Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I am surprised at the information that is being given from my friends on the opposite side of the aisle about this bill. Mr. Garrett from New Jersey gets up and talks about the mortgage tax increase. There is no MTI. He made that up. There is no MTI identified in and for this bill. I don't know where they're getting this from. They have vivid imaginations, and they would have you believe that somehow, in order to create this housing trust fund and have the GSEs participate in it, there must be something that they've made up called a mortgage tax increase.

Did anyone tell my friends on the opposite side of the aisle that the GSEs have many places they can take the money from?

First of all, it is important for everyone to know and understand, this money does not come from the general fund. This money does not come from something called an MTI. This is after-profit tax from the GSEs. And they have all of these programs, they have not only programs that they could eliminate, they could rearrange, and get millions of dollars from, but the investors, instead of getting huge profits, they could be reduced a little bit so that money could go into this housing trust fund.

You would think that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle don't have a housing crisis in their district. Well, I've been to Alabama. I've been in Mr. Bachus' district. I want to tell you, he's got some terrible housing problems. He's got a crisis.

But Mr. Hensarling does, too. I don't know where those letters are coming from, but let me tell you about his district. Renter households, 81,740 including 14,931 extremely low income households in Mr. Hensarling's district.

Of these extremely poor households, 56 percent of them are paying more than half of their incomes for housing. In this district, there's a deficit of 9,571 units that are affordable and available to extremely poor households.

I don't mind speaking up for the least of these and poor. I don't mind trying to help the people in my district. But I do mind carrying the burden for all over America, for districts where there are people in need, and somehow their representatives forget to represent them.

And my friend would have you believe that he's so concerned about the safety and soundness of these GSEs, and that they want independent world class regulation. And we've created that in this bill, we have compromised, we have worked with them, we have put a new agency in. We have done a great job.

Are you willing to sacrifice that because you don't believe the government should participate in helping the least of these get some low income housing? Are you willing to give up all that we have worked for to ensure that we have GSEs that are safe and sound because you don't want to help poor people, low income people, people who work every day but simply cannot afford to own a home or have a decent place to live?

I don't think so. I know some of my friends on the opposite side of the aisle may have some questions about how this is all going to work, but I really don't believe that what you mean is that you would give up this bill; that you would rather not see this bill passed, with all of the good that is in it, even FM Watch that was organized some time ago to deal with bringing down the GSEs or supporting this housing trust fund. These are your friends that you have worked with. They like the bill and they like the housing trust fund, and they have letters of support that they have passed out all over this Congress.

So I would say that even if you have some questions, you don't quite understand it, understand this: A housing crisis, people in need, moneys that can be gotten from GSEs that does not create something called an MTI, that can help people to have a decent quality of life. Just understand that. And couple that with the knowledge that you have worked very hard to make sure that these GSEs are safe and sound and you don't want to give that up at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the chairman so that he can straighten out some of that misinformation on the other side.

I am not likely to want to yield to him. I want you to finish this up.

If you insist.

Reluctantly.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have reached a very interesting point in this debate and in this discussion. It has been a long one and it has been a rather interesting one. This amendment that my friend, Mr. Neugebauer, is attempting was attempted in committee and it was defeated.

I find it very interesting because we have seen all kinds of attempts here this evening by the opposite side of the aisle to deny this Housing Fund. We have seen attempts to try to diminish or cut the Housing Fund, to redefine the Housing Fund, to use it for economic development. We have seen everything. And we are at the point now that I guess if you can't stop it, somehow cap it. Cap it no matter how much money under this formula it will bring in. We are going to take an arbitrary amount at $520 million or so and just cap it, even if the actual funds under the formula exceed the estimated $600 million a year. I don't think so.

I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment again because it does not make good sense. This particular fund that has been developed by our chairman is one of the most creative items that have happened here in this House in a long time.

We don't have a lot of money to do some of the things we need to be doing for the domestic agenda. As a matter of fact, yes, we support PAYGO because our deficit has gotten out of hand. Our friends on the opposite side of the aisle, in cooperation with this administration, have been spending like drunken sailors. So now we have a way that we can help the least of these in our society attain quality, decent housing, low and moderate income people, and not tap the general fund at all.

And so we have this very, very creative way to do this led by our chairman. And a lot of people are going to benefit from it. And again, we have had attempts to deny it, and now we have an attempt to cap it.

I am saying we should not support this amendment. We should debate it in the way that we have been debating basically this Housing Trust Fund all evening. You have tried everything that you can possibly think of. You have tried to redefine it. You have tried to talk about it in different ways that certainly it was not meant to be described. And you are not winning at this. As a matter of fact, I am hoping that since you are now at the point where you see that there is a lot of support for this Housing Trust Fund, and that you have tried everything that you can possibly try and it hasn't worked, that you will just fold your tent, roll over, come on in, and in the final analysis, vote for this bill which will include this Housing Trust Fund.

I am so tired. I don't have another word that I can share about it. And I hope you feel the same way, too, so we can wrap it up and go home.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I take this opportunity to thank the leadership for honoring the work and the request of the progressives of this House to place a bill before this body that we could feel good about supporting.

Some of us have been against this war. We have come to the floor. We have done interviews. We have worked the floor. We have done everything that we possibly can to communicate what we believe are the feelings of the American public about this war. The November vote indicated to us, and should have to others, that Americans are sick and tired of this war. They want to bring our soldiers home. They want to stop the loss of lives. They want to stop the money that is being spent, over $400 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan; 3,200 or more lives that have been lost; over 25,000 soldiers who have been seriously injured.

Some of us are not willing to spend other another dime on this war. And this bill that is before us, thanks to Barbara Lee and Mr. McGovern and to Lynn Woolsey and I, we have this bill that represents the thinking of the progressives of this House that simply says, we will give no more money to continue fighting this war, but rather, any money that is expended would simply be funds to help wind down this war and to bring our soldiers out; no permanent bases left in Iraq; and basically that no money would be spent on a surge. This surge that the President has initiated is placing our soldiers at

great risk. As a matter of fact, there is no safety in the Green Zone. As a matter of fact, we do not have friends in Iraq. The Sunnis are against us. The Shias are against us. The Kurds are against us. And those Iraqi soldiers that are embedded are undermining our soldiers. I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this very progressive piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Con Res. 7, which strongly urges the League of Arab States to step up their diplomatic efforts to stop the genocide in Darfur. This resolution urges the League of Arab States and each individual Member State to:

(1) Declare the systematic torture, rape, and displacement of the people of Darfur a genocide;

(2) Pass a resolution at their next meeting to support and accept a United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force to enforce the ceasefire, protect civilians, and ensure access to humanitarian assistance in Darfur; and

(3) Work with the United Nations, the African Union and the United States Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios, to bring about real and lasting peace and stability in Darfur, the refugee camps, and along the Chadian border.

On August 20 of last year, the League of Arab States met in Egypt and supported Sudan's refusal to allow a United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur. The following month, the League of Arab States called for the United Nations Security Council to give the government of Sudan more time to improve security conditions in Darfur. By that time, it had already been estimated that over 450,000 people had died as a result of genocide in Darfur. Since then the death toll has continued to mount.

Last year, I visited the Darfur region with my good friend, 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. It is unconscionable that this has been allowed to continue for yet another year.

There can be no doubt that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and the government of Sudan is responsible. The League of Arab States should tell the government of Sudan that their time is up. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, and I urge the League of Arab States to take a firm stand against the crime of genocide in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I come to the floor today to join with my colleagues in recognition of a public servant who served in this august body, who served in the California State legislature, who served the city of Compton as a city councilwoman, who served as head of the NAACP in the city of Compton, who was a community activist, a legislator and not only a committed servant but a woman who was determined to make sure that she did everything possible to bring about justice and equality, not only for our people but for all people.

I have known Juanita Millender-McDonald for over 35 years. I knew her before she was the president of the Compton chapter of the NAACP. She contacted me when she became the president and we worked on some projects together. We went on to work on many projects together. When my son ran for the California State legislature, she was involved with his campaign. When her son made an attempt to get back into professional football, my husband who was a professional football player, having played for the Cleveland Browns, helped to connect him with some recruiters in order to get him into professional football. And so we have interacted on a professional level, on a personal level and in so many ways for such a long period of time.

We have been involved in some of the same kind of issues over the years. I can recall, it was not so many years ago when it was revealed that perhaps our government had known about drugs that were being transported from Nicaragua into south central Los Angeles, and, of course, that revelation kicked off a firestorm in this country. Juanita McDonald invited the head of the CIA to come to south central Los Angeles to speak to the people and tell them what he knew about the Contras and about the Sandinistas and our involvement with the drug trade, this government. Did this government turn a blind eye while drugs were being transported across our borders?

It was an unusual event. Never had the head of the CIA been to a community to speak with the people, and people were everywhere. The FBI, the CIA, everybody was standing on roofs all over the place. It was a spectacular event. But that was her style.

Juanita McDonald and I not only worked on that issue in different ways. We have been involved in trying to save Martin Luther King Hospital for a number of years now. This has been a tough, tough battle. This hospital was born out of the ashes of the insurrection of 1965 in south Los Angeles. This is an institution that is so very much needed but is such at risk at this point. This institution has been threatened by the Federal Government to withdraw all of its Federal funds and we have fought day in and day out, month in and month out, year in and year out to maintain the funding from the Federal Government so that that hospital could stay there for people who need it so desperately.

Juanita McDonald has organized many meetings. She has interacted not only with CMS and the Federal Government but all of the county officials. Time after time we have sat before the board of supervisors, imploring them to do everything that they could to straighten out the problems at Martin Luther King Hospital, to work harder, to make sure there was the management and the supervision.

Juanita McDonald cared about health issues. Not only was she involved with trying to save Martin Luther King Hospital, she organized an AIDS walk that took place every year. She and her women's group organized and each year they went to one of the stadiums in the south Los Angeles area and they held their walk. It got a lot of attention, but this was her way of saying to the community, not only do I care about AIDS, I'm willing to put some quality time and attention on this issue. I want you to get tested. I want you to get involved in learning how you can protect yourself from being infected with HIV/AIDS. And so it is just a small example of the care and commitment that she has demonstrated over the years, whether we talk about health care or education or voting rights that she was so very much involved in before she took her leave of absence.

She cared about justice. She cared that this democracy would truly act in ways that supported the proposition that everybody has the right to a decent quality of life. Everybody must be protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. Everybody must enjoy the benefits of living in this great country. And she reached beyond with care for the mother continent of Africa. She was involved in those issues, also.

And so I stand here today to say, Juanita McDonald has taken her place in history and she did it her way. Sometimes we did it different ways, but she knew what she was doing and why she was doing it the way that she did. Her husband can be proud. Her children can be proud. And we can all be proud that we had the blessing and the opportunity to live and work with a woman of substance, a woman who cared, a woman who gave of herself and a woman who left us with dignity, a woman who never complained, a woman who never said, I feel bad, I have pain, I can't do it today. She worked right up until she took a leave of absence just a few days ago.

I am proud to stand here and say that I knew her, that I worked with her, that I have appreciated everything

that she has contributed to our great society.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for reserving this time tonight to bring to the attention of the American people our deep concern about subprime lending and the rising foreclosure rate across our Nation.

Last week, we learned that the foreclosure rate jumped 47 percent in March of 2007 from just 1 year ago. Several weeks ago, Freddie Mac, which buys loans from lenders and sets underwriting standards, stopped purchasing 2/28 and 3/27 loans, or loans on which interest rates are fixed for only the first 2 years or 3 years of a 30-year loan.

Freddie Mac, recognizing the increase in number of defaults on these exotic loans because of rising rates and falling real estate prices, cut its losses short and got out of the subprime business.

Within the last month, the Nation's second largest subprime lender, New Century Financial Corporation, suspended making any new subprime loans because of the huge number of defaults on subprime mortgage loans and has since filed for bankruptcy protection. Incidentally, the executives of First Century have asked for an exit package of some $6.5 million.

Countrywide, the largest subprime lender in the United States, also has problems with its subprime and prime portfolios.

Numerous subprime lenders have been forced into bankruptcy or have been sold to larger lenders.

General Motors Acceptance Corporation is out of the subprime business altogether. The list continues to grow with each passing day.

Defaults on subprime mortgage loans have prompted investors to turn their backs on mortgage-backed securities, making it more difficult for subprime lenders to sell their loans and to raise the cash for new loans. This has created a liquidity trap for many borrowers who want to refinance out of the nontraditional mortgage products. Huge amounts of cash that once sought the high yields tied to mortgage-backed securities creating easy money for borrowers, many of whom had less than stellar credit, or lacked loan documentation, or sought zero down payment products, is no longer available. No one knows for sure what the extent of the exposure is and exactly who is exposed because the way mortgages are packaged into pools and sold to investors makes it difficult to determine who owns the loans and how much money is lost.

One estimate by Lehman Brothers suggests that approximately $19 billion in losses are parked in loan pools put together in 2005, 2006 and this year, representing 5.5 percent of all mortgages.

The Center for Responsible Lending December 2006 report entitled, ``Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners,'' documents the relationship between subprime lending and foreclosures and suggests that by the end of 2006, 2.2 million households in the subprime market either will have lost their homes to foreclosure or hold subprime mortgages that will fail over the next several years. These foreclosures will cost homeowners as much as $164 billion, primarily in home equity.

One out of five, or 20 percent, of the subprime mortgages originated during the first 2 years will end in foreclosure. So rather than wealth creation that we expect with homeownership, we will witness wealth evaporation tied to foreclosures.

Federal regulators issued guidance last year acknowledging that subprime loans were a problem. The guidance speaks to loans where the rates can change dramatically after the second or third year of the mortgage, such as from 7 percent to 11.5 percent. That guidance suggests that lenders be required to take into account the borrower's ability to make monthly payments at higher rates and also property taxes and homeowners insurance which are often not escrowed in the subprime loans.

I applaud the guidance, but what we really need is for there to be forbearance on the part of lenders while we get this mess straightened out and before it leads to something catastrophic in the financial markets. It has already spilled over into the home building industry, and the fallout is far from over.

Congress must still balance the interest of assisting home buyers who are low- and moderate-income first-time buyers, while ensuring that they avoid the pitfalls of the subprime market and that they have safe options. Providing assistance to existing subprime borrowers who are in danger of losing their homes is key.

I believe that FHA modernization is part of the solution, and so we will mark up H.R. 1852, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, a bill that I have introduced, next week in the Committee on Financial Services. Reasonable workout plans represent another mechanism that can assist homeowners from falling into foreclosure.

In effect, the lenders know that they are better off not losing these borrowers to foreclosure since it is very costly to the lenders. It only creates a ripple effect in the communities where the properties are located, creating vacancies, blight, arson and other social ills. In addition, the cycle of predatory lending activity continues with investors purchasing foreclosed property at depressed prices only to turn around and sell the properties quickly at inflated prices.

I have asked Freddie to take a look at prohibiting the use of its resources to finance this type of mortgage lending.

A big plus is that Freddie Mac just took proactive steps, announcing that it will make $20 billion available to assist borrowers by the summer with refinancing. Fannie Mae will join this effort. I can not predict what will happen in the subprime lending market, but I do believe that we can stem the tide of foreclosures by working closely with Freddie, Fannie and the lenders. One thing that I do know is that we will have to correct this problem if the markets can not fix it. We can not sit by and watch Americans, many through no fault of their own, lose their homes. Every time there is a victim to foreclosure, the rate of homeownership in American falls and the gap between the rich and the poor worsens. No one wants to reverse the progress that we have made in this country on homeownership, certainly not me.

Madam Speaker, Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald was a remarkably committed legislator. As the first African-American woman to chair a full committee in Congress, she was deeply dedicated to the work of the House Administration Committee. Through her chair, she was working on landmark legislation to ensure the integrity of our voting system.

At home, Representative Millender-McDonald worked every day for her constituents on the issues of healthcare, economic development and housing. Representative Millender-McDonald was engaged in a serious effort to revitalize the public housing in her district and was involved in a series of tours and meetings with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Alphonso Jackson, at both Imperial Courts and Nickerson Gardens aimed at providing better housing options for her constituents.

Recently, we joined together to lend our voices to the chorus of community leaders and residents in a successful effort to extend funding for Martin Luther King Hospital.

Representative Millender-McDonald will be missed not only by her constituents in the 37th district, but by all of the people who were touched by her service.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congresswoman Hilda Solis, the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Health and the Environment, for organizing this evening's Special Order in honor of National Minority Health Month.

Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' Unfortunately, injustice in health care is widespread and growing in American society today.

The Uninsured

Over 46 million Americans don't have health insurance.

That is a 15 percent increase in the number of uninsured since the President took office.

Twelve percent of white Americans, 19 percent of Asian Americans, 20 percent of African Americans, 27 percent of Native Americans and 35 percent of Hispanic Americans have no health insurance.

Nationwide, 9 percent of children under the age of 18 and 19 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 are uninsured.

Los Angeles County

In Los Angeles County, 8 percent of children under the age of 18 and 22 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 are uninsured.

In the Southern Service Planning Area of Los Angeles County [SPA6], where my district is located, lack of access to health insurance is especially high: 11 percent of children under the age of 18 and 32 percent of adults ages 18 to 64 are uninsured.

In the same area, an alarming 44 percent of adults reported difficulty accessing medical care, and 21 percent of children have difficulty accessing medical care.

Furthermore, in the Southern Area of Los Angeles County, 35 percent of adults and 19 percent of children did not obtain dental care in the past year, because they could not afford it.

We cannot continue to ignore these alarming statistics.

Infant Mortality

Infant mortality rates are considered to be one of the most important indicators of the health and well-being of a population. In 2003, the last year for which nationwide data is available, the infant death rate was 6.9 deaths for every one thousand live births.

Infant death rates among African Americans are considerably higher. Among whites, there were 5.7 infant deaths per thousand live births in 2003; while among blacks, there were 14.0 infant deaths per thousand live births.

In Los Angeles County, there are 5.0 infant deaths per thousand live births. Among African Americans, there are 11.7 infant deaths per thousand live births.

According to an article in Sunday's New York Times, infant deaths in the South are growing.

In Mississippi, the infant death rate had fallen to 9.7 in 2004 but then jumped sharply to 11.4 in 2005. In concrete human terms, a total of 481 babies died in Mississippi in 2005. That's 65 more babies than died the previous year.

Among African Americans in Mississippi, infant deaths rose from 14.2 per thousand in 2004 to an astonishing 17 per thousand in 2005.

Infant death rates also increased in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

Clearly, injustice in health care is taking its toll.

If we truly believe that all men and women are created equal, we cannot allow these disparities to continue.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and I am proud and pleased to do so.

I was elected in 1991; and one of my colleagues, who was elected at the same time, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, she has been in this battle ever since she has been here trying to educate this House and the Members of this Congress about the disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia, and she has done a magnificent job of doing that.

That brings us to the point that we are today. We have worked out an agreement. We have bipartisan support. We have a piece of legislation that makes good sense. It will give representation to the people who live and work in this District, people who pay taxes.

When I rode in this morning, I rode in a taxicab with an elderly woman who has been driving a cab for 28 years. I struck up a conversation with her, and she told me that she had two sons in Iraq. I could not tell her about what we were doing on the floor today. I did not want to engage her in that conversation because I was too ashamed to even talk about the fact that she did not have representation, she did not have a voting representative because this body had not decided to use its power to give the vote to the people of the District of Columbia. But I am proud to stand here today because I think something wonderful is about to happen.

No matter the distortions about the Constitution, no matter the misunderstanding that I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle, we are about to embark on something that is historical, that is constitutional, and is the right thing to do. And I am so pleased and proud to be a part of it as I stand here, looking in the eyes of my friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton, where I will be casting my vote with her today to give voting rights to the people of this District.

Madam Speaker, I rise proudly to extend my congratulations to an extraordinary individual--a resident of Los Angeles, California, who in mid-April will become the first African American in the United States to receive the American Organization of Nurse Executive's lifetime achievement award.

Linda Burnes Bolton, DrPH, RN, FAAN, is Vice President and Chief Nursing Officer at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Dr. Burnes Bolton is a trailblazing nurse leader who has spent her career championing and implementing high quality healthcare for all patients. Dr. Bolton's energy level and commitment to transforming healthcare through nursing solutions are legendary. Not only has Dr. Burnes Bolton studied and written about disparities in care but through her many decades of visionary work on behalf of patients, Dr. Burnes Bolton has contributed to a multitude of improvement initiatives, including health literacy, reductions in medication errors, as well as studying the healthcare system to overcome nursing workforce challenges.

A past president of the National Black Nurses Association, Dr. Burnes Bolton currently serves as the President of the American Academy of Nursing. Through the academy, Dr. Burnes Bolton and her board, along with their distinguished advisory council have just launched their ``Raise The Voice'' campaign to recognize the contributions nurses have made and continue to make in transforming health care.

Today I stand before you to recognize the contributions made by Dr. Linda Burnes Bolton, an extraordinary leader in the field of nursing.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act.

The revamped case management system, the toll-free complaint hotline, and record transfer process from the Defense Department to the Veterans Administration will provide timely and serious response to the medical needs of our veterans.

Through repeated tours of duty, our troops have been made more vulnerable to injury and serious health complications. The U.S. Veteran healthcare system desperately needs the improvements that this bill provides in order to accommodate the soldiers who will be returning from these multiple tours.

In the 35th Congressional District, I have assigned staff specifically to the task of fielding the many calls of veterans who need assistance. Out of all veteran calls that we receive in our District office, the number one reason is to help them get a live response and to navigate through the bureaucracy to obtain the medical benefits that they earned serving our country. Therefore, in Los Angeles, we have living proof that our system is broken and in need of the fixes that this legislation offers.

Congress has appropriated more than enough funds to give our veterans decent medical care when they come home.

I commend Mr. Skelton for his leadership on these issues and support H.R. 1538. I ask my colleagues to pass this legislation.

I would like to begin by congratulating Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressman Bobby Scott, Chair of the CBC Budget Task Force, for their leadership in developing the CBC budget.

I strongly support the CBC budget because it provides sufficient funding for critical domestic priorities such as health care, education, and community development. For example, the CBC budget spends $112 billion more than the Budget Committee's budget and $158 billion more than the President's budget on education, training, employment, and social services. Yet the CBC budget still eliminates the deficit by 2012.

As the Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I am deeply concerned about the need for affordable housing in America. The CBC budget recognizes that affordable housing is all but out of reach for many Americans. Just imagine, the 2006 average minimum wage required to rent affordable housing is $16.31 an hour, more than three times the Federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, putting most housing out of reach for many American families.

Approximately 6 million persons in this country are very needy, paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing. This is a real threat to families trying to educate their children and make ends meet. Affordable rental housing is critical to communities across this Nation. Public housing is still part of the solution, community development programs are part of the solution, and the renewal of the section 8 voucher and many other housing programs is part of the solution.

The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request would cut overall net funding for public housing by $477 million, from $6.4 billion to $5.9 billion, a cut of 7 percent. While the budget increases the operating fund by $136 million, public housing authorities are estimated to receive only 80 percent of their total operating expenses. The budget decreases the capital fund used to repair

and modernize public housing units by $415 million, to only $2.0 billion.

Continuing a downward spiral in funding, this is part of the effort to dismantle public housing as we know it. We cannot sit idly by and let this happen. The community development programs would be seriously eroded and undermined if left to this administration. The Brownfields and the section 108 loan guarantee program would also be eliminated. The Community Development Block Grant Program would be cut by 20 percent, losing $735 million. And the list goes on and on.

In addition, Section 202 and 811 housing programs for the elderly and disabled would be cut drastically in the administration budget proposal. Rural housing programs would also suffer serious cutbacks faring no better.

The administration's budget proposes to terminate the major Rural Section 515 rental housing program, which would leave thousands of families living in rural communities, many poor, working families with children, and the disabled and elderly without affordable housing.

There is another issue that I feel strongly about that is addressed in this budget. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I am highly concerned about the origin and proliferation of gangs in communities throughout the United States. Along with full committee chairman John Conyers and Crime Subcommittee chairman Bobby Scott, I plan to retool existing authorized Federal programs to comprehensively address this problem. This requires full funding of the following programs: the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, the Youth Violence Reduction Demonstration Projects that are administered by the Department of Justice, and the Compassion Capital Fund, which is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.

In the city of Los Angeles, there are approximately 4,000 gangs and 39,000 gang members. For 2006, there were about 470 homicides, and 250 were gang related. Of the shootings in the city last year, 70 percent were gang related. According to a September 1, 2006, report by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, it costs about $287 million to treat and hospitalize victims of nonfatal gang assaults countywide in one year.

This is not only in Los Angeles. There are gang problems all over America, and not simply in our cities but in our rural communities, in our suburban communities.

It is about time that we focus some efforts on dealing with the gangs from two perspectives:

Number one, we have got to have prevention. We have got to be able to provide social services. We have got to be able to meet the needs of people in communities that have no hope.

Number two, yes, we must be tough. But the answer is not simply lock them up and throw the key away. The answer is, how do we prevent young people, young children, from connecting and getting involved with gangs in the first place? We need serious funding and smart assembly of existing programs to effectively halt the recruitment of new gang members.

We need serious funding and smart assembly of existing programs to effectively halt the recruitment of new gang members; to reduce the incidence of homicide and violence between gangs; to implement programs that deliver support services and job training; and to enable communities to solve problems that lead to race-related gang tensions.

Conclusion

I urge all of my colleagues to support the CBC Budget so that we can begin to tackle important issues like gang violence and the need for affordable housing in our communities.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for 2 minutes.

Thank you so very much, Madam Speaker, and Chairman John Conyers.

A lot of people want to know what difference does it make that Democrats are now in the majority. This is a fine example. Chairman Conyers and others have been working on this issue for so very long.

And I rise in support of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, of which I am a proud cosponsor.

In a country where basic human and civil rights were only incrementally given to similarly situated citizens throughout its history, I applaud my colleagues for their courage and integrity to consider this measure and support its passage after 200 years of injustice.

I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their leadership and tenacity. Ms. Norton has consistently fought for the 16 years since she was first elected to Congress as my classmate in the 102nd Congress.

Just like securing the right to vote, or securing civil rights, for that matter, for African Americans, women and other minorities was a long fight with slow rewards, seeking the franchisement of D.C. citizens has been equally as difficult.

Just as it was shameful and unconscionable for African Americans and women to not have a vote until the passage of the 19th amendment, and of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it is unconscionable for tax-paying citizens in America not to have a vote in Congress in the 21st century.

It is even more ironic that D.C. citizens have no vote in Congress when it operates right in their back yard. To discriminate against tax- paying citizens for over 200 years is an embarrassment to our democracy and undermines fundamental constitutional principles.

Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the word ``State'' defined, but some of our colleagues now wish to gerrymander a definition that would somehow distinguish citizens of D.C. from citizens of every other voting State.

Furthermore, not only does the guaranty clause, which reads that ``the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government,'' but the fifth amendment equal protection clause, which insures that all persons of the United States enjoy equal protection of the laws, make it clear that D.C. citizens should receive voting representation.

Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution guarantees us a republican form of government. And the Supreme Court has defined a republican form of government as one constructed on the principle that the superior power resides in the body of the people. Are D.C. citizens not a part of the people?

Mr. Chairman, in this new Congress we hope to rid America of all traces of disenfranchisement, of impediments to voting. And giving D.C. residents a vote in the Congress is a major part of this goal.

I thank you, Congressman John Conyers, for your leadership.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allocating the time for me to come and basically disagree with you on this floor, but that is what democracy is all about.

I don't believe that this bill will do what it is intended to do. I don't believe it makes good sense to say that our troops should be well trained and well equipped, and then give the President the right to waive that.

I don't believe that the President will report to us in any fashion that we can rely on in July, which will determine whether or not we get out by December or whether we continue to give assistance to the Iraqis.

I don't believe that it is enforceable, and I don't believe that this war will end by next August even though I think that is what the leadership intends for it to do.

This war has been mismanaged. We have been misled. We have been made to believe we would be welcomed with open arms. There were no weapons of mass destruction. That the troops were getting trained and success was right around the corner, and even last week when carnage was taking place in Iraq and our soldiers were being killed, this administration was out in the media talking about we were succeeding. And we will continue to be misled. This war has been mismanaged.

We don't have any friends in Iraq. The Sunnis do not want us there. The Shiites don't like the occupation, and the Kurds don't like us. We are undermined on a daily basis.

Even Mr. Maliki, who is supposed to be our ally, is working with Sadr over in Sadr City, who controls the militias. The police departments that are supposedly working to secure the people

are part of the undermining that is going on. Our soldiers, when they are in confrontations, are deserted by the very people that they are supposed to train.

General said this cannot be won militarily, it must be done diplomatically. I don't see the diplomatic effort.

I don't believe that giving $100 billion to the President of the United States to continue this war will achieve the goal that we intend for it to achieve. I oppose this legislation. I will continue to work with the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I am hopeful we can end this war and bring our soldiers home.