Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, for all of his efforts to defend the rights of the first people to inhabit our great Nation. I strongly oppose H.R. 4893, which would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to restrict Indian gaming and subject Indian tribes to the whims of local governments. The United States Constitution recognizes Indian Tribes as sovereign governments, equal to States and Foreign Nations. H.R. 4893 would force Indian Tribes to enter into agreements with counties in order to operate gaming facilities. Tribes are already required to negotiate gaming compacts with State governments. Requiring Tribes to negotiate with local governments is a blatant violation of their sovereignty. The California Nations Indian Gaming Association, which represents many tribes in my home State of California, is firmly opposed to this bill. Never before in the history of our Nation have tribes been required to negotiate with local governments. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and protect the sovereign rights of American Indian Tribes.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of the YouthBuild Transfer Act, S. 3534. The bill amends the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 provides for the transfer of the YouthBuild program from HUD to the Department of Labor. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Castle, Mr. George Miller, Mr. William Lacy Clay and Mr. Dale Kildee who supported this bill. I also want to thank Mr. Frank, Ranking Member of the Committee on Financial Services for sponsoring the bill. The YouthBuild Transfer Act will do four important things. It will: (1) Enable disadvantaged youth to obtain the education and employment skills necessary to achieve economic self-sufficiency in occupations in demand and postsecondary education and training opportunities; (2) Provide disadvantaged youth with opportunities for meaningful work and service to their communities; (3) Foster the development of employment and leadership skills and commitment to community development among youth in low income communities; and (4) Expand the supply of permanent affordable housing for low-income families by utilizing the energies and talents of disadvantaged youth. The education, employment, and housing needs of our nation's most vulnerable youth must be one of our highest priorities. Since 1994, the YouthBuild program has awarded $485 million in grants, enabling 47,000 youth to obtain education, training and trade skills related to the building and rehabilitation of affordable housing for low-income families and the homeless. The program has a long track record of proven success, although for the past two years funding has been down 23 percent from $65 million to $50 million. YouthBuild would be extended for five years consistent with other Work Investment Act programs, and would provide for greater flexibility in the use of funds. This program is being extended just as the U.S. Bureau of Census released the most recent data on youth and poverty in the United States. In August 2006, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reported that the poverty rate for children in the U.S was higher than the rates for people 18 to 64 years and older. Children represent 34.9 percent of the people living in poverty and 25 percent of the total population of the United States. The poverty rate for young children under the age of 6 living in families were 20.0 percent and 4.8 million. Even more astounding is that for those children living in households headed by females 52.9 percent were in poverty, over five times the rate of their counterparts in married families 9.9 percent. For children under 18 living in families headed by females, 42.8 percent were in poverty, compared with 8.5 percent for married couples. Many of us know that these youth are most at risk, and that any public policy or program that is designed to assist these young people as they prepare to enter the workforce is an investment in our future. So why YouthBuild? The poverty data paints a very vivid picture of what is going on in America. Too many American youth live in poverty, and are robbed of opportunities to take full advantage of all their God-given talents. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, pointed to the fact that the historic causes of poverty and disenfranchisement detrimentally impact our entire nation. When the least among us do well, we know the entire nation benefits. In effect, these youth, who are vital to the economic well-being of this country, are handicapped by poverty, poor education and the lack of strong viable communities with housing that is livable, affordable and safe. YouthBuild is one program that acknowledges the experience of millions of American youth by making real investments in their education, employment skills and leadership development. It also provides housing for the homeless and low-income families that represents another approach to address what is an overlooked group. The Secretary of Labor is authorized to fund YouthBuild activities through grants for which public and nonprofit entities can compete. In addition, there are provisions in the bill to ensure the orderly transition of the program from HUD to the Department of Labor. In 2005, 14,000 youth were turned away from the YouthBuild program for lack of funding. Over 1000 communities would like to participate in YouthBuild, and this bill will make that happen for many of them. Mr. Speaker I am convinced that the YouthBuild program represents a major step to refocusing our national resources toward a well- established vehicle that can provide hope and opportunity for disadvantaged youth in America. These young people deserve every chance, and we must continue to provide opportunities for them to succeed. By better preparing our disadvantaged youth to be competitive and to function in the ever changing global economy we will continue to reduce poverty and strengthen American households. YouthBuild will improve our youth and increase housing opportunity for the homeless. I urge my Colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of raising the minimum wage for the nearly 7 million minimum-wage American workers. However, I oppose this bill because it contains provisions unrelated to actually increasing the minimum wage. Those provisions should be voted on separately. As a matter of fact, I am really ashamed to be a Member of Congress at this point. The Republicans are playing tricks again. They have coupled another tax break for the richest in America with this minimum- wage increase. Since 2001, this Republican Congress has cut taxes by $1.8 trillion, and most of these tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Yet when it comes to helping low- and middle-income Americans, the Republican Party is nowhere to be seen. Even this vote came reluctantly and is tied to giveaways that will gut any increase in the minimum wage. Each day Americans are confronted with rising prices of everyday items they need: gasoline, home energy, and health care. These rising costs are stretching family budgets thin, preventing them from saving for a family emergency, education, a new home, or retirement. In California over the past 5 years, the cost of staple goods has risen at a steady rate. For example, the cost of milk has risen 23 percent; housing has increased 45 percent; and child care has increased 14 percent. However, the wages for thousands of workers have remained stagnant. The increase in the minimum wage is about one thing, Mr. Speaker, justice for American workers. Without an increase in the minimum wage, the American worker cannot enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Quality of life is indeed important. Freedom to pursue one's dreams, whether it is in education or a new home, is freedom. Happiness is about fulfilling dreams. Workers earning the current stagnant minimum wage are simply not as happy as they should be in America. I oppose this legislation as drafted. I am ashamed to be here with these people who are denying the poorest of our society a decent living.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House tonight to celebrate the achievements of the UMMA Community Clinic upon the occasion of its 10th anniversary. The UMMA Community Clinic is a community health facility that serves uninsured and impoverished families in my congressional district. The UMMA Clinic was established by Muslim medical students at UCLA who wanted to put their faith and their patriotism into action by serving their community and their country. UMMA is an acronym for the University Muslim Medical Association. In Arabic, the world ``umma'' means ``community,'' an appropriate name for this extraordinary institution. The students who founded UMMA were inspired by their Islamic faith, a faith which told them to help their neighbor, a faith which told them that if they saw something wrong, they must fix it. And today the UMMA Clinic is fixing people's lives with its healing hands, every day, quietly and tirelessly. When the UMMA Clinic opened 10 years ago, it was the first charitable medical facility in the United States founded by Muslim Americans. At a time when Muslim Americans face unfair discrimination and scrutiny, the UMMA Clinic allows Muslims to put their faith into action through service, selflessness and compassion. The UMMA Clinic provides Muslim Americans with an institution in which they can take pride, one that enriches the community with services that save lives. The UMMA Clinic serves as a primary health care source for over 15,000 children and adults in South Los Angeles, many of whom otherwise would have no access to primary health care services. It has a patient clientele from every conceivable faith, culture and background. Over 95 percent of the beneficiaries of UMMA's services are not Muslim. UMMA takes a comprehensive approach to health care. At the UMMA Clinic, patients can see a regular family doctor who knows them and who cares about them. They can return again and again to the same family doctor who helps them stay one step ahead of illness by encouraging them to eat properly and live a healthy life-style and making certain they get all of their physicals, vaccinations, lab tests, mammograms and other health screenings. The UMMA Clinic has received funding and support from several other organizations, including Kaiser Permanente, the California Endowment, and Islamic Relief. UMMA has also become a committed advocate for the fundamental rights of all citizens to have access to quality health care services, regardless of their race, religion or socioeconomic status. The UMMA Clinic is one of the many ways that Muslim Americans serve their country. Muslim Americans have made contributions in many different fields. They are our clerks and laborers, our doctors and lawyers, our teachers and researchers. They work in our government, and they serve honorably in our military. UMMA represents the best of the Muslim American community. UMMA embodies high ethics and moral standards, and it was founded as a result of the obligation Muslim Americans feel to ensure the well-being of everyone in society. If you want to see what Muslim Americans truly represent, go to the UMMA Community Clinic in my district and you will see it there. Charitable organizations like the UMMA Clinic cannot solve the Nation's health crisis alone, but their efforts are making an invaluable contribution by healing countless people who have been relegated to society's margins. I am proud to congratulate the UMMA Community Clinic upon its 10th anniversary for the critical health services it provides to the medically underserved in Los Angeles. I salute the UMMA Community Clinic and all of the people who run it, and I salute the Muslim American community for making it possible. I am honored to be joined in Washington today by several founders of the UMMA Community Clinic and other individuals who are affiliated with the UMMA Clinic. These individuals met with me today to discuss the work that they are doing at UMMA. 1. Yasser Aman, 2. Mansur Khan, 3. Altaf Kazi, 4. Rushdi Abdulcader, 5. Nishi Abdulcader, 6. Aisha Siddiq, 7. Safia Siddiq. 8. Raziya Shaikh, 9. Charles Sadler, 10. Hoori Sadler, 11. Ahmed Elbendary, 12. Jill Elbendary, 13. Angela Coron, 14. Mahdy Bray, and 15. Diana Bonta. I welcome these people to our nation's Capitol and I congratulate them for the founding of the UMMA Community Clinic and for their continuing commitment to provide quality health care to uninsured and impoverished families in my congressional district.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of, H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Investments bill. First, I want to once again acknowledge the work of the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Oxley, Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services for supporting this bill, and Ranking Member Frank for recognizing the importance of this issue. Let me congratulate Chairwoman Pryce, of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, for working to move this legislation through the Committee and onto the Floor. The bill we consider today represents a comprehensive set of reforms to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States' (CFIUS) procedures. It is a testament to the diligence of the Subcommittee Chair and its Members that there is strong bi-partisan support for H.R. 5337, also sponsored by the Subcommittee Ranking Member Ms. Maloney, Mr. Crowley and Mr. Blunt. It has been more than 4 months since we were made aware of the Committee of Foreign Investment's (CFIUS) activities related to Dubai World Ports and the implications of the proposed deal for national security. I can genuinely say that the Members of the Committee on Financial Services have been deeply involved in this issue since the deal was analyzed by Congress. H.R. 5337 is designed to reform the CFIUS process based on the information gleaned from hearings on the subject. I am the first to say that no one is interested in cutting off foreign direct investment in the U.S., but we do expect such investments to be prudently made and that they are in the best interest of the country. As the leader of the world economy, it would be foolish to assume that we could take such steps to prohibit foreign direct investment. What we really need are safeguards to ensure that the CFIUS process is consistent with the original Congressional intent about national security and investments. This bill will guarantee that CFIUS operates within the law, and it makes clear who is responsible for what, since it was revealed that no one was sure who was responsible for the Ports decision. Another critical issue is how decisions are actually made and what entity is principally responsible for protecting the national security interests of the nation as they pertain to foreign direct investment. The bill enables CFIUS to unilaterally initiate a review where an national security issue is raised; any foreign government backed deal would be subject to review; both the Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security must sign off on reviews, while the Homeland Security Secretary would be vice-chair of the Committee; and all reviews are subject to review by the Director of National intelligence. Most importantly, everyone knows that transparency and accountability were, in part, at the heart of Congress' uproar over the Dubai World Ports deal. H.R. 5337 requires that CFIUS report bi-annually to Congress on its activities, which should prevent Congress from being alerted to such deals after the fact. I would submit that this is strong legislation that will only make Congress' job less difficult on the issue of national security and foreign direct investment. Therefore, I urge my Colleagues to support this major reform bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5068, the Export- Import Bank reauthorization bill. I would like to thank the Committee on Financial Services chairman, Mr. Oxley, and Ranking Member Frank for moving this important measure through our committee. Ms. Pryce, the chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, and, of course, our ranking member, Mrs. Maloney, who has provided leadership on this issue as well as many other issues, has done a fabulous job on making sure that the members of our committee understood very well the importance of the Ex-Im Bank and how it benefits our entire country and small businesses as well as some large businesses. I thank her for bringing this measure to the floor. The reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, H.R. 5068, is particularly important in light of our current trade deficit which stands at more than $60 billion. Indeed, we must continue to be proactive in terms of programs that will encourage the expansion of our exports. The export sector of our economy is critical to job creation at the local level. This bill makes the Ex-Im Bank more relevant in today's global economy, because it better supports U.S. exports. Last year the bank was engaged in more than 3,000 transactions, with an export value of $17.9 billion and returned over $1.7 billion to the Treasury. This bill should increase the overall level of exports. Of course, I am encouraged by the provisions of the bill related to small businesses. Under the bill, an Office of Small Business is established to be dedicated to small business issues. Ex-Im needs to be viewed as a resource, not just for large exporters but for small exporters as well. The management of the office of our senior official sends a strong signal to the small business community that small businesses are an important part of the Export-Import equation. Equally important, the office should be required to interface with the U.S. Small Business Administration, which has built an excellent reputation as a repository of information for small exporters. This reverses a trend that I believe developed as a result of the weakening of policies at the bank that have been in place to encourage the participation of small businesses in our export market, particularly minority-and women-owned business. During markup of this bill, an amendment that I sponsored had been made part of the bill reported to the full House. It requires the bank to develop performance measures related to minority- and women-owned business programs. This will ensure that the management of Ex-Im Bank is directly involved in developing programs designed to increase participation of minority- and women-owned businesses in Ex-Im Bank programs. The performance measures will be developed in concert with GAO and will enable Congress to determine how the small business programs for minorities and women that are put in place are performing. In addition, I am pleased that the bill contains a provision to promote increased trade with Africa. I consider Mr. Paul as a serious person. I take him seriously. I will look into some of that which he has said.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, before I start on my comments, I would like to thank Chairman Ney for his leadership on this legislation. Chairman Ney first envisioned the possibility of this legislation, and despite all of the possible obstacles to getting it passed, he persisted in bringing people together, to dealing with all of those obstacles, and today we are on the floor because of his leadership. But it certainly could not have happened without my ranking member, Mr. Frank, who has the ability to see things in legislation that no one else sees and to bring it to our attention, and to fix what is wrong, and to give support to what is good and helpful when we are trying to pass a significant piece of legislation. I would like to thank him, and certainly Chairman Oxley. As Mr. Frank said, he is retiring. He will be leaving us. But he has been a chairman who has been fair, he has provided opportunities for all of the members of our committee. He has worked with the subcommittee chairs and ranking members, and we are certainly going to miss him. I rise in strong support as an original sponsor of H.R. 5121, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006, which represents a major achievement by the Committee on Financial Services and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. As I said, the leaders, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Frank, Mr. Ney, and all of the other members of the subcommittees who cooperated, deserve a lot of credit for this bill. But I have to mention the staff. The staff on both sides of the aisle worked so hard into long hours of the night helping to straighten out very complicated problems with this bill, and it is because of their dedication and their concentrated work that we are able to be on the floor today. They were also very helpful in working with a rather broad-based coalition that supported this bill, who stand in support of this bill including housing, consumer, and advocacy groups, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the mortgage brokers. We have a combination of support behind this bill which makes it a strong piece of legislation. This unique piece of legislation is unusual not only because of the combination of support; it reflects a real consensus that FHA can indeed be relevant in today's market. When Congress enacted legislation in 1934 creating FHA, it intended that the government would make the dream of owning a home a reality for as many Americans as possible. FHA was established under the National Housing Act more than 70 years ago to improve housing standards and conditions. The goal of FHA was to provide an adequate home financing system with access for the average American. FHA pioneered many programs, including the 30-year mortgage. Not only has FHA been a pioneer in housing, it has been a major tool for first-time home buyers and moderate-income families. Just imagine 70 years ago in 1934 as America was coming out of the worst depression in its history and the impact that FHA had on homeownership. FHA was a brilliant idea then, as it will be again through passage of this bill. H.R. 5121 is appropriately named the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2006 because it will, indeed, expand homeownership opportunities for all Americans. There is unequivocal evidence that, without FHA, many first-time home buyers and low- to moderate-income persons would not be able to afford a home. Americans have grown accustomed to FHA for mortgage insurance, guaranteeing their entry into the coveted arena of homeownership. FHA had come to rely on first-time home buyers and low- to moderate- income persons to justify its existence. In the last few years, however, FHA watched as its share of the mortgage insurance market dwindle, and the groups it traditionally served disappeared. Between 2003 and 2005, nonprime loans grew from $332 billion to $550 billion, more than a 100 percent increase. As a result of this phenomenon, FHA market share fell dramatically. FHA was forced to become the mortgage insurer of last resort rather than the preferred insurer. Without viable FHA alternatives, many home buyers, first-time buyers, minority buyers, and home buyers with less than perfect credit fled FHA for the subprime market, leaving many with few affordable options. Some have been forced to turn to high cost financing and nontraditional loan products. While these are acceptable for certain borrowers, they can have devastating consequences for others. In fact, when we began consideration of this bill, the foreclosure rate for non- prime loans was approximately twice that of prime loans. By providing consumers with choice, H.R. 5121 will provide FHA the flexibility to set mortgage insurance premiums consistent with the risk of the loan. FHA will use the borrower's total credit score profile when setting the insurance premium. Borrowers who are low credit risk will pay a lower insurance premium, while borrowers who pose a higher credit risk will be charged a slightly higher premium. As such, FHA will reach deeper into the pool of perspective borrowers while guaranteeing the soundness of the FHA fund. In the 35th Congressional District in California that I serve, 2,064 loans were insured by FHA in 2001, but only 74 loans were made in 2005. Similarly, FHA programs have been seriously curtailed in just about every region of the country, resulting in fewer and fewer home purchases supported by FHA programs. H.R. 5121 will increase FHA home limits. In many areas of the country, the existing FHA loan limits are lower than the cost of new construction or the median home price. In other areas, FHA had been priced out of the market. As indicated in the committee report that we filed with this legislation, in 1999, FHA insured 127,000 loans in California, while a mere 5,000 loans were insured by FHA in 2005, representing less than 5 percent of the 1999 level. Because FHA business diminished dramatically during this period, in my view, American homeownership did not expand as much as possible. The FHA loan limit of $362,790 in Los Angeles, California indicated that FHA was essentially no longer relevant in that housing market. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would simply again like to thank Mr. Ney for having brought to this floor perhaps the most significant piece of legislation of this session, a piece of legislation that is going to benefit all, so many Americans, a piece of legislation that is absolutely going to open up homeownership opportunities in ways that we could not have done. He saved one of the most significant Departments of government by understanding that the FHA was in danger and that it was about to become irrelevant; and because of this legislation, it is revitalized. It can do what those who originally envisioned its possibilities intended for it to do.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who was singularly responsible for helping to negotiate many of the difficulties in this bill and made it possible for us to form a consensus.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who serves on the committee.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is on his way to the floor, who really is the manager on this legislation, and the one person on our side of the aisle who is an expert on manufactured housing. I rise in support certainly of the FHA Manufactured Housing Loan Modernization Act of 2006. I would like to thank Mr. Tiberi, the sponsor of this bill, for his hard work and cooperation with the members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, of which I am ranking member. The bill is further evidence of the high level of cooperation on housing-related issues within the Committee on Financial Services. The committee marked up this bill that will amend title I of the Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance program by encouraging more private sector participation in the title I program, increasing the availability of title I loans for manufactured housing and improving access to the secondary mortgage market. After the devastating events of last year in the gulf region, manufactured housing took on a new importance. Manufactured housing filled a major void in the supply of housing in the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. FEMA has made trailers available in the gulf region, and they still represent the only housing choice for many families who lost their homes. Manufactured homes continue to serve the housing needs of Americans, as many in the gulf region would attest. However, since the early 1990s, the number of title I personal property loans for manufactured homes dropped from 30,000 to 2,000, primarily because of inefficiencies in the program. This bill will make a number of improvements to the program: Number one, it removes the 10 percent cap limiting FHA's ability to insure manufactured housing; number two, it insures loans on a case-by-case basis; number three, it increases loan limits; number four, it provides for risk-based premiums; and, number five, it strengthens loan underwriting requirements. The reforms in this bill will improve FHA manufactured housing programs. The modernization of the program is absolutely essential to its continued existence. As such, I am not only going to ask my colleagues to support this legislation, but I would implore the Members of Congress to look at manufactured housing as alternatives to high- priced housing in some of their own areas where people cannot afford housing, particularly low-income people who cannot afford the housing on the market as we know it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank very much Representative Larson. I would like to thank you for the leadership that you are providing in putting together these opportunities night after night on the floor to illuminate what is going on in Iraq. You are absolutely right. I am the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and we have our 1-year anniversary as of this week. We organized because we understood very well that something was very wrong with this war. It was not a popular thing to do, but increasingly, Members began to join. We do have 72 Members. We have other Members who are recognizing, as they work in their districts across this country, that the people of America are sick and tired of this war. They believe that the President of the United States has mismanaged this war, and they want to bring our troops home. The violence that we are witnessing on a daily basis in Iraq is absolutely unconscionable. The violence is such that not only are the Sunnis being attacked by the Shiias, but innocent people are being killed. Civilians are being killed day in and day out, and to tell you the truth, Mr. Larson, and other Members here and Mr. Delahunt who has worked on this issue so long and so hard, I think it is easy for us to conclude at this point, no matter how difficult it is, that we have destabilized Iraq with our occupation. When we went into Iraq supposedly because they had weapons of mass destruction and discovered that there were none; when we decided to change our tune, that is, the President of the United States and talk about wanting to instill a democratic government, the American people said, okay, the President of the United States must know what he is talking about. So they have a new government. Saddam Hussein is behind bars. There are no weapons of mass destruction, and you know what is going on? The civil war that this President and this administration is in denial about, but if you read the papers today, you even have Sunnis that are saying, well, we do not like the Americans, we do not like this occupation, but you know, we need them now to help us be protected against these attacks that are coming at us on a daily basis. So we recognize that the President of the United States started this discussion about the training of the Iraqi soldiers and how we were doing such a good job, there was a turning point, and they were going to be able to take over and to provide security for that country. Well, in the first place, we did not go there. The President of the United States did not tell the American people we were going there, to be in the middle of a civil war, to protect one group from the other. Never said that. And now that is the only reason we are there, because we have got to protect the Sunnis from the Shiias? I mean, that is what our American soldiers are supposed to be doing. Our American soldiers who come from these towns and these hamlets do not know a Shiia from a Sunni, and then they get in situations where they are shooting to kill, and people would criticize them when they do not know what it is they are confronted with. We are there because we have to negotiate this civil war by way of warfare. I think it is unconscionable what is happening there, and I think it is time for this administration to admit that not only have they made a mistake, but they have not trained enough Iraqi soldiers to take over the security of this country, and there is no number of Iraqi soldiers being trained in sight that will take over the security of this country. These groups who have been at each other's throats for centuries and maybe were contained by a strong man, right or wrong, are in the throes of a full civil war.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it was alluded to earlier that not only were we distracted from doing the job in Afghanistan and we have ended up in this morass in Iraq, it was reported, and I do not have the documentation for it, that Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Cheney and some of the other war hawks had said, once we are in Iraq, we tie down; then on to Iran and on to Syria. Now, I do not know if that is true, if Iraq was to be used as a staging ground to then move on to the attack in Iran and in Syria, but I think that the Iranians believe it, and I think the Syrians believe it. I watch what we are learning every day about the fact that many of those missiles that are being launched from Beirut are missiles that have been manufactured in Syria, and we also know that the Iranians have their hand in support of Hezbollah and what is going on. Now, this says an awful lot, and you guys alluded to it a bit earlier. Here we are, here we are tied down in the middle of a civil war in Iraq and having threatened with no more than talking about the axis of evil but even beyond that, going into these neighboring countries, and now I think they are about to put us on the run, trying to distract us and have us react in different parts of the Middle East. And of course, we cannot do that with Kim Jong Il looking over our back in North Korea, launching missiles over into the Japan Sea. And we have got Tehran who has told us that they would certainly continue with their development of nuclear capability. So here we are, Afghanistan, we are spending much of our soldiers' time trying to protect Karzai who is sitting in Kabul and not doing anything, and as you said, the Taliban and the warlords are really running it. We are getting overwhelmed. We are getting outmaneuvered. We are placing the American people at great risk, and it is about time we just go ahead and tell it like it is. We have created more risk than not, when in fact this war on terrorism was supposed to be about making the American people safer.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise today to stand tall for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Chairman and Members, as an African American woman Member of Congress, I consider it my profound and welcome duty to use my voice and my vote to continue the struggle of the civil rights movement to guarantee the right to vote to African Americans and all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult time explaining to African Americans all over this country why the Congress of the United States has to continue to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. The answer to that question is sad but simple and true. Discrimination. America, we stand before you today reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act because we have to continue to have safeguards in law to prevent cities, counties, States and other jurisdictions from devising laws, practices, tricks and procedures that impede the right to vote by minorities in this country. One may ask, what laws and tricks are you alluding to? Mr. Chairman, in the past, the tricks were poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation. Today, and throughout the years, the laws and tricks have changed but the game is the same: Deny and prevent minorities from exercising the power of selection of candidates and laws by any means necessary. What are some of these tactics being used today in some jurisdictions in America? Oh, they are tactics like, in Georgia, create the need for an identification card that you have to pay for that is only issued by the State. In Florida, create databases identifying people as felons, people who have never ever been arrested before, change voting rights laws so that you create at-large districts instead of districts where minorities can be elected from. Minority candidates get elected by districts, and when you create these at-large districts, you eliminate the possibility of their getting elected. Place uniformed guards at polling places to intimidate voters. The list goes on and on. The Voting Rights Act will guarantee preclearance of these attempted discriminatory acts and, hopefully, deny these kinds of actions. I ask my colleagues, don't disrespect the civil rights movement. Don't dishonor us. Pass this voting rights reauthorization bill and show the world that America is sincere about democracy.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act, H.R. 9, and strongly oppose the Gohmert amendment. It reduces the 25-year reauthorization period of the expiring provisions to 10 years. The provisions set to expire in 2007 include section 5, which requires jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to obtain Federal approval for any new voting practices or procedures implemented. Section 203 ensures that American citizens with limited English proficiency get the help they need at the polls. Sections 6 through 9 authorize the Attorney General to appoint Federal election observers where there is evidence of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls. These provisions require the creation of a credible record. Most important, each of the expiring provisions depends upon the conduct of State elections, all of which operate independently and on schedules that do not coincide. Furthermore, lawsuits that come out of these expiring provisions make the creation of a record a very difficult task. If Congress were to reauthorization the Voting Rights Act for short periods of time, as this amendment suggests, it would create an incentive for jurisdictions to wait out their obligations rather than comply, thus contributing to the widespread noncompliance with the statute that continued into the late 1970s. In order for Congress to let voters know whether discrimination still exists in particular jurisdictions, it must be able to review voting changes through multiple redistricting cycles. The 3 years following the decennial census represent the time of the highest volume of voting changes and the greatest opportunity for discrimination. The 25-year reauthorization period already in H.R. 9 is the product of numerous oversight hearings as well as analysis by Representatives, scholars, and election law practitioners. The amendment by the gentleman from Texas should be defeated because it simply is not sound.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Members, today this country will witness a debate on the floor of Congress that will remind America of the continuing struggle of African Americans and minorities to seek justice in our country. I have a hard time explaining to my constituents and African Americans all over this country why we must reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. They say to me, well, we thought we had done away with poll taxes; we thought we had done away with intimidation. Well, let me just say, we have all kinds of obstacles being placed in our way. It is the same game with a different name. So we stand here today to protect the fight and the struggle of our ancestors who insisted that we take part in this democracy and we have the right to vote. And despite the new tricks and the new laws and the new procedures, we must say to those who continue to try, you must go before the Justice Department and get preclearance before you can initiate laws and practices that would place obstacles in our way. This is a good debate for America today. I stand in the struggle to protect our right to vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to impart some history and context relative to the right to vote in America, an essential part of the democratic process. I thank each of my colleagues for joining me to discuss this issue. Today, a series of Members will come to the floor to tell you the truth about the barriers, both past and present, that have prevented Americans from voting. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important laws enacted by our government in the history of our democracy, because it allows the people to address past and present disenfranchisement as well as disparate conditions that will affect the ability to exercise voting rights in the future. Passage of H.R. 9 to reauthorize and renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act is critical to our democracy and our democratic form of government and the free exercise of the voting rights of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, the stories that you and America will hear today will underscore why the Voting Rights Act is so important and must be renewed. You will hear stories from Members of Congress who were voting age prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that recount some of the extreme difficulties and egregious legal impediments that constrained their right to vote, and you will hear other stories about real people denied the right to vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much, Mr. Larson, for yielding and for organizing this special order. I certainly did come to the floor today to talk about what is going on in Iraq, but as I sat here and I listened to you in this colloquy that you have about what is going on in Afghanistan, I cannot help but join you and commend you for forcing some attention on the fact that we are going backwards in Afghanistan. It is shameful, because we did abandon the struggle in Afghanistan and took our resources in a direction where we were supposed to have been finding and bringing to the bar of justice Osama bin Laden. And as we look at what is happening, we find that Mr. Karzai is simply isolated in Kabul and that he cannot even move around, that with all of the protection that we are providing, his life is in danger. The Taliban is growing stronger every day; and we told our government, we told this administration, that the poppy fields were beginning to multiply in Afghanistan. And I have to tell you, this administration has turned a blind eye to the fact that the poppy fields are just overflowing. As a matter of fact, it seems as if we even understood and we allowed the poppy fields to become a source of revenue for somebody. The warlords have basically divided up the territories, and they all have their own plots and acreage, and they all are earning money; and we are about to lose again in Afghanistan.

Ms. WATERS. That is what I am referring to, absolutely. And I am so glad that you are making it plain. The fact of the matter is, the growing and cultivating of poppy seeds in Afghanistan is the drug trade that is flowing off into that Pakistan border that we cannot seem to get under control. We have this so-called great relationship with Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan. But guess what? While he is talking to us and we are funding him and we are so-called cooperating, he tells us there is nothing he can do about the lawlessness on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And it is believed by everybody that that is where Osama bin Laden really is. And so I do not know who our friends are anymore in that region. Having said that, I think you rightfully identified that we directed the resources away from Afghanistan and we went into this so-called war in Iraq because we were after Osama bin Laden, and we created this war on terrorism. And we led the American people to believe, the President did, that somehow, by doing this, we were going to get a handle on terrorism, we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, and everything was going to be all right. But I come here this evening as the Chair of the 72-member Out of Iraq Caucus. For more than a year, we have been working to conclude our involvement in Iraq and to bring our soldiers home. We did not believe this war was justified. In fact, many of us believed that the administration's so-called evidence justifying the war was truly exaggerated and very misleading. Furthermore, the administration's handling of this war has severely undermined our efforts in Iraq, and our service members are the ones that have paid and continue to pay the price for this mismanagement. It is long past time to bring our troops home and reunite them with their families. Mr. Speaker, the violence in Iraq is almost beyond comprehension. Every day we hear about killings, bombings, kidnappings, and other forms of violence that create chaos throughout Iraq. Today's headline says it all. Let me give you an example: ``Baghdad Jolted by Sectarian Killing Sprees and Bombings,'' the L.A. Times; ``Scores of Sunnis Killed in Baghdad,'' the Washington Post; ``Baghdad Erupts in Mob Violence,'' the New York Times; and ``Fifteen Killed in Iraq Bombings, Shootings,'' the Associated Press. Unfortunately, today is no different than any other day in Iraq. The violence continues and scores of individuals are violently killed or injured. In today's version of the daily carnage, two car bombs exploded, claiming the lives of at least seven people and wounding 17 others. Yesterday, Shiite gangs killed 36 Sunnis. Most of these victims were killed execution style, and several showed signs of torture. Later the same day, in retaliation, Sunnis detonated two car bombs, which killed at least 19 people, wounded 59, and damaged a Shiite mosque. And we are saying, maybe, it is about to be a civil war? Mr. Larson, I submit to you, there is a civil war going on in Iraq today. Last week, a bomb exploded in Sadr City, one of the Shiite sections of Baghdad, killing 62 people and injuring more than 100 others. It was the deadliest attack since Iraq's new government headed by Prime Minister al Maliki took office in May. Almost 1,600 Iraqis were killed in June, 16 percent more than in May. The violence has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Iraqis per month since February. In fact, statistics compiled by the Iraqi Government indicate that the rate of killing in Iraq has increased since the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June, something President Bush declared would be a turning point in the Iraq war. Sadly, the number of U.S. servicemembers who have died continues to grow as well. As of today, 2,541 U.S. troops have died in Iraq; more than 18,700 have been injured. The violence and death has gone on long enough. It is time to redeploy our troops out of Iraq and refocus our efforts on the war on terrorism, something this administration has neglected. The Out of Iraq Caucus believes that Congressman John Murtha's resolution, H.J. Res. 73, is the strongest plan to conclude the war and permit our soldiers to return to their loved ones. Mr. Larson, I thank you for yielding. Let me just conclude by saying this: You and others are here on the floor this evening, as you have come time and time again. The news media on Sunday mornings on most of the corporate media shows do not get the kind of conversation that we are having here today. They do not get this kind of conversation because they are not willing to listen to the voices that are challenging the President and the establishment in this total way that we do. They like to have it nuanced: I voted for the war and perhaps it has not been managed the way that it should have been managed, but we cannot get out. We have got to stay the course. The news media is not willing to hear what we are saying. And so the people out there who are trying to get the information, who are trying to listen to what we are all saying, just do not have all the opportunities because over and over again they are using the talking heads and the voices of people who are not here nor there, but somewhere in the middle, who are not willing to say that we have to bring our troops home. Finally, I am a Democrat, and I cherish my involvement in this party, and I think I know what we stand for. And I think I know what so many people have sacrificed for and have fought for. We have an election going on, and I know people sometimes do not have the courage to take the tough position, but in not doing so, we are watching our tremendous resources being just used up on this misplaced war. Our soldiers are at risk in more than one way. These young people, 19, 18, 20 years old, have never been out of their hometowns before, who do not know a Sunni from a Shiite from a Kurd, are given the most sophisticated weapons and told to shoot anything that moves. And when they do, we talk about how horrible it is. This is a mess. This is unconscionable. Not only are we misusing the American taxpayers' money, not only are we placing Americans more at risk, but we are also sacrificing our young people in more ways than one. So I thank you for the opportunity to share this evening with you.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank resolution, 900, which was not made in order by the Rules Committee. As many of you know, the Financial Services chairman, Mr. Oxley, introduced House Resolution 895. The Oxley resolution is well-intended, but I cannot support it. It condemns the media for disclosing information related to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The resolution is misleading. It contains whereas clauses characterizing Congress' role in overseeing the program. There is no oversight to this terrorist tracking program. Mr. Speaker and Members, this is America and Americans ought to be concerned about what is going on in this government at this time. As a matter of fact, I think this government is spinning out of control. The government is violating the United States Constitution and Federal law in the name of fighting terrorism. Your President truly believes he can disregard the Constitution, create new laws and executive orders and whatever he does, he says, is constitutional because he is the President. Keeping with this imperial Presidency attitude, the Republicans have the audacity to try and intimidate the press, using the same tired old Karl Rove tactics that have become common to this administration: intimidation, threats. They have accused us of cutting and running on the Iraqi war, questioning Members' patriotism, accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism, and now the press. If the New York Times, The Washington Post and the Washington Times or any other newspaper back off its responsibility to report the news, no matter how unpopular, they may as well close up shop and quit the news business. This resolution as introduced by Mr. Oxley, that again is misleading, condemning the media, must be rejected. This is not China, Vietnam, Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia. The free press is central to a democracy. We are seeing the PATRIOT Act, the NSA spying, the telecommunications companies giving up our private information. Enough is enough. We must stop with this resolution.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.