Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to transfer control of the time from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have worked with Mr. Neugebauer, and he has been exceptionally cooperative, understanding the plight of the poor and those people who have been displaced who were victims of Katrina and Rita, and I am convinced, having listened to this discussion and this debate, that there is simply a misunderstanding, because I don't think that he intends for those people who were already assisted by HUD, those people, for example, who were living in section 8 housing, they were renting from landlords and the building was destroyed, to somehow not be permanently assisted and get back on their section 8.

I don't think that he means that those people who were in public housing units who were assisted by HUD, if their unit does not get repaired, I don't think he means that they should not have a section 8. I don't think he means that for the disabled. I don't think he means that for the homeless.

So I am going to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and miscommunication, and, as we continue this debate, I hope that we are able to help my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle understand what he is proposing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on behalf of the people of New Orleans and of the gulf coast who are having such a difficult time, who have not really gotten all of the assistance that I think we could have given them from the very beginning.

I think when the gentleman spoke, he said the people did not seem to be taking the first step to help themselves. That is an insult. I reject it. I speak on their behalf. We were there, and we know how hard they have been working, and they deserve to be seen in a better light than the gentleman just described them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the balance of my time.

I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I am so overwhelmed with the gentleman's statement that would deny to the people of New Orleans basic assistance that would allow them to use their Community Development Block Grant money as match, no new money, but simply the money that has already been allocated to them to be used as a match to FEMA money in order to help the area move forward with reconstruction, redevelopment and getting people's lives together.

I do not think that most people in America would believe that there was something wrong with giving this basic kind of assistance. Here we have cities where the city halls have been destroyed, water systems have been destroyed, schools, hospitals, roads, sewer systems, police departments, and we would then deny them the opportunity to use money that has already been granted as matching money so they could make use of the FEMA money that they are eligible for? I cannot believe that the gentleman would want to do that.

I am adamantly opposed to this amendment. It is one of the most mean- spirited amendments that I have heard that has been attempted to be attached to the bill that I have introduced. I would ask my colleagues to reject it out of hand. It does not make good sense. We do not gain anything from it.

We have not heard anybody come to this floor from the opposite side of the aisle, and certainly this gentleman, talk about fraud and abuse by Halliburton or any of those companies that are known to be ripping off the government, and here we have a Member of

this floor who would come to the floor and a Member of this Congress who would come to the floor and suggest to us that they may misuse it, they may abuse it. I do not think we want to entertain that. I do not think we want to be a part of denying basic help to people who need it so desperately.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

May I inquire of the Chair, do I have the right to close?

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

May I inquire of the Chair if we have the right to close?

Has the gentleman exhausted his time?

If the gentleman would like to use his 30 seconds, then we would proceed.

Yes.

No, we will use our balance of the time for our close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

First, I would like to congratulate Mr. Taylor not only for his passion, but for all of the work that he has done to try and help restore the gulf coast and his town and his city, and to get the kind of development that is necessary for people to restore their lives. He has worked very hard, as other Members of the gulf coast have. They were on the floor today, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Taylor, trying to make the case that this gulf coast catastrophe should not be penalized.

We do not know why and they do not know why they would be prohibited from using their CDBG, Community Development Block Grant, funds as a match. It is unheard of, it is unprecedented that any town, any city, any region that has been hit by this kind of disaster, and there is no other like it in the history of this country, would be prohibited from using as a match the Community Development Block Grant funds.

These communities have been virtually destroyed, their city halls, their water systems, their schools, their hospitals. They do not have any money. They are cash strapped. They do not have any money to use as a match, and we do not know why they would be singled out with this disaster and told that they could not use Community Development Block Grant funds. This is not new money. This would simply allow them to use that CDBG money as a match.

I would ask that this amendment be rejected, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 835) to reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to introduce the real author of this legislation, a gentleman who has worked very, very hard on the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007, an extremely important bill that will provide housing for Native Hawaiians who have been without decent, safe and secure housing for far too long. I commend the gentleman for all of the work that he has put into this act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) 5 minutes.

I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Faleomavaega.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the author of this legislation, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how many minutes we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker and Members, I thank the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). She had been very passionate about what we were doing on the last legislation, and she took this opportunity, not only in support of this legislation, but to add some remarks for the record on behalf of the people of Houston, and I appreciate that.

Let me just say that I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Frank, for helping to focus our agenda in my subcommittee and in our overall committee, dealing with these very important housing issues, many of them that have been left unattended for far too long.

I want to thank Mr. Renzi for his attention to housing not only for Hawaiian Native Americans, but for Native Americans in Arizona where I had the opportunity to visit with him, where he is doing an awful lot for housing.

And so I am very pleased and proud about our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, about the overall committee, and the way that we have been able to move so quickly and to have an agenda that we could bring to this floor on behalf of people who need us desperately, housing crises that exist not only in Hawaii but in other parts of the United States. And this is a representation of the work that we will be doing on this issue.

I know, again, that Mr. Abercrombie has been working very hard. Ms. Hirono came here with this on her agenda, and I just thank them all for being here on the floor with us this afternoon, and helping people to understand how appreciative they are for our help.

I would like to say that in addition to the work that he has done, he has invited many of us on more than one occasion not only to visit, but to understand that it is not just simply a beautiful island where people come to vacation. There are people who live there. There are people who live there. There are people who work there. There are people who need our assistance, people who have been without housing that they can afford for a long time.

And so, again, the work not only of our chairman and the members of my subcommittee, but the cooperation that we have had on the opposite side of the aisle, led by Mr. Renzi, is what gets us to this point today.

And I would urge all of my colleagues to please support this legislation. It is so important.

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Barney Frank, for all of the time and attention he has placed on making this our number one priority, dealing with the aftermath of Katrina. He said to me and to all of the Members of my subcommittee, ``Move as quickly as you possibly can. Get the hearings going. Let's get a bill to the floor.'' And because of his interest and because of his support, we are here today on the floor indeed addressing many of those issues that should have been addressed a long time ago, and I thank Mr. Frank so very much for that.

It has been exactly 2 weeks since the Committee on Financial Services considered H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007. By a vote of 50-16, the committee passed the bill. I want to thank again Chairman Frank for supporting the bill through markup. I want to thank the members of our committee from both sides of the aisle who voted for this bill.

There are also many Members of Congress who have expressed major concerns about the rebuilding process in the gulf region post-Katrina and support this bill.

This bill addresses many of the obstacles to the rebuilding process in the gulf region. Prior to consideration of this bill, the Committee on Financial Services held hearings on post-Katrina housing issues, followed by 2 days of subcommittee field hearings in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Gulfport, Mississippi.

The bill before you today represents consensus on one major issue; that is, for the rebuilding process in the gulf region to ever begin, we need to address the affordable housing crisis in the gulf region by returning people to their homes. Whether it is a home in need of major repair, a public housing unit damaged by the storm, or a home totally destroyed, every person who desires to live in the gulf region must be given an opportunity to rebuild and to return home.

We learned through hours of testimony that the reasons for failure in the gulf region related to the rebuilding process were often bureaucratic, administrative, as well as a consequence of inadequate poststorm planning by the Federal Government.

The hurricanes hit the gulf region in August of 2005, leaving behind unparalleled devastation. Many have acknowledged their frustration with the speed and pace of the recovery. Others realize that the efforts of Congress to provide $110 billion to the gulf region have not necessarily resulted in money into the right people's hands, and I could not agree more.

However, this bill does not place blame on anyone, but rather recognizes the need to bring efficiency to the process, whether through administration of the Road Home program or the Federal Public Housing program, so that persons in need are assisted with the financial resources that we approved for them months ago.

I had one goal when I introduced this bill, and that was to see the gulf region rebuilt, while addressing the affordable housing crisis in the region. The hurricanes destroyed nearly 300,000 units of housing in the gulf region, affordable rental units, homes of low- and moderate- income families, and public housing. The hurricanes did not discriminate when it came to destroying the housing stock in the gulf region. No income group was spared. Whether the family lived in public housing, high-priced homes, or affordable rental housing in the gulf region, they were all affected alike. Many of the residents of the major affected areas like New Orleans and elsewhere have not recovered from the storms, and thousands are still displaced and living in other parts of the country months after the storms rather than their formal communities. While all of these persons may not choose to return or even wish to return, we must provide those who do with an opportunity to return.

H.R. 1227 is about rebuilding communities to allow people to return to the gulf region. We should not have to rebuild communities one at a time in the gulf, and in some cases that is what it will take. What would be worse is not rebuilding any of the communities in the gulf region, and that is the path that we are currently on. Housing is the key to everything in the gulf region. No housing means zero communities. No communities will mean that rebuilding is impossible in the gulf region.

This bill will address a number of issues. The build resolves the HUD-FEMA dispute by allowing the Hazard Mitigation Fund to be combined with the Community Development Block Grant funds. In addition, the bill requires monthly reports by the State of Louisiana on number of households assisted through the programs funded with CDBG funds for the Road Home program.

By eliminating the prohibition against the match requirement, CDBG supplemental funds can be used in conjunction with other Federal programs, including those administered by FEMA. In addition, the bill also provides for reimbursements related to an entitlement community's use of the Community Development Block Grant funds to provide rental assistance to displaced residents.

Public housing because of the hurricanes. Many public housing residents are displaced with no reasonable housing option. Living in trailers and doubling up do not qualify as reasonable housing options. This bill would provide a means to return for the greater of 3,000 or those who respond to the survey who are former New Orleans public housing residents. It also establishes the one-for-one replacement principle by requiring a plan to be approved by HUD and the residents prior to any wholesale demolition or redevelopment efforts of public housing units.

Under the bill, HUD is required to complete a survey of displaced public housing residents to determine whether they want to return to public housing in New Orleans. In addition, the bill requires HUD to report on any proposed conversion of public housing units located in areas affected by the hurricane, as well as comply with the bill's other requirements related to public housing.

The bill addresses disaster vouchers and project-based rental assistance. It extends disaster vouchers for 3 months until January 2008. Project-based vouchers would be protected where a project was destroyed or is in need of substantial rehabilitation. The bill clarifies the voucher allocation formula by requiring HUD to make appropriate adjustments consistent with the funding year 2007 continuing resolution. In addition, the bill requires a number of proactive measures related to vouchers that will ensure that no one is left without access to housing as a result of hurricanes.

Further, title IV of the bill would provide for the reimbursement of landlords who suffered damages related to

commitments made by FEMA in conjunction with providing rental units to displaced residents. Without their commitment to house displaced families, what can best be described as a tragedy would have become a 21st-century horror story.

I am pleased that the Members of the House are in the position to speed up the recovery and rebuilding process in the gulf region by supporting this bill. This bill is a small investment to make sure that the $110 billion we have spent thus far is not squandered. Unfortunately, renters and homeowners alike have suffered in the gulf region for too many months. I believe this bill will bring much needed relief to those persons who have suffered the most.

Again, I would like to thank Barney Frank, our chairman, for the tremendous work that he has done. I would like to thank all of the members of our subcommittee and of the entire committee, and I want to thank Mrs. Biggert, the ranking member on the opposite side of the aisle, for the cooperation. She went to New Orleans. She sat in those hearings, and she visited those public housing projects, and she has as much knowledge about this as anyone.

So I am thankful that we are at this point today, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for all the work she has done to help the residents of New Orleans and the gulf coast. I know she was down there days after the hurricane hit, and I know of her passion. I am very appreciative for the help she has given us on this legislation, and I would like to assure her that those returning residents will have included in their rent the cost of the utility bills. So please do not worry about that. It will be done.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I know of her concern about making sure that all the residents have the opportunity to return.

In our bill we have notification for return by August 1, and they have until October to honor the August 1 notification.

Now, let me just say that we crafted this for several reasons. One is we did not want to be in the position of taking people out of where they are living now and forcing them to have to take their children out of school, but we wanted them to return in time to enroll the children in school for the semester starting in September. So we think that accomplishes that. And I know that you are concerned about all the people having adequate time.

Let me tell you something else that was taken into consideration. Mr. Neugebauer, who was with us, has past experience as a developer- contractor type. He made it very clear that when you rehab a unit, that if it is not occupied by a certain length of time, then you are going to have to go back 6 months later and put the same amount of dollars in again to rehab that unit that has been sitting vacant; because of the moisture and everything in the area, that you just cannot maintain the properties without them being inhabited.

So for those two reasons, what we think makes good sense in terms of giving people an adequate period of time, and so that we don't have to spend additional money to rehab a unit the second time, we think that this would do well for those residents.

In addition to that information, we have placed in this bill a requirement that the Road Home program must report to us every 30 days, because we are watching them very closely, we have let them know that we were not happy with the progress, and now we have information coming into us that will help us to see how fast they are moving, and we will take additional action if we have to.

No, I am not aware of that, Congresswoman. What I do know is this: We have up to $150,000 in subsidy for homeowners to rebuild their homes. Some qualify for the entire amount, others qualify for different amounts based on whether or not they had insurance or whether or not there are other deductibles. My understanding is that if they decide not to come back, that they can sell their properties, and it is supposed to be at fair market value.

If I may, if you will yield, I need to make one additional comment that I was just reminded of, that if they do not return to New Orleans, there is a penalty. That is designed to rebuild the neighborhoods and get people coming back. But there is a 30 percent penalty.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

This bill is about stabilizing families who have been displaced because of a natural disaster. These are people who are trying to return home. The people that he is referring to are people who come from various walks of life. Some of them do work, even though they live in public housing. Some of them are on fixed income, some are elderly, some are disabled and some of them are in welfare programs already.

This amendment is not needed. It is not proper. It is not the time that should be utilized to try and do something that really has already been taken care of in welfare reform. We should be about the business of returning people to their homes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left on this amendment.

I would like to yield 1 additional minute to Representative Cleaver.

Mr. Chairman, in closing on this opposition, I would simply like to say, I think that my colleagues have made a wonderful case for why we should not support this amendment.

And let me just say that this amendment is not in the spirit of the work that has been done on this bill. We have had wonderful cooperation with Ranking Member Bachus, Ranking Member of the subcommittee Biggert, and Mr. Neugebauer, who all attended the hearing and participated in the tours. And I think that everybody is bending over backwards to do the right thing.

We are not trying to penalize people, we are not trying to accuse people of trying to get something for nothing, we are not trying to treat people differently than we treat others. And I think this has been demonstrated throughout our work.

So the case that has been made here and the comparisons that have been made are legitimate. And I think you can see very clearly that there is some very deep feelings about any attempt to treat people differently, to try and penalize them in any unfair way, to try and put another welfare reform bill on top of the welfare reform bill that we already have that people are involved in. And I think that my colleagues in this Congress, too, will understand that.

I suppose I could always say to the gentleman, in the interest of us working together, perhaps you should withdraw the amendment, but that is not mine to say. Mine simply is to say that I am opposed to the amendment. I think it is disruptive, I think that it is polarizing, and I think it is not the kind of amendment we would like to see on a bill where we have had such tremendous cooperation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

First let me thank Mrs. Biggert for all the work that she has done in helping us to get this bill to the floor, and the time that she has taken to pay attention to this issue. And I certainly respect her thinking on this issue and the fact that she was there, she went through the units, she saw them. But I must respectfully disagree.

I must disagree because not only did we have 18,000 individuals on the waiting lists, waiting for public housing units; yes, these units were boarded up, these units were boarded up, and there had been a promise that there would be redevelopment that had not taken place. Not only do you have 18,000 on the waiting list, do you realize that many of the people that have been displaced because of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita are folks who were working, who had jobs? They lost their homes, they lost their jobs. They are living in temporary situations. They are in Houston, they are in Atlanta, they are in cities in Florida. They are all over. They now may qualify for public housing based on the fact that they have lost on their jobs. They want to return, they want to come back, and they should have an opportunity to apply for and receive public housing units that should be available to them.

So let me just say that we should have one-for-one replacement because it is needed. People are standing in line. They were standing in line before Katrina; they will be standing in line after Katrina. And, Mrs. Biggert, if you remember, the mayor of the city of New Orleans said he would love to contract for 1,000 units to have places for people who want to come back to New Orleans to work.

We are unleashing the possibilities for infrastructure rebuilding, with

some of the match requirements having been modified in the way that we have done them. They want to get started with the building, And people need places to live. So he would like to have units for people to come back and work in. When these units are replaced, we have enough people who want to live in them. And so it is not a fair way to determine how many units get replaced by simply saying only those that were occupied prior to Katrina, because that waiting list is a reminder to all of us of how badly those units are needed

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to reiterate something that the gentleman from North Carolina just said, and that is the fact that we are not trying to stop development. As a matter of fact, what we are doing is restoring units so that people can have some place to return. Their lives are in a temporary state of existence. Our residents that we talked to said they would be happy to work with the housing authority and HUD to talk about the future development. So I just wanted to make that clear.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Frank.

I would like to stand and give my strong support to this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for working on this amendment and strengthening this legislation.

I am tired of the headlines at the end of one of these periods of time when the temporary assistance has run out, the headlines that say all of those people out there who are living in temporary situations are going to have to get off, they will not be supported any more, that their assistance has run out, and then legislators go running to beat up on FEMA. And then FEMA, after a few days or so, will make another extension. Time out. It is time for us to help people get some kind of permanency to their existence. This amendment will do that.

This amendment will simply say for those people who are living in trailers and all of this temporary housing, some of it is really not fit to live in, in places where we are spending money with the temporary vouchers, will now be given the opportunity with the passage of this amendment and this legislation to begin to reorder their lives and to go ahead and come home and get jobs, jobs that are needed, not only by those families but the infrastructures that need to be rebuilt by those people who will be there to do these jobs. All of this can happen with this kind of permanent voucher.

I think it is important to note, it has been said here that these vouchers will be given only to those people who are eligible for them. When they are no longer eligible, they will cease to exist. I don't know how you can be any fairer than that.

So we are talking about moving from temporary status to permanent status. When you don't need it any more, it is gone.

I would like to thank my friend from New York for taking this time out this evening and sharing it with those of us who feel a real need to come to the floor of this fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq and share with the people of America how we really feel about what is going on.

First, I think it is important for the people of America to know that some of us are listening. We hear what they are telling us. We know what their expectations are. The polls today are very, very clear about the overwhelming number of Americans who want us out of Iraq.

This war has truly taken a toll on this country: over 3,200 dead; 24,000 injured. And I don't mean just minor injuries. Serious injuries. It has been documented what is happening at Walter Reed, brain injuries, eyes gouged out, limbs lost. Serious injuries. And the information that was just shared with us, about 20 percent of the returning troops with mental illness.

Not only is it taking a toll on these young men and women who are sacrificing in this war; it is taking a toll on our domestic agenda, over $400 billion spent on this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President now has a supplemental appropriation before this House asking for $100 billion more. The President recently came to us and told us he was going to increase the troops there by another 21,000, and a few days ago he added to that another 8,500. The requests keep coming: more troops, more money. And there is no end in sight.

The President has said we should listen to the generals on the ground. Whenever we try and share our feelings and give some advice, he rejects it out of hand. Well, he just got information from General Petraeus on the ground, and he said to the world there will be and can be no military solution. But this President continues to persist in increasing the military and misrepresenting to the American people what is going on.

With this request that he has made, the supplemental request, there are those who truly believe that we can ask him for progress reports and he will give us good information. I listened very carefully early this morning to what the President and all of those in his administration would say on this 4th-year anniversary. They simply are spinning the information about this war the way they have always spun the information about this war.

First of all, as it has been said over and over again, they told us we would be welcomed with open arms. They told us there were weapons of mass destruction. They told us we were making progress with the training of soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and they were just around the corner, they would be prepared and willing to take over the security of that country.

Well, I listened as they did their spin this morning. In the middle of all of this carnage, in the middle of the fact that we wake up to more suicide bombings, more loss of American soldiers, and the expansion of the bombings in putting chlorine into the bombing and into the materials, they were spinning it again this morning saying we are making progress. And that is what I expect them to say if we give them the opportunity to tell us what progress is, come July, as it is indicated in the legislation that some would like to go forth from the floor.

We cannot depend on them to tell us the truth. We cannot depend on them to follow and honor benchmarks that a lot of people are alluding to. We cannot depend on this President to get out of Iraq as long as we are giving him the money. We said that we didn't support the surge, but there are those who could suggest that we turn around and

support the surge, $90 billion to support the expansion of this war. Why should he get out as long as we are giving him the money?

What are we supposed to accomplish? What are we trying to do? The President would tell you that somehow we are supposed to provide the security and we are supposed to train so that the Iraqis will be able to provide security. We are supposed to make the Shiites get along with the Sunnis and the Sunnis get along with the Kurds. I don't think so. I think that we don't understand the history. And I don't think that we understand, no matter who we think we are, we cannot forge the kinds of relationships that somehow we are going to stay there until we make people love and like each other and work together.

Who wants us in Iraq? They call us the occupiers. As a matter of fact, we find that legislators that are supposedly in this new democratic government, one was revealed this morning to have all kinds of weapons found at his house. All kinds of weapons. And they found traces of chemicals in his four automobiles. This is one of the so- called elected members of the parliament. They do not want us there. The Shiites don't want us there, the Sunnis don't want us there, the Kurds don't want us there. And we have our young people at risk. They are at risk. They are being attacked by the militias, and they are being attacked by the very police forces that are supposed to be on the ground helping to provide security.

Well, in the final analysis, our only response must be to have an exit strategy. The Out of Iraq Caucus that was organized 1\1/2\ years ago did not say when we should get out; it did not tell the President exactly what the strategy should be. We simply created a platform for discussion and debate so that the Members of Congress would keep their eyes on the ball so that they would understand what was going on and not have information swept under the rug. We invited in speakers. We had generals to come in; we had writers to come in. We had many people come in and talk with us about what is going on there. But this President doesn't get it. He is intending to stay there until he does something called ``win,'' with young people losing their lives, the children of families all over America, not just from inner cities but most of them now we are finding coming from rural America. They will continue to die.

In another year we are going to have thousands that will be dead. In another year there will be thousands that will be injured. And the shame of it all is that they won't find the kind of medical care. They had a big article today and information about the homeless veterans returning from Iraq. They are homeless, they are not being cared for, they are not getting the benefits. But we are going to continue this war. I would submit to you it is time for a change. Bring our soldiers home.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was a strong supporter of H.R. 5337, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2006, which passed the Financial Services Committee as well as the House in the 109th Congress. First, I want to again acknowledge the work of our distinguished chairman of the Committee of Financial Services, Mr. Frank and Mr. Gutierrez, chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology for supporting this bill. Let me also thank Ms. Maloney, a member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, for again introducing this important national security legislation, H.R. 556. In addition, the bill now has more than 50 co-sponsors.

Last year, the House approved a comprehensive set of reforms to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process. It is a testament to the diligence of Ms. Maloney and other members of the Committee on Financial Services that H.R. 556 is being considered so early in this session.

It has been almost a year since we learned of the Committee of Foreign Investment's (CFIUS) activities related to Dubai World Ports and the implications of the proposed deal for national security. I can genuinely say that the members of the Committee on Financial Services have been most directly involved in this issue since that time.

The bill the House passed last year, H.R. 5337, was designed to reform the CFIUS process based on the information gleaned from earlier hearings on the subject. We have heard about the negative impact of cutting off foreign direct investment in the U.S. However, it would be foolish to assume that we would take any such steps to prohibit foreign direct investment. At the same time, we need to consider safeguards to ensure that the CFIUS process is consistent with the original intent of the Congress concerning national security and investments.

It is time that CFIUS operated within the law, and that it is made clear who is responsible for what in the decisionmaking process. Another critical issue is how decisions are actually made, and what entity is principally responsible for protecting the national security interests of this Nation as they pertain to foreign direct investment.

This bill enables CFIUS to unilaterally initiate a review where an issue of concern is raised; any foreign government backed deal would be subject to review; both the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security must sign off on reviews, while the Homeland Security Secretary would be vice-chair of the Committee; and all reviews are subject to review by the Director of National intelligence.

In addition, everyone knows that transparency and accountability were, in part, at the heart of the congressional uproar over the Dubai World Ports deal. Importantly, H.R. 556 like its predecessor bill requires that CFIUS report biannually to Congress on its activities. This is strong legislation that will only make Congress' job less difficult on the issue of national security and foreign direct investment.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556 without any weakening amendments. Unfortunately, there are those who would have you believe that the bill in not balanced. I would submit that the bill represents a comprehensive well-balanced measure in view of the global situation. Indeed, this bill will not undermine foreign investment in the U.S.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, and I thank the Gentleman from California [Mr. George Miller] for introducing this legislation and for bringing it to the Floor for workers in America. I am a proud original co- sponsor of H.R. 800.

H.R. 800 contains three very strong protections for unions. First, it streamlines the process for obtaining National Labor Relations Board certification when a majority of employees have signed up for representation. Second, it provides for easy referral to mediation and arbitration when an employer and a union cannot reach an agreement within 90 days of negotiations so that employees are guaranteed an opportunity to reach an agreement. Third, it enhances penalties for discrimination, unlawful discharge, and other violations of the labor laws.

According to a study conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, the probability of a pro-union worker being fired during an organizing campaign went up from half a percent in the period between 1970 and 1974 to one percent in the period between 1996 and 2000; between 2001 and 2005, this figure rose to 1.4 percent. America needs this legislation because workers are being mistreated and need strong and effective representation.

My State of California is home to the largest number of stakeholders in support of this legislation. Nationally, there were 15.4 million union members, and a little under half (7.5 million) lived in six states--California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. One of the main reasons why we need this legislation is because although these six states make up about half of the union members in the entire country, they only account for a mere one-third of the national wage and salary employment.

In California, there were 2,424,000 union members (16.5 percent of the state's workforce) in 2005 and 2,273,000 union members (or 15.7 percent of the state workforce) in 2006--which is the largest percentage in the country.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that nationally, in 2006, there were about 1.5 million wage and salary workers who were represented by a union--even though they were not members themselves. Therefore, this legislation will help America's workers even if they do not belong to a union.

This trend of retaliatory firing has played a major part in the sharp decline in organized labor. Organized labor went from 30 percent in the 1960s to just 13 percent in 2003--and during this period, America saw the largest upward redistribution of income in its history--according to a report by Human Rights Watch.

In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2005 and 2006, the percentage of national union members fell from 12.5 percent to 12 percent. The actual number of union members decreased by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million, and there has been a steady rate of decline from 20.1 percent in 1983.

Madam Chairman, this legislation is necessary and drafted to address very specific problems that organized labor faces. Livable wages, a decent work environment, and a fair dispute process are rights that we should all enjoy.

I support H.R. 800, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 755, Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act of 2007.

H.R. 755 is a simple, but important measure. It requires the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Board to provide annual testimony by their respective chairpersons or designees of the chairperson starting next year and for five subsequent years to the Committee on Financial Services on their efforts to reduce the complexity of financial reporting to provide a more accurate and clear financial information to investors, including:

Reassessing complex and outdated accounting standards; improving the understandability, consistency, and overall usability of the existing accounting and auditing literature; developing principles-based accounting standards; encouraging the use and acceptance of interactive data; and promoting disclosures in plain English.

In view of the different accounting standards being used in the private sector and government, it is clear that we need to have information that is reliable and credible. Financial information that does not meet rigorous and acceptable standards sends the wrong signals to investors as well as to the public about the real the financial condition of a business.

As we have witnessed over the past several years, the quality of financial information can make the difference between the true value of a company and what the public perceives to be its condition. H.R. 755 is an important first step towards making sure that the information being reported to investors and to the public is believable. As such, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 644, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, a bill of which I am an original cosponsor. I certainly applaud the distinguished chairman of Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, for working to get this bill to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Gary Miller, who introduced the bill and who has been working on this subject for quite some time, as well as all of the other cosponsors of this bill.

The House passed a bill identical to H.R. 644 in the 109th Congress because many of us recognized the importance of preserving a means of remedying the numerous hazardous sites that remain in this country.

Under the Brownfields Act, the Environmental Protection Agency awards grants for the assessment and cleanup of sites that pose a serious threat to human health and the environment than sites addressed by the Superfund.

Many of these sites thwart the development and revitalization of communities in distressed areas of the country, including the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. In fact, it is these sites that make development efforts impossible because of the potential risks.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act becomes a powerful economic development tool when used in conjunction with other Federal economic redevelopment resources, CDBG and section 108 loan guarantees. It is precisely the kind of leveraging tool that we must utilize to spur development in places where development costs are uncertain given the presence of hazardous materials.

The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, if passed, will continue to provide four types of competitive grants: Assessment grants used as planning tools by grantees to conduct due diligence related to the affected sites; revolving loan fund grants to capitalize the loans for the cleanup of the sites; cleanup grants that provide for the recipient to undertake cleanup activities; and job training grants made available to nonprofits and educational entities to develop environmental job training programs.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to postpone passage of this bill any longer. It sends a bad signal to the communities across the Nation who are trying to rebuild, reinvest and strengthen their economic local economies. Any Federal tool to leverage private investment must be preserved, particularly in this pay-as-you-go economic environment. The Brownfields Enhancement Act is a tool, and therefore I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I rise as Chair of the 76-member Out of Iraq Caucus, and I will be followed by many other members during this hour. I rise in support of our troops and in support of this resolution opposing the President's escalation of this war.

Madam Speaker, I support this resolution, hoping this will be a first step in ending this war and reuniting our troops with their families and loved ones. This is an unbinding resolution. The real test for this Congress is going to be whether or not we will continue to fund this war.

For nearly 4 years, our troops have served bravely and admirably in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President and his administration have decided to pursue a political agenda when it decided to push for an invasion of Iraq. The President ignored the advice of dozens of experts inside and outside the government about invading Iraq. For example, the administration ignored the intelligence community's opinions about the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The administration also ignored recommendations about the number of troops needed to secure Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein. In addition, the President and the administration ignored warnings about the difficulty and danger of occupying Iraq and that Iraq would likely break down into sectarian violence.

In short, the administration ignored everything that conflicted with its plan to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, no one has borne the burdens of the administration's Iraq narrow agenda more than our troops and their families. The decision to escalate the war, to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq, will only increase the burden on our troops. Many of the troops serving in Iraq have served two, three, even four tours of duty. And of course the failed Iraq policy has resulted in the death of 3,109 U.S. troops, including 325 from my own State of California, and injury of more than 23,000 others.

Madam Speaker, many experts believe that the President's latest plan will not work, and early indications support that conclusion. About 5,000 troops have arrived in Baghdad since the President announced the plan in January, yet the violence and devastation in Iraq is increasing. It is estimated that more than 2,276 Iraqi civilians have died so far this year and that more than 1,000 Iraqi security forces and 33 U.S. servicemen have died in just the past week. We are sending thousands more troops to Iraq in what is now known to be a civil war. Sending more troops to Iraq is not the answer. The key to stabilization is bringing our troops home and renewing our commitment to diplomacy.

This resolution is the first step in reining in this President and his misguided policies. However, as many have noted, this is, again, an unbinding resolution. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the war, spending bills that will be considered in the coming months to enact meaningful changes to this failed policy and to finally bring our troops home. The future of the entire Middle East is at stake.

The President does not appear to understand or appreciate the situation in Iraq is deteriorating each day. We are losing; however, we can win. And we will win by using leadership to engage and unite rather than attempting to overpower and conquer. Who are we fighting? The Sunnis, the Kurds, the Shias? Who are the insurgents? Some Sunnis, some Shias, some Kurds? Who are the terrorists? Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Syrians, Iranians? Who are we fighting? I don't think our soldiers know, and I am not so sure this administration has really given the kind of deep thought and consideration as to who we are really fighting.

Diplomacy is the only answer. Today, we must oppose this escalation. However, I have no choice but in the final analysis to oppose continued funding of the American taxpayers' dollars to the war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied, but in the interest of peace, must be denied.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, the first annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day was organized on February 23, 2001, with the message: Get educated, get involved, get tested. The National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day dates back to 1999 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention funded five national nonprofit organizations known then as the Community Capacity-Building Coalition, which are Concerned Black Men, Incorporated, of Philadelphia; Health Watch Information and Promotion Services, Jackson State University; Mississippi Urban Research Center; National Black Alcoholism and Addictions Council; and National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS.

On February 23, 2001, the CCBC organized the first annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. The date was changed to February 7, the following year, that was in 2002, and now it is recognized on February 7 of each year.

Madam Speaker and Members, many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and many Members of Congress have joined in the struggle and the fight to find a cure to prevent HIV and AIDS. I need to congratulate all of these Members right in the CBC. I need to congratulate Barbara Lee, and Ed Towns, and Donna Christensen, and Mr. Cummings, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Diane Watson, and so many more for the years of work that they have put in on dealing with HIV and AIDS, and HIV and AIDS in the minority community.

That is why back in 1998 I worked to establish the Minority Aids Initiative with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Clinton administration. The Minority Aids Initiative provides grants for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs that serve minority communities and enables health care providers and community-based organizations to expand their capacity to serve these communities.

The initiative received an initial appropriation of $166 million in fiscal year 1999, and was funded at slightly less than $400 million in the most recent spending cycle.

However, the AIDS virus has continued to spread in the minority communities, and more needs to be done. This year I am calling for at least $610 million in funding to expand the Minority Aids Initiative, and redouble our efforts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic which has been especially devastating to African Americans and other communities of color.

But it is important to remember that HIV/AIDS affects us all. Over 1 million Americans are living with HIV/AIDS, and 24 to 27 percent of them do not know they are infected. That is why on Monday I introduced H.R. 822, the Routine HIV/AIDS Screening Coverage Act, a bill to require health insurance plans to cover routine HIV/AIDS tests under the same terms and conditions as other routine health screening.

Routine HIV/AIDS screening will allow thousands of African Americans and other infected individuals to find out about their infection, begin life-extending treatment and avoid spreading the virus to others. I also very soon will reintroduce the Stop AIDS in Prison Act, a bill to require routine HIV/AIDS screening of all Federal prison inmates upon entry, and prior to release from prison. The bill would also require HIV awareness education for all inmates and comprehensive treatment for those inmates who test positive.

Madam Speaker and Members, we here today come on the floor of Congress, all of us, to speak about this because it is a pandemic. It is a pandemic in the world that must be dealt with. We must lead the way here in the United States of America.

And for those of us whose communities are being overtaken by HIV and AIDS, we must stand up and be counted. We must ask for the money. We must demand the resources. We must take our heads out of the sand. We must call on all of the members of our community to accept personal responsibility. We must get our churches involved, all of our social clubs and organizations. Today we make a special appeal to them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 94, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Ninth Annual National Consumer Protection Week to highlight the importance of consumer protection, and I thank the Gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for introducing it.

This resolution is important because it calls on governmental officials, industry leaders, schools, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocates to provide citizens with valuable information and because it encourages the American people to utilize consumer protection information that is made available to them.

I hope that this message resonates in my home State of California because our students are in the midst of a consumer crisis. Unless the State acts expeditiously, the consumer protection statute and the agency responsible for protecting postsecondary students from fraudulent institutions whose misrepresentations cause them to default on tens of thousands of dollars in Federal student loans will expire on June 30, 2007. The statute set to expire is called the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Act and it authorizes a regulatory and enforcement bureau to scrutinize institutions that receive Federal higher education funds.

In the 1980s and 1990s, numerous abuses by unlawful institutions cost taxpayers billions of dollars in defaulted student loan debt--in fact, there was $3.2 billion in defaulted student loans in 1992 alone. More recently, in August and October 2006, two San Diego trade schools closed without notice to its students, setting 400 to 800 of them on the path to default on Federal and private student loans--many totaling $20,000 or more per student--with no education to justify it.

I hope that the State of California sees passage of this important resolution as Congress' call to take whatever measures necessary to uphold the consumer rights of the American people and works quickly to reauthorize the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Act. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this resolution before this House. His work is very important on this issue.

And I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 35, supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day.

The first annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day was organized on February 23, 2001, with the message ``Get Educated, Get Involved, Get Tested.''

Unfortunately, African Americans have been gravely impacted by the AIDS epidemic. Unfortunately, African Americans account for half of the new AIDS cases, although we are only 13 percent of the population. Worse yet is the fact that African American women represent 67 percent of new AIDS cases among women, and black teenagers represent 66 percent of new AIDS cases among teenagers.

That is why back in 1998 I established the Minority AIDS Initiative, with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Clinton administration. At that time we received $166 million in funding the new initiative, and this initiative for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs serving African American and other minority communities was very helpful in helping to build capacity in these communities to deal with the problem.

However, it is not enough. Last year I asked for $610 million, and I am renewing my call with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus for that amount. But the message ``Get Educated, Get Involved, Get Tested'' is an important message for all Americans. Over 1 million Americans are living with HIV/AIDS, and 24 to 27 percent of them do not know they are infected.

That is why today I am reintroducing the Routine HIV/AIDS Screening Coverage Act. This bill requires health insurance plans to cover routine HIV/AIDS tests under the same terms and conditions as other routine health screenings.

I also plan to reintroduce the Stop AIDS in Prison Act, a bill to require routine HIV/AIDS screening of all Federal prison inmates upon entering prison and again prior to release from prison, as well as comprehensive treatment for those who test positive. Routine HIV/AIDS screening will allow thousands of African Americans and other infected individuals to find out about their infection, begin life-extending treatment, and avoid spreading the virus to others.

I urge my colleagues to support National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, and I urge all Americans to educate themselves, act responsibly, get involved, and get tested for HIV/AIDS.

I thank Representative Towns for the attention that he has given to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I see that Congresswoman Barbara Lee is at the other microphone. If she, too, may engage in this colloquy.

Mr. Towns, I was just wondering, in the work that we have all been doing, we have been trying so hard to educate all of our young people in our communities about HIV and AIDS and how they can take more responsibility. We have been fighting for money.

Do you believe that it would be helpful if we took this resolution and made a comprehensive effort, focused effort, to get to the churches and to some of the other institutions that are so important in our community, disseminate it widely so that we could broaden the individuals and groups who are involved in this whole discussion and fight against HIV and AIDS?

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I participated in a rally and march here in Washington, DC, on the Mall, organized by United for Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of over 1,300 groups from all over this country.

Citizens came from near and far. They came by car and bus and train and plane to urge this President and this Congress to end the war in Iraq. They were young. They were old. They were rich. They were poor. They were

every age, every ethnic group, all religions, all with one message: Bring our troops home now.

There were six Members of Congress who were present there, and we thanked all of the people who attended for caring enough to come to Washington, DC, to spend their money to urge their government to end this war.

Mr. Speaker and Members, this was democracy at work. It was a beautiful day. People were in high spirits. We walked. We sang. We chanted. And we literally said we love this country, we love our soldiers, and we want the best for our people.

We were joined by many veterans. There were several veterans groups there. But the most moving and touching part of this march was the mothers who marched with us, and they had signs. Some of them had signs of their sons who had been killed in Iraq. Some of them brought the message that they had paid a huge sacrifice and they did not wish Americans to continue paying this high price for a war that we should not be in.

This is a war that it is easy to be against, because we were led into this war under false pretenses. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We have been told that we would be greeted with open arms. We were told that we would be seen as the liberators. None of that was true. We are occupiers, and they want us out of Iraq. It is not simply that the Sunnis want us out of Iraq. It is not simply that the Shiites want us out or the Kurds want us out. They all want us out of Iraq.

This was a wonderful weekend because not only did we march and we rallied, but the marchers came to Capitol Hill and they lobbied their legislators. They knocked on their doors. They came from all these towns and hamlets and cities all over America to talk with their legislators. This truly was democracy at work.

And today we filled 1100 Longworth, the Ways and Means room, where we had a forum with 11 book authors who have written about the war in Iraq, what is wrong with it and why we should get out, and did we have a discussion. It was one of the most beautiful discussions with highly intelligent authors who have done research, who have put a lot of work into producing these books. And they shared with us in a very profound way what they knew and why they had decided to take a part of their lives to stop and write about what is wrong with our being in Iraq.

So this was a wonderful weekend. This has been a wonderful time. I keep saying this is democracy at work because this is what the Constitution is all about. It is about participation of the citizens.

The citizens of this country are sick and tired of this war. I don't know why the Members of Congress are allowing the citizens to get way ahead of them. They elect us to come and represent them. They think that we have the resources to know what is going on. We give a lot of money to our intelligence agencies. We should be able to tell the people what is wrong and what is going on in Iraq. But, instead, they are ahead of us; and they are urging us to stop this war.

But, in the final analysis, they know everything about what we are doing. It is not enough to talk the talk. You have got to walk the walk. They know the difference between nuancing and posturing, and they want action.

And they know that we are about to have a resolution over in this House that will disagree with the surge, the escalation that is being advocated by this President. But they also understand that we can't stop that, that the President has already started to resend soldiers. These are not new boots on the ground. These are soldiers that have done their tours, that have been sent back a second and third time, and they say that is not enough.

They will know whether or not we mean business if we are prepared to stop funding this war.