Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, Thomas Friedman wrote an op ed in the New York Times titled, ``Remember Iraq.''

In the article, Mr. Friedman laments that in the last couple of months ``the air has gone out of the Iraq debate.'' Mr. Friedman, unfortunately, seems to be correct. We haven't been talking about Iraq as much lately.

The media is partly to blame for this, but the consumers of the media take some responsibility as well. Without new sensational stories to run, war coverage becomes monotonous, and we can be desensitized to the depictions of war. But it is the media's ethical responsibility to focus on the issues that matter the most rather than what sells the most papers and boosts ratings.

When reports of the terrible toll of the Iraq war fall off the front page and disappear from nightly TV coverage, it can be easier to put the sacrifices our men and women in uniform are making in Iraq out of one's mind. It can be easy to forget the suffering of the Iraq people, whose lives continue to be plagued by violence. The enormous costs of the war don't seem as real when they are not thrust in our faces every day.

But it is also the ethical responsibility of this Congress to continue to debate an issue as important as the war. We are partly to blame for letting the air out of the Iraq debate as well.

In the absence of the required number of votes needed to override an inevitable Bush veto on any Iraq-related legislation, we in Congress must do a better job of challenging the administration's false rhetoric about the Iraq war. While the war in Iraq is disappearing from the newspapers, problems in Pakistan, Turkey and Iran are sure getting a lot of attention.

Why aren't we making the connection between the problems in these countries with the problems we have created in Iraq? An enduring foreign military presence will destabilize any region. An enormous endless American military presence in the heart of the Middle East is a recipe for disaster.

We in Congress need to do more to educate our constituents of the incredible costs of this misguided war in Iraq and the danger it presents to the peace and security of the entire region.

The Middle East is a house of cards, and we are shaking the table. It is no accident that since we began our misguided war in Iraq, we have seen more problems among Iraq's neighbors. Turkey is a very important ally to the United States, and the threat of a Turkish invasion into the Kurdish region of Iraq is a real problem for us. The last thing we need is another front opening in an already unmanageable war.

We must also discuss the connection between the President's so-called war on terror, with the problems we are watching unfold in Pakistan. We must not forget that the al Qaeda forces, who might long ago have been defeated if we hadn't been distracted in Iraq, have invaded northern Pakistan and hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have been killed. Most experts agree that Osama bin Laden is probably hiding in that region in northern Pakistan.

Meanwhile, General Musharraf has imposed a state of emergency through Pakistan dissolving the courts and suspending the constitution. Thousands of angry lawyers in Lahore and other cities Monday have taken to the streets to protest the embattled Pakistani President. Pictures in our newspapers of the lawyers being beaten and arrested by the police are ominous warnings of further trouble to come.

This is worrisome when it happens in any country, but down right terrifying when it happens in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. It is difficult for anyone to say exactly how this connects to our failed war in Iraq, but it surely isn't helping.

The point is that President Bush's irresponsible policy in the Middle East has destabilized the entire region. He has created a ticking time bomb. Rather than trying to defuse the situation with the diplomatic surge, Bush's answer was a military surge and to ratchet up the rhetoric against those who dare oppose him.

We must make it clear every single day that it is because we care so strongly about the safety of our country, the wellness of our military and the help of those who serve, that we demand an end to the war in Iraq. As Mr. Friedman pointed out, when we, as a country, allowed the debate over Iraq to fizzle, we are not merely procrastinating and delaying the eventual confrontation. We are committing negligence.

The daily cost of the war is staggering and cannot be ignored. For every day the war in Iraq continues, more American lives are lost, more Iraqis are killed, more of our tax dollars are spent, and political reconciliation in Iraq becomes less and less likely as the vital struggle for power continues to rage. Perhaps the most important measure of progress, the stability of the region, seems to be slipping further and further out of balance.

Countless proposals have been offered to change the course of this President's war in Iraq. There is no shortage of good ideas on how, when, and why we need to end the war in Iraq. I am of the opinion that we must end the war in Iraq as soon as possible and only provide funding to bring our troops home safely and quickly.

Others in the Democratic Caucus offer different answers but remain committed to the ultimate goal of ending the war. We demand a new direction. Let's bring our troops home to their families as soon as possible and refocus this country's resources on the issues that matter the most to the American people. It's time to end the war in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I erroneously cast my vote against H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Please let the written record show that I intended to vote ``aye'' on roll call vote number 1000.

Mr. Speaker, today President Bush requested an additional $46 billion war request. This request is on top of an existing $142 billion request pending from earlier this year.

The President told reporters that the funding was simply for day-to- day military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said that the bill provides for basic needs like bullets and body armor, protection against IEDs, and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.

The President would lead us to believe that there are only two options in Iraq; Congress must either continue to fund the war indefinitely, or we must choose to pull the rug out from under the troops and strand them in the field without body armor and bullets. This, of course, is a ridiculous characterization of our position. We feel that continuing to referee a civil war in Iraq runs counter to our national security interests.

There is no military solution to the war in Iraq no matter how many soldiers, weapons and dollars you dump into the country. Bombs and bullets have not and will not bring us peace in Iraq. I believe there is only one answer to the war in Iraq: a fully funded redeployment of our troops and military contractors.

I think a reasonable Member of Congress would welcome a plan from the President on how we're going to safely leave Iraq, and we would be happy to fund it. But asking us to continue funding, providing funds for the occupation of Iraq until President Bush decides to change course is tantamount to asking us to just continue to support the war.

The choice is clear; it is time to face the facts: We either provide funds to continue the war or we provide funds to end the war.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I'm bothered by this request. I'm bothered by it because the President is playing politics with the issue. The President of the United States is saying, ``I want this $46 billion and I want it now, and I want to use it for very necessary armor and equipment,'' because he knows that the Members of Congress do not like to be seen in a bad light, having folks believe that somehow they're not providing support for the soldiers. And he keeps testing the will of this Congress with these kinds of antics.

We know that the American public wants us out of Iraq. We also know the American public wants to indicate its support for the soldiers who are not there because they've decided that we would go to war, but rather, they answered the President's call because they are patriotic, many of them needed jobs, they needed resources, they needed money, so they're there.

Everybody supports the soldiers, but the President is trying to set us up. He is trying to set us up so that if we don't immediately vote on this $46 billion it will look as if we are not giving the soldiers the necessary equipment in order to wage the war. This is absolutely ridiculous.

And I don't know how long this President thinks he can get along with mismanaging this war in the way that he's doing. We have 101 questions we ought to be forcing on him. First of all, where are the 190,000 weapons that have been lost? Where is the money we were supposed to have been getting from the oil wells in Iraq? Where are the billions of dollars that they sent over in cash in the beginning of this war? What happened to all of that money?

We can go on and on and on with questions about Blackwater and the contractors and the mercenaries. We can go on and on about this government that they put together that does not function and will not function. We can ask them, whose side are you on, the Sunnis, the Shias? And now you're trying to manage what Turkey does with the Kurds. The Kurds killed Turkish soldiers. The Turks threatened to go over and invade the Kurdish territory, and now we're over there trying to manage that. It is complicated. We have no business there.

This occupation is draining us, not only the lives of young men and women who are there trying to answer the President's call, but the dollars that should be going into comprehensive universal health care, truly supporting Leave No Child Behind, truly supporting moderate and low-income housing, truly being used to rebuild the infrastructure that's falling apart all over America.

Come on, Mr. President, don't challenge us this way. There are some of us who know what we're going to do, and others are going to get wise very soon.

Mr. Speaker, Members, last Friday, Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in Iraq following the invasion in

2003, became the latest in a growing list of retired military officers who harshly criticize the war in Iraq. He said that the United States is ``living a nightmare with no end in sight.'' General Sanchez also lambasted the latest strategy in Iraq calling it, again, ``a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war.''

These startling revelations from the highest ranks of our military should shake us to our very core. The man who was personally responsible for conducting the war in Iraq is trying to convince us that we should have no faith in the administration now waging the war.

General Sanchez went on to say, ``There has been a glaring unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,'' and that ``the American people must hold them accountable.''

But, General Sanchez, how can the American people hold their elected officials accountable? As we all know, they can make a lot of noise by calling congressional offices, writing letters, and attending marches; but at the end of the day, the American people hold their elected officials accountable at the ballot box.

To my colleagues in the House of Representatives, our constituents have already made up their minds. An overwhelming majority of people think it was a mistake to invade Iraq and believe that setting a timetable for withdrawal is the correct course of action. Most Democrats and Republicans agree that an open-ended occupation of Iraq is an awful idea. But the Iraqi people don't want us there, and we have no timetable for withdrawal.

What do we have if not an open-ended occupation? What more do we need to learn before deciding that this war must be brought to a halt? Day after day, the grim realities unfolding in Iraq paint a picture of futility and mismanagement. More lives are lost, more money is squandered, and Iraq falls deeper and deeper into chaos and civil war.

President Bush has had our military in pursuit of a victory that is perpetually ``just around the corner.'' Well, we have been around the corner and back again. There is no victory to be found. The time to end this debacle has long since passed. The United States military presence has reinforced in the minds of the Iraqis the most damaging lesson an emerging nation can learn: that problems are solved with bullets and bombs instead of compromise and cooperation. Instead of encouraging compromise and fostering cooperation among the various warring tribes, we have done the exact opposite. We continue to spend billions of dollars blindly arming Iraqis who volunteer to serve in the Iraqi security forces with no thought as to where their loyalties might lie when we hand them weapons.

On one hand, as Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, we have not addressed the degree to which all elements of the Iraqi security forces, from the Prime Minister's office down, have links to Shiite efforts to retain and expand power and carry out sectarian cleansing in mixed areas.

On the other hand, the bottom-up reconciliation that Bush brags about is arming and empowering the Sunni militias in Anbar province and elsewhere. This is, as a recent article in the Economist suggests, a recipe for civil war and only serves to undermine the central government of Iraq.

These irresponsible and dangerous tactics not only harm future prospects for stability in Iraq, but seriously erode our standing in the Middle East and larger international community.

I would like to commend General Sanchez for speaking out against the Bush administration. But how many more General Sanchezes will it take before the last Congressperson turns against the occupation of Iraq? How many more investigations of Blackwater's abuse, of Halliburton's fraud, how many more reports of our overstretched military at its breaking point, or about the damage our occupation is doing to our international standing? How much more of this debate do we need before our national leaders accept that the Iraq war is actually making our country less safe?

For the good of this great Nation and for the good of Iraq, it is time to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I know that there is an attempt to put a good face on the surge and to try and make us believe that the surge is working, but just read your newspapers every day and see the number of lives that are being lost, not only of our own soldiers, but of the Iraqis.

Mr. Chairman, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Chairman Frank, who just spoke, is absolutely correct. This is a very exciting day, a day that so many housing advocates and working people and poor people have been waiting for. They get a chance to see their government responding to one of the most critical needs in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2895, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, and I sincerely thank Chairman Frank for his unrelenting efforts to get the Federal Government back in the affordable housing production business.

I am so proud to be part of this committee, to be a cosponsor of this bill and to work with Chairman Frank in not only producing housing under this National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, but for all the other work that has been coming out of this committee under his leadership.

The need for this bill could not be more urgent. Mr. Chairman, last week you joined me when I chaired a hearing in the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee that demonstrated that when affordable housing is not produced, homelessness is. The stark bottom line that emerged from the hearing, focused narrowly on reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, is that, nationwide, we haven't made demonstrable progress in reducing the number of households experiencing homelessness in the past two decades. While some homeless people face personal challenges that require social services or other support, every homeless individual and family shares one common need: Housing they can afford. And there simply is not enough of it.

For example, there are 9 million renter households who earn less than 30 percent of area median income, but only 6.2 million units affordable to them. This leaves an absolute deficit of 2.8 affordable rental housing units for our poorest families. This kind of math leads inevitably to widespread homelessness. But I want to emphasize that the National Housing Trust Fund addresses the affordable housing crisis as it affects every level of society.

Right now, housing costs are outstripping wages for more households than ever before in recent memory. According to the ``Harvard University Study on the State of the Nation's Housing in 2007,'' 17 million renters and homeowners are paying more than half their incomes in housing costs.

Working is simply no longer a guarantee of being able to afford housing. In Los Angeles, for example, it takes an hourly wage of over $22 an hour to afford a moderately priced two-bedroom apartment, when the minimum wage in California is only $7.50 an hour. Put another way, a two-parent family with both parents working full-time at minimum-wage jobs puts that family less than two-thirds of the way to being able to afford decent housing.

Finally, as a recent Center for Housing Policy study ``Paycheck to Paycheck'' dramatically shows, many of our Nation's essential workers cannot afford to live in or near the communities where they work. In high-cost communities like Los Angeles where the median home price is $523,000, the income needed to afford a home is far higher than that earned by teachers, police, firefighters, nurses and other key occupations studied. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund addresses this full range of housing crises, providing relief to overburdened renters and homeowners, while targeting funds where the need is greatest.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that H.R. 2895 does so at no additional cost to taxpayers. It is a trust fund in the truest sense, a dedicated source of revenue, separate and apart from the annual appropriations process, reflecting the need for the Federal Government to make a long overdue commitment to affordable housing production.

We have clearly demonstrated that the fund will be drawn from moneys from the affordable housing fund proposed as part of the GSE reform bill, H.R. 1427, from Federal Housing Administration savings and other existing revenue streams. I am prepared to debate with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whether such revenues should be diverted to uses other than addressing the housing needs of America's working families and poorest, disabled individuals. I do not think there is any better use for them, particularly since both GSE and FHA revenues derive from housing activities that the Federal Government and government-sponsored enterprises engage in, at significant profit to both, I might add.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it has been 17 years since the Federal Government last enacted a major affordable housing production program, spearheaded in 1990 by, Mr. Chairman, your predecessor, Chairman Gonzalez. The time has long since passed to enact another one.

I am so proud of this legislation. I am so thankful, Chairman Frank, for your leadership. And I am so proud and pleased to have the opportunity at this time in my career not only to work on the committee with you and to chair this subcommittee, but to be able to stand here today and see something about to happen that has been needed for so long.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Chairman Frank, I applaud you for your willingness to modify the trust fund proposal as it has moved through this Chamber to reflect the realities of the housing market while simultaneously keeping your eye on the prize, a significant increase in the production of affordable housing for the very poorest Americans. This amendment continues to maintain such a balance.

Let me share some simple math with my colleagues. The monthly SSI payment in California is $836. As the Brooke amendment established, the Federal Government considers an affordable rent to be 30 percent of that income, or $250 per month. Nobody can operate housing anywhere in California, much less in high-cost areas like Los Angeles, for $250 per unit monthly. It doesn't matter whether you're a nonprofit or for- profit or whether you have significant debt service on loans for the capital, or if someone has just handed you a brand new building for free. As the green eye shade types in the real estate business say, it just ``doesn't pencil out.''

This need to address the operating cost shortfall in projects targeted to the lowest income folks, especially those at SSI income levels and below, is not news to those of us who have been fighting for a national affordable housing trust fund for over half a decade. Nor, to be clear, does it suggest that there's any shortage of need for plain old low-cost bricks and sticks capital grants which will comprise the vast majority of funding under H.R. 2895, even if this amendment is adopted. What has become clear, though, is that the State and local housing agencies need some flexibility with the trust fund dollars to address the operating shortfall issue in order for the trust fund to generate the greatest number of new units for the poorest, most disabled residents of trust fund projects.

Critically, neither this amendment nor the underlying bill discourages grantees from seeking other sources of operating subsidies or rental assistance. Indeed, it requires as much. Even the full 10 percent of the trust fund in a given year, should States and localities choose to use the maximum permitted to operate accounts, will not come close to providing the total amount of operating subsidy needed to achieve the trust fund's targeting goals. So grantees like my own California Housing Finance Agency or Los

Angeles City Housing Department will have no choice but to leverage trust funds with section 8, McKinney-Vento subsidies and State or local rental assistance programs.

But this flexibility will ensure that some projects can move forward that otherwise could not in the current environment, where section 8, for example, has been under attack since the moment the trust fund movement began. That is the essence of the trust fund bill that you have championed, Chairman Frank, recognizing and overcoming the obstacles to affordable housing production for the poorest people in this country. This amendment is wholly consistent with that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support that.

Thank you very much for yielding this time to me, Congressman Payne.

I rushed from my last appointment to be here because this is a day that we have waited for far too long. And I certainly appreciate all of the work that you have done, and certainly the work of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., and the work of Members on both sides of the aisle. And Congressman Blunt is correct; we did coauthor this legislation I think some 6 years ago, but we have only been able to stick with this legislation because of one person, in my estimation, and that is Edith Bartley. She has walked these halls. She has lobbied. She has educated us. She has always been pleasant. She has been patient and cooperative. You couldn't have a better daughter. You couldn't have a better child. You couldn't have a better family member not only looking out for the family, but for all of the families who have not yet been treated fairly and compensated for what happened to them.

Mr. Speaker, as it was said, 9 years ago, on August 7, 1998, terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda bombed United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. These terrorist attacks were one of the first warnings of the threat posed by al Qaeda, the international terrorist organization that hijacked American airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 6 years ago.

The embassy bombings in Nairobi killed over 200 United States Embassy employees, 12 of whom were United States citizens, and injured thousands more. The embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed 11 employees and injured over 80 people. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 innocent people.

The United States Government provided compensation to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the United States be consistent and provide compensation to the families of the victims of the embassy bombings in East Africa 3 years earlier.

So, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I offer my apology and the apology of many others because it has taken so long. My sympathies to the families of the victims of those embassy bombings, as well as all of the victims of al Qaeda's acts of terror. Let us move forward so that we can finally do the right thing.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. And I would like to thank my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, for all of the work that he has put into this issue and the way that he helped to focus my committee and the overall Financial Services Committee on this very issue.

He will be speaking today. And I don't think there is anybody who can describe what happened as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and

Wilma and what happened in the gulf coast, in particular, his district, any better than Mr. Taylor will do. And by the time he finishes his presentation here today, I think all of the Members will very well understand why it is so necessary that we move with a real reform bill to deal with these kinds of catastrophes.

As you know, I introduced a bill on July 19, 2007, following substantial consideration by the Financial Services Committee on flood insurance and related issues. Specifically, the committee held two hearings on June 12, one examining the issues of the national flood insurance program raised by the gulf coast hurricanes, and a second hearing on the predecessor to this bill, H.R. 1682, introduced by Chairman Frank. Thereafter, on July 17, the committee held a hearing on related legislation, H.R. 920, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2007, that was introduced by Mr. Taylor.

H.R. 3121 reflects this extensive committee analysis on the NFIP, wind insurance and related issues. Accordingly, on July 26, 2007, the Financial Services Committee reported out H.R. 3121 with a favorable recommendation. I hope that we're able to pass H.R. 3121 today because it makes critical improvements to the NFIP in light of the devastating lessons of the 2005 hurricane season.

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, NFIP faced unprecedented financial and regulatory strains as it confronted approximately $21.9 billion in NFIP-insured losses. The program had to borrow in excess of $17.5 billion from the United States Treasury in order to pay claims and interest resulting from Hurricane Katrina alone.

Those of us concerned about NFIP in the wake of the 2005 storms saw the urgent need to put the program on sounder financial footing by addressing the issues stakeholders had raised around the substantial premium discounts and cross-subsidies among classes of its policyholders, outdated flood insurance rate maps, allegations of uneven compliance with mandatory purchase requirements, and questions as to the performance and efficiency of private insurers operating under the NFIP's Write Your Own program.

Additionally, the committee hearing on H.R. 920, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2007, made it clear the need to address perverse incentives created by dual government and private insurance regimes when damage can be a result of wind and flood. I'm proud to say that H.R. 3121 prudently addresses these concerns.

Specifically, the bill would increase NFIP's borrowing authority to $21.5 billion from $20.8 billion, but require that it satisfy traditional criteria for actuarial soundness by phasing out discounted premiums; allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency, that is, FEMA, to increase flood policy rates by 15 percent a year, up from 10 percent; raise civil penalties on federally regulated lenders who fail to enforce mandatory purchase of flood insurance for mortgage holders; increase program participation incentives; encourage the revisions to flood maps; and starting in mid-2008, allow for the purchase of optional insurance for wind as well as water damage.

These reforms are desperately needed because, as we have seen, storms will become stronger and more intense. We need a program that can contend with the worst that Mother Nature can throw at us. Simply put, we cannot wait and let another hurricane season pass without putting the National Flood Insurance Program on solid footing.

I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007.

And I thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, for all of the time that you have put in trying to make us very credible as we relate to these reforms by not only giving us the leadership, but allowing us to hold the hearings that are so necessary to get the information that is so desperately needed to do this.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1943) to provide for an effective HIV/AIDS program in Federal prisons, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I give my statement on this legislation, I'd sincerely like to thank Mr. Lamar Smith, my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle who was the author of this legislation in the last Congress and who has worked with me so much and so well to bring this legislation before us today. I'm very thankful to him. We have 43 cosponsors on this bill, and I'd also like to thank Mr. Randy Forbes and Mr. Luis Fortuno who are on the opposite side of the aisle who worked with us on this bill; but all of the Members who came together to get this legislation to this point today are to be appreciated because it was somewhat controversial when Mr. Smith first brought the idea to us. And, of course, I would like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers for all of his support for this legislation.

This particular legislation takes us back 25 years after AIDS was discovered; the AIDS virus continues to spread. About 1.7 million Americans have been infected by HIV since the beginning of the epidemic, and there are 1.2 million Americans living with HIV today. Every year, there are 40,000 new HIV infections and 17,000 new AIDS- related deaths in the United States.

We need to take the threat of HIV/AIDS seriously and confront it in every institution of our society. That includes our Nation's prison system, and that is why this bill is so important.

The Stop AIDS in Prison Act requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to develop a comprehensive policy to provide HIV testing, treatment and prevention for inmates in Federal prisons. The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to test all prison inmates for HIV upon entering prison and again prior to release from prison, unless the inmate absolutely opts out of taking the test.

The bill requires HIV/AIDS prevention education for all inmates and comprehensive treatment for those inmates who test positive. Language was included to protect the confidentiality of inmate tests, diagnosis, and treatment and to require that inmates receive pre-test and post- test counseling so that they will understand the meaning of HIV test results.

In 2005, the Department of Justice reported that the rate of confirmed AIDS cases in prisons was three times higher than in the general population. The Department of Justice also reported that 2 percent of the State prison inmates and 1.1 percent of Federal prison inmates were known to be living with HIV/AIDS in 2003.

However, the actual rate of HIV infection in our Nation's prisons is simply unknown, and it could be considerably higher.

This is because prison officials do not consistently test prisoners for HIV. The only way to determine whether HIV has been spread among prisoners is to begin routine HIV testing of all prison inmates. This bill does that.

This bill has been endorsed by a number of prominent HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations, including AIDS Action, the AIDS Institute, the National Minority AIDS Council, the AIDS Health Care Foundation, the HIV Medicine Association, AIDS Project Los Angeles, and Bienestar; that happens to be a Latino community service and advocacy organization. The bill also has been endorsed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and even the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barbara Lee, 5 minutes, a woman who has been in the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS not only domestically but internationally.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this moment to just thank, again, Representative Lamar Smith. Also I would like to thank, again, Chairman John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott and all of the Members who have signed on as cosponsors on this bill.

Again, as was mentioned by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, it certainly did start out a bit controversial. We had some of the advocacy groups who did not support this bill when we began to talk about doing something about AIDS in the prison system. As a matter of fact, questions were raised about everything from confidentiality to the cost to not knowing what to do about follow-up once they leave. But we have been able to answer all of those questions, and some of those who were opposed are now very, very strong supporters because they understand that we really do have to take additional steps to stem the tide of HIV and AIDS in this country.

You would think after 25 years and all of the education that we have tried to do, all the literature that has been written, that everyone would know everything that they need to know about HIV and AIDS. But it is not true. And one of the things that we had to consider was why was it there was an increase in HIV and AIDS with women, particularly minority women. And then we had to take a look at where it may be coming from. And though we don't have empirical data, we do think we are on the right track in helping to stem this tide because we do think that some of these infections are coming from those who may have been incarcerated.

Those who are incarcerated have nothing to fear. As a matter of fact, they should feel even protected by what we are doing because, despite the fact that we don't always discuss what is going on in prison, I think we have a pretty good idea. And this will help again to save the lives not only of inmates, but certainly the mates of inmates when they return into the general population.

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1852, the Expanded American Homeownership Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 1852 on March 29, 2007, and I want to take this time to thank Chairman Frank for his original cosponsorship. I also want to acknowledge 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.

It has been a little over 4 months since the Committee on Financial Services considered this measure to revitalize the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA. On May 3, 2007, the

Expanding American Homeownership Act passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 45-19.

The ensuing period has only made the need to enact H.R. 1852 clearer. We are all aware of the turmoil in the mortgage markets with the dramatic rise in foreclosures. Some predict as many as 2 million mortgage loan defaults by year's end. Equally troubling is the widening impact that the mortgage crisis is having within the domestic and global economy. We still don't know the full scope of that impact, but it is clear that we must take prudent steps to address the underlying issues in the housing markets.

H.R. 1852 is a necessary step in that direction. To be clear, this legislation will not by itself resolve the crisis. Indeed, later this week the Committee on Financial Services will hold a hearing to discuss the major players in government and the markets' other strategies to address this multi-faceted problem.

Revitalizing FHA, however, is an essential element of a comprehensive strategy. FHA is a federally insured loan program that for over 60 years has been a reliable source of affordable fixed-rate mortgage loans, especially for first-time home buyers.

At the end of funding year 2006, FHA had $338.6 billion of insurance in force on about 3.9 million loans. From 1934 through the end of funding year 2006, FHA had insured about $33.9 million home loans at a mortgage volume of about $1.9 trillion.

Once the preeminent provider of mortgage insurance to low- and moderate-income home buyers, FHA has seen a precipitous drop in its market share in recent years. In 1991, FHA loans accounted for about 11 percent of the market. By 2004, that share had dropped to about 3 percent.

Borrowers have increasingly turned to the private subprime market for loans, many of which contained adjustable rates that are now resetting, or will do so in the near future. In the absence of significant appreciation in the values of their homes, many of these borrowers will be unable to refinance to ensure affordable monthly payments into the future.

H.R. 1852 will enable FHA to serve more subprime borrowers at affordable rates and terms, recapture borrowers that have turned to problematic subprime loans in recent years, and offer refinancing loan opportunities to borrowers struggling to meet their mortgage payments in the midst of the current home price and mortgage market turbulence.

Specifically, this bill would authorize zero and lower down payment loans for borrowers that can afford mortgage payments but lack the cash for required down payment, a major reason that many low-income borrowers turn to private subprime markets rather than FHA-insured loans. It will increase loan limits to make FHA relevant in high-cost markets, direct FHA to provide mortgage loans to high-risk, but qualified, buyers; it will enhance the FHA reverse mortgage loan program, promote the sale of foreclosed FHA rental housing, loans to localities so that affordable housing can be maintained in local communities, authorize up to $300 million a year for the next 5 fiscal years from the bill's excess profits for an affordable housing fund instead of returning such funds to the general treasury.

Notably, H.R. 1852 also includes a number of important changes to the FHA bill that passed the House last year. First, it eliminates the fee increases from last year's bill for borrowers that continue to make a down payment, scaling back the maximum upfront fee from 3 percent to 2.5, and the maximum annual fee from 2 percent to .55 percent.

These reductions would reduce FHA closing costs premiums for a hypothetical family buying a $300,000 home by $2,250, and annual fees over a 5-year period by over $20,000 compared to last year's bill.

This bill also includes a provision authorizing loan limit increases for FHA rental housing loans in high-cost areas where current FHA loans do not keep pace with local construction costs. In this way we are ensuring that FHA contributes to the full range of affordable housing stock we so desperately need in this country, from homeownership to rental housing.

In that vein, H.R. 1852 also differs from H.R. 1752 in a final, absolutely critical respect. This bill recognizes the full scope of the affordable housing crisis facing the Nation by targeting up to $300 million annually for the next 5 years to an affordable housing fund for grants to provide affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities for low-income families.

This measure is clearly needed. We can thank Barney Frank for all of the work and all of the attention and time that he put into making sure that this was a part of this bill. Simply put, this country faces an affordable housing crisis of epic proportions. According to Harvard University's State of the Nation's Housing in 2007 report, 17 million renters and homeowners are paying more than half their incomes in housing costs. There just isn't enough affordable housing stock to go around.

With that, and in closing, I have said for many years that there is an affordable housing crisis in America. In recent months that crisis has exploded beyond the poorest renters and homeowners, to threaten the domestic economy. H.R. 1852 is a necessary step, though not in itself a sufficient one, in walking us back from the brink and the direction of meeting the housing needs of all Americans.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the chairman as much time as he may consume.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left?

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make sure that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, Mrs. Biggert, whom I've worked with so closely and enjoy working with so much, is clear on the fact that the housing trust fund does not take money from FHA. And I think Mr. Frank made it very clear before he left that HUD would have to certify that it is solvent before any of that money goes into the trust fund. I think that's very important.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York (Mrs. Maloney), Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chair.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is focused on predatory lending.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Cummings.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chairman and Members of the House, first I would like to tell the subcommittee ranking member how sad I am that we're not going to be working as closely together on this Subcommittee on Housing. I have truly enjoyed working with her. And even though she will remain on the committee, we perhaps won't have an opportunity to sit together and chat and not only make decisions, but just make fun of some people from time to time.

I yield to the gentleman.

I would also like to thank Mr. Bachus and Mr. Miller; Mr. Bachus, who has been so good to work with; Mr. Miller, who is an expert. We have been able to talk about things, to work out differences, and to move forward.

This is a very productive overall Financial Services Committee, a very productive Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development. With people working together on both sides of the aisle, we're getting things done.

This may be one of the most important pieces of legislation to pass this House in this session. We will be able to help people with refinancing. We will be able to help people stay out of foreclosure. We will be able to revitalize FHA, that really knows and understands how to provide insurance for moderate- and low-income folks who are desperate to be homeowners. And I am just delighted that I've had an opportunity to play a role.

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

I appreciate Mr. Cardoza's amendment so much because it does have an important impact on high-cost markets like our home State of California. The FHA statute creates an artificial cap on the maximum home price, meaning that FHA does almost no loan business in certain high-cost markets. Now, this will put FHA back in the business of insuring loans in high-cost areas, not only in California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other areas with a limited FHA presence. This amendment also puts FHA in a better position to help subprime borrowers and address temporary dislocations.

Even before the recent mortgage crisis developed, there was a bipartisan consensus shared by the administration that reformed H.R. 1852 would help get FHA back in the business of making loans at good terms and conditions to borrowers that turned to predatory loans in recent years. This amendment expands the extent to which this objective can be achieved. This is absolutely a great amendment, and I support it.

Madam Chairman, I hope that our chairman didn't confuse you with that convoluted definition of what the time is that we are claiming.

Madam Chairman, I am in strong support of this amendment. As a matter of fact, I would like to take this moment to commend and thank my colleague, Mr. Miller, for the work that he has done in helping other Members to understand what this is all about.

I can recall when we had the hearing and everybody said, well, this is such a wonderful idea. As a matter of fact, all of us voted for the American Dream Down Payment Act on both sides of the aisle. We can't understand why there would be any questions or any problems about the way that there is assistance being given to would-be homeowners by organizations such as the ones who were presented to us on that day of the hearing. So because of his expertise and his understanding and his appreciation, he has helped us all to come together, and it has support on both sides of the aisle.

As was mentioned, the amendment would allow qualified down payment assistance providers to participate in an FHA program if certain conditions are satisfied, that is, no obligation for the mortgagor to repay and net worth requirement.

The Secretary shall consider as cash or its equivalent any amounts gifted by a family member, the mortgagor's employer or labor union, or a qualified homeownership assistance entity, but only if there is no obligation on the part of the mortgagor to repay the gift.

I rise in support of this amendment. It is a major step in the direction of capturing the benefits of down payment assistance programs to over 1 million households since 1999, many of them FHA-insured borrowers, while safeguarding against bad actors in the field. The minimum capitalization requirement will protect borrowers from fly-by- night operations, which the explicit prohibition against requiring repayment of such assistance by the borrower will ensure that the benefit is indeed a gift.

Equally important, the additional measures to ensure the legitimacy of

appraisals in FHA-insured transactions contained in H.R. 1852 and the manager's amendment to the bill will help safeguard the entire progress. Inflated appraisals undercut the legitimacy of seller- financed down payment assistance.

Down payment assistance that is repaid from a seller's proceeds that derive from a borrower's ability to get a loan based on an inflated appraisal is no gift at all to the borrower. H.R. 1852 cracks down on such schemes, while preserving the field for legitimate down payment programs. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman and Members, earlier today we talked about how we worked together so well in order to get the best possible legislation. And I am just a little bit sad that this substitute amendment would reform for the Federal Housing Administration's FHA single-family mortgage insurance activities and would allow FHA to base each borrower's mortgage insurance premiums on the risk that the borrower poses to the FHA mortgage insurance fund with slight variations.

Under this proposal, mortgage insurance premiums will be based on the borrower's credit history, loan-to-value ratio, debt-to-income ratio, and on FHA's historical experience with similar borrowers.

This amendment maintains FHA reserves within the insurance fund to preserve the future solvency of the FHA program. I just rise in strong opposition to this amendment for the simple reason that H.R. 1852 is a better bill than the FHA reform bill that passed the House last year. And I could go on and on and on talking about why this is a much better bill, but I think this would be a step backwards, and I would ask my colleagues not to support this amendment. It is not a good amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has tossed out the conviction of aggravated battery for 17-year-old Mychal Bell. I can no longer be silent about the ongoing struggle for justice for the six high school students in Jena, Louisiana, known as the Jena Six. These young boys, who were arrested after a racially charged school fight and charged with attempted murder following a noose hanging incident now face the prospect of losing much of their young lives to a tainted criminal justice system.

I have carefully reviewed all of the news accounts of the events surrounding this most troubling case. I have talked with the parents, and I have talked with the attorneys. I remain convinced that this case is a result of long-standing, deep-seated racial divisions in Jena, Louisiana.

It seems unreasonable that on a school campus the administration was unaware of the fact that white students had claimed the space under a tree and declared it off limits to black students. Even so, once the black students asked permission of the administration to sit under the tree and were granted permission to sit under the tree, the school should have recognized that a problem was brewing. The school should have initiated discussions surrounding the residual racial issues that existed in order to avoid a confrontation.

After the black students sat under the tree, it is reported that the white students responded by hanging three hangman's nooses in a tree. Given this country's history of racially motivated

violence, specifically lynchings, the black students were offended and threatened by the physical and emotional message sent by the nooses hanging in the tree. It seems unconscionable that this kind of Jim Crow era segregation, exclusion and emotional terrorism could be tolerated today.

There was tension on the campus and several fights took place. In one fight, a black student was beaten and the white student responsible was suspended. In another fight, a white student was beaten and the black students allegedly responsible were arrested and charged first with attempted murder and later charged with aggravated battery. These are serious criminal charges.

Let me be clear. I do not condone physical violence. I believe all of the students involved in the alleged fighting incidents should be held accountable by school officials. But school-age children all over this country get in fights every day and are appropriately disciplined by school administrators, whether it is a suspension or some other administrative punishment. Appropriate action is taken, and rarely do these incidents rise to the level of a criminal act. However, regardless of the charges and the unusually harsh approach that was taken by the district attorney, one young man, Mychal Bell, who is now still in jail, should never have been tried as an adult for this incident. That is why the Third Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that that conviction must be tossed out and the other students should never have been incarcerated for the better part of a year awaiting their fate. This injustice cannot be swept under the rug and pacified simply by moving the case from the adult court.

The work here is not done. Along with Mychal Bell, there are five other students, Robert Bailey, Carwin Jones, Theodore Shaw, Jesse Beard and Bryant Ray Purvis, whose lives have been placed on hold awaiting their day in court.

I call on the district attorney to drop all charges against the Jena Six. The City of Jena must begin a reconciliation process which begins with the apology by and investigation of District Attorney Reed Walters for breach of ethics, false imprisonment and civil rights violations. His comments and actions have been both rogue and irresponsible and clearly demonstrate an agenda that is not in line with peace, justice or fairness.

Young people are traveling to Jena on Thursday led by Howard University students. They are coming from all over America to go to Jena, Louisiana to show support. These cases stand as the greatest civil rights challenges this Nation has faced in the 21st century. I will be traveling with them. I will be in Jena with the students. This is a new chapter in the civil rights movement led by young people to get America to do the right thing and to bring justice to Jena.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones for the leadership that she's providing this evening, having taken out the time on the floor to have the members of the Congressional Black Caucus engage this body on this issue of the war in Iraq. I thank you for your leadership, and I'm proud to work with you to help bring our Congress to the conclusion that we must get out of Iraq.

Last week, President Bush and his White House propaganda machine made another attempt at misleading the Nation. Yet again, unsubstantiated anecdotal claims of progress were used to support a continued occupation of Iraq.

However, the President's claims of progress ran contrary to multiple independent reports recently published, including, from the Government Accountability Office, General Jones, and the National Intelligence Estimate. These reports painted a bleak picture of Iraq: continued high levels of violence, a dysfunctional Iraqi government, and sectarian influence that continue to plague the Iraqi security forces.

President Bush's vision of an enduring relationship with Iraq amounts to an endless and unlimited military occupation. Instead of a significant change of policy, the President has reaffirmed his commitment to a dangerous continuation of a failed policy in Iraq.

Deepening sectarian divisions in Iraq make the American military presence increasingly obsolete. In fact, our presence may actually be making the situation worse as Iraqi political leaders hide behind our troops and refuse to make the necessary compromises.

Meanwhile, we continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces and so-called volunteer Sunni sectarian militias across Iraq. Experts suggest that we're merely training different sides of a violent civil war, and losing track of over 190,000 weapons meant for the security forces is surely only adding fuel to the fires raging in Iraq. That is why my colleagues and I recently introduced H.R. 3134, the Responsible Security in Iraq Act. This legislation will halt the dangerous practice of training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, at least until the Iraqi Government matures.

At the cost of precious American lives, the President seeks only to disguise the fact that he has no exit strategy for Iraq. It becomes increasingly clear that George Bush seeks only to protect his own legacy and saddle the next President with the mess he's created in the Middle East.

Let us not forget that, in addition to almost 3,800 troops who have died, 800 of those troops who have died in Iraq have died since the surge was announced in January, including 16 troops since General Petraeus came to Congress to testify just last week.

I know that the media, many in the media have blamed the wonderful, wonderful support group of the Democratic Caucus and people who want to get us out of Iraq for attacking General Petraeus. But I join with them, not in an attack on General Petraeus, but in telling the truth about what has been happening.

Moveon.org need not be ashamed of its advocacy. They need not be a shame of its ads. They are telling the truth, and we need to speak truth to power on this issue.

President Bush sought to appease those who oppose the war by announcing that 5,700 troops will be coming home this year, and another few brigades will possibly return by summer of next year. But these reductions were scheduled to occur with or without Bush's consent. Deployment limits are being reached, and the military has no trained and ready troops to replace the ones leaving.

As the New York Times stated, it's like George Bush dropping an object and then taking credit for gravity.

Regardless, these planned reductions would merely lower our troop levels to 130,000 by summer of 2008. It is absolutely unacceptable that our military presence in Iraq by next summer will still be the same as pre-surge levels.

I'm delighted for the families of the troops who will be leaving Iraq. Many of these troops will be returning from a second, third or even fourth deployment. However, without a significant change in strategy, the President is

signaling that these troops should not get too comfortable at home. President Bush will surely have them deployed back to Iraq as soon as possible.

As Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I, along with my colleagues, have been advocating for a different direction for years now. In stark contrast to the direction of the President, we understand that the only acceptable option for Iraq is a fully funded withdrawal of all of our troops and military contracts.

The other day, my friend, Congressman John Murtha said, and I quote, ``Yes, many Iraqis consider us the occupiers. But it is also true that Iraq is really occupying us.'' We couldn't be more right. He couldn't be more right.

Let's bring our troops home to their families as soon as possible and refocus this country's resources on the issues that matter the most to the American people. It is time to end this war in Iraq.

And to those who are getting a little bit disgusted with the fact that we don't seem to be making as much progress as we should here in the Congress of the United States, I would like to encourage them not to give up.

I know that it appears that Petraeus and the President organized a presentation and tried to win over the hearts of Americans by putting a general out there, just as he put Colin Powell out when Colin Powell went up to the U.N. and pointed to the buildings where weapons of mass destruction were being manufactured. Colin Powell has said since that time, it was perhaps the worst thing that he could have done in his career. And of course, people respect generals, and they respect Petraeus because he has a long history of having made sacrifice and having been a good warrior.

But ladies and gentlemen, he's wrong on this one. We don't have to back up. We don't have to shy away from this fight. We don't have to give in and think somehow we're going to be thought of as unpatriotic. Patriotism is to stand up for what is right, what is right for the security of this Nation.

We're at greater risk now than we were before we went in to invade Iraq. As a matter of fact, this President and this war has unsettled the entire Middle East. We know that since we've been there, not only have we created a civil war and all of the sectarian violence, we also know that we have pulled in to this war Iran, and we also know that we are on the verge of pulling in Syria to this war. We also know that this entire Middle East is unsettled because of our occupation.

Despite the fact that the President of the United States said we would be welcomed with open arms, they want us out of Iraq. They want to end the occupation.

Yes, we have some responsibilities there. Yes, we should help to rebuild Iraq, but first, we must bring our soldiers home. We must stop the carnage. We must stop the killings. We must bring our soldiers home.

And I join with Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey and members of the Congressional Black Caucus who support the idea that we will vote for funding to bring the troops home safely and securely. We will not vote for funding to continue this war.

We know that the President of the United States has made another request in a supplemental. I will not be voting for any funding to continue the war. And for those of us who really, really believe in what we're saying, for those of us who are committed to the proposition that we can end this war, we will not give him another dime to continue the war.

I would like to commend the gentlelady from California for the tremendous work that she has done, not only to deal with all of the problems of our being in Iraq, but for bringing this legislation to the floor.

The U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, and in Iraq since March 19, 2003. Since that time, over 1 million troops have been deployed to Iraq, in total, with 500,000 having been deployed at least twice. These numbers are rapidly growing at the detriment of the military. There are currently 160,000 troops on active duty in Iraq.

To keep up this level of deployment with an all-volunteer military, the administration is cutting corners on previous rules on troop deployment limits and rest times. Our military is being ground down to the hilt, and it's near the breaking point.

In recent briefings, Major General Batiste said young officers and noncommissioned officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate. Equipment is in dismal shape, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars to refit the force to preinvasion conditions. Active duty companies preparing for deployment to Iraq within the next 6 months are at less than 50 percent strength, are commanded by young and sometimes inexperienced lieutenants, and are lacking the equipment needed for training. Our all-volunteer force cannot sustain the current attempt for much longer.

The lack of deployment limits and dwell times have taken an incredible strain on the individuals who have been asked to shoulder this burden. Post-traumatic stress disorder and similar illnesses are significantly amplified by enduring or repeated deployments to Iraq.

Consequently, our men and women in uniform are returning with levels of mental illness not seen since Vietnam. According to a recent study by the Department of Defense, 49 percent of National Guardsmen report mental health problems. Let us not forget the hidden casualties of the war in Iraq, the families.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 180 and a member of the Financial

Services Committee, which passed this bill last week.

The ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan already is believed to have caused the deaths of almost half a million people. More than 200,000 people have been killed by Sudanese government forces and armed militias since 2003, and another 200,000 people have died as a result of the deliberate destruction of homes, crops and water supplies and the resulting conditions of famine and disease. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced.

According to a recent United Nations report, attacks against humanitarian aid workers have increased 150 percent in the past year. There are currently 13,000 humanitarian aid workers in Darfur, providing aid to more than 4 million people, and violence limits their ability to reach people in need. In June, approximately one in six humanitarian convoys leaving the capitals of Darfur provinces were ambushed by armed groups. About two-thirds of the population of Darfur is dependent upon these courageous aid workers and the aid they bring.

Early in 2006, I visited the Darfur region with my good friend from California, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. As far as the eyes could see, there were crowds of displaced people who had been driven from their homes, living literally on the ground with little tarps just covering them. That was over a year ago, and yet this genocide has been allowed to continue.

The world stood by and watched the genocide that occurred in Rwanda. The world has noted over and over again the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yet we cannot seem to get the international community to move fast enough to stop the genocide that is taking place in Darfur.

The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act is a concrete proposal to impose sanctions on the Government of Sudan and on corporations that continue to do business with this genocidal regime. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope that it will be enacted and implemented in time to save lives, allow humanitarian aid to continue, and force the Government of Sudan to stop this genocide.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 176; the Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill.

The Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act creates an educational exchange program to enable students from the countries of the Caribbean Community to come to the U.S. and study at an American college or university. The bill requires program participants to return to a Caribbean country or work for the growth, progress and development of the Caribbean Community after they complete their studies. The bill also creates a program to improve primary and secondary education in the Caribbean Community through teacher training, strengthening curriculum, and improving administration and management of schools.

Many Caribbean leaders have received post-secondary education in the U.S. and have used their education to strengthen Caribbean democracy and benefit Caribbean people. For example, from 2003 through 2005, a total of 217 Caribbean leaders participated in U.S. exchange programs dealing with counter-narcotics, anticorruption and good governance policies. The Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act would expand these efforts to include future Caribbean leaders.

It is entirely appropriate that this legislation is named after our former colleague, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. Congresswoman Chisholm was of Caribbean heritage and was a strong advocate for quality education. She graduated from Brooklyn College in 1946, received a Masters in Elementary Education from the Teachers College at Columbia University in 1952, and went on to work as a teacher. In 1968, she became the first African-American woman elected to Congress, where she served with distinction from 1969 to 1983. In 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm ran for president in the Democratic primaries. As a Member of Congress, Shirley Chisholm served on the influential Education and Labor Committee and rose to be its third-highest ranking member.

I urge all of my colleagues to honor Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and support educational exchange opportunities for Caribbean students by voting in favor of the Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller- Waters-Green amendment to H.R. 3074. On June 22, 2007, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, which I chair, held a hearing on homeowner down payment assistance programs. That hearing provided a window into down payment assistance programs that I had not seen before.

The hearing was prompted by the issuance of the HUD proposed rule on May 11, 2007, to terminate down payment assistance programs. I applaud HUD for extending the comment period for the proposed rule, but that is not enough.

Down payment assistance provided by charitable organizations to low- and moderate-income individuals and families to purchase homes has been a mainstay of HUD and FHA since 1999. In fact, we heard testimony that 30 to 40 percent of FHA loans used some type of down payment assistance.

What was even more astonishing was that HUD proposed a similar rule in 1999, only to have never finalized it. Indeed, HUD's failure to finalize a rule gave de facto approval for the continuation of many down payment assistance programs.

Down payment assistance is often used in conjunction with HUD's mortgage insurance under the 203(b) program administered by FHA. Down payment assistance programs have helped nearly 1 million low- and moderate-income persons become homeowners, providing an instant source of equity for them. Homeownership would be out of reach to thousands of homeowners without down payment assistance programs.

Unfortunately, HUD's issuance of the proposed rule on May 11, 2007, would eliminate the use of down payment assistance programs. FHA opposes the use of direct or indirect funding provided from the sale of property, and that is fine. But an across-the-board rejection of all down payment assistance programs without further review, analysis or clarification from HUD is unacceptable.

Down payment assistance programs do not need to be the scapegoat for, as what one HUD called it, the ``looming shortfall'' in HUD's fiscal year 2008 budget. I believe if HUD is left to its own devices, this is exactly what will happen to down payment assistance programs.

I support down payment assistance programs meeting Federal requirements. Therefore, I ask that you join Gary Miller, Al Green and me in supporting the amendment to prohibit HUD from implementing the proposed rule with any funds from this bill.