Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1943) to provide for an effective HIV/AIDS program in Federal prisons, as amended.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is focused on predatory lending.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1852, the Expanded American Homeownership Act of 2007. As you know, I introduced H.R. 1852 on March 29, 2007, and I want to take this time to thank Chairman Frank for his original cosponsorship. I also want to acknowledge 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. It has been a little over 4 months since the Committee on Financial Services considered this measure to revitalize the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA. On May 3, 2007, the Expanding American Homeownership Act passed the Committee on Financial Services by a vote of 45-19. The ensuing period has only made the need to enact H.R. 1852 clearer. We are all aware of the turmoil in the mortgage markets with the dramatic rise in foreclosures. Some predict as many as 2 million mortgage loan defaults by year's end. Equally troubling is the widening impact that the mortgage crisis is having within the domestic and global economy. We still don't know the full scope of that impact, but it is clear that we must take prudent steps to address the underlying issues in the housing markets. H.R. 1852 is a necessary step in that direction. To be clear, this legislation will not by itself resolve the crisis. Indeed, later this week the Committee on Financial Services will hold a hearing to discuss the major players in government and the markets' other strategies to address this multi-faceted problem. Revitalizing FHA, however, is an essential element of a comprehensive strategy. FHA is a federally insured loan program that for over 60 years has been a reliable source of affordable fixed-rate mortgage loans, especially for first-time home buyers. At the end of funding year 2006, FHA had $338.6 billion of insurance in force on about 3.9 million loans. From 1934 through the end of funding year 2006, FHA had insured about $33.9 million home loans at a mortgage volume of about $1.9 trillion. Once the preeminent provider of mortgage insurance to low- and moderate-income home buyers, FHA has seen a precipitous drop in its market share in recent years. In 1991, FHA loans accounted for about 11 percent of the market. By 2004, that share had dropped to about 3 percent. Borrowers have increasingly turned to the private subprime market for loans, many of which contained adjustable rates that are now resetting, or will do so in the near future. In the absence of significant appreciation in the values of their homes, many of these borrowers will be unable to refinance to ensure affordable monthly payments into the future. H.R. 1852 will enable FHA to serve more subprime borrowers at affordable rates and terms, recapture borrowers that have turned to problematic subprime loans in recent years, and offer refinancing loan opportunities to borrowers struggling to meet their mortgage payments in the midst of the current home price and mortgage market turbulence. Specifically, this bill would authorize zero and lower down payment loans for borrowers that can afford mortgage payments but lack the cash for required down payment, a major reason that many low-income borrowers turn to private subprime markets rather than FHA-insured loans. It will increase loan limits to make FHA relevant in high-cost markets, direct FHA to provide mortgage loans to high-risk, but qualified, buyers; it will enhance the FHA reverse mortgage loan program, promote the sale of foreclosed FHA rental housing, loans to localities so that affordable housing can be maintained in local communities, authorize up to $300 million a year for the next 5 fiscal years from the bill's excess profits for an affordable housing fund instead of returning such funds to the general treasury. Notably, H.R. 1852 also includes a number of important changes to the FHA bill that passed the House last year. First, it eliminates the fee increases from last year's bill for borrowers that continue to make a down payment, scaling back the maximum upfront fee from 3 percent to 2.5, and the maximum annual fee from 2 percent to .55 percent. These reductions would reduce FHA closing costs premiums for a hypothetical family buying a $300,000 home by $2,250, and annual fees over a 5-year period by over $20,000 compared to last year's bill. This bill also includes a provision authorizing loan limit increases for FHA rental housing loans in high-cost areas where current FHA loans do not keep pace with local construction costs. In this way we are ensuring that FHA contributes to the full range of affordable housing stock we so desperately need in this country, from homeownership to rental housing. In that vein, H.R. 1852 also differs from H.R. 1752 in a final, absolutely critical respect. This bill recognizes the full scope of the affordable housing crisis facing the Nation by targeting up to $300 million annually for the next 5 years to an affordable housing fund for grants to provide affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities for low-income families. This measure is clearly needed. We can thank Barney Frank for all of the work and all of the attention and time that he put into making sure that this was a part of this bill. Simply put, this country faces an affordable housing crisis of epic proportions. According to Harvard University's State of the Nation's Housing in 2007 report, 17 million renters and homeowners are paying more than half their incomes in housing costs. There just isn't enough affordable housing stock to go around. With that, and in closing, I have said for many years that there is an affordable housing crisis in America. In recent months that crisis has exploded beyond the poorest renters and homeowners, to threaten the domestic economy. H.R. 1852 is a necessary step, though not in itself a sufficient one, in walking us back from the brink and the direction of meeting the housing needs of all Americans. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the chairman as much time as he may consume.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left?

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. WATERS. I would also like to thank Mr. Bachus and Mr. Miller; Mr. Bachus, who has been so good to work with; Mr. Miller, who is an expert. We have been able to talk about things, to work out differences, and to move forward. This is a very productive overall Financial Services Committee, a very productive Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development. With people working together on both sides of the aisle, we're getting things done. This may be one of the most important pieces of legislation to pass this House in this session. We will be able to help people with refinancing. We will be able to help people stay out of foreclosure. We will be able to revitalize FHA, that really knows and understands how to provide insurance for moderate- and low-income folks who are desperate to be homeowners. And I am just delighted that I've had an opportunity to play a role. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. I appreciate Mr. Cardoza's amendment so much because it does have an important impact on high-cost markets like our home State of California. The FHA statute creates an artificial cap on the maximum home price, meaning that FHA does almost no loan business in certain high-cost markets. Now, this will put FHA back in the business of insuring loans in high-cost areas, not only in California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other areas with a limited FHA presence. This amendment also puts FHA in a better position to help subprime borrowers and address temporary dislocations. Even before the recent mortgage crisis developed, there was a bipartisan consensus shared by the administration that reformed H.R. 1852 would help get FHA back in the business of making loans at good terms and conditions to borrowers that turned to predatory loans in recent years. This amendment expands the extent to which this objective can be achieved. This is absolutely a great amendment, and I support it.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I hope that our chairman didn't confuse you with that convoluted definition of what the time is that we are claiming. Madam Chairman, I am in strong support of this amendment. As a matter of fact, I would like to take this moment to commend and thank my colleague, Mr. Miller, for the work that he has done in helping other Members to understand what this is all about. I can recall when we had the hearing and everybody said, well, this is such a wonderful idea. As a matter of fact, all of us voted for the American Dream Down Payment Act on both sides of the aisle. We can't understand why there would be any questions or any problems about the way that there is assistance being given to would-be homeowners by organizations such as the ones who were presented to us on that day of the hearing. So because of his expertise and his understanding and his appreciation, he has helped us all to come together, and it has support on both sides of the aisle. As was mentioned, the amendment would allow qualified down payment assistance providers to participate in an FHA program if certain conditions are satisfied, that is, no obligation for the mortgagor to repay and net worth requirement. The Secretary shall consider as cash or its equivalent any amounts gifted by a family member, the mortgagor's employer or labor union, or a qualified homeownership assistance entity, but only if there is no obligation on the part of the mortgagor to repay the gift. I rise in support of this amendment. It is a major step in the direction of capturing the benefits of down payment assistance programs to over 1 million households since 1999, many of them FHA-insured borrowers, while safeguarding against bad actors in the field. The minimum capitalization requirement will protect borrowers from fly-by- night operations, which the explicit prohibition against requiring repayment of such assistance by the borrower will ensure that the benefit is indeed a gift. Equally important, the additional measures to ensure the legitimacy of appraisals in FHA-insured transactions contained in H.R. 1852 and the manager's amendment to the bill will help safeguard the entire progress. Inflated appraisals undercut the legitimacy of seller- financed down payment assistance. Down payment assistance that is repaid from a seller's proceeds that derive from a borrower's ability to get a loan based on an inflated appraisal is no gift at all to the borrower. H.R. 1852 cracks down on such schemes, while preserving the field for legitimate down payment programs. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman and Members, earlier today we talked about how we worked together so well in order to get the best possible legislation. And I am just a little bit sad that this substitute amendment would reform for the Federal Housing Administration's FHA single-family mortgage insurance activities and would allow FHA to base each borrower's mortgage insurance premiums on the risk that the borrower poses to the FHA mortgage insurance fund with slight variations. Under this proposal, mortgage insurance premiums will be based on the borrower's credit history, loan-to-value ratio, debt-to-income ratio, and on FHA's historical experience with similar borrowers. This amendment maintains FHA reserves within the insurance fund to preserve the future solvency of the FHA program. I just rise in strong opposition to this amendment for the simple reason that H.R. 1852 is a better bill than the FHA reform bill that passed the House last year. And I could go on and on and on talking about why this is a much better bill, but I think this would be a step backwards, and I would ask my colleagues not to support this amendment. It is not a good amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman and Members of the House, first I would like to tell the subcommittee ranking member how sad I am that we're not going to be working as closely together on this Subcommittee on Housing. I have truly enjoyed working with her. And even though she will remain on the committee, we perhaps won't have an opportunity to sit together and chat and not only make decisions, but just make fun of some people from time to time.

Ms. WATERS. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Cummings.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chair.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to make sure that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, Mrs. Biggert, whom I've worked with so closely and enjoy working with so much, is clear on the fact that the housing trust fund does not take money from FHA. And I think Mr. Frank made it very clear before he left that HUD would have to certify that it is solvent before any of that money goes into the trust fund. I think that's very important. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has tossed out the conviction of aggravated battery for 17-year-old Mychal Bell. I can no longer be silent about the ongoing struggle for justice for the six high school students in Jena, Louisiana, known as the Jena Six. These young boys, who were arrested after a racially charged school fight and charged with attempted murder following a noose hanging incident now face the prospect of losing much of their young lives to a tainted criminal justice system. I have carefully reviewed all of the news accounts of the events surrounding this most troubling case. I have talked with the parents, and I have talked with the attorneys. I remain convinced that this case is a result of long-standing, deep-seated racial divisions in Jena, Louisiana. It seems unreasonable that on a school campus the administration was unaware of the fact that white students had claimed the space under a tree and declared it off limits to black students. Even so, once the black students asked permission of the administration to sit under the tree and were granted permission to sit under the tree, the school should have recognized that a problem was brewing. The school should have initiated discussions surrounding the residual racial issues that existed in order to avoid a confrontation. After the black students sat under the tree, it is reported that the white students responded by hanging three hangman's nooses in a tree. Given this country's history of racially motivated violence, specifically lynchings, the black students were offended and threatened by the physical and emotional message sent by the nooses hanging in the tree. It seems unconscionable that this kind of Jim Crow era segregation, exclusion and emotional terrorism could be tolerated today. There was tension on the campus and several fights took place. In one fight, a black student was beaten and the white student responsible was suspended. In another fight, a white student was beaten and the black students allegedly responsible were arrested and charged first with attempted murder and later charged with aggravated battery. These are serious criminal charges. Let me be clear. I do not condone physical violence. I believe all of the students involved in the alleged fighting incidents should be held accountable by school officials. But school-age children all over this country get in fights every day and are appropriately disciplined by school administrators, whether it is a suspension or some other administrative punishment. Appropriate action is taken, and rarely do these incidents rise to the level of a criminal act. However, regardless of the charges and the unusually harsh approach that was taken by the district attorney, one young man, Mychal Bell, who is now still in jail, should never have been tried as an adult for this incident. That is why the Third Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that that conviction must be tossed out and the other students should never have been incarcerated for the better part of a year awaiting their fate. This injustice cannot be swept under the rug and pacified simply by moving the case from the adult court. The work here is not done. Along with Mychal Bell, there are five other students, Robert Bailey, Carwin Jones, Theodore Shaw, Jesse Beard and Bryant Ray Purvis, whose lives have been placed on hold awaiting their day in court. I call on the district attorney to drop all charges against the Jena Six. The City of Jena must begin a reconciliation process which begins with the apology by and investigation of District Attorney Reed Walters for breach of ethics, false imprisonment and civil rights violations. His comments and actions have been both rogue and irresponsible and clearly demonstrate an agenda that is not in line with peace, justice or fairness. Young people are traveling to Jena on Thursday led by Howard University students. They are coming from all over America to go to Jena, Louisiana to show support. These cases stand as the greatest civil rights challenges this Nation has faced in the 21st century. I will be traveling with them. I will be in Jena with the students. This is a new chapter in the civil rights movement led by young people to get America to do the right thing and to bring justice to Jena.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones for the leadership that she's providing this evening, having taken out the time on the floor to have the members of the Congressional Black Caucus engage this body on this issue of the war in Iraq. I thank you for your leadership, and I'm proud to work with you to help bring our Congress to the conclusion that we must get out of Iraq. Last week, President Bush and his White House propaganda machine made another attempt at misleading the Nation. Yet again, unsubstantiated anecdotal claims of progress were used to support a continued occupation of Iraq. However, the President's claims of progress ran contrary to multiple independent reports recently published, including, from the Government Accountability Office, General Jones, and the National Intelligence Estimate. These reports painted a bleak picture of Iraq: continued high levels of violence, a dysfunctional Iraqi government, and sectarian influence that continue to plague the Iraqi security forces. President Bush's vision of an enduring relationship with Iraq amounts to an endless and unlimited military occupation. Instead of a significant change of policy, the President has reaffirmed his commitment to a dangerous continuation of a failed policy in Iraq. Deepening sectarian divisions in Iraq make the American military presence increasingly obsolete. In fact, our presence may actually be making the situation worse as Iraqi political leaders hide behind our troops and refuse to make the necessary compromises. Meanwhile, we continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces and so-called volunteer Sunni sectarian militias across Iraq. Experts suggest that we're merely training different sides of a violent civil war, and losing track of over 190,000 weapons meant for the security forces is surely only adding fuel to the fires raging in Iraq. That is why my colleagues and I recently introduced H.R. 3134, the Responsible Security in Iraq Act. This legislation will halt the dangerous practice of training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, at least until the Iraqi Government matures. At the cost of precious American lives, the President seeks only to disguise the fact that he has no exit strategy for Iraq. It becomes increasingly clear that George Bush seeks only to protect his own legacy and saddle the next President with the mess he's created in the Middle East. Let us not forget that, in addition to almost 3,800 troops who have died, 800 of those troops who have died in Iraq have died since the surge was announced in January, including 16 troops since General Petraeus came to Congress to testify just last week. I know that the media, many in the media have blamed the wonderful, wonderful support group of the Democratic Caucus and people who want to get us out of Iraq for attacking General Petraeus. But I join with them, not in an attack on General Petraeus, but in telling the truth about what has been happening. Moveon.org need not be ashamed of its advocacy. They need not be a shame of its ads. They are telling the truth, and we need to speak truth to power on this issue. President Bush sought to appease those who oppose the war by announcing that 5,700 troops will be coming home this year, and another few brigades will possibly return by summer of next year. But these reductions were scheduled to occur with or without Bush's consent. Deployment limits are being reached, and the military has no trained and ready troops to replace the ones leaving. As the New York Times stated, it's like George Bush dropping an object and then taking credit for gravity. Regardless, these planned reductions would merely lower our troop levels to 130,000 by summer of 2008. It is absolutely unacceptable that our military presence in Iraq by next summer will still be the same as pre-surge levels. I'm delighted for the families of the troops who will be leaving Iraq. Many of these troops will be returning from a second, third or even fourth deployment. However, without a significant change in strategy, the President is signaling that these troops should not get too comfortable at home. President Bush will surely have them deployed back to Iraq as soon as possible. As Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I, along with my colleagues, have been advocating for a different direction for years now. In stark contrast to the direction of the President, we understand that the only acceptable option for Iraq is a fully funded withdrawal of all of our troops and military contracts. The other day, my friend, Congressman John Murtha said, and I quote, ``Yes, many Iraqis consider us the occupiers. But it is also true that Iraq is really occupying us.'' We couldn't be more right. He couldn't be more right. 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 is time to end this war in Iraq. And to those who are getting a little bit disgusted with the fact that we don't seem to be making as much progress as we should here in the Congress of the United States, I would like to encourage them not to give up. I know that it appears that Petraeus and the President organized a presentation and tried to win over the hearts of Americans by putting a general out there, just as he put Colin Powell out when Colin Powell went up to the U.N. and pointed to the buildings where weapons of mass destruction were being manufactured. Colin Powell has said since that time, it was perhaps the worst thing that he could have done in his career. And of course, people respect generals, and they respect Petraeus because he has a long history of having made sacrifice and having been a good warrior. But ladies and gentlemen, he's wrong on this one. We don't have to back up. We don't have to shy away from this fight. We don't have to give in and think somehow we're going to be thought of as unpatriotic. Patriotism is to stand up for what is right, what is right for the security of this Nation. We're at greater risk now than we were before we went in to invade Iraq. As a matter of fact, this President and this war has unsettled the entire Middle East. We know that since we've been there, not only have we created a civil war and all of the sectarian violence, we also know that we have pulled in to this war Iran, and we also know that we are on the verge of pulling in Syria to this war. We also know that this entire Middle East is unsettled because of our occupation. Despite the fact that the President of the United States said we would be welcomed with open arms, they want us out of Iraq. They want to end the occupation. Yes, we have some responsibilities there. Yes, we should help to rebuild Iraq, but first, we must bring our soldiers home. We must stop the carnage. We must stop the killings. We must bring our soldiers home. And I join with Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey and members of the Congressional Black Caucus who support the idea that we will vote for funding to bring the troops home safely and securely. We will not vote for funding to continue this war. We know that the President of the United States has made another request in a supplemental. I will not be voting for any funding to continue the war. And for those of us who really, really believe in what we're saying, for those of us who are committed to the proposition that we can end this war, we will not give him another dime to continue the war.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I would like to commend the gentlelady from California for the tremendous work that she has done, not only to deal with all of the problems of our being in Iraq, but for bringing this legislation to the floor. The U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, and in Iraq since March 19, 2003. Since that time, over 1 million troops have been deployed to Iraq, in total, with 500,000 having been deployed at least twice. These numbers are rapidly growing at the detriment of the military. There are currently 160,000 troops on active duty in Iraq. To keep up this level of deployment with an all-volunteer military, the administration is cutting corners on previous rules on troop deployment limits and rest times. Our military is being ground down to the hilt, and it's near the breaking point. In recent briefings, Major General Batiste said young officers and noncommissioned officers are leaving the service at an alarming rate. Equipment is in dismal shape, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars to refit the force to preinvasion conditions. Active duty companies preparing for deployment to Iraq within the next 6 months are at less than 50 percent strength, are commanded by young and sometimes inexperienced lieutenants, and are lacking the equipment needed for training. Our all-volunteer force cannot sustain the current attempt for much longer. The lack of deployment limits and dwell times have taken an incredible strain on the individuals who have been asked to shoulder this burden. Post-traumatic stress disorder and similar illnesses are significantly amplified by enduring or repeated deployments to Iraq. Consequently, our men and women in uniform are returning with levels of mental illness not seen since Vietnam. According to a recent study by the Department of Defense, 49 percent of National Guardsmen report mental health problems. Let us not forget the hidden casualties of the war in Iraq, the families.

Mr. WATERS

Mr. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 176; the Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. The Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act creates an educational exchange program to enable students from the countries of the Caribbean Community to come to the U.S. and study at an American college or university. The bill requires program participants to return to a Caribbean country or work for the growth, progress and development of the Caribbean Community after they complete their studies. The bill also creates a program to improve primary and secondary education in the Caribbean Community through teacher training, strengthening curriculum, and improving administration and management of schools. Many Caribbean leaders have received post-secondary education in the U.S. and have used their education to strengthen Caribbean democracy and benefit Caribbean people. For example, from 2003 through 2005, a total of 217 Caribbean leaders participated in U.S. exchange programs dealing with counter-narcotics, anticorruption and good governance policies. The Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act would expand these efforts to include future Caribbean leaders. It is entirely appropriate that this legislation is named after our former colleague, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. Congresswoman Chisholm was of Caribbean heritage and was a strong advocate for quality education. She graduated from Brooklyn College in 1946, received a Masters in Elementary Education from the Teachers College at Columbia University in 1952, and went on to work as a teacher. In 1968, she became the first African-American woman elected to Congress, where she served with distinction from 1969 to 1983. In 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm ran for president in the Democratic primaries. As a Member of Congress, Shirley Chisholm served on the influential Education and Labor Committee and rose to be its third-highest ranking member. I urge all of my colleagues to honor Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and support educational exchange opportunities for Caribbean students by voting in favor of the Shirley A. Chisholm U.S.-Caribbean Educational Exchange Act.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 180 and a member of the Financial Services Committee, which passed this bill last week. The ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan already is believed to have caused the deaths of almost half a million people. More than 200,000 people have been killed by Sudanese government forces and armed militias since 2003, and another 200,000 people have died as a result of the deliberate destruction of homes, crops and water supplies and the resulting conditions of famine and disease. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced. According to a recent United Nations report, attacks against humanitarian aid workers have increased 150 percent in the past year. There are currently 13,000 humanitarian aid workers in Darfur, providing aid to more than 4 million people, and violence limits their ability to reach people in need. In June, approximately one in six humanitarian convoys leaving the capitals of Darfur provinces were ambushed by armed groups. About two-thirds of the population of Darfur is dependent upon these courageous aid workers and the aid they bring. Early in 2006, I visited the Darfur region with my good friend from California, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. As far as the eyes could see, there were crowds of displaced people who had been driven from their homes, living literally on the ground with little tarps just covering them. That was over a year ago, and yet this genocide has been allowed to continue. The world stood by and watched the genocide that occurred in Rwanda. The world has noted over and over again the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yet we cannot seem to get the international community to move fast enough to stop the genocide that is taking place in Darfur. The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act is a concrete proposal to impose sanctions on the Government of Sudan and on corporations that continue to do business with this genocidal regime. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope that it will be enacted and implemented in time to save lives, allow humanitarian aid to continue, and force the Government of Sudan to stop this genocide.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller- Waters-Green amendment to H.R. 3074. On June 22, 2007, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, which I chair, held a hearing on homeowner down payment assistance programs. That hearing provided a window into down payment assistance programs that I had not seen before. The hearing was prompted by the issuance of the HUD proposed rule on May 11, 2007, to terminate down payment assistance programs. I applaud HUD for extending the comment period for the proposed rule, but that is not enough. Down payment assistance provided by charitable organizations to low- and moderate-income individuals and families to purchase homes has been a mainstay of HUD and FHA since 1999. In fact, we heard testimony that 30 to 40 percent of FHA loans used some type of down payment assistance. What was even more astonishing was that HUD proposed a similar rule in 1999, only to have never finalized it. Indeed, HUD's failure to finalize a rule gave de facto approval for the continuation of many down payment assistance programs. Down payment assistance is often used in conjunction with HUD's mortgage insurance under the 203(b) program administered by FHA. Down payment assistance programs have helped nearly 1 million low- and moderate-income persons become homeowners, providing an instant source of equity for them. Homeownership would be out of reach to thousands of homeowners without down payment assistance programs. Unfortunately, HUD's issuance of the proposed rule on May 11, 2007, would eliminate the use of down payment assistance programs. FHA opposes the use of direct or indirect funding provided from the sale of property, and that is fine. But an across-the-board rejection of all down payment assistance programs without further review, analysis or clarification from HUD is unacceptable. Down payment assistance programs do not need to be the scapegoat for, as what one HUD called it, the ``looming shortfall'' in HUD's fiscal year 2008 budget. I believe if HUD is left to its own devices, this is exactly what will happen to down payment assistance programs. I support down payment assistance programs meeting Federal requirements. Therefore, I ask that you join Gary Miller, Al Green and me in supporting the amendment to prohibit HUD from implementing the proposed rule with any funds from this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. The distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, and Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing, Mr. Olver, had to make many difficult decisions in drafting this bill, and I am pleased that most of our vital housing programs see increases over the President's budget request for funding year 2008. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I believe this bill will preserve many of the housing programs we have fought for over the years. On July 12, the House passed H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. A central purpose of H.R. 1851 is to provide reliable, adequate funding for the Nation's largest subsidized housing program, buffeted in recent fiscal years. In light of this, I am troubled that the President once again grossly underfunded section 8 in his budget request, asking for a mere $8 million above last year's funding level for the renewal of section 8 housing vouchers, an amount that won't even cover the cost of inflation. I commend Chairman Olver for rejecting this abysmal funding level and putting the dollars needed back into the section 8 program. I also urge my colleagues in the Senate to take up the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act and to pass the companion bill so that we can make needed reforms and bring stability and security to this critical program. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, H.R. 2895, which will provide for the preservation and construction of 1.5 million units of affordable housing over the next 10 years. Because preservation begins with funding the units we have now, I am pleased that the bill increases the funding for project-based rental assistance by $667 million over the President's request; however, I am dismayed at the news that the Department has not paid some project-based owners for the month of July. It isn't enough for us to appropriate the dollars; HUD has to get them out of the door. I urge the Department to make these payments on time so that we do not risk losing owners of precious affordable housing units. For too many years, the Nation's public housing program has been grossly underfunded. In 2007, PHAs will only receive between 82 cents and 85 cents for every dollar it costs to run public housing, impacting their ability to repair and maintain public housing units. By increasing funding for public housing programs to levels above the President's request, this bill maintains our investment in public housing. I am also pleased that the committee has rejected the administration's attempt not only to kill the HOPE VI program, but to take back prior-year funds appropriated by this House. The HOPE VI program needs to be updated, but it is a valuable program. That is why we'll soon introduce a bill to reauthorize and improve HOPE VI providing for, among other things, one-for-one replacement and the right of residents to return to a revitalized public housing unit. Again, I want to applaud the committee for ensuring that the CDBG program is not severely underfunded. The CDBG program is funded at $3.396 billion, representing a $225 million increase compared to funding year 2006 funding level and $959 million above the President's funding year 2008 request. CDBG is vital to communities all over the country, providing valuable resources for almost every program imaginable from seniors programs to gang violence eradication programs. Without this increased level of funding, one of the Federal Government's only poverty fighting tools would have been stretched to the limit, leaving many communities desperate. In addition, the bill provides funding for other key programs the administration sought to zero out, including the Brownfields, the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, and rural housing and economic development. The bill also maintains critical funding for the HOME program, Native American and Hawaiian housing grants, fair housing enforcement, and housing counseling. Some of these important programs were scheduled to expire without reauthorization, but reauthorization without funding is the equivalent of killing a program. Finally, the House today passed a resolution that I was pleased to cosponsor with Congressman Shays commemorating the 20th anniversary of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. While this is not a birthday for any of us we would prefer to be celebrating, these programs remain effective and desperately needed. Therefore, I am pleased that the bill funds the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grant at $1.561 billion, a full $234 million over funding year 2006.