Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed honored to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007; and I want to thank Mr. Sires and Chairman Frank for their dedication and commitment to resolving this, at times, perplexing and confusing process known as asset management to which our public housing agencies have been struggling to adapt for several years now. This struggle has been made all the worse by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's overly prescriptive guidance on some issues, lack of guidance on other issues, and contradictory or insufficient guidance on everything in between.

I think we can all agree that public housing agencies can be better at managing our public housing resources and that asset management has the potential to improve how public housing is managed nationwide. However, in examining the issues behind the implementation of asset management, it has become clear that HUD's one-size-fits-all approach simply won't work. In addition, the Department's willful disregard of existing statute as a part of the implementation is eroding the trust of housing agencies' residents and some Members of this Congress.

In light of the Department's actions and the need to proceed with asset management, my friend from New Jersey who introduced this bill, H.R. 3521, maintains and respects the negotiated rulemaking agreed to by all parties, housing agencies, their industry representatives and HUD and still requires housing agencies to convert to asset management by 2011.

However, the bill settles three outstanding issues that have slowed the implementation of asset management: number one, the amount of management fees; number two, the ability of housing agencies to use a portion of their capital funds while operating expenses as allowed under statute; and number three, the kind of housing agencies that must convert to asset management. These are all critical issues that must be decided before 2011.

H.R. 3521 would require negotiated rulemaking to settle the issue of management fees. The fees that the Department is attempting to impose on housing agencies are, in many cases, insufficient and will not meet the needs of housing agencies that have been historically underfunded.

In addition, these fees appear to have been arrived at in an arbitrary manner. Negotiated rulemaking on the subject of management fees would allow the Nation's housing managers to work with HUD to determine a reasonable fee for managing public housing. Because the date for full implementation of asset management would stay the same, negotiated rulemaking would not delay or stall conversion to asset management.

On the use of capital funds for operating expenses, the statute is very clear. Housing agencies have the ability to move 20 percent of their capital funds to their operating fund. However, in its guidance, the Department has disregarded this plain-as-day statute and has limited capital fund fungibility to 10 percent. The bill simply asserts what is already in law.

Large housing agencies will benefit the most from asset management due to the economies of scale that will result from streamlining their operations. By raising the threshold for conversion from housing agencies that manage 250 units to those that manage 500 units, the bill simply ensures that only those housing agencies with the ability to benefit from asset management are required to comply with it.

Furthermore, the bill makes sure that asset management does not stifle tenant participation and resident organization. Public housing residents are very concerned about how asset management will impact their ability to participate and to organize. The bill ensures that the ability of residents to remain involved and to be represented is not impinged upon.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not undo, reverse, or undermine the original negotiated rulemaking between housing agencies and the Department. It simply settles four outstanding issues so that asset management can move forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.

Madam Speaker, I rise almost in disbelief that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, led by Mrs. Bachmann, would dare bring to this floor a motion that basically would say to us that the Federal Government cannot direct this issue on Federal property.

We own these public housing authorities. The people who are here live under the rules that we develop for living in public housing. We are confronted with the problem in America, and that problem is, unfortunately, and painfully, we have poor people who are isolated, and they find their power and their strength in the gun.

There are far too many guns raging every night in America in public housing authorities, whether it is Los Angeles or New York or down south.

What you find are young jobless men in gangs who shoot throughout the

night where people are ducking under their beds, afraid to open their doors. Many of these public housing authorities are on main thoroughfares, next to shopping centers, on your way to the airport.

These bullets don't limit themselves to inside these public housing authorities. They could end up shooting people who are passing through the area.

I understand, perhaps, the argument that one would make about constitutional rights. While I disagree with that, I think it is foolhardy and foolish to talk about we don't have the authority to determine what happens on our property.

There are those in this room who would shout down public housing authorities and not give people a place to live at all, because they said there is too much violence, there is too much joblessness, there is too much violence. There are those of us who have worked for years not only to clean up these public housing authorities but to make sure that the people who live there are abiding by the law.

I am in disbelief that anyone could believe it's all right to continue what is happening in America today in many of these public housing authorities where young people are dying. Of course we don't like it. Of course we are appalled at it. We are pained with it. But give me a break. All of us are much more responsible than this motion to recommit would have us believe.

I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker and Members, our majority leader just put before us a motion that I think we should all support. It is unreasonable for us to think that somehow we are going to not give this House the opportunity to provide leadership on crime.

There are Members on the opposite side of the aisle who would identify themselves as being law and order people, of wanting to get rid of guns and crime. Well, this is an opportunity to show where you stand. Do you stand with us to keep Americans safe? Do you stand with us to make the rules on Federal property, or are you going to vote us down?

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise today to share with this body the unbelievable circumstances surrounding the victims of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

I thought the American people had been shocked at the lack of response by our Government to the victims of these hurricanes. I thought the American people could hardly ever get over the fact that they witnessed victims of a natural disaster held up in a convention center in New Orleans for days without food, without water, begging for help.

It was unbelievable when we discovered that the head of FEMA, Mr. Brown at the time, said that he did not know that those victims were out in front of the convention center waving white flags, inside the convention center sick and even dying.

It was unbelievable to witness one of the richest, if not the richest country in the world with the lack of adequate response to its citizens at a time when we were needed most.

And so we're trying to work through this. We have been working to try and get money to the gulf coast, to New Orleans, to Mississippi. We have tried to work to save public housing so that residents could return who had been evacuated and told that the housing would be rehabilitated and they could return.

Many of us have been pushing not only on FEMA and our government, but working with the State and local government trying to correct the injustices that we have now come to know that have taken place in the gulf coast.

And now we're confronted with another unbelievable situation. How much bungling can you do? How much mismanagement can you be responsible for?

Finally, we find there's more. The Federal Emergency Management Administration, that is, FEMA, has admitted what people living in trailers have known for several years: that these trailers contain high levels of formaldehyde that pose serious health risks for residents. Almost after moving in, trailer residents started to complain about respiratory and other formaldehyde-related health problems.

The first private study on the unacceptable levels of formaldehyde in these trailers was in 2006. A few months later, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration conducted its own testing and found formaldehyde concentration as high as 5 parts per million, or 50 times higher than the level the Environmental Protection Agency considers elevated. But FEMA didn't stop the sale or deployment of trailers until July of 2007. And here it is 2008, and it still has no plan to move families out of these environmental health hazards and into safe, permanent, and affordable housing.

Mr. Speaker and Members, we've got to force FEMA to rise to the challenge of getting these 38,000 families out of these toxic trailers as soon as possible and move them into safe, permanent, and affordable housing. Unfortunately, because affordable housing creation has not been a priority of this Bush administration, I know this is going to be a difficult task.

The Bush administration has failed to ensure that the gulf coast region has an adequate supply of affordable housing for its displaced persons, including those in trailers. The administration approved redevelopment plans in Mississippi and Louisiana that provide less affordable housing than was available before Hurricane Katrina. It even allowed, believe this, the State of Mississippi to move $600 million away from housing assistance to the redevelopment of the Port of Gulfport.

Now, mind you, there are still people who are out of State who want to come home. There are still people living in trailers. There are still people doubled up with family members. And this administration, this Housing Secretary said to the State of Mississippi, go ahead and take $600 million from housing assistance and you can go ahead and use it for the redevelopment of the port.

In New Orleans, the administration has approved the demolition of 4,500 units of public housing, with no regard to the fact that there are 12,000 homeless persons who could have benefited from having a roof over their heads. The demolition of New Orleans' public housing during an affordable housing crisis is a prime example of this administration's shortsightedness and lack of concern for our country's lowest income renters.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I simply close by saying, here we are, FEMA again, mismanagement, lives at stake. They have no answers.

Madam Speaker, this evening I come to the floor to be with my friend and colleague Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey as she gives her 250th speech and Special Order on this floor. I come to be with her to commend her for the tremendous leadership that she has provided not only in speaking out against the war in Iraq, but because she has given numerous press conferences, she has been on numerous speaking engagements, she has spoken with editorial boards, she has written articles, she has done everything that could be done in order to provide leadership and to encourage and urge the Congress of the United States to bring our soldiers home.

Unfortunately, her messages have not always been heard. But there are those of us, those of us who work with her in the Progressive Caucus, those of us who work with her in the Out of Iraq Caucus, who have tried to not only give support but to do the same kinds of things that she has been doing in order to end this war.

The American people are tired of this war, and I find it disingenuous for some of the pundits to say that somehow this is off the radar screen, that this is not an issue that the American public cares about anymore, that somehow it is the economy. Of course it is the economy, but you cannot separate what is going on within our economy from the war. We must look at this war for what it is.

First of all, it is a war that we certainly should not be in. We were misled. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is dead. Four thousand of our American soldiers have been killed in this war. Countless Iraqis, Iraqi civilians, and others who have made up the coalition forces from other countries are also dead. And so here we are, and the pundits are talking about it is not about the war, it's not on the radar screen of the American public, that the economy is, when, in fact, our economy is in recession because of this mismanaged war.

We have a President of the United States who came in as a fiscal conservative supposedly belonging to the party of the fiscal conservatives who have been spending, spending, spending on this war in Iraq, over $500 billion on this war in Iraq, at the same time giving tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of the corporations of America and denying the dollars that we need to invest in our own domestic problems that need to be addressed.

We had a bridge fall down in Minneapolis, and people wondered why did that happen. And when we took a close look at the reviews, the assessments that had been done about the state of affairs of our bridges and our infrastructure, we learned that many of our bridges in America are in the same position that that bridge was in, and we know that they have been assessed to be dangerous, that they need repair.

Why don't we have the money to invest in our infrastructure? Why is it we cannot create the jobs by investing in our infrastructure? Why can't we repair the bridges and the roads and the highways and build credible transportation systems? It is because this administration has decided that we are going to spend a disproportionate amount of the taxpayers' dollars on this war in Iraq, and we don't know when we are going to get out of this war in Iraq. And this administration would have us believe, because they have sent more soldiers and spent more money in the so-called surge, that somehow we are winning the war. What are we winning? What does winning look like? I don't recognize it.

I know this: I know that these 4,000 soldiers that have been killed in Iraq are not with their families, that their families, many, are in disarray; many of them very patriotic, who went to war because the President said that they were needed; and many of them who are no longer with us, their families are suffering. And we have others who have been injured who have come home, and they have not gotten the best medical treatment that they should have received, even though they were promised that, if they serve, they would be taken care of.

So here we are. We have destabilized the Middle East and we have occupied Iraq. We have Iran that is threatening us, Syria, Lebanon destabilized, and Pakistan is a joke.

I will simply conclude by thanking Lynn Woolsey for all that she has done to try to convince this Congress we should bring our soldiers home.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I first would like to thank all of our leaders who were involved in the negotiations on this most important stimulus package. Despite the fact there are some differences and some things we would have liked to have seen differently, this was a good effort, and I think we all have to get behind this effort and move forward with it. I'm thankful for the work that the Speaker did in particular.

And I rise in support of the economic stimulus package before us today. It is urgently needed in light of home foreclosure rates that are 70 percent above the same time last year. Labor Department figures show that a sharp slowdown in job creation actually took place in December and the worst holiday season in over 5 years.

Americans need help, and I applaud Speaker Pelosi for working with the administration and Minority Leader Boehner to provide it to them and quickly. This package will provide rebates to 117 million households, the kind of broad-based relief required to help jump-start consumer spending and the economy. Individuals can look forward to up to $600 in tax relief, while married couples may get as much as $1,200 to meet their expenses, including skyrocketing costs of fueling their cars and heating their homes.

Equally critical, this package is not tilted toward the high income to the extent that the President's original proposal was. Indeed, thanks to Speaker Pelosi's efforts, the package includes tax relief of up to $300 for 35 million working individuals who earn too little to pay income taxes, a group that had been left out of the initial plan. Further, the bill will temporarily raise loan limits for the GSEs and the FHA, which will allow these entities to play an increased role in helping distressed homeowners across the country, especially in high- cost housing markets like my home State of California. As the lead sponsor of H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, I am pleased that the bill incorporates loan limit increases for loans written by the Federal Housing Administration. The reforms in H.R. 1852 are critical in addressing the current foreclosure crisis, and I look forward to ensuring enactment of other elements of this much-needed legislation.

There are a few critical measures to assist our Nation's lowest income households, those who are most likely to inject any assistance they receive directly into the economy, that I am disappointed were left out of the final stimulus package.

In particular, extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits and a 10 percent increase in Food Stamp benefits would provide critical assistance to the Nation's poor families. Moreover, both could start injecting more consumer purchasing power into the economy within 1 to 2 months, even faster than the planned rebate checks are likely to go out. A recent analysis by Economy.com found that for each dollar spent on extended Unemployment Insurance benefits, $1.64 in increased economic activity would be generated and for each dollar in increased food stamp benefits, $1.73 in new economic activity would be generated. This is substantial ``bang-for-the buck'' in fiscal stimulus.

Nonetheless, I recognize that Speaker Pelosi had to make some hard choices in negotiations with the Administration and our colleagues from across the aisle, who view appropriate economic stimulus very differently; therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this negotiated proposal.

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. 3524, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 3524 pursuant to House Resolution 922, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time

for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 3524 on September 11 of 2007.

I want to thank each of my colleagues both on the Committee on Financial Services and in the House who have joined with me to see that this important legislation passes the House. I want to especially thank Chairman Barney Frank, Melvin Watt, and Christopher Shays for their original coauthorship, cosponsorship, and support of H.R. 3524.

In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the minority, resident organizations, housing advocacy groups, public housing agencies, housing developers, bankers, green building experts, and practitioners, and other Members with an interest in the HOPE VI program. The end result is a bill that I believe takes into account the needs of residents, the community, the investors and lenders, and our public housing managers. Most importantly, we have a bill that preserves and revitalizes our public housing stock.

H.R. 3524 reauthorizes and improves the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program by requiring the one-for-one replacement of all demolished public housing units, providing residents with meaningful and substantive involvement in the planning and development of the HOPE VI plan, expanding community and supportive services from 15 percent of grants that amount to 25 percent of grant amount; prohibiting HOPE VI specific screening criteria so that public housing residents and HOPE VI aren't held to a higher standard than non-HOPE VI residents, requiring housing agencies to monitor and track the whereabouts of relocated families, and mandating that developments be built in accordance with green building standards.

Public housing residents, including those not yet impacted by HOPE VI, and housing advocates have said that this bill has been a long time in coming, and I agree with them. I would like to note why the bill before us today is so important.

First, it preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory.

Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost as a direct result of the HOPE VI program. Stopping this bleeding was paramount in the drafting of this legislation. One-for-one replacement is not only a part of the bill; it is the heart of this bill. Limiting one-for-one to only occupied units does a disservice to families on waiting lists and to families waiting to get on waiting lists. Public housing is a community resource, and units can be unoccupied because they are not fit for humans to live in. That does not mean that there is no need for them.

Second, because of strict screening criteria, HOPE VI has become limited to the cream of the public housing crop. Some people think that the HOPE VI development represents a new and better community and should have new and better people. However, as a Congress, we must be clear that public housing is for the most in need, not just the easiest to serve.

HOPE VI projects have programs and services that can greatly benefit our neediest families.

In addition, in the drive to separate the wheat from the chaff, public housing agencies have implemented screening criteria that are nothing short of draconian. These criteria include everything from credit checks, home visits, work requirements, and other criteria that many nonpublic housing residents would be unable to meet. We must reject any attempt to continue to punish public housing residents for being poor and must continue to provide them with the tools, through programs like HOPE VI, to assist them in improving their lives.

Lastly, I would like to talk about why green building standards should be mandatory in HOPE VI developments. Our public housing was built poorly and inefficiently. Many of our developments are wasteful and hazardous to the health of the residents, and many investments we make in public housing developments, which will be around for the next 40 years, should ensure that this housing is safe, sound, energy efficient and good for the environment. This is just good public policy. We owe it to our public housing residents and to the environment to make sure that we do not recreate the inefficient and harmful mistakes that went into building many of these developments in the first place.

This bill has the support of over 145 resident organizations: the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Housing Law Project, the Community Builders, Bank of America, the Housing Justice Network, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and others. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and these groups recognize this.

Specifically, regarding the green building provisions, although one group is not supportive, over 30 organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Public Health Association, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and others, have voiced their overwhelming support for the green building requirements in the bill.

We have crafted a bill that is good for residents, housing authorities, and communities. I urge you not to be blindsided by threats from third parties and to support our Nation's low-income families and to preserve our housing stock.

Madam Chairman, I would like to say in closing that this should be a bill that receives support from both sides of the aisle. This is the kind of bill that we can truly come together around. Everyone recognizes that it is needed in all communities, rural and urban, suburban, all over the United States.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to Mr. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, hardworking member of our subcommittee, Congressman Sires, 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, to correct that information, I yield 30 seconds to the chairman, Mr. Frank.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a hardworking member of our committee.

Madam Chairman, this would be an excellent time for me to call on the major cosponsor of this bill, someone who has been consistently involved with HOPE VI ever since it was originated.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the subcommittee who has never missed a meeting, Congressman Al Green.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, who has been so much involved in this issue, Gwen Moore.

I would like to inquire as to how much time I have left, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Bill Pascrell.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has been very much involved in this issue, Congressman Elijah Cummings.

Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time I have left.

I will yield that 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank, and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Mel Watt for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 3524.

In the manager's amendment filed before this committee, we worked very hard to address concerns that had been raised by the minority, housing advocates, resident organizations, housing authorities, and others to ensure that we have a bill that is achievable and responsive to the needs of low-income families and communities.

In the manager's amendment we maintain more of our public housing stock by requiring the replacement of any units in existence as of January 1, 2005; provide an extremely limited waiver of the one-for-one requirement in special circumstances, such as a court decree or a severe shortage of land, and impose a penalty on those housing authorities who receive a waiver but fail to meet their obligations under it; allow replacement units to be built outside the jurisdiction of the housing authority in the event the housing authority's jurisdiction is limited in the number of low-poverty areas; extend the timeline for rebuilding from 12 to 54 months; increase resident involvement in decisions surrounding significant changes to HOPE VI plans; exclude green building from total development costs; provide flexibility in nonresidential green development standards; protect grantees affected by cost increases and project delays as a result of the 2005 hurricanes from recapture of their funds; and provide that HOPE VI housing assistance is only for persons who are legally present in the United States.

These changes will greatly improve the bill and build upon the success of the HOPE VI program. Since this program's inception in 1992, we have all watched it at work in our districts and wondered how it could work better. We have all seen families displaced and heard stories about families disappearing into thin air because of these developments. We have seen the units come down and seen a reduced number come back up. We know that HOPE VI can and must do better.

This manager's amendment as well as the underlying bill will go far into making this a program that truly gives hope to low-income families. I urge you to support the manager's amendment and the underlying bill and to remember that this bill is about maintaining housing for our low-income families. They need our support.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who spent a lot of time working on this manager's amendment and this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the people that I have identified on this side of the aisle today, plus people I have not identified on the opposite side of the aisle. It has been very enjoyable working with Mrs. Capito, I have appreciated the work of Mr. Shays, and of course my old friend, Mr. Bachus, even though we disagree on some things; and Mr. Neugebauer. We have all come to the conclusion certainly that HOPE VI is a valuable program and that all of our communities can benefit from it.

We have a few different views about one-for-one, we have a few different views about Davis-Bacon maybe, the destruction of units, and the green requirements. But this is one bill that both sides of the aisle understand very thoroughly that America is going to benefit. Mr. Bachus reminded us, even though I know that he understands, that the reason for HOPE VI is to deal with those public housing projects, those developments that were in great disrepair, that needed to be replaced, that needed to be restored, and not just the physical makeup, not just the buildings; but we also understood that what was wrong with our public housing developments was lack of services.

Many of these developments are like little towns, little cities without services. We all know and appreciate they need after-school, they need health care, they need all kinds of support for families, and job development. All of those things we all support, and I would not challenge my Members on the opposite side of the aisle on any of those issues.

I would like to thank them for the tremendous cooperation they have given, and the staffs have worked so well together to resolve a lot of questions to get us to the point that we are today; and while we will go through a few amendments, I feel very, very good that this very, very big and complicated bill has received such wonderful support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3524, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I would like to commend those who have worked so hard for so long to try and right the wrong of our occupation in Iraq. I would like to thank the leadership for all the attempts that they have made to try and engage people on the opposite side of the aisle and those who don't have enough courage to do the right thing.

We find ourselves here at a moment with an omnibus bill that we have had to support, and many people have many things in the bill that they would like to have back home. I understand that. But in the final analysis, we are never going to end this war until we stop feeding this war with the taxpayers' dollars after they have told us to bring our soldiers home.

I stand here today in support of our soldiers. I support them coming home. Young men and women are dying in Iraq, the victims of IEDs, not even knowing how to protect themselves. And they come home, and we have to struggle to make sure that they are taken care of, that their health care needs are met.

When are we going to come to our senses? We are fighting a war that we never should have been in in the first place. We are fighting a war where we

were told there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. We are fighting a war where we have contractors who are abusing civilians in Iraq. We have contractors who are stealing the taxpayers' money in Iraq. And yet we continue to nuance this debacle. We continue to say, I didn't understand. I didn't know. Well, let me make it perfectly clear.

There is $70 billion in this bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is fungible. We don't know how much of it is going to be spent where. But don't go away saying, I didn't understand, I didn't know, that is not what I intended to do. There is $70 billion here. If you don't want to continue this war, don't vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker and Members, I rise this evening to basically talk about what is happening in New Orleans and the fact that the city council is going to take a vote on Thursday to determine whether or not they're going to dismantle the big four public housing developments in that city. If they dismantle these public housing units, the City of New Orleans will lose 4,500 units.

These units have been boarded up for 2 years. The citizens who lived in these units were evacuated as a result of Katrina and Rita. They are now living in other cities, Houston and Dallas and Austin and Atlanta, all over the place, and they thought they would be able to return once these units were rehabbed.

These units, many of them, were not destroyed. Some of them had minimal damage. For example, the one housing development, La Fete, only had water damage on the first level. And they could have not only rehabbed that first level of La Fete projects, they could have opened up those other units, but

they did not. They have been boarded up. And people's lives have been in limbo living in these other cities, without the opportunity to come home and without the support that they needed.

In my committee, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, we worked and we put together a bill, H.R. 1227. That bill passed out of that committee and off the floor in March, and we sent it over to the Senate, where it has languished.

But basically, that bill laid out not only the fact that we would do a survey, because HUD was saying, well, many of the people had left, they did not want to come back. In that bill, we asked for a survey to be taken. We also placed in that bill that 3,000 units would be rehabbed right away, people would be given an opportunity to come back who wanted to come back, then the residents would be involved, working with HUD and HANO, that is the local housing authority, and the City of New Orleans to talk about the future of public housing development, what they would like to see.

We are not against redevelopment. We think that there should be planned development. We think that, first of all, they should look at these units and see which of them should remain. They should work with the residents and the local elected officials to talk about what would be redeveloped. And we were very surprised. We were very surprised when just a few days ago they started to dismantle the ``Big Four'' public housing units.

Well, because they started, two different entities went ahead and got restraining orders. They have been working with a non-profit group, the Advancement Project, and Ms. Tracy Washington and Mr. Bill Quigley, two lawyers that got involved and got a restraining order to stop the bulldozers. And then the AFL-CIO that had been working on one of the big developments known in New Orleans to stop that development. So now a lot of people have gotten involved.

The conservancy got involved because some of these are historic properties. And now the city council, it has been thrown into their laps because when they started to look at what HUD was doing in dismantling, they found that they were breaking any number of laws. They had not gotten the permits, and perhaps they don't even have the legal authority by which to do it because they had taken over these public housing projects. They were in receivership. But the time frame for the receivership had run out. And so we don't even know if they have the authority.

So now we have at least one restraining order that remains and the city council that is going to take a vote about each of those. AFL-CIO was involved in the one called St. Bernard, one of the biggest ones.

I have drafted a letter to the members of the city council explaining to them what we thought was an arrangement that we had worked out with the HUD Secretary, Mr. Jackson, that would do the rehab of a limited number of units and involve the tenants and the plan for the redevelopment of all these units. We are surprised they want to bulldoze them. We are very surprised because homelessness has doubled in New Orleans. There are no rental units. Many of those units were destroyed. People are still living in FEMA's trailers. And to think that they would dismantle 4,500 units of public housing is unconscionable when people are looking for places to live.

So I have developed a letter that is going to the members of the city council and will try to engage them as much as I can to explain what we have done here. We also asked Speaker Pelosi, along with Senator Reid, to put together a letter asking the President not to dismantle these units. That letter has gone out. My letter is going out. The telephone calls are going forth. But it is important for the people of this country to understand what is going on.

There were rumors following Rita and Katrina that perhaps some people wanted to change the make-up of New Orleans. Some people wanted to get rid of the poor people and thought that all of that city should really become the tourist attraction with all of the hotels and the gambling and all of the other things, and workers should live outside and not inside New Orleans. And some people think that they are carrying out that kind of a mission and that kind of program. I would just ask the Secretary to not demolish these public housing units. It is Christmastime. To give to the people of New Orleans a Christmas present of tearing down these units is unconscionable.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the congresswoman from Ohio for initiating this memorial moment in the Congress of the United States for Julia Carson. This is a very special and important time because we're here this evening to talk about a woman that we truly loved and a woman who gave so much in public service to her country. I know that her family's saddened by her loss because it is a great loss.

She has been referred to this evening as a jewel, as the queen, and I came to understand this quite some time ago.

I've known Julia for many years, long before I came to Congress and long before she came to Congress. I served in the State legislature of California, and she was a State legislator also, and like Diane Watson and others, we all worked with the Conference of State Legislators and the Conference of Black State Legislators. And so she knew legislators from all over the country.

And after I came here, I kept in contact with Julia, and when she ran for office, she called me and she told me that she wanted me to help her. I thought she wanted me to raise some money or maybe come someplace to do something. And after talking with her for a few minutes, she made it very clear she wanted me to get Muhammad Ali to come to help her out. She didn't want me. She wanted Muhammad Ali, and so she said, Well, you know him, don't you? And I said, Yes, I do. She said, Well, if I could get Muhammad Ali here, then that would seal the deal. That's exactly what I need.

And of course, I asked him and he went to campaign with her, and he often asked after that how she was doing. And his award-winning photographer, Mr. Howard Binghan, would oftentimes ask me how she was doing, what she was doing so he could report to Muhammad Ali how his candidate that he had helped to win that election was doing in the Congress of the United States of America.

Well, let me just say, she was doing wonderfully well legislatively. Some people have referred to not only the fact that she was responsible for the recognition that Rosa Parks got getting the gold medal, but she was working on some tremendous legislation. And as I stand here before you this evening as the Chair of that Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, her legislation is really before us. It is known as HEARTH. It means the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. And, you know, we've got to pass that legislation, and we've got to pass it, that is, H.R. 840, in the way that she wants it passed.

She was expanding the definition of homelessness. She was expanding it so that more people, many of whom who were not considered homeless, we should be qualifying for homeless assistance, that did not get it, could now be drawn in with this legislation.

So, it is important for all of us to give support to the work that she was involved in because, again, this very special woman really did not suffer fools. I mean, I know that you've heard the story about the time she stepped on the elevator and another Member of Congress, who had not been here maybe quite as long as Julia, said to Julia when she stepped on the elevator, This elevator is for Members of Congress. And of course, she got the look that only Julia can give, and told somebody, Close the door, because that's how she handled someone who did not have the sense to be gracious enough to whomever was getting on the elevator, but certainly she should have known who her colleagues were getting on the elevator.

But there are many stories you will hear about Julia Carson, because not only was she brilliant, she had this sense of humor and she had this wit that was just undeniable. And of all of the people who spoke at Rosa Parks' funeral, and I was at the funeral in Washington, D.C., when Julia spoke, she was the most engaging, the most memorable, the one that really caught the attention of everyone at that service.

Julia Carson was truly a queen, and the descriptions that you've heard

about her this evening and how she was loved, you have to go to Indianapolis to understand it. You have to hear people talk about her to really get a sense of the queen, and they referred to her as ``the queen.''

And so I'm very proud to be a part of this discussion, remembering her this evening, and she will rest in peace, having done her part, having given all that any human being could give.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank Mr. Klein and Mr. Mahoney for their leadership in authoring this bill.

Too well, we all remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the resulting confusion families encountered about their insurance coverage or lack thereof. Well, imagine if a hurricane were to go through a state and only 1 in 8 homeowners were covered by an insurance policy. Unfortunately, this is exactly the situation that exists in California today--only 1 in 8 (or 12 percent) of Californians possess earthquake insurance. At the time of the Northridge earthquake in 1994 almost three times as many people were covered. After the Northridge earthquake, the cost of the coverage doubled and the amount of coverage provided was cut in half.

The California Earthquake Authority (CEA)--created after the Northridge earthquake when insurers restricted homeowners' insurance policies in order to avoid earthquake exposure--currently provides about two-thirds of the residential insurance coverage in California. Since its inception 11 years ago, CEA has been unable to accumulate the amount of capital it projects it will need in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. This year approximately 40 percent of the premium that CEA collects from policyholders will be paid to re- insurers rather than towards capital accumulation or more coverage under the policy.

Including the CEA in the benefits provided under H.R. 3355 will allow it to reduce its claims-paying financing costs while still being able to pay the cost of its losses and repay any reinsurance or loans from the Federal government. By reducing its claims paying costs CEA will be able to accumulate capital faster and encourage more people to buy earthquake insurance.

Inclusion of the CEA in H.R. 3355 makes good economic sense, good actuarial sense, and good common sense. I urge my colleagues to support the Manager's Amendment and the underlying bill before us today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and Mel Watt, Mr. Bachus and Mr. Miller and others who have worked so hard on this bill. It is a very complicated issue. You have done a spectacular job.

I rise in support of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Act of 2007. Each month brings figures, new figures, that reinforce the importance of putting in place a Federal legislative and regulatory framework that prevents us from reliving this crisis in the mortgage markets. I have a keen interest in this legislation because of the disproportionate impact of the foreclosure wave on my home State. California's third quarter foreclosure rate of one foreclosure filing for every 88 households ranked second highest in all States and reflects a near quadrupling of the number reported for the same period last year. Five of the top 10 metropolitan areas in foreclosure filings are in California.

Clearly, we need to prevent the now widespread practice of getting people into loans they simply can't afford. H.R. 3915 takes critical steps in this respect, including, for the first time, imposing a Federal duty of care on all mortgage originators and setting minimum Federal standards on all mortgages. Anchoring the bill's approach are newly established minimum standards regarding the borrower's ability to repay and net tangible benefit to the consumer. This is a sound strategy given that federally regulated mortgage originators have long had to meet similar benchmarks, and not coincidentally, we have seen few problems in that sector of the market.

H.R. 3915 also seeks to reduce the incentives to market inappropriate credit products to borrowers. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3915, again for the first time, removes the most destructive of such incentives, severing the link between the compensation of the originator and the terms of the loan. Minority borrowers have been disproportionately steered to costly loans, in part because the fees such loans generate for originators are higher than more appropriate products. H.R. 3915 correctly prohibits this practice outright.

I am proud to have been an operational cosponsor of this very ambitious legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this passage today. However, I would not be telling the truth if I said I lacked any concerns about the potential impact of our ambition over time. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank you, Ranking Member Bachus, Mr. Watt and others for your diligent work in the manager's amendment to address one such concern that I raised during the Financial Services Committee markup of the bill, namely, the extent to which the assignee liability and remedies this bill creates should preempt State law.

We want to make sure that consumers are protected to the greatest extent possible. Historically, many of these protections have been initiated by States, especially in the subprime market.

With that, I would like to conclude. I would like to be clear that this groundbreaking bill should be passed today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3915.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007. Each month brings new figures that reinforce the importance of putting in place a Federal legislative and regulatory framework that prevents us from reliving this crisis in the mortgage markets. I have a keen interest in this legislation because of the disproportionate impact of the foreclosure wave on my home State. California's third-quarter foreclosure rate of one foreclosure filing for every 88 households ranked second highest among all States, and reflects a near quadrupling of the number reported for the same period last year. Five of the top 10 metro areas in foreclosure filings are in California.

Clearly, we need to prevent the now widespread practice of getting people into loans they can't afford. H.R. 3915 takes critical steps in this respect, including--for the first time--imposing a Federal duty of care on all mortgage originators and setting minimum Federal standards on all mortgages. Anchoring the bill's approach are newly established minimum standards regarding the borrower's ability to repay and net tangible benefit to the consumer. This is a sound strategy given that Federally regulated mortgage originators have long had to meet similar benchmarks, and not coincidentally, we have seen few problems in that sector of the market.

H.R. 3915 also seeks to reduce the incentives to market inappropriate credit products to borrowers. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3915--again for the first time--removes the most destructive of such incentives, severing the link between the compensation of the originator and the terms of the loan. Minority borrowers have been disproportionately steered to costly loans, in part because the fees such loans generate for originators are higher than more appropriate products. H.R. 3915 correctly prohibits this practice outright.

I am proud to have been an original co-sponsor of this ambitious legislation, and urge my colleagues to support its passage today.

But I would not be telling the truth if I said I lacked any concerns about the potential impact of our ambition over time. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you and Ranking Member Bachus for your diligent work in the Manager's Amendment to address one such concern I raised during the Financial Services Committee markup of the bill, namely, the extent to which the assignee liability and remedies this bill creates should preempt State law. We want to make sure that consumers are protected to the greatest extent possible--and, historically, many of these protections have been initiated by States, especially in the sub-prime market. But we also don't want to shut down the secondary mortgage market that has critical to expanding homeownership nationally.

I appreciate the effort that the Manager's Amendment makes to better strike this delicate balance. The Manager's Amendment now clarifies that the bill does not preempt state laws such as fraud and civil rights statutes. In particular, I appreciate that the Manager's Amendment makes crystal clear that securitizers will be held to account when they directly participate in a fraud--as in the egregious First Alliance case I mentioned at Committee markup. However, attorneys who have been working on predatory lending issues in my district and State for decades, continue to be concerned that the legal meaning of this provision is unclear. As such, federal courts may impart this meaning in ways that roll back important consumer remedies under State law.

This, in turn, raises the question of whether we have yet reached the right balance of Federal rights and remedies in the bill, given that we may be displacing a lot of State and private activity in this financial sector. Certainly, national organizations representing consumers remain concerned about this, and many have declined to endorse the bill. As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, that industry groups seem equally ambivalent about the bill suggests that perhaps we are approaching the proper ``unhappiness quotient'' among the stakeholders. As this bill moves to the Senate and to conference, though, I urge that continue to take seriously and re-examine issues surrounding preemption and strength of remedies.

To conclude, however, I want to be clear that I believe this groundbreaking bill should be passed today. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3915. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for all of your work on this bill.

Thank you very much.

I would like to join with the head of our delegation, Representative Stark, and others, in paying tribute to an extraordinary man.

Gus Hawkins was one of the most profound public policymakers that ever served in this House. You heard Pete Stark allude to some of that legislation. That legislation has been good for America, it's been good for African Americans, it's been good for this House.

I am so proud that when Gus Hawkins decided that he was not going to stand for reelection in 1990, he called me and he said, ``I'm calling you first because I believe that you would do well representing this district by serving as a Member of Congress.'' And so I have tried to live up to his legacy.

Gus Hawkins, however, was very, very strong. He understood how government works. He was understated. He got along with everybody. He made a lot of friends in this House. And people responded to him in a terrific manner.

And so I am standing here in great sympathy and in pain, because I know that we wanted to get him up here one more time when we focused on the Hawkins-Humphrey Act with Barney Frank in the Financial Services Committee. We were not able to do that. And so all that we can do now is honor him with this tribute and say, ``Rest well, Gus.''

I would request a moment of silence, please, before we resume our schedule.

Mr. Speaker, today I'm proud to join with a unified Democratic Caucus to cast my vote in support of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This legislation marks the first time redeployment language has been attached to funding, and includes the strongest worded language to date, by stating Congress's explicit commitment to end the war in Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and bring our troops home.

The letter my colleagues Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and I sent to President Bush stating that we would only support funding for the redeployment of our troops has grown from 70 to 92

signatories. As the letter stated, and as the title of this legislation echoes, we choose to support our military and look out for the best interests of this country by funding an orderly and responsible redeployment from Iraq.

While this bill is far from perfect, there's a lot in this bill to be proud of. This bill requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days. It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops not deemed fully trained, and it effectively bans the awful practice of waterboarding by any affiliate of a U.S. agency. I applaud the shared commitment of the Democratic Members in both the House and Senate to end the war in Iraq.

I share the public's dismay at the slow pace of Congress's action to end President Bush's failed war. It is, of course, the administration, not Congress, who ultimately deserves the blame for this terrible war. Before every major debate on the Iraq war, like clockwork, President Bush fires up the propaganda machine to twist reality and obscure the facts on the ground.

Those who stand in the way of real change in Iraq must be held accountable. They must not be allowed to quietly throw wrenches in the gears of change slowly rotating within this country.

A large and growing majority of Americans now believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq and that Congress should force a change in the President's irresponsible policies.