Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 2 minutes.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of the people that I have identified on this side of the aisle today, plus people I have not identified on the opposite side of the aisle. It has been very enjoyable working with Mrs. Capito, I have appreciated the work of Mr. Shays, and of course my old friend, Mr. Bachus, even though we disagree on some things; and Mr. Neugebauer. We have all come to the conclusion certainly that HOPE VI is a valuable program and that all of our communities can benefit from it. We have a few different views about one-for-one, we have a few different views about Davis-Bacon maybe, the destruction of units, and the green requirements. But this is one bill that both sides of the aisle understand very thoroughly that America is going to benefit. Mr. Bachus reminded us, even though I know that he understands, that the reason for HOPE VI is to deal with those public housing projects, those developments that were in great disrepair, that needed to be replaced, that needed to be restored, and not just the physical makeup, not just the buildings; but we also understood that what was wrong with our public housing developments was lack of services. Many of these developments are like little towns, little cities without services. We all know and appreciate they need after-school, they need health care, they need all kinds of support for families, and job development. All of those things we all support, and I would not challenge my Members on the opposite side of the aisle on any of those issues. I would like to thank them for the tremendous cooperation they have given, and the staffs have worked so well together to resolve a lot of questions to get us to the point that we are today; and while we will go through a few amendments, I feel very, very good that this very, very big and complicated bill has received such wonderful support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 3524 on September 11 of 2007. I want to thank each of my colleagues both on the Committee on Financial Services and in the House who have joined with me to see that this important legislation passes the House. I want to especially thank Chairman Barney Frank, Melvin Watt, and Christopher Shays for their original coauthorship, cosponsorship, and support of H.R. 3524. In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the minority, resident organizations, housing advocacy groups, public housing agencies, housing developers, bankers, green building experts, and practitioners, and other Members with an interest in the HOPE VI program. The end result is a bill that I believe takes into account the needs of residents, the community, the investors and lenders, and our public housing managers. Most importantly, we have a bill that preserves and revitalizes our public housing stock. H.R. 3524 reauthorizes and improves the HOPE VI public housing revitalization program by requiring the one-for-one replacement of all demolished public housing units, providing residents with meaningful and substantive involvement in the planning and development of the HOPE VI plan, expanding community and supportive services from 15 percent of grants that amount to 25 percent of grant amount; prohibiting HOPE VI specific screening criteria so that public housing residents and HOPE VI aren't held to a higher standard than non-HOPE VI residents, requiring housing agencies to monitor and track the whereabouts of relocated families, and mandating that developments be built in accordance with green building standards. Public housing residents, including those not yet impacted by HOPE VI, and housing advocates have said that this bill has been a long time in coming, and I agree with them. I would like to note why the bill before us today is so important. First, it preserves public housing. The administration eliminated the one-for-one replacement requirement in 1996, effectively triggering a national sloughing off of our Nation's public housing inventory. Housing authorities have consistently built back fewer units than they have torn down and, as a result, over 30,000 units have been lost as a direct result of the HOPE VI program. Stopping this bleeding was paramount in the drafting of this legislation. One-for-one replacement is not only a part of the bill; it is the heart of this bill. Limiting one-for-one to only occupied units does a disservice to families on waiting lists and to families waiting to get on waiting lists. Public housing is a community resource, and units can be unoccupied because they are not fit for humans to live in. That does not mean that there is no need for them. Second, because of strict screening criteria, HOPE VI has become limited to the cream of the public housing crop. Some people think that the HOPE VI development represents a new and better community and should have new and better people. However, as a Congress, we must be clear that public housing is for the most in need, not just the easiest to serve. HOPE VI projects have programs and services that can greatly benefit our neediest families. In addition, in the drive to separate the wheat from the chaff, public housing agencies have implemented screening criteria that are nothing short of draconian. These criteria include everything from credit checks, home visits, work requirements, and other criteria that many nonpublic housing residents would be unable to meet. We must reject any attempt to continue to punish public housing residents for being poor and must continue to provide them with the tools, through programs like HOPE VI, to assist them in improving their lives. Lastly, I would like to talk about why green building standards should be mandatory in HOPE VI developments. Our public housing was built poorly and inefficiently. Many of our developments are wasteful and hazardous to the health of the residents, and many investments we make in public housing developments, which will be around for the next 40 years, should ensure that this housing is safe, sound, energy efficient and good for the environment. This is just good public policy. We owe it to our public housing residents and to the environment to make sure that we do not recreate the inefficient and harmful mistakes that went into building many of these developments in the first place. This bill has the support of over 145 resident organizations: the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Housing Law Project, the Community Builders, Bank of America, the Housing Justice Network, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and others. There are a lot of good things in this bill, and these groups recognize this. Specifically, regarding the green building provisions, although one group is not supportive, over 30 organizations, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Public Health Association, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, and others, have voiced their overwhelming support for the green building requirements in the bill. We have crafted a bill that is good for residents, housing authorities, and communities. I urge you not to be blindsided by threats from third parties and to support our Nation's low-income families and to preserve our housing stock. Madam Chairman, I would like to say in closing that this should be a bill that receives support from both sides of the aisle. This is the kind of bill that we can truly come together around. Everyone recognizes that it is needed in all communities, rural and urban, suburban, all over the United States. 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. 3524, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I would like to commend those who have worked so hard for so long to try and right the wrong of our occupation in Iraq. I would like to thank the leadership for all the attempts that they have made to try and engage people on the opposite side of the aisle and those who don't have enough courage to do the right thing. We find ourselves here at a moment with an omnibus bill that we have had to support, and many people have many things in the bill that they would like to have back home. I understand that. But in the final analysis, we are never going to end this war until we stop feeding this war with the taxpayers' dollars after they have told us to bring our soldiers home. I stand here today in support of our soldiers. I support them coming home. Young men and women are dying in Iraq, the victims of IEDs, not even knowing how to protect themselves. And they come home, and we have to struggle to make sure that they are taken care of, that their health care needs are met. When are we going to come to our senses? We are fighting a war that we never should have been in in the first place. We are fighting a war where we were told there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. We are fighting a war where we have contractors who are abusing civilians in Iraq. We have contractors who are stealing the taxpayers' money in Iraq. And yet we continue to nuance this debacle. We continue to say, I didn't understand. I didn't know. Well, let me make it perfectly clear. There is $70 billion in this bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is fungible. We don't know how much of it is going to be spent where. But don't go away saying, I didn't understand, I didn't know, that is not what I intended to do. There is $70 billion here. If you don't want to continue this war, don't vote for this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker and Members, I rise this evening to basically talk about what is happening in New Orleans and the fact that the city council is going to take a vote on Thursday to determine whether or not they're going to dismantle the big four public housing developments in that city. If they dismantle these public housing units, the City of New Orleans will lose 4,500 units. These units have been boarded up for 2 years. The citizens who lived in these units were evacuated as a result of Katrina and Rita. They are now living in other cities, Houston and Dallas and Austin and Atlanta, all over the place, and they thought they would be able to return once these units were rehabbed. These units, many of them, were not destroyed. Some of them had minimal damage. For example, the one housing development, La Fete, only had water damage on the first level. And they could have not only rehabbed that first level of La Fete projects, they could have opened up those other units, but they did not. They have been boarded up. And people's lives have been in limbo living in these other cities, without the opportunity to come home and without the support that they needed. In my committee, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, we worked and we put together a bill, H.R. 1227. That bill passed out of that committee and off the floor in March, and we sent it over to the Senate, where it has languished. But basically, that bill laid out not only the fact that we would do a survey, because HUD was saying, well, many of the people had left, they did not want to come back. In that bill, we asked for a survey to be taken. We also placed in that bill that 3,000 units would be rehabbed right away, people would be given an opportunity to come back who wanted to come back, then the residents would be involved, working with HUD and HANO, that is the local housing authority, and the City of New Orleans to talk about the future of public housing development, what they would like to see. We are not against redevelopment. We think that there should be planned development. We think that, first of all, they should look at these units and see which of them should remain. They should work with the residents and the local elected officials to talk about what would be redeveloped. And we were very surprised. We were very surprised when just a few days ago they started to dismantle the ``Big Four'' public housing units. Well, because they started, two different entities went ahead and got restraining orders. They have been working with a non-profit group, the Advancement Project, and Ms. Tracy Washington and Mr. Bill Quigley, two lawyers that got involved and got a restraining order to stop the bulldozers. And then the AFL-CIO that had been working on one of the big developments known in New Orleans to stop that development. So now a lot of people have gotten involved. The conservancy got involved because some of these are historic properties. And now the city council, it has been thrown into their laps because when they started to look at what HUD was doing in dismantling, they found that they were breaking any number of laws. They had not gotten the permits, and perhaps they don't even have the legal authority by which to do it because they had taken over these public housing projects. They were in receivership. But the time frame for the receivership had run out. And so we don't even know if they have the authority. So now we have at least one restraining order that remains and the city council that is going to take a vote about each of those. AFL-CIO was involved in the one called St. Bernard, one of the biggest ones. I have drafted a letter to the members of the city council explaining to them what we thought was an arrangement that we had worked out with the HUD Secretary, Mr. Jackson, that would do the rehab of a limited number of units and involve the tenants and the plan for the redevelopment of all these units. We are surprised they want to bulldoze them. We are very surprised because homelessness has doubled in New Orleans. There are no rental units. Many of those units were destroyed. People are still living in FEMA's trailers. And to think that they would dismantle 4,500 units of public housing is unconscionable when people are looking for places to live. So I have developed a letter that is going to the members of the city council and will try to engage them as much as I can to explain what we have done here. We also asked Speaker Pelosi, along with Senator Reid, to put together a letter asking the President not to dismantle these units. That letter has gone out. My letter is going out. The telephone calls are going forth. But it is important for the people of this country to understand what is going on. There were rumors following Rita and Katrina that perhaps some people wanted to change the make-up of New Orleans. Some people wanted to get rid of the poor people and thought that all of that city should really become the tourist attraction with all of the hotels and the gambling and all of the other things, and workers should live outside and not inside New Orleans. And some people think that they are carrying out that kind of a mission and that kind of program. I would just ask the Secretary to not demolish these public housing units. It is Christmastime. To give to the people of New Orleans a Christmas present of tearing down these units is unconscionable.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the congresswoman from Ohio for initiating this memorial moment in the Congress of the United States for Julia Carson. This is a very special and important time because we're here this evening to talk about a woman that we truly loved and a woman who gave so much in public service to her country. I know that her family's saddened by her loss because it is a great loss. She has been referred to this evening as a jewel, as the queen, and I came to understand this quite some time ago. I've known Julia for many years, long before I came to Congress and long before she came to Congress. I served in the State legislature of California, and she was a State legislator also, and like Diane Watson and others, we all worked with the Conference of State Legislators and the Conference of Black State Legislators. And so she knew legislators from all over the country. And after I came here, I kept in contact with Julia, and when she ran for office, she called me and she told me that she wanted me to help her. I thought she wanted me to raise some money or maybe come someplace to do something. And after talking with her for a few minutes, she made it very clear she wanted me to get Muhammad Ali to come to help her out. She didn't want me. She wanted Muhammad Ali, and so she said, Well, you know him, don't you? And I said, Yes, I do. She said, Well, if I could get Muhammad Ali here, then that would seal the deal. That's exactly what I need. And of course, I asked him and he went to campaign with her, and he often asked after that how she was doing. And his award-winning photographer, Mr. Howard Binghan, would oftentimes ask me how she was doing, what she was doing so he could report to Muhammad Ali how his candidate that he had helped to win that election was doing in the Congress of the United States of America. Well, let me just say, she was doing wonderfully well legislatively. Some people have referred to not only the fact that she was responsible for the recognition that Rosa Parks got getting the gold medal, but she was working on some tremendous legislation. And as I stand here before you this evening as the Chair of that Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, her legislation is really before us. It is known as HEARTH. It means the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act. And, you know, we've got to pass that legislation, and we've got to pass it, that is, H.R. 840, in the way that she wants it passed. She was expanding the definition of homelessness. She was expanding it so that more people, many of whom who were not considered homeless, we should be qualifying for homeless assistance, that did not get it, could now be drawn in with this legislation. So, it is important for all of us to give support to the work that she was involved in because, again, this very special woman really did not suffer fools. I mean, I know that you've heard the story about the time she stepped on the elevator and another Member of Congress, who had not been here maybe quite as long as Julia, said to Julia when she stepped on the elevator, This elevator is for Members of Congress. And of course, she got the look that only Julia can give, and told somebody, Close the door, because that's how she handled someone who did not have the sense to be gracious enough to whomever was getting on the elevator, but certainly she should have known who her colleagues were getting on the elevator. But there are many stories you will hear about Julia Carson, because not only was she brilliant, she had this sense of humor and she had this wit that was just undeniable. And of all of the people who spoke at Rosa Parks' funeral, and I was at the funeral in Washington, D.C., when Julia spoke, she was the most engaging, the most memorable, the one that really caught the attention of everyone at that service. Julia Carson was truly a queen, and the descriptions that you've heard about her this evening and how she was loved, you have to go to Indianapolis to understand it. You have to hear people talk about her to really get a sense of the queen, and they referred to her as ``the queen.'' And so I'm very proud to be a part of this discussion, remembering her this evening, and she will rest in peace, having done her part, having given all that any human being could give.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and Mel Watt, Mr. Bachus and Mr. Miller and others who have worked so hard on this bill. It is a very complicated issue. You have done a spectacular job. I rise in support of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Act of 2007. Each month brings figures, new figures, that reinforce the importance of putting in place a Federal legislative and regulatory framework that prevents us from reliving this crisis in the mortgage markets. I have a keen interest in this legislation because of the disproportionate impact of the foreclosure wave on my home State. California's third quarter foreclosure rate of one foreclosure filing for every 88 households ranked second highest in all States and reflects a near quadrupling of the number reported for the same period last year. Five of the top 10 metropolitan areas in foreclosure filings are in California. Clearly, we need to prevent the now widespread practice of getting people into loans they simply can't afford. H.R. 3915 takes critical steps in this respect, including, for the first time, imposing a Federal duty of care on all mortgage originators and setting minimum Federal standards on all mortgages. Anchoring the bill's approach are newly established minimum standards regarding the borrower's ability to repay and net tangible benefit to the consumer. This is a sound strategy given that federally regulated mortgage originators have long had to meet similar benchmarks, and not coincidentally, we have seen few problems in that sector of the market. H.R. 3915 also seeks to reduce the incentives to market inappropriate credit products to borrowers. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3915, again for the first time, removes the most destructive of such incentives, severing the link between the compensation of the originator and the terms of the loan. Minority borrowers have been disproportionately steered to costly loans, in part because the fees such loans generate for originators are higher than more appropriate products. H.R. 3915 correctly prohibits this practice outright. I am proud to have been an operational cosponsor of this very ambitious legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this passage today. However, I would not be telling the truth if I said I lacked any concerns about the potential impact of our ambition over time. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank you, Ranking Member Bachus, Mr. Watt and others for your diligent work in the manager's amendment to address one such concern that I raised during the Financial Services Committee markup of the bill, namely, the extent to which the assignee liability and remedies this bill creates should preempt State law. We want to make sure that consumers are protected to the greatest extent possible. Historically, many of these protections have been initiated by States, especially in the subprime market. With that, I would like to conclude. I would like to be clear that this groundbreaking bill should be passed today, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3915.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007. Each month brings new figures that reinforce the importance of putting in place a Federal legislative and regulatory framework that prevents us from reliving this crisis in the mortgage markets. I have a keen interest in this legislation because of the disproportionate impact of the foreclosure wave on my home State. California's third-quarter foreclosure rate of one foreclosure filing for every 88 households ranked second highest among all States, and reflects a near quadrupling of the number reported for the same period last year. Five of the top 10 metro areas in foreclosure filings are in California. Clearly, we need to prevent the now widespread practice of getting people into loans they can't afford. H.R. 3915 takes critical steps in this respect, including--for the first time--imposing a Federal duty of care on all mortgage originators and setting minimum Federal standards on all mortgages. Anchoring the bill's approach are newly established minimum standards regarding the borrower's ability to repay and net tangible benefit to the consumer. This is a sound strategy given that Federally regulated mortgage originators have long had to meet similar benchmarks, and not coincidentally, we have seen few problems in that sector of the market. H.R. 3915 also seeks to reduce the incentives to market inappropriate credit products to borrowers. I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3915--again for the first time--removes the most destructive of such incentives, severing the link between the compensation of the originator and the terms of the loan. Minority borrowers have been disproportionately steered to costly loans, in part because the fees such loans generate for originators are higher than more appropriate products. H.R. 3915 correctly prohibits this practice outright. I am proud to have been an original co-sponsor of this ambitious legislation, and urge my colleagues to support its passage today. But I would not be telling the truth if I said I lacked any concerns about the potential impact of our ambition over time. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you and Ranking Member Bachus for your diligent work in the Manager's Amendment to address one such concern I raised during the Financial Services Committee markup of the bill, namely, the extent to which the assignee liability and remedies this bill creates should preempt State law. We want to make sure that consumers are protected to the greatest extent possible--and, historically, many of these protections have been initiated by States, especially in the sub-prime market. But we also don't want to shut down the secondary mortgage market that has critical to expanding homeownership nationally. I appreciate the effort that the Manager's Amendment makes to better strike this delicate balance. The Manager's Amendment now clarifies that the bill does not preempt state laws such as fraud and civil rights statutes. In particular, I appreciate that the Manager's Amendment makes crystal clear that securitizers will be held to account when they directly participate in a fraud--as in the egregious First Alliance case I mentioned at Committee markup. However, attorneys who have been working on predatory lending issues in my district and State for decades, continue to be concerned that the legal meaning of this provision is unclear. As such, federal courts may impart this meaning in ways that roll back important consumer remedies under State law. This, in turn, raises the question of whether we have yet reached the right balance of Federal rights and remedies in the bill, given that we may be displacing a lot of State and private activity in this financial sector. Certainly, national organizations representing consumers remain concerned about this, and many have declined to endorse the bill. As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, that industry groups seem equally ambivalent about the bill suggests that perhaps we are approaching the proper ``unhappiness quotient'' among the stakeholders. As this bill moves to the Senate and to conference, though, I urge that continue to take seriously and re-examine issues surrounding preemption and strength of remedies. To conclude, however, I want to be clear that I believe this groundbreaking bill should be passed today. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3915. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for all of your work on this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank Mr. Klein and Mr. Mahoney for their leadership in authoring this bill. Too well, we all remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the resulting confusion families encountered about their insurance coverage or lack thereof. Well, imagine if a hurricane were to go through a state and only 1 in 8 homeowners were covered by an insurance policy. Unfortunately, this is exactly the situation that exists in California today--only 1 in 8 (or 12 percent) of Californians possess earthquake insurance. At the time of the Northridge earthquake in 1994 almost three times as many people were covered. After the Northridge earthquake, the cost of the coverage doubled and the amount of coverage provided was cut in half. The California Earthquake Authority (CEA)--created after the Northridge earthquake when insurers restricted homeowners' insurance policies in order to avoid earthquake exposure--currently provides about two-thirds of the residential insurance coverage in California. Since its inception 11 years ago, CEA has been unable to accumulate the amount of capital it projects it will need in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. This year approximately 40 percent of the premium that CEA collects from policyholders will be paid to re- insurers rather than towards capital accumulation or more coverage under the policy. Including the CEA in the benefits provided under H.R. 3355 will allow it to reduce its claims-paying financing costs while still being able to pay the cost of its losses and repay any reinsurance or loans from the Federal government. By reducing its claims paying costs CEA will be able to accumulate capital faster and encourage more people to buy earthquake insurance. Inclusion of the CEA in H.R. 3355 makes good economic sense, good actuarial sense, and good common sense. I urge my colleagues to support the Manager's Amendment and the underlying bill before us today.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to join with the head of our delegation, Representative Stark, and others, in paying tribute to an extraordinary man. Gus Hawkins was one of the most profound public policymakers that ever served in this House. You heard Pete Stark allude to some of that legislation. That legislation has been good for America, it's been good for African Americans, it's been good for this House. I am so proud that when Gus Hawkins decided that he was not going to stand for reelection in 1990, he called me and he said, ``I'm calling you first because I believe that you would do well representing this district by serving as a Member of Congress.'' And so I have tried to live up to his legacy. Gus Hawkins, however, was very, very strong. He understood how government works. He was understated. He got along with everybody. He made a lot of friends in this House. And people responded to him in a terrific manner. And so I am standing here in great sympathy and in pain, because I know that we wanted to get him up here one more time when we focused on the Hawkins-Humphrey Act with Barney Frank in the Financial Services Committee. We were not able to do that. And so all that we can do now is honor him with this tribute and say, ``Rest well, Gus.'' I would request a moment of silence, please, before we resume our schedule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I'm proud to join with a unified Democratic Caucus to cast my vote in support of H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This legislation marks the first time redeployment language has been attached to funding, and includes the strongest worded language to date, by stating Congress's explicit commitment to end the war in Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and bring our troops home. The letter my colleagues Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and I sent to President Bush stating that we would only support funding for the redeployment of our troops has grown from 70 to 92 signatories. As the letter stated, and as the title of this legislation echoes, we choose to support our military and look out for the best interests of this country by funding an orderly and responsible redeployment from Iraq. While this bill is far from perfect, there's a lot in this bill to be proud of. This bill requires the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days. It prohibits the deployment of U.S. troops not deemed fully trained, and it effectively bans the awful practice of waterboarding by any affiliate of a U.S. agency. I applaud the shared commitment of the Democratic Members in both the House and Senate to end the war in Iraq. I share the public's dismay at the slow pace of Congress's action to end President Bush's failed war. It is, of course, the administration, not Congress, who ultimately deserves the blame for this terrible war. Before every major debate on the Iraq war, like clockwork, President Bush fires up the propaganda machine to twist reality and obscure the facts on the ground. Those who stand in the way of real change in Iraq must be held accountable. They must not be allowed to quietly throw wrenches in the gears of change slowly rotating within this country. A large and growing majority of Americans now believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq and that Congress should force a change in the President's irresponsible policies.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, Thomas Friedman wrote an op ed in the New York Times titled, ``Remember Iraq.'' In the article, Mr. Friedman laments that in the last couple of months ``the air has gone out of the Iraq debate.'' Mr. Friedman, unfortunately, seems to be correct. We haven't been talking about Iraq as much lately. The media is partly to blame for this, but the consumers of the media take some responsibility as well. Without new sensational stories to run, war coverage becomes monotonous, and we can be desensitized to the depictions of war. But it is the media's ethical responsibility to focus on the issues that matter the most rather than what sells the most papers and boosts ratings. When reports of the terrible toll of the Iraq war fall off the front page and disappear from nightly TV coverage, it can be easier to put the sacrifices our men and women in uniform are making in Iraq out of one's mind. It can be easy to forget the suffering of the Iraq people, whose lives continue to be plagued by violence. The enormous costs of the war don't seem as real when they are not thrust in our faces every day. But it is also the ethical responsibility of this Congress to continue to debate an issue as important as the war. We are partly to blame for letting the air out of the Iraq debate as well. In the absence of the required number of votes needed to override an inevitable Bush veto on any Iraq-related legislation, we in Congress must do a better job of challenging the administration's false rhetoric about the Iraq war. While the war in Iraq is disappearing from the newspapers, problems in Pakistan, Turkey and Iran are sure getting a lot of attention. Why aren't we making the connection between the problems in these countries with the problems we have created in Iraq? An enduring foreign military presence will destabilize any region. An enormous endless American military presence in the heart of the Middle East is a recipe for disaster. We in Congress need to do more to educate our constituents of the incredible costs of this misguided war in Iraq and the danger it presents to the peace and security of the entire region. The Middle East is a house of cards, and we are shaking the table. It is no accident that since we began our misguided war in Iraq, we have seen more problems among Iraq's neighbors. Turkey is a very important ally to the United States, and the threat of a Turkish invasion into the Kurdish region of Iraq is a real problem for us. The last thing we need is another front opening in an already unmanageable war. We must also discuss the connection between the President's so-called war on terror, with the problems we are watching unfold in Pakistan. We must not forget that the al Qaeda forces, who might long ago have been defeated if we hadn't been distracted in Iraq, have invaded northern Pakistan and hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have been killed. Most experts agree that Osama bin Laden is probably hiding in that region in northern Pakistan. Meanwhile, General Musharraf has imposed a state of emergency through Pakistan dissolving the courts and suspending the constitution. Thousands of angry lawyers in Lahore and other cities Monday have taken to the streets to protest the embattled Pakistani President. Pictures in our newspapers of the lawyers being beaten and arrested by the police are ominous warnings of further trouble to come. This is worrisome when it happens in any country, but down right terrifying when it happens in a country that possesses nuclear weapons. It is difficult for anyone to say exactly how this connects to our failed war in Iraq, but it surely isn't helping. The point is that President Bush's irresponsible policy in the Middle East has destabilized the entire region. He has created a ticking time bomb. Rather than trying to defuse the situation with the diplomatic surge, Bush's answer was a military surge and to ratchet up the rhetoric against those who dare oppose him. We must make it clear every single day that it is because we care so strongly about the safety of our country, the wellness of our military and the help of those who serve, that we demand an end to the war in Iraq. As Mr. Friedman pointed out, when we, as a country, allowed the debate over Iraq to fizzle, we are not merely procrastinating and delaying the eventual confrontation. We are committing negligence. The daily cost of the war is staggering and cannot be ignored. For every day the war in Iraq continues, more American lives are lost, more Iraqis are killed, more of our tax dollars are spent, and political reconciliation in Iraq becomes less and less likely as the vital struggle for power continues to rage. Perhaps the most important measure of progress, the stability of the region, seems to be slipping further and further out of balance. Countless proposals have been offered to change the course of this President's war in Iraq. There is no shortage of good ideas on how, when, and why we need to end the war in Iraq. I am of the opinion that we must end the war in Iraq as soon as possible and only provide funding to bring our troops home safely and quickly. Others in the Democratic Caucus offer different answers but remain committed to the ultimate goal of ending the war. We demand a new direction. Let's bring our troops home to their families as soon as possible and refocus this country's resources on the issues that matter the most to the American people. It's time to end the war in Iraq.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I erroneously cast my vote against H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act. Please let the written record show that I intended to vote ``aye'' on roll call vote number 1000.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today President Bush requested an additional $46 billion war request. This request is on top of an existing $142 billion request pending from earlier this year. The President told reporters that the funding was simply for day-to- day military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said that the bill provides for basic needs like bullets and body armor, protection against IEDs, and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. The President would lead us to believe that there are only two options in Iraq; Congress must either continue to fund the war indefinitely, or we must choose to pull the rug out from under the troops and strand them in the field without body armor and bullets. This, of course, is a ridiculous characterization of our position. We feel that continuing to referee a civil war in Iraq runs counter to our national security interests. There is no military solution to the war in Iraq no matter how many soldiers, weapons and dollars you dump into the country. Bombs and bullets have not and will not bring us peace in Iraq. I believe there is only one answer to the war in Iraq: a fully funded redeployment of our troops and military contractors. I think a reasonable Member of Congress would welcome a plan from the President on how we're going to safely leave Iraq, and we would be happy to fund it. But asking us to continue funding, providing funds for the occupation of Iraq until President Bush decides to change course is tantamount to asking us to just continue to support the war. The choice is clear; it is time to face the facts: We either provide funds to continue the war or we provide funds to end the war. Mr. Speaker and Members, I'm bothered by this request. I'm bothered by it because the President is playing politics with the issue. The President of the United States is saying, ``I want this $46 billion and I want it now, and I want to use it for very necessary armor and equipment,'' because he knows that the Members of Congress do not like to be seen in a bad light, having folks believe that somehow they're not providing support for the soldiers. And he keeps testing the will of this Congress with these kinds of antics. We know that the American public wants us out of Iraq. We also know the American public wants to indicate its support for the soldiers who are not there because they've decided that we would go to war, but rather, they answered the President's call because they are patriotic, many of them needed jobs, they needed resources, they needed money, so they're there. Everybody supports the soldiers, but the President is trying to set us up. He is trying to set us up so that if we don't immediately vote on this $46 billion it will look as if we are not giving the soldiers the necessary equipment in order to wage the war. This is absolutely ridiculous. And I don't know how long this President thinks he can get along with mismanaging this war in the way that he's doing. We have 101 questions we ought to be forcing on him. First of all, where are the 190,000 weapons that have been lost? Where is the money we were supposed to have been getting from the oil wells in Iraq? Where are the billions of dollars that they sent over in cash in the beginning of this war? What happened to all of that money? We can go on and on and on with questions about Blackwater and the contractors and the mercenaries. We can go on and on about this government that they put together that does not function and will not function. We can ask them, whose side are you on, the Sunnis, the Shias? And now you're trying to manage what Turkey does with the Kurds. The Kurds killed Turkish soldiers. The Turks threatened to go over and invade the Kurdish territory, and now we're over there trying to manage that. It is complicated. We have no business there. This occupation is draining us, not only the lives of young men and women who are there trying to answer the President's call, but the dollars that should be going into comprehensive universal health care, truly supporting Leave No Child Behind, truly supporting moderate and low-income housing, truly being used to rebuild the infrastructure that's falling apart all over America. Come on, Mr. President, don't challenge us this way. There are some of us who know what we're going to do, and others are going to get wise very soon.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Members, last Friday, Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who led U.S. forces in Iraq following the invasion in 2003, became the latest in a growing list of retired military officers who harshly criticize the war in Iraq. He said that the United States is ``living a nightmare with no end in sight.'' General Sanchez also lambasted the latest strategy in Iraq calling it, again, ``a desperate attempt by the administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war.'' These startling revelations from the highest ranks of our military should shake us to our very core. The man who was personally responsible for conducting the war in Iraq is trying to convince us that we should have no faith in the administration now waging the war. General Sanchez went on to say, ``There has been a glaring unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,'' and that ``the American people must hold them accountable.'' But, General Sanchez, how can the American people hold their elected officials accountable? As we all know, they can make a lot of noise by calling congressional offices, writing letters, and attending marches; but at the end of the day, the American people hold their elected officials accountable at the ballot box. To my colleagues in the House of Representatives, our constituents have already made up their minds. An overwhelming majority of people think it was a mistake to invade Iraq and believe that setting a timetable for withdrawal is the correct course of action. Most Democrats and Republicans agree that an open-ended occupation of Iraq is an awful idea. But the Iraqi people don't want us there, and we have no timetable for withdrawal. What do we have if not an open-ended occupation? What more do we need to learn before deciding that this war must be brought to a halt? Day after day, the grim realities unfolding in Iraq paint a picture of futility and mismanagement. More lives are lost, more money is squandered, and Iraq falls deeper and deeper into chaos and civil war. President Bush has had our military in pursuit of a victory that is perpetually ``just around the corner.'' Well, we have been around the corner and back again. There is no victory to be found. The time to end this debacle has long since passed. The United States military presence has reinforced in the minds of the Iraqis the most damaging lesson an emerging nation can learn: that problems are solved with bullets and bombs instead of compromise and cooperation. Instead of encouraging compromise and fostering cooperation among the various warring tribes, we have done the exact opposite. We continue to spend billions of dollars blindly arming Iraqis who volunteer to serve in the Iraqi security forces with no thought as to where their loyalties might lie when we hand them weapons. On one hand, as Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, we have not addressed the degree to which all elements of the Iraqi security forces, from the Prime Minister's office down, have links to Shiite efforts to retain and expand power and carry out sectarian cleansing in mixed areas. On the other hand, the bottom-up reconciliation that Bush brags about is arming and empowering the Sunni militias in Anbar province and elsewhere. This is, as a recent article in the Economist suggests, a recipe for civil war and only serves to undermine the central government of Iraq. These irresponsible and dangerous tactics not only harm future prospects for stability in Iraq, but seriously erode our standing in the Middle East and larger international community. I would like to commend General Sanchez for speaking out against the Bush administration. But how many more General Sanchezes will it take before the last Congressperson turns against the occupation of Iraq? How many more investigations of Blackwater's abuse, of Halliburton's fraud, how many more reports of our overstretched military at its breaking point, or about the damage our occupation is doing to our international standing? How much more of this debate do we need before our national leaders accept that the Iraq war is actually making our country less safe? For the good of this great Nation and for the good of Iraq, it is time to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq. Mr. Speaker and Members, I know that there is an attempt to put a good face on the surge and to try and make us believe that the surge is working, but just read your newspapers every day and see the number of lives that are being lost, not only of our own soldiers, but of the Iraqis.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Chairman Frank, I applaud you for your willingness to modify the trust fund proposal as it has moved through this Chamber to reflect the realities of the housing market while simultaneously keeping your eye on the prize, a significant increase in the production of affordable housing for the very poorest Americans. This amendment continues to maintain such a balance. Let me share some simple math with my colleagues. The monthly SSI payment in California is $836. As the Brooke amendment established, the Federal Government considers an affordable rent to be 30 percent of that income, or $250 per month. Nobody can operate housing anywhere in California, much less in high-cost areas like Los Angeles, for $250 per unit monthly. It doesn't matter whether you're a nonprofit or for- profit or whether you have significant debt service on loans for the capital, or if someone has just handed you a brand new building for free. As the green eye shade types in the real estate business say, it just ``doesn't pencil out.'' This need to address the operating cost shortfall in projects targeted to the lowest income folks, especially those at SSI income levels and below, is not news to those of us who have been fighting for a national affordable housing trust fund for over half a decade. Nor, to be clear, does it suggest that there's any shortage of need for plain old low-cost bricks and sticks capital grants which will comprise the vast majority of funding under H.R. 2895, even if this amendment is adopted. What has become clear, though, is that the State and local housing agencies need some flexibility with the trust fund dollars to address the operating shortfall issue in order for the trust fund to generate the greatest number of new units for the poorest, most disabled residents of trust fund projects. Critically, neither this amendment nor the underlying bill discourages grantees from seeking other sources of operating subsidies or rental assistance. Indeed, it requires as much. Even the full 10 percent of the trust fund in a given year, should States and localities choose to use the maximum permitted to operate accounts, will not come close to providing the total amount of operating subsidy needed to achieve the trust fund's targeting goals. So grantees like my own California Housing Finance Agency or Los Angeles City Housing Department will have no choice but to leverage trust funds with section 8, McKinney-Vento subsidies and State or local rental assistance programs. But this flexibility will ensure that some projects can move forward that otherwise could not in the current environment, where section 8, for example, has been under attack since the moment the trust fund movement began. That is the essence of the trust fund bill that you have championed, Chairman Frank, recognizing and overcoming the obstacles to affordable housing production for the poorest people in this country. This amendment is wholly consistent with that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support that.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Chairman Frank, who just spoke, is absolutely correct. This is a very exciting day, a day that so many housing advocates and working people and poor people have been waiting for. They get a chance to see their government responding to one of the most critical needs in our society. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2895, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, and I sincerely thank Chairman Frank for his unrelenting efforts to get the Federal Government back in the affordable housing production business. I am so proud to be part of this committee, to be a cosponsor of this bill and to work with Chairman Frank in not only producing housing under this National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, but for all the other work that has been coming out of this committee under his leadership. The need for this bill could not be more urgent. Mr. Chairman, last week you joined me when I chaired a hearing in the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee that demonstrated that when affordable housing is not produced, homelessness is. The stark bottom line that emerged from the hearing, focused narrowly on reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, is that, nationwide, we haven't made demonstrable progress in reducing the number of households experiencing homelessness in the past two decades. While some homeless people face personal challenges that require social services or other support, every homeless individual and family shares one common need: Housing they can afford. And there simply is not enough of it. For example, there are 9 million renter households who earn less than 30 percent of area median income, but only 6.2 million units affordable to them. This leaves an absolute deficit of 2.8 affordable rental housing units for our poorest families. This kind of math leads inevitably to widespread homelessness. But I want to emphasize that the National Housing Trust Fund addresses the affordable housing crisis as it affects every level of society. Right now, housing costs are outstripping wages for more households than ever before in recent memory. According to the ``Harvard University Study on the State of the Nation's Housing in 2007,'' 17 million renters and homeowners are paying more than half their incomes in housing costs. Working is simply no longer a guarantee of being able to afford housing. In Los Angeles, for example, it takes an hourly wage of over $22 an hour to afford a moderately priced two-bedroom apartment, when the minimum wage in California is only $7.50 an hour. Put another way, a two-parent family with both parents working full-time at minimum-wage jobs puts that family less than two-thirds of the way to being able to afford decent housing. Finally, as a recent Center for Housing Policy study ``Paycheck to Paycheck'' dramatically shows, many of our Nation's essential workers cannot afford to live in or near the communities where they work. In high-cost communities like Los Angeles where the median home price is $523,000, the income needed to afford a home is far higher than that earned by teachers, police, firefighters, nurses and other key occupations studied. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund addresses this full range of housing crises, providing relief to overburdened renters and homeowners, while targeting funds where the need is greatest. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that H.R. 2895 does so at no additional cost to taxpayers. It is a trust fund in the truest sense, a dedicated source of revenue, separate and apart from the annual appropriations process, reflecting the need for the Federal Government to make a long overdue commitment to affordable housing production. We have clearly demonstrated that the fund will be drawn from moneys from the affordable housing fund proposed as part of the GSE reform bill, H.R. 1427, from Federal Housing Administration savings and other existing revenue streams. I am prepared to debate with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whether such revenues should be diverted to uses other than addressing the housing needs of America's working families and poorest, disabled individuals. I do not think there is any better use for them, particularly since both GSE and FHA revenues derive from housing activities that the Federal Government and government-sponsored enterprises engage in, at significant profit to both, I might add. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it has been 17 years since the Federal Government last enacted a major affordable housing production program, spearheaded in 1990 by, Mr. Chairman, your predecessor, Chairman Gonzalez. The time has long since passed to enact another one. I am so proud of this legislation. I am so thankful, Chairman Frank, for your leadership. And I am so proud and pleased to have the opportunity at this time in my career not only to work on the committee with you and to chair this subcommittee, but to be able to stand here today and see something about to happen that has been needed for so long.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much for yielding this time to me, Congressman Payne. I rushed from my last appointment to be here because this is a day that we have waited for far too long. And I certainly appreciate all of the work that you have done, and certainly the work of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., and the work of Members on both sides of the aisle. And Congressman Blunt is correct; we did coauthor this legislation I think some 6 years ago, but we have only been able to stick with this legislation because of one person, in my estimation, and that is Edith Bartley. She has walked these halls. She has lobbied. She has educated us. She has always been pleasant. She has been patient and cooperative. You couldn't have a better daughter. You couldn't have a better child. You couldn't have a better family member not only looking out for the family, but for all of the families who have not yet been treated fairly and compensated for what happened to them. Mr. Speaker, as it was said, 9 years ago, on August 7, 1998, terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda bombed United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. These terrorist attacks were one of the first warnings of the threat posed by al Qaeda, the international terrorist organization that hijacked American airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 6 years ago. The embassy bombings in Nairobi killed over 200 United States Embassy employees, 12 of whom were United States citizens, and injured thousands more. The embassy bombing in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed 11 employees and injured over 80 people. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 innocent people. The United States Government provided compensation to the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the United States be consistent and provide compensation to the families of the victims of the embassy bombings in East Africa 3 years earlier. So, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I offer my apology and the apology of many others because it has taken so long. My sympathies to the families of the victims of those embassy bombings, as well as all of the victims of al Qaeda's acts of terror. Let us move forward so that we can finally do the right thing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. And I would like to thank my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, for all of the work that he has put into this issue and the way that he helped to focus my committee and the overall Financial Services Committee on this very issue. He will be speaking today. And I don't think there is anybody who can describe what happened as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Wilma and what happened in the gulf coast, in particular, his district, any better than Mr. Taylor will do. And by the time he finishes his presentation here today, I think all of the Members will very well understand why it is so necessary that we move with a real reform bill to deal with these kinds of catastrophes. As you know, I introduced a bill on July 19, 2007, following substantial consideration by the Financial Services Committee on flood insurance and related issues. Specifically, the committee held two hearings on June 12, one examining the issues of the national flood insurance program raised by the gulf coast hurricanes, and a second hearing on the predecessor to this bill, H.R. 1682, introduced by Chairman Frank. Thereafter, on July 17, the committee held a hearing on related legislation, H.R. 920, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2007, that was introduced by Mr. Taylor. H.R. 3121 reflects this extensive committee analysis on the NFIP, wind insurance and related issues. Accordingly, on July 26, 2007, the Financial Services Committee reported out H.R. 3121 with a favorable recommendation. I hope that we're able to pass H.R. 3121 today because it makes critical improvements to the NFIP in light of the devastating lessons of the 2005 hurricane season. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, NFIP faced unprecedented financial and regulatory strains as it confronted approximately $21.9 billion in NFIP-insured losses. The program had to borrow in excess of $17.5 billion from the United States Treasury in order to pay claims and interest resulting from Hurricane Katrina alone. Those of us concerned about NFIP in the wake of the 2005 storms saw the urgent need to put the program on sounder financial footing by addressing the issues stakeholders had raised around the substantial premium discounts and cross-subsidies among classes of its policyholders, outdated flood insurance rate maps, allegations of uneven compliance with mandatory purchase requirements, and questions as to the performance and efficiency of private insurers operating under the NFIP's Write Your Own program. Additionally, the committee hearing on H.R. 920, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2007, made it clear the need to address perverse incentives created by dual government and private insurance regimes when damage can be a result of wind and flood. I'm proud to say that H.R. 3121 prudently addresses these concerns. Specifically, the bill would increase NFIP's borrowing authority to $21.5 billion from $20.8 billion, but require that it satisfy traditional criteria for actuarial soundness by phasing out discounted premiums; allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency, that is, FEMA, to increase flood policy rates by 15 percent a year, up from 10 percent; raise civil penalties on federally regulated lenders who fail to enforce mandatory purchase of flood insurance for mortgage holders; increase program participation incentives; encourage the revisions to flood maps; and starting in mid-2008, allow for the purchase of optional insurance for wind as well as water damage. These reforms are desperately needed because, as we have seen, storms will become stronger and more intense. We need a program that can contend with the worst that Mother Nature can throw at us. Simply put, we cannot wait and let another hurricane season pass without putting the National Flood Insurance Program on solid footing. I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. And I thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, for all of the time that you have put in trying to make us very credible as we relate to these reforms by not only giving us the leadership, but allowing us to hold the hearings that are so necessary to get the information that is so desperately needed to do this.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I give my statement on this legislation, I'd sincerely like to thank Mr. Lamar Smith, my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle who was the author of this legislation in the last Congress and who has worked with me so much and so well to bring this legislation before us today. I'm very thankful to him. We have 43 cosponsors on this bill, and I'd also like to thank Mr. Randy Forbes and Mr. Luis Fortuno who are on the opposite side of the aisle who worked with us on this bill; but all of the Members who came together to get this legislation to this point today are to be appreciated because it was somewhat controversial when Mr. Smith first brought the idea to us. And, of course, I would like to thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers for all of his support for this legislation. This particular legislation takes us back 25 years after AIDS was discovered; the AIDS virus continues to spread. About 1.7 million Americans have been infected by HIV since the beginning of the epidemic, and there are 1.2 million Americans living with HIV today. Every year, there are 40,000 new HIV infections and 17,000 new AIDS- related deaths in the United States. We need to take the threat of HIV/AIDS seriously and confront it in every institution of our society. That includes our Nation's prison system, and that is why this bill is so important. The Stop AIDS in Prison Act requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to develop a comprehensive policy to provide HIV testing, treatment and prevention for inmates in Federal prisons. The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons to test all prison inmates for HIV upon entering prison and again prior to release from prison, unless the inmate absolutely opts out of taking the test. The bill requires HIV/AIDS prevention education for all inmates and comprehensive treatment for those inmates who test positive. Language was included to protect the confidentiality of inmate tests, diagnosis, and treatment and to require that inmates receive pre-test and post- test counseling so that they will understand the meaning of HIV test results. In 2005, the Department of Justice reported that the rate of confirmed AIDS cases in prisons was three times higher than in the general population. The Department of Justice also reported that 2 percent of the State prison inmates and 1.1 percent of Federal prison inmates were known to be living with HIV/AIDS in 2003. However, the actual rate of HIV infection in our Nation's prisons is simply unknown, and it could be considerably higher. This is because prison officials do not consistently test prisoners for HIV. The only way to determine whether HIV has been spread among prisoners is to begin routine HIV testing of all prison inmates. This bill does that. This bill has been endorsed by a number of prominent HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations, including AIDS Action, the AIDS Institute, the National Minority AIDS Council, the AIDS Health Care Foundation, the HIV Medicine Association, AIDS Project Los Angeles, and Bienestar; that happens to be a Latino community service and advocacy organization. The bill also has been endorsed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and even the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Speaker and Members, I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barbara Lee, 5 minutes, a woman who has been in the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS not only domestically but internationally.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this moment to just thank, again, Representative Lamar Smith. Also I would like to thank, again, Chairman John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott and all of the Members who have signed on as cosponsors on this bill. Again, as was mentioned by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, it certainly did start out a bit controversial. We had some of the advocacy groups who did not support this bill when we began to talk about doing something about AIDS in the prison system. As a matter of fact, questions were raised about everything from confidentiality to the cost to not knowing what to do about follow-up once they leave. But we have been able to answer all of those questions, and some of those who were opposed are now very, very strong supporters because they understand that we really do have to take additional steps to stem the tide of HIV and AIDS in this country. You would think after 25 years and all of the education that we have tried to do, all the literature that has been written, that everyone would know everything that they need to know about HIV and AIDS. But it is not true. And one of the things that we had to consider was why was it there was an increase in HIV and AIDS with women, particularly minority women. And then we had to take a look at where it may be coming from. And though we don't have empirical data, we do think we are on the right track in helping to stem this tide because we do think that some of these infections are coming from those who may have been incarcerated. Those who are incarcerated have nothing to fear. As a matter of fact, they should feel even protected by what we are doing because, despite the fact that we don't always discuss what is going on in prison, I think we have a pretty good idea. And this will help again to save the lives not only of inmates, but certainly the mates of inmates when they return into the general population. Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone.