Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) have any more time, because I wish to make a statement on this bill prior to the close of debate.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. And I am surprised that my friend would propose that we increase the amount of money that taxpayers are paying for incarceration to now expand it to illegal aliens who commit crimes, leave the country and come back in. Where are we going to get all of this money? We have one of the highest incarceration rates of any nation in the entire world. And we are spending a disproportionate amount of money on incarceration. I submit to my colleagues that I think deportation is the answer, but have they thought about the fact that they should place the responsibility on keeping these criminals out of the country on the heads of the leaders of those countries? We go right along with the leaders of these countries on trade agreements, on foreign assistance, with all kinds of assistance to these governments. I would submit to my colleagues that if they submit the name of everybody that they deport and they send them back and they say to the leaders of these countries, If these people come back, we are going to penalize you in one of several ways that we cooperate with you; again, we have so many ways that we provide assistance to other countries, and we have got to make them responsible for keeping their criminals at home. So I do not like the idea that we have a problem and that we are deporting criminals, and they are coming back, and we are going to make the American people pay for it. Make those other governments pay for it. Do not end up in press conferences with this administration, the head of our government's Members of Congress, working out all kinds of arrangements with these governments to help them in so many ways, whether it is trade, foreign assistance or 909 other ways that we help them. Make them keep their criminals at home. Penalize them if they do not. Do not charge the American taxpayer.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. I am not going to allow my amendment to get caught up in the politics of the day. I know that there are people who are just salivating for this amendment to remain on the floor so they can catch Democrats voting for something that they will use in their campaigns.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of our subcommittee.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I have offered an amendment that would strike all of the mandatory minimum sentences in H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. The mandatory minimum sentencing requirements found in sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 are simply not the answer to gang deterrence. Mr. Chairman, all of us know that mandatory minimum sentencing has not worked, and it does have a huge disproportionate impact on minorities. Just to name a few statistics, African-Americans only comprise 12 percent of the United States population; however, they comprise a staggering 58 percent of all prisoners incarcerated under Federal mandatory minimum sentences. There is something wrong with this picture. Mandatory minimums are not even effective in deterring crime. Their only proven result is in driving up our prison populations, resulting in overcrowding and the need for the creation of more prisons. Increasing prison populations is not the solution to the prevention of crime in our communities, even communities infested with gang crime. Mr. Chairman, mandatory minimums also impede on the role of our judges. We need to let judges be judges and ensure that they have the discretion to sentence criminal defendants in a manner that takes into account all of the facts and circumstances that are presented before them. Clearly, this must include an evaluation of any mitigating circumstances, such as the defendant's childhood experience, especially if the defendant is a juvenile; the mental state of the defendant; the role that the defendant played in the commission of the crime; the mental capacity of the defendant; the crime committed; whether force or a firearm was used during the commission of the crime; and whether a victim lost his or her life and was seriously maimed as a result of the crime. The mandatory minimums under H.R. 1279 would make it impossible for trial judges to fairly and fully evaluate the cases before them, because these sections overreach into the State court's authority and remove the judge's sentencing discretion. Mr. Chairman, to be tough on gangs, we must focus more on gang crime prevention. We need to implement more effective prevention tactics that focus on both individuals at risk of joining gangs and on former gang members at risk of rejoining a gang after being released from prison. Also, educational and rehabilitation programs for communities with gangs that have a high crime rate need to be implemented. We should focus our attention on what works. I urge all of my colleagues to please support my amendment and to strike all of the mandatory minimum sentences included in H.R. 1279. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the time, I would hope that the gentleman would also support the idea of a broader study on gangs, period, and that we could identify a number of areas to be looked at. Would the gentleman be interested in that at some point in time?

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill and to the proposed rule for this bill. The two amendments made in order under the proposed rule, the Scott amendment and the Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment are very important amendments. At the same time, it is instructive to note that many of the nine Democratic amendments that were not made in order seek to protect the people most directly affected by the bill: the young girls who wish to exercise their constitutional right to end their pregnancy. For example, I offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules to create an exception to the criminal penalties and a civil suit imposed on a person transporting a young girl across State lines in cases where the minor is a victim of incest. Because the bill lacks a judicial bypass procedure in circumstances where the Federal notification requirements apply, under this bill a young girl could be required to notify a parent who impregnated her before obtaining an abortion even though it would be inappropriate, traumatic, and potentially dangerous to require her to do so. Mr. Speaker, if a young girl is required to notify a parent who has molested her that she is pregnant before traveling to another State to seek an abortion, I fear that some girls may seek to end their pregnancy without help, whether they do so by traveling alone to another State for the procedure, or even worse, through a self-induced or illegal back-alley abortion. However, the Republican members on the Committee on Rules refused to make this amendment in order on a party- line vote. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I also offered a commonsense amendment barring a parent who has molested his daughter and caused her to be pregnant from any relief under this bill. However, this too was rejected on a party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, this bill should be considered under an open rule that would allow consideration of amendments to protect the young girls who choose to seek an abortion. In its current form, the bill gives rights to a parent who has victimized his daughter. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit with instructions. This motion is necessary in order to correct a glaring deficiency in H.R. 748. In its current form, H.R. 748 would permit a parent who impregnated his daughter nonetheless to bring an action under the bill against a health provider or a person accompanying a young girl across State lines for violation of the bill's notification provisions when a young girl travels across State lines to seek an abortion. Mr. Speaker, this is about incest. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle would have you believe that there is an exception in this bill, that somehow they have taken care of this. It is not true. They have not made an exception for someone, a parent, that could now sue because the young girl did not come to them and get their permission, or if a person assisted this young girl, taking her across State lines. The Nadler-Waters motion to recommit would prohibit a parent who caused his daughter's pregnancy from bringing an action under the bill against a health care provider or any person accompanying the minor across State lines when that minor travels across State lines to obtain an abortion. Mr. Speaker, a parent who has molested his child and left her facing pregnancy should not be allowed to sue a medical care provider who aided this child in her moment of need or sue someone who accompanied his child across State lines to help her safely address this tragic situation. Nor should that parent have any role in his daughter's decision to seek an abortion, unless the daughter chooses to give her parent such a role. A person who has violated his daughter in such a horrible way simply must not be entitled to any relief. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit H.R. 748 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions so that, at the very least, the committee may correct the obvious miscarriage of justice that the bill produces in its current form. And if my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle continue to insist that they made an exception, make them show it to you in the bill. Make them prove it to you.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what I think is an outrageous piece of legislation that is going to harm women and make criminals out of innocent individuals and even grandmothers who seek to help their granddaughters travel across State lines in order to end their pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard in the Committee on the Judiciary to try and make sense out of this bill. Those of us who oppose this legislation thought for one minute that perhaps our colleagues would have enough humanity to recognize that there ought to be some exceptions to this bad bill. One that I dealt with had to do with incest. Can Members imagine that a young girl has been raped or abused by a father, and now she has to go to him to ask him for permission to have an abortion; but beyond that, permission to travel out of the State to another State where the laws are different and would allow for abortion, perhaps without a bypass procedure? It is inconceivable to me that we would have been denied this kind of an amendment. It is inconceivable to me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would think that they should not only force a young girl who is the victim of incest to go to the perpetrator, maybe the father or the relative to ask them for permission, they even create penalties for anyone that would assist the young girl in traveling across State lines. This is absolutely outrageous and unreasonable. Young women in this country increasingly are confronted with far too many traumatic situations. We have sexual predators out there, many in the headlines today. We have more and more cases of incest that we are learning about, and at the same time we would make life more difficult for someone who is the victim of incest. I would ask my colleagues to reject this legislation. It is absolutely unreasonable.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy act. H.R. 6 is a continuation of the disastrous energy policy that the Republican Leadership has been trying to force through Congress for the past four years. They claim that their bill will reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline--which now averages $2.24 per gallon--and that it will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Unfortunately, both of these claims are false. In fact, enactment of H.R. 6 is likely to result in higher prices at the pump for Americans. Even the Department of Energy estimates the price of a gallon of gasoline will increase by three cents if this bill is signed into law. Mr. Chairman, HR 6 is a massive give-away to oil and gas companies. It provides $7.5 billion in tax breaks and billions more in royalty relief to companies like Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and ConocoPhillips, which are already earning record profits, supposedly to encourage these companies to drill more on our public lands and produce more gasoline and oil. As the President noted the other day, with the price of oil at $55 per barrel, these companies do not need any more encouragement to produce gasoline and oil. The bill also permits drilling in the Artic refuge thereby putting at risk one of the last pristine areas in the world, simply to gain less than six months' worth of oil. Opening ANWR does not make economic or environmental sense and we should not allow it to happen. Instead, we should be increasing the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars and trucks sold in the United States to a more reasonable level. Taking this step would save millions more gallons of gasoline than would be recovered from ANWR, and raising these standards would help improve the quality of air that we breathe. This bill also weakens our nation's environmental laws including the Clean Air Act. Mr. Chairman, Los Angeles is consistently ranked among the worst cities in America when it comes to air pollution and smog. Yet, if Congress allows this bill to pass, the Clean Air Act will be severely weakened and thousands of my constituents will see their health suffer because of the increased pollution and smog. We should be supporting a bill that strengthens the Clean Air Act, not weakening it. Mr. Chairman, I am also very disappointed in the fact that this bill does nothing to address the massive defrauding of Californian consumers at the hands of Enron and other energy companies during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001. During that time, energy companies intentionally took generators off line, made false submissions about the prices they bought and sold gas for, and fabricated transactions, all with the intention to make as much money as possible. Unfortunately, for thousands of Californians, the energy companies succeeded in their efforts. In the summer of 2000, energy companies overcharged California $2.5 billion. In 2001, California paid approximately $26 billion for electricity because of the unscrupulous trading practices of the energy companies, raising the rates of every California ratepayer. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has already ruled that the prices the energy companies charged California were not `just and reasonable' as required by law. Yet the companies have not had to pay any penalty for their criminal actions. This bill does nothing to change that, but it should. Mr. Chairman, the American people need us to enact legislation that will actually reduce the cost of gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They want us to support a bill that makes real investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. I urge my colleagues to reject this special-interest legislation that puts big business before American consumers.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair, undemocratic closed rule and to the underlying bankruptcy bill. This lopsided bill will make it harder for families and seniors with debt problems arising from high medical expenses, job loss, divorce, or other financial hardships to address their problems while doing nothing to rein in the credit card companies whose practices have led to much of the rise in bankruptcies. S. 256 presumes that bankruptcy filers are simply bankruptcy abusers looking to game the system and avoid paying their bills, ignoring the clear evidence that the overwhelming majority of people in bankruptcy are in financial distress because of job loss, medical expense, divorce, or a combination of these causes. Mr. Speaker, an important and controversial bill like the bankruptcy bill deserves a real debate. Members deserve the opportunity to consider a wide range of amendments. For the Republican leadership and the Republican members of the Committee on Rules to propose that we consider a bill that is tilted toward the credit card companies and as complex as this bill is without giving Members any opportunity to amend it on the floor with only 30 minutes per side for general debate is a travesty and a gross abuse of power. When this bill was in the Committee on the Judiciary, we had a pseudo-markup that lasted all day and was a complete embarrassment and a waste of time for all of the members, for the Republicans would not even consider one amendment, no matter how meritorious or beneficial to the American people, even if the amendment addressed issues not previously considered because of the Republican leadership's insistence on reporting out a clean bill in order to avoid a conference committee. As a result, important, thoughtful amendments on such subjects as protection on domestic violence victims from eviction, disabled veterans, alimony and child support, exemptions for medical emergencies and job loss, underage credit card lending, and a homestead exemption for seniors, predatory lending and payday loans all were rejected by the Committee on the Judiciary. Shame on you Republicans.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, does the rule not state that the objection must be asked for prior to the speaking of the Member? This Member spoke, and the objection was asked for after the party spoke. My understanding is it should have been done ahead of time. What is the correct rule?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw; and I thank the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Based on my statement, he is now again appealing the ruling of the Chair based on that it was untimely. I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) if that is right.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. And I would oppose that, and I would support my colleague, who again would ask that we have a vote on the ruling by the Chair.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that was not a timely objection. It was not timely.

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I think what I observed was she asked unanimous consent. There was no objection. She proceeded to speak. She spoke, and the objection was not timely. It was asked for after she had completed speaking. That is what I saw.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the passing of this bill would be a complete detriment to the American people. For many Americans find themselves, usually through no fault of their own, facing bankruptcy. This scenario could happen to almost anyone. Mr. Speaker, the main reasons Americans file for bankruptcy is not to abuse the system and avoid paying their bills. Americans file for bankruptcy usually due to catastrophic medical expenses, divorce, or the loss of their jobs. Many important, common-sense amendments on subjects such as alimony, child support, exemptions for medical emergencies, and job loss, underage credit card lending, predatory lending and protection for disabled veterans, just to name a few, were all rejected by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, amendments should have been made to this bill to carve out exemptions for certain basic needs so Americans can still have some equity or resources should they be forced into bankruptcy. More specifically, one loophole in the bankruptcy bill leaves the victims of domestic violence and their children left with no resources should they file for bankruptcy. This is so unfair. The bill should have been allowed to be modified to secure better protection for domestic abuse victims by granting them relief from summary eviction from their houses. Please note, this relief would have only been available if a domestic violence debtor is certified, under penalty of perjury, that the debtor was in fact a victim of domestic abuse and that their physical well- being or the physical well-being of the debtor's child would be threatened if this debtor were evicted. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would have provided a safe harbor for those victims who faced the great threat of more violence and extreme danger if their homes are taken as a result of bankruptcy. We also tried to do something about this underage credit card lending. It is a travesty. These credit card companies set up on the college campuses. They have vendors from the day these kids walk into college. They send them all of this unsolicited mail, and they telephone them unrelentlessly to get them involved in taking these credit cards. They do it. They run up the debt. Some of them are now 30, 35 years old, out of college for years, still paying on these credit cards because they allowed their minimum payments that do not even take into account all of the interest on the debt. It is outright unreasonable that we did not have an amendment allowed by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to try and protect families and future young families from this kind of exploitation. Also, I want to point out that the means test includes disaster assistance and veterans benefits. This is a rip-off.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because the Republicans have sold out to the credit card companies and they are hurting American families. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore The Speaker Pro Tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair would remind Members that their statements should be confined to their unanimous consent requests.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus's budget that is being presented here today. This budget is more responsible certainly than the President's budget, certainly than the Republican budget, and it has taken into consideration the real needs of the people of this country. I want to talk a little bit about CDBG; that is, the Community Development Block grant. By formula, every city, town, State in America receives funds from this Community Development Block Grant program. This money is block granted to these entities in order to assist these cities with everything from infrastructure development, assistance with housing so that people can get into homes, being assisted with down payments, with rental assistance; with 501(c)(3)s, nonprofit organizations, that are providing services for at-risk youth, for seniors, for the kinds of programs that these cities and towns could never fund without this block grant. In many ways this money that is going to the cities is the last of the moneys to deal with poverty, to deal with the lack of resources because of the inability of these cities and towns to be able to raise the kind of revenue that could help them with the very basic needs of their cities. This President decided to cut this particular block grant by 35 percent. I think that amounts to about $1.9 billion. The good thing about what this President has done is he has brought together from both sides of the aisle Representatives who know the value of this program and who are going to work together and support the kind of funding that has been put back into this budget by the CBC budget. The CBC funds CDBG to the 2005 level, and that is the way it should be. I would urge support for the Congressional Black Caucus's very thoughtful and well developed budget. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the CBC substitute budget. The CBC budget rejects the failed budget policies of the Bush Administration and would return us to a policy of investing in education, job training, housing, veterans and community development programs that millions of people depend on. It would reduce the deficit and restore fiscal responsibility to a budget process that has run amuck. Mr. Chairman, because the CBC believes that education is the greatest legacy that we can provide to our children, the CBC's budget fully funds No Child Left Behind. We also provide an additional $2.5 billion for school construction and an additional $450 million for Pell Grants which will help thousands more students attend college. We also increase funding for Head Start by $2 billion over the Republican budget so that we can ensure that more low-income children are properly prepared to enter the first grade. The CBC budget substitute recognizes the vital role that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program plays in improving our communities. The Republican budget proposes to cut CDBG by at least $800 million and the cuts could end up as high as the $1.9 billion cut proposed by the President. These cuts to the CDBG program will leave a huge hole in the budgets of our local governments, a hole they cannot and will not be able to fill with their own resources. The CBC budget substitute rejects these cuts, and instead provides an increase of $1.2 billion more than the Republican budget for CDBG. We also reject the $286 million in cuts proposed for the Hope VI program and instead provide $500 million for Hope VI so that it may continue its important role in rehabilitating our nation's public housing. The CBC budget also provides an additional $880 million for Section 8 Housing Programs, preserving and expanding this vital safety net program for millions of people. Mr. Chairman, the CBC substitute is a strong and compassionate budget that meets the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support it and to reject the Republican budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the shameful Republican budget. Yet again the Republican leadership neglects the needs of low and middle income families in order to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. We should not be supporting this unfair budget that leaves people without adequate housing, without opportunities for a decent education or job training, and which passes billions of dollars of debt to our children. I am especially concerned about the Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant is something that should have the support of both Democrats and Republicans. This Community Development Block Grant is the only source of funds that some of our small towns and cities have to deal with housing, to deal with programs for senior citizens, at-risk youth or to deal with the infrastructure. Many of the small cities just do not have the money to deal with some of the problems of the sewer systems and roads and other kinds of things. But with the Community Development Block Grant, they have the flexibility. This is a very, very respected program. They have the kind of extensive community planning that brings in all of the community groups and organizations, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, and they actually go through all of the programs and they decide which of these programs will be funded. To talk about cutting this is very, very cruel. I have received just hundreds of calls from mayors and city council members who say, ``Please, whatever you do, don't cut CDBG.'' Since the President initially proposed consolidating CDBG and other development programs into one grant program, not only have I received all of these letters from members of city councils and mayors, they have basically said without this program, many of their cities will simply collapse. In addition to these cuts, the President has already proposed to cut public housing by 10 percent, section 811 disabled housing by 50 percent, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS by 14 percent, and other HUD programs. Yet the Republican budget resolution proposed to make even more draconian cuts to this function. We simply cannot afford to do that. I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and to support a budget that invests in the future of our country. This is shameful and unconscionable that they can even bring this budget to the floor. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and an ``aye'' vote on the Democratic budget.