Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58, honoring a good friend, Muhammad Ali, on the occasion of his 65th birthday and to extend best wishes to him and his family. The Gentlelady from Indiana [Ms. Carson] is to be commended for bringing this resolution to the House in celebration of an icon of sportsmanship, fortitude, perseverance, and peace. On November 20, 2005, I was honored to have given remarks during the grand opening of the Muhammad Ali Center in downtown Louisville. This educational and cultural center was established to give visitors a glimpse of Ali's life and experiences and to help inspire them to pursue their dreams by applying their maximum potential. Ali is many things to many people: a world champion, an Olympian, an innovator, a world-class father, husband, and friend. In his 21 years of boxing, he won 56 fights out of 61 and is the first boxer to win the heavyweight championship three times. He achieved the incredible feat of winning an Olympic gold medal in the 1960 games at the age of 18. However, his legendary charisma, charm, and genius did not stop in the ring or at press conferences. What makes him a true pioneer is the fact that he was principled enough to say no to the Vietnam War. The words he spoke in refusing the draft made a stark social commentary during that time and taught America a valuable way of thinking. Those words taught us that war should always be a last resort and that before we over-commit ourselves elsewhere, we must fix the problems that exist right at home. This philosophy has tremendous relevance to us today in the context of the War in Iraq. Many Americans feel that we should re- align our priorities to address problems at home instead of fighting a war in Iraq. I wish Muhammad Ali a very happy birthday. For his outstanding contributions to sports and sportsmanship and for the lessons on peace and conviction to principles that he gave the world, I sincerely thank him. His legacy and record of achievement have earned him the title of ``the Greatest of All Time.'' I support this resolution.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, for this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Student Relief Act, a bill that will lower the interest rates that college students pay for subsidized loans from the current fixed rate of 6.8 percent to 3.5 percent over 5 years. This is a fair bill that pays for itself by reducing the profit that the top lenders make from subsidizing loan debt, and it gives help to lower and middle income students who want to go to college but cannot afford it. The Project on Student Debt states that over the past 10 years debt for graduating college seniors has increased by 108 percent. For graduates from public universities it has more than doubled, increasing by 116 percent. This bill is needed because we want students to receive a college education without the stress of leaving with massive amounts of debt that will force them into jobs just for the sake of saving their credit. Furthermore, we do not want students to decide not to enter college because they are afraid of acquiring unmanageable debt. According to Baum and O'Malley, in 2002, loan debt caused 14 percent to postpone marriage, 30 percent to postpone buying a car, 21 percent to wait on having children and 38 percent to wait on buying a house. This bill chips away at the opportunity gap that keeps students of needy families and communities of color at the bottom of the ladder of success. Half of the students with Federal loans come from families with incomes between $26,000 and $68,000. The lower end of this range is close to the national poverty level for a family of four of $20,000. Many parents who want to send their children to college have to take on large debt, rather than invest in homes or their retirement. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the strong position you have taken on the floor today as you have presented this bill, and I would like to ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, if they had an opportunity to reduce the interest rate on their mortgage loans by 50 percent, on their automobile also by 50 percent, or any of their other debt, would they think it was such a terrible thing, as they think about this that we are doing today? I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, which requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies for lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. American seniors are not getting the best possible prices for the drugs that keep them alive and in good health. A study by Families USA shows that the median drug prices among Medicare plans for the top 20 drugs prescribed for seniors is increasing at a rate of 7.4 percent per year. That's more than twice the rate of inflation. These price increases are passed on to seniors in the form of higher premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Clearly, the Medicare prescription drug program has not resulted in the lowest possible prices for seniors. But it has resulted in record profits for drug companies. In November, the New York Times reported that the Medicare prescription drug program has proven to be a bigger financial windfall for big drug companies than even the most optimistic of Wall Street predictions. The Veterans' Administration already negotiates with drug companies for lower drug prices for American veterans. In the Families USA study, the lowest price charged by Medicare prescription drug plans for all 20 of the top drugs was always higher than the lowest price obtained by the Veterans' Administration. I am a great defender of our Nation's veterans. They have served our country with honor, and they deserve the lowest possible prices for their drugs. But so do our Nation's seniors. There is no reason why the U.S. Government should negotiate lower drug prices for veterans and not for seniors. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate in good faith for lower prescription drug prices for American seniors.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very, very much. I now yield to one of our new Members of Congress, a gentleman who comes with a great background and who has hit the floor running, Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I now yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady for all of the hard work she does on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman for all of the good work she does. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman for all of the hours he has put into this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Kucinich.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, I am here on the floor this evening along with some of my other colleagues who have been working for almost 4 years to bring to the attention of this House the mistakes, the errors, the misdirection of the President of the United States as relates to the war in Iraq. We have Members on this floor this evening, many of my colleagues, who have not only spoken time and time again about what is going on in Iraq, but they have spoken in their districts and around the country, helping people to understand that there are some of us here in the Congress of the United States who do not support this war. We support our troops. They are there because they have been told by the President of the United States that they should volunteer to serve because our country was at risk. But we have been trying to help people to understand what is happening, what is not happening. Last night the President addressed the Nation with a new plan that he called a ``new way forward.'' Now, Mr. Speaker and Members, the President of the United States has come up with a lot of proposals since this debacle in Iraq. What he announced last night has been tried before, and he has failed at almost everything that he has attempted. Now the President is talking about sending 21,000 troops to Iraq. Where are they going to come from? Whose family is going to have to make the sacrifice? Who are these young people who continue to volunteer and are told that they are going to be serving for a certain period of time only to be stopped from going home when they thought they would be going home? Under the President's plan, troops will have shorter amounts of time between deployments and longer deployments to Iraq. The length of Army deployments will be increased from 12 months to 15 months. Marine deployments will be increased to 12 months from 7 months. So where are these troops going to come from? The President had announced that the Iraqi Government had committed to a series of benchmarks, including another 8,000 Iraqi troops and policemen in Baghdad. So what if they have committed to a series of benchmarks? So what if they don't meet them? Then what? What do we do? The President did not say if they fail on the first benchmark that we are going to get out of there. No. He just simply one more time said to the American people: Trust me. And I don't think that many of us are willing to continue to trust that the President of the United States has a vision for where he is going with all of this. The President also said that they were going to force passage of long delayed legislation to share all revenues among Iraq's sects and ethnic groups. Now, we have heard this oil story before. If you can recall, when the President first went into Iraq, they said they were going to get the revenues from the oil; it would help pay for the cost of the war, and it would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq after we have torn it up. And then, of course, the President asked that the American people support him in getting $10 billion for jobs and reconstruction in Iraq. Well, now that the oil revenues are not forthcoming, this is a President who has spent, spent, spent, created a deficit. This is a President that refuses to support many of the domestic programs that many of us would like to see. We would like to see more affordable housing. We would like to see better schools. We would like to see comprehensive universal health care. But we cannot get the support of the President of the United States for these domestic needs. But he tells us, now that he has messed up, led us into war under false pretenses, that we are now to pay for it, and there is no oil revenue there to do it. Well, I think that my friends are going to join me in helping to unfold what has taken place. At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I wanted very much to be on this floor this evening with Eleanor Holmes Norton first because I want to show my strong support for her, her work, her love for the District of Columbia and for the way she has used every bit of her time and efforts to fight for voting rights for Washington, DC. I admire her spirit, I admire her commitment and I admire the way she has educated the entire Congress of the United States on this issue and forged a relationship with people on the other side of the aisle to get us to the point where we are. I know that it is disappointing sometimes to feel you have come so close, and it still hasn't happened, but I am convinced it will happen, because of you, Eleanor Holmes Norton. It will happen because you will not allow it not to happen. So I wanted to be here this evening more than to simply talk about the unfairness of not having voting rights. We all know that. I wanted to be here tonight to say to you, sister, I am with you. I have marched, and I will march again. I have sat in, and I will sit in again. I started on this issue when I was in the California State legislature, and sometimes I feel a little guilty because I don't think I demonstrated long enough and hard enough to show how much I care about this. I come from a time and place in St. Louis, MO, where I was educated in an elementary school called the James Weldon Johnson elementary school, with strong teachers who taught us the Constitution. We learned the Declaration of Independence. We learned what happened with the British and about the Boston Tea Party, and we learned about Patrick Henry, who declared, ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' So, whether or not it was intended, it was instilled in us that in this America, despite the fact that we had witnessed discrimination, we had been marginalized, that we have a right in this democracy to participate fully. I really believed that, and if it was not intended, then they shouldn't have taught it to us, because we didn't think they were talking about somebody else. We truly believed they were talking about all of us. Mr. Speaker, there is not a day that passes as I look around this Capitol that I am not reminded of the slaves that happened to build these marvelous buildings. I am reminded on a daily basis of the people who work right here in the Capitol, in these buildings, who live in the District of Columbia, who hear us wax eloquently day in and day out about democracy and participation and the Voting Rights Act. These are the people who serve us day in and day out, and serve us well. You come into this Capitol late in the evening and you see who is working and how hard they work and what they do for all of us. And yet we walk past them every day, and we don't stop to say, ``I'm so sorry. You should have the right to have the representation in the Congress of the United States that you deserve and we thought would have been guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.'' So, Eleanor Holmes Norton, thank you. Thank you for the love that you have for the District. I know that your constituents know this. You don't have to prove anything to anybody, because your daily work proves who you are and what your values are and what you care about. I want you to know, November 7th gave us a new opportunity here. The people have voted, and the people have said to us they want to see change. The people are angry about what happened with Katrina. They are angry about Iraq. They are angry basically about injustice. And even those folks who oftentimes have been silent on the issue, they know injustice when they see it and feel it very deeply. So I am hopeful that we will be able to use this time that we have to provide the leadership, to give you the support, to make sure we do justice by the District of Columbia and ensure that you get your voting rights.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, last night the President of the United States addressed the Nation. He had promised us that he was going to come up with creative solutions because he acknowledged his failures. He has designed what he called ``a new way forward.'' That is another one of his sound bites. He tried to cloud the escalation by saying sending 20,000 new troops was a surge of some kind. There was nothing new or creative about his message. Remember, it was the President of the United States who promised us that they were going to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction, only for us to find out there were no weapons of mass destruction. Remember when he rolled out on the battleship saying ``Mission Accomplished''? Remember when he promised us that we would get the proceeds from the oil in Iraq and that would be used to rehabilitate Iraq? Remember when they promised us that we would be welcomed with open arms and we were winning the war? Well, there this is no new real exit strategy. This is no new way forward. As a matter of fact, this is a new way backwards. And then on top of that, he had the audacity to tell us he wants a billion dollars to give to the Iraqis for jobs and employment. Give me some of that money for our cities and our rural communities. We could really use it. We have to oppose the President on this escalation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Miller, and I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. I am pleased that the Democratic leadership has taken a straightforward, no-holds-barred approach to expediting consideration of this legislation. And frankly, I am ashamed that it has taken so long to increase the minimum wage by so little. What we do here today is a clear indication of the philosophical difference between Democrats and Republicans. My party, the Democratic Party, has tried to raise the minimum wage for nearly 10 years because we believe in live and let live. We believe that families should be fairly paid for their labor. We believe that wage earners, the true backbone of this Nation, should be able to put food on the table, roofs over their families' heads, clothes on their families' back and to have basic health care. Mr. Speaker, $5.15 is totally unacceptable. No family can live on $5.15 an hour. Many wage earners are working two and three jobs, both husbands and wives and even their children, trying to make ends meet. Americans deserve better, and Americans expect their representatives to assist them in their quest for a decent quality of life. Today the story will be written about the difference between those who stood up for the least of these and the those who came to this floor and continued to bring unconscionable arguments to deny low- income wage earners a mere $2.10 increase over their income in a 2-year period. Many States could not wait for Congress to act, and they have undertaken to increase their wages. In my own State of California, the minimum wage effective January 1 of this year has increased to $7.25. Mr. Speaker, 6.6 million people will benefit from raising the minimum wage. The economic gap between the rich and poor is growing. Too many people are living at or below the poverty line. When we pass this bill, we will all feel better about ourselves.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I come to the floor of the House this evening in advance of the President's speech that is scheduled for, I think, 9 p.m. this evening, where the President is going to announce his new approach to dealing with the debacle that he has created in Iraq. He has coined it, ``New Way Forward.'' He has referred to it as a surge, but we all know what this is. This is an escalation. The President of the United States is probably going to announce that the surge has already started. There are reports in the news already that about 90 advanced troops from the 82nd Airborne will arrive in Baghdad today, I believe. And so this so-called surge that the President has begun is one that is taking place without the support of the American people, without the support of many of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Americans, and elected officials, in particular, are sick and tired of being misled, of not being told the truth, and trying to explain to our constituents what this war in Iraq is all about. Americans, basically, have come to the conclusion that this war has been mismanaged, that they have not been told the truth, that there were no weapons of destruction. Oh, there were promises made. We were told by Mr. Rumsfeld that we would be welcomed with open arms; we would be seen as the liberators. The Iraqis see us as occupiers, and they want us out of their country. We were told that we didn't have to worry about the cost of this war because there would be profits from the oil in Iraq that would not only help pay for the war but it would help to reconstruct the damage that has been done to Iraq by the occupation. Oh, we were told not only would we have oil resources that would repay or pay for some of this damage, we were told that enough troops were going to be, Iraqi troops were going to be trained and that the numbers were growing and that they would soon be able to take over the security of Iraq. None of that has happened. As a matter of fact, what we are finding is that our troops are being deserted in times of crisis and confrontation by Iraqi soldiers, that they are being undermined, oftentimes, by Iraqi soldiers, and that our troops don't know a Shiite from a Sunni from a Kurd. And they are very much so in harm's way because they really don't know what they are fighting, why they are fighting and why they are in Iraq. But this President plans on sending about 24,000 U.S. troops to Iraq. Five brigades of U.S. troops, about 20,000 soldiers will be deployed to Baghdad to suppress sectarian violence. An additional 4,000 troops will be sent to the Anwar Province to pursue insurgents. Responsibility for security, he says, in all of the country's provinces will be turned over to Iraqi forces by November 2007. Oh, haven't we heard those kinds of promises before. How can we put any faith in the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, who first refused to send adequate numbers into the war? They were being told by their commanders and their generals that they needed more troops, but, no, Mr. Rumsfeld convinced, I suppose, this President that we didn't need it, and so we didn't send them. And now, at the 12th hour, we are talking about sending more troops. It is too late. It is too late to have this escalation. We have lost. We have mismanaged. We have created an untenable situation, and there is a civil war going on in Iraq, and we can't manage it. We cannot undo the harm that we have created, and it does not make good sense to send our troops into harm's way. Not only is our Commander-in-Chief sending more troops, the length of Army deployments will be increased from 12 months to 15 months. Marine deployment will be increased to 12 months from 7 months. In addition, the amount of time they spend at home to rest before returning to Iraq will be shortened. Mr. President, mothers, fathers and families want their children and their relatives home.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I thank the gentleman from Maryland and the Senator-elect for this time. I rise reluctantly to support this trade bill. I say ``reluctantly'' because the bill includes several different trade provisions, each of which deserves to be considered on its own merit. These provisions should not be lumped together as a single bill and brought to the floor with no opportunity for meaningful debate or amendments. However, I strongly support the HOPE bill which provides duty-free treatment for apparel imports from Haiti, the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere. On May 14, Rene Preval was sworn in as the democratically elected President of Haiti following a period of political instability and violence that lasted over 2 years. Now President Preval needs to provide economic opportunity for the Haitian people. The HOPE bill will enable Haiti to manufacture apparel products for export to the United States. These trade benefits would only apply as long as Haitian apparel products do not exceed 2 percent of U.S. apparel imports. While these benefits are small by American standards, they will create jobs and promote economic development in this very small, impoverished country. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill, given all of the questions they may have about the bill. I have worked very closely with the problems of Haiti and I think that we need to give them a chance. I, too, am concerned about whether or not workers will be exploited, but we can keep a close eye on that. Some of us are involved in a CODEL to Haiti as soon as we close down this floor and leaving tomorrow morning where we will be talking with President Preval and parliamentarians. Their greatest hope and their greatest desire is to get support of this trade bill tonight and to give them this HOPE program. Let's just give them a chance, again, despite whatever questions we may have.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. The special interest Republican Congress is at it again. Republican leaders are packaging three different bills together in one in order to force Members of Congress to pass controversial legislation together with popular legislation. And once again they have brought this complicated legislation to the House floor without providing an opportunity for meaningful debate and without allowing Members to review the text of the bill in advance. Before the election they packaged tax credit extensions and an increase in the minimum wage together with an estate tax cut that benefits some of the richest people in the country. Now they are packaging tax credit extensions and an adjustment in Medicare payments to physicians together with a special interest giveaway to their friends in the oil industry. This special interest bill opens up 8 million acres of Florida gulf coast waters to offshore oil drilling. The American people are sick and tired of these deceptive procedures. That is why we won the election. Perhaps my friends on the opposite side of the aisle just want to provide one more favor to the oil industry before they lose control of Congress next month.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 973, ``Recognizing Financial Planning Week.'' I want to thank Mr. Hinojosa and Mrs. Biggert for introducing the resolution. I am cosponsor of this resolution because I believe that we must acknowledge the importance of financial planning for all Americans. This resolution accepts the goal of financial planning as a tool to enable families and individuals to achieve their financial and life goals. It recognizes the relevance of financial planners, many of whom are essential to American individuals and families planning for their futures. Sound financial planning must be integrated into any comprehensive life plan. Many of the financial instruments and investments require basic if not advanced financial planning to be used productively. Financial independence is a goal that I strongly advocate. Without financial independence it is impossible to function and to meet future challenges. The Financial Planning Association has designated the week beginning October 2, 2006 as Financial Planning Week. The House officially recognizes the importance of financial planning and financial planners in the process, and this resolution embraces Financial Planning Week. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Carolyn Tate, UAW Retired Workers International Representative, was born in Freeport, Illinois, on June 23, 1945. Only daughter of James and Vinnie Arnold she also has three brothers, James Arnold, Jr., Columbus, Ohio, David Arnold, Cincinnati, Ohio and Eddie Arnold, Oakland, California. Carolyn moved to Oakland, California in 1958. She met and married Bennie Tate, Jr. in December 1964, and had three children, Steven, Karen, and Tracy Tate. She has one grandson Steven M. Tate and a second grandson on the way. Carolyn attended Berkeley High School, Berkeley California, and graduated in June of 1963. Continued her education by attending Merritt College, Oakland, California, and received her Associate in Arts Degree, Liberal Arts Studies in June 1980. Being aware of the importance of continuing her learning experience in 2001 Carolyn was accorded senior status at Cal State University, Long Beach, where she intends to pursue a B.A. Degree in her new role as a retiree. Carolyn's work and professional experiences are quite interesting to follow. In her search for short term employment she interviewed with General Motors Part Depot in September 1973. Interesting to note, that job led to 33 years of service with the UAWand General Motors. Her plant closed and she relocated to Sparks, Nevada in 1980. She immediately became involved with UAW Local 1262 and became the Financial Secretary of the Local and held that elected position for 12 years. In 1988, she implemented the first V-CAP check-off drive in the GM facility which Tripled Local 2162's contributions to the UAW's V-CAP regional program. Remembering having heard UAW President Walter Reuther's old saying that there was a definite connection between the ballot box and collective bargaining, she decided to become very active in the Democratic party of Nevada. During the party activities led her to hold various positions which included Washoe County Registrar from 1986 to 1992. It was in Nevada that Carolyn, not only became an extremely active UAW Local Union officer, but she also began to be more deeply involved in community activities making her a committed activist for social change. In 1989, UAW leadership noticed this active Local union official and was appointed by Vice-President Stephen P. Yokich, as the UAW quality network representative. Having shown a quick grasp of the make up of UAW activities, she was recommended for an appointment to the International Staff by Region 6 Director Bruce Lee. Upon that recommendation in August 1992, UAW President Owen Bieber appointed her to the International Staff and was relocated to the UAW headquarters in Artesia, California. Her first assignment was an International Organizer, and shortly thereafter there was an opening in the UAW Retirement Workers Department and she was assigned to that position where she spent the last 14 years. In that capacity, Carolyn coordinated and implemented UAW senior activities, programs, political action, lobbying events and all Get Out to Vote/ registration Drives in California, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and Washington State for over twenty-seven thousand UAW Retirees. Under Director Jim Wells leadership, since 1995, she elevated Region 5--West Retiree's to holding the number one title for UAW V-CAP fundraising drives. Carolyn Tate's experiences as a working mother, union organizer, international representative, dedicated community activist, and political action and lobbying activities, make her an outstanding model for others, male and female, to follow and emulate. She has proven that in spite of obstacles that one faces in life, one can always strive to improve oneself by sticking to it and giving service to others.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Non-admitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2006, reported by the Committee on Financial Services. I want to thank the Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite, for sponsoring this bill and the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Oxley for reporting this legislation out of the Committee. If any of you have visited the Gulf Region in the last year since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you know how essential it is that we come to grips with reality and the potential for a major disaster by reforming nonadmitted and reinsurance in this nation. More than half the City of New Orleans' pre-storm population of 450,000 has not returned to the City, while large areas of the City remain uninhabitable. We were not adequately insured to deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita--no more than we are today to address another disaster somewhere else in this country. We all know that one of the major elements to any recovery after a disaster is insurance, and many of us have heard the horror stories related to the damage incurred as a result of the hurricanes in the Gulf Region. Insurance is one aspect of recovery that we need to be able to rely on after a catastrophe to help make victims whole again. However, on many occasions the reverse has been true, and insurance claims have gone unpaid, or the claims paid have not been commensurate with the damage to the property. In addition, there are many who have not been able to afford insurance and have not been covered, or there are those who had limited and inadequate insurance prior to a natural catastrophe. In many places like California, many homeowners decide not to carry disaster insurance at all, precisely because they believe that the government will become involved if a natural catastrophe occurs. In the Gulf Region, many insurance companies did not offer flood damage insurance. Although homeowners have the option to obtain a policy under various state programs, it is unaffordable for most. Most people do not carry any insurance for protection from disasters for this reason. In New Orleans, only one-half of the households had flood insurance under the government's National Flood Insurance program. This bill will create more uniformity among the different state insurance programs by streamlining the regulation of nonadmitted and reinsurance activities. This would be accomplished primarily through preempting various state laws. While these state laws would not be replaced with federal law, laws from other states or model laws of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Further, the bill requires a GAO study of the nonadmitted insurance market. Currently, rather than requiring consumers who may be unable to find insurance from a licensed insurer to go without insurance, states have allowed consumers to purchase insurance from non-licensed insurers. These nonadmitted or surplus line insurers provide insurance for natural disasters. Disaster insurance is regulated and taxed by the state by placing requirements on the brokers who initiate the transactions. Because non-admitted and reinsurance policies are different from state to state, this bill will allow for ``harmonization'' of state laws. It will bring some sanity to the insurance marketplace, particularly where disasters are concerned. Many states have seen a dramatic increase in the cost of non-admitted and reinsurance forcing some businesses to relocate, resulting in unemployment and lost revenue. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing the American people know, they know that America has a Constitution that protects us from being spied on by our government. Everything about this bill makes a mockery of the Constitution of the United States of America. This administration has literally thrown the Constitution out the window. In committee markup, the majority jammed a substitute amendment down our throats that basically undermines that part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that requires that the administration get a warrant before eavesdropping on American citizens. Now the majority is jamming another Republican substitute or comprehensive amendment down the throats of the American people by considering this bill under what is known as a closed rule, which prohibits Democrats from offering any changes or amendments. As we grapple with the war on terrorism, the constitutional power of the President has been stretched until it cannot be stretched anymore, from the use of force executed against Iraq, to the initiation of a warrantless surveillance program that targets innocent Americans. In April, the U.S. Attorney General told the Judiciary Committee that even if that authorization to use military force resolution were determined not to provide the legal authority for the program that the President's inherent authority to authorize foreign intelligence surveillance would permit him to authorize the terrorist surveillance program. The imperial President can do whatever he wants. Mr. President, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Chairman, why then do we need this legislation? The President illegally and unconstitutionally authorized the wholesale collection of domestic communications, and now the majority wants to give him legislative permission. This is not fair or honest. This bill broadens the scope of those the President can monitor, so innocent people can be violated so long as the surveillance is directed at so-called ``one permissible target.'' It also removes one of the central requirements for conducting warrantless surveillance, one that provides the most protection to the American people. And, as FISA has said, there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. They shouldn't be spying on us. If what the President is doing right now is so clearly authorized and is in the best interests of our Nation's security, why was this provision so troublesome? Is it clear that the fourth amendment rights of the American people are a burden to this administration? If a case is so extreme that it would take too long to obtain a warrant, these requirements shouldn't be difficult to meet.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for the time. Mr. Speaker, I came to this floor really intending to support this bill. But, you know, I am not going to do it. I am not going to support this bill. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Here we are fighting with each other, people from New York and California and places fighting with people from the South because we have a piece of legislation that is pitting us against each other instead of funding what needs to be funded with HIV and AIDS. Over 1 million people in the United States have HIV/AIDS. African Americans are only 13 percent of the population, but we account for a half of all the new AIDS cases. African American women represent 71 percent of the new AIDS cases among women, and African American teenagers represent 66 percent of the new AIDS cases among teenagers. The Congressional Black Caucus has been struggling and working, and I have been working on this for 15 years. We are spending $2 billion a week in Iraq. We only need $1 billion more to fund all of these programs adequately. What are we doing? Let's not play with this. Don't accept this. Don't pit yourself against your friends and your colleagues. Tear it up. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Vote ``no'' on this bill. Throw it out and let's start all over again next year. I am with my friends from New York. I support the South. But let's not be scrambling over pennies. People are dying. And don't tell me we don't have the resources to deal with it. Even if you didn't spend $2 billion a week in Afghanistan, in Iraq, we would be able to fund this adequately. Somebody does not care that Americans are dying. Somebody doesn't give a darn that it is decimating black populations. Let's stop playing the game. Let's stop it today. Stop this bill. Don't think you're so desperate you have to vote for anything in order to get a little something. Throw it out. It's not worth it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6062, ``the Community Development Enhancements Act of 2006.'' I want to thank Mr. Frank for sponsoring this bill, and our distinguished Chairman Mr. Oxley, who is an original sponsor of the bill. The bill will enhance the community development investments made by financial institutions. The bill has two major provisions. One provision would increase the amount of investments that a financial institution can make for community development from 10 percent to 15 percent. This increase in the amount that banks can invest in such activities will enable the banks to invest more of its resources in investments that will directly benefit communities and low and moderate income persons. Another provision directs portions of the investments made by the financial institutions to promote the public welfare. Citing the actual legislation, the financial institutions ``may make investments designed primarily to promote the public welfare, including the welfare of low and moderate income communities and families through housing, services and jobs.'' The changes mandated by this bill send a clear message to financial institutions that the needs of low and moderate income communities and families are important. More often than not, these groups are overlooked or their needs underestimated. In addition, the bill enables our financial institutions to look at investments on an investment by investment basis rather than in the aggregate. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6062, because it will strengthen investment in low and moderate income communities across this Nation. Financial institutions must continue to play a role in strengthening and stabilizing our communities and this bill will facilitate both.