Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for allowing me a moment to speak on this issue. This is very, very important. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that former Minority Leader Gephardt appointed me to chair a special committee on election reform of the Democratic Caucus. And I have traveled to at least four States talking to people about what had gone wrong in the elections in the 2000 elections. One of the things that we concentrated on was provisional ballots. And we wrote into the Help America Vote Act that if you went to a polling place and they said your name was not there, that you are to be given a provisional ballot no matter where you went. Little did I know that something had happened in the Help America Vote Act, perhaps, that allowed Ken Blackwell in Ohio to have a different law from everybody else on provisional ballots. And so thousands of people went to polling places and were told they could not vote because they were in the wrong precinct. That is not what we wrote into the law. So we had thousands of ballots that were not counted in Ohio because Mr. Ken Blackwell described his law a lot differently than we had framed the law in the Help America Vote Act. That is the one place perhaps in America with a law on provisional balloting that does not allow someone who swears that they are registered to vote to be able to vote. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to share this information at this important time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this week, our government was a party to a coup d'etat in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere's poorest country. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically-elected President of Haiti, was forced to leave Haiti in a regime change supported by the United States. President Aristide left the country on February 29, 2004, on board a U.S. airplane when U.S. Marines and Embassy officials came to his home in the wee hours of the morning and told him to leave immediately or he and thousands of other Haitians would be killed. One year later, the tragic results of regime change in Haiti are clear. Haiti is in total chaos. The interim government, which was put in power by the United States and has received unprecedented support from our government, is a complete failure. Violence is widespread, and security is non-existent. Schools are shut down; hospitals are not operating; and roads and infrastructure are in disrepair. Dead bodies are found lying in the streets. Heavily-armed gangs roam Haiti freely. Many of these gangs consist of former soldiers from the brutal Haitian army, which was disbanded 10 years ago. Residents of poor neighborhoods and members of Lavalas, President Aristide's political party, are murdered without any legal consequences. Members of Haiti's wealthy elite, including American citizen Andy Apaid, are widely suspected of financing the former soldiers and paying gangs to kill Lavalas supporters. In some neighborhoods, Lavalas supporters have taken up arms and begun to fight back against this oppression. So the violence is escalating in Haiti, and no one is safe. The interim government has been unable to enforce the rule of law, disarm the gangs, or restore the government's authority in the cities controlled by former soldiers. When Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue set a deadline of September 15 of last year for all groups holding illegal weapons to disarm, the deadline came and went, but nothing happened. After the interim government failed to disarm the former soldiers, it resorted to bribing them. According to press reports in January, the interim government agreed to provide payments over a 3-month-period to all of the estimated 6,000 former members of the Haitian army. The payments will average about $4,800 per person--in a country where most people live on less than a dollar a day. The cost of these payments was estimated to be $29 million. The interim government never explained where the funds for these payments would be obtained, but Interim Prime Minister Latortue has already distributed checks to dozens of armed individuals who claim to be former soldiers and who still refuse to turn in their weapons. Is this the conduct of a government that wants to disarm the thugs, or a government that supports them? Human rights violations are commonplace throughout Haiti. Amnesty International has expressed serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment in detention centers, and summary executions attributed to members of the Haitian National Police. Several members of President Aristide's government and prominent supporters of Lavalas have been detained illegally, including former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, former Interior Minister Jocelerme Privert, and Haitian singer Anne Auguste. As of February 18, there were over 700 political prisoners in Haiti's jails. Most of these prisoners have been held illegally for months without formal charges. The incompetence of the interim government has manifested itself in other ways as well. Haiti's government was the only government in the path of Hurricane Jeanne that did not warn or evacuate its citizens when the storm came racing through the Caribbean last September. Jeanne pummeled the United States, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Barbados as a full-blown hurricane, and killed 34 people in all of those countries combined. She was only a tropical storm when she hit Haiti, but she killed over 3,000 Haitians and left thousands more hungry and homeless, because the interim government was unprepared to protect the Haitian people. The Provisional Electoral Council, which is responsible for organizing elections, has been discredited by corruption. Roselor Julien, the former president of the Council, resigned last November, warning that other panel members were trying to rig the ballot and the council was not capable of ensuring the elections would be free and fair. The council also does not include any representatives of Lavalas, which continues to enjoy widespread support among the Haitian people despite the imprisonment of its leaders. It is abundantly clear that the council is incapable of organizing free and fair elections. If the current council does manage to organize elections, only the winners will accept the result. The people of Haiti have suffered tremendously over the past year. They deserve better. They deserve to live in peace and security. They deserve to be warned when hurricanes are headed for their homes. They deserve to know that they can walk to work or buy groceries without having gangs kill them for the food they carry. And they deserve free, fair and democratic elections in which all political parties can participate. When President Aristide was forced to leave Haiti a year ago, he was told that if he refused to leave, thousands of Haitians would die. Yet, in the 12 months that followed his departure, thousands of Haitians have died, and as long as the interim government continues to fail, there will be no end to the suffering and violence facing the Haitian people. It is time for the United States Government to accept the fact that regime change has failed in Haiti. The United States must ensure that Haiti disarms the thugs, immediately frees political prisoners, and organizes free and fair elections in order to restore security and democracy to the Haitian people. The United States must also provide the necessary assistance to enable Haiti to reopen schools and hospitals and rebuild Haiti's infrastructure. It is time for the United States to clean up its mess.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to accept the fact that Ossie Davis has passed. I am deeply saddened by his departure, and I will truly miss him. I loved Ossie Davis and I love Ruby Dee, his wife of over 50 years. They are my friends, and whenever I had the opportunity to be with them, I chose to spend my time that way. His death is an incalculable loss to the world of arts and entertainment, but more importantly, to the legions who for more than 60 years were inspired by his intense commitment to social justice and improving life for African Americans. Ossie and Ruby were pioneers who opened many a door previously shut tight to African American artists and planted the seed for the success that artists of color enjoy today. A towering figure as a playwright, screenwriter, director and producer and actor, Ossie Davis's career spans more than half a century, and his enormous body of work includes award-winning performances on stage, television, and more than 50 motion pictures. Many times he put his career on the line and took the heat for supporting our campaigns and events. He and Ruby sued in Federal court for black voting rights and risked their careers revisiting McCarthyism. Yet because Ossie was a man of integrity and conscious, the labels did not stick and attempts to discredit him all failed. In 1982, Ossie Davis joined the Congressional Black Caucus and other groups from the black leadership community to develop ``the Plan,'' which still guides us today in the work that we must do in order to reach racial and economic equality. At the time, Ossie said when he was developing the plan, ``Give us a plan of action, a 10 black commandments, simple, strong, that we can carry in our hearts and in our memories no matter where we are and reach out and touch and feel the reassurance that there is behind everything we do; a simple, moral, intelligent plan that must be fulfilled in the course of time, even if all of our leaders, one by one, fall in battle.'' I am going to miss him. Mr. Speaker, these are wise words from a truly remarkable man. I never thought of Ossie as 87 years old, Mr. Speaker. The fact that young artists continued to seek his advice and counsel until his final days is proof that he remained young in spirit. I will dearly miss my friend Ossie Davis. My thoughts and prayers are with Ruby Dee and his family.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for introducing this important legislation. Madam Speaker, as the country celebrates Black History Month, it is important to take time to honor the Tuskegee Airmen who, despite significant racism targeted at African Americans, strove to serve their country and defend its freedoms during World War II. The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is familiar to many of us. On July 19, 1941, the U.S. Air Force began a program at the Tuskegee Army Airfield located in Alabama to train black Americans as military pilots. The program started with only 13 men; but by its conclusion, it graduated nearly 1,000 men who became the Nation's first black airmen. Many of the graduates of the Tuskegee program were sent overseas for combat assignment, either in the 99th Pursuit Squadron or the 332nd Fighter Group, both of which were honored for their service. In fact, the 99th Fighter Squadron received two Presidential Unit citations for outstanding tactical air support in aerial combat, and the 332nd Fighter Group received one Presidential Unit citation for its longest bomber escort mission to Berlin, Germany, where they destroyed three German jet fighters and damaged five additional jet fighters without losing any of the bombers or any of its own fighter aircraft to enemy aircraft. Unfortunately, despite their outstanding service, the Tuskegee Airmen experienced a great deal of racism. The racism directed at the airmen came to a head in early 1945 when black officers tried to enter the Freeman Field Club, an officers' club in Indiana, against direct orders for them to stay out. Madam Speaker, 103 officers were arrested, charged with insubordination, and ordered to face court-martial. Fortunately, the court-martial proceedings were quickly dropped against 100 of the officers; two officers eventually had their charges dropped; and one officer, Lieutenant Roger ``Bill'' Terry, was convicted. At this moment I would like to recognize my uncle, John Mosely, who was a Tuskegee Airman and who was recently honored by his community of Aurora, Colorado. He is one of the leading citizens of that community, having worked for the Urban League and many other programs. I dedicate this resolution to him and his wife, Edna Mosely. Fifty years later, however, at the Tuskegee Airmen National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, 15 of the original 103 officers that were arrested received official notification that their military records had been purged of any reference to the Freeman Field incident. Also, Mr. Terry's court martial conviction had been reversed and his military record cleared. The remaining officers received instruction for clearing their records. Madam Speaker, the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen is not the Freeman Field incident; instead their legacy is that of serving their country with distinction which helped the U.S. Armed Forces and the United States integrate in the years following World War II. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman, my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President released his budget blueprint for the 2006 fiscal year. While many of us are still reviewing the document, one thing is evident. The President proposes Draconian cuts to scores of programs which millions of people depend on in order to protect the tax cuts which only benefit a few Americans. The President's $2.57 trillion budget calls for freezing or cutting the funding for nearly every domestic discretionary program except defense and homeland security in the hopes of reducing the budget deficit. However, this budget does virtually nothing to reduce the deficit this year or any other year. In fact, the President's budget is calling for a deficit of $427 billion in 2005, a record high, and $390 billion in 2006. And since the President fails to include the cost of many of his top priorities in this budget, which will cost at least $2 trillion, the deficit will likely be either larger this year, next year and for many of the following years. Mr. Speaker, as ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Financial Services, I am extremely alarmed about the President's decision to transfer community development programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that is HUD, to the Department of Commerce. Under the President's misguided plan, nearly all of the programs that comprise the Community Development Fund, including the Community Development Block Grant, will be moved out of the HUD program and combined with 17 other programs in the Commerce Department. Brownfields, section 108 loan guarantees, and the Renewal Communities/Empowerment Zone Program are all slated to move to Commerce. Once these programs are relocated to the Commerce Department, the President proposes to fund the 18 combined programs at 35 percent less than they are receiving now. This will be devastating to my home city of Los Angeles and many other urban and rural areas which depend on Community Development Fund programs to improve their communities. Mr. Speaker, cities, States, and community-based organizations throughout the country depend on Community Development Block Grant funds because they are extremely flexible. In fact, Community Development Block Grant funds can be used for housing rehabilitation; new housing construction; down payment assistance and other help for first-time home buyers; lead-based paint detection and removal; the purchase of land and buildings; the construction or rehabilitation of public facilities such as shelters for people experiencing homelessness or victims of domestic violence; making buildings accessible to the elderly and disabled; ``public services'' such as job training, transportation, health care, and child care, public services are capped at 15 percent of a jurisdiction's CDBG funds; capacity building for nonprofits; rehabilitating commercial or industrial buildings; and loans or grant to businesses. Mr. Speaker, the Commerce Department has no experience in community development programs, and it is likely that programs like the Community Development Block Grant with targeting provisions to focus on people with low and moderate incomes would receive far less consideration from the Commerce Department than other parts of the consolidated program. Thus, while the overall cut in community development funds is about 35 percent, the cuts to the Community Development Block Grant would be even larger. The public may not know or understand the details of how the Community Development Block Grant funds are allocated to local community, but every mayor, every county official, every community development professional knows the indispensable role of Community Development Block Grant funds in funding housing, neighborhood improvements, and public services. The proposed cuts to the Community Development Block Grant 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 net effect of cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program will be a huge decrease in housing and economic revitalization at the local level. When the public sees the programs and services that will have to be eliminated if these cuts are enacted, they will be outraged, as they should be. Mr. Speaker, we cannot shoehorn $5.6 billion in programs into a $3.71 billion program without many people being hurt. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with this administration, it is low- and moderate- income Americans who will suffer. These cuts would devastate local efforts in my city, in my county and in local communities throughout America to provide housing, neighborhood improvements and public services to youth, the disabled, battered and abused spouses and the elderly. These proposals are designed to decimate the CDBG program, to end it as we know it, not to improve the program. They must be resisted. May I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, it is outrageous that this so- called conservative President has been spending like a drunken sailor, and he has created this situation that we are in with this huge deficit; and now, after having given cuts to the richest 1 percent in America, he would try to fool the American people by saying he is going to cut back on programs or services that are not needed. It is shameful and it is unconscionable that he would balance the budget on the backs of the most needy, on the backs of working families who are trying to get along. This country must be organized to deal with this issue, and I intend to be very active in the effort to educate the public about what this President is doing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 120 which names the post office in Temecula, California, after Dalip Singh Saund. H.R. 120 was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) on January 4, 2005. Former Congressman Dalip Singh Saund, the first Asian American elected to Congress, was born in India. He came to the United States to enroll in the University of California at Berkley and study agriculture. Instead, he ended up with a PhD in mathematics. Unfortunately, degrees in mathematics were not sufficient to overcome the rampant discrimination facing Indians and other minorities. In the 1920s, Indian Americans were not eligible for U.S. citizenship and could not own land. So Saund worked as a lettuce foreman, eventually rising to be a distributor of chemical fertilizer in the Imperial Valley in California. Saund married a Czech immigrant and became very active in the Indian- American community, championing the rights of Asian Indians both in the United States and abroad. He became a popular speaker and authored a book entitled ``My Mother India'' as a way to present Indian people in a positive light. Saund went on to fight against discrimination, eventually securing the passage of legislation which made Asian Indians eligible for citizenship. As a result of his success, Saund became active in the Democratic Party. He ran to represent California's 29th Congressional District. He won and served in the Congress from 1957 until 1962 when he lost his re-election bid after suffering a stroke. Dalip Singh Saund died in 1973. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for seeking to honor the legacy of former Congressman Saund, and I urge the swift adoption of this bill.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for organizing this Special Order. This is very important. I am here tonight, but I intend to make many, many speeches over the next few weeks about this important issue. Social Security is a vital program which provides an important safety net for our seniors. Nearly 30 million seniors receive a benefit under the program, and Social Security is essential for keeping millions out of poverty. Social Security is also vitally important to millions of Americans who depend on Social Security survivor and disability benefits. When we include these individuals, the total number of people who depend on Social Security in order to live at a decent standard climbs to nearly 48 million Americans. If we privatize Social Security, as the President suggests, millions of individuals will be thrown into poverty. We simply cannot let this happen. We must strengthen Social Security, not gamble with it, not destroy it. Privatization is simply rolling the dice, gambling with a program that has proven to be consistently solid, that we can depend on. In my home State of California, without Social Security, 49 percent of elderly women would be poor. Privatization would do nothing to decrease the number of Californians in poverty. In fact, the number of California women living in poverty would increase if we were to privatize Social Security. Under current law, the typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in California receives $892 per month. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under plan 2, this is a plan, one of the President's plans, under plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergartners are projected to receive 45 percent less than they were promised under current law, even when the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the total. Therefore, if plan 2, the President's plan, were put into law, the typical California widow would receive only $490 a month, a dramatic cut in benefits that would force many into poverty. Mr. Speaker, the administration argues that privatizing Social Security would be good for African Americans and other minorities because we have a shorter life span than white Americans. I am really insulted by this administration playing the race card on Social Security. I think they should stop doing it. Not only is it insulting, it is just not true. To quote White House press secretary Scott McClellan, privatization ``will enable us to be able to pass on those savings to our heirs if they happen to pass away early. African American males have a shorter life span than other sectors of America.'' What I dislike about this race card that the President and his representatives are playing with African Americans is this: They have to factor in that the health disparities that we are confronted with are going to continue. As a matter of fact, not only do they factor it in, they plan on it continuing. We are after the President and this administration to help us do away with health disparities, not to accept them and to factor them into their planning in ways that say to us oh, we know you are going to die early, we will factor this in, we will privatize Social Security and you can save some money and you can pass it on to your heirs. I wish they would stop it and stop it now because we are not going to stand for it. Again, while it is true that African Americans have a shorter life span, it is because of health disparities which cause many young blacks to die early. Privatization will do nothing to help African Americans live longer or better lives than we do under the current system. The Social Security Administration's actuaries, as well as studies conducted by AARP, clearly show that African Americans, minorities, and other low-wage earners do much better under the Social Security system than they would under other retirement plans because of the progressive structure of Social Security. Social Security is structured so that the lowest-income earners, which are often African Americans, receive the highest retirement benefits. If we take away this aspect of Social Security, millions of African Americans would slip into poverty. If the President is really concerned about the black community and ensuring that we receive full retirement benefits, I would urge him to join with me and others in working to eliminate these health disparities that cause so many African Americans to die prematurely. Mr. Speaker, this is the debate we should be having, not how to privatize Social Security. Mr. Speaker, the President consistently tells the American people that Social Security is in a crisis and that the system is going to be bankrupt in 50 years, but these statements are just plain wrong. We can strengthen Social Security so it can meet its obligations, but we can strengthen it through simple and modest changes. Mr. Speaker, privatization will not strengthen it. It will only break it. We should not expect our parents and grandparents to gamble their retirement savings on the whims of the stock market. I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to privatize Social Security.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the California delegation and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) in particular, and all of my other colleagues for cosponsoring H.R. 289. I would also like to thank the House leadership for allowing H.R. 289 to come to the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honored to offer this bill, which would rename a post office in California's 35th Congressional District after Sergeant John Marshall, who died at the age of 50 on April 8, 2003, during combat operations while fighting with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the United States Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. This legislation is just a small way to recognize and pay tribute to one of our fallen heroes. Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are of our policy in Iraq, it is always important for all of us to honor and show our respect for those in our military who are serving us so bravely and with such distinction in Iraq and all around the world. John Marshall spent much of his childhood in Los Angeles, graduating from George Washington High School. At the age of 18, Sergeant Marshall signed up for duty with the United States Army and served for nearly 30 years, taking a leave of absence only after he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. He was a dedicated career member of our military, a shining example of all that is best about our country. Sergeant Marshall died when a rocket-propelled grenade hit his vehicle as his combat team fought its way to Baghdad. The brigade was eventually the first U.S. military unit to enter the Iraqi capital and hold the city center. But reaching Baghdad came at a significant loss to the unit: eight soldiers, including Sergeant Marshall, died. At the time of his death, Sergeant Marshall was the oldest service member to die in the Iraq war. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Marshall was eligible for retirement in 2002, and many of his friends had urged him to do so. Yet, true to his character, Sergeant Marshall's sense of duty to his country and his loyalty to his soldiers caused him to continue his military service in Iraq. In explaining to his wife his decision to continue serving in Iraq, Sergeant Marshall said, and I quote, ``I trained these guys. I really need to be there.'' What a wonderful example of selflessness he established for all of us. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Marshall leaves behind a wife, Denise, six children, both of his parents, eight brothers and sisters, and many friends and neighbors whom he touched throughout his life. I had the privilege of meeting Mrs. Marshall at Sergeant Marshall's memorial service in Los Angeles; and while I know that nothing we can do here today can fill the hole that was created with Sergeant Marshall's passing or remove the pain of the loss that the Marshall family and friends have suffered, it is vital we honor his sacrifice and service. Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Marshall fought bravely on behalf of our Nation, and the renaming of this post office is just a small gesture of thanks from a grateful Nation. The Sergeant John Marshall Post Office will be a source of great pride to the community and the residents of the 35th Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, our country will remain strong and free because our military is able to attract and retain the services of people of the quality and character of Sergeant Marshall. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Marshall family on the loss of this great and good man, and I would urge my colleagues to support this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I dedicate my objection to Ohio's electoral votes to Mr. Mike Moore, the producer of the documentary Fahrenheit 9/ 11, and I thank him for educating the world on the threats to our democracy and the proceedings of this House on the acceptance of the Electoral College votes for the 2000 Presidential election. The Democratic Judiciary Committee Staff Report clearly establishes that the State of Ohio has not met its obligation to conduct a fair election. Ohio's partisan Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Blackwell, I am ashamed to say an African American man has failed to follow even Ohio's election procedures, let alone procedures that comply with Federal law and constitutional requirements. Our ancestors who died for the right to vote certainly must be turning over in their graves. Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Ohio where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) convened hearings, and I listened to citizen after citizen describe the Ohio election debacle. When there is a shortage of voting machines that leads to lines of up to 10 hours to cast a vote in precincts that are predominant minority and Democratic voters, forcing countless prospective voters to leave without voting, and where a number of Democratic precincts had fewer machines than were used in the primary election, despite the certainty of a much higher turnout in the hotly contested general election for President, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. When Mr. Blackwell arbitrarily and unreasonably refused to provide provisional ballots to voters who were in the right county but the wrong precinct, or to voters who requested but did not receive an absentee ballot in a timely manner, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. When a county in Ohio shows more votes cast than registered voters, or when another Ohio county shows an underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate getting substantially more votes than the well-funded campaign of Senator Kerry, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. When Secretary of State Blackwell refused to recognize thousands of new voter applications because they are not on postcard-weight paper, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. And where Secretary Blackwell, in violation of his statutory duty to investigate election irregularities, refused to investigate or remedy any of the hundreds of cases of voter intimidations reported to him, it is more than clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. Mr. Speaker, we are now over 4 years beyond the nightmare of Florida in the 2000 election. I chaired the Democratic Caucus Election Reform Committee. We traveled all over this country. We held hearings. I worked with Members of this House to pass HAVA, Help America Vote Act. Yet, is there anyone who can say we have a fair election system or this is the best we can do? The 2004 election in Ohio and elsewhere revealed that enormous problems remain in our election systems and HAVA simply does not address those problems. It is stunning to me that in the 21st century we continue to use horse-and-buggy procedures to conduct our elections. It is amazing but true that in many jurisdictions we use more sophisticated technology to run the daily lottery than we devote to our election system. Incredibly even in those few jurisdictions that have moved to electronic voting to avoid the problem of chads and punch cards, we do not require a verifiable paper trail to protect against vote tampering. If an ATM machine can give each user a receipt that that user can reply upon, then a voting machine should also be able to give a receipt. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is not whether the problems in the Ohio election were outcome determinative, although they could have been, it is whether the State has met its obligation to provide every voter with an equal opportunity to vote and have his vote counted. We must not allow these egregious violations to be trivialized. There is no constitutionally acceptable level of inequality in access to voting in Federal elections. Mr. Speaker, there is no conceivable justification for disqualifying a vote for President or Senator on the count that a legally qualified voter shows up to cast his vote in the right State but the wrong precinct. Why could we not count that voter's ballot? The voter's intent is clear. There is no question as to the voter's right to vote for the President of the United States or Senator. We can ensure that the voter does not cast a provisional ballot in more than one location.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to request permission to address the House.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to one of the giants of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bob Matsui. Mr. Speaker, I can not tell you how shocked and saddened I was when I heard the news of Congressman's Matsui's passing. The constituents of the 5th Congressional District of California, the Democratic Party and our nation have suffered an enormous loss. I had the honor and privilege of serving with Congressman Matsui since I was elected to Congress in 1990. I was always impressed with Bob's knowledge, dedication and concern about the issues that he held close: healthcare for those who need it--especially for children, tax policy, fiscal responsibility and trade; as well as the issues that were important to his District: flood control, transportation, housing, and environmental preservation. His knowledge and passion on these and many other issues will be missed dearly. Even on the rare occasion when we differed on an issue, such as trade, Congressman Matsui presented his positions fairly and without rancor. He approached issues with an open mind and demonstrated a great ability to reach across the aisle. He had opponents, but no enemies. Congressman Matsui served the people of Sacramento for 26 years. While Bob Matsui was a valued member of the Democratic Party, he never forgot that his primary responsibility was to all of the people of California's 5th Congressional District, regardless of party affiliation. Bob always did what he thought was best for his constituents and for the country. He worked tirelessly for them in Congress and they have lost a valuable advocate. Bob Matsui had the respect and confidence of his peers. Time and again, Democrats elected him to leadership posts and he used these positions to be a capable and articulate spokesman for the Democratic Party. There is perhaps no other issue in which Congressman Matsui proved to be more valuable--or will be missed more--than Social Security. His knowledge was second to none and as Congress debates the future of this vital program, we will miss his wise counsel about the importance of preserving Social Security as we know it for future generations. Congressman Matsui's experiences as a Japanese-American who was detained in an internment camp during World War II gave him a special sensitivity to the importance of preserving civil rights and civil liberties. His legislative work securing relief for those who were wrongfully held during World War II was a historic achievement and a fitting tribute to this great and good man. Over the past several days, we have heard dozens of tributes honoring Congressman Matsui. The words that were most often used in these accolades to describe Bob Matsui were ``integrity,'' ``dignity'' and ``ability.'' For those that knew him, these words were only part of what made Bob Matsui a terrific person, a dear friend and valuable Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to think that public service was not Bob Matsui's first passion; architecture was. We are tremendously fortunate that Congressman Matsui happened to read the biography of Clarence Darrow, which he always credited for inspiring him to enter law and eventually politics. California and, indeed the nation, has benefited from Congressman Matsui's service and we thank him and his family for sharing him with us. Congressman Matsui will be sorely missed. My prayers are with his wife Doris, his son, Brian, his daughter-in-law, Amy and granddaughter Anna, and his many friends and family. God bless you, Congressman Matsui. We will never forget you.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: The gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith); the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), ranking member of the subcommittee. They have done a fabulous job in putting together this legislation. And this is a good day for veterans. It is a good day for veterans because, again, we are beginning to address some of the issues that we should have addressed a long time ago. Let me just say the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has done a very wonderful job. I am very proud of the work he has done, and I really do commend him to the care and attention that he has given. And to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), I served with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) when I first came to the House, and I had the opportunity even to vote for him to be Chair. Sonny Montgomery has never forgiven me. But he is the best advocate the veterans have ever had, and I appreciate him each and every day. Mr. Speaker, this bill is important for a number of reasons. Someone mentioned earlier that homelessness among the veterans of this country is a disgrace, and it really is. I was at the U.S. Vets again on Veterans Day, and that program fed over 600 or 700 veterans off the street who were homeless. Some of them were fortunate enough to be in the program; others just off the street who were fed that day. But any place that one goes in America and particularly in our cities, when they go to the areas where the homeless congregate, whether they are in the downtowns or wherever they are, disproportionately those will be veterans. So this bill increases the overall authorization for the Grant and Per Diem Homeless Veterans Assistance Program from $75 million to $99 million in funding year 2005, and I hope that each year it will continue to go up. It is a good bill. It has a lot of good things that are covered in the bill. And so I am pleased that I am here to support it, and I would ask my colleagues to do so.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues today in support of veterans. On Veterans Day, I visited a program in my district known as U.S. Vets. This is a program that houses veterans in transition. They really work with the homeless. They have a huge residential complex, and the veterans are able to stay at this complex while they get job training leading to a job. In addition to that, they have a central facility there where they prepare meals for the veterans. They also have a wonderful computer room where veterans are learning computer skills. And while I was very pleased to be there on Veterans Day with them, I was reminded of all those things we need to do for veterans that should have been done a long time ago. This bill goes a long way to attending to some of those things that we should have done. For example, surviving spouses can now get $250 in dependency and indemnity compensation. Veterans who were exposed to radiation can now be eligible for VA compensation. We increase the educational assistance by 10 percent, allowing veterans to pursue a full-time apprenticeship program, or on-the-job training. There are other benefits in this bill. We can all be proud on both sides of the aisle that we are finally paying attention in a real way. I know that there has been a lot of debate about the cost of some of the things we would like to do, but I do not think at a time in particular where we are at war and where veterans are coming back with the loss of a limb, with health impairments and other kinds of deficiencies that they are now confronted with that we can talk about not being able to afford to pay in order to make their lives comfortable when they return from war. So I am very pleased, and I wish to commend all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for pursuing this bill that will help our veterans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on February 29 of this year, President Jean- Bertrand Aristide, the first democratically elected President of Haiti, was overthrown in a coup d'etat. This coup d'etat was led by heavily armed thugs and killers, many of whom are former members of the Haitian Armed Forces which were disbanded in 1995 and are notorious for their history of human rights violations. These thugs and killers have refused to disarm and now control several Haitian towns and cities, where they terrorize the local population. They are demanding the reestablishment of the Haitian Armed Forces, and they even had the gall to claim that the Haitian Government owes them more than 10 years of back pay. The following research paper, entitled ``Haiti: Smoldering on the Edge of Chaos,'' is an insightful analysis of the crisis in Haiti brought about by these thugs and killers. The paper was written by Jessica Leight, a research fellow at the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization. I hope my colleagues find Ms. Leight's analysis informative. Haiti: Smoldering on the Edge of Chaos Six months after the abrupt and violence-laced departure of constitutionally-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and over three months after the deployment of U.N. peacekeeping units which were hailed as an instrument for order and stability for this long-troubled Caribbean island, Haiti remains poised on the edge of chaos. Just as nature in the form of a tropical storm that has managed to kill as many as 3,000 Haitians, thousands more have died over the past decade, victims of right-wing military and paramilitary forces. Today, ruled by a bumptious, ineffectual and illegitimate cabal whose only validity is supplied by U.S. fiat, Haiti now faces the imminent de facto reconstitution of its brutal Haitian Armed Forces (FADH), dissolved by Aristide in 1995. Across the island, bands of former soldiers are seizing police stations and establishing themselves as the de facto local power, at times displacing the remnants of the national police and placing large swaths of the country under what is effectively outlaw rebel jurisdiction. Meanwhile these soldiers demand the restitution of unpaid wages over the past ten years for such services as torturing and murdering civilian victims. These soldiers of ill-fortune have met little, if any, resistance from the rump Washington-imposed interim government of Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, and at times they have received open encouragement from Latortue's ``cabinet members,'' most notably Interior Minister (and former general) Herard Abraham and the island's notorious justice minister Bernard Gousse, both of whom have suggested that former soldiers--some of the most prominent among whom have already been convicted in absentia for human rights violations committed during the military government of 1991- 1994--could simply be integrated into the police force. An Army Reborn In the face of these developments, FADH leaders are gathering strength in a bid to retake political power and restore the repression for which the army could always be counted to provide throughout most of Haiti's turbulent twentieth-century history, the U.N. stabilization force and the international community alike have remained almost deafeningly silent. At the present time, the U.N. presence in Haiti is more myth than fact, while a handful of renegades with a military background, in conjunction with the tiny opposition business and professional Group of 184, have the clearest access to the Latortue regime and its ability to obtrusively impact on the daily lives of the population. Within Haiti, international troops drawn principally from the former rogue armed forces of Brazil, Argentina and Chile, which were better known for the repression of their own citizens during previous eras of military rule than for their nation-building skills, are seemingly paralyzed by inaction. These U.N. forces have made only the paltriest of efforts to preserve order in the face of paramilitary power-grabs by ex-FADH and police figures like Louis-Jodel Chamblain and Guy Philippe. They have proven better at stalking pro-Aristide Lavalas party's political forces than well-armed renegade former soldiers. In Washington, a State Department preoccupied by Iraq and North Korea appears to have all but overlooked the island's existence; and in New York, a craven lack of political will is in evidence, accompanied by the kind of Machiavellian plotting by the U.S. and French U.N. Security Council delegations that was witnessed when that body refused to provide an international police force to defend Arisitide earlier this year. Nor is U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan any more sensitive to the plight of the Haitian populace than he was just before Aristide's downfall, when he provided cover for the U.S. insistence that the former president deserved to be forced into exile because he was a failed leader. There has yet to be any kind of clear acknowledgment of the magnitude of the threat that Haiti's already battered democratic institutions face from the military resurgence on the island, much less the strategy which will be used to disarm these illegal militias as well as clearly establish the authority of a trained, professional police force, and bring to justice the same former soldiers accused of human rights abuses who are now making outrageous demands for compensation. Quite to the contrary, as the exoneration of mass murderer Louis Chamblain by Justice Minister Gousse and the island's tainted courts graphically exemplifies, Haiti is still a very sick country. Thus as the clock continues to tick on a peacekeeping mission originally authorized for only six months, it seems increasingly likely that the United Nations will exit Haiti much as the United States and Canada precipitously did in 1996: leaving behind a profoundly unstable political situation dominated by heavily armed factions, as thousands of weapons remain in the possession of right-wing vigilantes as well as some in the hands of pro-Aristide supporters. The situation is made even more volatile today by the former military leadership's aspirations to restore both the army and the same reign of terror it applied during the decades- long Duvalier and post-Duvalier military dictatorships, as well as under the brutal 1991-1994 military junta led by the brute General Roaul Cedras. The Haitian Military: Rising from the Ashes? Among the most alarming signs of military resurgence within the last sixty days was the acquittal on August 17, in a show trial, of former army captain and paramilitary leader Louis- Jodel Chamblain, previously convicted in absentia for the 1993 murder of prominent Aristide supporter Antoine Izmery. This outrageous verdict, achieved under the aegis of Latortue's disreputable justice minister, Bernard Gousse, was reached after a ludicrously brief overnight trial in which the prosecution called only one witness who proved to be entirely irrelevant to the case. This earned for the interim government opprobrious remarks on the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as widespread denunciations from human rights organizations, and even from the State Department, which bears much of the blame for the current dysfunctional rule of the island. However, the subsequent rash of self-serving individual power plays on the part of the ex-soldiers, and the government's utter unwillingness to confront or even denounce such challenges to state authority, has received virtually no attention outside of Haiti. This development has to be rightfully considered part of the same dangerous phenomenon which includes the growing power of former military figures like Chamblain, as well as sly ideologues like the grinning Justice Minister Gousse, who was clearly complicit in orchestrating Chamblain's acquittal. For example, only six days after the conclusion of the Chamblain trial, the Haitian Times reported on August 18 that the interim government had appointed Winter Etienne--a leader of the bloody armed uprising in Gonaives that preceded Aristide's exile, who is also the coordinator of the National Reconstruction Front, a party headed by former army officers, including rebel leader Guy Philippe. The last named became the director of the National Port Authority in Gonaives, the very city he earlier had helped sack. At the Ministry of Interior, former ranking military figure Minister Herard Abraham continues to add former high-ranking military cronies to his staff; among the recent arrivals is former colonel Williams Regala, a particularly sinister aide to former dictator General Henri Namphy and undoubtedly a main plotter of the massacre of voters during Haiti's aborted November 29, 1987 election. Regala joins another former colleague, Colonel Henri-Robert Marc-Charles, a member of the Cedras-led military junta that overthrew democratically-elected President Aristide 1991, who currently is the target of a (as yet un-enforced) judicial order requiring his imprisonment prior to trial for alleged involvement in a peasant massacre in Piatre in March 1990. Erosion of Authority of the most pathetic Government in the Caribbean Given these pro-military signals on the part of the Latortue government, which consistently has demonstrated its sympathy for former military leaders at the same time it officially rejects the idea of reconstituting the armed forces on the grounds that such a momentous step should be taken only by the next elected government, it is hardly surprising that bands of former soldiers are making ever more far-fetched bids for power in municipalities across Haiti. On August 17, five officers of the national police's riot squad (CIMO) returned to their Port-au-Prince headquarters asserting that a group wearing the garb of the disbanded military had attacked them and seized their weapons and uniforms. Subsequently, Radio Kiskeya reported that other CIMO officers have accused the government-appointed director of the National Police Administration and former military figure, Destorel Germain, of organizing the attack along with a number of demobilized soldiers seeking reinstatement, an accusation that raises the specter of collaboration between some of the more predatory elements of the police force and bands of ex- soldiers, in the latter's fight for legal status. Former military elements already have begun to establish their control over a series of small urban areas, particularly in the desperately poor Central Plateau region. On September 1, a large force of 150 former soldiers took control of Petit-Goave, southwest of the capital, and seized ten police officers as hostages the following day in neighboring Grand-Gove. This was in retaliation for the arrest of four soldiers by police officials. The two sides subsequently agreed to an exchange of prisoners. Also on September 2, more than fifty heavily armed ex-soldiers demonstrated in Gonaives, calling for the reconstitution of the army and the restoration of their back pay. Once there, they were met with open arms by the fiercely anti-Aristide rebel group, the Gonaives Resistance Front--itself largely constituted by former soldiers--which expressed its support for the immediate formation of a legally reorganized and retrained army. Even more alarming was the response of the official government authorities to the Gonaives march. Rather than denouncing this clear threat to public order on the part of a ``gang of thugs'' (as they earlier had been characterized by Secretary of State Colin Powell), departmental delegate Elie Cantave declared that the former soldiers had no aim other than to help the people of that city as he prepared to negotiate with them over their taking over as their headquarters a state school located within the city. Further south in Jacmel and on the same day, yet another contingent of former soldiers arrived to reinforce with arms and ammunition a group of their colleagues occupying the office of Radio Ti Moun. And in perhaps the most symbolically important incident, former soldiers occupied the police station in Belladere on the Dominican border on September 5 and immediately repainted the facility in yellow, the traditional color of FADH barracks. Simultaneously, the band of ex-soldiers in control of Petit-Goave was swelled by new arrivals, and coast guard installations in Les Cayes remained under the control of ex-soldiers. The first evidence of a response on the part of the government and the U.N. peacekeeping force came on September 7, when Haitian police, backed by Argentine troops, regained control of Saint-Marc a day after former soldiers took control of the city sixty miles north of Port-au- Prince. In response, rebel leader Sergeant Remissanthe Ravix declared on behalf of the ex-soldiers, ``We'll fight to the last man. We'd rather die in combat instead of dying on our knees. They [government authorities] came to power thanks to our weapons they now declare illegal. If they think they can deny us our rights, they will know the same fate as Aristide. The fact that we left Saint-Marc does not mean we gave up. We'll teach a lesson to those who want to destroy the military.'' Ravix, once implicated in a brutal 2002 massacre committed by former FADH personnel in Belladere, is now the most visible and rambunctious spokesman for the ex-soldiers' movement, which is on the brink of maintaining de facto control over large swaths of Haiti. Escalating Violence, Ineffective Response The government's show of resolve in Saint-Marc on September 7 hardly deterred the ex-soldiers in their attempts to establish themselves as a rival security force. Also, on September 7 in Port-au-Prince, two ex-soldiers, reportedly from Petit-Goave, were shot and killed by riot police near the Prime Minister's office in Musseau after firing at a police station. According to Police Commissioner Fritz Gerald Appolon, the two were riding in a seized police car that had been reconfigured as an army vehicle, and were fatally wounded after one of them shot at an officer who had called upon him to lay down his weapon. Ravix denounced the incident as an ``assassination'' and called for retaliation across the country. The following day, in response, a group of ex- soldiers attacked the police station in Hinche and hundreds of former FADH and its supporters from other anti-Aristide factions paraded in Cap-Haitien demanding ten years of back- pay. These former soldiers already had begun arrogating police functions to themselves inside of Cap-Haitien, including going out on surveillance patrols. In Petit-Goave, rebels took four police officers hostage and seized their weapons, though they were released later that day. In the face of this wave of new challenges, the government and U.N. peacekeepers alike appear virtually helpless. Prime Minister Latortue and his self-caricaturing government have made bold declarations that peacekeepers will ``imminently'' retake control of all government buildings, but the prospect of any such action occurring any time soon appears to be nothing more than a mixture of bluff and fantasy. The government has set up a committee to negotiate with the soldiers and offered as an initial concession, the integration into the police force of up to 1,000 former soldiers of a body that once numbered over 6,000 in strength. However, Ravix refused to meet with the commission, declaring in Petit-Goave, ``The government doesn't need to reconstitute us. We are here. We have always been here. The only thing the government has to do is pay us the 10 years, seven months they owe us and let us do our jobs.'' On September 12, the government did succeed in obtaining the commitment of a group of representatives of former military personnel (of which Ravix was not a member) to a vaguely worded declaration asserting that ``The matter of the military will be dealt with through dialogue; the authority of the Government must be respected; [and] the voluntary and peaceful evacuation of public buildings actually under the control of demobilized soldiers must be done . . . within the framework of an agreement between the two parties.'' Whether this vague rhetoric will produce any concessions in practice on the part of the ex-soldiers remains to be seen, but subsequent demonstrations in their support in St.-Marc and Petit-Goave, on September 13 and a march of ex-soldiers wearing military uniforms in the capital on September 15 sent a clear signal that the militant remnants of the FADH are far from ready to yield their arms to civil authority. Stabilization Mission is Too Weak to Stabilize At the same time that the government has shown itself utterly incapable of (or uninterested in) controlling the rebel bands, the U.N. Stabilization Mission (MINUSTAH) has disavowed itself of any responsibility in dealing with the ex-soldiers. Spokesman Toussaint Kongo-Doudou declared, ``We have no comment on the subject because it is a government problem. It is not a problem of the MINUSTAH. This is a Haitian affair.'' As astounding as this statement appears, given that among the principal points of MINUSTAH's mandate are the disarmament of armed factions--of which the ex- soldiers are currently the most powerful--the establishment of a climate of security in advance of national elections on the island is a must. The acknowledgement of a stalemate when it comes to security issues is an all too accurate description of the current limitations of the undersized U.N. force now in Haiti. To date, only 2,755 of an authorized 6,700 U.N. troops have arrived in Haiti, making deployments in the north and east of the country impossible, and only a few hundred of the 3,000 civilian police officers authorized have been trained and deployed. Thus the U.N. is unable to maintain a security presence in many of the more remote regions of the countryside, and has yet to launch the disarmament program that is a fundamental prerequisite for the reestablishment of some measure of political stability. Moreover, the U.N. force's Brazilian commanders have openly warned that they do not have enough troops to stop renewed conflict. Likewise, Argentine Defense Minister Jos Pampuro highlighted the particularly troubling prospect that renewed skirmishes could have taken place on September 18, the anniversary of the dissolution of the army by Aristide. While additional troops from Sri Lanka, Nepal, Spain and Morocco, among others, are expected to bring the total MINUSTAH force to 5,000 members by the end of October, for the moment, the U.N. peacekeepers have been rendered completely incapable of fulfilling their most basic function: preserving order and a measure of governmental authority. The Sound of Silence: Washington, New York Turn Their Eyes Away from Port-au-Prince Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Haiti is the extraordinary indifference, aside from some storm-related humanitarian aid in response to the natural catastrophe that just hit Haiti, that has been exhibited by the international community in the face of this creeping coup being executed by the former FADH. The Security Council issued only an anemic statement on September 10 in which it stressed ``the urgency of disbanding and disarming all illegal armed groups,'' but offered not even the whisper of a commitment to ensure that this task is in fact achieved. The Organization of American States has remained silent, as has the State Department, and much of the Caribbean Community, which over the past six months had taken the most courageous stands on unfolding events in Haiti. CARICOM is now riven by internal divisions over whether to readmit the Latortue government into CARICOM. Also strangely absent is the recently appointed U.N. Special Representative to Haiti, Chilean diplomat Juan Gabriel Valdes. His selection was widely hailed at the time as evidence of a new Latin American commitment to inter- hemispheric cooperation, but he has since all but disappeared from carrying out his admittedly difficult mission. While his capacity for action may be constrained, Valdes should at the very least be actively attempting to convey to the Security Council, the Bush administration and the leaders of other hemispheric bodies the gravity of the unfolding military takeover in Haiti. Unfortunately, up to now, Haiti's plight has been overshadowed by the persistent bloodshed in Darfur, Iraq, and Afghanistan, or has been patronizingly dismissed as yet another round of violence in a perennially unstable country. Additionally, the natural disaster that occurred to the island landed a devastating blow to its ability to function. Haiti has reached a point of crisis, and decisive intervention is required if any shred of, or hope for, Haitian democracy is to be preserved. However shorthanded and overburdened its staff may be, the task of convincing the international community of the necessity of such intervention falls first to the U.N. Stabilization Mission and to Valdes. Hopefully, in the coming months they will decisively demonstrate their commitment to ensuring that Haiti is not being abandoned by the international community yet again, or that leading U.N. authorities, including Valdes, will at least have the dignity of resigning from their assignment in protest of the cruel hoax now being unleashed on the island and its population.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time to talk on this most important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill should have been voted on and passed a long time ago, but the President and the Republican leadership have simply dragged their feet. We must not forget that Republicans opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Now, House Republicans are pushing a bill that does not make all the necessary reforms that will help ensure the safety of this Nation. The 9/11 Commission has done outstanding work. It spent months interviewing members of the intelligence community, hearing testimony and reviewing documents. After all that, the Commission unanimously approved its report and the recommendations included in it. Most importantly, the families of those who lost loved ones on September 11 have endorsed the Commission's report. Unfortunately, the House Republicans continue to delay and to refuse to embrace the Commission's work. I find it appalling that the Republican leadership thinks it has a monopoly on the wisdom needed to make our country safe. I urge my colleagues to support a bill that incorporates the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 5212, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provides disaster relief for damage caused by hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne, which caused widespread damage in several States of the United States as well as several Caribbean countries. My colleagues, I would like to say that my heart goes out to all of the families and victims of these disasters, but I am very pleased that we live in a prosperous Nation where we can appropriate $11 billion to assist in recovery actions of Florida and other areas that were devastated. The recent hurricanes had devastating impacts on the entire Caribbean region. In Grenada, Hurricane Ivan destroyed 90 percent of all the homes, as well as numerous government buildings, hospitals, schools and churches. In Haiti, Hurricane Jeanne caused extensive flooding, killed over 3,000 people, with thousands more in desperate need of food, clean water, emergency shelter, and medical care. And stagnant waters have given rise to a large mosquito population that could lead to a malaria epidemic. I could go on and tell you about Jamaica and St. Vincent and the other islands in the Caribbean. And I am thankful President Bush proposed $50 million in supplemental appropriations, and I understand, as of this evening, that has been raised to $100 million. We are indeed grateful that we can help our small neighboring countries in this way. But this cannot begin to meet the tremendous needs of thousands of affected people in Haiti and Grenada and other Caribbean nations. I sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations requesting a supplemental appropriation of at least $500 million in disaster relief for the Caribbean. Sixteen Members of Congress signed my letter. That is all the time I had to get signatures. This Supplemental Appropriations Act does provide, again, $100 million for these nations, and I am grateful, but I would hope that, in conference, we could raise that to $500 million. It would go a long way in these very small countries and help them to deal with this terrible devastation they are experiencing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for helping to organize us to be able to address this most important issue this evening. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 496, a resolution that simply supports humanitarian assistance to countries of the Caribbean devastated by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. The recent hurricanes have had devastating impacts on several Caribbean nations. In Grenada, Hurricane Ivan destroyed 90 percent of the homes and 78 percent of the electrical system, as well as numerous government buildings, hospitals, schools and churches. Approximately 60,000 of the island's 95,000 inhabitants were left homeless. In Jamaica, 18,000 people were displaced by Hurricane Ivan, which was the worst natural disaster to hit Jamaica in 50 years. The Bahamas incurred an estimated $125 million in damage as a result of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne. In Haiti, Hurricane Jeanne caused extensive flooding and left 300,000 people homeless. More than 1,500 Haitians were killed, and another 900 are still missing. Thousands of people are in desperate need of food, clean water, emergency shelter and medical care. Relief efforts continue to be hampered by water and mud covering the main roads, and stagnant waters have given rise to a large mosquito population that could lead to a malaria epidemic. The nations of the Caribbean are small island nations that do not have the capacity to respond to the widespread death and destruction caused by hurricanes of this magnitude. Immediate assistance from the United States is critical to enable these countries to meet the emergency needs of their people and begin to rebuild damaged homes and infrastructure. I am thankful that the President did show some concern, and he proposed $50 million in supplemental appropriations to cover disaster relief for the nations of the Caribbean that have been devastated by hurricanes and tropical storms. But it is a very small amount, and it cannot begin to meet the tremendous needs of thousands of Haitians, let alone the needs of our other Caribbean neighbors. The affected countries and territories include Bahamas, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, Trinidad, Tobago, the Turks and Caicos, even Venezuela, Cuba, the U.S. Virgin Islands, have all felt the devastation of these hurricanes. So we need a lot more to respond to this terrible devastation. Even though the President has proposed $50 million in supplemental appropriations, it is a small amount, and it cannot begin to meet the tremendous needs of thousands of Haitians, let alone the needs of all of these other countries. The Congressional Black Caucus is on record now in asking the President for at least $500 million in disaster relief to mount an effective response. Of course, I would urge my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 496. I would also urge my colleagues to provide a supplemental appropriation of at least $500 million in disaster assistance to help our Caribbean neighbors rebuild their homes and their lives after these unprecedented storms. This resolution does not have that amount in it, and we know that we must do the work with the Appropriations Committee, but this is a resolution that would give recognition to this tremendous devastation that has taken place and squarely place us on record in wanting to respond to it. I am very thankful for the opportunity to share with the gentlewoman from California this concern as we demonstrate through this resolution.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I find this debate to be extremely interesting. The gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle asks why are we listening to Joe Scarborough. Well, not only are we listening to him, I am listening to Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan said my colleagues are a bunch of fake conservatives, they have run up this deficit, and I have to remind my colleagues when Bill Clinton left office we had a reserve. We had money in the bank, and since they have been in power, the Republicans have been in power, this administration, they have been spending like drunken sailors. My colleagues have created a $7.3 trillion tax debt. Buchanan says my colleagues are not true conservatives; and at the same time that they created this debt and it keeps growing, they had the audacity to come into the Committee on the Judiciary and pretend to attempt to pass a balanced budget amendment. We know that that was just a political act. As a matter of fact, one of my colleagues reminded my colleagues that they are in charge of the House, they have the majority in the Senate, they have the White House. They could work to balance this budget anytime they want to. They do not need to have a balanced budget amendment, but they cannot do that because they are in the political mode in an election year, and they come back with the most outrageous public policy to extend tax cuts. It does not take a Harvard scholar to know that we cannot keep spending, spending, spending and at the same time reduce the amount of money that is coming in. My colleagues are mismanaging $4 billion a month, and they cannot win with the $4 billion. $4 billion a month, no post-war planning, we cannot even take Fallujah and Najaf. The soldiers do not have all of their equipment, and my colleagues are coming back for more money. Well, on top of that, when we look at what is happening domestically, 44 million Americans with no health insurance, a housing crisis, veterans crying, and my colleagues are going to come in here and give a tax cut to the richest corporations and Americans in this country. It is outrageous. It does not make good sense. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if anyone had told me that coming to the Congress of the United States of America, representing my district, I would have to be on the floor of Congress defending the constitutional rights of the Supreme Court to make constitutional rulings, I would have told them they are crazy. This is absolutely outrageous. The gentleman just asked when do we get so angry that we agree to strip the Court of its constitutional responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I have disagreed with any number of decisions of the Supreme Court. I disagree with the fact that the Dred Scott decision said separate was all right, separate but equal. And in the last 2002 election, I disagreed with the fact that the Supreme Court gave the Presidency to George W. Bush. But my colleagues did not see me and others coming in here and talking about stripping them of their ability to make constitutional decisions. The court-stripping proposed in this bill would destroy the Supreme Court's historical function as the interpreter and ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution requires. This misguided legislation to strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction also would have seriously damaging implications for the relationships among our three branches of government. This bill and other court-stripping bills proposed by the Republicans would be laughable if the results of enacting this bill were not so tragic and not so threatening to the constitutional rights of our people and the independence of the Federal judiciary. If H.R. 2028 were passed into law, it would constitute the first and only time Congress has enacted legislation totally eliminating any Federal court from considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation, in this case the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Rangel amendment to prohibit the use of funds to enforce the economic embargo on Cuba. If Congress were serious about our relationship with Cuba, Congress would pursue a policy of negotiation and diplomacy--not isolation. Such a policy would allow the export of seeds, agricultural tools, and other products, which are desperately needed by the Cuban population. Instead, Congress is allowing the continuation of its out-dated embargo against this small country, which is only 90 miles from America's shores. I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote on Waters Amendment No. 12 and to have the Chair put the question de novo.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment to prohibit the use of funds in this bill to implement the Administration's new restrictions on travel to Cuba for educational purposes. These new restrictions prohibit American students from participating in educational programs unless they were organized by the institution in which the students are enrolled. Students would not be allowed to participate in programs organized by other colleges or universities. This would deny students the opportunity to study in Cuba unless their own institution has its own program in Cuba. This unreasonable restriction could prevent thousands of American students from studying abroad in the country of their choice. Throughout the Cold War, American students studied in the Soviet Union. Many of them went on to become diplomats, scholars and policy- makers who used the knowledge they gained to contribute to the development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. Similarly, many Americans are studying in the People's Republic of China today. There is no reason to treat study in Cuba differently. Study abroad provides valuable educational experiences for American students and contributes to the development of knowledgeable and informed professionals who can use their knowledge to serve our country in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment and support educational opportunities for American students in Cuba and throughout the world.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.