Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Charlie Wilson.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a member of our committee, both the subcommittee and Financial Services, Mr. Keith Ellison.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1 minute to one of our newest Members, and a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Andre Carson.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Illinois evidently has not read the bill. As a matter of fact, they have to have a plan that is adopted or accepted, reviewed by HUD. And so in the plan, all of the disclosure, everything that needs to be known about that city's plans will be reviewed. In addition to that, the amendment that the gentleman is referring to is an amendment that would bog down this ability to get money into the neighborhoods and on the street very quickly for the economic stimulus that we anticipate. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) 1 minute.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who serves on our committee, for 1 minute.

Ms. WATERS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from Massachusetts to straighten out the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle who does not know the history of CRA.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to first thank Chairman Frank and all of the members of the Financial Services Committee, and particularly those members who serve on the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I'm thanking Members on both sides of the aisle for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, authorizes a $15 billion HUD administrative grant and loan program to State and local governments to purchase, rehabilitate and resell or rent foreclosed homes. To understand the urgent need to enact this legislation, one need only consider the sobering figures on foreclosures recently released by RealtyTrac, which show that foreclosure filings during the first quarter of 2008 are 112 percent higher than 1 year ago, and that actual bank repossessions of homes during March were a shocking 129 percent above March 2007. The human reality behind these numbers is revealed if you visit, as I have the past year, cities and communities in cities like Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; or the San Bernardino and Stockton metropolitan areas in California, where block after block is dotted by foreclosed properties, many of them suffering from neglect or actual vandalism. These abandoned and foreclosed properties drag down the value of homes still occupied by working families, and contribute to a cascade effect whereby plummeting home prices erode the tax base of State and local governments and cause real estate related industries such as the construction trades to suffer. States and most local governments must balance their budgets each year and, as a result, 20 States have already had to make or are proposing budget cuts due largely to revenue losses resulting from the subprime crisis, which further reduces demand in the economy and deepens the recession. On April 10, the Financial Services Committee heard from Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland, and others, that despite severe physical constraints, many States and cities are already dedicating their own shrinking tax revenues to purchase foreclosed properties and attempt to stabilize these neighborhoods. But they are overwhelmed by the scale of the problem in comparison to their shrinking tax revenues. For this reason, the National Governors Association has stated that a ``one-time Federal funding commitment to support the acquisition and rehabilitation for foreclosed properties is vital.'' The Governors are joined in their support for the stimulus contained in H.R. 5818 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies. H.R. 5818 is also endorsed by nearly 40 civil rights, community development, labor and low income housing groups, including the AFL-CIO, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force. This bill targets assistance where it is most needed. The $7.5 billion in grants and $7.5 billion in loans would be allocated to States based on two factors: The number of foreclosures, and the number of subprime loans 90 days delinquent. This is then subject to a limited adjustment for median home prices, a bipartisan compromise that was worked out in mark-up with the committee's members from Ohio, which, like many midwestern States, has faced skyrocketing foreclosures but did not experience an extraordinary run up in housing prices. Second, the bill puts flexible resources in the hands of government with the capacity to address the crisis and put funds on the street quickly enough to stimulate the economy. Rather than expect HUD to process plans from 1,200 entitlement jurisdictions, the balance we struck at mark-up was to allocate funding to States and to the Nation's largest 100 cities, largest 50 counties, and cities over 50,000 with especially high foreclosure rates. The areas of States outside of those cities and counties would be addressed in the State's plans. Under the bill's timelines, fund obligation must begin within 6 months of enactment, be completed within a year, and fully spent within 2 years of enactment. This is no ``big government,'' immortal program, as our colleagues across the aisle suggest. Rather, it is a timely, targeted and temporary shot in the economy's arm, exactly where one is needed. Indeed, using well-accepted construction activity multipliers, the National Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force calculates that the bill's proposed $15 billion investment will generate at least $38 billion in direct and ripple effect economic activity nationwide, employ about 120,000 people, and restore nearly $225 million per year in local real estate tax collections. Some Republicans have tried to frame this bill as a bailout bill for investors. This simply is not so. Government and their nonprofit partners will drive a hard bargain with property owners because they are highly incentivized to make this money go as far as possible in their efforts to stabilize neighborhoods where many of them have been working for years, and because they must pay the government back any funds used to purchase homes. In no event, moreover, can they pay more than 110 percent of the average home sale price in the area. Creaming of properties and ``sweetheart'' deals are prevented by the requirement that properties sit for 60 days before they are eligible. What H.R. 5815 does make possible is for States, cities and counties to stabilize a few neighborhoods, especially low income ones, that are in serious danger of an overcorrection and rapid deterioration past the tipping point, where it becomes very difficult to turn them around. I urge Members to hear the pleas of the Nation's governors, mayors, community-based organizations and ordinary citizens to provide this critical relief to stabilize neighborhoods and stimulate the economy. The administration and my friends on the opposite side of the aisle in this Chamber argue that we cannot afford to respond. I would like to just remind this body of what Mr. Frank said earlier today, we afforded $30 billion to bail out Bear Stearns, and certainly we can afford half of that amount, $15 billion for the entire country. We simply cannot afford not to. I urge passage of the Neighborhood Stabilization Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5818, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2634 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, according to the World Bank, more than 10 million children in developing countries die every year before the age of 5, most from preventable illnesses. More than 1 billion people in developing countries do not have access to save drinking water. And approximately 100 million school-age children do not attend school. In sub-Saharan Africa, 41 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day. It was because of these injustices that I first got involved in the issue of debt relief, and I would like to thank many of my colleagues who have been working with me over the years on debt relief and who have joined with me to present this legislation. First, I'd like to thank Chairman Barney Frank, who's always been a big supporter and a fighter, and who's worked very hard in the past to ensure that we are on record doing the right thing for poor children and poor families all over the world. And of course I've been very pleased to work with the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Spencer Bachus, who worked with me on Jubilee 2000, and who's been involved in debt relief for many, many years. I'd like to thank the original cosponsors, Mr. Emanuel Cleaver, Mr. Luis Gutierrez, Ms. Carolyn Maloney, Mr. Donald Payne, Ms. Barbara Lee, and others such as Ms. Judy Biggert, who serves on our Financial Services Committee, and Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is the Ranking Member on Foreign Affairs, for all of the work and the assistance and the cosponsorship for this legislation. In 1999, I worked with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee to pass legislation to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. Our legislation provided complete debt cancellation for the bilateral debt that certain poor countries owed to the United States. Several other donor countries followed our example and cancelled the debts that were owed to them as well. Our legislation also directed the Clinton administration to negotiate with other world leaders to significantly reduce poor countries' multilateral debts. The following year, the House passed my amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which increased funding for debt relief from $69 million to $225 million. This amendment proved that Congress supported full funding for the debt relief programs. Since then, we have continued to work together in a bipartisan way to urge not only the Clinton administration but the Bush administration as well, the IMF, the World Bank, and other multilateral financial institutions to expand debt relief. As a result of our efforts, 23 heavily indebted poor countries have received complete cancellation of their debts. Debt cancellation has proven to be effective in freeing up resources for poverty reduction. Cameroon is using its savings of $29.8 million from debt cancellation in 2006 for national poverty reduction priorities including infrastructure, social sector, and governance reforms. Uganda is using its savings of $57.9 million to improve energy infrastructure, to ease acute electricity shortages, as well as primary education, malaria control, health care, and water infrastructure. Zambia is using its savings of $23.8 million to increase spending on agricultural projects and to eliminate fees for health care in rural areas. I'm proud to report that debt relief has made a real difference in the lives of millions of impoverished people. This came to pass because our country showed leadership, and our country showed leadership because this Congress showed leadership. We are here today to continue our efforts. We are here today to enable additional needy and deserving poor countries to benefit from the cancellation of their debts. The Jubilee Act would make up to an additional 25 low-income countries eligible for debt relief, provided these countries meet strict criteria and use the savings for poverty reduction programs such as improvements to economic infrastructure, basic education, nutrition and health services, and programs to redress environmental degradation. I would like to share with you a few of the observations and perhaps comments that I have learned about since I have been involved with debt cancellation. Julius Nyerere, the former President of Tanzania, once asked, ``Must we starve our children to pay our debts?'' For Tanzania, the answer to this question is, ``not anymore.'' That is because Tanzania is one of the lucky ones. It is one of the 23 countries that have already received complete debt cancellation. Tragically, many other countries are still starving their children in order to pay their debts. Debt forgiveness is a moral imperative, and it is encouraged by many religious traditions. The Bible instructs the people of ancient Israel to cancel debts periodically through the celebration of a sabbath year every 7 years and a jubilee every 50 years. Leviticus 25:10 says, ``Proclaim liberty throughout the lands and to all the inhabitants thereof. It shall be a jubilee for you.'' Let us once again proclaim a jubilee for millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world. I would ask my colleagues to join with me in support of this Jubilee Act. Before yielding the balance of my time, I would like to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for urging us to get this bill up and get it on the floor so that we could go on record in support of debt cancellations for the poor countries of the world. At this time, I would like to yield the balance of my time to Chairman Frank, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control the time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, and Members, I am pleased that we have taken time from our schedules to come to the floor tonight to sound the alarm. The saber rattling is going on by this administration. The remarks that we're hearing day in and day out are more accusatory toward Iran. We are made to believe that we are somehow being placed at a great threat by Iran. And so we know where this is going. We know what this means, and we're saying, we must not rule out diplomacy. We must believe that we can settle differences by way of diplomacy. We know that we've still got work to do on Iraq. We've still got to make many Members of this House feel comfortable with the idea that they can confront their President, that they can still be very, very patriotic as they stand up against war and bringing our soldiers home. We know that the work has to be done, but we've got to add to that work the fact that we can stop an airstrike on Iran and we can stop the notion that somehow we must send more soldiers in.

Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for her consistent and persistent leadership on this issue of war in Iraq, and I thank her for coming to the floor this evening to help sound the bell against a possible march to war with Iran. We have been joined by another one of our colleagues who too has been consistent in his opposition to this war. From the very day that he first came to this chamber, he made it clear where he stood on this war. He has joined with us on the floor on many other occasions and it is a constant part of his agenda wherever he is to remind people that we are in a war that makes no sense, where lives are being lost, and hopes and dreams are being dashed. He brings a special kind of understanding about what is going on because of his familiarity with the Arab nations and with Islam, and he has done a wonderful job of helping to teach and introduce to the Members of this Congress other cultures and helping us to understand how they operate, what they are all about, and helping us to gain respect for those that sometimes are singled out for war, when, of course, problems and issues could be handled with diplomacy. I am proud to yield time to Representative Keith Ellison to sound the alarm.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady from Texas, and I am very, very appreciative of the fact that the gentlelady is one of the Members of Congress that we can always count on to confront the challenges that we are confronted with, particularly as it relates to this war, and at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, I am so pleased and proud to have been joined by my colleagues here this evening to sound the alarm. Let me say that again, we are sounding the alarm. We are opening up the debate. We are raising the questions. We are challenging this administration on the issue of war with Iran. We are saying, Mr. President, we have watched, we have listened, and we have learned. We are smarter people when we hear talk about war, when we hear accusations being made. When we hear a march to war we now recognize it for what it is. It is a given that we have this knowledge that we have acquired since we have been here since the start of the war with Iraq. We do not intend to sit idly by without opening up the discussion, without making the challenge, without raising the questions. As I said, prior to the opening lines of the presentation that was just given by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, there were signs of war that have been identified, not only by some of the experts that we have been talking to, but by those who have been writing and watching what has been going on. As I mentioned before, there is talk, and there are news articles. U.S. News & World Report, published on March 11, title, ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.'' Let me repeat that, U.S. News & World Report published on March 11 titled ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.'' Warships off of Lebanon, with the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based war planes and sea launch missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. ``Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system missile defense against air attacks.'' This article goes on to talk about ``Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mid East trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military and ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit choke point into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies, if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March, 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mid East trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy to Iraq and not war, which began a year later.'' Vice President Cheney has been on that trip, as we pretty well know, based on the advanced intelligence revealed by this very, very well- placed article. They go on to talk about the Israeli air strike on Syria. Israel's air strike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy, and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeted electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran. That is also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risk for warplanes heading to targets in Iran. They go on to give the other identification markers that should be watched and should be vetted. Israeli comments. Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said that they are prepared to act alone if that becomes necessary to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone? Israel's war with Hezbollah. While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on its own, but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm through a United Nations force that polices a border buffer zone in southern Lebanon. So as you can see, there is quite a bit of reason to be concerned about the administration's saber-rattling towards Iran. There is no way to prove their intentions, and I hope we are wrong, but we really can't afford to be wrong. Another encounter like in January between the U.S. Navy and an Iranian speedboat could be used as an excuse for retaliation similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the Vietnam War. The White House would simply claim that we were ``provoked'' and were defending ourselves. I would like to stop at this time and yield time to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, who has been consistent in her work with the Out- of-Iraq Caucus in an attempt to bring our soldiers home. It is with great pleasure that I yield to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much to both Sheila Jackson-Lee and Barbara Lee for, again, their constant and consistent struggle working in this House against the war. Mr. Speaker, and Members, press reports have given us some indications of the thrust of current White House directed planning. The strike would be against Iranian terrorist facilities, the Revolutionary Guard units and/or nuclear production facilities, a limited air strike operation with the objective of changing Iranian behavior. Those who argue for the strike are saying there will be very few U.S. casualties and very few Iranian civilian casualties. Nevertheless, we all know that U.S. strikes against Iran would be disastrous. Middle East experts generally agree that Iran would respond to a U.S. strike by attacking U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the region and possibly globally. These strikes would lead to a greater Middle East war, including greater loss of life, financial burden, over stretch of our military and worse. We're sounding the alarm this evening and we are sending a message to the President of the United States of America and to the Vice President, particularly now to the Vice President, who, when he was reminded by an ABC News reporter that the recent polls show that two- thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, his response, ``and so?'' Well, Mr. Vice President, our ``and so'' to you tonight is, and so the American people do not want us to continue this war in Iraq and to air strike in Iran. We're sounding the alarm. And I will yield time to the gentleman who just left the Speaker's seat to complete this colloquy that we've had here this evening.

Ms. WATERS. The subject of my Special Order is Iran. Madam Speaker, at the time the war in Iraq began in March of 2003, who would have thought that we were being led into perhaps the worst foreign policy disaster in America's history? Many of us voted against the war authorization in the first place. But many more Members wish they had voted against it. We now know that this country was led into this war with faulty intelligence and a deafening war drum from the administration. The question that we raise tonight is this: Could the Bush administration possibly be planning for a war with Iran? There isn't any empirical evidence to prove that the Bush administration is planning for war. But there are experts that are indeed worried that the same playbook that was used to bring this country into the Iraq war is now being used to toward Iran. The administration is pushing suspect intelligence. And it has severely increased and sharpened since their rhetoric first began toward Iran. We come to the floor tonight to resist efforts by this administration to paint war with Iran as a necessary next step in our so-called war on terror. A vast majority of foreign policy and military experts agree that war with Iran would be a colossal error. Allow me to spend a few minutes to explain why I feel that U.S. strikes against Iran are a real possibility. Let us look at some of the signs that we may be headed for war. The increased rhetoric. The administration is building the volume of inflammatory rhetoric toward Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up to the Iraq war. Strong statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facility. Surrogates in the administration, including the President himself, have increasingly stressed a full range of negative Iranian behavior, including that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, supplying weapons, training and funding to special groups. They also say that Iran is interfering with the peace process in the Middle East. And they go on to talk about General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as they argued that Iran is the major future threat to stability in Iraq. Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. When this point was dismissed by the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran had long since halted their nuclear enrichment, the administration criticized the report. Allow me to read a short selection of clips from recent press clippings that expose the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the Bush administration. This headline from the Daily Telegraph on April 7, 2008: British Fear U.S. Commander is Beating the Drum for Iran Strikes. ``British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed Baghdad Government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment.'' Another headline: Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest Threat to Iraq. This is in the Bloomberg News April 9, 2008. ``The so- called `special groups,' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran, played a `destructive role' in the recent clashes between extremist militias and Iraqi Government forces in Basra and Baghdad, Petraeus said. `Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way,' he told the House Armed Services Committee today in Washington, his second day of testimony to lawmakers. `Unchecked, the `special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a Democratic Iraq.'' Again, that was the Bloomberg News, April 9, 2008. Another headline, the Voice of America, April 2, 2008, Israel to Redistribute Gas Masks Amid Fears of War with Iran. ``Israel's security Cabinet has decided to redistribute gas masks to the entire population amid fears of a nonconventional war with Iran. The last distribution was just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq 4 years ago.'' Another headline in the New York Times, April 12, 2008. The headline reads, Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says. ``Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq, adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday. While Bush administration officials have long denounced what they have described as Iran's meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker's language was unusually strong from Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been turning up the volume on Iran.'' A further sign that the U.S. may be headed for war is Admiral Fallon's resignation. In the aftermath of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, there has been discussion within media and in the military that senior military officers should have resigned when they knew the White House to be heading to a reckless war in Iraq. Some are speculating that the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon is a direct result of his steadfast opposition to war with Iran. He even made his disagreements with the administration public before his retirement. In a now-famous profile that Admiral Fallon agreed to do for Esquire magazine, he was characterized as the only man standing between war with Iran. Let me read an excerpt from that article. This was Esquire magazine, March 11, 2008. The title is ``The Man Between War and Peace.'' The article goes on to say that if in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it will all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it will all come down to one, that same man. So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to world war III and his administration casually casts Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler, a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect, it's left to Fallon, and apparently Fallon alone, to argue that, as he told al Jazeera last fall, this constant drumbeat of conflict is not helpful and not useful. Another sign that the U.S. may be thinking about war is the offensive against the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al Sadr has promised full-scale attacks on America's interests in Iraq in the event of strikes on Iran. As commander of the multinational force in Iraq, General David Petraeus still presides as the commander of the Iraqi security forces as well. Any operation against the Mahdi Army would have been authorized by him. What motivation did the United States have in fueling a violent confrontation with the powerful militia at a time when al Sadr had declared a truce and the progress of the surge was being reported to Congress? One explanation is that recent operations against al Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, may have been meant to neutralize possible resistance inside of Iraq in the event of a strike on Iran. The following five reasons are taken verbatim from an article in U.S. News and World Report that was published on March 5th entitled ``Six Signs the U.S. May Be Headed For War in Iran.'' Before I go into the five reasons that I have taken verbatim from this article in U.S. News and World Report, I am going to recognize the Congresswoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee, who is cochair of the Progressive Caucus. She is one of the co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus. She has been consistent in her resistance to this war in Iraq. She is an organizer. She is a constant speaker on the speaking engagement circuit, speaking with groups and organizations all over this country who want to hear from Barbara Lee about what is going on in Congress. The question she is most confronted with is when will this Congress end the war and bring our soldiers home? What are you going to do about a President who is ignoring the will of the people and ignoring the will of Congress in their attempts to resist the continued funding of the war? Every weekend, somewhere in this country, Barbara Lee is attempting to answer those questions and engage the American citizens about what is happening here. I yield to Barbara Lee.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in strong support of this resolution offered by my colleague, Mr. Green, from Houston commemorating the 40th anniversary of title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the 20th anniversary of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The history of the Fair Housing Act embodies both our Nation's most noble instincts and recent behavior by our Federal Government, which should make none of us proud. On April 11, 1968, one week to the day after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed and the President signed into law the Federal Fair Housing Act which now prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, national origin, religion, color, sex, familial status and disability. Acting on this legislation, which has been stalled in this body for over 2 years, was a fitting tribute to Dr. King and reflected a belief that something constructive could be achieved in the aftermath of days of unrest in cities across the country. In 1988, the law was amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act, which significantly strengthened the enforcement powers of the act, giving the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Justice the authority to mandate and to enforce the expanded and comprehensive requirements of the act. Unfortunately, while we can be proud of passing these landmark statutes, the sad fact is that the Fair Housing Act remains the least enforced of our Nation's civil rights laws. Through the work of local housing groups like the Housing Rights Center in my district in Los Angeles, we know that more than 3.7 million people are discriminated against in housing transactions every year, and we are on the brink of an economic crisis fueled by a failed subprime lending market built primarily on borrowers and neighborhoods of color. The current foreclosure crisis is the outgrowth of persistent discrimination in housing, lending and insurance markets that took place under the negligent eyes of the very Federal agencies charged with enforcing our Nation's antidiscrimination laws. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued only 31 charges of discrimination, and the Department of Justice filed just 35 cases. Sadly, the risk posed by lax enforcement of the Fair Housing Act is no less than the resegregation of America. While we have made some progress in reducing levels of residential segregation, most Americans live in communities largely divided by race and ethnicity. Perhaps more distressingly, our children are attending increasingly segregated schools. Recent research demonstrates that by 2000, minority students were in schools with substantially fewer white students than was the case a decade earlier. We must reduce those troubling trends. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution offered by Mr. Green, whose dedication to the housing needs of America and America's most vulnerable households is second to that of no other member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, which I chair. Additionally, in my role as Chair, I'm joining Mr. Green in rededicating myself to the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, starting with making plans for a joint hearing with the Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Nadler of New York, to hold the inadequate efforts of both HUD and the Department of Justice up to congressional scrutiny. The best way to celebrate the anniversary of the Fair Housing Act is to take concrete actions to enforce both its letter and spirit. Mr. Chairman of our Judiciary Committee, whose lifelong work has been to end discrimination and to enforce fair housing and to enforce civil rights, I just thank you for having the opportunity to work with you.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. This bill authorizes $50 billion over the next five years for international health programs, including $41 billion for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, $4 billion for tuberculosis programs, and $5 billion for malaria programs. I just returned from South Africa, where I received the ``OR Tambo Award,'' from South African President Thabo Mbeki. I received this award because of my efforts to end the brutal system of apartheid in South Africa and to obtain the release of South African anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela from prison. Apartheid was dismantled and Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa in 1994, when South Africa held its first democratic elections. I was very proud to receive the OR Tambo Award because I have always been and continue to be a friend to South Africa. However, in South Africa today, the enemy is HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that 5.5 million people are living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa. That is more than any other country in the world. Over 18 percent of the adult population of South Africa is infected by HIV. Infected persons include thousands of well-educated professionals, such as doctors, nurses, civil servants and teachers. Everywhere I went in South Africa, people told me about the terrible problem they have trying to fill professional positions. The shortage of educated professionals is a result of the fact that so many South African professionals have died of AIDS or are too sick to work. The involvement of doctors, nurses, teachers, and other professionals is critical to stopping the spread of HIV and AIDS. That is why I am pleased that this bill includes provisions to strengthen the health care infrastructure in countries like South Africa and train at least 140,000 new health care professionals and workers for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care. The bill also includes prevention funds to stop the spread of HIV and treatment funds to allow infected individuals to live productive lives and continue to serve their communities. It is impossible to address HIV without also addressing tuberculosis. Almost 9 million people develop tuberculosis every year. At least 2.4 million are killed by the disease. According to the World Health Organization, HIV and tuberculosis form a lethal combination, each speeding the progress of the other. In the past 15 years, tuberculosis rates have doubled in Africa overall and tripled in areas with high HIV concentrations. In some areas of Africa, up to 80 percent of tuberculosis patients also test positive for HIV. This makes tuberculosis clinics an ideal location for HIV prevention, treatment, and care. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria in South Africa and around the world.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for their leadership on the Progressive Caucus for all of the work that they do, not only putting this alternative budget together, but the leadership they have provided to this Congress and trying to get this Congress moving in the right direction and representing all of the people. I certainly did not want to take my time responding to the gentleman from Wisconsin, but we need to understand the definitions. When he talks about raising taxes, what he's really talking about is the fact that both of these budgets, the Congressional Black Caucus budget and the Progressive Caucus budget simply will eliminate the tax giveaways to the richest corporations in America. And that's what he calls raising taxes, the very people who are responsible for getting us in this sub-prime mess that we are in now where we have people who are losing their homes to foreclosures. Having said all of that, I have already spoken about my support for the Congressional Black Caucus. And I'm offering today my very, very strong support for the Progressive Caucus budget. Many of the priorities are the same in these two budgets, including vastly increasing funds for housing and community development, veterans education, health programs, and energy independence. I strongly support these increases. As I said, when I talked about the Congressional Black Caucus budget, they had eliminated HOPE VI, a program that would provide decent housing for the most vulnerable people in our society in a responsible way. They tried to reduce the CDBG program, the program that goes to these small cities and to these towns that are using them for infrastructure and helping senior citizens and youth. And this budget would put the money back in to make them continue to be credible programs. Let me talk a little bit about the economic stimulus. The components of the economic stimulus package included in the Progressive Caucus budget, for which we have been advocating for many weeks now, are certainly needed to help those Americans hardest hit by the worsening economic situation. Most importantly, stimulation will come from increased funds for housing assistance and community development. The economic downturn came from the devastating housing market, and that is where we need to focus our resources. The Progressive Caucus also targets unemployment, insurance, food stamps, FMAP and health care aid and large infrastructure projects in each of our States to invest in our cities and create new jobs. With well-founded fears of a recession being discussed at dinner tables across the country, these investments are absolutely necessary to support our constituents and stimulate our economy. The Progressive Caucus also focuses on cutting the fat from our bloated Pentagon budget. Our military is still preparing to fight the Cold War against the USSR. I won't go any further than that. I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I'd like to express my support for the Progressive Caucus.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Scott for the tremendous effort that he has put forward to help develop this CBC alternative budget. We have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation that we will vote on all year; the budget resolution that sets forth the priorities this House will pursue for the remainder of the year. I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to present an alternative budget, a budget that is wise, prudent, responsible and balanced. I have many concerns, deep concerns with health care, education, criminal justice elements of the resolution. But I think I want to focus my time on housing and community development, given my position as the chair of the subcommittee that bears that name. We have all witnessed the instability of our economy in the face of turmoil directly resulting from the housing and mortgage market. Incredibly, at a time when we should be focusing more resources on this area, the President's budget slashes programs that provide housing and supportive services to our country's poorest disabled and elderly households. It starves the local housing authorities of funds they need to sustain and modernize public housing stock, and once again seeks to cripple the Community Development Block Grant program. Specifically, the President's budget reduces funding for HUD 202 supportive housing for the elderly by 27 percent. If enacted, this cut would leave funding for this program at a level 40 percent below its fiscal year 2001 appropriations. The CBC adds $300 million to the President's request to rectify this cut. There are a number of other cuts, but let me draw your attention to the proposed elimination of the HOPE VI program, which the House of Representatives recently voted to reauthorize on a bipartisan vote of 271-130. The CBC budget adds $1 billion to restore this program. Let me also bring to your attention a cut in the Community Development Block Grant program of $657 million and a zeroing out of the section 108 Loan Guarantee program. If enacted, the President's budget would culminate a multi-year attack on CDBG that could put the program at a funding level of about one-half of its appropriation in fiscal year 2001. I ask support of the CBC budget. I believe that all of America would be served well by this budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 117 on H.R. 2082, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``yes.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.