Ginny Brown-Waite

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a local homebuilder who has gone above and beyond the call of duty to meet the needs of his fellow citizens. Hailing from Land O'Lakes, FL, Doug Tripp is actively involved in local efforts to help residents of Pasco County achieve their dream of homeownership. As a volunteer for the Habitat for Humanity chapter of central Pasco County for a number of years and currently serving as the organization's president, Doug has also personally provided thousands of dollars toward the group's efforts. In addition to donating plots of land so that habitat affiliates can build new homes, Doug also contributes countless hours of work on job sites alongside the Habitat partner families. His financial assistance to other needy people in our community has helped others build the home of their dreams. A Generous supporter of all Pasco County residents' needs, Doug's dedication to the families living in the area also includes volunteering for Big Brothers Big Sisters and several youth athletic organizations. As a local business leader, Doug founded tripp trademark homes in 2001, building more than 200 homes a year and providing more than 100 people with quality jobs. Doug and his wife Holly have a daughter Loren and two sons, Jake and Zack. Mr. Speaker, Doug Tripp's success in business has driven him to give back to the Pasco County community. As a volunteer and generous contributor to help other people in need, Pasco County is richer for Doug's involvement and his tireless support of families needing a home.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me some time. I come to the floor this evening to speak out against the Senate's amnesty plan because, let's be honest, that is really what it is. Since the Senate decided to forego sensible, I am repeating, sensible border security and grant a sweeping amnesty program to illegal immigrants, everyday citizens have had to virtually consider taking matters into their own hands. Some of my constituents have actually been sending bricks, and why they are sending bricks to us is to send a message to finish the wall, to build the wall so that we have a secure border. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what our constituents want. Obviously, if they feel so compelled to be sending these bricks to Members of Congress, they feel very strongly about it. Mr. Speaker, our borders are hemorrhaging with Americans looking on daily in disgust at the Senate's bill and wondering what is going on here in Washington. Instead of tougher border security that Judge Carter has said should be an absolute first step, and enforcing current laws, our constituents saw the Senate granting a free pass to law breakers. The Senate bill is fundamentally unfair as it applies only to those who broke our laws instead of those who applied legally to come to our country. The Senate bill should be called the ``No Illegal Alien Left Behind Act,'' because it gives aliens, for example, in-state tuition rates at colleges, and it prohibits local law enforcement from working in cooperation with border patrol to make sure that our borders are secure and that illegal aliens are apprehended. The bill in the Senate also counts time illegally in our country toward the 10 years, or 40 quarters, that a person must work to be in the Social Security system. That is just wrong. They were here working illegally. Even their attempt to get it right is kind of wimpy. They cited English as the ``common and unifying language'' instead of making it the official language that we all know that it is. The Senate also says that they want a fence, but their language provides one that is too small to really do any good. Further, in the Senate bill, it would allow 217 million new immigrants over the next 20 years. That is two-thirds of our current population. That is just not an acceptable public policy. When I was back home over the break, I believe it was during Memorial Day, a young man asked for an appointment. And, Judge, I am sure that when people ask for an appointment, they usually want something, they want us to support something. And I always meet with people who want to meet with me who feel that compelled that they want to spend the time to give me their opinions. And this young man was from Bosnia. And like every Member of Congress, we have people whom we will never forget, who truly touch our hearts. He was 17 years old when we went into Bosnia, and he went over to the American consulate, and he asked for the ability to come to this country as a political prisoner. And he told me a story, that he loves America so much, he actually has applied to become a naturalized citizen. And, of course, I am thinking, Okay, this is where he asks me for something. He did not ask me for anything. He put in his application in 2001 in August. He knew that they were only up to February. But his comment was so poignant, he said, I did everything right. I didn't come here illegally. I came here under political asylum. I applied for the right to be a citizen in your great country, to be a naturalized citizen in your great country. And he said, What really worries me is that we are going to let all of these other people in line, people who came here illegally. People who truly do not love our country. And his comment, I just will absolutely never forget. His comment was so poignant and he was so passionate. He said, As everyone here, we don't object to their applying to come to this country, but let them do it legally. Do not let it be a back-door pass to get in the front of the line to become a citizen. I am sure that every Member of Congress's caseload is very similar to mine. You have upwards of probably 200 immigration cases, 200, 300 immigration cases, that every single office is trying to help. These are people who came here legally. These are people who are trying to stay here legally and/or to bring over some of their relatives. And to count time illegally in our country towards Social Security is something that our forefathers must be turning over in their grave, Judge. I can only assume that. So with the bill that the Senate passes, I am so pleased that Americans can differentiate between the Senate giveaway bill and the House bill that says we need to secure our borders first. When I am back in the district, I tell my constituents, I do not believe government can multitask. I do not believe that we can do both. I think we need to secure our borders and then look at some sort of a guest worker program that really works. Certainly, like every Member of Congress, I have businesses in my district who are using immigrant labor. Hopefully, they are legal immigrants, but we want to have a guest worker program that truly works. But first and primarily, we must secure our borders. I do not think that my constituents are any different than the gentleman from Texas's constituents. Actually, they probably feel even more passionately about it. I was recently down at the border in El Paso and spoke to some sheriffs there who say, No, secure border, finish the fence. Where we were, there actually was a fence, but they are concerned about all the other areas on the border where there are no fences. And most of the sheriffs along the southern border have joined together and are working cooperatively with our Border Patrol. And that is a good thing. That is a very good thing. Under the Senate bill, they would be prohibited from doing that. That is not what we want. If we ask our citizens back home what they really believe we should do, they want the borders secured. I was over in my office, and I heard the good judge talking about the fact that other than Mexicans are coming over. So this obviously is not just an issue of border security and immigration. It is a national security issue. Keeping our borders secure is so important. If you do not know who is coming and going across those borders, that is where a danger to our country, to our security, actually exists. Those of us who are parents know that you do not reward bad behavior. I am just not certain that that is the slogan in the Senate, because it appears as if they are rewarding bad behavior. You break the law, you come here, you stay here, we do not know anything about your criminal background, and we are going to reward you. That just is not in the American tradition of fairness. That is not what our citizens want. If the Senate bill only benefits those who came here illegally, overstayed their visa or violated their visa terms, that is not what our citizens want. Do we really want these law-breakers as new citizens of our great Nation? Should we cave to law-breakers who take to our streets waving other countries' flags and demanding rights? Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to legal immigration in any way, shape, or form. As a matter of fact, everyone here, their ancestors were immigrants. I have certainly come to respect the process that people go through to become Americans. Obviously, we in Florida, in particular, have a lot of immigrants who came here from a very dictatorial country, Cuba, and these people are some of the most passionate people about the rights of citizenship in America and how the illegals should go through the process legally. They want to make sure that their neighbor, the person who may be driving their children on a school bus, that they have had some sort of a background check. They are angry at people who kind of sneak in the back door and that those people might get preference to those patiently waiting in line. And you know what? They are right to be angry. Toying with mass amnesty is a slap in the face to those who are fighting to keep our borders secure. If Congress condones the crime of crossing our borders illegally, then what have we been fighting for? If we do not mean what we say and illegal entry is okay, why even have immigration laws at all? The Senate bill is kind of like some fashionable religions that think that the Ten Commandments are just suggestions because they totally ignore the fact that these people have broken the law. So many of us in this House believe that the key to our homeland security is border security; and I cannot agree with and I cannot support the Senate plan that pits border security against a free-for-all amnesty plan. We do not have the resources to hold back the tide of illegal immigrants, and promising amnesty will only bring millions more rushing to our shores. The gentleman from Texas and I worked and spoke very favorably about the bill that we passed in this House, H.R. 4437. And it is a good bill that secures our borders. It is a bill that sends a very strong message that we are not going to tolerate illegal aliens, and one that does not give away citizenship like free candy. When I started receiving these bricks, I initially wrote back to my constituents suggesting that they send them over to the Senate. But I am afraid that once the Senate passed that bill, they will not be sending them. They might be throwing them. Judge Carter, I appreciate the opportunity that you have given me this evening to join you in discussing the differences between the Senate and the House plan.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation that could protect innocent children across our great Nation. H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), gives parents, teachers and school officials new tools in their effort to protect our children from online sexual predators. Just this week back in my district in Tavares, Florida, prosecutors are picking a jury to try the case of John Couey, the man accused of raping and killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. Sexual predators like John Couey not only stalk our children on the playground and at the mall, but also over the Internet on Web sites like MySpace.com. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for bringing attention to these Internet predators and thank the Energy and Commerce Committee for holding hearings on this bill.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Maynard of Citrus County, Florida. Mary will soon do something that all of us strive for, but that very few of us will ever accomplish, celebrate her 100th birthday. Born August 5, 1906 on a farm near Rushville, Indiana, Mary attended Webb High School in Rushville and later graduated from business college. A farmer's wife until 1948, Mary eventually embarked on a career as a bookkeeper, real estate and mobile home salesperson and working for a prominent builder in Indianapolis selling new homes. In 1960, Mary and her daughter moved to Ft. Lauderdale where she continued her real estate and sales work. Eventually settling in the Gulf Coast in 1975, Mary and her daughter moved first to Brooksville, and then in 1984 to Citrus County. Following several small strokes over the years, Mary has lived in Arbor Trails Nursing Home in Inverness, Florida for the past 3 years. Her August 5th birthday celebration will be attended by family and friends from Minnesota, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio and Florida. In fact, Mary has a long lineage spread across the country, including a son and a daughter, six grandchildren, twelve great grandchildren and ten great great grandchildren! Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in honoring Mary Maynard for reaching her 100th birthday this coming August. I hope we all have the good fortune to live as long as she has.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to alert my fellow Members to a deadline that passed with little comment over the weekend. Following the FBI search of a Member of this body's office, President Bush sealed the collected files for a period of 45 days. That deadline passed over the weekend. My question is, What next? Will this House continue to shield one of its own from criminal investigation and hide behind a misreading of the speech or debate clause, or will we admit that no American is above the law, Member of Congress or not? I have introduced a resolution making it clear that when law enforcement officers have a valid search warrant in pursuit of criminal misconduct, it is entirely within their rights to search the office of a Member of Congress. Now that the 45-day hold has passed, I would hope that President Bush would allow law enforcement officers to continue their duties to investigate criminal misconduct wherever it may originate. Currently, there are 20 Members of this body on that resolution, and I would encourage any others who want to send a loud and clear message we are not above the law to join me in cosponsoring it.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment that is going to protect the coastlines not just in Florida. This is not just a Florida issue, but it is going to protect the coastlines by another 25 miles. The 25-miles can make a real difference to people who live near the coastline. The existing moratorium is limited in scope and can be done away with in the Florida area. This is a bipartisan amendment. We heard from two Members of the other side who also support it, and I urge support for the amendment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support, and I urge a favorable vote.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will increase funding for the Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA. It increases it by approximately $10 million. Congress has recognized the importance of these programs in bringing hope and a safe future to women across our great Nation by reauthorizing VAWA last year. Although the committee increased funding for this program, there are still a number of vital programs within it that are not going to be adequately funded by the bill. Such programs include funding to assist children exposed to domestic violence, such as the various counseling and education programs, the Sexual Assault Services Program, and also inclusion of Indian tribes in the national sex offender registry. As a cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, and also serving on a local shelter board, I know firsthand the reprehensible effects of domestic violence on a woman's dreams and success. Every rape crisis center and domestic violence program in my district has brought hope to women and children who have been devastated by assaults. As you know, domestic violence affects our most vulnerable constituents, battered women and their families. Evidence suggests that VAWA has been effective in reducing violence. For example, the rate of domestic violence against females over the age of 12 in the United States actually showed a slight decline. But domestic violence is not just a man-against-woman phenomenon. When a man hits a woman or vice versa, often children and young adults are left with lasting impressions of that violence. Studies show that men who are exposed to domestic abuse are much more likely to be abusers themselves in the future. And young women who see abuse are much more prone to be victims of abuse as adults themselves. This vicious cycle is one that we can genuinely affect through violence against women programs that provide education support networks, increased law enforcement and certainly a very important component of family counseling. It is frustrating but realistic for policymakers to know that we can't just wave a magic wand and eradicate violence in our society. Yet, I firmly believe that this amendment is a step in the right direction. The amendment takes funding from the Department of Justice's General Administration Fund and the Census Bureau and helps to fund the violence against women programs. This add-on actually helps in the fight against domestic violence without breaking the bank or tipping the very careful balance that Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan crafted in the underlying bill. Chairman Wolf, you have done a great job, and Members on both sides of the aisle respect you and the work product that we have before us. I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment to increase funds for VAWA programs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, I am greatly concerned about a provision that is in the bill for bilingual ballots. That language still remains in the bill. Let me be clear. I support legal immigration and certainly celebrating one's heritage. However, the bilingual ballot provision has long kept new citizens from increasing their knowledge of our language and from fully integrating into our society. Not only is it expensive to print ballots in a variety of different dialects and tongues, but it reinforces a fractious society. I had planned to offer an amendment with my good friend and colleague, Congressman Steve King of Iowa, to strip this arcane and divisive language. I ask my colleagues for support of this measure. You heard it here.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule; and I want to thank Mr. Sessions, as well as Chairman Oxley and Mr. Baker and the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, for working hard to bring this updating measure to us today. Madam Speaker, when the Financial Services Committee debated this bill, an issue came to my attention that needed a remedy. Many States like Florida that have far too many experiences with flooding have established a mediation process for residents who have flood claims. This process gives residents the opportunity to settle a claim dispute with FEMA without having to go to court. Florida has a 90 percent success rate with this process, which other States have actually begun emulating. This process brings quick results to homeowners, saves millions of dollars in court costs and is something that should be encouraged. However, oftentimes representatives from FEMA refuse to show up, even though the mediation program is nonbinding. This is a travesty to residents who have already lost so much. Accordingly, my colleague and I from Florida, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, introduced an amendment that requires FEMA to participate in State mediation claims. Again, this process is nonbinding. If a resident is unhappy with the results of the proceedings, they may choose to file suit. But the language will ensure that residents have a choice, instead of FEMA making that choice for them by simply avoiding the process. I urge all Members to give homeowners the opportunity to settle their claims quickly without a team of lawyers and mountains of legal fees. I urge your support for the rule and also the underlying bill so that homeowners living in flood-prone areas will have some certainty.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the Senate to take immediate action to secure our borders. Our constituents have watched in disbelief and disgust as the Senate passed a no-illegal-left-behind bill that gives in-state tuition and Social Security to illegal immigrants. Rather than seal our gaping borders, the bill gives the green light to even more illegal immigrants to cross our borders. Though it would be a huge challenge to reconcile our varying bills, I ask my colleagues to stand with me to turn a terrible Senate bill into something that will secure America and make its citizens proud. I urge immediate action on a conference committee, so we can finally plug the holes in our border and show lawbreakers that Americans will not tolerate their disrespect for our laws.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, I am greatly concerned that provisions providing for bilingual ballots remain in the bill. Let me be clear: I support both legal immigration and celebrating one's heritage. However, the bilingual ballot provision has long kept new citizens from increasing their knowledge of our language and from fully integrating into our society. Not only is it expensive to print ballots in a variety of different dialects and tongues, but it reinforces a fractious society. Later this week I plan to offer an amendment with my good friend and colleague, Congressman Steve King of Iowa, to strip this arcane and divisive language. I ask for my colleagues' full support of this measure and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, even those of us on this side of the aisle sometimes wonder if after 3 years we should still be in Iraq. I recently traveled there, and like many of my colleagues, we met with soldiers from Florida. We each asked to meet with soldiers from our home State. I will never ever forget this young man. He was not from my district. He actually was from south Florida. And I asked each of them where they were from and if they were married. This young man's name was Joe. And I said to him, ``Joe, are you married?'' He said, Yes, ma'am. I am married and I have five children.'' So right away I said, ``Your wife must be a saint to be home with five children.'' And he looked at me with all of the conviction that you would ever ask for in a soldier, and he said, ``Ma'am, he said, ``my wife who's home with my five children feel exactly the way that I do, and that is until the children in Iraq are safe on the streets, our children won't be safe in Florida or in America.'' Obviously we are very proud of what our soldiers are doing, as are their families. As Members of the Congress, I believe that we have an obligation to honor every person's service to our country. Using words like ``quagmire'' and ``mistaken war'' do not honor our military's service. We can do this by providing our soldiers with the support that they need and the recognition that they deserve. The negacrats and the media do nothing to make our children safer on the streets in America like Joe and his buddies do. This kind of rhetoric not only impacts our soldiers, but as I sat here tonight, I could not help but think about the families of the soldiers who are watching this at home, the children of our very, very brave soldiers who are in harm's way. In closing, I want to thank Joe and all of our troops and those families, and I want to convey my eternal gratitude for everything that they do. May God bless them all. May God bless our troops, who, together with God, will keep our country safe.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the Senate's amnesty plan. Their bill is fundamentally unfair as it benefits only those who came to this country by breaking our laws. No illegal alien is left behind by this bill, because it gives aliens in-state tuition rates at colleges. Further, the Senate bill would allow 217 million new immigrants to come here over the next 20 years. That is two-thirds of our current population. Some of my constituents have been sending me bricks suggesting that they go toward building the wall on our southern border. When constituents have to step in to help send bricks to Congress, obviously they feel very strongly about the immigration issue. Actually, Americans should start sending bricks over to the Senate, and I hope that they do. However, the problem is they probably will not mail them. They will be throwing them at the Senate.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, a week ago today I was actually on the Mexican border. I was in Texas, in El Paso. The sheriffs along the border, the ones on our side, are the ones doing the interdiction of the drugs. This amount, while it is $1 million, and I guess in Washington everybody says it is only a million, a million here, a million there starts to add up, but I would certainly encourage support for this amendment. If we are going to spend that extra million dollars, I would rather give it to the sheriffs at the border patrol on our side of the border, where I know the money is well spent, and so I ask for the support of my colleagues for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak about this amendment on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill before us. Let me remind my colleagues that the Mexican government publishes manuals giving advice to migrants on how to illegally enter and live in the United States without being detected. They are encouraging breaking our laws. Moreover, recently, if we recall, the Mexican government actually threatened to sue the United States if our government acts to strengthen and defend our southern border. Imagine how surprised I was when the committee added another $1 million increase that Mexico will ostensibly use to strengthen its northern border. This increase is over the budget request in the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement section. My amendment will actually leave the $39 million included in the budget request for narcotics control and law enforcement untouched. Instead, my amendment eliminates that $1 million that the committee recommended to be used to help Mexico's northern border infrastructure. Let's face it, they are not interested in defending and protecting their northern border, which is our southern border. In past years, Mexico actually spent the money appropriated for narcotics control and law enforcement in even a questionable manner. However, sending extra money to the Mexican Government to strengthen their borders is, I believe, as insane as it is unconscionable. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman from New York for this opportunity to exchange views. I would encourage him to look into the World Toilet Summit. Americans are tired of money being flushing down the toilet. I am delighted that the program is going to be phased out, and also very happy that the economy of Ireland has improved. There is no better way to have peace than to have prosperity. The fact that general economy of Ireland has improved certainly is a very great benefit to that part of the world. Mr. Chairman, I withdrew this with the information that the program is being phased out in future years. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment with the proviso that future amounts for this program will be reduced. It is obviously a great success, and at this point we want to make sure Ronald Reagan's prediction wasn't right and that future funding will be reduced.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Ronald Reagan had a wonderful statement, and that was, if you want to live forever become a Government program because they never, ever go away. When the British and Iraq governments established the International Fund for Ireland in 1986, as part of the Anglo-Irish Accord, Ireland's per capita gross domestic product was relatively low. It certainly was a very good program. Since then, Ireland has grown at a pace more rapid even than ours, and is known as the Celtic Tiger. Today, Ireland's GDP is on par with the United States, and its unemployment rate is 4.7 percent. Yet we still continue want to appropriate $10 million for the International Fund for Ireland. In a decade of increasing deficits, the United States must stop sending money to programs that are not necessary. Actually, most recently they used some of our money for the Chef Development Program and the construction of a 3,000 foot cafe, and also to help fund the World Toilet Summit. So obviously we have got to stop flushing away some of this money. I have spoken to several individuals who were very, very involved in establishing this fund and feel very, very strongly about the fund. And I have assurances from the Representative from New York (Mr. Walsh) along with several others that the funding for this is going to be reduced in further appropriations. I had thought that one of them would be here for a colloquy. And I had told the great Mr. Walsh from New York, as well as others, that I would withdraw this amendment with the assurance that future funding would be reduced and eliminated over the next few years. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.