Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Carolyn Tate, UAW Retired Workers International Representative, was born in Freeport, Illinois, on June 23, 1945. Only daughter of James and Vinnie Arnold she also has three brothers, James Arnold, Jr., Columbus, Ohio, David Arnold, Cincinnati, Ohio and Eddie Arnold, Oakland, California. Carolyn moved to Oakland, California in 1958. She met and married Bennie Tate, Jr. in December 1964, and had three children, Steven, Karen, and Tracy Tate. She has one grandson Steven M. Tate and a second grandson on the way.

Carolyn attended Berkeley High School, Berkeley California, and graduated in June of 1963. Continued her education by attending Merritt College, Oakland, California, and received her Associate in Arts Degree, Liberal Arts Studies in June 1980. Being aware of the importance of continuing her learning experience in 2001 Carolyn was accorded senior status at Cal State University, Long Beach, where she intends to pursue a B.A. Degree in her new role as a retiree.

Carolyn's work and professional experiences are quite interesting to follow. In her search for short term employment she interviewed with General Motors Part Depot in September 1973. Interesting to note, that job led to 33 years of service with the UAWand General Motors. Her plant closed and she relocated to Sparks, Nevada in 1980. She immediately became involved with UAW Local 1262 and became the Financial Secretary of the Local and held that elected position for 12 years. In 1988, she implemented the first V-CAP check-off drive in the GM facility which Tripled Local 2162's contributions to the UAW's V-CAP regional program.

Remembering having heard UAW President Walter Reuther's old saying that there was a definite connection between the ballot box and collective bargaining, she decided to become very active in the Democratic party of Nevada. During the party activities led her to hold various positions which included Washoe County Registrar from 1986 to 1992. It was in Nevada that Carolyn, not only became an extremely active UAW Local Union officer, but she also began to be more deeply involved in community activities making her a committed activist for social change. In 1989, UAW leadership noticed this active Local union official and was appointed by Vice-President Stephen P.

Yokich, as the UAW quality network representative.

Having shown a quick grasp of the make up of UAW activities, she was recommended for an appointment to the International Staff by Region 6 Director Bruce Lee. Upon that recommendation in August 1992, UAW President Owen Bieber appointed her to the International Staff and was relocated to the UAW headquarters in Artesia, California. Her first assignment was an International Organizer, and shortly thereafter there was an opening in the UAW Retirement Workers Department and she was assigned to that position where she spent the last 14 years. In that capacity, Carolyn coordinated and implemented UAW senior activities, programs, political action, lobbying events and all Get Out to Vote/ registration Drives in California, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and Washington State for over twenty-seven thousand UAW Retirees. Under Director Jim Wells leadership, since 1995, she elevated Region 5--West Retiree's to holding the number one title for UAW V-CAP fundraising drives.

Carolyn Tate's experiences as a working mother, union organizer, international representative, dedicated community activist, and political action and lobbying activities, make her an outstanding model for others, male and female, to follow and emulate. She has proven that in spite of obstacles that one faces in life, one can always strive to improve oneself by sticking to it and giving service to others.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor really intending to support this bill. But, you know, I am not going to do it. I am not going to support this bill. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

Here we are fighting with each other, people from New York and California and places fighting with people from the South because we have a piece of legislation that is pitting us against each other instead of funding what needs to be funded with HIV and AIDS.

Over 1 million people in the United States have HIV/AIDS. African Americans are only 13 percent of the population, but we account for a half of all the new AIDS cases. African American women represent 71 percent of the new AIDS cases among women, and African American teenagers represent 66 percent of the new AIDS cases among teenagers.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been struggling and working, and I have been working on this for 15 years. We are spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. We only need $1 billion more to fund all of these programs adequately. What are we doing? Let's not play with this. Don't accept this. Don't pit yourself against your friends and your colleagues. Tear it up. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Throw it out and let's start all over again next year.

I am with my friends from New York. I support the South. But let's not be scrambling over pennies. People are dying. And don't tell me we don't have the resources to deal with it. Even if you didn't spend $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, in Iraq, we would be able to fund this adequately.

Somebody does not care that Americans are dying. Somebody doesn't give a darn that it is decimating black populations. Let's stop playing the game. Let's stop it today. Stop this bill. Don't think you're so desperate you have to vote for anything in order to get a little something. Throw it out. It's not worth it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6062, ``the Community Development Enhancements Act of 2006.'' I want to thank Mr. Frank for sponsoring this bill, and our distinguished Chairman Mr. Oxley, who is an original sponsor of the bill. The bill will enhance the community development investments made by financial institutions.

The bill has two major provisions. One provision would increase the amount of investments that a financial institution can make for community development from 10 percent to 15 percent. This increase in the amount that banks can invest in such activities will enable the banks to invest more of its resources in investments that will directly benefit communities and low and moderate income persons.

Another provision directs portions of the investments made by the financial institutions to

promote the public welfare. Citing the actual legislation, the financial institutions ``may make investments designed primarily to promote the public welfare, including the welfare of low and moderate income communities and families through housing, services and jobs.''

The changes mandated by this bill send a clear message to financial institutions that the needs of low and moderate income communities and families are important. More often than not, these groups are overlooked or their needs underestimated. In addition, the bill enables our financial institutions to look at investments on an investment by investment basis rather than in the aggregate.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6062, because it will strengthen investment in low and moderate income communities across this Nation. Financial institutions must continue to play a role in strengthening and stabilizing our communities and this bill will facilitate both.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Non-admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2006, reported by the Committee on Financial Services. I want to thank the Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite, for sponsoring this bill and the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Oxley for reporting this legislation out of the Committee.

If any of you have visited the Gulf Region in the last year since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you know how essential it is that we come to grips with reality and the potential for a major disaster by reforming nonadmitted and reinsurance in this nation. More than half the City of New Orleans' pre-storm population of 450,000 has not returned to the City, while large areas of the City remain uninhabitable. We were not adequately insured to deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita--no more than we are today to address another disaster somewhere else in this country.

We all know that one of the major elements to any recovery after a disaster is insurance, and many of us have heard the horror stories related to the damage incurred as a result of the hurricanes in the Gulf Region. Insurance is one aspect of recovery that we need to be able to rely on after a catastrophe to help make victims whole again. However, on many occasions the reverse has been true, and insurance claims have gone unpaid, or the claims paid have not been commensurate with the damage to the property. In addition, there are many who have not been able to afford insurance and have not been covered, or there are those who had limited and inadequate insurance prior to a natural catastrophe. In many places like California, many homeowners decide not to carry disaster insurance at all, precisely because they believe that the government will become involved if a natural catastrophe occurs.

In the Gulf Region, many insurance companies did not offer flood damage insurance. Although homeowners have the option to obtain a policy under various state programs, it is unaffordable for most. Most people do not carry any insurance for protection from disasters for this reason. In New Orleans, only one-half of the households had flood insurance under the government's National Flood Insurance program.

This bill will create more uniformity among the different state insurance programs by streamlining the regulation of nonadmitted and reinsurance activities. This would be accomplished primarily through preempting various state laws. While these state laws would not be replaced with federal law, laws from other states or model laws of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Further, the bill requires a GAO study of the nonadmitted insurance market. Currently, rather than requiring consumers who may be unable to find insurance from a licensed insurer to go without insurance, states have allowed consumers to purchase insurance from non-licensed insurers. These nonadmitted or surplus line insurers provide insurance for natural disasters. Disaster insurance is regulated and taxed by the state by placing requirements on the brokers who initiate the transactions. Because non-admitted and reinsurance policies are different from state to state, this bill will allow for ``harmonization'' of state laws. It will bring some sanity to the insurance marketplace, particularly where disasters are concerned. Many states have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of non-admitted and reinsurance forcing some businesses to relocate, resulting in unemployment and lost revenue. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing the American people know, they know that America has a Constitution that protects us from being spied on by our government. Everything about this bill makes a mockery of the Constitution of the United States of America. This administration has literally thrown the Constitution out the window.

In committee markup, the majority jammed a substitute amendment down our throats that basically undermines that part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that requires that the administration get a warrant before eavesdropping on American citizens. Now the majority is jamming another Republican substitute or comprehensive amendment down the throats of the American people by considering this bill under what is known as a closed rule, which prohibits Democrats from offering any changes or amendments.

As we grapple with the war on terrorism, the constitutional power of the President has been stretched until it cannot be stretched anymore, from the use of force executed against Iraq, to the initiation of a warrantless surveillance program that targets innocent Americans.

In April, the U.S. Attorney General told the Judiciary Committee that even if that authorization to use military force resolution were determined not to provide the legal authority for the program that the President's inherent authority to authorize foreign intelligence surveillance would permit him to authorize the terrorist surveillance program.

The imperial President can do whatever he wants. Mr. President, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Chairman, why then do we need this legislation?

The President illegally and unconstitutionally authorized the wholesale collection of domestic communications, and now the majority wants to give him legislative permission. This is not fair or honest.

This bill broadens the scope of those the President can monitor, so innocent people can be violated so long as the surveillance is directed at so-called ``one permissible target.'' It also removes one of the central requirements for conducting warrantless surveillance, one that provides the most protection to the American people. And, as FISA has said, there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.

They shouldn't be spying on us. If what the President is doing right now is so clearly authorized and is in the best interests of our Nation's security, why was this provision so troublesome? Is it clear that the fourth amendment rights of the American people are a burden to this administration? If a case is so extreme that it would take too long to obtain a warrant, these requirements shouldn't be difficult to meet.

Mr. Speaker, recent estimates indicate that there are 40,000 new AIDS infections each year in the United States.

African American men and women were disproportionately overrepresented among new AIDS diagnoses in 2004. African American women accounted for 67 percent of new AIDS diagnoses among women; and African American men accounted for nearly half, 44 percent, of new AIDS diagnoses among men. Today, African American women represent a staggering 71 percent of all the AIDS diagnoses among women.

Though African Americans comprised 17 percent of the teenage population, age 13 to 19 years of age, by the end of 2004, they represented 70 percent of all the HIV/AIDS cases among teenagers, age 13 to 19 years of age. Just more than one in ten, 13 percent and 15 percent, were represented by Latino and whites respectively in the same age groups.

The Congressional Black Caucus has decided that we are going to increase our efforts. Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Congressional Black Caucus has and will continue to assume a leadership role in addressing the issue through AIDS education and other actions. We are increasing our efforts to insist on personal responsibility, mandatory testing, outreach and education, advocating for increased funding, more legislation.

I have introduced H.R. 6038. This is a bill that would require routine testing of those entering prison, with counseling and treatment and referrals and follow-ups for those who are leaving.

We are going to conquer this epidemic.

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

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6115, the Mark-to- Market Extension Act of 2006.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, Deborah Pryce, for sponsoring this bill, along with other cosponsors of the bill, including Mr. Gerlach of Pennsylvania; Mr. Tiberi of Ohio; and, of course, Ranking Member Frank. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Oxley, must also be commended for moving this important bill to the floor. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Affairs, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill, and I would like to thank all of the members of the subcommittee who supported it.

H.R. 6115, the Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2006, will reauthorize the Mark-to-Market program. The program is set to expire on September 30, 2006. Of course, we can ill afford to have any housing program eliminated by our failure to act, particularly since the Mark-to-Market program ensures that our multifamily rental housing stock remains on the market.

When Congress enacted the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, it was designed to, number one, eliminate above-market rents at low- and moderate-income multifamily properties with FHA-insured mortgages and project-based section 8 assistance; and, number two, preserve affordable rental housing in markets where it is needed.

The Mark-to-Market program was created to address these program goals, and it relies basically on several tools: debt restructuring, full or partial payment of claims, deferment of mortgage payments, credit enhancements, and increased FHA mortgage insurance.

There is ample evidence that the Mark-to-Market program is critical to preserving multifamily housing and to cost savings. According to HUD, as of March 2006, the Mark-to-Market program has been used to preserve approximately 220,000 affordable rental apartments at savings of $1.9 billion. And, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office concluded 5 years ago that the cost of restructuring debt for many multifamily housing projects is less expensive that the cost of default by an estimated $1 million per project.

Because more than 1,000 projects could be assisted under the Mark-to- Market program, we will save many multifamily affordable housing units over the next 5 years. I am certainly not interested in seeing any of the multifamily rental units that are located in my district or in the State of California, projects that are in the pipeline in California, go into default because the Mark-to-Market program is allowed to expire. This tool is too valuable to preserving the affordable housing stock across the country to allow it to expire. When I think about it, we were very close to losing several major housing programs had our Subcommittee on Housing and the full committee not taken action on this and other programs.

Again, this bill not only demonstrates just how serious many members of the Committee on Financial Services have been on reaching consensus on programs that are important to fighting the affordable housing crisis in this country, but the bill recognizes low- and moderate- income housing needs in many of our communities.

Yes, H.R. 6115 is being considered by this House at a critical juncture because the Mark-to-Market program takes into account the serious shortage of the affordable multifamily rental housing in America. The Mark-to-Market program applies to FHA-insured multifamily projects with project-based assistance under the section 8 program. Rents for these projects are in excess of the rents for comparable rental units in the area. While many of these projects had been developed with rents which were above market, when the 20-year section 8 contracts began to expire back in the 1990s, the contracts were not renewed at above-market rents. This forced many projects into default because the owners of the projects could not operate or meet mortgage payments at market rents.

Restructuring the FHA-insured mortgage, which lowers debt service to a level that is sustainable at market rent, as well as mechanisms to rehabilitate and to replenish reserves, are what makes the Mark-to- Market program worthy of extension. Under the Mark-to-Market program, owners of multifamily projects that have been restructured are required to accept section 8 renewal offers and to keep rents affordable regardless of whether section 8 assistance is available. The critical requirement must be met for the next 30 years.

In addition, the committee included new provisions to the Mark-to- Market program that will enable Mark-to-Market mechanisms to be extended to damaged properties in disaster areas. The committee concluded that by including these properties, many of which are located in the gulf region where 170,000 units in New Orleans were lost, that the question of eligibility would be eliminated, making M-M tools quickly available to the rebuilding efforts. The bill also allows for continued debt relief upon the transfer of a Mark-to-Market project to any qualified nonprofit purchasers.

With regard to the use of exception rent, the committee recognized that the existing 5 percent cap on rents greater than 100 percent of the median is projected to be reached this year, requiring the committee to raise the rent ceiling to 9 percent of the Mark-to-Market portfolio.

For all of the above reasons, this is one of the most constructive housing bills reported by the Committee on Financial Services this year.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot let the Mark-to-Market program expire, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5347, the HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006. I am one of the original cosponsors of the legislation, and I want to take time to congratulate the distinguished chairman, Mr. Oxley; Ranking Member Frank; Mr. Watt; and Mr. Shays for sponsoring this important legislation.

The members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Affairs, of which I am ranking member, have worked tirelessly to overcome obstacles to extend HOPE VI. Indeed, there is a strong possibility that the HOPE VI program would have expired at the end of this fiscal year without the strong leadership displayed on this bill.

HOPE VI is a valuable program, but not a perfect program. Some of the criticisms include displacement of tenants, delays in development of projects, and a built-in bias toward large urban areas. As with any major Federal program, there are lessons to be learned, and in the case of HOPE VI, many of the challenges that have been identified were addressed in prior reauthorization bills. We also must understand that these concerns must be understood within the context of the different communities that have utilized the HOPE VI program. This might explain why HUD has evaluated HOPE VI grantees on a case-by-case basis, rather than on the basis of formal program requirements.

One major issue compounding HOPE VI is the fact that in many communities the supply of available and affordable housing is not adequate to accommodate those who become displaced. Secondly, the development process related to HOPE VI is far more complicated than what was envisioned by the architects of the program, and many delays are attributed to the needs of the many stakeholders in the community, including tenants.

According to the 2003 GAO report entitled ``HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites,'' the Tucson, Arizona, Housing Authority submitted a revitalization plan for a site to the Tucson City Council for approval only after the residents had voted to approve it. This type of deliberative democratic process adds time to the development approval process, whether it is a HOPE VI project or not.

Thirdly, some fear that there is a bias to urban areas under the HOPE VI program requirements. In my view, that is not really a fair criticism because this is merely a program outcome. I see no reason why we would not want to make sure that HUD targets nonurban areas as we move forward to determine HOPE VI works. I have said on numerous occasions that the housing needs of the urban communities are not drastically different than the housing needs of nonurban communities.

Both GAO and CRS provide important findings on the HOPE VI program.

As of June 2004, 56,221 households had been relocated by HOPE VI revitalization grantees. Of these households, 48 percent were moved to public housing, 32 percent were given section 8 vouchers, 6 percent evicted, 19 percent moved to revitalized units, and 13 percent made other housing choices.

The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally have experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income and housing.

And mortgage lending activity increased in HOPE VI neighborhoods compared to other neighborhoods.

These strong findings are, in part, why I support the HOPE VI reauthorization bill. The bill has strong bipartisan support, and HOPE VI would be reauthorized through 2007, although we had originally intended for the bill to be extended through 2011. Importantly, the factors used to assess grant applications for the programs include need, capacity, quality and leveraging. So perhaps as we move forward, it is more appropriate for the detractors of the program to measure the track record of the HOPE VI program's use of these new criteria and not base the success of the program on individual project outcomes.

By some estimates, HOPE VI has leveraged between $5 billion and $8 billion of private investment in communities across the Nation. The demand for HOPE VI grants in communities throughout the country continues to exceed the available resources. HUD receives three applications for every HOPE VI award made.

The need to revitalize distressed public housing is precisely the reason that HOPE VI was conceived. Communities throughout this country with old, decaying and abandoned public housing stock often located on prime land needed to seek ways to improve the quality of life in their communities. HOPE VI provided one answer to addressing these conditions in its early stages; and with improvement in the way the program will be operated in the future, even greater progress will be made in meeting needs.

Absent the bipartisan support that HOPE VI enjoys today, the elimination of the program was a near certainty. By changing the criteria to evaluate grantee applications, including evaluation of the capacity of the grantees to undertake HOPE VI projects, support for the program should broaden. HOPE VI is an extremely competitive program that reflects success. Communities should be able to include this Federal resource in their revitalization planning efforts immediately and in the future.

I would urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5503, the FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment Act. And I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller). I also want to thank the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, a sponsor of the bill; and our distinguished chairman, Mr. Oxley, for moving this legislation to the floor.

This is yet another example of the progress that we as members of the Committee on Financial Services have made on housing matters. In committee we have passed many housing bills that are waiting consideration by the House, and I am privileged to have supported this bill and other legislation because it begins to address the affordable housing crisis that we confront in America.

This bill is important to maintaining, as well as to increasing, the Nation's rental and affordable housing stock. FHA multifamily insurance products will remain available to assist projects for families with incomes from 80 percent to 150 percent of the median income. These are the people who really need our help. The bill will increase the loan limits for FHA-insured multifamily products in high-cost areas, where the FHA loan limits are no longer relevant in places like my district of Los Angeles, California. It is estimated to cost $146,240 per unit to build a 42-unit two-bedroom development in Los Angeles or approximately $6,142,069. In New York City and San Francisco, these projects are even more expensive, anywhere from $167,000 to $180,000 per unit.

This has had devastating effects on the construction of affordable housing projects in my district and elsewhere in the country, particularly as land and construction costs skyrocketed over the past few years.

In 2005 FHA insured a total of six multifamily projects in California. New York fared no better, as only eight projects were built in the same year. Of course, I am not surprised by this trend. But it must be reversed because of the large numbers of persons seeking affordable rental housing in this country, many of whom are working families with children, the elderly, and the disabled.

We all know that the affordable housing crisis has been exacerbated nationally since nearly 170,000 units of housing were lost last year in New Orleans alone as a result of the hurricanes that struck the gulf region. People of New Orleans and elsewhere in the gulf region are desperate for housing, which makes this legislation even more important. Very little, if any, multifamily rental housing has been constructed since the storms. Madam Speaker, I hope this bill reverses this situation.

H.R. 5503 will allow HUD to increase multifamily loan limits in expensive areas to 170 percent above the base limit, while giving the Secretary of HUD the discretion to increase the limit to 215 percent on a case-by-case basis. Because there are approximately 100 areas in the country that would be characterized as high-cost areas, this bill recognizes the reality of multifamily housing construction in this country. It just disappeared. Without these changes to the loan limits, it will remain impossible for developers, both for-profit and nonprofit, to develop any affordable housing units. The current loan limits can actually be attributed in part to the shortage of affordable housing units, particularly in high-cost areas of the country.

Now, as most of you know, there are no real alternatives in the private market to FHA mortgage insurance that assist families at 80 to 150 percent of the area median income. This is compounded by the fact that section 8 units are not available in these markets. The waiting lists for section 8 have not disappeared, and in Los Angeles there are more than 100,000 persons waiting for section 8 assistance. Other areas of the country, such as New York, Seattle and Philadelphia, are in the same predicament as Los Angeles.

Of course, this phenomenon is not limited to large urban areas. It is already affecting other areas of the country as populations grow and residents seek housing outside of the cities. Nearly 3.7 million people live in the City of Los Angeles, but 9.5 million live in the Los Angeles County area. From my vantage point, there is a real housing crisis across America.

On its face, this does not appear to be as important a measure as some other housing bills that this House has considered to date. But I contend that this is one of the most important housing bills that we will consider before the end of this session.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a foolproof means of averting a national crisis in affordable housing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record a letter in support of H.R. 5503 sent to Members of the House by five housing and real estate associations.

Madam Speaker, in closing, and before I yield back my time, I would just like to say I do not know if I will have the opportunity to be on the floor with many of my colleagues from our committee before the close of the session.

But I first want to say how appreciative I am to the chairman of our committee, Mr. Oxley, for the leadership that he has provided, for his sense of fairness, and for his sense of what it takes to get both sides of the aisle working together. He has done a magnificent and tremendous job.

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank someone who is not here. It is unfortunate, because I have worked closely with Mr. Ney, and he has done a wonderful job in helping to move these housing bills to the point that we see them today.

I would like to thank all of the other members of the committee just in case we do not have an opportunity to be on the floor again on any more of those bills.

July 25, 2006.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the membership of our

associations who represent the home buying, home building,

and home financing industries, we are writing in support of

H.R. 5503, FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment Act of 2006,

legislation to increase the Federal Housing Administration

(FHA) multifamily loan limits in high-cost areas. Over the

past several years, Congress and the Administration have

taken steps to update the FHA multifamily loan limits.

However, despite these efforts, the current maximum FHA

multifamily mortgage limits are inadequate and continue to

constrain new construction and rehabilitation in many urban

and suburban areas, where construction costs are

significantly higher than in the rest of the country.

The FHA's multifamily mortgage insurance programs enable

qualified borrowers to obtain long-term, fixed-rate financing

for a variety of multifamily properties that are affordable

to low- and moderate-income families. This public/private

partnership has resulted in a successful program providing

housing for a portion of the population not usually served by

private industry alone. In addition to serving a valuable

purpose, recent analysis by HUD and OMB indicate that

virtually all of the FHA multifamily insurance programs

operate on a break-even basis or raise revenue for the

government.

Without higher FHA multifamily loan limits in high-cost

markets, critical housing needs will go unmet. Those who will

be most affected will include low- and moderate-income

families, including important community service providers

such as teachers, firefighters, and police officers. By

increasing the maximum loan limit for FHA's multifamily

programs, these programs can help provide the housing

opportunities necessary for the economic and social well

being of our nation. We applaud efforts to increase the

availability of affordable housing in our nation's high-cost

areas.

Institute of Real Estate Management.

Mortgage Bankers Association.

National Association of Home Builders.

National Association of Mortgage Brokers.

National Association of Realtors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation because it prevents people from getting attorney's fees or economic damages even if a court agrees with them that the Federal Government has violated their constitutional right to religious freedom or not to be forced to recognize one religion over another. In other words, Congress is telling the courts that they do not know how to do their jobs.

Article III of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Why are we trying to do the Court's job by deciding that these Establishment Clause claims deserve only injunctive or declaratory relief?

This bill reaches right into the Civil Rights Act, for the first time in history, I might add, singles out people who have Establishment Clause claims and tells them that they cannot recover any economic damages. How can this be so, Mr. Speaker? How can this be so, when the 11th Circuit in Glassroth v. Moore, a case decided in 2003, stated that: For Establishment Clause claims based on noneconomic harm, the plaintiffs must identify a personal injury suffered by them as a consequence of the alleged constitutional error.

The court found injury in Glassroth because the claimants had altered their conduct and incurred expenses in order to minimize contact with a Ten Commandments monument erected in the

rotunda of Alabama's State judicial building.

With this bill, this committee attempts to overturn Federal judicial opinions, and that is simply not our role. Congress established enforcement remedies under section 1983 more than 100 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act.

Among other things, this bill contains $50 billion for the war in Iraq, pushing the total amount U.S. taxpayers have paid for the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan to more than $500 billion. The vast majority of these costs are for the Iraq war.

This conference report throws billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, while at the same time this Administration and the Republican Congress call for drastic cuts to dozens of vital domestic programs.

This is immoral and wrong. We should be investing in schools and health care for all Americans. Certainly, we should fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, which the Republican-controlled Congress has under-funded by $9 billion over the past 6 years.

In 2002, in the lead-up to the war, the Administration assured the Congress and the American people that this war would be affordable.

How wrong they were! Not only is the Iraq war devastating the lives of thousands of U.S. service members and Iraqis, it is devastating our Nation's finances. The Administration must develop a plan to not only pay for this misguided endeavor but also to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act.

Earlier this year, millions of veterans saw their economic security threatened when several VA computers were stolen from a Veterans Administration (VA) employee's home. While it appears that no veteran was a victim of ID theft, the VA was ill-prepared to deal with the lost of this highly personal and confidential information.

While I am pleased to support this bill, which will help safeguard veterans' personal information in the future, I urge this Congress to immediately pass legislation that will protect all Americans from ID theft, not just our veterans. The threat of ID theft is too important to ignore any longer.

Data security is an issue that we have labored over for months, and while this will protect America's veterans from breaches of data security, the American public wants Congress to act to protect its private information as well.

As many of my colleagues have outlined during the debate today, this bill takes several steps to empower the VA to combat ID theft. It creates a new Office of the Under Secretary for Information Services within the Department. The bill also requires the VA to notify affected individuals when sensitive, personal information held by VA is lost, stolen, or otherwise compromised. In addition, the bill requires the VA to provide services to alleviate any loss those individuals might suffer, if the Secretary of VA determines there is a risk that the compromised information could be used in a criminal manner. Another important provision in the bill requires contractors to pay damages to VA if the compromised information was under the contractors' control. The combination of these provisions represents a well thought through piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, having ones identity stolen can unleash a lifetime of problems for its victims. It can impair buying a home, applying for jobs and loans as well as a host of other problems.

I am pleased to support this bill to help protect our veterans from these personal and economic pitfalls. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5835, the Veterans Identity and Credit Security Act of 2006. I was deeply concerned that nearly 27 million veterans may have been affected by a data security breach of record proportions, that could have compromised sensitive, personal information. Twenty-six-and-a-half million veterans, and 2.2 million Guards, Reservists, and active duty servicemembers, were at risk. Fortunately, we recovered the stolen laptop and forensic analysis revealed the data was uncompromised. While it turned out that no veterans' information was jeopardized, it was a lesson in carelessness that cannot be repeated. We have learned from this incident what steps we must take to (a) change the organizational structure

and requirements at the VA, and (b) design a meaningful package of action items we will deliver for veterans should a breach ever occur again. Now we must implement them.

Unfortunately, data breaches like this highlight the need for legislation I have authored: H.R. 4127, the Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA). This bill, which the Energy and Commerce Committee has passed, goes to the heart of this problem of the critical need to protect consumers' personal information. Let's fix this.

I thought, and Chairman Buyer agreed, that while we are instructing the VA when they must notify veterans, let's not limit ourselves to notification by ``snail mail''. I appreciate the Chairman's incorporating my language into H.R. 5835. The standard of business practice is--if a consumer or veteran in this case prefers--to communicate in writing by e-mail, because it is immediate and portable. What if a veteran is now in the Florida National Guard, serving in Iraq, and suffers a breach? We would not want him or her to wait for a hard copy letter to make its way. Secondary to providing better service to the veteran, this would save tremendous money to the VA, money better spent on veterans health care and services: I understand the May 2006 notification mailing cost the VA about $7 million.

Through both of my Committee seats, I will continue to take an active role in ensuring that veterans, and all consumers, feel confident and secure about their financial and personal information. And, thank you, Chairman Buyer, for your steadfast leadership on this issue for years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 723, which urges the President to take steps to improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan. This resolution urges the President to propose that NATO implement an interim civilian protection force in Darfur and request supplemental funding to support the African Union Mission in Sudan and a NATO mission in Darfur.

Members of Congress already have done everything we can possibly do to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Members of Congress have written numerous letters to the Bush Administration and the United Nations urging action to end this genocide.

We have visited the United Nations and met with Secretary General Kofi Annan.

I wrote to the President back in 2004 and implored that he take action.

In July of 2004, I sent letters to the other members of the United Nations Security Council urging that the United Nations take action

to end the slaughter in Sudan; this letter was signed by 41 Members of Congress, including my good friend from across the aisle, Congressman Spencer Bachus.

On April 28 and again on May 16, several of my colleagues where arrested in front of the Embassy of Sudan, protesting this genocide.

Last April, Members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressing our support for the appointment of a Special Envoy for Sudan. Last week, President Bush finally appointed a Special Envoy for Sudan. This is a good first step, and we appreciate it, but a single administrative appointment will not put an end to a genocide.

Early this year, I traveled to Sudan as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation led by my good friend from California, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. We visited the refugee camps. 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 should continue.

Also last April, the House of Representatives passed HR 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 3. This bill would impose sanctions on the government of Sudan and block the assets and restrict travel for individuals who are responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in Darfur. Last Thursday, the Senate passed this bill, and the House is acting on the final version today. Hopefully, the President will sign it into law.

More than 450,000 people have died since 2003 as a result of the genocide in Darfur. There are 2.5 million displaced people in camps in Darfur and another 350,000 in refugee camps in neighboring Chad. Almost 7,000 people are dying every month in Darfur. There can be no doubt that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide and the Government of Sudan is responsible.

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

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I urge the Bush Administration and the United Nations to put an end to these crimes before millions more men, women and children are allowed to die.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This bill imposes sanctions on the government of Sudan and blocks the assets and restricts travel for individuals who are responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in the Darfur region of Sudan.

More than 450,000 people have died since 2003 as a result of the genocide in Darfur. There are two-and-a-half million displaced people in camps in Darfur and another 350,000 in refugee camps in neighboring Chad. Almost 7,000 people are dying every month in Darfur. There can be no doubt that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and the government of Sudan is responsible.

Crimes against humanity in Darfur have escalated in recent months. Over 500 women were raped over the summer in one camp alone. There have been renewed attacks and aerial bombardment, and twelve humanitarian workers were killed, two of them in the last 4 weeks. If the United Nations does not intervene in Darfur now, the death toll could rise dramatically in the next few months.

Earlier this year, I visited the Darfur region with my good friend from California, Congresswoman 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 should continue.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and take a firm stand against the crime of genocide in Darfur.

The world stood by and watched the genocide that occurred in Rwanda. The world has noted over and over again the atrocities of the Holocaust. We must take action now to prevent a repeat of these horrific chapters in human history.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the New York Times published an article entitled ``Spy Agencies say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat.'' The article goes on to describe an April 2006, a National Intelligence Estimate which reports the consensus of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the September 11 attacks.

The NIE report concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of al Qaeda operatives to include a new class of ``self-generating'' cells inspired by al Qaeda's leadership, but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants, which will be difficult to monitor and disrupt. One official quoted in the article says ``that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse.''

Mr. Speaker and Members, what are we doing? What is this administration doing, and what is this American President thinking about? He is sending more troops to Iraq. The Army announced today that it has extended the combat tours of about 4,000 soldiers who normally would be returning home and is considering sending more combat units to Iraq in order to meet the needs in Iraq. Many of the troops in Iraq are on their second and even third deployment to Iraq. The additional troops are necessary because of the sectarian violence that encompasses much of the country. Many experts have concluded that Iraq is in a civil war.

Mr. Speaker and Members, the President of the United States has said more than once that we are not getting out of Iraq, that we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up, and they would have you believe that we are training Iraqi soldiers and that they are going to take over the responsibility of securing that country.

It is not happening, Mr. Speaker and Members. As a matter of fact, some of the Iraqi soldiers that have been trained are abandoning our soldiers in the middle of conflict. I read an account just a few days ago where our American soldiers got in the middle of a confrontation of a battle, I think, between Sunnis and Shiites, and they were watched by the Iraqi soldiers who were with them who literally stepped back and let the American soldiers be responsible for trying to resolve that fight that was going on.

We hear stories not only about Iraqi soldiers who abandoned our soldiers but who are really inside, being trained by us, with American taxpayer dollars being spent on training them when they simply turn on us. They are not with us to begin with. They are there to spy on us, and they are undermining us.

For God's sake, what are we doing? This occupation is not only causing the deaths of young American men and women, almost 3,000. It is robbing this country of its resources. Well over $300 billion has been spent on this war in Iraq, and that is not to add to the amount of money in Afghanistan. We went to Iraq because supposedly we were making Americans safer. We are at greater risk now than we have ever been. We are certainly at greater risk and less secure than we were before 9/11.

And not only that, why didn't we track Osama bin Laden up through Afghanistan to that border between Pakistan and Afghanistan where we believe he really is? But no. We told the American public that it was Saddam Hussein. We have spent all of this money. We have occupied it, and we still don't have Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden, I believe, is being protected by the Pakistanis. I believe that Mr. Musharraf, who is supposed to be our ally, whom we are giving money to, knows a lot more than he is telling us. But one thing I know for sure, he won't allow us to come into Pakistan and he just created a pact with the Taliban. The Taliban is back in control. The poppy seeds are flowing. The dope is flowing. It has been tracked all the way to Chicago.

The American people had better get their heads out of the sand, and we had better do our oversight job and bring our soldiers home. Stop this war in Iraq.