Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself the balance of the time. In closing, allow me to quote one of the Financial Services Committee members in a hearing yesterday, because I think it is so important for us to understand that the SEC is our cop on the block that has the responsibility for protecting investors. Let us understand that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are opposed to the SEC having an adequate budget. They do everything that they can to cut the budget, to deny the resources; but they keep adding on additional responsibilities, recognizing that the SEC has a tremendous load. Not only do they have all of the work, the cost-benefit analysis that they do on everything, but they have the responsibility of rulemaking for all of Dodd-Frank, which is the reform legislation that will cause us to eliminate risk and to protect our constituents and the citizens of this country. But let me just say that yesterday, during a Financial Services Committee hearing, Chairman Emeritus Spencer Bachus said that it would be penny-wise and pound foolish for there not to be a bipartisan agreement for raising the funding or increasing the funding for the SEC. And I think that's important to get out there. They need more resources; and while we have this bill that's costing them more money to simply implement what they would like to do in H.R. 1062, they oppose giving additional resources. In addition to that, let's talk about this court action. We mentioned early on that the SEC had been taken to court on proxy access. What are we talking about? We're talking about the fact that the institutional investors, the ones who are responsible for investing the money so that the workers, the public workers, the firemen, the police, the teachers, all can have adequate retirement. And so our institutional investors wanted very much to ensure that the companies that they're investing in are managing these funds well, and they simply wanted the ability to place proxy access into the proxy materials so that they could nominate directors to the board to make sure that they're overseeing the money for all of our first responders and our employees. Well, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle teamed with Wall Street and they went to court and they made this big case, and it was right here in Washington, D.C., in the district court. And they got an opinion. They got a ruling. And so the SEC went back and it said, basically, to everybody, all of its employees, what have you, let's do even more. And on top of them not only saying let's do more and instruct the employees to do more, then they come with this bill and want to put more on top of that. This is not about those people that Mr. Hensarling referred to around the kitchen table talking about jobs. This is about protecting Wall Street. This is about tying up the SEC. This is about making sure the SEC is not able to carry out its responsibilities. This, again, is about putting us all at risk. This is about not being about the investors, but being about the markets. This, again, is about protecting those who really need no protection, those who placed us at risk to begin with, those who not only placed us at risk, but would do it again if we allow them to do it. I don't know why my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would be opposed to something like proxy access and then lined up in the courts again with other litigation, litigation that's going to take away precious dollars from the SEC that they need to protect us, to protect the investors. But, no, they come to this floor and they simply describe this bill in ways that it really is not. This is dangerous, it is irresponsible, it is not something that the people of this country would expect of people that they sent to Congress to represent them. This, again--and we'll say it over and over again as it has been said by so many who have come here and testified today on this side of the aisle--this is about protecting Wall Street. This is about protecting those who simply want to find ways to keep the SEC from stopping them in their rulemaking from doing things that will be harmful to the American public. And so, Mr. Chairman and Members, I say to you we should all stop and think about this. And for all those who are listening, all of the Members on both sides of the aisle, we should think about our responsibility here today and understand what this bill is all about and vote ``no,'' a resounding ``no'' on this bill. Let us make sure that people are not saying a few years from now, oh, I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I should not have tied the hands of the SEC. I should have been more careful. I should not have listened to what was being said by the very people who caused us the problem in the first place. I think if our Members stop and they listen and they pay attention that they're going to oppose this bill, even some on the opposite side of the aisle. And I think some of them know this. They know that they're being asked to support something that may not be in the best interest of their constituents, but they might want to go along with the leadership. But it's not time to go along with the leadership. It's time to be independent. It's time to look at the facts and vote ``no'' on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, how many minutes do I have left?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I have a number of communications that I will insert into the Record. I have a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President; I have American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; I have Americans for Financial Reform; I have AFSCME; and I also have California Public Employees Retirement System, all in opposition to this bill, and asking us to please oppose the bill. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, May 15, 2013. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 1062--SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (Rep. Garrett, R-NJ, and 23 cosponsors) The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays a critical role in protecting Americans' investments for retirement, higher education, and other personal savings while ensuring strong, efficient, safe financial activity that contributes to the Nation's economic health and job creation. While the Administration is firmly committed to smart and effective regulations that advance statutory goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, the Administration opposes passage of H.R. 1062. By adding burdensome and disruptive new procedures, H.R. 1062 would impede the ability of the SEC to protect investors, maintain orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. The Administration believes in the value of cost-benefit analysis. However, H.R. 1062 would add onerous procedures that would threaten the implementation of key reforms related to financial stability and investor protection. H.R. 1062 would direct the SEC to conduct time- and resource-intensive assessments after it adopts or amends major regulations before the impacts of the regulations may have occurred or be known. The bill would add analytical requirements that could result in unnecessary delays in the rulemaking process, thereby undermining the ability of the SEC to effectively execute its statutory mandates. The Administration is committed to a regulatory system that is informed by science, cost-justified, and consistent with economic growth. Through efforts including Executive Order 13579, ``Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,'' the Administration is taking important steps to encourage independent agencies to follow cost-saving and burden- reducing principles in their reviews of new regulations, and to examine their existing rules to identify those that should be modified, streamlined, or repealed.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Representative Denny Heck.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Foster.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, Representative Himes.

Ms. WATERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative Ellison.

Ms. WATERS. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Representative Gwen Moore.

Ms. WATERS. At this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 1062. This bill places significant additional requirements for economic analysis by the Securities and Exchange Commission, effectively bringing any efforts at rulemaking to a standstill. Let's be clear: the purpose of this legislative effort is to stop implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act dead in its tracks. After losing in Congress, the fight against the Dodd-Frank act moved to the courts, beginning with overturning the proxy access rules they adopted under authority provided by that act. Although I agreed fully with the SEC's position, they went with their friends to court and the court found that the SEC did not meet its already significant requirements to conduct an economic analysis. After the proxy access case was overturned, the SEC adopted improved standards for conducting cost-benefit analyses. These procedures were cited by the GAO just last December as having all of the elements of good regulatory analysis. Basically, what the GAO is saying is we took a look, we studied it, and they do a good job. Nonetheless, the bill before us today adds even more requirements, tying up the SEC resources, and putting it at even greater risk for litigation for every rule, despite the assurances of my Republican colleagues that they're only applying the terms of an executive order to the SEC. That executive order explicitly protects agencies from lawsuits based on their economic analysis. H.R. 1062 has no such protection for the SEC. The Commission is undertaking a valiant effort to finish the Dodd- Frank and Jobs Acts rule, even in the face of attempts by the majority to restrict their funding. As the SEC attempts to balance capital formation with the need to protect investors, this bill weights the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors. In fact, the words ``investor protection'' do not appear anywhere in this bill. Even without this bill, we can count on industry lobbyists to sue the SEC anytime it sees a weakness in the justification supporting a rule, as they have in several other cases currently before the courts. And this bill does not apply only to new rules. This is extraordinary--and I want to say this so everybody understands--this bill would require the Commission to review every rulemaking ever issued--even those that have protected our securities markets since the Great Depression--1 year after the adoption of this bill, and then again every 5 years thereafter. As a result, the Commission will be forced to divert resources away from other key areas, such as enforcement. This comes at a time when House Republicans want to hold SEC funding flat, despite the SEC's new responsibilities--the increase in the number of participants it oversees and the growth of complexity and the size of U.S. securities markets. It is ironic that as House Republicans push this bill forward, they are also calling for the SEC to speed up its efforts on Jobs Act rules. This bill makes it impossible for the SEC to meet the very deadline we adopted just 2 days ago when we passed H.R. 701. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) control the time for the remainder of the debate.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As you know, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act as it is commonly known, was signed into law about 1 year ago. This bill received the support of both Democrats and Republicans on the Financial Services Committee. Some of us, including me, have some concerns about this legislation. We are basically taking a chance that investors will not be harmed, but we're taking a chance because we are so anxious to create jobs, and this legislation is possibly yet another approach to creating jobs. This is not the American Jobs Act, but this is a jobs act. And I believe that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, Mr. McHenry, really believes that this is going to create jobs. So we're going to take a chance that this will create jobs. Regulation A currently allows certain companies to raise up to $5 million a year through a streamlined, less costly registration process, providing smaller companies with much-needed capital without overly burdening them with registration requirements. In the JOBS Act, we raise that level to $50 million, thus providing small companies with a greater ability to develop new products and create much-needed jobs for their local economies. The JOBS Act did not set a deadline under which the Commission needed to complete this rulemaking. Given the tremendous workload the Commission is managing--including setting up new offices under the Wall Street Reform Act, regulating new markets such as the over-the-counter derivatives market, and completing various other rulemakings under the JOBS Act--it is understandable that the SEC has not yet completed the Regulation A update. H.R. 701 would basically require that the SEC complete the Regulation A rulemaking by October 31 of this year. While I am reluctant to impose accelerated rulemaking timetables on the Commission, given the resource constraints they face, I will support this bill and my colleagues are supporting this bill, particularly since we understand that the SEC has indicated that they will finish the rulemaking before October 31 anyway, even without this legislation. Finally, I would ask that my colleagues support adequate funding for the Commission so that they have the staff resources to carry out this and other outstanding rulemakings under both the Wall Street Reform Act and the JOBS Act. This is very important. The SEC has a great responsibility carrying out the rulemaking for all that we have placed on them. As I know that they like to do this rulemaking in a timely fashion, we must recognize that they don't have all the resources they need. So I hope that as we're taking a chance with our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, hoping that this bill is going to produce the kinds of jobs that have been indicated, we want our friends on the opposite side of the aisle to reciprocate with support for the SEC and the funding that they need. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406. This bill should be known as the ``More Work Less Pay Act.'' Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 to encourage a 40-hour workweek. FLSA also ensured that hourly workers would be fairly compensated for working over 40 hours a week. 75 years later, we are now debating a bill that will, in effect, eliminate overtime pay for millions of hourly workers. Last year, nearly 60 percent of the workforce in this country aged 16 and over, were paid an hourly wage. This amounts to 75.3 million people in the United States according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. Further, the Bureau found that 3.6 million of these workers earn wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. I represent the 43rd congressional district of California. In my home state, the minimum wage is 8.00 an hour. The impact of an $8.00 minimum wage is clear. We have one of the lowest percentages of workers who are earning at or below the federal minimum wage. There are several states that cannot say the same. Yet, like in all states, Californian's who earn overtime still rely upon that extra income. The legislation before us today needlessly targets millions of workers. These workers have come to rely on their overtime to make ends meet. We are not talking about millionaires but everyday hard working men and women. They utilize their added income to pay their rent and mortgages. They are using their overtime to feed their families and clothe their children. Hourly workers in this country are working overtime to pay for gas for their cars or pay their bus fare to get to work. H.R. 1406 provides absolutely no legitimate incentive for employers to give their employees time off. Under this bill, an employer could defer paying overtime for up to a year. This would, in effect, provide an employer with an interest free loan. Under this ``More Work Less Pay'' bill workers are not guaranteed compensatory time, commonly known as ``comp'' time. An employer retains the right to refuse to grant comp time. Under current law, workers are required to receive their overtime pay in their very next check. If an employer fails to pay overtime to their employee then the employee has a right to sue his or her employer. In 2011, the Labor Department recovered $225 million in back wages for employees. In that same year, there were 7,006 wage and hour suits filed in federal court. The numbers of employees suing their employers for back wages has steadily increased. Today, thousands of workers are currently fighting to ensure they are receiving their earned income. This is not the time to add into the fray, ``comp'' time flexibility and overtime pay cuts. If this bill did as it claimed and provided hourly workers with flexibility then there would be thousands of workers marching to D.C. championing this bill, instead nearly 200 labor unions and women's organizations oppose this measure. I believe we can all agree that working families do need flexibility. They need the flexibility that their extra earned income can afford them. The Jobs Report released last Friday reflected that our economy added 165,000 new jobs in the month of April. Instead of focusing on legislation to create additional jobs, boost our economy, and increase the earning potential of workers in the United States. Republican leadership has chosen instead to focus on legislation that cuts the pay of working families. A pay cut called flexibility is still a pay cut.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's vile Mother's Day gift-- more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1765, the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013. I don't want anybody to be mistaken about why I support this bill. I want Mrs. Bachmann to understand that we know that she has led the Tea Party and the right wing on all of these issues and that she led on the discussion on sequestration. It was a bad policy and it should not have been adopted by either side of the aisle; however, that is the order of the day, and we need to bring the budget to the floor and have a conference committee so we can adopt some of what was adopted on the Senate side to get rid of the sequestration. Meanwhile, the FAA plans to furlough the vast majority of the FAA's nearly 47,000 employees, including nearly 15,000 air traffic controllers, for approximately 1 day during each 2-week period in order to comply with sequestration. The furloughs have already begun. They started on April 21, 2013. So we're going to be backed up in these airports, and it is time for us to understand that this is an emergency. Let's get it over with by passing this bill today.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the impacts that sequestration is having on our country. Although I did not support the decisions that led to sequestration, I remain committed to protecting the American people from the most harmful and potentially dangerous outcomes related to sequestration. Sequestration simply means budget cuts, extraordinary budget cuts. Every moment we spend here in Washington should be spent working to improve the lives and opportunities for the American people. To that end, we should be focused on legislation to avert sequestration and improve our economy. As our minority whip said here this morning, we've passed a budget off the floor of the House. It's the Ryan budget, and it protects sequestration. It wants all of the cuts to take place. On the Senate side, they've passed a budget that does away with the onerous sequestration budget cuts. Now we need a conference committee, simply meaning, we need both sides to come together and resolve their differences and move on with having a budget for this country. But the Republicans are saying ``no.'' And as it was mentioned by our minority whip, we're here in Washington, D.C., fiddling while Rome burns. We're not taking care of any real business. They will not bring a conference committee together to resolve these differences. The simplest way to describe the sequester is to say that this was an avoidable, self-inflicted wound. A vocal Republican opposition over the budget led to an agreement, which ultimately resulted in this sequestration decision. Republican leadership has failed to bring to the floor this week measures to build our economy. We should be focused on salient measures designed to grow our economy and create jobs. Republican leadership has also failed to fully address the issues arising from sequestration; although, it is clear that these cuts are arbitrary, indiscriminate, and far too blunt. The American people may be aware of the obvious impacts of sequestration, such as the closing of national parks and the elimination of tours at the White House; however, Americans might not be aware of how sequestration can impact important parts of their lives and this economy. Let's take air travel. Some of you have heard about what is going on in our airports. Imagine that you're trying to get to the airport to catch a flight to attend your daughter's wedding or graduation or to see about a sick relative, or you're a business traveler trying to meet a potential client for the first time. Well, sequestration could soon impact all of your travel plans. Due to sequestration, the Federal Aviation Administration addressed the shortage in their funding by furloughing 47,200 employees and are expected to close certain airports. As a result, we're witnessing airplanes remaining on the tarmac for hours. The traveling public is expecting flight delays and cancellations at airports all across the country. The impact of sequestration is being felt by the thousands of travelers who utilize our airways every day. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to get worse. Along with flight delays, airline travelers can expect increased wait times in airport security lines because the Transportation Security Administration has also had to furlough screening agents in response to sequestration. I represent Los Angeles International Airport, which is the sixth busiest airport in the world and the third busiest airport in the United States. I understand the impact that flight delays will have, not only on those traveling for leisure, but also on the airline industry and business travelers. These furloughs are problematic for airports of any size. The importance of the air traffic controllers at LAX and across the country cannot be understated. God forbid that there should be an accident that could have been averted. No explanation could possibly make amends for the resulting loss of life. This is simply unacceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, I could talk about a lot more, national security, housing, health care, all of that, but the fact of the matter is this is unnecessary. I'm absolutely disappointed. I want this Congress to get on with the business of getting a budget and representing the people that sent them here to represent them. national security Last week, we were all horrified to watch the bombings at the 117th Boston Marathon. We all applauded the valiant and successful efforts of law enforcement. Even so, the intelligence community who diligently worked with local law enforcement to ultimately capture a bombing suspect is not immune from the impacts of sequestration. As a direct result of sequestration the National Intelligence Community could receive 4 billion dollars in cuts. Consider a recent statement from National Intelligence Director James Clapper. He stated ``sequestration forces the intelligence community to decrease all intelligence actions and functions without regard to the impact on our mission. It is my judgment, as our nation's senior intelligence officer, that sequestration jeopardizes our nation's safety and security, and this jeopardy will increase over time.'' We all watched on television as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Hostage Rescue Team bravely apprehended the surviving Boston bombing suspect. It is at these moments the American public can witness the training and skill of FBI agents. Yet, even the FBI is not protected from sequestration. Last month, FBI Director Robert Muller estimated that sequestration would decrease the FBI's budget by $550 million for this fiscal year. As 60 percent of the FBI's budget pays for personnel, Director Muller anticipates that he will have to plan for the possibility of furloughs in the FBI. According to Director Muller ``any furlough would pose a risk to FBI operations particularly in the areas of counter terrorism and cyber.'' I believe the American people understand the importance of protecting our national security, especially at a time when our nation faces threats both foreign and domestic. But again, due to sequestration the FBI and other members of the national intelligence community who play a vital role in protecting our nation may be given shorter hours or furloughed. These are the sort of insidious impacts that unfortunately, may not get anyone's attention until something tragic happens. There are real life consequences if the sequester is not lifted. Public Health The effect on public health could be equally devastating. Sequestration could cut $3.7 billion from funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. A myriad of programs will be negatively impacted by these cuts. For example, cuts to Community Health Centers could leave one million low-income and uninsured patients without basic health services. If we do not act to end the effects of sequestration, there could be 45,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income women. Further, nearly 485,000 seniors could lose access to disease prevention programs. Even the gains we have made in HIV/AIDS awareness, screening, and care may also be hampered by sequestration. The anticipated cuts to HIV screening could result in 424,000 fewer HIV tests. Further, cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could leave 7,400 HIV/AIDS patients in need of treatment without life-saving AIDS medications. Finally, the National Institutes of Health would be cut by $1.6 billion. That's $1.6 billion less money available for cutting-edge research by scientists seeking cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. These are only a handful of the unintended consequences of blind sequestration required cuts. housing When it comes to housing--according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, these cuts come at a time when the number of low- income families in need of housing assistance has been rising substantially. Currently, there are long waiting lists for vouchers in almost every community, and homelessness remains a persistent problem. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that about 125,000 individuals and families, including elderly and disabled individuals, may lose assistance and be at risk of becoming homeless. These effects, while not immediate, would be devastating to the millions of low- income families who depend on these federal programs for shelter, a basic life necessity. Sequestration cuts would also result in more than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, being removed from their current housing or emergency shelter programs, putting them at substantial risk of becoming homeless. wic and head start The sequester could also have a negative impact on federally funded programs that provide services to women and children. Essential programs like Head Start and Early Head Start may have to turn away up to 70,000 children and families. These families rely on their services for quality childcare and parenting education initiatives. Even Women, Infants and Children, WIC, that provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under age 5 who are at nutritional risk faces cut. Secretary Tom Vilsack at the U.S. Department of Agricultures warned back in February that as a result of the sequester WIC will only be able to provide services for 600,000 of the 9 million low-income families currently served. conclusion Mr. Speaker, sequestration has already taken a toll on families, businesses, and communities across the country. At a time when we are working to rebuild our economy, sequestration will cost American workers millions of dollars in lost wages and businesses billions of dollars in lost revenue. Sequestration will have impacts that we might not consider here today. It will impact our national security efforts. It will impact our air travel and it will even impact the food we eat. We must work to avert these thoughtless cuts. It is time for Republicans to stop refusing to move forward in our work to pass a budget that reflects our nation's values. It is time to do the right thing for the American people and lift the sequester.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I would like to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for Congresswoman Barbara Lee. I want to thank her for having the vision to organize today's activities and to say to me and to our other friend Lynn Woolsey: let us not let this moment pass without reminding this country that it was 10 years ago that we were involved in the invasion of Iraq. Let us talk about the consequences of that, and let us do everything that we can to continue to be a voice for peace. I want to thank you, Barbara Lee, not only for today, but I am reminded of the courageous action that you took when you warned us, when there was legislation authorizing the use of military force, that we should have all been against it. However, you were the lone vote in the House of Representatives who voted against that authorization. So I thank you for your work, for your guidance, and for your leadership. You are absolutely correct. In June of 2005, I became the chair and a founding member of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, along with you, Representative Barbara Lee, and, of course, our friend Representative Lynn Woolsey. As a matter of fact, we became known as ``The Triad.'' I want you to know that a combination of actions that we took helped to galvanize this Congress and to increase attention on this very issue. I will never forget the over 441 speeches that were made on the floor by our friend Congresswoman Woolsey. She is not here today because she has retired, but we will always remember the care and concern that she gave to this issue. On March 19, 2003, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces were ordered into service in Iraq. In the following years, nearly 4,500 of those servicemembers did not return home to the United States, and tens of thousands would come back wounded, injured--their lives changed forever. I voted against the war authorization in the first place, and in hindsight, I know there are many Members who also wish they had voted against it. It was in that spirit that the Out of Iraq Caucus was established: to bring to the House of Representatives an ongoing debate about the war in Iraq and to urge the return of U.S. servicemembers to their families as soon as possible. The Out of Iraq Caucus provided a real voice in Congress for the individuals and groups who supported these efforts. We had a membership of nearly 80 Representatives from diverse constituencies. As a caucus, we kept in close communication with congressional leadership and with committee chairmen to drive Congress toward our objective of ending the war in Iraq. We also worked with other congressional caucuses and national organizations to hold hearings, press conferences, and town hall meetings to educate the American people and to pressure the Bush administration to conclude the war in Iraq. At the time, our most important legislative goal was to end the Iraq war and bring our troops home to their families. Our work helped define the national debate on how this could be accomplished. We again organized community rallies against a war, we marched in parades, we held press conferences, we worked with the mothers of many of our young men and women who were in the war, who were serving in the war, and we worked with many of the veterans organizations. I, too, offered a series of legislation to buttress our opposition that our troops must be safely and speedily redeployed from Iraq and that we must work to restore peace in Iraq. I introduced bills such as H.R. 3134, Responsible Security in Iraq Act; H.R. 5488, Iraqi Displacement Coordinator; H.R. 7215, Human Costs in Iraq Act; H. Res. 1326, Honor Iraq's Sovereignty; and, of course, H. Res. 1519, Press Freedom in Iraq. On the 1-year anniversary of the founding of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I launched a campaign to inform the public about H.J. Res. 73. Ms. Lee, you will remember John Murtha, the former Member of this House who is now deceased who introduced H.J. Res. 73, now known as The Murtha Plan, which established a reasonable timetable for the redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We all worked with him on that legislation, and we honor him even today for his wisdom and his foresight. I want to do just one thing before I have to leave, and that is read a letter to President Bush that we all sent funding only for redeployment of troops, if you recall. By the following year in 2007, we as a caucus delivered a letter to President Bush signed by 92 Members of Congress, which stated our intent to only support war funding for the safe and orderly redeployment of our U.S. troops from Iraq. In the letter, we cited the tremendous human and financial costs of the President's failed Iraq policy. And because of you, Barbara Lee, I'd like to share this letter because you were in the leadership of this. It said: Dear Mr. President: We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during fiscal year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office. More than 3,600 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 26,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war; and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you, your key advisers gave our Nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and would be paid from Iraq oil revenues. Remember that? We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and we believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose the staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come. Sincerely. And it was signed by all 93 Members at that time. Our efforts gained momentum; and by late 2008, President Bush signed the Status of Forces agreement, which mandated that the U.S. shall completely withdraw from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011, and all U.S. combat forces shall withdraw from Iraq cities before June 3, 2009. As a caucus, we continue to hold hearings and briefings, as well as speaking on this very floor until President Obama, who initially opposed the war, approved an 18-month redeployment plan that would begin in September of 2009 and end in December of 2011. Ms. Lee, I'm sorry that I'm going to have to leave the floor because I have a meeting scheduled with the members of our caucus of the Financial Services Committee. But I'd like to say before I leave, again, thank you for your leadership; thank you for your wisdom; thank you for having always been identified as a woman of peace, a woman who understood and believed and worked for peace and who has always believed that whatever our differences are in the world, that we must find ways to have the kind of diplomacy that can resolve these differences. Some people think that this is not possible, but I know that those of us who believe this will continue to fight and to work for peace on Earth and goodwill toward all men and women.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I rise today in support of H.R. 360. The bill posthumously honors the lives of Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley who were tragically lost 50 years ago in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. The horror of this senseless act of violence stunned the Nation and served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, especially Congresswoman Terri Sewell and Chairman Emeritus Spencer Bachus, for their work to ensure that these girls receive our highest civilian honor as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of their deaths. The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church was not an accidental bombing target for the perpetrators. Rather, members of the Ku Klux Klan deliberately targeted the church, designing their attack to strike fear into the hearts of those seeking equal rights. The church was a known sanctuary for civil rights leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Congress on Racial Equality which had become involved in a campaign to register African Americans to vote in Alabama. On that fateful morning of September 13, 1963, roughly 1 month after the March on Washington, the girls went to Sunday school to hear a sermon entitled ``The Love that Forgives'' when the bomb exploded, killing them and injuring many others. The bombers had hidden under a set of cinder block steps on the side of the church, tunneled under the basement, and placed a bundle of dynamite under what turned out to be the girls restroom. The cruelty and violence of this act shocked the Nation and drew international attention to the violent struggle for civil rights, inspiring a wave of legislative action in Congress. By 1964, Congress had passed the Civil Rights Act, a landmark achievement in the fight to outlaw discrimination. By 1965, Congress had passed the Voting Rights Act, which aimed to eliminate voting restrictions that unjustly disenfranchised qualified voters. I thank you, Ms. Sewell, for your leadership on this issue and helping this Nation to remember what took place on that day.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I want to thank Mr. Ellison and Mr. Grijalva for their leadership with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I rise in support of the Back to Work budget. Let me just say it again--back to work. This is what this budget is all about, ladies and gentlemen--investment in our infrastructure. We have bridges that are falling apart, streets that need repair, water systems that need upgrading. We can create jobs. The Republicans and the Ryan budget talk about jobs. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. I tried to get an amendment on the TIGER program, which would increase the funding for jobs in transportation that we need so badly. They rejected that. They rejected that because they're focused on making sure that they give tax cuts to the richest people in this country, making sure that they keep those tax loopholes for the privileged--not investing in America's future and in America's growth. The people are expecting us to make them their priority, to make sure that we are investing in opportunities for them, their families, their children, and their neighborhoods. No, the Ryan budget pays no attention to any of that. These privileged people on the other side of the aisle, who don't have to worry about jobs and who don't have to worry about any of that, deny the people the right to just participate.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am so very, very proud to be here in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget. This is a budget with a centerpiece: Job creation. This is a budget that is balanced. This is a budget that is in opposition to the Ryan budget that would slash and burn and cut and deny our senior citizens, deny our children, do away with Head Start and many programs that the American people deserve to have. I am a member of the Financial Services Committee, now serving as a ranking member. I created the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is a program that goes into communities that have been devastated by foreclosures based on the subprime meltdown that we had in this country, where so many people were tricked into signing onto loans and mortgages they could not afford. Thus, they went into foreclosure. These communities have been devastated with boarded-up homes, with stray animals on the property, with police and fire having to spend more money in these cities to try and upkeep them. The Ryan budget would do away with the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The home values must be maintained in these communities. Some people are trying to keep up their homes, but with these boarded-up properties, the value of the homes go down. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is a project that would revitalize the properties and put them back on the market as affordable homes. Instead of doing away with this program that helps to keep the value of our American citizens' homes, we protect it. The Ryan budget would do away with it. Thank the CBC for understanding how to protect our neighborhoods, how to protect our consumers and our citizens, and how to make our neighborhoods safe, despite the fact that we almost went into a depression based on the financial services meltdown.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Van Hollen for yielding me this time. Today I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget, a budget that makes absurd claims to reducing the deficit by repealing crucial government authority to protect our economy. Lest we forget, the Lehman Brothers disorderly bankruptcy sparked the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Should a megabank fail in the future, the Dodd-Frank Act specifically authorizes regulators to dissolve the failing firm, fire its executives, wipe out shareholders, and deny the claims of creditors. The gentleman from Wisconsin calls this a bailout--erroneously-- concluding that the Dodd-Frank Act enshrines ``too big to fail'' when, in fact, it provides all of the necessary tools to end it. If Dodd- Frank actually did what the Republicans say, why does no large firm want to be designated as ``systematically significant''? The Republican proposal also deceptively suggests that a repeal of the liquidation authority generates real savings to the American taxpayer. The Dodd-Frank legislation designed this authority to pay for itself over time, with any initial up-front costs being completely recouped by selling assets and imposing an assessment, after the resolution, on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. The law specifically states that taxpayers shall bear no losses from the exercise of any authority under the liquidation title. Once again, the Republican budget is misleading and dishonest. The National Journal has called the Republican proposal a ``budget gimmick,'' and even The Wall Street Journal dismissed it as mere ``budget quirks.'' If the authority to wind down a megafirm is repealed, the American taxpayer would be called on again to bear the risk of another financial crisis like in 2008, which the GAO found cost the U.S. economy $13 trillion. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this Republican budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Congressman Meeks. I am so proud of the Members of this Congress from both sides of the aisle who have been real advocates--who have been on television, who have been fighting. Members on the opposite side of the aisle have criticized their own leadership for the delay. Ladies and gentlemen, I am from California. I have witnessed earthquake disaster. I have been involved in trying to help with Katrina and in making sure that the people who were the victims of Katrina were compensated, were taken care of. This is unconscionable that this has had to take so long. I watched Congressman Meeks up in Rockaway. I watched the people who cried. I watched the people who begged for help, who begged for assistance. This is so late in coming, so I support this bill today. I am one of the coauthors of the flood insurance reauthorization bill, along with Mrs. Biggert, who reauthorized flood insurance for another 5 years. Let's put the money in it. Let's do what is right. Let's take care of this disaster.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. While it is clear that the Republican majority's H.R. 6684 is an attempt to generate votes for Speaker Boehner's Plan B, when it comes to protecting the American middle class from another taxpayer bailout, H.R. 6684 gets a failing grade: First, the plan repeals our financial regulators' existing authority, which was created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, to end the era of too-big-to-fail institutions; H.R. 6684 would also tie the hands of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency we formed under Dodd- Frank to make sure financial institutions play by the rules when it comes to mortgage and student loans, credit cards, and payday lenders. H.R. 6684 would eliminate that independent funding and, instead, tie their hands by making the Bureau basically have to go through the appropriations process; The plan likewise eliminates the Office of Financial Research, an Agency tasked with collecting information on the health of our financial markets and conducting research on financial stability issues; Finally, H.R. 6684 would just kill the Home Affordable Modification Program. We need to improve our ability to do loan modifications, not kill it. It is unfortunate that, at the end of another session of Congress, the Republicans are again playing with the U.S. economy when they should be working in a bipartisan manner with the House Democrats in order to avert the fiscal cliff. Ladies and gentlemen, I know that many of you didn't know that all of this was in this bill; but we have this plan, this orderly way, of dissolving these financial institutions when they put our economy at risk. So vote ``no'' on this particular bill.