Juanita Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro-Harman amendment. I am proud of the women who serve as members of our Nation's military service. Enough is enough. Women in service who do a job for our Nation should be given the opportunity to receive the same legal, medical services as women at home. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Harman amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Mr. Frank for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this most important issue. In listening to the debate on this issue, it is clear to me that my colleagues in the majority truly believe in their views on this issue. To some extent, I would agree with the spirit of their views but not with the methods. In our efforts to reform public housing we must be careful not to hurt the very people who we are trying to help, the residents of public housing. Please be clear. Under current law, the Brooke amendment was enacted in 1969 to protect the most vulnerable residents of public housing from paying too high a percentage of their income for rent. The amendment made public and assisted housing affordable for very low-income families. Typically, poor families who are not in public housing pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent. Currently, more than 5.3 million families, who are not in public or assisted housing pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. The limits set by the Brooke amendment have made public and assisted housing more affordable for very low-income families by preventing dramatic increases in rent. The practical effect of the Brooke amendment has been to cushion the residents of public housing against the fluctuations in the housing market. Current law also addresses the earned income adjustments that allow public housing authorities to encourage work through more flexible rent structures. Further, rent ceilings allow public housing authorities to price units competitively with the market and allow retention for mixed occupancy. The Brooke amendment is a good amendment. It is sound public policy. I don't see any reason to repeal it but apparently there are those who see fit to do so. Mr. Chairman, let's tell the truth about this bill. H.R. 2406 repeals the Brooke amendment and hurts the people we are trying to help, by removing the limits placed on rent charges. This is hypocritical at best. We are going to remove the caps on rent and in the same breath deny them an increase in the minimum wage. That equates to a backhand and a forehand slap to the faces of the residents of public housing. I hear some of my colleagues say that they value home ownership and that residents of public housing will be allowed to purchase their units. Tell me how will those residents be able to afford the mortgages on those units without being able to earn a decent livable wage. And as the public housing units are turned into owner- occupied housing, what will happened to the availability of the housing for very low-income earners. Will the market respond by building more affordable housing. I don't think so. I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if we are going to repeal the Brooke amendment, then let's take a serious look at the Frank amendment. The Frank amendment sets a new 30-percent cap that would be the maximum limit for a family's contribution to rent. This amendment also establishes a flexible rent-to-income ratio that would permit very low-income families to pay less than 30 percent of their incomes in rent if the housing authority chose to implement such rent standards. When I began my career in public service, I wanted to serve my constituents, especially the vulnerable but not evict them. When I came to Washington, I wanted to strengthen families not hurt them. I have nine, count them, nine housing projects in a district that is just under 36 square miles. In those housing projects are people just like those of us sitting in this Chamber. The difference between us and them is circumstances. The people in Nickerson Gardens Imperial Courts, Jordan Downs, or Dana Strands struggle daily to make ends meet. They are not looking for a hand out, they are simply looking for a compassionated hand to assist them in getting by from one day to the next while improving their circumstance. This amendment would help my constituents. A 30-percent maximum cap on rents would help my public houising constituents. If H.R. 2406 is going to repeal the Brooke amendment let's replace it with the Frank amendment. This amendment is sound public policy. After all, we are here to serve the public and not our own political interest. I urge my colleagues to support the Frank amendment, and maintain the goal of providing affordable housing to our working poor.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts for allowing me the opportunity to speak on this most important issue. In listening to the debate on this issue, it is clear to me that my colleagues in the majority truly believe in their views on this issue. To some extent, I would agree with the spirit of their views but not with the methods. In our efforts to reform public housing we must be careful not to hurt the very people that we are trying to help, the residents of public housing. Under current law, the Brooke amendment was enacted in 1969 to protect the most vulnerable residents of public housing from paying too high a percentage of their income for rent. The amendment made public and assisted housing affordable for very low-income families. Typically, poor families who are not in public housing pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent. Currently, more than 5.3 million families, who are not in public or assisted housing pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent. The limits set by the Brooke amendment have made public and assisted housing more affordable for very low-income families by preventing dramatic increases in rent. Current law also addresses the earned income adjustments that allow public housing authorities to encourage work through more flexible rent structures. Further, rent ceilings allow public housing authorities to price units competitively with the market and allow retention for mixed occupancy. The Brooke amendment is a good amendment. It is sound public policy. But let's talk turkey. H.R. 2406 repeals the Brooke amendment and hurts the people we are trying to help, by removing the limits placed on rent charges. This is dichotomous at best. We are going to remove the caps on rent and in the same breath deny them an increase in the minimum wage. That equates to a back hand and a forehand slap to the faces of the residents of public housing. I hear some of my colleagues say that they value home ownership and that residents of public housing will be allowed to purchase their units. Tell me: How will those residents be able to afford the mortgages on those units without being able to earn a decent livable wage. Let's talk about this managers amendment. It seems to me that this amendment undermines itself. While it attempts to maintain the spirit of the Brooke amendment, it seeks to deregulate 300 of the best performing local housing authorities over the next 3 years, for which the rent is capped and resident targeting would no longer apply. That provision would severely impact my constituency. I have nine, count them, nine public housing projects in my district. Ujima Village in the city of Compton happens to be one of the best run housing complexes this Congresswoman has ever seen. To blanketly deregulate a housing authority for performing well is poor public policy. Mr. Watt's amendment is good public policy, Mr. Kennedy's amendment is good public policy. This bill removes the goal of providing decent affordable housing for our working poor. I urge my colleagues to oppose the manager's amendment and oppose this draconian, extreme bill.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Oberstar amendment to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1995. The Oberstar amendment continues current law requiring the public disclosure of the terms of ocean and shipping contracts to ensure fair competition. The amendment also preserves the objectives of the bill to ease the regulatory burden by eliminating the Federal Maritime Commission and transferring its authority to the independent Surface Transportation Board. Mr. Chairman, all things that are done in darkness will inevitably come to light. The bill before us was abruptly reported out of committee without the benefit of public hearings--darkness Mr. Chairman, darkness. Now, there are some Members of this body who seek to keep the consumers in the dark by prohibiting the public disclosure of the terms of shipping contracts. If we allow them to prohibit the public disclosure of information and allow shippers and carriers to enter into back room deals, we will permit larger shippers and carriers to engage in secret negotiations and enter into secret contracts. Such secret contracts are anticompetitive and may have a negative impact on workers by driving the smaller shipping and carrying companies out of business. This may well also lead to higher prices for the consumer because of a lack of competition. In 1992, when I began my service in the California State legislature, I did so with a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation. I bring this same approach to governing with me as I begin my service in this distinguished body. This amendment enjoys bipartisan support--and let me tell you why Mr. Chairman. This issue and this amendment is not about one political party or the other. This issue is about right and wrong. In my district, in southern Los Angeles County, there is a place called Mormon Island. On Mormon Island are docks and berths where warehousemen and longshoremen work hard to earn a living to support their families. Let me tell you what would happen if we allow this bill to pass without the Oberstar amendment; larger shippers and carriers would get together and create deals and agreements without the benefit of public scrutiny. This would allow those larger companies to lock the smaller companies out of the industry and force them out of business. Without the Oberstar amendment, Fortune 100 shipping companies would be able to avoid public disclosure while hurting the smaller shipping companies that rely on the transparency of prices. If those companies are not allowed to compete fairly, on a level playing field, they will not be able to survive. The warehousemen and longshoremen, the working people in my district depend on those small companies for employment and ultimately their livelihoods. In this Congresswoman's opinion, we would serve our constituents best by supporting fair competition and maintaining the current law which prohibits shipping companies from entering into secret contracts. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the consumer, support fair competition, and support public disclosure by voting ``yes'' on the Oberstar amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on H.R. 842 the truth-in-budgeting bill, thinking that I was voting on an amendment. Had I known that I was voting on final passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great American, the late Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown. I am pleased to be a part of this resolution for tributes to distinguished leaders of our great Nation. Ron Brown's life work is a true American success story. It is that American agenda opportunity that I alluded to when I was sworn in; that gives an opportunity to every American, that hope that is embodied in our creed. They will soar to high of this Cosmos. The loss of the Secretary of Commerce is tragic which is underscored by his commitment to jobs, social justice, and economic security. During the times that we met at several official occasions, I found him to be a charming, warm, intelligent, and always a gentleman. I have fond memories of my discussions with Ron Brown. I remember watching the news in the immediate aftermath of the civil unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 following the Rodney King beating trial verdict, when he met with the angry and frustrated youth of south central Los Angeles. He and the President played basketball, demonstrating his ability to relate intergenerationally and across the socio-economic spectrum. That was perhaps his greatest attribute. He understood that we must work to help others, and he did that. Ron Brown perished in Bosnia trying to acquaint a delegation of businesspeople with the market conditions there and to bring peace to a war-torn region. Speaks to his humanitarian efforts and as a parallel-- he also worked to bring jobs to south central Los Angeles and improve the lives of the people, and finally bring peace to people who have desired it for so long. Ron Brown knew the value of a job to people and to a community. He worked to improve people's lives by bringing jobs to those who wanted to work. I want to offer my condolences to Alma Brown, a woman of courage and strength, the Brown family and the families of the people whose lives were lost that day. I am pleased to participate in this tribute to a wonderful American.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained with constituents and unable to vote on rollcall 125. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, Members, I am honored to represent the outstanding constituents of the 37th Congressional District, a district that mirrors America because it is one of the most diverse districts in the State of California. The constituents of the 37th Congressional District are hard-working and share the same concerns with Americans about crime, jobs, security, taxes, health care, and the future. My constituents include my family, who have traveled afar to come here today for this very historic event, and I would like to have them acknowledged in the gallery. My campaign theme was to Choose Hope, and it drew inspiration from my grandchildren, Ayanna Demaris Thomas, and Myles Chandler McDonald. My promise to the constituents was that I would take Choose Hope to Washington because, for me, Hope represents the American agenda that speaks to opportunity to fulfill dreams, quality education, job preparation and training, but expands global work opportunities, job creation through business incentives and transportation projects while maintaining health security for seniors and protection for our children. I am also going to foster gender equity in health research projects. So I have come today to work with you as a team so that we can all forge an American agenda for all of the people of the United States as well as California in a bipartisan effort. I do welcome your support and thank you so much.