Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise today to stand tall for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Chairman and Members, as an African American woman Member of Congress, I consider it my profound and welcome duty to use my voice and my vote to continue the struggle of the civil rights movement to guarantee the right to vote to African Americans and all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult time explaining to African Americans all over this country why the Congress of the United States has to continue to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The answer to that question is sad but simple and true. Discrimination.

America, we stand before you today reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act because we have to continue to have safeguards in law to prevent cities, counties, States and other jurisdictions from devising laws, practices, tricks and procedures that impede the right to vote by minorities in this country.

One may ask, what laws and tricks are you alluding to?

Mr. Chairman, in the past, the tricks were poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation. Today, and throughout the years, the laws and tricks have changed but the game is the same: Deny and prevent minorities from exercising the power of selection of candidates and laws by any means necessary.

What are some of these tactics being used today in some jurisdictions in America? Oh, they are tactics like, in Georgia, create the need for an identification card that you have to pay for that is only issued by the State.

In Florida, create databases identifying people as felons, people who have never ever been arrested before, change voting rights laws so that you create at-large districts instead of districts where minorities can be elected from. Minority candidates get elected by districts, and when you create these at-large districts, you eliminate the possibility of their getting elected. Place uniformed guards at polling places to intimidate voters. The list goes on and on.

The Voting Rights Act will guarantee preclearance of these attempted discriminatory acts and, hopefully, deny these kinds of actions.

I ask my colleagues, don't disrespect the civil rights movement. Don't dishonor us. Pass this voting rights reauthorization bill and show the world that America is sincere about democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, H.R. 9, and strongly oppose the Gohmert amendment. It reduces the 25-year reauthorization period of the expiring provisions to 10 years. The provisions set to expire in 2007 include section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to obtain Federal approval for any new voting practices or procedures implemented.

Section 203 ensures that American citizens with limited English proficiency get the help they need at the polls. Sections 6 through 9 authorize the Attorney General to appoint Federal election observers where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls.

These provisions require the creation of a credible record. Most important, each of the expiring provisions depends upon the conduct of State elections, all of which operate independently and on schedules that do not coincide. Furthermore, lawsuits that come out of these expiring provisions make the creation of a record a very difficult task.

If Congress were to reauthorization the Voting Rights Act for short periods of time, as this amendment suggests, it would create an incentive for jurisdictions to wait out their obligations rather than comply, thus contributing to the widespread noncompliance with the statute that continued into the late 1970s.

In order for Congress to let voters know whether discrimination still exists in particular jurisdictions, it must be able to review voting changes through multiple redistricting cycles. The 3 years following the decennial census represent the time of the highest volume of voting changes and the greatest opportunity for discrimination.

The 25-year reauthorization period already in H.R. 9 is the product of numerous oversight hearings as well as analysis by Representatives, scholars, and election law practitioners. The amendment by the gentleman from Texas should be defeated because it simply is not sound.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to impart some history and context relative to the right to vote in America, an essential part of the democratic process. I

thank each of my colleagues for joining me to discuss this issue.

Today, a series of Members will come to the floor to tell you the truth about the barriers, both past and present, that have prevented Americans from voting.

The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important laws enacted by our government in the history of our democracy, because it allows the people to address past and present disenfranchisement as well as disparate conditions that will affect the ability to exercise voting rights in the future.

Passage of H.R. 9 to reauthorize and renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act is critical to our democracy and our democratic form of government and the free exercise of the voting rights of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the stories that you and America will hear today will underscore why the Voting Rights Act is so important and must be renewed. You will hear stories from Members of Congress who were voting age prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that recount some of the extreme difficulties and egregious legal impediments that constrained their right to vote, and you will hear other stories about real people denied the right to vote.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Larson, for yielding and for organizing this special order.

I certainly did come to the floor today to talk about what is going on in Iraq, but as I sat here and I listened to you in this colloquy that you have about what is going on in Afghanistan, I cannot help but join you and commend you for forcing some attention on the fact that we are going backwards in Afghanistan.

It is shameful, because we did abandon the struggle in Afghanistan and took our resources in a direction where we were supposed to have been finding and bringing to the bar of justice Osama bin Laden. And as we look at what is happening, we find that Mr. Karzai is simply isolated in Kabul and that he cannot even move around, that with all of the protection that we are providing, his life is in danger.

The Taliban is growing stronger every day; and we told our government, we told this administration, that the poppy fields were beginning to multiply in Afghanistan. And I have to tell you, this administration has turned a blind eye to the fact that the poppy fields are just overflowing. As a matter of fact, it seems as if we even understood and we allowed the poppy fields to become a source of revenue for somebody. The warlords have basically divided up the territories, and they all have their own plots and acreage, and they all are earning money; and we are about to lose again in Afghanistan.

That is what I am referring to, absolutely. And I am so glad that you are making it plain.

The fact of the matter is, the growing and cultivating of poppy seeds in Afghanistan is the drug trade that is flowing off into that Pakistan border that we cannot seem to get under control. We have this so-called great relationship with Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan. But guess what? While he is talking to us and we are funding him and we are so-called cooperating, he tells us there is nothing he can do about the lawlessness on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And it is believed by everybody that that is where Osama bin Laden really is. And so I do not know who our friends are anymore in that region.

Having said that, I think you rightfully identified that we directed the resources away from Afghanistan and we went into this so-called war in Iraq because we were after Osama bin Laden, and we created this war on terrorism. And we led the American people to believe, the President did, that somehow, by doing this, we were going to get a handle on terrorism, we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, and everything was going to be all right.

But I come here this evening as the Chair of the 72-member Out of Iraq Caucus. For more than a year, we have been working to conclude our involvement in Iraq and to bring our soldiers home. We did not believe this war was justified. In fact, many of us believed that the administration's so-called evidence justifying the war was truly exaggerated and very misleading. Furthermore, the administration's handling of this war has severely undermined our efforts in Iraq, and our service members are the ones that have

paid and continue to pay the price for this mismanagement. It is long past time to bring our troops home and reunite them with their families.

Mr. Speaker, the violence in Iraq is almost beyond comprehension. Every day we hear about killings, bombings, kidnappings, and other forms of violence that create chaos throughout Iraq. Today's headline says it all. Let me give you an example: ``Baghdad Jolted by Sectarian Killing Sprees and Bombings,'' the L.A. Times; ``Scores of Sunnis Killed in Baghdad,'' the Washington Post; ``Baghdad Erupts in Mob Violence,'' the New York Times; and ``Fifteen Killed in Iraq Bombings, Shootings,'' the Associated Press.

Unfortunately, today is no different than any other day in Iraq. The violence continues and scores of individuals are violently killed or injured. In today's version of the daily carnage, two car bombs exploded, claiming the lives of at least seven people and wounding 17 others.

Yesterday, Shiite gangs killed 36 Sunnis. Most of these victims were killed execution style, and several showed signs of torture. Later the same day, in retaliation, Sunnis detonated two car bombs, which killed at least 19 people, wounded 59, and damaged a Shiite mosque.

And we are saying, maybe, it is about to be a civil war? Mr. Larson, I submit to you, there is a civil war going on in Iraq today.

Last week, a bomb exploded in Sadr City, one of the Shiite sections of Baghdad, killing 62 people and injuring more than 100 others. It was the deadliest attack since Iraq's new government headed by Prime Minister al Maliki took office in May. Almost 1,600 Iraqis were killed in June, 16 percent more than in May.

The violence has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Iraqis per month since February. In fact, statistics compiled by the Iraqi Government indicate that the rate of killing in Iraq has increased since the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June, something President Bush declared would be a turning point in the Iraq war.

Sadly, the number of U.S. servicemembers who have died continues to grow as well. As of today, 2,541 U.S. troops have died in Iraq; more than 18,700 have been injured.

The violence and death has gone on long enough. It is time to redeploy our troops out of Iraq and refocus our efforts on the war on terrorism, something this administration has neglected.

The Out of Iraq Caucus believes that Congressman John Murtha's resolution, H.J. Res. 73, is the strongest plan to conclude the war and permit our soldiers to return to their loved ones.

Mr. Larson, I thank you for yielding. Let me just conclude by saying this: You and others are here on the floor this evening, as you have come time and time again. The news media on Sunday mornings on most of the corporate media shows do not get the kind of conversation that we are having here today. They do not get this kind of conversation because they are not willing to listen to the voices that are challenging the President and the establishment in this total way that we do. They like to have it nuanced: I voted for the war and perhaps it has not been managed the way that it should have been managed, but we cannot get out. We have got to stay the course.

The news media is not willing to hear what we are saying. And so the people out there who are trying to get the information, who are trying to listen to what we are all saying, just do not have all the opportunities because over and over again they are using the talking heads and the voices of people who are not here nor there, but somewhere in the middle, who are not willing to say that we have to bring our troops home.

Finally, I am a Democrat, and I cherish my involvement in this party, and I think I know what we stand for. And I think I know what so many people have sacrificed for and have fought for. We have an election going on, and I know people sometimes do not have the courage to take the tough position, but in not doing so, we are watching our tremendous resources being just used up on this misplaced war.

Our soldiers are at risk in more than one way. These young people, 19, 18, 20 years old, have never been out of their hometowns before, who do not know a Sunni from a Shiite from a Kurd, are given the most sophisticated weapons and told to shoot anything that moves. And when they do, we talk about how horrible it is.

This is a mess. This is unconscionable. Not only are we misusing the American taxpayers' money, not only are we placing Americans more at risk, but we are also sacrificing our young people in more ways than one.

So I thank you for the opportunity to share this evening with you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank resolution, 900, which was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

As many of you know, the Financial Services chairman, Mr. Oxley, introduced House Resolution 895. The Oxley resolution is well-intended, but I cannot support it. It condemns the media for disclosing information related to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The resolution is misleading. It contains whereas clauses characterizing Congress' role in overseeing the program. There is no oversight to this terrorist tracking program.

Mr. Speaker and Members, this is America and Americans ought to be concerned about what is going on in this government at this time. As a matter of fact, I think this government is spinning out of control. The government is violating the United States Constitution and Federal law in the name of fighting terrorism. Your President truly believes he can disregard the Constitution, create new laws and executive orders and whatever he does, he says, is constitutional because he is the President.

Keeping with this imperial Presidency attitude, the Republicans have the audacity to try and intimidate the press, using the same tired old Karl Rove tactics that have become common to this administration: intimidation, threats. They have accused us of cutting and running on the Iraqi war, questioning Members' patriotism, accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism, and now the press. If the New York Times, The Washington Post and the Washington Times or any other newspaper back off its responsibility to report the news, no matter how unpopular, they may as well close up shop and quit the news business.

This resolution as introduced by Mr. Oxley, that again is misleading, condemning the media, must be rejected. This is not China, Vietnam, Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia. The free press is central to a democracy. We are seeing the PATRIOT Act, the NSA spying, the telecommunications companies giving up our private information. Enough is enough. We must stop with this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and one of the original cosponsors of this legislation, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 854, celebrating June as National Homeownership Month of 2006.

I would like to thank the Chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Ney, for his support, not only for this resolution but his support for all of the members serving on our subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for all that we are attempting to do to expand homeownership opportunity. I am excited about the leadership that Mr. Ney has provided on FHA, to support the CDBG, his support for section 8. All of these programs lead to homeownership.

And I am delighted to be on the floor with him today.

I would also like to thank Mr. Gary Miller, the vice chairman of the subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for sponsoring this resolution. This is an extremely timely resolution. June is National Homeownership Month, 2006.

And I also want to applaud all of those who joined on the resolution as original cosponsors: Mr. Hinojosa; Mr. Scott of Georgia; Ms. Harris; Ms. Millender-McDonald; Mr. Neugebauer; Mr. Frank, the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services; Mr. Ney, of course, chairman of the subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; and the distinguished chairman of the Committee of Financial Services, Mr. Oxley.

Mr. Speaker, and Members, homeownership is like motherhood and apple pie. I believe that just about everyone would agree that homeownership is important to the overall quality of life in communities across the country and to the economic well-being of individuals and families in America.

While National Homeownership Month has been celebrated for the past 5 years, we really do owe a great deal of credit to the many nonprofit organizations and public policymakers who have concentrated on making the American Dream come true, as well as others who have formed public- private partnerships to expand homeownership opportunities in America. Without these cooperative relationships and bipartisan relationships, we would be hard pressed to have reached many of the low-and moderate- income persons and families who have been able to afford a home.

Mr. Speaker and Members, it is commendable to applaud homeownership in this country, but it takes a little bit more to create the opportunities for the average American to own a home, and it requires real support and assistance by public policy-makers. I am pleased and proud to serve on this subcommittee because, again, I see that commitment on both sides of the aisle.

Homeownership has a rich history in America. Let's take a walk back in time and we will see just how important homeownership has been in America. From 1900 to 1920, the first 20 years of the last century, the homeownership rate declined slowly but steadily. Then homeownership soared in the 1920s, but declined to its lowest level in the 20th century, 44 percent by 1940. Of course, after World War II, we witnessed a dramatic increase in homeownership as the postwar economy boom contributed to American prosperity. Purchases of homes were central to building that prosperity; and by 1960, homeownership had grown to 60 percent because of favorable tax treatment and attractive financing related to homeownership.

During that same year, my State of California reached its high water mark for homeownership tying the national average of 60 percent. By 2000, two in three households in the United States owned their own homes. In 1990 less than half owned their own homes, whereas today 70 percent of all Americans own their homes.

In addition, the median value of single family homes in the United States, according to the census, rose from $30,600 in 1940 to $119,600 in 2000. But of course, today the median value in some

places, such as California, have increased tremendously, almost to $500,000.

The benefits of homeownership are truly remarkable. Homeownership provides a broad range of benefits to individual homeowners and to society as a whole. Many children of homeowners did better in school and are more successful in life. Homeownership acts as a powerful economic stimulus, benefiting the individual homeowner and the national economy. Homeownership benefits neighborhoods, providing economic and social capital. Homeowners are more likely to participate in local organizations. Homeownership in distressed communities raises neighborhood property value by a significant amount, and homeowners state that they are more satisfied with their living situation than renters.

The benefits might seem inconsequential to some. But believe me, if we could transfer the benefits of homeownership across this country, we would wipe out much of the crime in our communities, lower high school drop-out rates, reduce poverty, and improve the overall quality of life for countless numbers of Americans.

Just think of the benefits to children. Children of homeowners score better on academic tests, graduate at higher rates, have fewer behavioral problems, and enjoy a better social environment. Children of homeowners are more likely to become homeowners, adding to the paradigm of wealth creation.

Homeownership benefits the U.S. economy. Homeowners generate equity. Home equity is often the source of start-up capital for a business or for financing our children's education and our retirement. High rates of homeownership in a community add to the value of property as much as $5,000, according to one recent study.

A home is a real source of wealth. Homeownership is central to individual wealth and to the wealth of the U.S. economy. The growth in new housing starts in the last few years contributed directly to the growth in the U.S. economy. Just look at the housing sector, and it will usually tell you a lot about the overall wealth and direction of the economy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker and Members, homeowners confer benefits to the communities in which they live. Homeowners vote and participate in important community organizations such as our schools. Homeownership benefits distressed neighborhoods, resulting in increased property values and more stable communities. Stability is the key to improving the quality of life in America. Homeownership in America is the key to stability.

Despite the benefits of homeownership in America, some Americans still are not benefiting from homeownership. African Americans and Latinos still lag behind others in their rates of homeownership. According to the ``National Urban League's State of Black America Report for 2006,'' less than 50 percent of African American families in America own their own homes. The rate of homeownership is about the same for Latinos, approximately 49 to 50 percent.

Another poignant fact is that some of the disparity in homeownership rates for these groups is the result, sometimes, of discrimination and predatory lending. The Center for Responsible Lending just completed a major study which found that African Americans are still more likely to receive higher-rate home purchase rates and refinance loans than similarly situated white borrowers, particularly for loans with prepayment penalties. African Americans with prepayment penalties on their subprime mortgages were 6 to 34 percent more likely to receive a higher-rate loan than if they had been white borrowers with basically the same qualifications or risk factors. Indeed, Latino borrowers had the same experience as African Americans. Latino borrowers purchasing homes were 29 to 142 percent more likely to receive a higher-rate loan than if they had been a non-Latino white borrower. Each of the above findings was also documented in a Federal Reserve study last year.

These findings are very real for African Americans and Latinos, and that should be enough. What the findings mean is that African Americans and Latinos still face obstacles to homeownership that other Americans do not face. Obstacles to homeownership are obstacles to the achievement of our vision. If homeownership in particular is the key to stronger and healthier communities, financial independence and the accumulation of wealth in America, then it is essential that we not only recognize June as National Homeownership Month, but that we commit ourselves to eliminating obstacles to homeownership for all Americans.

As such, I ask all of my colleagues to support June as National Homeownership Month of 2006 as embraced by H. Res. 854. Remember, we continue to pursue a broad range of policies and programs to encourage homeownership opportunities in America.

We have fought to restore budget cuts that have been proposed from time to time in funding for Federal programs to promote homeownership, including CDBG, HOME and HOPE VI. We have led efforts to raise FHA loan limits so that middle-income families in high-cost areas like Los Angeles have affordable mortgage loan options.

And I want to tell you, the bill that was alluded to by Mr. Ney, our chairman, on FHA is exciting. It will be coming up on this floor to receive support from this Congress, and it will be one of the most profound pieces of legislation that have been passed on this floor certainly in this session and for a long time.

This will not only revitalize FHA, it will increase the loan limits. Because the price of housing has been rising so quickly that FHA was not able to accommodate those who still need affordable housing, and we will afford to FHA borrowers the opportunity to participate in new opportunities, no down payment products, et cetera. So I am very much looking forward to that.

I am joining with Mr. Ney and others, and we are leading the effort today to make FHA relevant again to the needs of first-time home buyers and working families. We must do all we can to ensure that this goal is achieved.

As we recognize the month of June as National Homeownership Month for 2006, we must recognize that the American dream still escapes many in America. When this is no longer true, we will be able to celebrate homeownership in America not as a dream for some but as a reality for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker and Members, those of us who work on this issue from both sides of the aisle and in our committee, sometimes we push very hard and we are a little tough because we know that there are working families out there who work every day, who pay their bills on time, they pay their utility bills, they pay their other bills, but they still are not able to get a mortgage and have a home for themselves and their families, but they deserve it. And so we look very closely at what these financial institutions are doing.

None of us like predatory lending. We don't mind having a subprime market, but it must be a subprime market that will allow people to buy a home and perhaps even sometimes start out with a little bit higher interest rate, but they must be reduced as those homeowners demonstrate their ability to pay for these mortgages.

We don't like our American workers to be taken advantage of. We don't want them to have high interest rates that are above and beyond what the average borrower would be able to get. We don't like the fact that Americans lose homes. We want everybody who enters into this business, this contract, of buying a home to be able to pay that mortgage and to be able to hold onto that home.

Let me just close by saying this. I am so adamant about homeownership and understanding what it can do because I can recall when I was a single parent with two children and was able to put together a down payment to purchase a little home that I paid $26,000 for. Just a couple of years ago, I sold it for almost a half million dollars. Just think, if every American had the opportunity to get into purchasing a home, just realize the amount of wealth that could be created not only to start businesses, to pay for education but also to be there for retirement in our old age.

So I am perhaps a very vocal and a very persistent supporter of homeownership because I know what it can do and I know what opportunities are afforded to all Americans who have the ability to do this.

I will reserve, if I have any, the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker and Members, in closing, let me just say what a pleasure it has been for me serving on this subcommittee with Chairman Ney. Not only has he provided strong leadership for homeownership, as he alluded to, we have made visits not only in California but in Louisiana and Mississippi, not only looking at CDBG and section 8 and these very important programs that are helping Americans have decent and safe living conditions but leading to homeownership oftentimes.

The attention that was paid to Katrina victims and what took place in the gulf coast region has not been matched by anyone. Mr. Ney took it upon himself and his committee to go there and to spend the time taking a look at all aspects of this disaster.

And while we were there, we were able to understand what the insurance companies were or were not doing. We were able to understand what was happening with public housing. We were able to understand what was happening with the trailers, who was getting them, who was not getting them. And we were able to work very closely with Mr. Baker, with Mr. Jefferson and with others who come from that region to begin to talk about how we are going to build homes, how we are going to replace those homes, how we are going to be able to use CDBG funds to make sure that people have the opportunity to not only rebuild their homes but to restore their lives.

With that, Mr. Speaker, again I thank Chairman Ney. I thank Vice Chairman Miller.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to thank both the chairman and Mr. Frank, to make sure that we would work together to increase the coverage and raise the limit for flood insurance. It has not been increased for over 20 years.

I had the opportunity to be in the gulf coast region with my colleagues and to hear the stories of the people who had been devastated by Katrina. Not only did we find that there were residents who had been given mortgages and the banks and financial institutions had not required flood insurance but then this bickering with the insurance companies who were disputing damage. They said, no, it was not flood damage, it was wind damage, and vice versa.

I think this bill will go a long way toward dealing with some of the issues that we learned about.

Certainly, we want to make sure that the insurance companies are doing what they are supposed to do. My colleague from Mississippi, who will have an amendment, Mr. Taylor, on this floor today, I certainly support. I was there with him, and I saw the devastation and the destruction. We heard the complaints about the insurance companies.

Let me just say, in addition to raising the limit, this will go a little bit further, and it will deal with business interruption. It will help to meet the needs of those who are confronted and faced with this kind of devastation for the future.

Again, I would like to thank not only Mr. Baker and Mr. Frank but Mr. Oxley and Mr. Taylor for the work that he is doing.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for offering this amendment with me to restore funding for the Safe Return Program for Alzheimer's patients. I would also like to thank him and my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for all their hard work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I did become rather alarmed when I learned the Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill for fiscal year 2006 reported out of the Appropriations Committee had not funded Safe Return, and I am just so appreciative for Mr. Wolf's leadership and Mr. Mollohan's leadership in agreeing to make sure that this funding was restored.

An estimated 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, including one in 10 individuals over 65, with nearly half of those over 85. Sixty percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander from their homes. Wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather conditions, traffic hazards, and individuals who prey on those who are defenseless. Up to 50 percent of wandering Alzheimer's patients will become seriously injured or will die if they are not found within 24 hours.

The Safe Return Program for Alzheimer's patients is a Department of Justice program that helps local communities and law enforcement officials identify wandering Alzheimer's patients quickly and ensures their safe return home. Under the Safe Return Program, patients are enrolled in a confidential national computerized database and provided with an identity bracelet or other identifying materials, such as necklace, key chain, wallet card, or clothing labels. The identifying materials contain the patient's name and a toll free number to contact their family.

Since its inception 10 years ago, the Safe Return Program has registered over 143,000 individuals who may wander, and has united over 11, 200 wanderers with their families. The Safe Return Program was able to carry out its lifesaving work with an appropriation of $840,000 in fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately, this had, I guess, been overlooked for a while. But now that our colleagues have provided the leadership to put in $1 million, this program will remain in the budget. The Wolf- Waters amendment would restore the funding for this critical program and provides $1 million in fiscal year 2007, a slight increase over the 2006 funding level.

I know that we are all very pleased about this, so let me just remind my colleagues that we have families now, working families, and sometimes their parents, both parents, have Alzheimer's disease. We have many families that are struggling to take care of their children, go to work every day, and take care of their parents. This program helps so much because they will wander away. But with this funding and the Alzheimer's Association, working with the Justice Department, they can return many of these wanderers back to their families, and of course keep them safe.

I thank you so very much.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. John Larson, for yielding me time and for organizing this special order.

It is so important that we continue daily to help the American people understand exactly what is going on in this Congress. Time out for tricks. Time out for maneuvering. Time out for all of that. And I am so pleased that John Larson organized this Special Order tonight so that we can clarify what is going on here in America.

I rise as the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus. The caucus has 72 members, who for more than a year have been fighting to conclude the war in Iraq and reunite our troops with their families.

Over the weekend the New York Times reported that General Casey met with President Bush to discuss redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq. According to the New York Times, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline by two brigades by not replacing two brigades that are currently scheduled to leave Iraq this year. Further reductions in U.S. personnel will occur next year. The number of brigades in Iraq is expected to drop from 14 to about five by the end of 2007. The Casey plan also provides for a brigade to be kept on alert in Kuwait ``in case American commanders need to augment their forces to deal with a crisis. Another brigade will be kept on a lesser state of alert elsewhere but still prepared to deploy quickly.'' According to the Times, carrying out the terms of this plan depends on developments on the ground in Iraq.

Now, why don't we just tell it like it is? This is basically the Murtha plan. This plan is so similar to a plan that the Out of Iraq Caucus has been pushing since late last year, the Murtha plan, H.J. Res. 73.

Under Congressman Murtha's plan, no additional U.S. troops will be sent to Iraq and the U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq will be redeployed out of Iraq at a point determined by U.S. generals in Iraq, which is very similar to the plan outlined by General Casey. The Murtha resolution also calls for a contingent of marines to remain in the Middle East to respond to threats that threaten to destablize our allies in the region or the national security of the United States, again mirroring the Casey plan.

Finally, the resolution calls for the United States to pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. Again, the Times reports that the General Casey plan is to engage the Iraqi Government to develop a plan to turn security over to the Iraqis.

With nearly identical parameters, it appears that the administration proposes to carry out a plan that has already been introduced, debated, pushed by Mr. Murtha himself and by the Out of Iraq Caucus and many members of this Democratic caucus. It is confusing to understand why then there was such outrage from the Republicans during the debate of H. Res. 861 two weeks ago during which members of the Out of Iraq Caucus called for all Members of Congress to support the Murtha plan. The only conclusion is that the Republicans are again playing politics with the safety of our Nation.

Instead of holding a free and open debate on Iraq, they crafted a resolution, H. Res. 861, to intentionally mislead the American people and seize an opportunity to attack Democrats who want accountability for those who led the march to war in Iraq. Democrats are also demanding that the President provide a clear plan that will allow for the redeployment of U.S. troops and permit them to return home to their loved ones.

The Out of Iraq Caucus can support the proposed Casey plan. It is our plan. It is the Murtha plan. It is the plan that we have been pushing all along. Their plan we do not disagree with. We just wanted them to have some leadership. They had made so many mistakes, so many mishaps, as Condoleezza Rice called it, that we kept urging them to come up with a plan. We are glad they have adopted the Murtha plan.

According to news reports, the implementation of this plan will begin just prior to the November elections. The next step will be completed as the 2008 Presidential elections are heating up, providing the President an opportunity to claim progress despite more than 3 years of mismanagement and incompetence.

Mr. Speaker, this war was mismanaged by this administration. The men and women in uniform have paid for that mismanagement, more than 2,500 with their own lives. It is long past time to bring our troops home, and I will not rest until our service men and women are able to return home to their loved ones.

Be clear. We are glad that Mr. Casey and the President have come up with what we have been advocating. We are glad that they have seen the light of day. We are pleased that they understand that the American people want real leadership and they want an end to this war, they want the troops home. So while we know that it may be calculated in a political way to time with the November elections and all that, we still support it. I do, and the Out of Iraq Caucus will certainly embrace it because, again, it is our plan.

When Mr. Murtha talked about over the horizon, that is exactly what he was talking about, the same thing the Casey plan has come up with: keep some soldiers in the region just in case they are needed in a crisis.

So thank you, Mr. Casey and Mr. President, for finally embracing the Democrat plan by Mr. Murtha that calls for redeployment. It has been misinterpreted, misidentified. Even the press got it wrong, and they tried to say that the Murtha plan was demanding that our troops get out immediately. It has never been that.

Now I want to see how the press will interpret the Casey plan, if the press will understand and report that it is the Murtha plan.

I will say it over and over again. I am pleased and proud that the President and Mr. Casey at least have come to the point, for whatever reasons, whatever their motivations are, to embrace something that will work, the Murtha plan.

Thank you very much. I appreciate all of the work that you have done and the attention that you have given to the coal mining issue, and the fact that you have been trying to get this Congress to focus in real and concrete ways. What has happened over the past year is just indescribable, and I think avoidable.

We need to do all that you have told us over the past months that we need to do to ensure safety in the mines, and I just appreciate the fact that you are here representing not only the people in your district in all the ways that you do, but that you have once again focused your time and your energy on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to continue the debate on Iraq, the war in Iraq. I rise to continue this debate because those of us who are part of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I am the Chair of that caucus, do not intend to have a debate organized for one day and have people going away saying, well, we took care of that.

This debate must continue because the truth must be told.

Over the weekend, we received terrible news. Two of our soldiers, Private First Class Kristian Menchaca of Texas and Private First Class Thomas Tucker of Oregon were captured by insurgents, reportedly al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

Today their bodies were found. Their bodies showed signs of torture, leading an Iraqi Defense Ministry official to say that they were ``killed in a barbaric way.'' I extend my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of Private Menchaca and Private Tucker. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war.

Mr. Speaker, the President constantly tells us that ``as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' This is the President's way of describing in a rather vague and evasive manner our involvement in Iraq, our continued involvement in Iraq.

According to the Department of Defense, significant progress is being made in training Iraqis to assume security responsibilities in Iraq. The Defense Department trumpets the news that 250,000 Iraqi military are either fully trained or nearly fully trained to provide security throughout Iraq. Well, my question to the administration is: What are they doing? What are these trained Iraqi soldiers doing?

If they are so trained as the administration says they are, they should be able to take over the responsibility of providing security to their fellow countrymen while allowing our men and women in uniform to return home.

But the sad fact is Iraqis are not assuming this role. Instead, our troops who are put in harm's way are the ones paying the price for this administration's mistaken and misguided war. They have been assuming this role and will continue to do so indefinitely until this President's irresponsible leadership is challenged and changed.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the administration constantly tells the American people that progress is being made on the war. For example, when the formation of the Iraqi Government was announced, President Bush said the Iraqis had reached a ``turning point.'' At least five times since the beginning of the Iraq war, President Bush has declared that Iraq has reached a turning point. Yet after each milestone was achieved, violence in Iraq grew progressively worse, and more U.S. soldiers have died or been injured.

The most infamous turning point was on May 1, 2003, when President Bush rolled out and declared ``Mission Accomplished'' aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. At that point, 139 U.S. servicemen and -women had died in Iraq. Today that number has grown to 2,502 U.S. servicemen and - women who have died in Iraq.

Furthermore, the violence against Iraqis has grown almost beyond comprehension. It is estimated that between 138 and 242 Iraqis have died so far this month alone. They die from car bombings, assassinations and other violent acts.

Today alone, news report indicate that at least 11 Iraqis were killed in a string of bombings across Iraq. In short, the progress that the administration and its supporters cite in Iraq does not exist.

The administration went into war with rose-colored glasses on. They promised the American people that the war had been adequately justified, planned and could be an affordable undertaking.

Unfortunately, the facts on the ground show differently. The war has gone on for more than 3 years, and by the end of this year, the total cost of the war will be $450 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to redeploy our troops from Iraq and end the war in Iraq. The best way to accomplish these goals is to pass the Murtha resolution, H.J. Res. 73, which would redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. The resolution says no more U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and that the troops in Iraq will be redeployed as soon as possible, a judgment made by military officials on the ground.

Section 2 says that a group of marines will remain in the Middle East to respond to threats that destabilize our allies in the region or the national security of the United States.

I wish could go into it more, but I have run out of time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution as the chairperson of the 72-member Out of Iraq Caucus of the House of Representatives. Tomorrow will mark the 1-year anniversary of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

My colleagues and I joined together to form the Out of Iraq Caucus to pressure the Bush administration into telling the truth about what is going on in Iraq, to admit their mistakes, and to admit their misjudgments, and to force them to devise a plan to bring our troops home.

The Bush administration cannot deny that they misled the world about the reasons we invaded Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no connection between the unfortunate destruction of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. We have not been welcomed with open arms in Iraq. We have no substantial support for this war by other countries. Yet, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, Mr. Wolfowitz, and Mr. Karl Rove continue to squander the American taxpayers' dollars on a war that cannot be won with a military solution.

Here we are 3 years later, 2,500 American soldiers dead, 18,498 U.S. soldiers seriously injured, and Congress has appropriated over $320 billion for this war, and the costs will only continue to rise. Even Condoleezza Rice admitted there have been thousands of missteps. The American people are increasingly aware of this mismanaged, corrupt, and bungled war.

The company that Vice President Cheney served as CEO of, Halliburton, has been awarded no-bid contracts for billions of dollars, and they have had over $400 million in unsupported costs and another $1 billion in questioned costs. In simple words, they are cheating the American people. Yet they are not being held accountable for their criminal actions, and the administration has facilitated these illegal actions.

However, Congress has done virtually no oversight of this war, no hearing, no acknowledging the generals that are trying to tell us about Mr. Rumsfeld's mismanagement of this war. We have not done the oversight, and today, we find that we have this debate. It is not sufficient, nor has it been properly characterized. This resolution we are debating is a sham.

As a matter of fact, it is a trap. It is an attempt to force Democrats to sign on to a resolution that will do nothing to bring our troops home. Oh, they want to make us sound as if we are unpatriotic. They want to make us sound as if we do not support our troops. We love our troops. We are as patriotic as anybody, and so I would implore my colleagues not to get caught into this trap.

This resolution is not intended to solve any problems or chart a new course that will permit us to preserve the lives of our troops or to be successful in Iraq.

I know what is happening. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are getting frightened. They went home on the break, and they heard the American people. They saw the polls, and they came back with a Karl Rove-constructed resolution to try and make it seem as if now they get it. But this resolution does nothing. It will only continue to mislead.

We formed the Out of Iraq Caucus to oppose any permanent bases in Iraq. We support H.J. Res. 73 to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq, commonly referred to as the Murtha resolution.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what the Murtha resolution is. So let us take a minute and explain clearly what the resolution says.

Section 1 says: ``The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.'' They would have you believe this is meant to withdraw immediately. That is not what it says, and let us get that straight today. What that means is there will be no more U.S. troops sent to Iraq and that the troops in Iraq will be redeployed as soon as possible, a judgment that should be made by military officials on the ground. So stop misrepresenting what this resolution is all about.

Section 2 says that ``a quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the- horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.'' That means a group of marines will remain in the Middle East to respond to threats that destabilize our allies in the region or the national security of the United States.

Section 3 says: ``The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.'' This war cannot be won through military means alone. We must put the full weight of the United States behind diplomacy in order to end bloodshed in Iraq.

The Murtha resolution endorses these principles, and there is no reason why the entire Congress of the United States cannot get behind this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Out of Iraq Caucus supports the Murtha resolution as the clear plan for America. We support bringing our troops home, and stop saying we do not have a plan. We have a plan. It is a good plan. It is the Murtha resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Woolsey, 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington, Representative McDermott, 5 minutes.

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

I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Solis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Kaptur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment to prohibit the use of funds to enforce regulations restricting access to educational programs for students who wish to study in Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the Cold War, American students studied in the Soviet Union. Many of them went on to become diplomats, scholars, and policymakers who used the knowledge they gained to contribute to the development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. Similarly, many Americans are studying in the People's Republic of China today. There is no reason to treat study in Cuba differently.

Study abroad provides valuable educational experiences for American students and contributes to the development of knowledge and informed professionals who can use their knowledge to serve our country in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment and support educational opportunities for American students in Cuba and throughout the world.

Mr. Chairman, I have been to Cuba many times. I have been to the great medical university. Castro has trained over 60,000 doctors. I think they will be the first to come forward with a real cure for HIV and AIDS. Don't deny our students the opportunity to share in this very rich culture, despite the fact that we have an embargo.

I would urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I come this evening to share information that I think the American public must know and understand about what is going on in the Congress of the United States of America and what is going on with this war in Iraq. It is important that I do that this evening because tomorrow there will be on the floor of Congress a so- called debate. But it is a sham debate. This is a debate formed around a resolution, H. Res. 861, that the Republicans have put together in an attempt, one more time, to fool the American people about what they are doing. This resolution was dreamed up after the Republicans determined that the polls were consistently against the way this war is being managed. This resolution was put together after they went home on break and they heard over and over again that the American public is getting fed up with this war, the amount of money that is being spent, the number of lives that are being lost, and so they come to the floor, after having done no oversight, never explaining to the American public how billions of dollars are being spent, never taking the time to find out about the corruption and the mismanagement in Iraq, never investigating the lies and the lack of intelligence and all that has been happening. They have the audacity to come before the public in a so-called debate with the resolution simply designed to trap the Democrats.

It is a resolution that says all kinds of things. Do you love the soldier or don't you? If you don't support our resolution, you are not for the soldiers in Iraq. And so many Democrats are going to get trapped because they claim that in their districts they have half of their constituents for it, this war, and half against it, and they don't know what to do. And so when they have to confront a phony debate and a phony resolution, they may just say yes because they don't want to be criticized for not being patriotic and loving the soldiers and supporting them.

Well, I am here to say tonight it is a sham. And I would hope, overnight, that my colleagues on this side of the aisle would see the light and have the courage to vote against it, to not participate in the sham. But I don't know if they will or not.

But let me just give you the background and the backdrop of why all of this is happening. This war started March 19, 2003. Total number of U.S. troops in Iraq today, about 133,000. Number of soldiers dead, 2,499, as of June 14. Number of soldiers injured, 18,490, as of June 14. Total amount appropriated, including latest supplemental, $320 billion. The cost of the war per month, $6.1 billion, almost $11 million an hour. There were 1,398 reported killings in May alone, more than any other month since the war began in 2006, and that figure doesn't include slain soldiers or civilians killed in bombings. Yet, the President of the United States would make you believe we are winning the war. We are advancing. We are going to be able to turn this mess over to the Iraqis and they are going to be able to contain what is now a civil war.

According to the Pentagon, there are about 600 insurgent attacks each week since the new government took over in February. The rate of insurgent attacks is higher now than it was in 2004. Our soldiers are being killed. It is difficult for them to protect themselves against these bombings, these suicide bombings, these bombings that are set off in cars along the road and dead dogs and on and on and on.

And why are they dying? We are in this war because the President of the United States said that there were weapons of mass destruction that we had to protect against. All that we have encountered is mismanagement, corruption, missteps, a lack of winning this crazy thing. Soldiers dying and some of our young people now being charged with killing innocent people because they put guns in their hands and they told them to go and kill them because they hated it.

These soldiers should not be charged. The President of the United States should be charged. The Republicans should be charged and the Democrats should get some courage and come to this Chamber and make sure that they oppose this war.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Pryce; the gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi and Mr. Hobson; and the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, from Ohio, Mr. Ney; as well as the ranking member, Mr. Barney Frank; and Chairman Oxley for their work on this measure. The full Committee on Financial Services reported it out unanimously by voice vote on May 24 of this year. As indicated by my colleague Ms. Pryce, this bill corrects an unintended consequence of a provision added to the HUD appropriations bill last year that sought to close a loophole in the Section 8 program allowing student athletes and other non-needy students access to subsidized housing.

The fiscal year 2006 Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary and D.C. Appropriations conference report, codified as Public Law 109-115, included a provision that effectively counted the income of parents when determining whether students under the age of 24 are eligible to receive Section 8 assistance. That provision does not apply to veterans or to students who are married or have children. This bill, H.R. 5117, would additionally exempt students with disabilities from this treatment.

Mr. Speaker, the same appropriations bill included language intended to close the loophole in the Section 8 program which allowed student athletes and other non-needy students access to Section 8 housing intended for low-income persons. While this was not the intention of the appropriators, it created a potential hardship for the disabled community. However, the final rule issued by HUD in response to Public Law 109-115 has the potential to disqualify from Section 8 eligibility those severely disabled individuals under the age of 24 who are enrolled in an institution of higher learning.

H.R. 5117 is prescriptive, Mr. Speaker. It merely adds persons with disabilities to the list of exempt individuals. Of course, the disabled can least afford additional burdens and, therefore, anything that we can do to lessen their burden is well worth it. The final rule issued by HUD included this prohibition, and the sooner it is lifted, we will be able to return a sense of fairness to the Section 8 program, particularly where disabled students are concerned.

So I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 5117.

And let me just say that this bill is typical of the kind of work that is getting done on our committee. We have tremendous cooperation from both sides of the aisle to do good work relative to making sure that not only rental opportunities are available to those who need it, but we are doing wonderful work in this committee on home ownership issues. What better month to be able to correct this problem in law than the month of June. This is National home ownership Month, and I think that our committee has certainly recognized this. And while we make this correction, we are working on a lot of other bills.

I am so proud of the work that we are all doing on FHA to bring it up to date and make sure that our opportunities are available for the least of these. I am so proud of the work that we are going to mark up on voucher reform. I am very pleased about the idea that many of us are getting together to try to hold on to HOPE VI.

So in this National home ownership Month, today we stand to send a signal not only to the disabled but to those who somehow get overlooked, forgotten, that we really are on point.

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just thank my colleagues on the committee on both sides of the aisle for the work that we are doing. I thank them today for 5117, for all of the other work that we are doing, and I would say that many others in this House can look at the work that this committee is producing and be proud and perhaps even use it as an example.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage at this time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to have it considered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that before this bill is enacted into law we must reverse an unwise pattern of disinvestment in the Nation's public housing. Therefore, I am introducing an amendment to restore the $261 million reduction in the Public Housing Capital Fund.

America's public housing inventory is a $100 billion public asset providing affordable housing to 1.1 million families. Just over half of these families are headed by the elderly or persons with disabilities, and children make up approximately 40 percent of all those we help. Public housing helps families and the elderly in large and small communities across the country in every congressional district.

In addition to safe, decent, affordable housing, public housing agencies connect people to the services they need, services that help adults become economically self-sufficient, provide children safe places to grow and learn, and allow the elderly and persons with disabilities to live independently.

Public housing funding has been declining since 2001. Despite the estimated $100 billion value of public housing assets to our communities, this bill does not provide funding necessary to maintain them for the long run. Total Federal funding for public housing has dropped precipitously over this decade. The bill before us provides $1.4 billion less than provided for funding year 2001, that is, the President's budget for funding year 2007 requests nearly $1.5 billion less for public housing than Congress provided for funding year 2001.

This drop in resources has constrained local agencies' ability to address safety and security needs, provide valuable services to those seeking economic self-sufficiency and independent living, and undermines agencies' ability to meet the recent surge in utility costs. This decline in funding is most egregious in the area of capital repair funding.

Public housing faces an estimated $18 billion backlog of capital repairs. According to a HUD-funded study, an additional $2 billion in capital repair needs accrues each year as buildings age. The President's budget and this bill cuts funding for the public housing capital funds for major repairs by $261 million, that is 11 percent compared with last year's funding. In fact, the capital fund has been cut each year since 2001, declining a total of 27 percent over 6 years if this budget is enacted.

The capital funds provided in this bill are barely sufficient to cover annually accruing needs, let alone address the backlog of need. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials estimates that $3.5 billion is necessary to begin to address the backlog of need in funding year 2007.

At the same time we are cutting basic capital repair funds, this bill also zeros out funding for the HOPE VI program for comprehensive revitalization of the most distressed public housing communities as requested by the administration. My colleague, John Olver, categorized this approach of cutting annual capital repair funding as, and I quote, ``penny-wise and pound foolish,'' and that is exactly what this is.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to embrace the intent of my capital fund amendment in order to secure the ongoing viability of this valuable affordable housing asset. Unless greater measures are taken by HUD to preserve this affordable asset called public housing, this unique asset and the larger continuum of a sound Federal affordable housing policy will be degraded and eventually lost. And that is a plan that our communities, our seniors, and our families with children cannot afford.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that these are our most vulnerable citizens, and they need a safety net. While we want them to improve their lives, we want them to become independent. We are trying to have programs that will transition them to work and out of public housing. It is not going to happen unless we have reasonable and sensible investment to make these safe, sound, and secure places for our citizens to live.

Again, we need this in all of our congressional districts. As a matter of fact, the poor have nowhere else to turn. They are depending on us. I would ask us not to be penny-wise and pound-foolish, but rather to make what I think is one of the most prudent investments we can make.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 30 additional seconds to close this out.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that has been allotted and I move to withdraw the amendment. I have not been able to find the funds to replace that which has been cut. I appreciate the time to at least explain it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Miller Brownfields amendment. The Amendment provides $15 million in funding for the Brownfields program.

Again, let me thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Joe Knollenberg and the Ranking Member, John W. Olver, for their work on this bill. HUD programs, however, have witnessed major cuts over the past several years. What I find interesting about this bill is that it does not provide any funding for the Brownfields Economic Development Initiatives (BEDI) program, but instead includes Brownfields redevelopment as an eligible activity under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Of course, this does not take into account the existence of numerous Brownfields sites across the country. These sites are often located in strategically important areas of a city or county, where economic development projects have been planned. Without funding for the Brownfields program many of these projects will not be undertaken.

The estimate of the number of vacant and underused sites around the U.S. is more than 500,000. If we could put these sites into productive economic development uses we stand to increase jobs by 500,000 million, while generating $2.4 billion in new tax revenues. The Brownfields program that I would like to see funded is truly an economic development tool that has been very effective in assisting communities to reclaim important parcels of underused land. To the extent that we eliminate funding for the BEDI program we will seriously undermine economic development efforts across-the-board. In the City of Los Angeles and in Los Angeles County, the BEDI program supports a wide variety of projects, including developments with a strong business attraction, expansion and/or retentions component, as well employment creation.

One example is the use of a $1.75 million BEDI grant that was used to convert a contaminated 130 acre oil production and storage site facility into a warehouse and distribution center, which produced 679 jobs--the City of Sante Fe Springs Golden Springs Development Park.

As many of you know, the House last year unanimously approved an amendment to provide $24 million for Brownfields, and the conference report provided $10 million. In addition, the House recently passed H.R. 280, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act to provide greater access to the BEDI program.

Whether you agree with the $15 million funding level is not important. What is really critical is that the program be in place to continue to assist communities to clean-up the mess made by industry, as well as the inadequate federal response. Many communities are at a critical stage in revitalizing themselves. A major tool at their disposal has been the BEDI program. As such, I urge your support for the Miller amendment.