Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 561, recognizing the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. I was pleased to join my Housing Subcommittee colleague Mr. Shays, and Congresswoman McCollum, in introducing this resolution to honor their late predecessors--Stewart McKinney of Connecticut and Bruce Vento of Minnesota--for their work across party lines to create the McKinney-Vento programs in response to the widespread homelessness that had reoccurred in the early 1980's for the first time since the Great Depression.

Since then, the McKinney-Vento Act programs have helped thousands of homeless men, women, and children return to stable housing and lives in which they can reach their full potential. I am pleased that we will take up for consideration today a FY 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers the majority of McKinney-Vento grants, that provides for $1.561 billion for the HUD homeless assistance account, a $234 million increase over

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

The distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, and Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, Mr. Olver, had to make many difficult decisions in drafting this bill, and I am pleased that most of our vital housing programs see increases over the President's budget request for funding year 2008. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I believe this bill will preserve many of the housing programs we have fought for over the years.

On July 12, the House passed H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. A central purpose of H.R. 1851 is to provide reliable, adequate funding for the Nation's largest subsidized housing program, buffeted in recent fiscal years.

In light of this, I am troubled that the President once again grossly underfunded section 8 in his budget request, asking for a mere $8 million above last year's funding level for the renewal of section 8 housing vouchers, an amount that won't even cover the cost of inflation. I commend Chairman Olver for rejecting this abysmal funding level and putting the dollars needed back into the section 8 program.

I also urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act and to pass the companion bill so that we can make needed reforms and bring stability and security to this critical program.

I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, H.R. 2895, which will provide for the preservation and construction of 1.5 million units of affordable housing over the next 10 years. Because preservation begins with funding the units we have now, I am pleased that the bill increases the funding for project-based rental assistance by $667 million over the President's request; however, I am dismayed at the news that the Department has not paid some project-based owners for the month of July. It isn't enough for us to appropriate the dollars; HUD has to get them out of the door. I urge the Department to make these payments on time so that we do not risk losing owners of precious affordable housing units.

For too many years, the Nation's public housing program has been grossly underfunded. In 2007, PHAs will only receive between 82 cents and 85 cents for every dollar it costs to run public housing, impacting their ability to repair and maintain public housing units. By increasing funding for public housing programs to levels above the President's request, this bill maintains our investment in public housing. I am also pleased that the committee has rejected the administration's attempt not only to kill the HOPE VI program, but to take back prior-year funds appropriated by this House. The HOPE VI program needs to be updated, but it is a valuable program. That is why we'll soon introduce a bill to reauthorize and improve HOPE VI providing for, among other things, one-for-one replacement and the right of residents to return to a revitalized public housing unit.

Again, I want to applaud the committee for ensuring that the CDBG program is not severely underfunded. The CDBG program is funded at $3.396 billion, representing a $225 million increase compared to funding year 2006 funding level and $959 million above the President's funding year 2008 request. CDBG is vital to communities all over the country, providing valuable resources for almost every program imaginable from seniors programs to gang violence eradication programs. Without this increased level of funding, one of the Federal Government's only poverty fighting tools would have been stretched to the limit, leaving many communities desperate.

In addition, the bill provides funding for other key programs the administration sought to zero out, including the Brownfields, the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and rural housing and economic development. The bill also maintains critical funding for the HOME program, Native American and Hawaiian housing grants, fair housing enforcement, and housing counseling.

Some of these important programs were scheduled to expire without reauthorization, but reauthorization without funding is the equivalent of killing a program.

Finally, the House today passed a resolution that I was pleased to cosponsor with Congressman Shays commemorating the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. While this is not a birthday for any of us we would prefer to be celebrating, these programs remain effective and desperately needed. Therefore, I am pleased that the bill funds the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grant at $1.561 billion, a full $234 million over funding year 2006.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1980, the Housing Assistance Council Authorization Act of 2007.

This bill authorizes $10 million for the Housing Assistance Council, HAC, in Fiscal Year 2008 and $15 million in Fiscal Years 2009-2014. HAC, a nonprofit corporation, is the only national intermediary focused solely on the tremendous affordable housing needs of rural areas and small towns.

HAC assists in the development of both single-family homes and multi- family housing, and promotes homeownership for working low-income rural families. HAC maintains a special focus on high-need groups and regions: Indian country, the Mississippi Delta, farm workers, the Southwest border colonias, and Appalachia. In just the past 8 years, HAC has provided over $105 million in aid to hundreds of organizations in 160 Congressional districts. Since inception in 1971, HAC has helped build 60,000 affordable homes in 49 states and 2 territories.

The funds authorized by H.R. 1980 will allow HAC to continue successfully assisting a national network of rural nonprofit, public and for profit builders. Specifically, HAC could continue providing grants, loans, technical assistance, training, and other support to build the capacity of rural community-based housing development organizations to create and sustain safe affordable housing. The bill also enables HAC to offer vital help to specific housing projects and initiatives these groups undertake.

I am especially pleased that this funding will enable HAC to bring its expertise to bear on the problem of rural homelessness. While my District does not encompass rural areas, it does have as many as 10,000 persons on any given night. And though it may not seem so at first blush, homelessness in central Los Angeles is related to rural homelessness.

Specifically, in the absence of an adequately resourced network of housing and service providers in their home communities, poor rural folks who fall into homelessness often leave their family and social networks and move to larger urban areas in the hope of finding jobs, housing, and social services.

While migrating from the countryside to the city, and vice versa, is an important and time-honored American tradition, these vulnerable households--often with few skills and suffering from disabilities or chronic health problems--too often experience homelessness again in the destination city. There, they enter public and private systems of care already stressed to the breaking point--as tragically exemplified by a recent ``60 Minutes'' story on so-called ``hospital patient-dumping'' in Los Angeles.

H.R. 1980 will enable HAC to help interrupt this tragic cycle, by building the capacity of their network of housing developers and social service providers to care for the homeless and at-risk in their own hometowns--where they are most likely to escape homelessness and re- enter the economic mainstream.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1982, the Rural Housing and Economic Development Improvement Act of 2007. This bill authorizes $30 million for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's, HUD, Rural Housing and Economic Development, RHED, program in FY 2008 and $40 million for Fiscal Years 2009-2013.

Although Congress has funded RHED since 1999, this bill finally gives the program formal authorization. Such authorization is long overdue, as this competitive grant program has long-since proven its worthiness. According to the Office of Management and Budget, RHED grants have created more than 9,100 jobs and more than 112,000 housing units.

RHED grants are desperately needed to address the growing affordable housing crisis in rural America. While housing costs are lower in rural America, so too are household incomes. As a result, rural America faces a growing affordability concern, particularly among renters. According to the 2005 American Housing Survey, nearly 3.6 million rural households are cost burdened, paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income for housing costs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's biennial ``worst case housing needs'' survey reveals that, in 2005, nearly 1 million rural households paid more than half their incomes in housing costs and/or lived in substandard housing--a dramatic 51 percent increase since 2003.

RHED funding is prudently allocated--based on community need measured by poverty and unemployment rates, as well as by other indicators including rates of substandard housing and percentage of households facing affordability problems.

The RHED program also emphasizes specific high needs regions and populations. Over 60 percent of the organizations that have received RHED funds over the program's history serve high needs regions, which include Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, the Border Colonias, Native American lands, and farmworkers.

The RHED program also targets smallest, most isolated rural communities, giving extra weight to applications proposing to serve areas with populations of 2,500 or less. Because of this targeting, the Housing Assistance Council estimates that almost one-third of RHED grants have been allocated to organizations serving the most remote rural counties.

RHED is an especially important housing resource for rural America because of its exclusive focus on rural communities--a unique niche among HUD programs, and one that helps redress the challenges rural communities face in obtaining funding in many other federal housing programs. For example, only 12 percent of section 8 funds go to non- metropolitan areas and the HOME program has no set-aide for rural communities, with the result that they receive a disproportionately small portion of formula grants. Less than 7 percent of FHA assistance goes to non-metropolitan areas. On a per-capita basis, rural counties fare worse with FHA, getting only $25 per capita versus $264 per capita in metro areas. Only about 10 percent of Veterans Affairs housing programs reach non-metropolitan areas and per capita spending in rural counties is only one-third that of metropolitan areas.

RHED fills such critical gaps left by other Federal housing and community development programs. Its flexible design supports comprehensive community development efforts that address the interconnected housing and economic development needs of rural communities. This targeted resource has enabled rural community organizations across the country to design and implement innovative programs and stabilize their communities. The ongoing need for the RHED programs is clear and I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1982, the Rural Housing and Economic Development Improvement Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Ike Skelton for getting us to this point today, 1,581 days, 53 months, over 4 years since this President led this Nation to war in Iraq; 3,600 American soldiers killed, 27,000 American soldiers seriously injured, 60,000 to 100,000 Iraqis killed; $10 billion per month, $500 billion American dollars spent on this war.

A civil war is raging in Iraq; there is no credible government in Iraq; Iraq is

totally destabilized and Iraq refugees are flooding into neighboring countries; there is no coalition of the willing supporting the U.S. in this war; and we are well on our way to destabilizing the entire Middle East.

President Bush and the chief architect of this war, Vice President Dick Cheney, are in denial about the disastrous mess they have created. Some of us have known for quite some time this war must end. Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and I and several other Members of Congress created the Out of Iraq Caucus over 2 years ago. We organized this caucus, but we were dismissed as bleeding heart liberals.

It has taken too long to get to this point we are at today. This bill will at least demand a strategy to get us out of Iraq and a deadline will be set. This has been a long time in coming.

However, Mr. Speaker, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. President Bush will apply all kinds of pressure, threaten, mislead, spend us blind and continue to pursue this immoral war, unless we decide that we are not going to fund this war anymore.

In the words of the people on the street who are organized against this war, Mr. President, not another nickel, not another dime, not another soldier, not this time.

Vote for this bill. It is a good start. And remember, in the final analysis, we have got to defund this war.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1851 and insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 1851 on March 29, 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 especially want to thank Chairman Barney Frank for his leadership, Ranking Member Judy Biggert, and Christopher Shays for their original cosponsorship and support of H.R. 1851.

It has been less than 2 months since the Committee on Financial Services considered major reforms to the section 8 program. The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, which passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 52-9, is truly the culmination of work that began in the 109th Congress.

There are many Members of Congress who have expressed major concerns to me about the future stability of the section 8 voucher program, given the recent changes in the funding formula and its impact on tenants. This bill addresses many of those problems and will return much needed stability to the section 8 program and the 2 million low- income families who rely upon it.

We heard from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, public housing agencies, national housing interest groups and advocates, and other housing experts about the importance of reforming the section 8 program. While there is consensus that the section 8 program needed to be reformed, HUD disagrees on how to reform the program.

National housing organizations like the National Low Income Housing Coalition and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which represent those directly affected by the change in the funding formula agree that basing the funding for a program as important as the voucher program on data that is 3 years old is just simply bad policy.

In 2004, Congress changed how we paid public housing authorities for vouchers under lease. Instead of paying the actual cost of the voucher, the decision was made to pay for what the

voucher cost during a 3-month period in the previous year. This had disastrous consequences for PHAs. Many saw a cut in their funding.

While section 8 recipients had to bear the brunt of this policy change as waiting lists closed, many low-income families who had been waiting for affordable housing for years suddenly found housing denied to them. Because of cost concerns, some families were denied their right to move to areas that may have been a bit more expensive but had better job and educational opportunities. Some families saw an increase in rent as many PHAs scrambled to cut costs.

As families struggled under this formula, so did some of our Nation's largest PHAs. The snapshot funding system had consistently and has consistently underpaid some PHAs to the benefit of others. Because of the funding instability, these PHAs had no reason to house more families. As a result, housing authorities are sitting on $1.4 billion in unspent voucher funds. This nonuse of our voucher dollars is unacceptable because we have lost 150,000 vouchers as a direct result of the funding formula.

Clearly, this formula must be changed for the good of public housing agencies and the families they serve. HUD is just wrong in this issue. I flatly reject their just-released statement of policy on the bill. H.R. 1851 updates the voucher formula by basing funding for vouchers on the previous year's leasing and cost data.

The use of more accurate data will ensure that we stop overpaying and underpaying PHAs for vouchers, but instead come as close as we can to paying the actual cost of the voucher. This will enable HUD to better control costs than the section 8 voucher program. This funding approach was recently embraced by both Houses of Congress in H.J. Res. 20.

Vouchers are a scarce resource, but are even scarcer since the funding formula changed in 2004. Only one out of four families who are eligible for housing assistance, including vouchers, actually receive it. H.R. 1851 provides PHAs with several resources for increasing the number of families they serve.

First, the bill provides for the recapture and redistribution of most unspent voucher funds for housing agencies that have chosen not to use these dollars to PHAs that are capable and willing to spend them. This reallocation system will provide PHAs with an incentive to house more families.

Second, the bill provides tools for PHAs to pay for increased costs or emergencies without having to cut assistance to families or to request new funding from the HUD or the Congress. The bill allows PHAs to retain up to a 1-month reserve in the formula's first year. For those PHAs that need additional funds, the bill allows them to borrow up to 2 percent of their budget authority, to be repaid within the first 3 months of the following year.

Third, the bill provides an authorization of appropriation for 20,000 new incremental vouchers per year for 5 years. Congress has not authorized new vouchers since 2002.

During this period, we all know that the need for voucher assistance has grown, not declined. We are not meeting the need for housing vouchers for very low-income persons in this country, working families, the disabled and elderly. Additional vouchers are needed to make sure that the voucher program continues to keep up with the ever-expanding need for affordable housing in this Nation.

Fourth, the bill provides incentives for PHAs to increase families served by tying administrative funding to the number of families housed.

Fifth, the bill restores housing choice, an important feature of the voucher program which has been lost because of cost concerns. H.R. 1851 would eliminate the complex billing process between PHAs using portable vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that will restore stability and predictability to the Nation's largest Federal housing program by fixing the broken funding formula. H.R. 1851 provides for the needs of the families, public housing agencies and landlords who participate in this program.

The funding formula, however, is not the only aspect of the section 8 program in need of reform. Today, housing agencies and program recipients must deal with the complicated set of rules for the determination of rent, recertification of income and inspection of housing units. H.R. 1851 simplifies those requirements, while maintaining current affordable standards.

H.R. 1851 also includes tools to encourage voucher families to move to economic self-sufficiency. Families should not have to pay more in rent because they want to work to provide for their families. By disregarding a portion of earned income, H.R. 1851 would protect families from any resultant increases in rent.

Families also shouldn't be penalized for pursuing educational opportunities. Currently, many families in the voucher and public housing programs can find themselves excluded from work and economic opportunities because of a lack of credit history or low credit scores. The bill would allow the Department to work with the Nation's credit bureaus to allow for the reporting of the rental payment history of voucher and public housing recipients.

In addition, the bill will increase homeownership opportunities for voucher families by allowing them to use a section 8 voucher to make a down payment on their first home. Importantly, the bill provides for a change to the funding structure for family self-sufficiency coordinated to ensure that families have the tools to take advantage of these opportunities.

Without going into all of what is taken care of and what is reformed, I have tried to share the major reforms that we have created for our families who will be receiving assistance through the section 8 program.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield Chairman Frank such time as he may consume.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 2 minutes.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) 2 minutes.

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am so very proud of the work of this committee.

I am so very, very pleased and honored to have the opportunity to work with Barney Frank. Not only is he a committed public policy maker, he is smart, and he is creative. And he is helping us to understand how to use this wonderful opportunity that has been afforded to us to do good for the people of this country.

I am so pleased about this particular bill, because I am so keenly aware of the housing crisis that we have in this country.

As we stand here this evening, there are people who are sleeping under bridges; living with them are families, children. Some of them are veterans. I come from a time and place where people did not have decent housing. I know, too, that not only has this occurred for many years in this country, where people have been living in substandard housing, even today we have people without running water. We have people without proper health facilities of any kind in their homes.

We have families that are crowded into one and two rooms. We have people whose roofs were leaking this evening. But because of this government and our ability to help government understand what it can do to help the least fortunate, we are able to pass this kind of legislation.

I want to thank my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, again, Mrs. Biggert, for the cooperation that I have enjoyed working with her.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this moment to thank someone who is not here in the Congress with us at this time.

When we first started this legislation in the previous Congress, it was with Mr. Bob Ney who served as chair of the subcommittee; I was the ranking member; and we put this bill out on the floor where it passed this House, and he deserves credit for all the work that was done.

I would also like to thank some of the other members who we have not heard from this evening in general debate and hopefully we will hear from a little later on. Mr. Green from Texas who insisted that we expand the vouchers to make them available to the needy families who certainly have been standing in line waiting on section 8 vouchers.

I would like to thank Mr. David Scott for being one of the most adamant and fierce defenders of the work that we have done and who has taken on the work of trying to educate some of our Members from the other side of the aisle, not only about the need, but how not to penalize the victims and people who are looking for housing opportunities who would not be able to get them but for section 8 and the work that we are doing.

With that, I would like to close by thanking the chairman who is so committed to helping those who need us most. He is certainly the kind of leader that we can depend on to make sure that everything possible is done, to utilize the time that we have been given in this committee to work for people who oftentimes have been dropped off of America's agenda. Again, he provides strong leadership. He is generous with sharing opportunities with everybody that serves on that committee. And it is because of that kind of leadership and, again, the cooperation from my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Miller, Mr. Shays, and others that we come to this floor tonight with a good strong bill that is going to help so very many people in this country, and it is the kind of public policy that makes us all feel very good about being elected officials.

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Barney Frank, and Ranking Member Judy Biggert for their strong support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 1851.

The purpose of the amendment is to reform and improve the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007, regarding inspections, flexibility in rent- setting, transitional funding for the Nation's Public Housing Agencies, administrative fee calculations, limited English proficiency requirements, and the Housing Innovation Program. It also makes technical corrections to the bill.

The amendment provides more flexibility to make inspections by requiring them less frequently than every 2 years. This change will allow PHAs in areas with a deteriorating housing stock to conduct additional inspections in order to make sure families are housed in safe and decent units. In addition, the amendment fills the need for inspections that can be conducted at the request of the tenant within a specific amount of time.

My amendment solves a real catch-22 that often arises in the section 8 program. Many section 8 landlords are not large real estate concerns, but mom-and-pop operations that are not getting rich. Where units operated by a landlord fail inspection, right now there is a real danger that the landlord will choose to leave the program rather than make the repairs. This benefits nobody. And there is the catch-22. The landlord wants to stay in the program; the tenant certainly wants to stay in the unit if it can be repaired; but current law makes this positive resolution difficult to achieve.

PHAs will have the option to make repairs on the landlord's behalf. If the PHA or the landlord choose not to make the repair, the amendment protects tenants who will have to move to a new unit through no fault of their own. In the event a PHA chooses not to make a repair and the landlord still declines to repair the unit, the amendment provides important tenant protections.

There is rent flexibility. Sometimes the rigid section 8 rent structure just

doesn't work. In order to find a rent mechanism that works, the amendment gives PHAs flexibility in setting rents. While the calculations may be different, the amendment preserves affordability standards that limit the amount of rent a tenant pays to 30 percent of his or her income. The 30 percent threshold is sacred, because we all know that if the rent exceeds this amount, tenants lose the ability to make ends meet.

When we move to a new funding formula, PHAs will need sufficient reserves to allow them to make the change smoothly and with little disruption for tenants. H.R. 1851 provides a 1-month reserve for the first year of the formula. But to ensure that PHAs are able to serve additional families in the formula's first year, the amendment moderately increases this reserve from the 1-month level to the 1\1/2\- month level. This ensures PHAs will have adequate funds to transition.

The amendment corrects the disparity between the calculation of the administrative fees for project-based units owned by PHAs and other units in the PHA's inventory. Units owned by PHAs would receive the same fee as other units receiving project-based assistance in the PHA's inventory, providing an incentive for PHAs to create housing opportunities by project-basing its own units.

The amendment also addresses HUD's problematic implementation of Limitation of English Proficiency requirements. The manager's amendment seeks to remedy this problem. The amendment calls for HUD to convene a task force of interested parties and stakeholders who will determine the documents that need to be translated, and to make these translations available in various languages within 6 months. HUD is also required to maintain a housing information resource center, including a 24-hour toll-free number and a document clearinghouse.

We also include Housing Innovation Program, that is HIP program, formerly known as Moving to Work, and this amendment makes several corrections to the Housing Innovation Program formerly called Moving to Work. These changes clarify that troubled agencies are not eligible to participate in the program, clarifies resident participation requirements, specifies job opportunities to be made for residents, and ensures that following demolition or replacement of public housing units, that families cannot be screened out of public housing unless they are otherwise ineligible under Federal law.

I ask support for the manager's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask for support for the manager's amendment to H.R. 1851 and passage of the bill. Again, I want to thank each of my colleagues who worked on this important amendment for their strong support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to come to the floor this evening to talk about the war in Iraq one more time. I know that this is the focus of this Congress, whether we want it to be or not. No matter what we do or what we try to do, we are met head-on with the fact of the matter that Iraq stands before us as an issue, as something that must be solved.

The fact of the matter is we have now over 3,600 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. Over 27,000 soldiers have been seriously injured; wounded. I am talking about the kinds of injuries such as brain injuries, loss of limbs, eyes gouged out, the kind of injuries that certainly will interfere with these soldiers' ability to have a good quality of life, to be able to be employed, to

pursue the kinds of careers that many of them perhaps dreamed of because, unfortunately, they have found themselves in this war in Iraq.

Many of these soldiers are very patriotic. When their President told them that we were in danger, that we were at risk, that somehow Saddam Hussein was responsible for weapons of mass destruction and 9/11, they eagerly and gladly signed up to go to war to defend their country, only to learn that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

We say this over and over again. But the American people and we all must be reminded that many folks supported the President. Many of the Members of Congress supported the President because they believed the President. They believed him when he said that he had to wage this war on terrorism because we were at risk and Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

So here we are. No weapons of mass destruction. We have destabilized Iraq. There is a civil war that is going on. Many of us were in denial about the civil war even though we watched it developing. We watched the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds begin to turn on each other and to fight each other. We watched the militias grow. We watched as this country has simply been torn apart.

Mr. Speaker and Members, we are now at a point in time where the American people are sick and tired of this war. The polls show it. They are not happy, certainly, with the President of the United States. But they are even less happy with the Congress of the United States.

I am a Democrat. The people of my party thought they voted for us to come here in November and end this war. While many of us would like very much to end the war, we still have some Members who are not so sure. They don't quite have the courage yet. They don't want to be thought of as unpatriotic. They don't want to be thought of as pulling the rug out from under the soldiers. But the American people will not tolerate this war much longer. They have said so in so many ways.

I am just hopeful, I am just hopeful that we will gather the courage that is needed and step up to the plate and let this President know there will be no more dollars, no more dollars appropriated by this Congress to continue this war in Iraq.

Now, I know a lot of people, and a lot of Members of this House don't want to go there yet. They are trying to say everything that they can possibly say in so many ways to let the President know that we should get out, that there should be a time certain. But they are not yet ready to talk about defunding this war.

Well, I stand here proudly this evening as one person, one Member of Congress, elected by the people of the 35th Congressional District. I am prepared to defund this war. I do not think we should spend another dime on this war that has destabilized Iraq. We have those who talk about the fact that, and the President of the United States has said, we must stay there until we train the soldiers in Iraq to provide the security for Iraq. That is laughable. Not only have we misled the people about the numbers that we were training in Iraq, the soldiers, many of whom that we have trained, have turned on our soldiers, have undermined them at the point of contact and confrontation. So I simply say this evening, we have to get out of this war.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this Nation's history there has been an undeniable struggle to insure that the American dream of liberty and justice for all becomes the American reality. For the current reality is one of a country tainted with prejudice; a country in which discrimination based on race, sex, and class permeates every aspect of our society. Still, throughout history there have been those

who have fought with courage and conviction for justice and equity, and it is because of them that we as a Nation have progressed.

The late Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink is one such person. Today I rise in support of H.R. 406 which celebrates the accomplishments of Congresswoman Mink and the passage of Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. Title IX, also known as the Equal Opportunity in Education Act, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the administration of education programs.

Congresswoman Mink, a courageous champion of women's rights, once declared, ``All persons regardless of their sex, must have enough opportunities open so that they can contribute as much to their lives and this society as they can.'' Mink served 12 terms in this House representing Hawaii, and throughout those 12 terms, she was steadfast in her commitment to social justice. Due to her stalwart conviction, Title IX and its enactment are responsible for increased educational opportunities for women and girls. As such, among women, high school graduation rates have risen to 85 percent, those earning bachelors degrees has reached 26 percent, and employment opportunities are ever improving. It is because of Title IX that our country's women and girls are able to pursue their dreams without the hindrances of institutionalized oppression. As a result of Title IX, our women are able to learn, grow, and thrive unapologetically.

It must, however, be noted that despite this undeniable progress, there still remains much work to be done. H.R. 406 enumerates the numerous arenas in which women must still battle for fair and equitable treatment. To this day, women are still victims of sexual harassment in the workplace, salary inequality in comparison to their male counterparts, and limited access to career opportunities in the fields of math and science. Let us not become complacent and find solace in the status quo, as true equality has yet to be attained.

The 35 years since enactment of Title IX can be lauded as 35 years of progress. We must continue to commemorate the legislatures and the legislation that propel our country forward. We must continue to work towards a future in which social ills such as bigotry and sex discrimination are of the past. Let us take pride in what has been accomplished by pioneers such as Congresswoman Mink while continuing the fight for equality, justice, and the realization of the American dream.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush defended his war in Iraq saying it would be a disaster if we left. Well, if the President doesn't know it by now, we already have a disaster on our hands.

Allow me to read a few headlines from the past week to give everyone a sense of how well the war is progressing:

The Washington Post, June 18, 2007, General Petraeus: ``Iraq 'Challenges' to Last for Years.''

New York Times, June 16, 2007, ``In Iraq Secretary Gates Says Progress Toward Peace is Lagging.''

New York Times, June 13, 2007, ``Violence Rising in Much of Iraq, Pentagon Says.''

MSNBC.com, March 17, 2006, ``Cost of Iraq War could surpass $1 trillion. Of course, the estimates vary but all agree price is far higher than initially expected.''

A Pentagon report released last week gave a grim outlook of the situation in Iraq. While the number of U.S. troops on the ground reached a record high as a result of the President's so-called troop surge, violence in Iraq has continued to increase. In fact, since the surge was announced, 500 American troops have been killed. According to the report, much of the violence that plagues Iraq is attributable to ``sectarian friction and each faction is driven by its own political and economic power relationships.''

Further, ``Illegally armed groups are engaged in a cycle of sectarian and politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, executions and indirect fire to intimidate and provoke sectarian conflict.''

Simply put, Iraq is a full-fledged civil war.

The number of suicide attacks in Iraq has increased from 26 in January to 58 in March and April. Remember IEDs, that is, improvised explosive devices? Now insurgents are increasingly using a more advanced type of IED called EFPs, or explosively formed projectiles, to kill our soldiers. These new bombs are being used in rapidly increasing numbers and are extremely effective at piercing the armor of our Humvees, tanks, and troop transports, causing mass casualties. As of today, there have been 3,526 U.S. deaths; there have been 26,000 Americans wounded, some very serious; 60,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died; and there are over 1,000 attacks per week, on average, and steadily growing.

We have spent over $435 billion of taxpayer money. The total cost to our economy could be upwards of $1 trillion to $2 trillion.

It is time to face the facts. Bombs and bullets have not and will not bring us peace in Iraq.

In January, I, along with my colleagues Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, introduced H.R. 508, the ``Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007.'' This bill repeals the authorization of force in Iraq, requires a complete withdrawal of troops within 6 months, and puts Iraq on a path to sovereignty and peace. This bill seeks to end the cycle of violence that has plagued Iraq since we began this occupation.

There is bipartisan opposition to the war in Iraq, and a majority of Americans not only think President Bush is doing a poor job handling the situation in Iraq, but a majority also support setting a timetable for withdrawal. Our constituents sent us a strong message in November and continue to demand an end to this war.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we in Congress have the courage to bring this war in Iraq to an end.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to introduce the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation of 2007. This bill will expand existing debt cancellation programs for the world's poorest countries and ensure that the benefits from debt cancellation will not be eroded by future lending to these impoverished nations.

Existing debt cancellation programs have freed up resources to reduce poverty in some of the world's poorest countries. Cameroon is using its savings of $29.8 million from debt cancellation in 2006 for national poverty reduction priorities, including infrastructure, social sector and governance reforms. Uganda is using its savings of $57.9 million on improving energy infrastructure to ease acute electricity shortages, as well as primary education, malaria control, healthcare, and water infrastructure. Zambia is using its savings of $23.8 million to increase spending on agricultural projects and to eliminate fees for healthcare in rural areas. However, there are many needy and deserving poor countries that have yet to benefit from the cancellation of their debts.

The Jubilee Act will make 67 of the world's poorest countries eligible for complete debt cancellation by the United States, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other bilateral and multilateral creditors. In order to receive debt cancellation, the governments of these countries will be required to allocate the savings from debt cancellation towards spending on poverty-reduction programs. They will also have to engage interested parties within their societies, including a broad cross-section of civil society groups, in the spending allocation process; produce an annual report on this spending; and make it publicly available.

Countries would be excluded from receiving debt cancellation under the Jubilee Act if they have an excessive level of military expenditures; provide support for acts of international terrorism; fail to cooperate on international narcotics control matters; or engage in a consistent pattern of human rights violations. Countries also would be excluded if they lack transparent and effective budget execution and public financial management systems to ensure that the savings from debt cancellation would be spent on reducing poverty.

The Jubilee Act will establish a framework for responsible lending in order to preserve the benefits that debt cancellation has provided to poor countries and their people. The Jubilee Act requires the United States Secretary of the Treasury to take action to end the predatory practices of ``vulture funds,'' private investment funds that buy up the debts of poor countries at reduced prices just before these countries receive debt cancellation and then sue these countries to recover the original value of the debts plus interest. Finally, the Jubilee Act will require the Secretary of the Treasury to develop and promote policies to prevent bilateral, multilateral and private creditors from eroding the benefits of debt cancellation through irresponsible or exploitive lending.

The Jubilee Act will expand debt cancellation to all needy and deserving poor countries

and preserve the benefits that debt cancellation has provided to impoverished people worldwide. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to reduce poverty through much needed debt cancellation reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 422, which calls on China to use its leverage with the government of Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur.

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. Over one- third of the population of Darfur has been displaced, and the United Nations estimated that almost 250,000 people have been displaced in the past 6 months alone, due primarily to government-sponsored militia attacks.

China, unlike most nations in the international community, has cultivated a close relationship with the Government of Sudan. China maintains close military ties with Sudan and purchased almost $2 billion worth of Sudanese oil last year. China also has cancelled $100 million in Sudanese debt and provided an additional $20 million to finance the construction of a presidential palace in the capital city. As a result, China is in a unique position to put pressure on the Government of Sudan to stop the violence in Darfur. So far, it has failed or refused to do so.

This resolution urges China to acknowledge and condemn the atrocities in Darfur, cease all weapons sales to Sudan, and suspend economic cooperation with Sudan. The resolution also urges China to use its leverage to influence the Government of Sudan to: comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions providing for disarmament of militias in Darfur and deployment of a full-scale peacekeeping force; participate in peace negotiations to secure a legitimate peace agreement between all parties; and improve working conditions for humanitarian organizations operating in Sudan and ensure they have access to the 2.5 million people displaced by this genocide.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I urge China to join with the international community and take a stand against genocide in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 396, had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' I returned to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security to present my bill on ``Stop AIDS in Prison.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule on this very important piece of legislation and to commend Chairman Frank and the members of the Financial Services Committee for the wonderful work that they have done in getting this important reform measure back to the floor of this House.

As it was said earlier, and I will simply repeat, that this is a good rule. This is a rule that has opened up opportunities for those who have amendments to get those amendments before the floor. As Mr. Frank said, there are more amendments that are being allowed on this bill today than were allowed on the bill that came before the House last year on the reform of these GSEs.

This is an important piece of legislation where a lot of work has been done to get a consensus about how to reform the GSEs and to open up more opportunities for those who need to be supported on the secondary market for mortgages.

This is important because we have had a lot of fights in the Congress of the United States about the GSEs. There were those who for many, many months simply defended the GSEs. We were frightened that we would lose this important resource, and we were suspicious of accusations that were being made about the way that they managed the GSEs, and we did not go along with some of the changes that were being recommended some time ago.

But we have all worked very hard and we have compromised. Not only have the defenders of the GSEs decided that it was time for strong regulation and that OFHEO had indeed not done the job and given the oversight that they should have given, we also looked very closely at what was going on with the FM Watch organization that had been created. And while we will agree that there were those in the financial services community who thought that the GSEs were creeping into the retail market, and we still believe that some of what was done was all about potential competition, the one thing that we have agreed on is this.

The GSEs are extremely important. They were organized to provide these opportunities to support them on the secondary market, and we cannot lose it, and there were some management problems. There were some accounting problems. Many careers have been destroyed in all of the fighting that has gone on. OFHEO has been dismantled. We have come up with good regulation and oversight, and it is time for us to move forward and not to simply oppose this bill and this rule because we think one has to be the loyal opposition, opposing whatever comes to the floor.

It's time to recognize that if we want to do something about creating and supporting housing opportunities, if we want to deal with what is happening in the subprime market, if we understand what we're going through in America today, with all of these foreclosures, with people being very frightened about whether or not they are going to be able to hold on to their home, if we understand all of this, we will move very quickly, not only to support the rule but to support the bill and a very important aspect of this bill, and that is the housing trust fund.

How can you be against helping Americans who just want a little piece of the American dream, to be able to own a home? We need to supply more spots. We need more housing. We need to build affordable housing. We're not taking any money away from our general fund. We're not taking any of the revenue that is being counted on to be used for other things in this huge budget. This is new money. This is money that's created from the after-profit taxes of these GSEs. It does not threaten our budget at all.

How can you be against building new affordable homes for people who need it all over this country, not just in the cities but in the towns and in the suburbs and certainly in the rural communities? We have people who are living in homes that are not fit for humans to live in. We have people still in some places in the deep South that don't have toilets and running water. We have folks who are living in some of the housing and trailers that are falling apart. We need the housing trust fund. We need this reform. We need this rule, and I would ask support for it all.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, and I commend the chairman for the work that he has done, the leadership he has provided and the hard work of the Members of this committee to get this bill to the floor.

There are no great issues that separate us on this bill. We have worked out all of those issues. We all agree there should be stronger oversight. We all agree that we had to get rid of OFHEO, we had to have a stronger agency. We were all concerned about the tremendous debt of the GSEs. So that is all behind us. There is only one thing that separates us, and that is the Housing Trust Fund, and that is philosophical.

We believe that given the housing crisis in America we have a responsibility to assist those who cannot afford decent housing, who are living on the streets, who are paying much more than 30 percent of their income. We believe we have a responsibility to assist them, to help them.

The other side of the aisle does not believe that government should play any role in helping the least of these get into public housing.

The generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened, and often have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care.

We are not talking about housing for any one section of this country. It is all over this country. In Mr. Boehner's district, the Eighth District: 64,759 renter households, including 14,713 extremely low- income households. Of these extremely poor households, 57 percent are paying more than half of their incomes for housing. In the Eighth District, there is a deficit of 7,497 units that are affordable and available to extremely poor households.

In Mr. Blunt's district, the Seventh District of Missouri: 76,034 rental households, including 13,885 extremely low-income households. Of these extremely poor households, 57 percent are paying more than half of their incomes for housing. In the Seventh District, there is a deficit of 7,580 units that are affordable and available to extremely poor households.

But let's not stop there. In Mr. Bachus' district, in the Sixth District of Alabama: 55,217 renter households, including 9,525 extremely low-income households. Of these extremely poor households, 50 percent are paying more than half of their incomes for housing. In the Sixth District, there is a deficit of 4,141 units that are affordable and available to extremely poor households.

I could go on and on. This is about the housing trust fund. I would ask my colleagues to support the least of us in America, and reject the argument from the other side of the aisle.