Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. The United States has a trade deficit. We are not able to sell our goods abroad in the way that we should be able to do it. Cuba has been literally dying for us to sell them goods. We finally had the good sense to open up the way for the sale of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba, and they are buying, but they have to pay cash on the barrel head. So this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to implement sanctions on private commercial sales of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. U.S. exports of agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba have been legal since 2001. However, American farmers and other exporters must maneuver through a myriad of restrictions in order to export these products to Cuba. Exporters are denied access to export assistance, credit guarantees and private commercial financing. All transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing from third countries. These restrictions make trade with Cuba unnecessarily expensive, bureaucratic and complicated. The effect of my amendment would be to free exporters from the need to comply with these cumbersome regulations. The people of Cuba need food and medicine. Their needs have never been greater than they are now, following the devastation caused by Hurricane Ivan. Cuba is one of several islands in the Caribbean ravaged by Hurricane Ivan, and the people of Cuba are trying to recover from the extensive damage caused by this terrible storm. The people of Cuba are more than willing to purchase food and medical supplies from their American neighbors. American exporters have already exported $210 million in products to Cuba in the first 5 months of this year despite the cumbersome restrictions involved, and they can expect to increase their market share significantly if they are freed from these restrictions. U.S. agri-business companies have estimated that U.S. farmers are missing out on a market of $700 million in Cuba because of these restrictions. Removing the prohibition on private financing would be especially helpful to smaller companies and individual farmers. Small businesses cannot afford to export goods to a foreign country without financing. My amendment would ensure that American exporters could use private financing to export agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba. A similar amendment was offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and was adopted by the House on July 23, 2002. Unfortunately, this amendment was not included in the conference report. Other countries, like China, Germany and Canada, permit trade with Cuba, and these countries have financing arrangements that facilitate exports to Cuba. If the United States continues to make exports of food and medicine unnecessarily difficult and complicated, American companies will continue to be left out. My amendment would ensure that American exporters could use private financing to export agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba. Exports of food and medicine to Cuba are good for the American economy and they are good for the people of Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I know that there are Members of this House who strongly dislike Fidel Castro. I know that there are Members who would do whatever they could to disadvantage that island. But I think it does not make good sense to cut off your nose to spite your face. We have all of these small businesses that want to do business with Cuba. Cuba wants to do business with us. We need to get rid of these restrictions so that they can have the kind of credit and financing from private companies, so that they can buy more and more and more. How are we ever going to get rid of this trade deficit if we are not smart enough not to let some of the political ambitions of a few of our colleagues get in the way of what is good for America? We are sitting right down here 90 miles from Cuba in Florida with a lot of folks who want to do business with them. It is time to change our policies and go in a new direction. It is time also to show people that we are willing to do the right thing. How can we sit here and know that people need the food, we need the money, and not allow it to happen?

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of waking up every morning to the news that more men and women are being killed in Iraq. I am as patriotic as anybody, but why are we in Iraq? We have discovered that we were misled. There are no weapons of mass destruction. But our young men and women are dying every day. At the same time, we are spending $1 billion per week on this war. We are spending $1 billion a week, but we have 44 million Americans without health insurance. We have rising poverty. We have men and women who work every day but cannot afford to pay rent. Yet this administration is cutting the section 8 program that would support families in their ability to have a house. What are we doing in education? Far too many dropouts, not only in our inner cities but in our rural areas. This President says, leave no child behind, but it is empty rhetoric. He is not putting his dollars where his mouth is.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oxley- Frank-Kolbe-Pastor-Hinojosa amendment to H.R. 5025, the FY2005 Treasury Transportation Appropriations bill. The amendment would strike bill language, section 216, that prohibits the Treasury Department from enforcing or even publishing its recent regulations implementing the USA PATRIOT Act provisions requiring financial institutions to take reasonable steps to identify their customers. This bipartisan Amendment is supported by the White House, the Chair and Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee and virtually every major association within the financial services industry including the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Bankers' Association for Finance and Trade, America's Community Bankers, Financial Services Roundtable, the Credit Union National Association and the Securities Industry Association. The Amendment would strike language adopted in subcommittee that would prohibit the Treasury Department from spending funds to administer and enforce regulations implementing Section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Specifically, this language would prohibit the Treasury Department from implementing regulations issued on May 9, 2003, that permit financial institutions to accept matricula consular identification cards as part of a valid customer identification program. Mr. Chairman, while I have objections to many aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act, I support the Section 326 requirement that financial institutions must establish ``reasonable procedures'' for verifying the identity of customers seeking to open a new account. Section 326 enhances the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent both money laundering and the financing of terrorism by requiring institutions to develop comprehensive procedures for verifying customer identity. Yet section 216 of H. R. 5025 would make it impossible to achieve this important objective, and, thus, it should be stricken from the bill. If the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment is not adopted, this appropriations bill could drive large sections of the U.S. population to underground financial services providers and thereby weaken the government's ability to monitor and enforce our money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. Adopting this amendment is critical to ensuring that our government has the ability to track terrorist finances. Mr. Chairman, while those who are hostile to the Mexican matricula consular card want to transform this issue into a debate about immigration, this issue is not a debate about immigration. Rather, it is a debate about whether we will preserve the ability of our government to work with financial institutions to fight terrorism by tracking terrorist financing. The language in the bill doesn't simply prohibit the use of matricula consular cards--the bill prevents the Treasury Department from enforcing ANY type of identity verification under this important regulation. The Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment enables banks and credit unions to recognize matricula consular cards as identification for financial transactions. The language in the bill does not merely discourage the acceptance of matricula consular cards. It, in effect, prevents their acceptance by financial institutions. The language in the bill effectively prohibits the Treasury Department from enforcing the USA PATRIOT Act's customer identification provisions that are designed to combat money laundering and terrorist finance. If Section 216 remains in this bill, the Treasury Department would be prohibited from even telling financial institutions that they must verify the identity of their customers. Mr. Chairman, all of us know that it becomes more difficult to track tracking terrorist financing whenever more people turn to the underground financial system. Why would we want to adopt legislation that will make it easier and more common for people to opt out of the transparency of the mainstream financial system? Mr. Chairman, denying foreign nationals access to the U.S. banking system will undermine the ability of U.S. law enforcement, regulatory, and economic agencies to do their jobs, since individuals will likely turn to other, less transparent, less regulated, and more expensive methods to transmit funds. We should be encouraging immigrants to use the mainstream financial system to hold and transmit funds. Allowing financial institutions to choose to recognize matricula consular cards as part of their customer identity verification program is sound public policy. I urge all my colleagues to support the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe Amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition both to this bill and to the process which produced it. H.R. 4571 would make fundamental changes to the Rule 11 sanctions process without our even receiving the benefit of input from either the Judicial Conference or the Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the proponents of this legislation do not want to hear from our judges because they know that the vast majority of our judges do not agree with this bill. As a matter of fact, I think that this bill could appropriately be named big business versus the people. Mr. Speaker, big businesses pay expensive lawyers by the hour to protect their interests. Trial lawyers handling many of these cases that are being termed frivolous are paid only if they win. I would like to quote John Q. Quinn, a veteran trial lawyer from Houston, who sees this as a make-or-break election issue in an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. ``Corporate America is in charge these days. They control the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court. But so far they do not control the right to trial by jury. That is the only place where ordinary citizens can go and have their complaints heard,'' Quinn said. I further quote him when he said ``Ordinary people cannot hire lobbyists in Washington, but in the courtroom they get an equal chance to stand up against a corporation.'' Now the Chamber of Commerce and big corporate America, spending millions of dollars in public relations campaigns, would have Members believe that the number of civil cases have risen and thus the number of frivolous lawsuits, but that is simply not the case. I would like to further quote this Los Angeles Times article which said, ``The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for State Courts track civil trials and verdicts in the Nation's 75 largest counties. In April, the bureau reported in the last decade the number of cases have gone down, not up.'' The number of general civil cases disposed of by trial in the Nation's largest counties declined from 22,451 in 1992 to 11,908 in 2001. That is a 47 percent decline. The plaintiffs won about half the time, and the overall median award was $37,000 in 2001, down from $65,000 in 1992. These cases included automobile accidents, medical malpractice and product liability claims. About one-third of the cases involved contract claims which typically involve one business against each other. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about ordinary people. We are talking about people who get up every day and go to work, common folk who just earn sometimes entry-level wages. We are talking about people who could be harmed in an automobile accident or on the job working at a company that does not care about their safety, where they can lose a limb, their eyes, they could be killed. They could lose their lives. Are we going to prevent the ability of these people to be heard and have their day in court? Big business may not want to accept liability, but it must; and we cannot live in a country where we have big business, because they have money, come to the Congress of the United States and produce legislation that would prevent the average, little person from having their day in court and being heard by a jury.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde); the ranking member, gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky); and all of those on both sides of the aisle who have been working so hard to bring this genocide to the attention of our own government and to the world. We have people who are working very hard to get something done. My heart is heavy this evening because it has taken us much too long. I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) did give a word of thanks to Colin Powell and Kofi Annan for making the trip and for urging the Khartoum government to cooperate and stop the genocide. But I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), we have to ask Colin Powell and Kofi Annan and the President of the United States to get tougher. They have got to get tougher. We are watching genocide take place. I am pleased about this resolution. Genocide has taken place in this world far too many times, genocide that could have been stopped if good people just took a little tougher action. We have watched genocide time and time again, in most recent of times, Rwanda. This does not have to continue. Over 30,000 people have died; 1 million people stand to die as I stand here today. So it is time to act and act now. We must first recognize that the Khartoum government is part of the problem. They keep making promises, but they lie. The minute they say they are going to cooperate, we turn our backs, they are supporting the Janjaweed. They are indeed a part of the problem. We must act, we must act now, and we must be tough. We can stop this genocide. Tonight, we define it for what it is with this resolution. Thank you, I say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). It is genocide. Let the word go forth, and it must be stopped.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment to add $800 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is having a devastating impact on Africa and the world. Over 60 million people have been infected by the AIDS virus since the beginning of the epidemic, and 42 million people are currently living with this dreadful disease. Approximately three million people died of AIDS last year, and another five million people became infected with HIV. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has already curtailed the economic development of many countries in Africa. AIDS is responsible for shortages of skilled workers and teachers, high rates of absenteeism and labor turnover, and the deaths of workers and managers throughout business and government. Teachers and other skilled workers can be very difficult to replace. Tragically, in some parts of Africa, employers even find it necessary to hire two workers for every job opening, because they expect one of them to die of AIDS. On May 1, 2003, the House passed H.R. 1298, ``the Global AIDS Bill,'' which authorizes appropriations of $3 billion per year over five years for global HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention efforts. This bill, which is critically needed and long overdue, was signed into law by the President on May 27 of last year. However, it has never been fully funded. According to UNAIDS, HIV/AIDS has spread rapidly in Eastern Europe, and gained a strong foothold in India and China over the past year. Fortunately, there has been progress, as infection rates actually fell last year in a few hard-hit areas of Africa. Without adequate funding, however, our progress will be short-lived. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment. Point of Order

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Flake] for the time. I rise to support the Flake amendment to prohibit the use of funds in this bill to enforce the Commerce Department's recently-announced anti- family restrictions on sending gifts to Cuba. These restrictions are part of an extensive set of new Bush administration rules that punish Cuban-Americans who have families in Cuba. These regulations include limiting family visits to Cuba by Cuban-Americans to once every three years and further restricting the ability of Cuban-Americans to send money to their families in Cuba. The Commerce Department's new regulations would make it illegal for Cuban-Americans to send clothing, seeds, soap, personal hygiene products and veterinary medicines to their families in Cuba. Other gifts would be limited to one gift parcel per month per household in Cuba. Gifts could be sent to parents and children, but not to aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews or cousins. What conceivable rationale could there be for this cruel, misguided assault on Cuban-American families? Is there anyone who truly believes that we are achieving anything productive by keeping Cuban-Americans from helping their family members who remain in Cuba? How dare this administration tell American citizens they can't send clothes, toilet paper or toothpaste to the families they love! I urge my colleagues to protect the right of Cuban-Americans to assist their families. Let's help these families, not punish them. Support the Flake amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. I am very pleased to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner); the ranking member the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and my good friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) on the wonderful work they have done, along with all of the other members of the committee. I just want to give recognition to the fact that there was some controversy that developed around the WIC-only stores, but a good compromise has been worked out, and the compromise language in the bill is intended to make sure that the program serves the maximum number of eligible women, infants and children. The language is not intended to eliminate WIC-only stores or to force the WIC-only stores to price their products less than the larger retail stores. The WIC-only operators have agreed that they will make their prices more competitive, because that was one of the criticisms. I commend the WIC-only stores for providing special services to limited English speaking families and poor families that allows them to receive this valuable service with dignity and respect. The language in the bill also allows the WIC-only stores to use promotional items in the same way that the larger retail stores are allowed to do. I would like to thank again all of my colleagues for working this out. The compromise language makes good sense, and this helps us to move forward in ways that serve the maximum number of women, infants and children.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite) for their work on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4345, and I am very proud to support opportunities for our veterans to own their own home. Who better can we support to realize the American Dream than those who fight to keep the American Dream alive for all Americans? Unfortunately, in many cities, including my home city of Los Angeles, the goal of owning a home is elusive for many families because of the high price of homes. However, this bill will provide significant assistance to veterans who wish to own their own home, and I am pleased to support it. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), H.R. 1735, which would have increased the maximum amount of the home loan guarantee. However, I am pleased to support this bill, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite) and supported by the gentlewoman from California, which will increase the maximum loan guarantee to $333,700 and index loan amount to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac Conforming Loan Rate to make the VA's home loan program compatible with the home loans available to the public nationwide. By indexing the loan rate Congress will assure that veterans will continue to have the opportunity to purchase homes regardless of how high the Conforming Loan Rate climbs. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a small but important gesture to thank veterans for their service to our country. I am pleased to support this bill and urge my colleagues to support is also.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for all the hard work that he has put in on this legislation, and I would like to thank Lou Dobbs at CNN for his constant exposure of the practice of U.S. firms that are outsourcing jobs. These firms are simply exporting American jobs to Third World countries for cheap exploited labor. This bill is a prime example of what Lou Dobbs has been reporting about. This bill is a $140 billion tax boondoggle at a time when U.S. unemployment rates are still too high and at a time when this administration has created historic deficits. This bill gives $35 billion of the $140 billion tax break that they have created to U.S. firms to invest in jobs overseas, not American jobs, not jobs in your city, not jobs in your hometown, not jobs in your county. The Republicans have become experts at outsourcing jobs. The Republican National Committee and George W. Bush even outsourced their fund-raising solicitation telephone calls to a firm that employs workers in India. This brazen, costly tax giveaway to corporations exporting jobs, 60 percent of whom pay no taxes, is an assault on hardworking Americans who are now collectively paying more taxes than rich corporations. Shame, shame, shame. The Republicans refused to support targeted U.S. manufacturing credits. These so-called conservative Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscal conservatives, no longer care about the huge United States deficit. They have become the big spenders of the taxpayers' dollars, outsourcing the jobs to foreign countries for cheap labor. These are conservative Republicans piling up this deficit and giving away our American jobs. They no longer care about the joblessness of Americans in their own hometowns. Shame, shame, shame.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to deal with immigration problems. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3722. As a matter of fact, I am surprised at the gentleman from California. Does he not understand that this would transform our health care personnel into the border patrol? This bill will have a disastrous impact on emergency care and community hospitals throughout America. Mr. Speaker, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and health care personnel are trained to be caregivers, not adjuncts of immigration law enforcement. Do our health care personnel not have enough to do already without imposing this huge reporting burden on an already overextended health care system? Mr. Speaker, forcing health care personnel to start taking fingerprints and snapping pictures of patients suspected of being undocumented when perhaps they need a blood transfusion or something to save their lives will cause people who urgently need medical care to refrain from seeking such care because they fear that they may die trying to get service or they will be deported. We all know that in health care an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When any persons delay their access to health care, their medical condition is much worse. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is unsound public policy. I am ashamed of it. Do not do it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing to the floor this important resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this resolution calls upon Congress to do more than just noting the historical significance of the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. It asks Congress to renew its commitment to continue building on the legacy of Brown with a pledge to acknowledge and address the modern-day disparities that perpetuate a separate but unequal society. Yet while we celebrate the Brown I decision, we must candidly discuss the many challenges that remain in the quest to achieve equal opportunity for all Americans. Professor Charles Ogletree of the Harvard Law School has written a very powerful book on the legacy of the Brown decision, entitled ``All Deliberate Speeds: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education.'' Professor Ogletree reminds us the second Brown case, decided on December 31, 1955, was every bit as important as the first Brown case, which was decided on May 17, 1954. While the first case contains the powerful language that we all know, declaring that separate but equal educational facilities were inherently unequal and no longer had a place in American society, in the Brown II decision the Court called for school desegregation to proceed, and I quote, ``with all deliberate speed.'' Mr. Speaker, deliberate means slow, and, unfortunately, while we surely are making progress, the last 50 years of history demonstrates that our progress toward a color-blind, racially equal society has been slow indeed. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly quote Professor Ogletree's powerful words. He said, and I quote, ``Brown v. Board of Education was important because it ended legal segregation. However, the Court's decision, though unanimous, contained a critical compromise which undermined the broad purposes of the campaign to end racial segregation immediately and comprehensively.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my outrage and disappointment in the soldiers who physically and mentally abused Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison. I do not believe that these actions represent the character of our Armed Forces or of the United States. Unfortunately, however, these soldiers, through their despicable actions, have severely damaged the reputation of the United States and significantly complicated our task in the region. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the President did not apologize to the Iraqi people for these deplorable actions. An apology from the President clearly was in order. I am also outraged, as all of us should be, that the Secretary of Defense failed to make Congress aware of these accusations in a timely manner. According to news accounts, the Department has been aware of the infamous photos, and the abuse, since at least mid-January. Yet, we only found out about them in the last week. This is outrageous and unacceptable. Unfortunately, this is just one more example of the Administration not playing straight with the Congress or the American people. We have been misled about the weapons of mass destruction, troop levels and the length of their deployments, and the costs associated with the war-- among others. This Administration must change its way. Congress deserves better and, certainly, the American people deserve better.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record what happened here today with the visit by Mr. Gerard Latortue, who is the illegally appointed Prime Minister of Haiti. Somebody invited him to come here to the House of Representatives; and two meetings were set up, one at 10:30 where members of the Congressional Black Caucus were invited to meet with him, and a later one at 1:30 where members of the Committee on International Relations were invited to meet with him. Those meetings were not attended in any appreciable numbers by either the members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the 10:30 meeting or the members of the Committee on International Relations. Of the 39 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am told that perhaps maybe six people showed up; and for the Committee on International Relations, where there are 49 Members, 26 Republicans and 23 Democrats, only about six members of that committee showed up. I think it is important to note that this took place. It is important for the world community to know and understand that just as CARICOM, that is, the nations of the Caribbean, rejected Latortue, and do not accept him as a legitimate representative of that government, the Congressional Black Caucus does not accept him and recognize him as a legitimate Prime Minister for Haiti; and it was indicated today by the lack of attendance. It is important for me to say this because Latortue is trying to make the world community believe that he is gaining the support of the Congressional Black Caucus. That absolutely is not true. We consider that he was illegally appointed. It is in violation of the Haiti Constitution, and he is presiding over crisis and chaos in Haiti. Haiti is worse off than it has ever been. Not only do we have killings that are going on every night; we have members of the Lavalas Party, the party of President Aristide, in hiding. They are being killed. Their lives are being threatened; but worse than that, this so- called Prime Minister, Mr. Gerard Latortue, embraced the known killers who have occupied the northern part of Haiti and recently appeared on a platform with Mr. Guy Philippe, Mr. Louis Jodel Chamblain, Mr. Jean Tatoun, all of whom are known to be criminals. Mr. Guy Philippe is a known drug trafficker. Mr. Chamblain and Mr. Tatoun have been convicted in absentia for their role in the massacre of thousands of Haitians at Raboteau in 1994. They were all in exile. They were all recruited to come back into Haiti and join with the so-called opposition, and they played a role in the coup d'etat. They threatened to kill President Aristide, and they are still running around Haiti, armed, trying to reestablish an army, recruiting Haitians, burning down police stations and killing members of Lavalas. This so- called Prime Minister called them in a public meeting freedom fighters. It is so outrageous, it is so ridiculous, and that is one of the reasons he is not being accepted. He is not being respected, and he is not considered as a serious person with any leadership ability or any vision for Haiti's future. So, let the record indicate that he came to the Capitol; that he was not received by any appreciable number of people; that he did not get his message across. We have said to the State Department and to Secretary Colin Powell that it is important, it is imperative that they arrest and incarcerate the thugs and the criminals who are in control of Haiti. There is no way that they can ask us to recognize this puppet and this puppet government and to recognize this illegally appointed so-called Prime Minister until at least they take those steps.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) which would ease the paperwork requirements for certain small public housing authorities and reduce their need to hire consultants to prepare housing plans, and I would like to congratulate both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for the leadership they provided, recognizing that it is important for us to come together from time to time to work to get rid of unnecessary regulations and they have done that with this bill. H.R. 27 would exempt small housing authorities that administer 100 or fewer units of assisted housing from the requirement to prepare an annual public housing agency plan. The threshold would include both public housing units and vouchers under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. The affected small housing authorities would remain subject to the Public Housing Reform Act's requirement to submit a 5-year PHA plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that addresses the Agency's mission and its plan to achieve its mission. In order to qualify as a small housing authority under this bill, an agency would have to provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of HUD that notwithstanding the inapplicability of certain provisions relating to resident advisory boards and public hearings and notice, residents of public housing administered by the Agency will have an adequate and comparable opportunity for participation and notice regarding establishment of the goals, objectives and policies of the public housing agency. The objective of this legislation simply is to reduce the administration workload of small PHAs. The goal of H.R. 27 is to give executive directors of small PHAs more time to focus on the needs of their tenants, rather than having to spend time and resources completing an annual plan for submission to HUD. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation will help to limit the burden on small PHAs while providing the necessary protections to ensure that tenants will have the opportunity for input into the small PHA's 5-year plan. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to one of my most distinguished constituents, Sr. Margaret ``Peg'' Dolan, R.S.H.M. I commend her to my colleagues and thank her for her service to Loyola Marymount University, to Los Angeles, and to our Nation. Last Friday, April 16th, Sister Peg, who currently serves as the Alumni Chaplain at Loyola Marymount, celebrated her golden jubilee, the 50th anniversary of taking her vows in the order known as the Religious Sacred Heart of Mary. Sister Peg has been a unique link to Loyola Marymount's history, having been present on the campus since the historic merger of Marymount and Loyola. Her many years at LMU have been extraordinary. Born and raised in the Bronx, Sr. Peg grew up in a diverse neighborhood of Irish Catholics, Jewish, Italian, and German families. Her parents had come to the United States from Ireland. Her father worked two jobs to put all five kids through Catholic school and died at the age of 54. Her mother lived a long life and spent many hours caring for sick neighbors along with her five children. In 1952 when she graduated from high school, Sister Peg chose to enter the Religious Sacred Heart of Mary. She studied Scripture, theology, and philosophy at Marymount College in Tarrytown, NY for two years. After taking her vows in 1954, she moved to California to study History at Marymount College. In 1957, she earned a teaching credential and began teaching at a boarding school also called Marymount in Santa Barbara. In 1973, Sr. Peg enrolled at Loyola Marymount University to complete a Master's Degree in Counseling while serving as a Counselor in Training. She was such a big hit with the students that, at the end of that year, the residence hall advisors asked the administration to find her a job. She took a part-time position in Student Affairs at Loyola Marymount. In 1975, after she earned a Master's Degree in Applied Spirituality, Sister Peg joined the LMU Campus Ministry team as Chaplain where she did retreat work and counseling. In 1985, she was promoted to Director and became the moderator of Gryphon Circle, one of five major service groups for students at LMU. In 1989, because of her interest in doing even more one-on-one counseling, Sr. Peg resigned her position as Director and returned to the Campus Ministry. In 1996, she accepted the invitation from the president of LMU to become Alumni Chaplain. Reaching out to Loyola Marymount alumni and their families, Sr. Peg single-handedly launched the Alumni for Others program where students, alumni and friends spend a day working together on a community service project. Currently in its fifth year, the program's projects have included the painting and repairing of inner city schools and fixing homes for low-income elderly residents in such areas as South Central Los Angeles Watts, East Los Angeles and the Hilo River Reservation in Arizona. Since the program's inception, more than a thousand people have volunteered. In recent years, the Alumni for Others program has directed its focus toward assisting inner city schools in need. After St. Columbkille School in South Central Los Angeles had closed its seventh and eighth grades due to financial constraints, Sister Peg spearheaded a development committee to reopen the classes and build a new library, raising over $800,000. Construction of the new library began last June. Mr. Speaker, Sister ``Peg'' Dolan has generously offered support and wise counsel to students, alumni, fellow chaplains, fellow staff members, and all members of the Loyola Marymount community. She has dedicated her life to community service and counseling and has made a tremendous contribution to our community. I am pleased to commend and thank her for her outstanding work, and look forward to many more years of her service.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for surface transportation projects that are planned or required to implement Alternative D of the Master Plan for Los Angeles International Airport or any other proposal to build a remote passenger check-in facility at LAX. Mr. Chairman, this proposed project is mired in scandal and pay-to- play contracting schemes. The FBI and the DA are now investigating all of the alleged corruption. Los Angeles International Airport, which is located in my congressional district, is already the third largest airport in the United States, with a capacity to serve 78 million air passengers every year. Alternative D is the latest of several proposals to make LAX even bigger, not safer. Alternative D is a $9 billion scheme that would demolish homes, disrupt the communities of Manchester Square, Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo and other communities near LAX in order to construct a remote passenger check-in facility at Manchester Square, which is several blocks away from the airport terminals. There is a broad coalition that have already agreed that we need a regional response, that this area is landlocked, and it does not make good sense to try to expand LAX this way. The regional response to growth would be a good response. This is an ill-conceived project. The highly respected Rand Corporation evaluated this project, and they concluded that it does not make good sense, and in the event of a terrorist attack, passengers would be at great risk because they would all be concentrated in this so-called remote facility. Alternative D would be inconvenient for airport passengers and their families. Local families could no longer drive to the central terminals in order to drop off passengers. Instead, airport employees and passengers would have to go to this so-called remote passenger check-in facility and ride an automated people mover to the airport terminals carrying their carry-on baggage with them. This would be extremely inconvenient for most passengers, and it would present special hardships for the elderly, the handicapped, and families traveling with small children. Alternative D would displace thousands of Manchester Square residents. In order to construct this remote passenger check-in facility, the City of Los Angeles would have to acquire and demolish 38 houses, 179 apartment buildings and a 52-year-old elementary school, in addition to the 263 structures it has already acquired. It would also have to relocate about 6,200 people, some of whom have federally subsidized housing vouchers. I strongly oppose the forced relocation of any of these residents. Alternative D would increase traffic congestion in communities near LAX. The proposal would concentrate airport traffic on the east side of the airport near the proposed remote passenger check-in facility, causing a shift in airport traffic to the I-405 freeway near the Arbor Vitae/Manchester Avenue exits. This could cause a tremendous increase in traffic congestion which already has heavily congested this area. It also would increase traffic congestion in the surrounding communities as airport passengers and other drivers seek alternative routes to get to and from and around the airport. Mr. Chairman, these funds are intended for surface transportation projects that will benefit local communities and alleviate traffic congestion. If we permit the funding of any projects that enable the implementation of Alternative D, the results will be a tremendous inconvenience for passengers, huge increases in traffic congestion, and massive disruptions of local communities surrounding LAX. My amendment would ensure that no funds are provided for surface transportation projects that are planned or required to implement this destructive airport expansion project. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is unfortunate that there seems to be some agreement between my friends on the opposite side of the aisle and my own caucus in opposing my project. It is very important to my district and all of the areas in the surrounding communities that has formed a coalition, and this is simply a request to say let us not use any of this money for any selfish projects. This has nothing to do with the building of the facility itself; and, unfortunately, since there has been an agreement, I know that it will be voted down, but I am not at all happy about it.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I prepared a statement to come to the floor, but I am not going to use a statement. I am going to simply read from a letter that has been sent to the Members of Congress from the Disabled American Veterans: ``For veterans' discretionary programs, primarily veterans' medical care, H. Con. Res. 393 would provide $1.1 billion below the minimum amount of funding determined necessary by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and $2.7 billion below the amount of funding recommended by ``The Independent Budget'' prepared by the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. ``The inadequate appropriations provided in H. Con. Res. 393 will support medical treatment for 170,000 fewer veterans than the Department of Veterans Affairs could treat with the funding recommended by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and will support 13,000 fewer full-time employees for veterans' medical care. With the level of appropriations in the House budget resolution, VA will be required to delay medical care for some veterans, and deny it altogether for other sick and disabled veterans, just to enable it to meet inflationary costs, including increases in employee wages.'' I could go on and on and on with this. I have served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. When I was first elected to Congress, I served on that committee for about 4 years. I have never seen the level of lobbying, the letter-writing from veterans that I am seeing today. And this letter comes from one of the most vulnerable veterans' populations. It is shameful. We cannot support this. Listen to what the veterans are saying.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it reduces the number of Section 8 housing vouchers which provides subsidized housing for women, children and families.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor a wonderful public servant and a good friend who has made pioneering contributions to the field of public housing administration in the City of Los Angeles and throughout our country, Donald Smith. Don will be retiring on April 30 as executive director of the Housing Authority for the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). For 32 years, Don has played a vital role in improving the lives of countless families by helping them to obtain clean, safe, and affordable housing; and he will be sorely missed. His expertise, sound judgment, and good humor are tremendously rare and valuable assets. He will be leaving very big shoes to fill. Don began his career as HACLA's director of management from 1971 to 1980 before moving to the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission, where he served as assistant director of the housing division, director of assisted housing, and assistant executive director of housing. In 1994, Don returned to the HACLA as executive director. Since Don's return, HACLA has been rated as a ``high performer'' by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in recognition of its high lease rate in public housing and its record of achieving 100 percent section 8 voucher utilization even in a difficult market. In addition, under Don's leadership, HACLA was the first housing authority to receive a Welfare-to-Work grant from the U.S. Department of Labor and subsequently received local and national recognition for its excellence and success with this program. During Don's tenure, HACLA has helped to improve and beautify my City of Los Angeles by demolishing public housing that dates from the 1940s and replacing it with vibrant, mixed-income communities including Harbor Village/Normont Terrace in the Harbor area and Pico Aliso and Aliso Village/Pueblo del Sol in Boyle Heights. Don was a prime reason why HUD chose the HACLA to administer all of its section 8 properties in 10 Southern California counties. HACLA is a state-chartered public agency that administers the largest stock of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area. While the HACLA gets the majority of its funding through HUD, Don has built many key partnerships with city and State agencies, nonprofit foundations, community-based organizations, and private developers, which have proven invaluable to achieving HACLA's mission. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of his dedication to the City of Los Angeles and the thousands of people he has helped, I have introduced a resolution recognizing Don for his outstanding work. I hope that the Congress will join me in thanking Don for his service to Los Angeles and to our Nation. Thank you, Don, for your tremendous work and for your friendship. I wish you all the best in your retirement.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would first like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for the leadership that they have provided in this committee not only on this issue but on all of the issues that we work with on the Committee on Financial Services. I think someone said it earlier, and I agree, I believe it was the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) who said it, we do have a way of working together, and we do have a way of respecting the work that is done on both sides of the aisle; and I am appreciative for the comradery that has developed out of that committee. So with that, I would like to thank also the chairman and the members of the Committee on Rules for making my rule in order. During the course of a bank merger process, both the Federal financial supervisory agency and the Department of Justice review the merger proposal for competitive concerns. After a Federal banking agency approves a merger, DOJ has 30 days to decide whether to challenge the merger approval on antitrust grounds. At a minimum, the merging banks must now wait 15 days before completing their merger. As proposed, section 609 would reduce the minimum 15-day waiting period to 5 days when the Department of Justice indicates it will not file suit challenging the merger approval order. This amendment is designed to preserve the existing 15-calendar-day waiting period in which members of the public may challenge a bank merger after the Department of Justice has approved a merger between banks or between bank-holding companies. This mandatory waiting period protects the rights of the public to raise concerns with respect to the propriety of bank mergers once the Department of Justice decides whether to challenge a merger on antitrust grounds. Currently, banking law allows third parties, other than Federal banking agencies or DOJ, to file suit during the post-approval waiting period. Such private enforcement is critical to ensuring that important policy concerns including the adequacy of the banks' Community Reinvestment Act performance, are taken into account when Federal courts evaluate whether an agency's approval of a proposed bank merger should be upheld. Such private suits are the vehicle through which community organizations may gain information about a proposed bank merger to ensure that the merger will not result in disproportionate branch closures in low-income or minority communities. The existing law strikes the proper balance between the right of third parties to seek judicial review of bank merger approval orders and the rights of parties to the merger to finalize their transaction. Section 609 of the bill as reported would seriously impair the right of community organizations to seek this judicial review of Federal bank merger approval orders. The current 15-day waiting period should be preserved. So my amendment has been made in order under the proposed rule, and I would ask support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.