Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today with great enthusiasm for H.R. 1262, the ``Water Quality Investment Act of 2009'', which renews the Federal commitment to addressing our nation's substantial needs for wastewater infrastructure by investing $18.7 billion over five years in wastewater infrastructure and other efforts to improve water quality. H.R. 1262 increases investment in wastewater infrastructure, reduces the cost of constructing and maintaining that infrastructure, and promotes energy- and water-efficiency improvements to publicly owned treatment works to reduce the potential long-term operation and maintenance costs of the facility.

Mr. Chair, from my perch as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure Protection I have promoted shoring up our water infrastructure. Indeed, in the last Congress I introduced Chemical Facility Security Improvement Act of 2007, which prohibits federal funds from being used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to approve a site security plan for a chemical facility unless the facility meets or exceeds security standards and requirements to protect it against terrorist acts established by the state or local government for the area where it is located.

Although much progress has been made in achieving the ambitious goals that Congress established more than 35 years ago to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters, long-standing problems persist, and new problems have emerged. Water quality problems are diverse, ranging from pollution runoff from farms and ranches, city streets, and other diffuse or ``nonpoint'' sources, to ``point'' source discharges of metals and organic and inorganic toxic substances from factories and sewage treatment plants. And many of these problems need funding--and frankly cannot wait. The quality of our water supply is at stake.

My bill also amended the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 to: (1) repeal a provision prohibiting the Secretary from disapproving a site security plan based on the presence or absence of a particular security measure; (2) require vulnerability assessments and site security plans to be treated as sensitive security information; and (3) repeal a provision limiting to the Secretary any right of action against a chemical facility owner or operator to enforce security measures. The connection is that water facilities use chemicals to ensure safety and eliminate harmful elements.

The main law that deals with polluting activity in the nation's streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, or CWA. It consists of two major parts: regulatory provisions that impose progressively more stringent requirements on industries and cities to abate pollution and meet the statutory goal of zero discharge of pollutants; and provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction.

Both parts are supported by research activities, plus permit and enforcement provisions. Programs at the federal level are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); state and local governments have major responsibilities to implement CWA programs through standard-setting, permitting, and enforcement.

The water quality restoration objective declared in the 1972 act was accompanied by statutory goals to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 and to attain, wherever possible, waters deemed ``fishable and swimmable'' by 1983.

Although those goals have not been fully achieved, considerable progress has been made, especially in controlling conventional pollutants (suspended solids, bacteria, and oxygen- consuming materials) discharged by industries and sewage treatment plants.

I have noted that progress has been mixed in controlling discharges of toxic pollutants (heavy metals, inorganic and organic chemicals), which are more numerous and can harm human health and the environment even when present in very small amounts--at the parts-per-billion level. Moreover, efforts to control pollution from diffuse sources, termed nonpoint source pollution (rainfall runoff from urban, suburban, and agricultural areas, for example), are more recent, given the earlier emphasis on ``point source'' pollution (discharges from industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants). Overall, data reported by EPA and states indicate that 45% of river and stream miles assessed by states and 47% of assessed lake acres do not meet applicable water quality standards and are impaired for one or more desired uses. In 2006 EPA issued an assessment of streams and small rivers and reported that 67% of U.S. stream miles are in poor or fair condition and that nutrients and streambed sediments have the largest adverse impact on the biological condition of these waters. Approximately 95,000 lakes and 544,000 river miles in the United States are under fish-consumption advisories (including 100% of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters), due to chemical contaminants in lakes, rivers, and coastal waters, and one-third of shellfishing beds are closed or restricted, due to toxic pollutant contamination. Mercury is a contaminant of growing concern--as of 2003, 45 states had issued partial or statewide fish or shellfish consumption advisories because of elevated mercury levels.

The last major amendments to the law were the Water Quality Act of 1987. These amendments culminated six arduous years of congressional efforts to extend and revise the act and were the most comprehensive amendments since 1972. Authorizations of appropriations for some programs provided in P.L. 100-4, such as general grant assistance to states, research, and general EPA support authorized in that law, expired in FY1990 and FY1991.

Authorizations for wastewater treatment funding expired in FY1994. None of these programs has lapsed, however, as Congress has continued to appropriate funds to implement them. EPA, states, industry, and other citizens continue to implement the 1987 legislation, including meeting the numerous requirements and deadlines in it.

The Clean Water Act has been viewed as one of the most successful environmental laws in terms of achieving its statutory goals, which have been widely supported by the public, but lately some have questioned whether additional actions to achieve further benefits are worth the costs.

Criticism has come from industry, which has been the longstanding focus of the act's regulatory programs and often opposes imposition of new stringent and costly requirements. Criticism also has come from developers and property rights groups who contend that federal regulations (particularly the act's wetlands permit program) are a costly intrusion on private land-use decisions. States and cities have traditionally supported water quality programs and federal funding to assist them in carrying out the law, but many have opposed CWA measures that they fear might impose new unfunded mandates.

Many environmental groups believe that further fine-tuning is needed to maintain progress achieved to date and to address remaining water quality problems.

I am committed to ensuring that I continue to do my part as the Chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure Protection.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important as we begin to build the building blocks of fixing this economy that maybe we should give a greater understanding of what the stimulus dollars are to be utilized for.

There are Congresspersons and Senators and Governors and State legislators and others, but the President's intent, the administration's intent is these dollars are to be in the hands of taxpayers.

The good news for those who have been criticizing is the Dow went up this week, and the Governors of the Nation were in Washington to get their instructions on how to make sure that these grants and these moneys are transparent, to make sure that grants are competitive and, yes, that the dollars are in the hands of small businesses; of primary and secondary schools; of hospitals; of municipal governments; of putting shovel in the ground, if you will, fixing utilities, fixing roads.

That should be the message and the work of those of us who serve in the United States Congress. It's my intent to be at home educating those of my constituents on how to use this money effectively.

The only way that they will be successful is if they can count jobs one at a time. That's what the President wants. That's what we are doing. And those who are criticizing need to look at the people who are now working.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 38, ``Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service'', introduced by Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia. I would also like to thank Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for her leadership on this.

Everyday, men and women from all over the nation put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms that we all enjoy. They have taken an oath to serve and protect us from dangers both seen and unseen, and do so with distinction and great diligence. This very brave group of people put aside all fears and inhibitions, risking their health, well- being, and comfort of their families to serve in a capacity that few desire. I believe it to be a worthy honor to have the Capitol grounds used for the memorial services.

Many believe that police officers have the most stress filled jobs. There's no question that police officers experience stressful situations with more frequency than most people. While municipals hire and pay individual policemen, they seldom consider that the entire family endures the pains of the job, many of which have a deleterious affect on the family. The job and family simultaneously creates an environment that can be managed by few. Given the many sacrifices officers make during their lives for our rights and privileges, the burdens on the family should be few and minimized. Using the Capitol grounds for memorial services offers appreciation to not only the officer, but to the entire family, which they so graciously deserve.

Washington, DC, our nation's capital, is filled with memorials and museums that help us to remember the countless sacrifices that men and women have made for the freedoms of our great nation. We are a nation who knows the importance of erecting these symbols to help us remember those who fought and died for the greater good.

The World War II Memorial honors the 16 million who served in the armed forces of the U.S., the more than 400,000 who died, and all who supported the war effort from home. Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th Century, the memorial is a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people.

The Veteran's Memorial, which is a gleaming black granite wall etched with the names of the 60,000 soldiers who died in Vietnam or remain missing in action. While it does nothing to diminish the tears of families who visit year after year; however, it permanently helps them recognize that their dying was not in vain and that the government of the United States remembers their sacrifice.

There are veterans and other exceptional individuals buried at Arlington National Cemetery from the Revolutionary War to the present military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since May of 1864, Arlington has been a fully operational National Cemetery. Today, the cemetery performs services for military casualties from the Iraqi and Afghanistan war fronts, as well as the aging World War II veterans.

This country has a long history of recognizing soldiers who have fallen fighting foreign threats. This country must also recognize those who fall fighting domestic threats. Therefore, I stand in support of H. Con. Res. 38, ``Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 837, the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building''. I would like to thank my colleague Charlie Rangel for introducing this legislation. H.R. 837 moves to designate the federal building at 799 United Nations Plaza in New York as the Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building.

Former United States Secretary of Commerce under President Clinton, Ronald Brown, has always been a dedicated U.S servant. Born in Washington, DC, he quickly showed an interest in public service, as a young man he was a member of the African-American social and philanthropic organization. Brown also worked for the Jack and Jill foundation, an organization that works to help children to have cultural opportunities, develop leadership skills, and form social networks even in a segregated society.

Having not only a passion for public service Brown had a strong desire to serve his country as well. In 1962 upon graduation of Middlebury College he enlisted in the army, where he served in Korea and Europe.

Upon being discharged Brown joined the National Urban League, an organization that aims at advocating on behalf of African Americans and against racial discrimination in the United States. He would excel within the organization where he moved all the way up to Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Governmental Affairs. Following his service with the National Urban League, he immediately began fighting for another great American public servant, Edward M. Kennedy. Brown served as campaign manager for the now second most senior member of the United States Senate.

After running Kennedy's successful Senate campaign, Brown began a string of political occupations that include lobbying for the law firm Patton, Boggs & Blow, Head of the Jesse Jackson convention team for the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. Finally Brown was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee in February of 1989. Tragically, on April 3. 1996 on an official trade mission, his plane carrying him and 34 other passengers struck a mountain while attempting a procedural landing.

Ronald H. Brown was a man that dedicated his entire life to bettering the lives of others. Whether it be young African Americans in New York, fighting for the freedom of all Americans in some of the worlds most dangerous battlefields, or working day in and out to help promote and excel the careers of others whose ideals and policies he believed would better the nation. Brown's is a story that deserves to be recognized everyday. I feel designating a building in his name is the perfect way to recognize this true American public servant. This building will stand long after generations have gone and will hopefully remind all generations to come, that a dedicated spirit

and a devotion to country are qualities that deserve recognition.

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 837, designating the federal building at 799 United Nations Plaza in New York as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission to the United Nations Building''. To recognize a great American man who devoted his life to the betterment of his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 64, ``Urging the President to designate 2009 as the `Year of the Military Family'.'' I want to thank my colleague Congressman Ike Skelton of Missouri for introducing this resolution.

No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our nation than those who have served in the Armed Forces. From the bitter cold winter at Valley Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously answered when called upon, gone where ordered, and defended our nation with honor. Their noble service reminds us of our mission as a nation--to build a future worthy of their courage and your sacrifice. We celebrate, honor and remember these courageous and faithful men and women.

While the nation's attention has been wholly focused on the economic crisis, Americans continue to die in wars across the globe, from Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond. The war in Iraq no longer makes headlines, but for military families it remains a daily reality, and I urge my colleagues to recognize the challenges that the families of these brave soldiers face and support this resolution in their honor.

When American troops are the ones fighting abroad, it is our military families who must also suffer. They wait every day and night hoping to hear from their loved ones, praying that they are not put in harm's way, that they may come home soon. Too many families have not been so lucky, finding out the news of a loved one's death is not only emotionally traumatizing it can have long term effects for the family that may never be repaired.

We must all stand as champions for our men and women fighting abroad. These soldiers who bravely reported for duty, they are our sons and our daughters, they are our fathers and mothers, they are our husbands and wives, they are our fellow Americans.

There are over 26,550,000 veterans in the United States. In the 18th Congressional district of Texas alone there are more than 38,000 veterans and they make up almost ten percent of this district's civilian population over the age of 18.

We remember and honor the sacrifices of our forces and their families. And we renew our national promise to fulfill our sacred obligations to those who have worn this nation's uniform. Our veterans and their families ask for nothing more. Let us fight the good fight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 194, ``Supporting the goals of International Women's Day''. As a member of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues this resolution is very

important to me and I thank my colleague Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky for introducing this resolution.

H. Res. 194 recognizes and honors the women who have fought and continue to struggle for equality. There are over 3,000,000,000 women in the world, representing 51 percent of the world's population and yet, women remain vastly underrepresented in national and local assemblies, face political and economic obstacles, struggle for basic rights, face the threat of discrimination, and are targets of violence all over the world.

Despite tremendous gains over the past 20 years women still have great strides to make. How is it that women work \2/3\ of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, yet earn only 1 percent of the world's income and own less than 1 percent of the world's property? Today, although women have reached great heights, women are still earning less than their male counterparts in the workforce. Two-thirds of illiterate individuals worldwide are women which is quite distressing.

Throughout the world, women are victims of violence and disease. Women have become victims of illegal human trafficking for the purpose of forced labor, domestic servitude, and/or sexual exploitation. We must pledge to stop this violence against women.

Domestic violence causes more deaths and disability among women between the ages of 15 and 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war. Worldwide, at least 1 out of every 3 women and girls have been beaten in her lifetime and at least 1 out of every 6 women and girls in the United States has been sexually abused in her lifetime. Furthermore, 70 percent of the people living in poverty around the world are women and children. In addition, women account for half of all cases of HIV/AIDS worldwide. These statistics are staggering and show why this resolution must be passed.

The United States House of Representatives must show a commitment to ending discrimination and violence against women and girls, to ensure their safety and welfare, and to pursue policies that guarantee their basic rights.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this extremely important resolution, H. Res. 194, ``Supporting the goals of International Women's Day''. Women's rights affect everyone, as we all have a mother.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 226, recognizing the Tibetan People on the anniversary of the Dalai Lama's exile. As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs I am pleased to join my colleague Rush Holt in his sponsorship of this important resolution. As we move to engage the government in Beijing I would only hope that the United States' foreign policy once again becomes a policy of peace and goodwill and not a harbinger to international hostilities.

It is no accident that the first foreign trip of our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was to Asia. China is integral to the re- establishment of American foreign policy in Asia. As we engage the Chinese it is important that we address human rights issues as well.

The Dalai Lama has emerged on the international scene as a force for human rights around the world. He has exhibited a grace and sense of compassion throughout the strife that has visited his homeland.

For more than 2,000 years Tibet maintained a sovereign national identity distinct from the national identity of China. In 1949, however, Chinese troops invaded and occupied Tibet and have remained ever since.

According to the State Department and numerous international human rights organizations, the Chinese government continues to commit widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in both China and Tibet. China also has yet to demonstrate its willingness to abide by internationally accepted norms of freedom of belief, expression, and association by repealing or amending laws and decrees that restrict those freedoms. We urge the Chinese government to seek conciliation with its many different groups, as opposed to employing further government restrictions.

In addition, while China is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention Relating to Refugees, and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in practice, the Chinese government has often not followed the treaties.

March 10th marks the 50th anniversary of an uprising against Chinese rule by the Tibetan people--an uprising that forced the 14th Dalai Lama into exile in India. On the anniversary last year, Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns in and around Lhasa were blocked by Chinese authorities from staging demonstrations and were met with force by the Chinese authorities. Protests then spread inside the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas of China.

Over the years, talks between envoys of the Dalai Lama and representatives of the Chinese government have failed to achieve any concrete and substantive results.

This resolution recognizes the Tibetan people for their perseverance and endurance in face of hardship and adversity in Tibet and for creating a vibrant and democratic community in exile that sustains the Tibetan identity.

The measure recognizes the government and people of India for their generosity toward the Tibetan refugee population for the last 50 years. It calls upon the Chinese government to respond to the Dalai Lama's initiatives to find a lasting solution to the Tibetan issue, cease its repression of the Tibetan people, and to lift immediately the policies imposed on Tibetans, including patriotic education campaigns, detention and abuses of those freely expressing political views or relaying news about local conditions, and limitations on travel and communications.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls upon the administration to recommit to a sustained effort consistent with the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002, that employs diplomatic, programmatic, and multilateral resources to press the Chinese government to respect the Tibetans' identity and the human rights of the Tibetan people. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to engage the government in Beijing at all levels and Tibet must be at the top of the list. Again, I wish to thank my colleagues for their work on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 210 seeks to express the sense of the House of Representatives that providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance. I salute my colleague, Rep. Moore from Wisconsin, in her efforts to promote the National School Breakfast Program, and to recognize the positive impact that it has on our students. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

It has often been said that the children are our future. As Members of Congress and adults, we must do all that we can to provide their well-being, safety, and excellence in school.

A former U.S. Surgeon General once articulated, ``This is expensive stupidity . . . trying to educate children with half starved bodies.'' While educators, parents and policymakers generally agree that children need breakfast in order to learn, function and grow, the nation still has a ways to go to insure that all needy and at-risk children receive a daily school breakfast. While nearly 100,000 individual schools across the country offer a school lunch, more than 15,000 of them still do not make breakfast available to children who are in need. In some states, only 50-60% of the schools serving students lunch also provide them with a breakfast to start the day.

We must endorse programs aimed to enhance the educational welfare of our children. As President Obama recently stated in his first address to a joint session of Congress, ``These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them.''

Beginning over twenty years ago, and continuing today, scholarly research has established that the School Breakfast Program significantly improves the cognitive abilities and learning capacities of children. Matched controlled studies, for example, indicate that low-income children who receive school breakfasts do significantly better on a variety of indicators than low-income peers who go without breakfasts. Notably, the better outcomes associated with school breakfast include both educational preparedness (attendance, energy, alertness, memory) and educational outcome measures (math scores, grades, reading ability).

When a child misses even one meal, let alone experiences chronic food shortages, impairments occur whether they are lethargy and inattention, tiredness and distraction, or actual physical symptoms such as stomachaches and headaches. The research from the United States Department of Agriculture shows that feeding children breakfast in school helps to prevent these adverse outcomes. Children getting breakfast at school also are sick less often, have fewer problems associated with hunger, such as dizziness, stomachaches and ear aches, and do significantly better than their peers who do not get a school breakfast in terms of cooperation, discipline and inter-personal behaviors.

Mr. Speaker, our failure to fully utilize the School Breakfast Program has substantial costs, costs that greatly reduce the return on educational investment in communities and states across the nation. Moreover, longer-term costs also are borne by young children who arrive at school unable to fully participate in the educational process due to lack of adequate nutrition.

We, as Members of Congress, cannot allow for a matter such as child hunger, which we as Congress can help eradicate, to act as an impediment to the education of our children. President Obama articulated very fittingly, that ``in a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity--it is a pre-requisite.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 210, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance, because the School Breakfast Program represents a key way to protect these children and to get a better return on educational investments as well.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1106, ``Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009.'' I would like to thank Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman Barney Frank of the Financial Services Committee for their leadership on this issue. I also would like to thank Arthur D. Sidney of my staff who serves as my able Legislative Director.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it provides a viable medium for bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages held by homeowners who have little recourse but to declare bankruptcy.

This bill could not have come at a more timely moment. This bill is on the floor of the House within weeks after the President's address before the Joint Session of Congress where President Obama outlined his economic plan for America and discussed the current economic situation that this country is facing.

To be sure, there are many economic woes that saddle this country. The statistics are staggering.

Home foreclosures are at an all-time high and they will increase as the recession continues. In 2006, there were 1.2 million foreclosures in the United States, representing an increase of 42 percent over the prior year. During 2007 through 2008, mortgage foreclosures were estimated to result in a whopping $400 billion worth of defaults and $100 billion in losses to investors in mortgage securities. This means that one per 62 American households is currently approaching levels not seen since the Depression.

The current economic crisis and the foreclosure blight has affected new home sales and depressed home value generally. New home sales have fallen by about 50 percent. One in six homeowners owes more on a mortgage than the home is worth which raises the possibility of default. Home values have fallen nationwide from an average of 19 percent from their peak in 2006, and this price plunge has wiped out trillions of dollars in home equity. The tide of foreclosure might become self-perpetuating. The nation could be facing a housing depression--something far worse than a recession.

Obviously, there are substantial societal and economic costs of home foreclosures that adversely impact American families, their neighborhoods, communities and municipalities. A single foreclosure could impose direct costs on local government agencies totaling more than $34,000.

I am glad that this legislation is finally on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I have long championed in the first TARP bill that was introduced and signed late last Congress, that language be included to specifically address the issue of mortgage foreclosures. I had asked that $100 billion be set aside to address that issue. Now, my idea has been vindicated as the TARP today has included language and we here today are continuing to engage in the dialogue to provide monies to those in mortgage foreclosure. I have also asked for modification of homeowners' existing loans to avoid mortgage foreclosure. I believe that the rules governing these loans should be relaxed. These are indeed tough economic times that require tough measures.

Because of the pervasive home foreclosures, federal legislation is necessary to curb the fall out from the subprime mortgage crisis. For consumers facing a foreclosure sale who want to retain their homes, Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides some modicum of protection. The Supreme Court has held that the exception to a Chapter 13's ability to modify the rights of creditors applies even if the mortgage is under-secured. Thus, if a Chapter 13 debtor owes $300,000 on a mortgage for a home that is worth less than $200,000, he or she must repay the entire amount in order to keep his or her home, even though the maximum that the mortgage would receive upon foreclosure is the home's value, i.e., $200,000, less the costs of foreclosure.

Importantly, H.R. 1106 provides for a relaxation of the bankruptcy provisions and waives the mandatory requirement that a debtor must receive credit counseling prior to the filing for bankruptcy relief, under certain circumstances. The waiver applies in a Chapter 13 case where the debtor submits to the court a certification that the debtor has received notice that the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence may commence a foreclosure proceeding against such residence.

This bill also prohibits claims arising from violations of consumer protection laws. Specifically, this bill amends the Bankruptcy Code to disallow a claim that is subject to any remedy for damages or rescission as a result of the claimant's failure to comply with any applicable requirement under the Truth in Lending Act or other applicable state or federal consumer protection law in effect when the noncompliance took place, notwithstanding the prior entry of a foreclosure judgment.

H.R. 1106 also amends the Bankruptcy Code to permit modification of certain mortgages that are secured by the debtor's principal residence in specified respects. Lastly, the bill provides that the debtor, the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate are not liable for a fee, cost, or charge incurred while the Chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a debt secured by the debtor's principal residence, unless the holder of the claim complies with certain requirements.

I have long championed the rights of homeowners, especially those facing mortgage foreclosure. I have worked with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to include language that would relax the bankruptcy provisions to allow those facing mortgage foreclosure to restructure their debt to avoid foreclosure.

Madam Speaker, we have seen the unemployment numbers continue to climb in our Nation. We're watching the Dow tremble. But I think it is important that we understand help is on the way, that the American people are watching a process in this body and in the other body that will generate not earmarks but dollars for communities. For many people think that earmarks are moneys that we grab and put in our pocket. It is only the direction given to money already there to help the people in your community: rural Appalachia, Iowa.

So in addition to this appropriations bill that is now in the other body, this Congress voted against their salary increase. And for those who don't understand that, as the debate is going on in the other body, we have already done it. We have already put forward a bill that speaks to the people's needs and makes sure that our salary increase is not there. Our leadership demanded that.

So I ask the other body to get on with their work and vote for the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am respectfully writing to you so that it is acknowledged, had I been present to vote on H. Res. 153 ``Commending the University of Southern California Trojan football team for its victory in the 2009 Rose Bowl'' my vote would have been cast in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution raising awareness about the criminal justice system and crime awareness month. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

I find it tragic that approximately three million Americans are employed within the justice system. Approximately seven million adults are on probation, parole, or are incarcerated. Many more millions of Americans have been victims of crime and, consequently, lost income, incurred medical expenses, and suffered emotionally.

To be sure there is a high cost of crime to individuals, communities, businesses, and the various levels of government exceeds the billions of dollars spent each year in administering the criminal justice system. It is because of this that I have authored innovative legislation aimed at addressing these problems. For example, in the 110th Congress and again in the 111th Congress, I sponsored the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009 which addresses the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. The bill is presently numbered H.R. 265.

I also authored H.R. 61, Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2009. Importantly, this bill amends the federal criminal code to direct the Bureau of Prisons to release prisoners who (1) served one half or more of his or her term of imprisonment, (2) obtained at least the age of 45; (3) has never been convicted of a crime of violence; and (4) has not engaged in any violation of institutional disciplinary regulations.

These two pieces of legislation will go far in addressing the problems in the criminal justice system and will go far in educating the masses of Americans about the criminal justice system. Federal, State, and local governments increased their spending for police protection, corrections, judicial, and legal activities in fiscal year 2005 by 5.5 percent or $204 billion. My bills if passed will decrease the amount of money spent on protecting communities and the warehousing of prisoners in the industrial prison complex.

More work needs to be done by Members of Congress. In 2006, fifty percent of Americans admitted they fear that their home would be burglarized when they are not home. Thirty-four percent of American women feared that they would be sexually assaulted and forty-four percent of Americans feared they would be a victim of a terrorist attack.

What is astonishing is that approximately thirty-five percent of Americans have very little or no confidence in the criminal justice system and the negative effects of crime in regard to confidence in governmental agencies and overall social stability are immeasurable.

The reality is that crime rates have dropped since the early 1990s, but most Americans believe that the rate of crime is increasing. Let me share some alarming statistics regarding crime in Houston.

Crime Statistics In Houston

According to Houston Police Department statistics:

Violent crimes

Violent crimes in Houston increased less than 1 percent in

2008 compared with 2007.

Homicides dropped by 16 percent.

The number of homicides dropped from 353 in 2007 to 295

last year.

Sexual assaults increased more than 8 percent from 2007.

Aggravated assaults increased at 9.1 percent.

Domestic violence

Of the 1,092 additional aggravated assault cases in 2008,

more than half were reports of domestic violence.

Nonviolent crimes

Nonviolent crimes declined more than 10 percent in 2008.

Property dropped by more than 10 percent.

Auto thefts decreased last year, dropping more than 21

percent to 15,214, down from 19,465 in 2007.

The bills that I authored are intended to make America a better, fairer place, and are intended to assist families and the incarcerated. They are smart bills that are aimed at making America a safer place and are aimed at lessening the expense of warehousing prisoners and the indiscriminate locking up of prisoners. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the bills that I sponsored.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill reauthorizing two very important programs, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Program and the Program for Doctors Serving in Underserved Areas Program. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill that reauthorizes these much needed and much utilized programs.

``The Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program.'' The participants under this program have come under closer scrutiny as investigations have determined that the participants were engaging in fraud. The religious worker visa program allows U.S. religious denominations to fill critical religious worker positions for which there are no qualified candidates in the U.S. with qualified religious workers abroad. The program provides for two types of visas. The one is a special immigrant visa, which allows qualified religious workers to immigrate to the U.S. permanently and later become citizens if they so choose and meet the qualification. The other is the non-immigrant visa, which allows qualified religious workers to enter temporarily and perform services in the U.S. for a proscribed period. Both of these visas may be granted to both ministers and non-minister religious workers.

This bill extends the program but does not provide for it to be in place permanently. I think that this bill is much needed and I urge my colleagues to support it.

The second program extended under this bill is the special program for doctors serving underserved communities. The Immigration and Nationality Act allows for foreign doctors to train in the United States under the ``J-1'' visa program, otherwise known as non- immigrants in the ``Exchange Visitor Program.'' This Exchange Visitor Program seeks to promote peaceful relations and mutual understanding with other countries through educational and cultural exchange programs. Accordingly, many exchange visitors, including doctors in training, are subject to a requirement that they must return to their home country to share with their countrymen the knowledge, experience, and impressions gained during their stay in the United States. Unless USCIS approves a waiver of this requirement in those cases, the exchange visitors must depart from the United States and live in their home country for two years before they are allowed to apply for an immigrant visa, permanent residence, or a new nonimmigrant status.

A waiver of the two year foreign residency requirement is available for doctors who have trained in the United States under the J-1 visa if a state or an interested federal agency sponsors the physician exchange visitor to work in a health manpower shortage area within the state for 3 years as a non-immigrant in H-1B status (temporary worker in specialty occupation). The Secretary of Health and Human Services determines which areas have a health manpower shortage.

This bill would extend this waiver to ensure that areas in the United States with a shortage of doctors have an option to hire a doctor with a J-1 visa for three years where there is no other doctor available to fill the job.

As the immigrant doctors are getting a benefit so too should underserved Americans. In the underlying bill, I am pleased that my language was included. Specifically my language ensured that the underserved would indeed be served. My language provided:

I came to the floor, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to make sure that this was the day that the United States Congress addressed the question of responsible, hardworking Americans.

I came to the floor with my BlackBerry because there's a message about one of our renowned mortgagers, Countrywide, that is in the process of evicting one of my constituents--a hardworking, long- standing, if you will, working American trying to save their home. Long message as to what has been going on in this instance and the insensitivity of the mortgager.

So today is a day for being responsible. It is not a day for those who have, in essence, been irresponsible. It is a day to allow them, as every American has a right, their day in court with a judge with a fine-tooth comb who will review all of the documents and even including the responsibility of that particular petitioner to include all of the information on income, expenses and debts to the holder of the mortgage, with the second amendment including a particular clawback provision that increases the amount of money that the lender might get if the particular house was sold.

In addition, I am supporting this rule, but I do look forward to the conference, which I hope that I will be a participant, because, in fact, if these individuals are victims of predatory lending, which many of them have been--meaning that they would go to a servicer who would masquerade their documents and say they can get into a house--this particular action of bankruptcy should not be part of the credit score which then dumbs down the opportunity for this individual to restore themselves, get back into the economic market, be able to get credit, be able to buy things and turn this economy.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

This is a fair and reasonable bill, along with the manager's amendment that, in fact, allows this particular homeowner, the person that is in this BlackBerry that is in the midst of an eviction having purchased a house in honesty with the lights on, putting forward the documentation but yet being subjected to that well-known mortgager, Countrywide, that gave vast numbers of, if you will, mortgages in the context that might not have been the most appropriate.

Today we are allowing the courts of law, the established bankruptcy court--established statutorily and protected by the Constitution--to allow someone due process. That's all we're saying, Mr. Speaker.

And all of this about irresponsible persons offends me because there are thousands, and now millions, of families who are simply trying to say, Keep the tax base for my struggling city, allow my neighbors to not have their homes depreciated because I have had the unfortunate mistake of being misrepresented to. Some of these people are still working.

I close by saying 3,500 people are in line for a job. Today is the little person's opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership on this very important question. Chairman Conyers and Chairman Frank, I would like to

also thank you for your leadership. Lastly, I would like to thank my able Legislative Director, Arthur Sidney, for his hard work on this issue.

The bill before us today is very important and will help Americans during this difficult economic time. As you know, home foreclosures are at an all-time high and they are poised to accelerate as the recession deepens. In 2006, there were 1.2 million foreclosures in the United States, representing an increase of 42 percent over the prior year. During 2007 through 2008, mortgage foreclosures were estimated to result in a whopping $400 billion worth of defaults and $100 billion in losses to investors in mortgage securities.

During this time, debtors and average homeowners found themselves in the midst of a home mortgage foreclosure crisis of unprecedented levels. Many of the mortgage foreclosures were the result of subprime lending practices.

Subprime lending did not always have a bad name; however, within the last five to seven years, unscrupulous lenders have preyed upon buyers in a predatory fashion. The amendment that I offered before the Rules Committee was intended to address this issue.Specifically, my amendment would preclude a foreclosure and bankruptcy that resulted from subprime and predatory lending from being included in the determination of a debtor's creditor score. Certainly, a debtor's declaration of foreclosure or bankruptcy has a deleterious effect on one's credit score.

This makes a bad situation, worse. If a debtor has poor credit to begin with and is forced to declare bankruptcy or is forced into foreclosure, this combination would make it almost impossible for a debtor to secure credit in the future. A lowered credit score results in a downward spiral for the debtor and ultimately leads to an economic quagmire for the debtor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the manager for all of her hard work.

I want to pay tribute to Chairman Conyers for standing up in early January and insisting that we complete our tasks, and I always come to the floor to say, this is the little guy's day.

I came earlier today to speak of an individual who had foreclosure issues, but as I proceeded to read her case, she actually went into loan modification with her mortgager, her lender, Countrywide. And isn't it interesting that as her fees were paid and the loan was

supposed to be modified, that some days later, here comes the mortgager with the foreclosure notice or a foreclosure person at her door taking pictures trying to decide what the situation was. Interestingly enough, the house had gone into sale.

These are the unscrupulous types of activities that have come about when there is no binding, if you will, judgment that can come about through the bankruptcy court.

Again, this bill forces no one to pay anything. It takes no money out of the government. All it does is it allows us to treat those fairly who are going into foreclosure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1106, ``Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009.'' I would like to thank Chairman Conyers of the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman Barney Frank of the Financial Services Committee for their leadership on this issue. I also would like to thank Arthur D. Sidney of my staff who serves as my able Legislative Director.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill because it provides a viable medium for bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages held by homeowners who have little recourse but to declare bankruptcy.

This bill could not have come at a more timely moment. This bill is on the floor of the House within weeks after the President's address before the Joint Session of Congress where President Obama outlined his economic plan for America and discussed the current economic situation that this country is facing.

To be sure, there are many economic woes that saddle this country. The statistics are staggering.

Home foreclosures are at an all-time high and they will increase as the recession continues. In 2006, there were 1.2 million foreclosures in the United States, representing an increase of 42 percent over the prior year. During 2007 through 2008, mortgage foreclosures were estimated to result in a whopping $400 billion worth of defaults and $100 billion in losses to investors in mortgage securities. This means that one per 62 American households is currently approaching levels not seen since the Depression.

The current economic crisis and the foreclosure blight have affected new home sales and depressed home value generally. New home sales have fallen by about 50 percent. One in six homeowners owes more on a mortgage than the home is worth which raises the possibility of default. Home values have fallen nationwide from an average of 19% from their peak in 2006, and this price plunge has wiped out trillions of dollars in home equity. The tide of foreclosure might become self- perpetuating. The nation could be facing a housing depression-- something far worse than a recession.

Obviously, there are substantial societal and economic costs of home foreclosures that adversely impact American families, their neighborhoods, communities and municipalities. A single foreclosure could impose direct costs on local government agencies totaling more than $34,000.

I am glad that this legislation is finally on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I have long championed in the first TARP bill that was introduced and signed late last Congress, that language be included to specifically address the issue of mortgage foreclosures. I had asked that $100 billion be set aside to address that issue. Now, my idea has been vindicated as the TARP today has included language and we here today are continuing to engage in the dialogue to provide monies to those in mortgage foreclosure. I have also asked for modification of homeowners' existing loans to avoid mortgage foreclosure. I believe that the rules governing these loans should be relaxed. These are indeed tough economic times that require tough measures.

Because of the pervasive home foreclosures, federal legislation is necessary to curb the fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis. For consumers facing a foreclosure sale who want to retain their homes, Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code provides some modicum of protection. The Supreme Court has held that the exception to a Chapter 13's ability to modify the rights of creditors applies even if the mortgage is under-secured. Thus, if a Chapter 13 debtor owes $300,000 on a mortgage for a home that is worth less than $200,000, he or she must repay the entire amount in order to keep his or her home, even though the maximum that the mortgage would receive upon foreclosure is the home's value, i.e., $200,000, less the costs of foreclosure.

Importantly, H.R. 1106 provides for a relaxation of the bankruptcy provisions and waives the mandatory requirement that a debtor must receive credit counseling prior to the filing for bankruptcy relief, under certain circumstances. The waiver applies in a Chapter 13 case where the debtor submits to the court a certification that the debtor has received notice that the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence may commence a foreclosure proceeding against such residence.

This bill also prohibits claims arising from violations of consumer protection laws. Specifically, this bill amends the Bankruptcy Code to disallow a claim that is subject to any remedy for damages or rescission as a result of the claimant's failure to comply with any applicable requirement under the Truth in Lending Act or other applicable state or federal consumer protection law in effect when the noncompliance took place, notwithstanding the prior entry of a foreclosure judgment.

H.R. 1106 also amends the Bankruptcy Code to permit modification of certain mortgages that are secured by the debtor's principal residence in specified respects. Lastly, the bill provides that the debtor, the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate are not liable for a fee, cost, or charge incurred while the Chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a debt secured by the debtor's principal residence, unless the holder of the claim complies with certain requirements.

I have long championed the rights of homeowners, especially those facing mortgage foreclosure. I have worked with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to include language that would relax the bankruptcy provisions to allow those facing mortgage foreclosure to restructure their debt to avoid foreclosure.

Manager's Amendment

Because I have long championed the rights of homeowners facing mortgage foreclose in the recent TARP bill and before the Judiciary Committee, I have worked with Chairman Conyers and his staff to add language that would make the bill stronger and that would help more Americans. I co-sponsored sections of the Manager's Amendment and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Specifically, I worked with Chairman Conyers to ensure that in section 2 of the amendment, section 109(h) of the Bankruptcy Code would be amended to waive the mandatory requirement, under current law, that a debtor receive credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy relief. Under the amended language there is now a waiver that will apply where the debtor submits to the court a certification that the debtor has received notice that the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence may commence a foreclosure proceeding against such residence.

This is important because it affords the debtor the maximum relief without having to undergo a slow credit counseling process. This will help prevent the debtor's credit situation from worsening, potentially spiraling out of control, and result in the eventual loss of his or her home.

Section 4 of the Manager's Amendment relaxes certain Bankruptcy requirements under Chapter 13 so that the debtor can modify the terms of the mortgage secured by his or her primary residence. This is an idea that I have long championed in the TARP legislation--the ability of debtors to modify their existing primary mortgages. Section 4 allows for a modification of the mortgage for a period of up to 40 years. Such modification cannot occur if the debtor fails to certify that it contacted the creditor before filing for bankruptcy. In this way, the language in the Manager's Amendment allows for the creditor to demonstrate that it undertook its ``last clear'' chance to work out the restructuring of the debt with its creditor before filing bankruptcy.

Importantly, the Manager's Amendment amends the bankruptcy code to provide that a debtor, the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate are not liable for fees and costs incurred while the Chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a claim for debt secured by the debtor's principal residence.

Lastly, I worked to get language in the Manager's Amendment that would allow the debtors and creditors to negotiate before a declaration of bankruptcy is made. I made sure that the bill addresses present situations at the time of enactment where homeowners are in the process of mortgage foreclosure. This is done with a view toward consistency, predictability, and a hope that things will improve.

Rules Committee

During this time, debtors and average homeowners found themselves in the midst of a home mortgage foreclosure crisis of unprecedented levels. Many of the mortgage foreclosures were the result of subprime lending practices.

I have worked with my colleagues to strengthen the housing market and the economy, expand affordable mortgage loan opportunities for families at risk of foreclosure, and strengthen consumer protections against risky loans in the future. Unfortunately, problems in the subprime mortgage markets have helped push the housing market into its worst slump in 16 years.

Before the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would prevent homeowners

and debtors, who were facing mortgage foreclosure as a result of the unscrupulous and unchecked lending of predatory lenders and financial institutions, from having their mortgage foreclosure count against them in the determination of their credit score. It is an equitable result given that the debtors ultimately faced mortgage foreclosure because of the bad practices of the lender.

Simply put, my amendment would prevent homeowners who have declared mortgage foreclosure as a result of subprime mortgage lending and mortgages from having the foreclosure count against the debtor/ homeowner in the determination of the debtor/homeowner's credit score.

Specifically, my amendment language was the following: