Floor Statements

You're certainly welcome, and I thank you for taking this time out this evening, Congresswoman Kaptur, to talk about what is happening in this country with this foreclosure mess that we're in, this sub prime meltdown that we are experiencing.

I really came to the floor to commend you and congratulate you for all of the time that you have put in on this issue unraveling some of the history of what has taken place with the banking community with what is going on in our economy today and trying to identify how we got into this situation and what we could do to get out of it.

Many of our Members--two are distressed about what is happening in their districts and in their communities, but they don't know nearly the information that you have discovered about this entire unfortunate situation that we are in.

Let me just say that I did come to Ohio at your invitation and your delegation's invitation, and I know that you were the leader in helping to pull that delegation together and getting me there to talk about what is going on in Ohio. I was joined, and we were joined, by several members of the Ohio Congressional Delegation each trying to bring attention to the foreclosure devastation that's spread across that State.

Again, you have been a persistent voice in our Democratic Caucus for taking bold action on the foreclosure crisis, generally.

Let me mention that Representative Tubbs Jones, Representative Kucinich, who was here on the floor, Representative Sutton, Representative Wilson was in attendance, and I think we all learned an awful lot that day. We had great witnesses who came and talked about what is going on in the State, and we discovered since 2005, Cuyahoga County has had the highest number of foreclosures in the State, with Montgomery, Summit, Lucas, and Preble counties rounding out the top five. The 10 largest counties in Ohio accounted for 64 percent of the foreclosure filings in Ohio last year.

And according to data from the Mortgage Banking Association, in the fourth quarter of 2007, 7.67 percent of Ohio home loans were past due with 2.01 percent 90 days or more overdue. And during the same period last year, 7.25 percent of Ohio loans were past due with 1.74 percent 90 or more days overdue.

Because of the challenges it has faced economically over the past few years with the loss of manufacturing jobs and population from certain parts of the State, Ohio was truly the ``canary in the coal mine'' of the foreclosure crisis--vulnerable to sub prime lending and its aftereffects much earlier than the rest of the Nation.

And the foreclosures have taken a toll on Ohio's neighborhoods and communities. Data that was provided by HUD showed that there is a direct correlation between the number of high-risk loans in a neighborhood and increase in the neighborhood's vacancy

rates. Cleveland has been especially hit hard. There are an estimated 10,000 vacant homes in the City of Cleveland. On one of Cleveland streets, 37 out of 123 homes are in the same stage of the foreclosure process, so they are in some stage of the foreclosure process.

The testimony we heard in Ohio only made me more certain in my belief that State, cities, and counties need help from the Federal Government to deal with the problems caused by abandoning foreclosed properties. And I could go on and on and on, but I was extremely moved; and on my way out there were some people there from east Cleveland who said that 40 percent of all of the homes in east Cleveland were in foreclosure.

And then I heard the story of Campbell where people owned their homes free and clear. They were not expensive homes, but they had been handed down. They were in the family. They were paid for, $40,000 homes, and the guys came in there, the best suede-shoed boys I call them, and increased the appraisals on those homes, ran those appraisals up to $150,000 or more and lent money. And people found themselves in a situation where they couldn't pay it back. People who thought, well, I could refinance this house, I can put on another room, I can put on a new roof. I can do these things. And they were told, ``Just sign on the dotted line. Don't worry about it. We can get you into this refinance. Even if it resets, we can take care of that.''

But Marcy Kaptur, let me just say, people all over America are wondering what happened. Families have lost their homes, communities are being devastated, cities are using their precious general fund money and CDBG money trying to maintain these boarded-up and foreclosed properties. They have problems with the vacant properties being occupied sometimes by the homeless or gang members in some communities.

They have the thieves that are going in stripping out the copper. Weeds are growing up. There are dogs on the property, and so the neighborhoods are being driven down by the foreclosed properties, and the people who remain in the neighborhoods, who keep their properties up, are losing value, and that value is fast being lost on homes. And people are finding that their mortgages that they are paying far outweigh the real cost of that home now that the values have been driven down.

And so here we are in the Congress of the United States; what do we do? As you know, a number of ideas have come to the surface. Barney Frank, who is the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, came up with another comprehensive bill, and in that bill they worked out an arrangement where the lenders, the bankers, would write down the property to 85 percent of value.

We've been working for months to strengthen the FHA, who found itself toothless when all these banks came into our cities with these fancy products that they had. They had what we call exotic products, the products with the teaser loan that says you need nothing or a little bit down, sign on the dotted line, 6 months from now, a year from now, it will reset, but don't worry, we'll refinance it. And people only find that they cannot refinance it and they're losing the homes.

And so we were supposed to come up with these bills and legislation to deal with it, and we find that the Senate side worked on this for quite some time. They agreed on some things. One of the things they agreed on was that they would indeed work with the lenders to write down the properties and have them refinanced by FHA which would now be strengthened, and this would keep people in their homes.

We don't know how all of that is going to work. We do know that if people get refinancing and they're able to stay in their homes, we hope that they're able to keep up on those payments because, if they don't, that debt will fall back on to the American taxpayer. And unless the FHA by way of its collection of certain kinds of rates are able to offset that, then that's another burden that we're going to have to be faced with. But it is a way by which we can begin to look at how we can perhaps give some help to the homeowner.

You know, I had a piece of legislation that was quite controversial because there was some people who did want to bail out the big boys, but they did not want to do anything for the little people and for the cities that are suffering. And my bill, as you know, is designed so that we have money that would go straight into those cities, working with nonprofits and others to grab those properties, rehabilitate those properties, put them back on the market for low- and moderate-income people to be able to afford.

Well, it got stuck for a while. I had $15 billion for the cities and the counties in that bill. It was scored at half that amount because 7.5 of that $15 billion was going to be in loans and 7.5 was going to be in grants.

Well, you're absolutely correct, and certainly, we had our supporters. But I want to thank the Ohio delegation for weighing in on this bill and giving support to it. We had all of our community groups and organizations all over the country working hard, making calls, talking to Senators, talking to Members, putting stuff in the newspapers about this bill because they see this bill, too, as hope for the neighborhoods and the communities. And it would stop the cities from having to spend their precious general fund moneys and CDBG moneys to try and maintain and keep up of these properties for God knows how long.

And so you are right. This will bring some measure of help, and we've got to keep working at this to find out how we can do more.

One of the things that we know, the regulators dropped the ball. The regulators should have seen these exotic products. They should have known about these ARMs. They should have known about these no- documentation loans. They should have known about these loans resetting with margins of 2 to 3 and 4 percent above the interest rate once the reset takes place.

Someone gets into a loan for 5, 6 percent, when it resets now they're 10, 11 percent, and people who are paying mortgages of $950, maybe even $1,000 a month, now they're told their mortgage is $3,000, $3,500. It is unconscionable.

And I see you have a picture up there of some of the giants of the banking industry. You know, Countrywide is a real poster child for what went wrong in this mortgage market. Mr. Mozilo really does have to take credit for having done extraordinary business with these mortgages. Mr. Mozilo is one of those bankers and one of those companies where he got the license as the broker, and then he hired people who didn't have a license, who didn't have any training, and put them out on the street, and they were all over the place.

Everywhere you look, every town hall you go into, where people are coming, begging us for help, and we ask them about where they got their loans, invariably Countrywide is going to show up all over this country. And so, you know, we have criticized him, and we have said how is it Mr. Mozilo can create this kind of devastation, walk away with millions of dollars that he's taken out of this company, and how is it that Bank of America could end up buying this company for pennies on the dollar and not be afraid that with somehow all of this portfolio of bad debt that they are going to make it?

Well, I think that they know more than we know. I think that they know

more than we know, and we've got to get smarter. We've got to have regulators who are prepared to do the job that they are supposed to do in protecting the American consumer from these rip-off artists and from these people who would steal their futures and steal the futures of their children with these rip-off products and the way that they design for everybody to make money along the way and leave that American homeowner not only holding the bag but with nothing at the end of this terrible situation.

So I want to thank you. We've got to put a lot of time in on this. We're going to get some legislation out. Of course, we're going to get some legislation, and as you know, with the GSEs now in trouble, Fannie and Freddie, and the move to help them and to bail them out, to keep the whole economy from crashing on us, you better believe that we get a chance to get our little $4 billion in because it was put in on the Senate side.

But that's a drop in the bucket from what we're asking for and for what we need, but we must take this as a time when we never allow the American economy to be placed at risk because of a sub-prime crisis in the way that we are witnessing it now because we're going to be smarter. We're going to not only know what our regulators are supposed to be doing, we're going to provide the oversight for those regulators. We're going to unveil not only the schemes and the fancy products, but we want to know more about servicers, who they are and what they do.

Did you know that we have these banks with loss mitigation departments? Supposedly, if you're in trouble, you can call the bank and say I can't make my mortgage payment, I had a terrible illness and I had to pay out too much health money, and they're supposed to do kind of a workout with you to make sure they keep you in that home. Did you know that the people that they're talking to are offshore in India, in other countries, who are supposed to be responsible for loss mitigation activities for the banks? They have exported the loss mitigation departments offshore to foreigners who are talking to Americans about whether or not they can find a way for them to stay in their home.

If the gentlelady will yield for just a moment, wouldn't it be great to have community bankers in the community that you can talk to, people who hold your mortgage, that you can go and talk about what is happening, if you get in trouble, and they can work with you, but no, you know, they package all of these loans and securitize them. Wall Street invested in them, and the people can't get in touch with anybody. Now it's with a dispassionate servicer who has the ability to foreclose on your house, who could do a workout, but they make money. They make money by servicing and collecting the fees, the fees, the fees and more fees that's placed on top of these mortgages.

So I, too, yearn for the community banker.

They turned a blind eye.

Will the gentlelady yield for a moment?

We have not seen the final version of the bill, but today, in a discussion, one of the things that did interest me that I'm looking forward to seeing is that we are strengthening the oversight on the GSEs with OFHEO, the regulatory agency that has now been designed just to take care of these government enterprises.

But also what has been represented to us is that the investors will not be able to make any money off of this bailout; that GSEs, as you know, get input, they get money from investors and they go out to the market to get money. And so if we are going to allow them to go to the discount wonder at the Fed and to be invested in by Treasury Department, that we will be number one in line for the repayment. And the CEOs cannot get the big salaries that they have gotten in the past, that there will be a limit to what they will be able to do.

And so I'm looking to see the language in the bill that's going to make sure that we're first in line to get paid back, that the investors don't get paid dividends off of our money that we're putting in there, and that the CEOs and the top management of the GSEs don't get the fancy bonuses and the high salaries that they've been getting.

Thank you.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23, 2008]

Wallets Open Up on Wall Street

(By Brody Mullins)

Despite Wall Street's recent woes, people who work in the

financial industry continue to dig deep for political

donations to Republican and Democratic candidates for

president.

Employees of Wall Street firms are the single largest

source of campaign cash, accounting for a total of $50.4

million in financial contributions to the candidates so far

this election cycle. That is more than any other industry

sector, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of

campaign-finance data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for

Responsive Politics.

As candidates load up for advertising blitzes before

``Super Tuesday'' primaries on Feb. 5, candidates from both

parties are again coming to New York seeking campaign

donations. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, had a

fund-raiser at the St. Regis Hotel last night that was hosted

by Merrill Lynch & Co. Chief Executive John Thain, private-

equity giant Henry Kravis of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

and former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chairman John Whitehead.

Mr. McCain recently spent $1 million on advertising ahead

of the Florida primary next Tuesday. Voters in more than 20

states, including California and New York, go to the polls

Feb. 5.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton heads to her home state

tomorrow for two fund-raisers. The Clinton campaign hopes to

raise $15 million through these and other means to fund her

campaign through Feb. 5.

Contributions from Wall Street have favored Republicans,

who have collected 54% of donations from financial companies.

Wall Street is the No. 1 source of donations to every major

presidential candidate in both parties, except former North

Carolina Democratic Sen. John Edwards, who is favored by the

legal industry, according to the data.

Lawyers and lobbyists are the second-largest source of

contributions to the candidates, with $34.8 million in

donations. Together, the finance and legal industries are

responsible for nearly a quarter of the $354 million donated

to the presidential candidates as of Sept. 30. The next round

of campaign-finance information, covering the three-month

period ending Dec. 31, will be released at the end of the

month.

Employees of financial firms, lawyers and lobbyists make up

46% of all large donations--contributions of $200 or more--to

the presidential candidates. Each of the other industry

sectors is responsible for just a fraction of the donations

to the candidates.

According to the data, people who work in Hollywood,

communications or electronics rank a distant third with $13.3

million in donations to the candidates. Other top sources of

donations were employees of the health-care industry with

$9.5 million, construction with $6.1 million and energy with

$3.1 million. People who work in the defense industry gave

$502,000, according to the data.

Not surprisingly, the two candidates from New York are

winning the race for donations on Wall Street. Mrs. Clinton

and former New York City Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani lead

with $12.3 million and $10.6 million, respectively, in

campaign donations from employees of Wall Street firms.

Employees of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

and Morgan Stanley rank as the top individual sources of

donations to the presidential candidates, according to the

data.

Goldman employees were the largest contributor to Mr.

Obama, the second-largest giver to Mrs. Clinton and the

fifth-largest to Mr. Edwards. Goldman employees donated

$369,000 to Mr. Obama and $350,000 to Mrs. Clinton.

Other top Wall Street givers to Mr. Obama include employees

of Lehman Brothers ($229,000), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

($217,000) and Citigroup Inc. ($181,000).

The top seven companies that have produced the most money

for Mr. Giuliani are all financial firms, including Ernst &

Young LLP, hedge fund Elliott Management and Credit Suisse

Group.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also has fared well

on Wall Street. A founder of Bain Capital, Mr. Romney has

scored with employees of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and

Morgan Stanley. Employees of his former company have donated

$112,000 to his campaign, according to the data.

Unlike Wall Street, lawyers heavily favor Democrats with

their political donations.

Lawyers have donated $9.6 million to Mrs. Clinton, $8.2

million to Mr. Edwards and $7.9 million to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Giuliani, a former prosecutor and partner with

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, raised $3.2 million from others in

his profession. That was more than any other Republican but

less than half as much as the leading Democratic candidates.

Pennsylvania-based law firm Blank Rome LLP was the top

source of donations to Mr. McCain, who collected $141,000

from employees of the firm. Mr. McCain fared well with

employees of Greenberg Traurig LLP, a Miami firm that ranks

as his third-largest contributor. As the chairman of the

Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. McCain took the lead in

investigating convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was a

lobbyist with Greenberg Traurig.

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton led all others with donations

from lobbyists. Mrs. Clinton collected $568,000 from

lobbyists, while Mr. McCain has $340,000.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct on H.R. 3121.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1286, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6312, The Credit Union, Bank, and Thrift Regulatory Relief Act of 2008. I am particularly pleased to speak in favor of this legislation because I have always been a strong supporter of credit unions. These institutions have been effective in pursuit of their mission to serve people of modest means and underserved communities, both of which characterize much of my district. Regulatory improvement in this industry is long overdue and I want to thank Mr. Kanjorski and Mr. Moore for their work on this bill.

Credit union regulatory relief is especially urgent in light of the nation's current financial crisis. We are either at the brink of a recession--or already in one--largely because of the crisis in the subprime mortgage market that has led to a wave of foreclosures unlike any since the Great Depression. In significant part, this crisis resulted from certain financial institutions, many of them largely unregulated, peddling dangerous mortgage loan products to borrowers who did not fully understand the risk they were taking on. Meanwhile, the lenders themselves whisked their own risk to the four corners of the earth via securitization and the secondary market. Much of the Financial Services Committee's work in the past year has involved working to enact legislation that prevents this from ever happening again.

Notably, credit unions did not help to create this mess. Indeed, analysis of 2006 home mortgage disclosure data reveals that credit unions were far less likely than other lenders to make subprime loans to low and moderate income households, especially minorities.

So credit unions were not part of the problem. But they can and must be part of the solution. If there is any lesson to be learned from this crisis, it is that low or moderate income households and residents of underserved communities don't just need access to any credit, but rather access to sound and appropriate financial products. Credit unions stand ready to provide such products to more people and more communities, but need Congressional action to do so. Specifically, H.R. 6312 would allow credit unions to extend their services to areas with high unemployment rates and below median incomes that are generally underserved by other depository institutions.

Critically, it would also allow some people who don't belong to a local credit union nonetheless to go to that credit union for short term loans, as an alternative to the exorbitant rates charged by payday lenders. This is progress in achieving the outcome policymakers must pursue in the financial services sector, namely, connecting households of modest means with the soundest financial products and institutions available to them.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Members, I would like to commend all of our authors and co-authors on this legislation. We learned a lot because of Hurricane Katrina. We learned that FEMA and HUD are confused. They don't work together. As a matter of fact, they work against each other. And the most vulnerable of those who were victimized by Hurricane Katrina, the public housing residents, were so negatively impacted by all of this.

We found that when there was a subcommittee hearing that we held, this joint hearing with Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency, Communications, Preparedness, and Response, we talked about the roles of HUD and FEMA in responding to affordable housing needs following natural disasters and emergencies. At that hearing, we learned that HUD Section 9 program, the public housing reconstruction, has never been funded because of language in appropriations acts that has barred the program from receiving any appropriations. Although HUD has been providing a limited amount of funds from its already underfunded capital fund this year, the department proposes not to provide any emergency capital funds.

In addition, because section 9(k) is authorized, FEMA has refused to allow PHAs to access funds under its section 406 reconstruction program. This is in spite of the fact that there is no statutory or other prohibition on PHAs using these funds. FEMA is simply refusing to grant PHAs access to section 406 funding because it says that PHAs have another source for this purpose, section 9(k), which has never been funded.

You've heard a lot from Members here today about this, and I'm going to yield back my time so that the gentleman can do a close appropriate to this legislation that he so courageously authored.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).

I would first like to thank our chairman, Barney Frank, for the leadership that he has provided on dealing with a serious problem in America. I would like to thank the Members once more for the support that they gave me on the Neighborhood Stabilization Act that we passed today. That, coupled with what is being done now, will go a long way to providing real assistance to our cities, to our counties, to our States and to our citizens.

I know that it has been said over and over again today that people are suffering, that there are people who got into these loans that did not understand what a no-doc loan, a no interest rate loan was, an ARM that was going to reset within 6 months, 1 year or 2 years, and that the mortgage would double, triple or quadruple.

They are innocent, hardworking Americans out there every day who simply want to live the American Dream. Many of them were steered into these loans because there was this big, big housing bubble.

We had these local initiators of loans through our banks and our mortgage brokers who discovered that they could package them, they could securitize them, they would be invested in Wall Street, and the Wall Street people invested mightily in them, and now the services have them all. The only thing that the services can do is foreclose on these properties.

Well, we can do something about it. I don't know why we have to argue and fight about whether or not we can help the American people. They sent us here to look after their best interests.

I don't understand why anybody can call this a bailout when, in fact, nobody has said anything about the bailout of the almost $30 billion for Bear Stearns. If we can help Wall Street, we certainly can help the people who vote for us every day and who sent us here.

We help people all over this Nation in different ways. Some people are confronted with a hurricane, or a flood or an earthquake. American citizens expect us to be there for the citizens when we are needed in different ways. This is a different way.

I ask everyone to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5818, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Chairman, I would like to first thank Chairman Frank and all of the members of the Financial Services Committee, and particularly those members who serve on the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I'm thanking Members on both sides of the aisle for helping to bring this bill to the floor today.

H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, authorizes a $15 billion HUD administrative grant and loan program to State and local governments to purchase, rehabilitate and resell or rent foreclosed homes. To understand the urgent need to enact this legislation, one need only consider the sobering figures on foreclosures recently released by RealtyTrac, which show that foreclosure filings during the first quarter of 2008 are 112 percent higher than 1 year ago, and that actual bank repossessions of homes during March were a shocking 129 percent above March 2007.

The human reality behind these numbers is revealed if you visit, as I have the past year, cities and communities in cities like Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; or the San Bernardino and Stockton metropolitan areas in California, where block after block is dotted by foreclosed properties, many of them suffering from neglect or actual vandalism. 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 of State and local governments and cause real estate related industries such as the construction trades to suffer.

States and most local governments must balance their budgets each year and, as a result, 20 States have already had to make or are proposing budget cuts due largely to revenue losses resulting from the subprime crisis, which further reduces demand in the economy and deepens the recession.

On April 10, the Financial Services Committee heard from Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland, and others, that despite severe physical constraints, many States and cities are already dedicating their own shrinking tax revenues to purchase foreclosed properties and attempt to stabilize these neighborhoods. But they are overwhelmed by the scale of the problem in comparison to their shrinking tax revenues. For this reason, the National Governors Association has stated that a ``one-time Federal funding commitment to support the acquisition and rehabilitation for foreclosed properties is vital.''

The Governors are joined in their support for the stimulus contained in H.R. 5818 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies. H.R. 5818 is also endorsed by nearly 40 civil rights, community development, labor and low income housing groups, including the AFL-CIO, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force.

This bill targets assistance where it is most needed. The $7.5 billion in grants and $7.5 billion in loans would be allocated to States based on two factors: The number of foreclosures, and the number of subprime loans 90 days delinquent. This is then subject to a limited adjustment for median home prices, a bipartisan compromise that was worked out in mark-up with the committee's members from Ohio, which, like many midwestern States, has faced skyrocketing foreclosures but did not experience an extraordinary run up in housing prices.

Second, the bill puts flexible resources in the hands of government with the capacity to address the crisis and put funds on the street quickly enough to stimulate the economy. Rather than expect HUD to process plans from 1,200 entitlement jurisdictions, the balance we struck at mark-up was to allocate funding to States and to the Nation's largest 100 cities, largest 50 counties, and cities over 50,000 with especially high foreclosure rates. The areas of States outside of those cities and counties would be addressed in the State's plans.

Under the bill's timelines, fund obligation must begin within 6 months of enactment, be completed within a year, and fully spent within 2 years of enactment. This is no ``big government,'' immortal program, as our colleagues across the aisle suggest. Rather, it is a timely, targeted and temporary shot in the economy's arm, exactly where one is needed.

Indeed, using well-accepted construction activity multipliers, the National Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force calculates that the bill's proposed $15 billion investment will generate at least $38 billion in direct and ripple effect economic activity nationwide, employ about 120,000 people, and restore nearly $225 million per year in local real estate tax collections.

Some Republicans have tried to frame this bill as a bailout bill for investors. This simply is not so. Government and their nonprofit partners will drive a hard bargain with property owners because they are highly incentivized to make this money go as far as possible in their efforts to stabilize neighborhoods where many of them have been working for years, and because they must pay the government back any funds used to purchase homes.

In no event, moreover, can they pay more than 110 percent of the average

home sale price in the area. Creaming of properties and ``sweetheart'' deals are prevented by the requirement that properties sit for 60 days before they are eligible.

What H.R. 5815 does make possible is for States, cities and counties to stabilize a few neighborhoods, especially low income ones, that are in serious danger of an overcorrection and rapid deterioration past the tipping point, where it becomes very difficult to turn them around.

I urge Members to hear the pleas of the Nation's governors, mayors, community-based organizations and ordinary citizens to provide this critical relief to stabilize neighborhoods and stimulate the economy.

The administration and my friends on the opposite side of the aisle in this Chamber argue that we cannot afford to respond. I would like to just remind this body of what Mr. Frank said earlier today, we afforded $30 billion to bail out Bear Stearns, and certainly we can afford half of that amount, $15 billion for the entire country. We simply cannot afford not to.

I urge passage of the Neighborhood Stabilization Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee 3 minutes.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from Massachusetts to straighten out the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle who does not know the history of CRA.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who serves on our committee, for 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Illinois evidently has not read the bill. As a matter of fact, they have to have a plan that is adopted or accepted, reviewed by HUD. And so in the plan, all of the disclosure, everything that needs to be known about that city's plans will be reviewed.

In addition to that, the amendment that the gentleman is referring to is an amendment that would bog down this ability to get money into the neighborhoods and on the street very quickly for the economic stimulus that we anticipate.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) 1 minute.

I yield to myself 30 seconds.

I'm glad the gentleman found the plan in the bill that I had advised him about because there is a plan, and perhaps it does not have 101 things that he

would like, and I'm sure you could add a lot more to it, but there is a plan. And the situation that he just described could not happen. As a matter of fact, you have to pay back the money that you get through the loan.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a member of our committee, both the subcommittee and Financial Services, Mr. Keith Ellison.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Charlie Wilson.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

I yield 1 minute to one of our newest Members, and a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Andre Carson.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones) 1\1/2\ minutes and remind her that it was 2 years ago when I was in her city that she asked me to come to a town hall meeting where this issue was being discussed at that time and most of us really didn't understand the depth of it.

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

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

Madam Chairman and Members, I would like to thank all of the Members who have come to the floor today in support of this legislation because they understand the devastation to neighborhoods all over this country.

I have listened very carefully to the arguments from the opposite side of the aisle, and none of them rise to the merit of being able to oppose this bill because they're substantive arguments.

First of all, I have heard Members on the opposite side of the aisle talk about taxes. They have talked about gasoline. They have talked about everything except what we are here to talk about: the fact that there has been a subprime meltdown in this country and many neighborhoods are devastated. We have homes that are being stripped of the copper. We have homes that have been boarded up with vandals inside those homes, oftentimes living inside those homes, with the weeds growing up in many of these properties, and the value of the homes in the neighborhood where people are attempting to maintain their homes is going down every day.

We had one Member on the opposite side of the aisle talk about how flush these cities are with money. Evidently, he has not looked at what is going on in the cities and States. Many of them are in deficit situations. They're in deficit situations because we're in this recession, this nonperforming economy under the leadership of the President of the United States where the price of food has risen, gasoline prices are up, and the subprime mess is fueling the problems of our economy. And with all of this that has taken place under this President and this administration, you would think that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would want to come to the aid of their constituents.

We have talked about the $30 billion bailout under the Fed Chairman that was appointed by this President. And I am sure, since we did not get a call in the middle of the night to even discuss with us that the bailout was going to take place, I'm sure that the Fed Chairman called the President that appointed him. And I would give anything--I would place money on the line--to tell you that the President approved of that bailout. And so why not bail out the people who deserve to be helped? People, many of them who got into loans that were lured into these loans, lured into these mortgages by unscrupulous real estate brokers who

told them to just sign on the dotted line, by unscrupulous folks representing some of the financial institutions who said get into this ARM and when it resets, I will be there to help you refinance it, and, of course, they're not there. These people, many of them have lost these homes through no fault of their own.

But the neighborhoods are being devastated. We have information here that tells us how much crime will be fostered on the neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, what we have learned is that when there is one foreclosure, it leads to not only vandalism that affects the entire neighborhood, but it also increases the crime. This has all been documented.

I would think that the representatives who have been sent here by the people who have voted for them would want to be able to go home and say to their constituents, I understand what's going on in the neighborhoods; to say to their mayors and to say to their Governors and to say to their county commissioners, ``We are here to help.'' Yes, we are spending a lot of money on other things. As a matter of fact, many of the Members on the opposite side of the aisle, in a matter of hours, are going to vote for over $107 billion in supplemental funding to continue the war in Iraq.

Many of these Members have voted to give tax increases to the richest 1 percent in America. The least they could do is vote for the citizens and for their cities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order under the rule.

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

This manager's amendment is in the nature of a perfecting amendment that makes a few changes to the bill that I hope will be relatively uncontroversial.

First, as this bill has moved through the process, we have moved from a program that allocated all of the funds to States to administer to one that, as I described in my opening statement, distributes funds to States, certain metropolitan cities and large urban counties.

This amendment simply removes the State as the middle person in allocations to qualifying cities and counties which would instead receive direct allocations from HUD. This will expedite the distribution of funds which is critical in the context of economic stimulus.

Second, the amendment brings a definition of operating costs of housing purchased under the program, which is an eligible use under the grant component in line with similar uses in other HUD programs such as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This just clarifies what is and is not an eligible expense when an entity is operating a purchase property as rental property or preparing it for resale.

Finally, to further address the concerns that this bill somehow provides a bailout to lenders, the amendment caps the purchase price of foreclosed properties at the appraised price or 110 percent of the average local single family home price, whichever is less. This guards against property owners gaming the system to obtain inflated prices under the program.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I was hopeful that the ranking member of the subcommittee would offer support for this amendment. I know that there are some differences that she has and others have on this bill.

However, the attempts that we have made to make sure that it is a bill that can operate efficiently, such as identifying those 100 cities, those 100 counties and those 50 cities of a certain size would be the kind of amendment that the ranking member and others would understand makes this a better bill and would formulate ways by which it could efficiently and effectively get that money into the communities that are needed.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Although I rise to claim time in opposition, I am not opposed to the amendment.

I think the ranking member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee has made a sound addition to the bill here. While, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we did not want HUD to get bogged down in processing 1,200 different plans from all the entitlement jurisdictions in the

HOME and CDBG programs, there is no question that the expertise at HUD to administer this bill's loan and rent program lies in the Community Planning and Development division of the agency. So I urge my colleagues to support Mrs. Capito's amendment to ensure that we don't create an unnecessary new bureaucracy if H.R. 5818 is passed into law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Kucinich's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of Representative Kucinich's amendment.

His subcommittee has done an enormous amount of valuable work examining this targeting issue, and I want to thank him for focusing attention on the issue of neighborhoods where there are large and growing concentrations of vacancies resulting from the foreclosure crisis. They're exactly the neighborhoods I mentioned in my opening statement, ones that face the prospect of reaching the tipping point of deterioration from which they may never recover. Stabilizing such neighborhoods is an especially daunting task for community leaders and organizations.

So I think it is entirely appropriate, as this amendment does, to require States, counties and cities in their plans to prioritize these foreclosures and vacancy hotspots.

Finally, I know that this is no academic exercise for Representative Kucinich in his role as subcommittee Chair. He's bringing hard experience to the table from the neighborhoods within his district in Cleveland.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2634 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, according to the World Bank, more than 10 million children in developing countries die every year before the age of 5, most from preventable illnesses. More than 1 billion people in developing countries do not have access to save drinking water. And approximately 100 million school-age children do not attend school.

In sub-Saharan Africa, 41 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day.

It was because of these injustices that I first got involved in the issue of debt relief, and I would like to thank many of my colleagues who have been working with me over the years on debt relief and who have joined with me to present this legislation.

First, I'd like to thank Chairman Barney Frank, who's always been a big supporter and a fighter, and who's worked very hard in the past to ensure that we are on record doing the right thing for poor children and poor families all over the world.

And of course I've been very pleased to work with the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Spencer Bachus, who worked with me on Jubilee 2000, and who's been involved in debt relief for many, many years.

I'd like to thank the original cosponsors, Mr. Emanuel Cleaver, Mr. Luis Gutierrez, Ms. Carolyn Maloney, Mr. Donald Payne, Ms. Barbara Lee, and others such as Ms. Judy Biggert, who serves on our Financial Services Committee, and Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is the Ranking Member on Foreign Affairs, for all of the work and the assistance and the cosponsorship for this legislation.

In 1999, I worked with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to pass legislation to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. Our legislation provided complete debt cancellation for the bilateral debt that certain poor countries owed to the United States. Several other donor countries followed our example and cancelled the debts that were owed to them as well.

Our legislation also directed the Clinton administration to negotiate with other world leaders to significantly reduce poor countries' multilateral debts. The following year, the House passed my amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which increased funding for debt relief from $69 million to $225 million. This amendment proved that Congress supported full funding for the debt relief programs.

Since then, we have continued to work together in a bipartisan way to urge not only the Clinton administration but the Bush administration as well, the IMF, the World Bank, and other multilateral financial institutions to expand debt relief. As a result of our efforts, 23 heavily indebted poor countries have received complete cancellation of their debts.

Debt cancellation has proven to be effective in freeing up resources for poverty reduction. Cameroon is using its savings of $29.8 million from debt cancellation in 2006 for national poverty reduction priorities including infrastructure, social sector, and governance reforms. Uganda is using its savings of $57.9 million to improve energy infrastructure, to ease acute electricity shortages, as well as primary education, malaria control, health care, and water infrastructure. Zambia is using its savings of $23.8 million to increase spending on agricultural projects and to eliminate fees for health care in rural areas.

I'm proud to report that debt relief has made a real difference in the lives of millions of impoverished people. This came to pass because our country showed leadership, and our country showed leadership because this Congress showed leadership.

We are here today to continue our efforts. We are here today to enable additional needy and deserving poor countries to benefit from the cancellation of their debts. The Jubilee Act would make up to an additional 25 low-income countries eligible for debt relief, provided these countries meet strict criteria and use the savings for poverty reduction programs such as improvements to economic infrastructure, basic education, nutrition and health services, and programs to redress environmental degradation.

I would like to share with you a few of the observations and perhaps comments that I have learned about since I have been involved with debt cancellation.

Julius Nyerere, the former President of Tanzania, once asked, ``Must we starve our children to pay our debts?'' For Tanzania, the answer to this question is, ``not anymore.'' That is because Tanzania is one of the lucky ones. It is one of the 23 countries that have already received complete debt cancellation. Tragically, many other countries are still starving their children in order to pay their debts.

Debt forgiveness is a moral imperative, and it is encouraged by many religious traditions. The Bible instructs the people of ancient Israel to cancel debts periodically through the celebration of a sabbath year every 7 years and a jubilee every 50 years.

Leviticus 25:10 says, ``Proclaim liberty throughout the lands and to all the inhabitants thereof. It shall be a jubilee for you.''

Let us once again proclaim a jubilee for millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world.

I would ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this Jubilee Act.

Before yielding the balance of my time, I would like to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for urging us to get this bill up and get it on the floor so that we could go on record in support of debt cancellations for the poor countries of the world.

At this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time to Chairman Frank, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in strong support of this resolution offered by my colleague, Mr. Green, from Houston commemorating the 40th anniversary of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the 20th anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

The history of the Fair Housing Act embodies both our Nation's most noble instincts and recent behavior by our Federal Government, which should make none of us proud.

On April 11, 1968, one week to the day after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed and the President signed into law the Federal Fair Housing Act which now prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, national origin, religion, color, sex, familial status and disability.

Acting on this legislation, which has been stalled in this body for over 2 years, was a fitting tribute to Dr. King and reflected a belief that something constructive could be achieved in the aftermath of days of unrest in cities across the country.

In 1988, the law was amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act, which significantly strengthened the enforcement powers of the act, giving the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Justice the authority to mandate and to enforce the expanded and comprehensive requirements of the act. Unfortunately, while we can be proud of passing these landmark statutes, the sad fact is that the Fair Housing Act remains the least enforced of our Nation's civil rights laws.

Through the work of local housing groups like the Housing Rights Center in my district in Los Angeles, we know that more than 3.7 million people are discriminated against in housing transactions every year, and we are on the brink of an economic crisis fueled by a failed subprime lending market built

primarily on borrowers and neighborhoods of color.

The current foreclosure crisis is the outgrowth of persistent discrimination in housing, lending and insurance markets that took place under the negligent eyes of the very Federal agencies charged with enforcing our Nation's antidiscrimination laws. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued only 31 charges of discrimination, and the Department of Justice filed just 35 cases.

Sadly, the risk posed by lax enforcement of the Fair Housing Act is no less than the resegregation of America. While we have made some progress in reducing levels of residential segregation, most Americans live in communities largely divided by race and ethnicity. Perhaps more distressingly, our children are attending increasingly segregated schools. Recent research demonstrates that by 2000, minority students were in schools with substantially fewer white students than was the case a decade earlier. We must reduce those troubling trends.

To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution offered by Mr. Green, whose dedication to the housing needs of America and America's most vulnerable households is second to that of no other member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, which I chair.

Additionally, in my role as Chair, I'm joining Mr. Green in rededicating myself to the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, starting with making plans for a joint hearing with the Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Nadler of New York, to hold the inadequate efforts of both HUD and the Department of Justice up to congressional scrutiny.

The best way to celebrate the anniversary of the Fair Housing Act is to take concrete actions to enforce both its letter and spirit.

Mr. Chairman of our Judiciary Committee, whose lifelong work has been to end discrimination and to enforce fair housing and to enforce civil rights, I just thank you for having the opportunity to work with you.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

The subject of my Special Order is Iran.

Madam Speaker, at the time the war in Iraq began in March of 2003, who would have thought that we were being led into perhaps the worst foreign policy disaster in America's history? Many of us voted against the war authorization in the first place. But many more Members wish they had voted against it. We now know that this country was led into this war with faulty intelligence and a deafening war drum from the administration.

The question that we raise tonight is this: Could the Bush administration possibly be planning for a war with Iran? There isn't any empirical evidence to prove that the Bush administration is planning for war. But there are experts that are indeed worried that the same playbook that was used to bring this country into the Iraq war is now being used to toward Iran. The administration is pushing suspect intelligence. And it has severely increased and sharpened since their rhetoric first began toward Iran.

We come to the floor tonight to resist efforts by this administration to paint war with Iran as a necessary next step in our so-called war on terror. A vast majority of foreign policy and military experts agree that war with Iran would be a colossal error.

Allow me to spend a few minutes to explain why I feel that U.S. strikes against Iran are a real possibility. Let us look at some of the signs that we may be headed for war. The increased rhetoric. The administration is building the volume of inflammatory rhetoric toward Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up to the Iraq war. Strong statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facility.

Surrogates in the administration, including the President himself, have increasingly stressed a full range of negative Iranian behavior, including that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, supplying weapons, training and funding to special groups.

They also say that Iran is interfering with the peace process in the Middle

East. And they go on to talk about General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as they argued that Iran is the major future threat to stability in Iraq.

Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. When this point was dismissed by the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran had long since halted their nuclear enrichment, the administration criticized the report.

Allow me to read a short selection of clips from recent press clippings that expose the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the Bush administration. This headline from the Daily Telegraph on April 7, 2008: British Fear U.S. Commander is Beating the Drum for Iran Strikes. ``British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed Baghdad Government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment.''

Another headline: Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest Threat to Iraq. This is in the Bloomberg News April 9, 2008. ``The so- called `special groups,' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran, played a `destructive role' in the recent clashes between extremist militias and Iraqi Government forces in Basra and Baghdad, Petraeus said. `Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way,' he told the House Armed Services Committee today in Washington, his second day of testimony to lawmakers. `Unchecked, the `special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a Democratic Iraq.''

Again, that was the Bloomberg News, April 9, 2008.

Another headline, the Voice of America, April 2, 2008, Israel to Redistribute Gas Masks Amid Fears of War with Iran.

``Israel's security Cabinet has decided to redistribute gas masks to the entire population amid fears of a nonconventional war with Iran. The last distribution was just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq 4 years ago.''

Another headline in the New York Times, April 12, 2008. The headline reads, Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says.

``Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq, adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday. While Bush administration officials have long denounced what they have described as Iran's meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker's language was unusually strong from Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been turning up the volume on Iran.''

A further sign that the U.S. may be headed for war is Admiral Fallon's resignation. In the aftermath of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, there has been discussion within media and in the military that senior military officers should have resigned when they knew the White House to be heading to a reckless war in Iraq.

Some are speculating that the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon is a direct result of his steadfast opposition to war with Iran. He even made his disagreements with the administration public before his retirement.

In a now-famous profile that Admiral Fallon agreed to do for Esquire magazine, he was characterized as the only man standing between war with Iran.

Let me read an excerpt from that article.

This was Esquire magazine, March 11, 2008. The title is ``The Man Between War and Peace.'' The article goes on to say that if in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it will all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it will all come down to one, that same man. So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to world war III and his administration casually casts Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler, a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect, it's left to Fallon, and apparently Fallon alone, to argue that, as he told al Jazeera last fall, this constant drumbeat of conflict is not helpful and not useful.

Another sign that the U.S. may be thinking about war is the offensive against the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al Sadr has promised full-scale attacks on America's interests in Iraq in the event of strikes on Iran. As commander of the multinational force in Iraq, General David Petraeus still presides as the commander of the Iraqi security forces as well. Any operation against the Mahdi Army would have been authorized by him. What motivation did the United States have in fueling a violent confrontation with the powerful militia at a time when al Sadr had declared a truce and the progress of the surge was being reported to Congress?

One explanation is that recent operations against al Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, may have been meant to neutralize possible resistance inside of Iraq in the event of a strike on Iran.

The following five reasons are taken verbatim from an article in U.S. News and World Report that was published on March 5th entitled ``Six Signs the U.S. May Be Headed For War in Iran.''

Before I go into the five reasons that I have taken verbatim from this article in U.S. News and World Report, I am going to recognize the Congresswoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee, who is cochair of the Progressive Caucus. She is one of the co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus. She has been consistent in her resistance to this war in Iraq.

She is an organizer. She is a constant speaker on the speaking engagement circuit, speaking with groups and organizations all over this country who want to hear from Barbara Lee about what is going on in Congress.

The question she is most confronted with is when will this Congress end the war and bring our soldiers home? What are you going to do about a President who is ignoring the will of the people and ignoring the will of Congress in their attempts to resist the continued funding of the war? Every weekend, somewhere in this country, Barbara Lee is attempting to answer those questions and engage the American citizens about what is happening here.

I yield to Barbara Lee.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for her consistent and persistent leadership on this issue of war in Iraq, and I thank her for coming to the floor this evening to help sound the bell against a possible march to war with Iran.

We have been joined by another one of our colleagues who too has been consistent in his opposition to this war. From the very day that he first came to this chamber, he made it clear where he stood on this war. He has joined with us on the floor on many other occasions and it is a constant part of his agenda wherever he is to remind people that we are in a war that makes no sense, where lives are being lost, and hopes and dreams are being dashed.

He brings a special kind of understanding about what is going on because of his familiarity with the Arab nations and with Islam, and he has done a wonderful job of helping to teach and introduce to the Members of this Congress other cultures and helping us to understand how they operate, what they are all about, and helping us to gain respect for those that sometimes are singled out for war, when, of course, problems and issues could be handled with diplomacy.

I am proud to yield time to Representative Keith Ellison to sound the alarm.

Thank you very much, I am so pleased and proud to have been joined by my colleagues here this evening to sound the alarm. Let me say that again, we are sounding the alarm. We are opening up the debate. We are raising the questions. We are challenging this administration on the issue of war with Iran.

We are saying, Mr. President, we have watched, we have listened, and we have learned. We are smarter people when we hear talk about war, when we hear accusations being made. When we hear a march to war we now recognize it for what it is. It is a given that we have this knowledge that we have acquired since we have been here since the start of the war with Iraq. We do not intend to sit idly by without opening up the discussion, without making the challenge, without raising the questions.

As I said, prior to the opening lines of the presentation that was just given by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, there were signs of war that have been identified, not only by some of the experts that we have been talking to, but by those who have been writing and watching what has been going on.

As I mentioned before, there is talk, and there are news articles.

U.S. News & World Report, published on March 11, title, ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.'' Let me repeat that, U.S. News & World Report published on March 11 titled ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.''

Warships off of Lebanon, with the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based war planes and sea launch missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure.

``Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system missile defense against air attacks.''

This article goes on to talk about ``Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mid East trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military and ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit choke point into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies, if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March, 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mid East trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy to Iraq and not war, which began a year later.''

Vice President Cheney has been on that trip, as we pretty well know, based on the advanced intelligence revealed by this very, very well- placed article.

They go on to talk about the Israeli air strike on Syria.

Israel's air strike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy, and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program.

An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeted electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran. That is also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risk for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

They go on to give the other identification markers that should be watched and should be vetted.

Israeli comments. Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said that they are prepared to act alone if that becomes necessary to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

Israel's war with Hezbollah. While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on its own, but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm through a United Nations force that polices a border buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

So as you can see, there is quite a bit of reason to be concerned about the administration's saber-rattling towards Iran. There is no way to prove their intentions, and I hope we are wrong, but we really can't afford to be wrong.

Another encounter like in January between the U.S. Navy and an Iranian speedboat could be used as an excuse for retaliation similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the Vietnam War. The White House would simply claim that we were ``provoked'' and were defending ourselves.

I would like to stop at this time and yield time to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, who has been consistent in her work with the Out- of-Iraq Caucus in an attempt to bring our soldiers home. It is with great pleasure that I yield to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee.

I thank the gentlelady from Texas, and I am very, very appreciative of the fact that the gentlelady is one of the Members of Congress that we can always count on to confront the challenges that we are confronted with, particularly as it relates to this war, and at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Thank you very much to both Sheila Jackson-Lee and Barbara Lee for, again, their constant and consistent struggle working in this House against the war.

Mr. Speaker, and Members, press reports have given us some indications of the thrust of current White House directed planning. The strike would be against Iranian terrorist facilities, the Revolutionary Guard units and/or nuclear production facilities, a limited air strike operation with the objective of changing Iranian behavior. Those who argue for the strike are saying there will be very few U.S. casualties and very few Iranian civilian casualties. Nevertheless, we all know that U.S. strikes against Iran would be disastrous.

Middle East experts generally agree that Iran would respond to a U.S. strike by attacking U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the region and possibly globally. These strikes would lead to a greater Middle East war, including greater loss of life, financial burden, over stretch of our military and worse.

We're sounding the alarm this evening and we are sending a message to the President of the United States of America and to the Vice President, particularly now to the Vice President, who, when he was reminded by an ABC News reporter that the recent polls show that two- thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, his response, ``and so?''

Well, Mr. Vice President, our ``and so'' to you tonight is, and so the American people do not want us to continue this war in Iraq and to air strike in Iran. We're sounding the alarm. And I will yield time to the gentleman who just left the Speaker's seat to complete this colloquy that we've had here this evening.

Madam Speaker, and Members, I am pleased that we have

taken time from our schedules to come to the floor tonight to sound the alarm. The saber rattling is going on by this administration. The remarks that we're hearing day in and day out are more accusatory toward Iran. We are made to believe that we are somehow being placed at a great threat by Iran.

And so we know where this is going. We know what this means, and we're saying, we must not rule out diplomacy. We must believe that we can settle differences by way of diplomacy.

We know that we've still got work to do on Iraq. We've still got to make many Members of this House feel comfortable with the idea that they can confront their President, that they can still be very, very patriotic as they stand up against war and bringing our soldiers home. We know that the work has to be done, but we've got to add to that work the fact that we can stop an airstrike on Iran and we can stop the notion that somehow we must send more soldiers in.

Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. This bill authorizes $50 billion over the next five years for international health programs, including $41 billion for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, $4 billion for tuberculosis programs, and $5 billion for malaria programs.

I just returned from South Africa, where I received the ``OR Tambo Award,'' from South African President Thabo Mbeki. I received this award because of my efforts to end the brutal system of apartheid in South Africa and to obtain the release of South African anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela from prison. Apartheid was dismantled and Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa in 1994, when South Africa held its first democratic elections.

I was very proud to receive the OR Tambo Award because I have always been and continue to be a friend to South Africa. However, in South Africa today, the enemy is HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that 5.5 million people are living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa. That is more than any other country in the world. Over 18 percent of the adult population of South Africa is infected by HIV. Infected persons include thousands of well-educated professionals, such as doctors, nurses, civil servants and teachers.

Everywhere I went in South Africa, people told me about the terrible problem 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 and AIDS. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes provisions to 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.

It is impossible to address HIV without also addressing tuberculosis. Almost 9 million people develop tuberculosis every year. At least 2.4 million are killed by the disease. According to the World Health Organization, HIV and tuberculosis form a lethal combination, each speeding the progress of the other. In the past 15 years, tuberculosis rates have doubled in Africa overall and tripled in areas with high HIV concentrations. In some areas of Africa, up to 80 percent of tuberculosis patients also test positive for HIV. This makes tuberculosis clinics an ideal location for HIV prevention, treatment, and care.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in South Africa and around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Scott for the tremendous effort that he has put forward to help develop this CBC alternative budget.

We have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation that we will vote on all year; the budget resolution that sets forth the priorities this House will pursue for the remainder of the year.

I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to present an alternative budget, a budget that is wise, prudent, responsible and balanced. I have many concerns, deep concerns with health care, education, criminal justice elements of the resolution. But I think I want to focus my time on housing and community development, given my position as the chair of the subcommittee that bears that name.

We have all witnessed the instability of our economy in the face of turmoil directly resulting from the housing and mortgage market. Incredibly, at a time when we should be focusing more resources on this area, the President's budget slashes programs that provide housing and supportive services to our country's poorest disabled and elderly households. It starves the local housing authorities of funds they need to sustain and modernize public housing stock, and once again seeks to cripple the Community Development Block Grant program.

Specifically, the President's budget reduces funding for HUD 202 supportive housing for the elderly by 27 percent. If enacted, this cut would leave funding for this program at a level 40 percent below its fiscal year 2001 appropriations. The CBC adds $300 million to the President's request to rectify this cut.

There are a number of other cuts, but let me draw your attention to the proposed elimination of the HOPE VI program, which the House of Representatives recently voted to reauthorize on a bipartisan vote of 271-130. The CBC budget adds $1 billion to restore this program.

Let me also bring to your attention a cut in the Community Development Block Grant program of $657 million and a zeroing out of the section 108 Loan Guarantee program. If enacted, the President's budget would culminate a multi-year attack on CDBG that could put the program at a funding level of about one-half of its appropriation in fiscal year 2001.

I ask support of the CBC budget. I believe that all of America would be served well by this budget.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for their leadership on the Progressive Caucus for all of the work that they do, not only putting this alternative budget together, but the leadership they have provided to this Congress and trying to get this Congress moving in the right direction and representing all of the people.

I certainly did not want to take my time responding to the gentleman from Wisconsin, but we need to understand the definitions. When he talks about raising taxes, what he's really talking about is the fact that both of these budgets, the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the Progressive Caucus budget simply will eliminate the tax giveaways to the richest corporations in America. And that's what he calls raising taxes, the very people who are responsible for getting us in this sub-prime mess that we are in now where we have people who are losing their homes to foreclosures.

Having said all of that, I have already spoken about my support for the Congressional Black Caucus. And I'm offering today my very, very strong support for the Progressive Caucus budget.

Many of the priorities are the same in these two budgets, including vastly increasing funds for housing and community development, veterans education, health programs, and energy independence. I strongly support these increases.

As I said, when I talked about the Congressional Black Caucus budget, they had eliminated HOPE VI, a program that would provide decent housing for the most vulnerable people in our society in a responsible way. They tried to reduce the CDBG program, the program that goes to these small cities and to these towns that are using them for infrastructure and helping senior citizens and youth. And this budget would put the money back in to make them continue to be credible programs.

Let me talk a little bit about the economic stimulus. The components of the economic stimulus package included in the Progressive Caucus budget, for which we have been advocating for many weeks now, are certainly needed to help those Americans hardest hit by the worsening economic situation.

Most importantly, stimulation will come from increased funds for housing assistance and community development. The economic downturn came from the devastating housing market, and that is where we need to focus our resources.

The Progressive Caucus also targets unemployment, insurance, food stamps, FMAP and health care aid and large infrastructure projects in each of our States to invest in our cities and create new jobs. With well-founded fears of a recession being discussed at dinner tables across the country, these investments are absolutely necessary to support our constituents and stimulate our economy.

The Progressive Caucus also focuses on cutting the fat from our bloated Pentagon budget. Our military is still preparing to fight the Cold War against the USSR. I won't go any further than that.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I'd like to express my support for the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 117 on H.R. 2082, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''