chairman Frank and others on the modifying of loans portions of this bill. We have three ways by which these loans can be modified. People forget that when we buy up this toxic paper, when we buy up these nonperforming loans, we are in charge. Not only can we write down the principal, we can write down the interest. We can do the kind of loan modification that we have been urging the Hope Now Alliance to get done.

In addition to that, we are coordinating the work of all of the agencies that own paper, whether it is the FDIC or either of the GSEs, Fannie or Freddie. Remember, we own them now. We will be able to coordinate and set some standards and be able to do again the kind of loan modification that takes into consideration whatever the circumstances are of the particular homeowner. And in some cases, we will provide a loan guarantee. When we go in and ask some of the institutions to do loan modifications on entire packages, those that fall out and they cannot do the loan modifications on that work very well, we will provide the loan guarantees for them to do so.

So for anybody who says there is nothing in this for homeowners, they are incorrect. Read the bill. The facts are there. This is the strongest part of this legislation, protecting homeowners and doing the kind of loan modifications that will keep people in their homes who have these adjustable rate mortgages even before they reset.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7221, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. This is a major piece of legislation that has taken an enormous amount of work to bring to this point. I believe that, if enacted, this bill would substantially improve HUD's McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs, by far the largest component of the Federal response to homelessness, with an annual appropriation in the last fiscal year of $1.586 billion.

Before getting to the substance of the bill, first I'd like to acknowledge the work of Senators Reed and Allard, who both worked diligently for many years on S. 1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. Senator Reed and his staff, in particular, devoted enormous amounts of time to this issue. Due to scheduling factors beyond their control, the Senate was not able to send the bill over to us, but H.R. 7221 certainly reflects all of their work, including the personal commitment of time by the Senators to come over to this side to testify before my Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee last October.

I would also like to remember my late colleague, Representative Julia Carson, who introduced H.R. 840, the original HEARTH Act, and worked tirelessly on the bill until her untimely passing. I believe that she would be proud of the work we have undertaken to bring her bill to this consensus outcome. I am so pleased that her grandson, Representative Andre Carson, is an original cosponsor of H.R. 7221.

I would also like to thank Representative Gwen Moore, who stepped into Representative Carson's shoes and spearheaded the further movement of this bill. I appreciate Representative Moore's commitment, because addressing homelessness--starting with reauthorizing the HUD's McKinney-Vento programs for the first time in 14 years--was a top priority for my subcommittee. This bill is informed by 2 days of subcommittee hearings in the fall, at which 26 witnesses testified on the HEARTH Act.

Finally, I would like to thank Representative Geoff Davis and Representative Judy Biggert for their tireless and passionate advocacy on behalf of homeless children and their families. Representative Davis is the lead Republican cosponsor of H.R. 840, the version of HEARTH that we marked up in the Financial Services Committee on July 31. Representative Biggert, formerly the ranking member of my subcommittee, is one of Congress's leading advocates for vulnerable families and their children. I am proud to say that both of them, as well as Ranking Member Capito, are also original cosponsors of H.R. 7221.

This is because we, as well as Chairman Frank, remained committed to continuing our dialogue on the heart-wrenching issue of who qualifies as ``homeless'' under the HUD McKinney-Vento programs, even after a challenging markup. Thanks to this shared commitment to improving HUD's homeless programs, despite strong disagreement among well-intentioned outside stakeholders, we were able to negotiate a compromise that allows us to move forward.

To be clear, the conversation around the definition is not over. Indeed, the leadership of the Financial Services and Education and Labor Committees, as well as Representatives Biggert and Davis, just sent a letter to the GAO to obtain the best information available so that we can continue the discussion productively. I look forward to working with them to ensure that our Nation's most vulnerable families and children obtain the housing and social services they need.

Notably, while we were considering H.R. 840, they released important new data on homelessness. First, the number of chronically homeless people living in the Nation's streets and shelters has dropped by about 30 percent in the last 2 years. This impressive reduction of people stuck in the homeless system for literally years at a time is largely the result of targeting a portion of HUD McKinney-Vento resources over the last decade to an effective intervention--permanent supportive housing. Therefore, in reauthorizing these programs, we wanted to make sure not to lose this focus in HUD's homeless programs.

Unfortunately, HUD also reported a more discouraging statistic--that fully 1.6 million people experienced homelessness over the course of the year studied.

Thank you very much.

Too many of these are families with children. Over time, we have learned that the best way to stop family homelessness is to prevent families from having to enter the homeless system at all, and to move those who do enter it back into permanent housing as quickly as possible. In reauthorization, then, we also wanted to increase resources available to homeless and at-risk families.

H.R. 7221 strikes the right balance between these two goals. In terms of permanent supportive housing, the bill ensures a continued commitment to this intervention, both by setting a floor on the annual investment HUD must make to new permanent supportive housing, and equally importantly, places the renewal funding of rental assistance and operating subsidies to existing permanent supportive housing on firm footing.

With respect to homeless families and children, the bill, first, revolutionizes the approach of HUD's formula ESG grant. Today, this program receives only 10 percent of the annual appropriation, and a mere third of that, about 3 percent of the total appropriation, can be spent on homeless prevention. The ``Emergency Solutions Program'' created by this bill emphasizes the solution we know works, namely, homelessness prevention. Therefore, a minimum of half of the now 20 percent of the annual appropriation dedicated to the new ESG program must be spent on homelessness prevention; that is, on households that don't fall into the HUD definition of homelessness.

Second, H.R. 7221 expands the definition of homelessness to include doubled-up and other poorly housed families who face the loss of their current housing within the next 2 weeks, as well as clarifying that anyone fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence or another dangerous condition is to be considered homeless.

Finally, as a result of our discussions after markup, we have also included doubled-up and otherwise poorly housed families who have not lived independently for a period of time, and have undergone a series of moves that harm children, and face significant obstacles--such as disabilities or multiple barriers to employment--to obtaining stable, independent permanent housing.

Third, the newly created flexibility to use up to 10 percent of their funding to serve families

with children and unaccompanied youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes but not under the HUD definition, acknowledges the incredibly vulnerable status of these families--and our duty to prevent them from a cycle of falling from their current doubled-up or other poorly housed situations into the shelters or onto the streets, or continuing on a merry-go-round of doubled up housing situations that wreak havoc on their children.

This brings between 20 and 30 percent of the annual appropriation, and perhaps more, that will be available to homeless housing and services providers who want to serve families with children who are doubled up or otherwise don't meet the HUD definition of homelessness. Rural areas receive even more flexibility to serve households who don't fall under the expanded HUD definition of homelessness to rural communities, responding to what we heard at the hearings--that homelessness doesn't look the same in rural areas as in big cities. In sum, we have truly maximized the resources available to homeless children and families. And, let's be clear, it's a lot of new resources--a multiple of 10 or more times the 3 percent available under current law.

I would conclude simply by noting that the improvements I just described are coupled with a significant consolidation and streamlining of HUD's administration of the McKinney-Vento programs. In sum, this bill is a major step forward in Federal homeless policy and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Absolutely. The committee recognizes that the expansion of the definition of homelessness to include these children and families was carried out with the intention of addressing the unique experiences of children and youth who are homeless.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Yes. Federal programs must work together to meet the needs of families and unaccompanied youth, and that collaboration should include information needed for eligibility decisions.

Yes. We know that there are many obstacles that keep these youth from obtaining stable housing, including barriers to employment and their unaccompanied status, and we expect HUD to take the issues you raised into consideration.

First, I would like to thank Barney Frank for his extraordinary work, accepting the impossible task of making sense of the economic crisis we are facing.

Madam Speaker, $700 billion is a lot of money. Bailout for Wall Street? I don't think so. I could care less about Wall Street and the high-priced schemers and their tricky products: hedge funds, short selling, and insider trading. I care about Main Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive.

I am voting ``yes'' on this bill because this $700 billion will purchase the nonperforming loans, the bad debt, and the toxic paper which, if left to the market, could cause the greatest financial crisis our country has ever seen. These nonperforming loans represent people, real Americans in trouble. Yes, some got in over their heads. They contracted for mortgages they could not afford. But many Americans are the victims of predatory lending, suckered into adjustable rate mortgages that lured them with a low interest rate, no down payment, or no documentation loans that adjusted or reset within 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years. Homeowners were not always told the truth. Upon reset, homeowners were then faced with mortgages that doubled, tripled, or quadrupled with the new interest rates and the margins that were added to the existing interest rates.

There's enough blame to go around. Greed, a regulatory system that turned a blind eye to these exotic schemes and products, brokers and banks who peddled these products, and investment banks who invested in these products all share some of the blame. We must correct the problems caused by these loans. We must modify these loans and stop the foreclosures and help American families keep their homes. We must reform our Federal regulatory agencies and never allow this subprime exploitation to occur again.

Today we have financial institutions that will fail if we do not act. Credit will dry up for home mortgages, auto purchases, student loans, and small businesses. More jobs will be lost and the economy will crash.

I would have preferred to have a strong bankruptcy provision in this bill, giving Americans a real option to work themselves out of debt. I would have also liked to have seen a provision

providing a substantial fee to Wall Street firms that participate in this program. But, unfortunately, there was not the support or political will to get these things done.

I have worked on this bill to strengthen the ability for the servicers who collect those mortgage payments and fees to modify these loans. I have worked to assist small regional and minority banks. I have included language to open up the ability for women and minorities to participate in asset management and all the other business opportunities, including opportunities for the newspapers, ad agencies, consulting firms, real estate professionals, legal services, financial managers, and information systems consulting services that will be created as we use these funds to clean up this mess.

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased that the bill creates a Financial Stability Oversight Board to oversee the work that is to be done in this Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

Finally, I cannot take the chance that people who have worked all of their lives to save for their retirement will lose their pension funds and 401(k) savings nor can I take the chance that the stock market will be weakened and Americans will lose their investments. There will be many who will say ``I don't believe the average person will be hurt if we do not act.'' I refuse to take that chance. Today we do what we truly believe must be done. But believe me, we must and we will tighten the screws on Wall Street. This bill will support the idea that we must get rid of these outrageous compensation packages for CEOs and executives. We must prosecute those who violate the law and ignore their responsibilities.

Today I vote ``yes,'' but there is much more to be done. We must never again allow the risk to our economy that's been created by greed to ever occur again.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Jay Inslee, for his work on opposing the FCC's media ownership rules and for arranging time to bring this issue to the House floor this evening.

I was proud to cosponsor his resolution, H.J. Res. 79, a resolution to disapprove of the Federal Communications Commission's media ownership rules.

The FCC has neglected to deal with the crisis in minority ownership. Only 44 of the more than 1,200 TV stations are owned by people of color. The situation is particularly dire for the African American community. The number of African American owners has dropped 60 percent from 2006 to 2007. There are only eight TV stations in this country owned by African Americans.

Unfortunately, the FCC's vote last December to lift the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rules would take direct aim at minority broadcast owners. According to the FCC, the new rule allows a newspaper to buy a television station in our Nation's largest markets if the outlet is ranked outside the top four.

There are at least two problems with the rule: One, it is not what it appears to be. The new rule contains loopholes that will allow for greater consolidation in potentially every market in this country. Second, nearly half of all minority-owned stations operate in the top 20 markets and all are ranked outside the top four. This would make them a target for acquisition and make it harder for people of color to purchase stations in larger markets. This is unacceptable.

The FCC seems not to care about the state of minority ownership. In fact, the FCC has no idea how many stations are actually owned by people of color because the Commission has failed to keep track of their own data. The only reason I'm able to cite statistics on minority ownership is due to the diligent work of a nonprofit group to conduct an accurate census and do the work the FCC should have conducted itself.

Last year, the FCC conducted several ownership studies prior to its December vote but failed to count 69 percent of minority-owned TV stations and 75 percent of female-owned stations. The failure of the FCC to properly address the crisis in minority ownership is stunning, since the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004 chastised the FCC for its failure to address the issue of minority ownership the last time it attempted to allow for further media consolidation.

The lack of minority ownership and minority representation has real consequences for our society. It is no wonder many feel the media continues to marginalize people of color, causing our communities great harm.

There has been too much incompetency from independent regulatory agencies during the 8 years of the Bush administration. This lack of accountability has to stop, and I'm so proud of the millions of Americans who have spoken out through the years and have said ``no'' to media consolidation. This is especially true in the 35th Congressional District, where my constituents have fought so hard to block the deal between KTLA and the Los Angeles Times newspaper. On behalf of my constituents, I filed a brief in the continuing litigation to oppose the merger of these two giants that would have the effect of silencing the voices of many of my constituents.

It is going to be because of the many individual voices for free speech and diversity that we are going to continue to hold the FCC accountable for serving the public interest needs of the American people.

I promise I will continue to fight on and to fight for a media system that strengthens our democracy instead of weakening it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to note in the Record that I mistakenly voted ``aye'' on Roll Call 632, that was H.R. 2368, the Consolidated Security Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009. I mistakenly voted ``aye'' on H.R. 2368. I did not realize the Defense appropriation and funding for the war in Iraq was included in the continuing appropriation. Had I known, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker and Members, I would like first to thank Congresswoman Laura Richardson for allotting me time to speak on this bill that I have coauthored with Congresswoman Jane Harman. I thank her for her interest.

I had an opportunity to talk with Congresswoman Laura Richardson on our way to the floor, where she told me about similar problems that she has encountered in the Long Beach area dealing with the Long Beach Airport. So I know of her concern, and I thank her for the interest that she is showing in this bill.

Of course I rise in strong support of S. 996, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1708, a bill, again, that was introduced by Congresswoman Jane Harman and myself. This bill permits funding for noise mitigation in local schools in the cities of Inglewood and Lennox.

The city of Inglewood is located in my district. Mr. Speaker and Members, this is a proud little city of 17,750 students. We have 13 elementary schools, six secondary schools, one preschool, and one community adult school in the Inglewood Unified School District. These schools are very, very important to this community.

In 2005, the City of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit with the Inglewood and Lennox School Districts. Under the settlement, the Los Angeles World Airports, known as LAWA, agreed to provide the two cities funding for noise mitigation in local schools; however, Federal Aviation Administration rules have prevented the funds from being paid. S. 996 will allow the 2005 agreement to go forward.

Specifically, S. 996 allows Los Angeles World Airports to use airport passenger facility fees for noise mitigation projects at Lennox and Inglewood schools. The bill permits funding of $111 million for the Lennox District and $118.5 million for the Inglewood School District over 10 years.

As you know, Los Angeles International Airport is in my district. And I represent not only Inglewood, but several other communities in this district and this very important economic engine, the Los Angeles International Airport. And there are many issues that we are confronted with.

I belong to a strong coalition in the district working to make sure that we, of course, maintain and support this economic engine, but at the same time, make sure that we attend to the needs of the people and deal with the noise and disruption that is caused by the Los Angeles International Airport.

It is sometimes a challenge, and we cannot always take the side of our international airport. We have to be concerned about the quality of life for all of the people in that area, and particularly our school children. Airplanes arriving at and departing from Los Angeles International Airport cause excessive noise in my district. Deafening noise and rattling windows frequently interfere with the education of school children. Noise causes disruptions in lessons, making it very difficult for students to learn and diminishing the opportunity to study in a stable and calm environment. Noise mitigation funding is essential to allow the school districts to construct permanent sound- proof facilities and help soundproof existing schools.

This bill was drafted with the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration and has the support of the Inglewood and Lennox School Districts, the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), and the mayor of the City of Los Angeles.

Again, I would like to thank Congresswoman Harman for initiating this much-needed solution to the problems of noise and disruption that interferes with our children's ability to learn in a noise-free school environment.

I would first like to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, for the time. And I thank him for making sure that this bill come to the floor tonight.

I rise in strong support of my bill, H.R. 6503, the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization Act. The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program is a Department of Justice program that helps local communities and law enforcement officials quickly identify persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander or who are missing and reunite them with their families.

Since its inception more than 10 years ago, this program has funded a national registry of more than 172,000 individuals at risk of wandering and has reunited over 12,000 wanderers with their families.

It is a highly successful program whereby 88 percent of registrants who wander are found within the first 4 hours of being reported missing. A total of 1,288 wandering incidents were reported to the program in 2007. The program has a 98 percent success rate in recovering enrollees who are reported missing.

There also are technology-based options to address wandering that should be considered for funding under the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program. For example, personalized wristbands that emit a tracking signal can be used to locate wanderers. These wristbands, when combined with specially trained search and rescue teams, can reduce search times from hours and days to minutes.

Congress originally authorized $900,000 in appropriations for the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program for 3 years, that is 1996 through 1998, but never reauthorized or updated the program. Since then, the program has continued to receive funding on a year-to-year basis, but funding has remained virtually flat since its inception.

H.R. 6503 reauthorizes updates and expands the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program. The program authorizes up to $5 million per year in appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2015, a modest increase over the current appropriation of $1 million in fiscal year 2008.

The bill expands the program so as to allow the Department of Justice to award multiple competitive grants to nonprofit organizations. Preference would be given to national nonprofit organizations that have a direct link to patients and families of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

Finally, the bill specifies that the program will be operated under the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. Currently, the program is operated under the Office of Juvenile Justice, which is obviously not the most appropriate agency for a program serving the elderly.

H.R. 6503 has 25 bipartisan cosponsors, including the cochairs of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, Congressmen Edward Markey and Christopher Smith. The bill is also supported by the Alzheimer's Foundation of America and Project Lifesaver.

Furthermore, on May 14, a diverse group of over 85 national State and local organizations sent a letter to the members of the House Judiciary Committee supporting this approach to the reauthorization of the Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program.

The Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program is a critical resource for first responders. It saves law enforcement officials valuable time, allowing them to focus on other national and local security concerns. It is critical that we reauthorize and expand this small but effective program.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6503. And with that, I thank all of those who have worked to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Congresswoman Watson for taking time out this evening to honor and recognize Tina Allen. Tina Allen was a friend. As a matter of fact, she was a friend to so many of us women in the greater Los Angeles area. We held her in such high esteem. She was such a talented artist who is famous for the many works that were just identified by Congresswoman Watson. I have one of her sculptures in my home. And as I took another look at it, this weekend thinking about Tina, it's hard for me to reconcile that she has passed.

She was a very vibrant woman who was just full of life. She was so involved in the community. And she had been commissioned to do a bust of a community activist in my district, Ms. Lillian Mobley. And we were so looking forward to that. And so I joined with Congresswoman Watson and others in basically saying farewell to Tina and extending my sympathy to her children and to her family. She was a great artist who will be missed by us all.

I yield back and thank you for yielding time to me, Congresswoman Watson.

I'd first like to thank my colleagues, Yvette Clark, Donna Edwards and Kendrick Meek, for taking the time to go to Haiti to be able to document and identify devastation that has taken place, and to bring that information back to the House of Representatives, to the Congress of the United States of America, so that all of us public policymakers can understand in the most profound way what is needed, what has taken place there, and what we can do to be of immediate assistance.

I would also like to take a moment to say to FEMA and to the elected officials in the gulf coast, who too, have been involved in dealing with the ravages of the recent hurricanes and storms, that we appreciate that you have demonstrated that you have learned so much from Katrina, and that you have done a great job in giving assistance to the victims of the recent storms in the gulf coast. I say that with all sincerity, because it is important for us to know and understand that magnificent work was done in giving assistance to the victims of the gulf coast. And I've watched very carefully what has been taking place in not only Galveston and in parts of Texas, but also as far as in Bay City of Mississippi.

So our hearts are with the people who have been the victims of the storms in that area, and we're very proud, and I'm very proud and pleased that the United States of America is able to do what it does and have learned so much from Katrina and are able to be of assistance in the way that they have been.

And having said that, we're generous people. We're people who not only have learned to deal with devastation in our own country, but we are a people who are forever ready to give a helping hand in other parts of the world. And certainly, what we have demonstrated in recent weeks right here in our own hemisphere in the Western Hemisphere for one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere is to be commended. But we've got to do more.

As I understand it, and having listened to my colleagues and having followed as closely as I possibly can, what has been taking place, we have spent about $20 million just from USAID alone. And then to listen to the stories about the armed services and the help that they're giving and the work that they're doing, I'm proud of my country. I'm proud of the assistance and the hand that we're extending to Haiti as we wrestle with the work that we must do in our own country and in the Gulf Coast.

Having said that, I have spent much of my time in the Congress of the United States paying attention to Haiti. I paid attention to Haiti because I know the history of Haiti, and I understand what the people of Haiti have been through historically. I have spent a lot of time in Haiti. I was there for the bicentennial and I flew up to Gonaives, where I watched a people who have been through so much celebrate its history and its independence, and I know the price that has been paid for that independence.

I also know that this is a people who have had to survive the dictatorships of Papa Doc and Baby Doc, and I know that this is a people who have seen a democratically elected president removed, and I know the history of our own country as we have restored the leadership to Haiti in recent history. And I also know the history of a coup d'etat, and a history of a people who have wrestled and fought and tried very hard to stabilize their country, despite all of the political unrest.

But, you know, we're at a time when it doesn't matter what position you took, whether some people thought that the democratically elected government of President Aristide should have remained or not. It's not about partisan politics at this time. This is about the people of Haiti.

It is not about even remembering what happened under Papa Doc and Baby Doc and La Tortue, none of that. This is about a people who have suffered far too much. My heart just goes out to the people of Haiti, people who work very hard, who get up every day and just scuffle and work hard to survive, a people who are not very literate. Only 53 percent of the people in this country can read or write. But they work hard. And whenever they are confronted with one more disaster, with one more disruption, and you think they possibly just cannot make it, they just keep going and they keep going.

Over the past month Haiti has been devastated by four deadly storms in rapid succession, Tropical Storm Fay, Hurricane Gustav, Tropical Storm Hanna and Hurricane Ike. And over 15,000 houses have been damaged or destroyed. And as of a week ago, they already documented that over 154 people had been killed. And today, I hear my colleague say that number may be up to about 600. And as the flood waters begin to recede, additional bodies continue to be found and buried. And tragically, the real death toll just may never be known.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, up to 800,000 people in Haiti are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. As of September 6, more than 100,000 people had taken refuge in temporary shelters, and this was before the onslaught of Hurricane Ike. Many roads and bridges were damaged or destroyed, and crops have been lost. There is now a desperate need for food and water and health services.

And I'm so sorry to hear about what has happened to the rice fields. Haiti, at one time, grew rice for its people. They exported rice that was grown in Haiti. They lost that over the years for a lot of reasons. Some of it was political. But to know that they had gotten back on the road to raising and growing rice again was extremely important. And to have these pictures that were shown to us today where now all of that has been destroyed is just almost too much to take, too much to endure.

I immediately asked my colleagues to join with me in requesting at least $300 million in appropriations for disaster assistance for Haiti following these devastating hurricanes. I did not know what the assessment would be, and we still don't know how much will be needed. But I knew immediately that it was going to be massive and that we needed to move very quickly, and that we need to appropriate substantial sums for Haiti.

And we will probably have an assessment in the very near future, but we need to get started right away to not only support Haiti through USAID, as is being done, but we have to add to it. You heard about the devastation. You heard about the destruction. I am just hopeful and prayerful that Haiti can survive as an island nation. The destruction is mammoth. And I believe that everything that we do and everything that we can think of doing must be done.

I know that the people of Haiti will get up every day, people who are sleeping on those rooftops, and they will fight to survive, they will fight to stay alive, and they believe, no matter what happens between the United States and Haiti, that we're their friends and that we will do whatever we can do to be of assistance to them.

So I would just, again, thank my colleagues for taking time to go there and to do this documentation and this eyewitness of what has taken place.

I would like to thank our ambassador there. Sanderson is a wonderful representative who has worked very hard. I would like to thank President Preval because he has been handed a task just as President of putting that nation back together and to stabilizing that government and to reorganizing and building that infrastructure. It's an awesome task even without experiencing these hurricanes.

So my prayers and my heart go out to President Preval and the government, and I would hope that we move very quickly to appropriate additional dollars.

And I will yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this legislation. Simply put, this package is urgently needed to help our nation address the current foreclosure crisis and its impacts on the world financial markets.

I will limit my remarks to two parts of the current package that I was most active on: modernization of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and $4 billion in CDBG funding for states and localities to purchase, rehabilitate, and resell or rent out abandoned and foreclosed homes.

The modernization of the FHA has long been a priority of mine because in recent years FHA had become obsolete in many parts of the country, due to its low loan limits ($362,790), outdated rules, and slow bureaucracy. I saw too many low-income homebuyers in California with little choice but to turn to the subprime mortgage market for assistance.

This Congress, I introduced H.R. 1852, ``the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007'' to give FHA the tools and resources to allow it to assist more low-income homebuyers. H.R. 1852 passed the House on September 18, 2007 on a bipartisan vote of 348-72, and again on May 8th of this year as part of H.R. 3221, the first go-round on this housing rescue package.

Including FHA modernization in the amendment before the House today is essential because FHA is the only national agency with the capacity and expertise to assist the nation's homeowners on a large scale.

Another part of the package that deserves support is funding for states, counties, and cities to stabilize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. According to Realty Trac, banks repossessed over 71,000 properties in June, an astounding 171 percent more than one year ago. This means that 770,000 properties nationwide are now in ``real estate owned'' or REO status, an increase of 330,000 since the end of 2007.

These abandoned and foreclosed properties drag down the value of homes still occupied by working families, and contribute to a cascade effect whereby plummeting home prices erode the tax base that state and local governments have to work with, while straining their police, fire, code enforcement, and other resources.

States and most local governments must balance their budgets each year, and as a result, at least 20 states have already made budget cuts due largely to revenue losses resulting from the subprime crisis. Even so, many hard-pressed states and cities are dedicating their own limited resources to purchasing foreclosed properties to stabilize neighborhoods.

But they are overwhelmed by the scale of the problem. For this reason, the National Governors Association, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and nearly every other local government trade association support Federal neighborhood stabilization assistance.

This is why I introduced H.R. 5818, ``the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008,'' which passed the House on May 8th of this year. Although the amendment before us provides less funding than H.R. 5818--$4 billion as compared to $15 billion and distributes funds differently, I believe that the Senate's language, which we are considering today, is basically a sound approach. With time being of the essence, finalizing this bill is more important than playing more ping-pong with the Senate.

I am compelled to respond to criticisms raised by the Administration about the CDBG funding in H.R. 3221: (1) that it is a bailout for lenders and investors, and (2) that it incentivizes foreclosures over loan workouts for distressed borrowers. This is simply not so.

First, the many local officials and community-based nonprofits my Subcommittee has heard from are in no mood to give sweetheart deals to the financial institutions who own these properties--many of whom they are actually suing over their subprime and predatory lending practices during the boom years.

Second, the facts of the current housing market just don't bear out the Administration's claims. Lenders spend $50,000 to $60,000 up front in a foreclosure, or on average, 25 percent or more of the value of the loan. It is unlikely that a lender would refuse to work out a loan with a borrower--thereby saving a substantial amount in foreclosure related costs--and instead rush to foreclosure on the chance that a community- based buyer might be willing to purchase the property at 30 to 50 cents on the dollar, which is what foreclosed properties are going for upon resale these days.

In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Speaker Pelosi for ensuring that 15 percent of housing counseling funds authorized by H.R. 3221 are directed to organizations--like the National Urban League--that target counseling services to low-income and minority homeowners and neighborhoods.

African-American and minority neighborhoods were disproportionately targeted for subprime loans. It is only appropriate that some of portion of the housing counseling funds are targeted to these communities, lest minority communities and homeowners once again fall through the cracks.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 1361.

I truly thank the gentleman from Florida for the time.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the rule for H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. This bill authorizes $48 billion over the next 5 years for the prevention and treatment of HIV/ AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Madam Speaker and Members, on June 27 stars of the screen, stage, and studio paid tribute to former South African leader Nelson Mandela.

Hollywood star Will Smith hosted a birthday celebration concert honoring Mr. Mandela who turned 90, along with nearly 50,000 cheering fans, in London's Hyde Park.

The event was organized to support Mandela's HIV/AIDS charity 46664, named for the number assigned him as a onetime political prisoner, and comes 20 years after another London concert on his behalf while he was still behind bars for his stand against apartheid.

``Twenty years ago, London hosted a historic concert which called for our freedom,'' a frail-looking Mr. Mandela told a waving crowd. ``Your voices carried across the water and inspired us in our prison cells far away,'' he said. ``As we celebrate, let us remind ourselves that our work is far from complete. Where there is poverty and sickness, especially including AIDS, where human beings are being oppressed, there is more work to be done.''

Indeed there is more work to be done. I was in South Africa a short while ago, and everywhere I went in South Africa, people told me about the terrible problems they have trying to fill professional positions. The shortage of educated professionals is a result of the fact that so many South African professionals have died of AIDS or are too sick to work.

The involvement of doctors, nurses, teachers and other professionals is critical to stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS. That is why I'm pleased that this bill includes provisions to strengthen the health care infrastructure.

This bill will strengthen the health care infrastructure in countries like South Africa and train at least 140,000 new health care professionals and workers for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care. The bill also includes prevention funds to stop the spread of HIV and treatment funds to allow infected individuals to live productive lives and continue to serve their communities.

This is an important bill. I thank again all of our leaders for the work that they have done to bring this bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to support this rule because it is so important that we move to deal with the sub-prime crisis in this country. It is not getting better. It is getting worse. And we find that community after community is being destroyed because we have boarded up, foreclosed homes that are driving down the property values, driving down the cost of the houses that are now upside down on their mortgages, and they cannot sell them and they're stuck.

And so the Rules Committee has worked hard, understanding the many aspects of this issue, and they have heard the legislation that is before us today that would simply mark down these properties by 15 percent. FHA, which we have strengthened, will do the refinance on these properties. We've also learned that FHA has been strengthened substantially with this legislation, and that part of the bill that I've been very much involved in will provide about $4 billion to cities and counties so that they can have money to rehabilitate these properties, put them back on the market for sale and for rent, and help to stabilize these neighborhoods.

And so the GSEs are in the bill, and you're going to hear a lot about the GSEs. But the fact of the matter is this bill is about stabilizing this economy, and we cannot afford to have the largest two semi- government agencies unprotected. While some people know that there's more work to be done on the GSEs, we're talking about now making sure that we put confidence in the market and that we send a message out there that we're not going to have disruption in the market at this time, that we're going to do something about the foreclosures and about the problems that we're confronted with.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

I want to thank Barney Frank for the wonderful work that he has done negotiating some very difficult parts of this bill. This bill is urgently needed to help our Nation address the current foreclosure crisis and its impact on world financial markets. I want to thank a number of people, the members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and the bipartisan members who voted for many aspects of this bill when that legislation came before our committee. I want to thank the Black Caucus for standing strong and insisting that we have money to help those communities that were targeted by the lenders for this subprime mess that they put us in.

Do I like everything in this bill? No, I don't. I'm frankly disappointed that we were unable to strike the language that was placed in this bill on the Senate side that effectively killed one of the most successful programs to help poor and low-income would-be homeowners, the down payment assistance program. But this is not the end of that. We shall be back so that we can continue that program.

Do I support some of the more controversial aspects of this bill? I do. I stand here today in support of the GSEs. I think it is very, very important that we maintain support for the GSEs so that we can stabilize this economy. It's absolutely unthinkable that we would allow these GSEs to go down in any shape, form or fashion when they hold 50 percent of all of the mortgages in this country and about $6 trillion in debt.

And so, I must commend the President--I have never thanked him for anything--for understanding the best interests of this country and removing his veto threat because of the $4 billion that we have in CDBG money. They say politics makes strange bedfellows from time to time and this bill may be the finest example of that.

I was most active on the modernization of the Federal Housing Administration and the $4 billion in the CDBG funding for States and localities to purchase, rehabilitate and resell or rent out abandoned and foreclosed homes. The modernization of FHA has long been a priority of mine because in recent years FHA had become obsolete in many parts of the country due to its low loan limits, outdated rules and slow bureaucracy. I saw too many low-income home buyers in California with little choice but to turn to the subprime mortgage market for assistance.

This Congress, I introduced H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Home Ownership Act of 2007, to give FHA the tools and resources to allow it to assist more low-income homebuyers. H.R. 1852 passed the House on September 18, 2007, on a bipartisan vote of 348-72, and again on May 8 of this year, as part of the H.R. 3221, the first go-round on this housing rescue package.

I want to thank all of the coalition of groups, the mayors and the organizations that supported this bill.

As we wind down this debate, I again want to thank Barney Frank for his tremendous leadership. I want to thank Nancy Pelosi for listening to Barney Frank and coming together to take a very strong stand to help us to realize this very comprehensive and relevant piece of legislation.

This legislation does a lot of good things: first-time home buyers assistance, tax credits, low-income housing tax credits, counseling funds that are targeted to the most needy neighborhoods, the strengthening of FHA, the refinancing of troubled mortgages by FHA, $4 billion to the cities, standby authority for the GSEs help to create more confidence in the markets.

The sub-prime meltdown created a crisis. This is a comprehensive, realistic response, and I'm proud of the work not only of Chairman Frank but of Charlie Rangel and Senator Dodd who left the $4 billion in from the Senate side, the Financial Services Committee, my Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.

We did not get the seller funded downpayment assistance program, but my subcommittee will start immediately to work on this legislation so that we can come back in a few months with a stand-alone piece of legislation to do what needs to be done.

This is an important program. This program that's helped over 730,000 homeowners between the year 2000 and 2007 is extremely important to helping those who can't afford to pay the mortgage every month. They cannot afford that downpayment to get into the home. It works. It works well. It needs to be understood. We need to put it in law and do it correctly.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.