Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to give praise to the State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA) and NeighborWorks America for their commitment to form a partnership to promote homeownership in underserved neighborhoods in the great state of

New York. This partnership will increase awareness of SONYMA products in low-income and minority neighborhoods, which have been the most effected by predatory lending and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Through the Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, many communities including Flatbush, Brooklyn, will receive the much needed outreach and access to affordable mortgage products from reliable institutions. Today, I enter into the Record an article published by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle highlighting the efforts of the partnership in the advancement of homeownership in underserved communities.

[From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 30, 2008]

Groups Team up to Promote Homeownership in Underserved Brooklyn

Communities

New York.--The State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA),

which offers low cost mortgages to first-time homebuyers, and

NeighborWorks' America, a national nonprofit

dedicated to promoting homeownership, have formed a

partnership to promote homeownership in underserved

neighborhoods in the state, including several in Brooklyn.

Under the one-year $450,000 agreement, NeighborWorks

America's Northeast District and six local New York

NeighborWorks' organizations will work with SONYMA

to increase awareness of SONYMA's products in low-income and

minority neighborhoods. In the city, NHS of New York City is

one of the NeighborWorks network organizations participating

in the program and it covers all five boroughs, including

Brooklyn. NHS will be reaching out to help people buy homes

with SONYMA mortgages in Brooklyn's target areas--Sunset

Park, Williamsburg, Bushwick, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville

and Flatbush.

``This unique partnership with NeighborWorks'

offers a tremendous opportunity to boost the visibility of

SONYMA's programs in communities where they could do the most

good,'' said Priscilla Almodovar, SONYMA president and CEO.

``Homeownership, when done responsibly, creates strong

neighborhoods and stable families.''

Said Deborah Boatright, Northeast District director of

NeighborWorks, ``Now more than ever, low-income and minority

communities need access to affordable mortgage products from

a trusted source like SONYMA. It is these very communities

that have been the most impacted by predatory lending and the

sub-prime mortgage crisis.''

Madam Speaker, today I rise to express my dismay regarding

the housing crisis. It's a multifaceted housing crisis. It's a mortgage crisis for home buyers. It's an inventory crisis for the affordable rentals. It is an investment crisis for public housing.

Two top executives at Countrywide Financial are expected to receive a combined golden parachute totaling $19 million, and while these top executives cash out their stock options, hardworking Americans are left struggling, trying to prevent the loss of their homes and ultimately their financial ruin.

It is truly incredible how the Bush administration, SEC Chairman Cox, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke have seen fit to extend billions of dollars for a Wall Street bailout but won't provide additional, adequate aid to borrowers fighting every day to save their properties.

Today, we are looking at one of the biggest financial catastrophes since the Great Depression.

Brooklyn, New York, has five of the top 10 neighborhoods with the highest subprime lending rates, including East Flatbush, which is located in my district.

Madam Speaker, after analysis and examination, the sharp increases in foreclosures are connected to predatory lending practices from abusive lending institutions. New York City will likely see more than 10,000 foreclosures this year, which is roughly double the number of foreclosures in 2004.

But while Washington is concerned about the impact of the subprime mortgage crisis on Wall Street, on Main Street many hardworking people are getting left behind. Hardworking families and individuals like those I represent in central Brooklyn have for far too long been targets of predatory lending practices; yet this administration comes to the rescue of the high-profile executives and leaves the very people who they are sworn to serve, defend, and protect to fend for themselves.

We must not forget that there is another dimension to the housing crisis occurring in communities less traveled by many, in the community where many are suffering from the affordable rental housing crisis. These families are being squeezed out of their homes as landlords convert their apartments to high-priced condominiums, earning double- digit rent increases or opting out of Federal subsidy programs such as Mitchell-Lama or project-based section 8 as more affordable rental apartments are being lost while the demand increases.

Let's not forget as well public housing's vital role in this housing crisis. Public housing is home to more than 400,000 New Yorkers. The New York City Housing Authority, which has a running deficit of more than $200 million every year, has been severely reducing their spending on security, maintenance, sanitation, and repairs, leaving many residents living in uninhabitable conditions.

NYCHA had to lay off employees and close youth centers in an attempt to preserve its core services, and in housing projects located in neighborhoods such as Brownsville, Brooklyn, crime continues to reach into the lives of our families.

Public housing is essential to New York City, and this negligence simply cannot continue.

So, in conclusion, Madam Speaker, the Bush administration's actions, or lack thereof, clearly demonstrates that instead of preventing the devastating loss to our communities by providing financial assistance to homeowners, providing full funding to reduce the affordable housing stock from dwindling, and preventing public housing units from deteriorating, our President has taken the path of least resistance by bailing out corporate fat cats and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the hard-working families of my district and of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues to turn this devastating condition around and restoring the pride and dignity of responsible, thriving communities.

Madam Speaker, last Thursday was a tragic day in Jerusalem. An ``act of terror and depravity'' as Secretary Rice defined it, took the lives of eight young students, while gathering to have dinner.

At 8:45 pm, Thursday night, two terrorists infiltrated to a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem and opened fire in a dining hall. The shooting was continuing for a few minutes until police forces arrived and the gunmen were stopped. Eight students were killed and seven others were wounded and are still hospitalized.

Mercaz Harav Seminary is a center for studying of Judaism that is located in Kiryat Moshe quarter at the entrance of the city. The seminary holds around 500 students, including foreigners, some of them Americans. In this specific evening there were about 80 people in the dining hall when the gunmen opened fire.

The victims are Neria Cohen, 15 years old; Segev Paniel Avihail, 15 years old; Yehonathan Ytzchak Eldar, 16 years old; Avraham David Moses, 16 years old; Roy Rot, 18 years old; Yochai Lifshitz, 18 years old; Yehonadav Haim Hirshfeld, 19 years old; and Doron Mahareta, 26 years old.

I urge my colleagues to come together and find ways to resolve the conflict in the Middle East.

I would also like to express my deep sorrow for the loss of the young students. To the parents and families of the victims, I offer my sincerest condolences, and grant the families comfort and peace at this time.

Thank you so much, Mr. Meek. It's great to be back here once again with the 30-Something Working Group in what I call my sophomore year of my freshman term. I wanted to just share some reflections on the economic stimulus package, because I think before we even get to the point of looking at where our economy is today, there should be a moment to pause and look back about 7 years ago when our Nation's budget was in surplus. And in such a short amount of time we've seen our economy just totally get out of kilter, get out of whack, a lot of hocus-pocus being done in the markets, particularly around subprime mortgages, in addition to the fact that there's just been a slow economic growth in some of the sectors that have traditionally provided that economic growth and boost in our economy.

But it's great to know that we all recognize the writing on the wall, and that there wasn't the type of struggle that we have seen around other pieces of legislation with regard to economic stimulus. It was bipartisan effort, and we recognized that it was important and critical that we do this timely, we do it targeted, and we make sure it's temporary because, as my colleague, Mr. Meek, has already stated, we're borrowing this money. But we know it's important. It's important to jump-start our economy. It's on life support right now, and this is just the type of jolt that we need. It, as has been stated, gives hundreds of dollars to people who will spend it. That is the ultimate goal here is that we spend this money, that we get it back into the stream of economic growth as quickly as possible.

And that will be going to 130 million American families and seniors, including about 8.3 million families in my home State of New York. And what we were able to determine is that the average rebate for New York families would be about $807, putting an estimated $6.7 billion into the hands of New Yorkers, into the hands of those who really, really need it.

And I think what is so crafty about the stimulus package that the Democrats led here in our caucus was the fact that we looked at the struggle that our parents are having; that for our children there's going to be a rebate for each child in the family; that there will be an ability for us to make sure that our small businesses are able to invest in new equipment and that workers will have half a million jobs by the end of this year.

We are looking at providing relief for lower wage and part-time workers by guaranteeing at least $300 for those who are making at least $3,000 in earned income.

This is phenomenal. It's unfortunate that we have to come to these measures, but we know that this stimulus is going to be going directly to those who have suffered the most in our economic crises right now. And I think that the Democratic caucus has certainly led the way with innovation with regard to this stimulus package, and I want to commend, to the extent that I can, the folks on the other side of the aisle who saw that this was a much needed measure and did not spend a whole lot of time debating it but putting it in place, so that by May of this year, we should begin to see some of this really kick into effect across this Nation. It's extraordinary.

You know, our Democratic Party worked with our Republican counterparts in the House and the Senate and the administration to pass this quick relief to help prevent a full-fledged recession, but we didn't get everything we wanted. We really didn't just get everything we wanted. We got it done quickly.

I believe that we need to expand upon the stimulus to keep the relief coming, because even after the rebate checks come, there are people who will continue to be hurting. We need to increase funding for food stamp programs and unemployment benefits, then we need to address the infrastructure problems in our country, Mr. Speaker, including needed repair to our schools, waste water systems, transportation systems, which will also create jobs. We need to invest in affordable housing. That creates jobs. But it also creates local economic development.

Creating jobs through many different means, and the buzz word is ``green'' jobs, which is, of course, looking at renewable energies and how we really embed that into our economy, so that as we wean ourselves off of the dependency of foreign oil, we see the growth of industry across this Nation from the rural parts of our Nation to the urban parts of our Nation, like New York City, where green jobs can be a major engine for sustainable growth in our Nation.

Of course, we have looked at summer jobs, which is critical. This is a way that we can immediately impact, particularly on our young people and their families, is by giving them that opportunity for exposure to the workplace in the summer job capacity, job training for our workforce, to reorient them to a lot of the emerging industries that we have. We just need the jobs.

So we have a full plate ahead of us. Economic stimulus is just the beginning. That is just shocking the system so we can begin to put the treatments in place to repair and restructure it, and I'm really looking forward to that, because coming out of this Democratic caucus had real innovation, real forward thinking, and real focus on the needs of our people.

As has been stated, Mr. Meek, you are struggling with the foreclosure crisis in your community. I'm struggling with it in my community where we're in the process of rolling out a series of clinics so that people will feel free to come forth and have their financial situations assessed, their mortgages assessed. Those that can be refinanced, we want to get them in the stream right away, because this is predicted to be a foreclosure phenomenon that will last a number of years.

So we want to try to head it off at the pass for those who may be struggling today. And this economic stimulus package can at least put some funds into the stream by helping homeowners who are struggling with their mortgages and who are in danger of losing their homes.

So I'm excited about the fact that the President signed the package today and that we can get the wheels of the bureaucracy moving to get this stimulus into the stream, into our communities, into the hands of our families as quickly as possible. It's really an important measure, and I look forward to seeing it implemented in each of our communities.

What I found interesting was our commitment to small business in the stimulus package. I think that too often small business is overlooked and forsaken for the big, megacorporate folks who are always getting the tax breaks. But this stimulus package also takes into account our small business, our ``mom and pop,'' our emerging new start-ups and other organizations in our communities.

The plan will double the amount small businesses can immediately write off their taxes for capital investments made in 2008 from $125,000 to $250,000, and for purchases of new equipment up to $800,000 from $500,000. And that's significant because with the cost rising for materials, and there is a rising cost for oil, and people don't recognize what the rising cost in oil alone does to small business, particularly for those who have to have their goods or their services trucked or shipped. All of that goes into the bottom line of someone who is trying to operate a small operation. It also provides immediate tax relief for all businesses to invest into new plants and equipment by speeding up the depreciation provisions so that firms can write off an additional 50 percent off of investments purchased in 2008. That is extraordinary.

That is extraordinary because, again, because small business is really saddled with the weight of an economy that has been skyrocketing, particularly with the cost of oil and with the cost of doing business overall just escalating each and every year.

And we expect that there will be about $7.5 billion sent out to small business and small business investments over the next 10 years, close to $44 billion in 2008 alone.

So we have looked at every sector of our economy that may be struggling as a result of the sluggishness of the economy at this time, and a recession in some areas; some folks would say even depression in others. But for our businesses, it's important that we provide that buffer so that they're enabled to continue to grow, notwithstanding the challenges that they're facing right now.

So we have covered many bases with this stimulus package. We have covered both the home and the family as well as the small business environment of our communities. And I hope that, as you've said, everyone will take advantage of the rebates and the incentives that have been built into this stimulus package because we are counting on you to spend it out there. It's important. We want to make sure that we can provide the life support to our economy that's required so we don't fall in any deeper into economic crisis.

And this is just the opening salvo. We have a lot more to work out for our communities, for our Nation with regard to sustainable job development and job growth, and I'm looking forward to that part of the conversation, because we are in the 21st century here. We've got the talent, the expertise. We've got the ability out there. We have to be able to make sure that we drive the process of economic growth right here starting from the Hill.

Mr. Meek, I think you're being too kind. We have to put this where this is. The President released his last budget, and this budget is devastating. It's a Republican budget that plunges our country deeper into debt, a debt that we will pass onto our children, our grandchildren, and maybe even our great-grandchildren if we don't turn this situation around and turn it around quickly.

In the area of health care alone, the types of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid for our seniors and to low-income Americans, it's unconscionable. Again, we're facing a crisis in health care. And what are we seeing? Cuts. Cuts to the SCHIP program that are almost $20 billion over the next 5 years. After all we've done to try to expand the program for all eligible children, the National Institutes of Health funding frozen just as we're about to have some breakthroughs in research around Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease and cancer and other diseases that we're desperately looking for treatment and cure for. I mean, in the area of education, and this is supposed to be the leave-no-child-behind administration, we see that the budget totally eliminates crucial programs that provide to the States for technology in classrooms. It eliminates vocational education programs altogether. It completely eliminates the supplemental

educational opportunity grants, Perkins loan programs. I mean, our commitment to the development of our Nation has to include a robust educational system.

We are in competition with nations from around the world. And in other nations they're cranking out their engineers and their scientists by the hundreds. We're struggling to keep up. We're struggling to be competitive. This Republican budget does nothing to aid in our cause to go forward in a robust manner. It reduces the funding for after-school programs by over 26 percent.

These are the areas where our communities, our States across this Nation need the support systems in place now that we have a 21st century society where parents are working, where they're not going to be there necessarily all the time at 3 o'clock to pick up their children from school. This is that period of time where all law enforcement agencies will tell you that children get into trouble between 3 and 6 o'clock. Here we see this Republican budget does not take into account the realities of the lives of the constituents that we present. So we're going to have to bring that to the table and make sure that is a part of the conversation as we move forward to shape what has been presented to us, which is really something that is devastating to our Nation at this time.

Homeland security. Now this is an area that really hits home for me. Coming from New York City, knowing what has gone into just building out a new bureaucracy to address our concerns for safety and for real protection of our homeland, to hear after all that our first responders have done to really bring themselves up to speed to be able to meet the needs of their jurisdictions, to then have the Federal Government renege on its commitment to them is a shame and it's a sham. To cut assistance to firefighters where local fire departments have needed equipment to keep our communities safe is unconscionable, totally unconscionable. For example, in New York State where New York City's FDNY are considered national heroes, almost $32 million have been cut in funding. Where do they get that money from? Where are these departments around this Nation going to be able to make up for the shortfall of the commitment made to them by our national leader? Unbelievable.

Cuts to homeland security grant programs, which funds every State based on risk by $750 million, that's an ounce of prevention there, and we see it being pulled away.

The important Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, homeland security funding received an increase of only $5 million, which is not even enough to keep up with inflation. So what are we talking about here?

I often hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their concern about border protection. Well, this is it folks. And it's the other side of the aisle that has turned the other way in addressing the priorities through this budget. Cuts to port security, critical transportation infrastructure, targeted infrastructure protection grants programs, and other important homeland security programs, right before our very eyes. And one of the areas that I would have thought we would have really just taken a little time to get fixed up, the Office of Appeals of Redress, which was totally left out of the budget, this department is the department that is responsible for enabling us to travel across this Nation. And for those who have, unfortunately, been put on the terrorist watch list, this is the area where just a little bit of funding would have made the difference between how we are currently conducting business that has shown a low value for our civil liberties and really bringing our processes up to date to meet the needs of real Americans.

So it's devastating. This budget is not reflective of the needs that Americans have been talking about, are concerned about, and it's unfortunate. But it's my hope that we will push, we will move, we will negotiate so that we can get some of this turned around in time for it to make a difference in our lives.

Just think about cuts to child care development block grants, when so many parents now need that extra assistance to be able to make sure that their families are well taken care of as they earn income to keep up with the cost of living. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, as my colleague Mr. Meek talked about, this is critical in the northeast region where energy costs are skyrocketing and we're seeing some of the worst record winters in my lifetime, perhaps in many folks' lifetime, and not only here but in the Midwest and up the whole northern seacoast.

Social services block grants, these have been the areas where our communities have been just sort of held together by a safety net. It continues to be cuts.

And then of all places, veterans' health care. We talk so much about our concern and our gratitude to veterans particularly in this time of war, and it is just so hypocritical to see the type of budget cuts that are taking place in terms of health care services for our wounded warriors. This is unbelievable.

The Republican budget also assumes that the alternative minimum tax is not fixed. This assumes a significant increase in taxes for over 21 million Americans after 2009, 21 million Americans, and enacting a permanent fix to prevent this tax from taking effect will cost about $313 billion over the next 5 years, and it is something that we as Democrats are committed to doing. Yet nothing, we receive nothing in this budget that indicates that we are gearing up to address this very important issue for working-class Americans.

The Republican budget does not contain accurate numbers for the cost of the Iraq War, as has been stated by my colleague Mr. Meek, and the administration requested $70 billion, but the average monthly cost of the war is over $10 billion a month. That means that the true cost of the war will be upwards of at least a baseline of $120 billion next year.

So as you can see, we have a real dilemma. The dilemma is do we accept the last budget of Mr. Bush, the Republican budget, which continues to plunge our country deeper and deeper into debt, or do we, as we have in the Democratic caucus, continue to push, to organize, to negotiate, to make sure that the needs of all Americans are attended to in this upcoming budget? It's a mammoth task, but I believe, Mr. Meek, we are up to it. It is critical that we do this. We have to get on good ground going forward. I mean, it's going to take a lot to get us out of this deficit.

First of all, we are going to have to bring an end to this war in Iraq because that's unfettered spending. That's unfettered spending. But, simultaneously, we need to really set priorities for the American people. And that priority has to be demonstrated in the budget that we pass here. It has to be demonstrated in the way in which we fund the critical areas of our growth and our development as a Nation. And, believe me, this budget falls far short of that.

It's time for folks to get their act together. This Republican budget plunges this country deeper into debt. We cannot afford that. We must become much more sober about our work here and recognize that in order for us to grow, we have to make sure our educational system is sound, our health care system is sound, and certainly make sure that our homeland is protected. And based on what we have received thus far, the Republican budget falls extremely short of that, and that is totally unacceptable.

So, Mr. Meek, I know that our time together here is winding down. I just wanted to say that this is a very important time for this House. And as we look at our priorities going forward, the stimulus package gave us a window into where we are right now, and that is we are in an economic crisis. And anyone who can't see the writing on the wall is walking around with blinders on. When you compound the economic distress that we are in with a budget that doesn't account for hundreds of billions of dollars that can be spent at a moment's notice, particularly in the misadventure in Iraq, and neglects to build the infrastructure of the Nation, areas of education where we become competitive, our talent is cultivated and developed, providing the support systems for working families like child care support, being able to make sure that we are healthy enough as Americans to continue to do the job and being productive, these areas are very important and crucial areas for us to move this Nation in the 21st century.

I think President Bush has thrown up his hands. This was his last budget. This was the best that he could do. And, unfortunately, it fell too short.

I want to thank you, my colleague, for sharing this time. I look forward to participating with you further in the future.

And I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this time during the 30-Something Working Group.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the ``HOPE VI Improvement and Revitalization Act of 2007,'' which eradicates severely distressed public housing.

Ever since public housing was first created, there were many obstacles that hindered its success. As time progressed, many public housing units became nothing more than a highly concentrated community containing many of society's social problems such as poverty, high crime, and unemployment. Consequently, many units became deplorable and uninhabitable. But H.R. 3524 would help transform many severely distressed neighborhoods into the livable communities that public housing was originally intended to be for many low-income families.

The HOPE VI program was created in 1992 and has been credited with eliminating and replacing some of the most dangerous and distressed public housing in the country with new mixed income communities. It has been reported that mixed-income communities have resulted in increases in per capita incomes, decreases in unemployment rates, decreases in the number of households receiving public assistance, and declines in violent crime.

Therefore, one of the reasons why I support H.R. 3524 is because this bill would require public housing agencies to create more mixed-income housing on demolished low-income housing sites. Also, these mixed- income housing units developed to replace demolished public housing would have to be built in low-concentrated poverty areas to avoid concentrating public housing in low-income neighborhoods.

Other reasons why I support this bill is because it provides more replacement housing units; ensures residents have access to revitalized sites; provides residents with more involvement in the planning and redevelopment process; and establishes green development standards for HOPE VI revitalization activities.

Therefore, Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues for strong bipartisan support of the HOPE VI Improvement and Revitalization Act of 2007, which will redefine public housing by transforming distressed communities into new, safe sustainable communities for many families who deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend and give praise to the gentlewoman from Ohio for her management of this very important legislation and, of course, to our distinguished chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the dean of our New York delegation, for his leadership on this issue and bringing this issue to the floor today.

I rise in support of H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, because Americans need relief. We need relief. And under this bill, the mortgage debt forgiven through foreclosure, sale, or loan restructuring would no longer count as taxable income.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely vital to many New Yorkers, since a subprime tsunami is now sweeping across this Nation and many experts confirm that this wave will continue well into the next year with no end in sight. As a result, foreclosures are increasing at an alarming rate.

As we count the last days of 2007, many expect more than 14,000 foreclosures to be filed in New York City alone. Mr. Speaker, Congress must do all that it can to help Americans to keep their homes. So today I will cast an ``aye'' vote in support of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which helps struggling homeowners cope with the unanticipated penalty of foreclosure.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his leadership in this body and the management of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the extended military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed a great economic burden and hardship on many of our military families. Countless thousands of families are forced to not only cope with anguish of having a family member serving in harm's way, but also must deal with the economic hardships. That is why I am proud that H.R. 3933, a bill that I introduced, has a significant place in the heart of the HEART Act, which makes permanent three provisions that bring vital tax relief to help our soldiers and their families.

This bill assures military compensation is excluded from income if it is earned in the combat zone or while hospitalized for wounds, diseases, or injuries received in combat, and permits active duty Reservists to make penalty free withdrawals from retirement plans and ends the penalties.

I want to thank Mr. Rangel for his consistent leadership on this issue and for including my bill, H.R. 3933, as part of the HEART Act of 2007. I am just proud to have been able to play a part in paying down on the debt of gratitude we owe to our women and men that serve and protect us on the front lines.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening feeling compelled to speak on an issue that has had an adverse and devastating impact in my district and many districts across this Nation. The phenomenon known as subprime lending, which has grown so rapidly over the past decade or so, has made it possible for many New Yorkers with modest incomes and poor credit histories to purchase homes.

The question is, at what cost? The Federal Government has found that subprime loans made up 32 percent of all mortgages in New York City last year, which is up from 28 percent in 2005.

However, an estimated 364,433 subprime loans remain outstanding. As a result, as we stand here tonight, Brooklyn has 4,864 homes facing foreclosure.

When certain unscrupulous lenders aggressively and deceptively convince vulnerable borrowers seeking relief in their pursuit of the American Dream to accept unfair and abusive loan terms, many of these same borrowers have, unfortunately, lost their homes, leaving them displaced, penniless, and bankrupt.

Today, mortgage finance programs in the subprime lending industry are growing more severe, with soaring loan default even diminishing home prices. These defaults have depreciated about $71 billion in housing wealth. I must tell you this evening that this crisis will and is currently affecting State economies.

It has been estimated that there will be 1.3 million foreclosures from mid-2007 through 2009 in subprime mortgages, resulting in an estimated loss of $102.4 million in property taxes.

Also, it has been reported that the subprime mortgage crisis will cost States $917 million in lost property revenue through the end of 2009 and more than $103 billion in lost property values, including $9.5 billion for New York.

What is alarming to me is that there have been reports which have found that embedded within this American crisis there appears to be real racial disparities when it comes to subprime lending. For example, one report stated that blacks and Hispanics are 30 percent more likely than whites to be charged with higher interest rates. Additionally, in New York, blacks are five times and Hispanics almost four times more likely to pay higher interest rates for homes.

Even in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, which is located in my district, an astounding 44 percent of blacks and Hispanics earning between $40,000 and $50,000 received their loans from subprime lenders. We must make a conscious and focused effort to address the subprime lending crisis in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods in New York City and across the Nation.

What is so ironic about this issue of the subprime mortgage crisis is that as a former New York City council member, my colleagues and I saw this crisis arise as representatives of the municipality. We even passed legislation, anti-predatory lending legislation, yet the legislation went nowhere due to the threat of litigation by the financial services sector. Now the crisis is upon us. Hundreds of thousands of Americans across this country are facing this crisis.

I am supporting and will champion any and all measures that ensure that all borrowers, especially those living in underserved communities, are no longer hurt by the recent events and tactics occurring in the mortgage market.

It is our responsibility, and in the public interest, to make certain that we eliminate predatory practices that have the potential to financially harm mortgage consumers living in America.

If we do not, I believe that we will generate an environment where predatory lenders will continue to actively sell high-cost, high-risk mortgages in many communities, including underserved communities, making the American Dream of all Americans an American nightmare.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for her leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today and her steadfast commitment to the small businesses of our Nation.

I support the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act, which encourages participation by qualified small businesses and improves key sections of the Small Business Act to prevent fraud in the SBA's contracting programs.

H.R. 3867 requires the Small Business Administration to immediately implement the Women's Procurement Program after 7 years of no action by the administration to put the program in action.

It will allow agencies to limit competition for Federal contracts only to women business owners in industries that have been closed to them. This legislation now requires SBA to evaluate industries where women entrepreneurs are economically disadvantaged and gives the SBA authority to waive any restrictions where women-owned enterprises are substantially underrepresented.

I believe this bill will finally correct the imbalance in the number of women-owned businesses nationally when compared to their presence in the Federal marketplace.

H.R. 3867 also strengthens the HUBZone program by requiring construction contracts to be performed within a reasonable distance of the particular HUBZone the contractor is to benefit. It will limit construction contract awards being performed more than 150 miles from the primary office location of the HUBZone-approved company.

The Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act modernizes the 8(a) program to update and revise qualification requirements and ensure that 8(a) contracts go to qualified companies.

This bill provides an opportunity for all qualified small businesses to have a fair opportunity in the Federal marketplace. I want to thank Chairwoman Velazquez for her steadfast commitment to the women, minority-owned and disabled veterans and disadvantaged small businesses of America. I

strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her leadership and for being here to give guidance during this hour for the CBC. And I want to thank our chairwoman, Ms. Carolyn Kilpatrick, for seeing fit to add this particular perspective to the conversation that we are having with our Nation around the Children's Health Insurance Program in our States.

And, Mr. Speaker, I'm elated to stand with my colleagues today to once again voice my support, my wholehearted support for children's health insurance coverage, also known as SCHIP.

Just over a week ago, the President vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have provided 10 million American children health coverage through SCHIP. Since the beginning of my tenure here, you know I'm a freshman, in this 110th session, this is the second time the President has vetoed important health care legislation with broad bipartisan support; the other veto being an expansion of potentially life saving stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and duty to stand with my fellow Democrats, telling this administration that this veto will not deter nor distract us from protecting the health and well-being of our children.

The people that I represent in central Brooklyn have spoken loud and clear, and so has the rest of America. Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed their dismay with the President's decision to veto this bipartisan legislation. Additionally, the country overwhelmingly supports the Children's Health Insurance Program. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll indicates that 72 percent of the country supports the extension and reauthorization of the CHIP program. Governors of both parties across the country support the bipartisan bill.

Now, following the veto, the fight for health insurance for 10 million low-income children moves back to this body where the hard work of rebuilding and building consensus among both Democrats and Republicans has already taken place. Now, the rubber-stamp Republicans who have sided with the President and are standing between 10 million low-income children and their health care must hear from the American people. We will override the President's rejection of health coverage for 10 million children, but the voices of the American people must be heard by those in Washington.

SCHIP was created to provide health care coverage for children and families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance. It costs, as my colleague, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, has already stated, less than $3 a day to cover a child through the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Ensuring kids is also cost-effective for taxpayers, who pick up the tab for indigent care in emergency rooms, the most expensive way to care for a child's health, as well because a healthy child is more likely to succeed in education and life.

Over the last 10 years, the children's health program has proven to be popular and successful, with 6 million children now enrolled in the program. The bipartisan children's health insurance bill has broad bipartisan support. It's supported by 68 Senators, including 18 Republicans; it's supported by 43 Governors, including 16 Republicans; it's supported by more than 270 organizations representing millions of Americans; and it's supported by a strong majority of the American people.

This bipartisan bill renews and improves the Children's Health Insurance Program, providing health care coverage for 10 million children, preserving coverage for 6 million children currently covered by SCHIP, and extending coverage to nearly 4 million uninsured children according to the nonpartisan CBO.

Ironically, this morning I had an opportunity, along with my colleague, Nydia Velazquez, to attend a press conference hosted by the Working Families Party, ACORN, SCIU and Mothers in Our Community to reach out to a corporation in New York called KKR in midtown Manhattan. This is an investment firm that owns Toys-R-Us and Dollar General. These two toy retailers have already subjected America's families to massive and unprecedented recalls of millions of poisonous lead toys that have flooded the market. This is a great concern. If we don't get a commitment for a code of conduct protecting our children from lead poison, our holiday toy-buying season could mean putting the health of millions of American children at risk.

This concern is compounded by this administration's reckless disregard for our most vulnerable, our children. Just imagine the confluence of two of these things happening at the same time. Right now, parents and families, mothers are concerned about lead-tainted toys. And at the same time, when we need health care coverage that can identify lead poisoning, that can help to ameliorate some of those concerns, because, on the one hand, our safety is not being protected through the consumer protection, we need to have SCHIP in place.

Two-thirds of uninsured children are currently eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid. This bill is simply designed to give States the resources and incentives to enroll children who are eligible but not signed up for SCHIP and Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to be here to say that when we look at communities of color, in particular, black communities across this Nation, it has been this type of safety net health care that enables our communities to grow from strength to strength. These are just those American policies we need to give our families the boost they need so that when children go to school with asthma, they can be treated, they don't have to be out for days on end. When our children have hepatitis, tuberculosis, when they have any type of communicable disease, these diseases can be treated quickly before they reach the level of crisis in the emergency room.

SCHIP gives us that tool to be able to make sure that Americans are safe and secure, that their health and well-being is something that we all value as part of the American fabric of who we are.

And so I want to thank you, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, for anchoring this hour for the CBC. When we think about our communities and how critical this legislation is, not only for our communities, but for all Americans, this transcends race, ethnicity, gender. It's American children. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share this time with you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 618.

First, let me just thank you as a member of the class of 2006 to be here with my colleagues this evening to really address what is a moral imperative. Taking care of our young, taking care of our elderly, being in a position to actually have our future secured by making sure that our children are healthy and well-focused, well- nourished and ready to compete in this Nation is a critical part of what makes America America. So to hear that this morning, before the President's coffee got cold, he had vetoed the SCHIP legislation, bipartisan legislation that we delivered to him on their behalf, was really disheartening.

I think that it is imperative that Americans really press upon this body that we make sure that we override this veto. $3.50 a day. That is what it would cost us to cover the children who are currently uninsured, to provide them with preventive care so that they are able to reach their God-given potential, so that they don't have to sit up in the classroom with headaches and stomachaches and other ailments, perhaps communicable diseases that could cause an outbreak. Meningitis was one of the major issues in many of our schoolhouses last year. We have a President that sort of stood in the way of that. He has just made it unequivocally clear that this is not a policy that he will pursue.

I think it is our obligation as representatives of the people to pursue this and make sure that we get it right on their behalf. Hubert Humphrey was absolutely right. It is a moral imperative, very much so. I hope that every American feels that this evening when they look at their children this evening, when they look at their grandchildren this evening, they will count their blessings that they are able to sit with their child today and their child is not in need of a doctor's care. For those who are in need of a doctor's care, that they will pray for a mother like Deamonte's mother who went around trying to find coverage for her child, who tried to get a doctor to see her son though she did not have insurance and who was turned away. As a result, her son met his demise.

My colleague, the doctor is in the House.

Would you put a pin in it right there for me, my colleague? I just also wanted to quote two other Senate Republicans. Senator Orrin Hatch said, We are talking about kids who basically don't have coverage. I think the President has some pretty bad advice on this, you think?

Then Senator Susan Collins says, I can't believe the President would veto a program that benefits low-income children.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking bipartisan effort here. As we salute and talk about the heroism of those who would fight for our freedoms abroad, we have got to bring some heroics here right now. This is one of those issues where the faint of heart should not be casting a vote.

This goes to the fiber, the core of who we are as a Nation, not as a party, not as an individual, but as a Nation. Where are we going to set the bar for what is acceptable in leadership and what is not? I say that the President in this case has abdicated his responsibility as a leader.

Our children need us. Their health care is critical to the growth and development of our communities. For every child that falls ill, we have more and more that we have to invest in getting that child to wellness. In the meantime, the educational advances that that child should have been making have not been made. The turmoil within the home and family, the setbacks there, and, by extension, the entire community

Mr. Speaker, so I just wanted to point out to you and just to highlight, as you both have, my colleagues, that this is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democrat issue, this is an American issue, and we have got to focus on this like a laser. It is now up to us in this House of Representatives to make sure that our colleagues recognize their responsibility and leadership to override this veto.

What I think most Americans find most mind-boggling is just the mindset that our President has been in in terms of his whole rationale for the veto. He at one point said the SCHIP plan is an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American.

I am saying to myself, first of all, there is a bit of hypocrisy here, because we have the Commander-in-Chief, who I believe gets a Federal health care plan himself, saying that we are moving towards government-run health care, when he knows in fact that government doctors and government health plans do not deliver the services of SCHIP. It is private doctors, private health care that do, under private insurance. So, there is this false justification he came up with.

He at one point even talked about, well, the SCHIP bill, the proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in households with incomes up to $83,000 a year. I am saying to myself, this bill does not expand eligibility for SCHIP. The focus of the bill is on expanding health care coverage for low-income children who have no health insurance.

So there have been these false statements in justification of a decision that he made, which I really believe was in retribution, quite frankly. When we get to that level of angst, I guess, in our decisionmaking, it is time to sort of pack it up.

I think right now it is important that, as a legislative body, we take control and consciousness of the moves that we have to make on behalf of the American people, because, obviously, our Commander-in- Chief has decided to submerge himself into a bipartisan fight with himself. We have said here that we agree as Democrats and Republicans that this is important, and he is off on a whole other planet.

A fraction of the cost, my colleague; a fraction of the cost of what we are spending every day to build democracies overseas. He is not willing to invest in strengthening our democracy here at home. It is fundamental. It just almost seems like a bad dream.

Another thing that the President has said, the SCHIP proposal would move millions of American children who now have private health insurance into government-run health care. What planet is he on, Doctor? The main impact of this bill would be extending coverage to low-income children who would otherwise be uninsured.

When we look at our families and communities, they are called upon to do so much all the time. But these are very special times we are in. It calls for us to multitask. It calls for us to go above the call of duty to address real life-and-death issues. SCHIP is a life-and-death issue. It is here, it is now, it is our neighbors. It is our coworkers' children. It is the folks who attend religious services with us. It is their children. We need to call our representatives, e-mail our representatives. We need to make sure that the Speaker's office, the whip's office, the majority leader's office, we need to make sure that we make our voices heard, jam the phone lines.

No, he didn't.

Their pastors, their imams, and their rabbis. We need to make sure that our children are protected, and we have an opportunity to do so. We should not miss this opportunity. We don't know when it will come our way again.

Just think about the lives in between, the children's lives in between that will be adversely impacted if we are unable to override the President's veto.

We don't have any time to waste. The imperative is there. And I think there isn't a parent, an aunt, an uncle or grandparent who doesn't understand what it is to stay up late at night when their child is ill and to feel helpless. Compound that with the fact that you can't even go to a doctor until, as your President says, they are sick enough to be wheeled into an emergency room. There has got to be a better way, my colleagues.

We are already moving in a new direction. Under the leadership of our Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this Congress has risen to a new level of stridency and of focus with regard to the issues that are impacting every district across this Nation. So we have to be very clear. We may not see the tangible results right this second, but they are all lined up and we have already seen a number of really extraordinary pieces of legislation passed here in the House. We have even seen the College Cost Reduction Act signed into law.

We should not overlook those things, and understand that none of that came easy for us. We had to put ourselves on the line. We had to stand up and be counted. We will do that again with SCHIP. This is just another bump in the road, but I believe without struggle there is no progress. We need to make sure that the American people, the parents, the grandparents, tune in and let their voices be known.

And women's rights.

Let me start by thanking you, Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, for leading the class of

2006 on the floor as we really get to the substance of a real disappointment to the American people today, which was the veto of our SCHIP legislation, the bipartisan SCHIP legislation, and just to say that when we provide for the least of these in our society, we are building a stronger Nation. When we recognize that no one is disposable in our society, we have an obligation to reach out and to provide for those who can't provide for themselves.

If we take care of a child today who's low income, that child becomes a productive part of our society. They will be taking care of us as we grow older, and it's a cycle and it's a circle, and when we understand that, then we know how important this vote is coming up. And we want to urge our colleagues across party lines, hold the line on SCHIP, hold the line on SCHIP. Our low-income children, our children in our communities, our families who are just struggling to make ends meet need us to be there for them to override this veto.

I want to thank my colleagues for having me in the class of 2006 and speaking out today and turn it over to my colleague, Dr. Kagen of Wisconsin.

That's right.

Together, we will.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 817, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 818, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 819, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 820, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 821, I would have voted

``yea''; on rollcall No. 822, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 823, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 824, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 825, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 826, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 827, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 828, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 829, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 830, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 831, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 832, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 833, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 834, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 835, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 836, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 837, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 838, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 839, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 840, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 841, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 842, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 843, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 844, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 845, I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 846, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentlelady from New York for her relentless efforts on behalf of the victims, heroes and heroines of the World Trade Center attack and aftermath. I am joining my colleagues on the floor in pursuit of justice for the second-generation victims of the wicked attack of our Nation in New York City on September 11 and to demand basic health care support and services for those whose physical well-being was adversely and irreparably impacted by the horrific attack on the World Trade Center.

As was stated by the gentlelady from New York, I was elected to the New York City Council the year our dear city was attacked. I became Chair of the Committee on Fire and Criminal Justice Services, as well as a member of the Health Committee where we examined year after year what the impact of the aftermath, the work that our first responders, the residents of the area were feeling as a result of having been misguided, misled by our own Federal Government through the leadership, or lack of leadership some would say, of the administration through the Environmental Protection Agency which said to New Yorkers that the air we were breathing was okay and that we would be fine, only to find out that today many are diseased.

I also watched as a very close friend, a very best friend and companion of mine, rushed out on September 11 to the pile, a member of Local 79, who heard the call. And as I speak with him each and every day, I am reminded that he is one of the lucky ones. But every now and then when he coughs, I wonder could this be the advent of a serious health crisis that was precipitated by his heroism on that day.

I cannot fathom why on the advent of the 6th anniversary of this most tragic event in our history this administration has not seen fit to do right by its most courageous citizenry. This is a problem that not only affects many thousands of people throughout the New York region, but also countless thousands throughout the country who bravely came to New York City and helped my hometown in our time of need.

Immediately following the attack and imminent collapse of the World Trade Center, first responders, construction workers and volunteers from across every economic sector and walk of life converged upon what we know as Ground Zero to perform search and rescue missions.

From the outset, these heroic individuals went in without a second thought about their own personal well-being. They just wanted to save anyone who might have been buried alive and/or to help recover the bodies of those who had perished, heroes and heroines, without whose efforts New York City and our Nation never could have recovered as quickly as it did.

Later, many of these same workers went through the lengthy process of cleaning up the demolished site. At the time, the EPA declared the air to be safe to breathe, a statement we now know to have been false. Because of their efforts in helping our country to recover, these men and women ingested vast amounts of toxic dust and harmful chemicals. The result is a plague of debilitating and deadly diseases, some of which are rarely seen in nature. Only now, 6 years later, are many of these

diseases and complications showing themselves. In fact, many of the people who spent time near the site may not show any problems until several years further down the line. Even the best experts have no clue just how many of these individuals will actually fall ill of long-term complications from the exposure.

Of course we cannot change the past so there is nothing anyone can do about exposure that already took place. All we can do now is make sure that these victims receive the medical treatment they deserve. Bureaucratic red tape and legal challenges have left these second generation victims overwhelmed by deteriorating health as well as a lack of meaningful financial support from a grateful Nation. Many are going bankrupt under the weight of escalating health costs and the loss of income to their homes and families. And what about the families?

Furthermore, there has been no assistance offered to the many nonresponders who worked on the scene and the area residents who breathed the tainted air that entered their homes. These people are also victims of the attacks, and require support for health problems that are only now manifesting.

This is why I am compelled to add my name and wholehearted support behind the Maloney-Nadler-Fossella 9/11 Health Compensation Act. This comprehensive bill establishes programs to monitor and treat everyone exposed to the dangerous toxins found at Ground Zero.

Whether you are a police officer or firefighter, construction worker, area resident, government employee or anyone else who spent significant time at the scene, you are entitled to treatment for any disease that doctors find is linked to your work immediately after the attacks.

Some of my colleagues from outside the New York region may wonder why they should support such a bill. They say it does nothing for their own States or districts, so why bother voting for it.

I feel the reasons could not be clearer. The diseases being developed by victims of Ground Zero are horrid. Already well over 100 deaths have been partially attributed to toxins from the site. Not long ago, a 34- year-old detective collapsed and died while playing with his young daughter due to complications from exposure. There are victims requiring double lung transplants because of damage caused from dust and chemicals. Others develop rare cancers

These people are heroes to the Nation. They went in and helped resuscitate not just a city but an entire country that had been shocked, frozen, traumatized and unsure of how to react. It should be a matter of national honor to help these victims who have rushed in where we all rushed out.

I wholeheartedly support the Maloney-Nadler-Fossella bill as a cosponsor, and I look forward to joining my colleagues and the AFL-CIO this weekend at the World Trade Center site as we rally in support of fulfilling victims' long-term health care needs.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her extraordinary leadership with regards to this matter, and I look forward to pursuing what is right and what is just on behalf of our fellow New Yorkers, fellow Americans and their families.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 824, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 825, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 826, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 827, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 828, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 829, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 830, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 831, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 832, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 833, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall No. 834, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 835, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 836, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 837, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 838, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 839, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 840, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 841, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 842, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 843, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 844, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 845, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 846, I would have voted ``yea.''