Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support the President's request for $87 billion to continue the war in Iraq. We asked him to continue the inspections, he chose to do a preemptive strike. And now he is telling us that we have got to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. I am not going to support that. They told us that the oil that they would get, revenues that they would get from Iraq, would support the reconstruction. Now, we have colleagues coming on the floor, telling us what a wonderful job they are doing and showing us bookbags that they have for the children of Iraq. I want the Members to know children in my district do not even have books to put in bookbags, and we have Members on the other side of the aisle who do not support more Federal funding to local school districts. They say it is a local school district problem. Give me a break, Mr. President. The covers are off. He has mismanaged this war. He has made promises. The only one who is benefitting from this war is Mr. Cheney's company, Halliburton, that is getting contracts that were not competitive. The President will not get a vote from me for $87 billion.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time left on the hour.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to talk about an issue of fundamental unfairness which burdens many of our veterans: concurrent receipt. I organized this Special Order to focus attention on the unfairness of the concurrent receipt law and to give Members the opportunity to demand that the Republican leadership bring to the floor H.R. 303, the bill that would end concurrent receipt. Madam Speaker, today we will hear Democratic Members from districts throughout the Nation call for an end of concurrent receipt. Concurrent receipt is a Civil War-era law that prevents disabled veterans from receiving both military retirement and veterans disability benefits. Under the law, for every dollar that a veteran receives in disability pay, $1 is taken away from their retirement pay. The effect of the concurrent receipt law is to tax a veteran for being injured while serving in the military. This is an extremely unfair burden that we place on our wounded veterans. Madam Speaker, America's veterans have made huge sacrifices in order to protect our freedoms. We should not repay their sacrifice by denying them the benefits they have earned and deserve. Congress must repeal the concurrent receipt law. Over the past several years, there has been a strong bipartisan effort to repeal this law. In this Congress, the bill to repeal concurrent receipt, H.R. 303, has 370 cosponsors. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a longtime Republican Member, is a sponsor of H.R. 303. Madam Speaker, 370 cosponsors is an extraordinary number of cosponsors for any bill. As all of us know, there are few bills introduced in this body that have 370 cosponsors. There are even fewer bills that do not come to the floor for action by Members of the House. Yet despite this tremendous bipartisan support, the House Republican leadership, as well as the White House, has refused to support this bill. In fact, the Secretary of Defense has said that he would recommend that the President veto any legislation that includes language which would eliminate concurrent receipt. The House Republican leadership continues to ignore the will of the Members, and our constituents, and refuses even to allow H.R. 303 to come to the floor for action. The opponents of this bill say that it will cost too much money. They cite a study from the Congressional Budget Office which estimates that it would cost the Federal Government $3 billion in fiscal year 2004 to cover the 400,000 eligible veterans. It is incredible that the opponents would offer such a poor excuse for why they refuse even to bring this bill to the floor. Give me a break. Mr. Speaker and Members, the Bush administration has spent almost $80 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan and is seeking a supplemental appropriation of $87 billion for the war in Iraq and Iraqi reconstruction. Yet, the administration will not seek the resources required to protect the retirement pay of veterans who had the misfortune of becoming disabled while serving their country. What a cruel, sick joke. These veterans earn their retirement pay, and they deserve both a full retirement benefit and their disability compensation. We must not walk away from our obligations. How can we put a price on the service that these men and women gave to our country? How can we put a price on going through life without a limb or without the ability to see or hear? They did their job with bravery and dedication. Now, we must do ours. The Federal Government should provide full benefits to veterans who protected our people. Simple fairness and decency requires it. Because of the opposition of the Republican leadership to this bill, Democrats have had to file a discharge petition in an attempt to bring H.R. 303 to the floor and force consideration of this bill. A successful discharge petition requires 218 signatures. To date, however, even though H.R. 303 has 370 cosponsors, there are only 203 signatures on the discharge petition. Nearly every Democrat has signed the discharge petition, but only two Republicans have signed. Because of the opposition of the Republican leadership, not even Congressman Bilirakis, the sponsor of H.R. 303, has signed the discharge petition. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the Republican leadership has strong-armed their Members into not supporting the discharge petition on H.R. 303 and prevented the Congress from providing this essential relief to our veterans. The Republican leadership's unfair and outrageous refusal to bring H.R. 303 to the floor for action is harming our veterans and keeping many veterans from obtaining a decent quality of life. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of veterans suffering under the concurrent receipt law. Because the United States military is committed to missions throughout the world that will result in additional veterans becoming disabled, the number of veterans who will be subjected to this tax will only grow. Unfortunately, this is only one of the many policies that this administration and the Republican party have adopted which harms our veterans. For example, although it is not uncommon for a veteran to wait 6 months or more to see a doctor, the Republicans' budget did not provide enough funding to shorten these waiting periods. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see the President constantly using our veterans for photo-ops, but when it comes to providing the necessary funding to give our veterans a good quality of life, the Republicans are nowhere to be found. We, Democrats, have another way. We appreciate the sacrifice that all veterans have made and believe that the government must provide the necessary funding for veterans to receive the medical, educational, and other benefits they need and deserve. We particularly appreciate the men and women who were injured while serving their country and believe we should provide them with their full retirement benefits, as well as their full disability compensation. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to pass H.R. 303 and help our disabled veterans. Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), who has truly been a leader on this issue all over the country, and he is the Member who filed the discharge petition.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank not only the gentleman from Georgia but all of my colleagues who spoke this evening. We are spending so much time on this issue because our veterans should be special and should be very important to all of the Members of Congress and to public policymakers in general. Our veterans have been so loyal, not just to our country because of their service but they are always loyal to the Commander in Chief. They have allowed themselves to be misused, to be ignored, and to be marginalized too much, and particularly by this administration. We find ourselves fighting and the veterans are scratching and clawing trying to just get the kind of benefits that they deserve. They are in these veterans hospitals across the Nation waiting in line for service, cannot get appointments. We do not have enough beds for them in nursing care homes. And now we hear about this particular issue on the floor tonight, and it seems to me that the President of the United States would put an end to this. This is a Commander in Chief that is now saying that he needs $87 billion more to continue the war in Iraq? We are going to have more veterans who will be disabled, who will come home, who will have to suffer this great injustice. This is the President who has already spent $79 billion and who is coming back for more. And this is the President, along with others in the administration, who is talking about we all have to make sacrifices. Our soldiers are dying, our soldiers are being crippled and disabled. They are losing their limbs. How long do we have to beg? How long do we have to plead with this President? I am here tonight, along with my colleagues, to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please sign that discharge petition. Please send a message to the veterans that during this time when we are at war, at a time when many of those who watch us on television who are fighting in Iraq, who may be the victim of some sniper's bullet any time, any day, let them know that should something happen, should they be crippled, should they lose a limb that they can depend on their government to see to it that they get both their retirement and the disability benefits that they deserve. I do not think that is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. I certainly feel a little bit ashamed this evening that we have to carry this debate this far. I served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs when I first came to the Congress of the United States. I interacted with all of the service organizations. I made a lot of friends, and I discovered at that time that there are many in the Congress who will wave the red, white, and blue flag and they will talk the talk; but they will not walk the walk. They will not stand up and ask for the dollars. They will not defend the services. They will not even take the time to help the veterans fight through the bureaucracy of veterans affairs to get the benefits that are coming to them. My office makes this its number one priority. Not only do we work for the veterans, we have had to organize a whole chapter of the Vietnam- era veterans in my district because they were being ignored and they were not being serviced. We think that that is the least that a Member of Congress can do, to service the veterans, to fight for them, to make sure that they get justice. And on this issue, this should be the highest priority of our veterans agenda.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume to close out the bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill is motherhood and apple pie. This is what public policy should be about, recognizing a need and moving to place in law some law that will indeed help those who really do need assistance to realize the American dream. This did not start today, did not start yesterday. We have a lot of legislators who have worked on this. Congresswoman Roukema is not here anymore. She worked on this, and I think we had it in the 2003 Omnibus bill. We did not get that at that time, but it has been revisited in this way by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), and again, there will be no opposition. Truly, this is motherhood and apple pie. Homeownership, there are so many people who are desirous of owning their homes, who work every day but cannot afford that downpayment. I am pleased that we spent time in committee thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and Democrats were able to improve this bill during the committee markup by offering several amendments that were adopted, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and even an amendment that I offered to require targeted outreach programs. My amendment requires participating jurisdictions to conduct outreach to people living in public housing, Section 8 housing and manufactured housing as part of their plan to access these dollars. That means we are taking care of inner city, we are taking care of suburbia and we are taking care of the rural areas. It is not just about public housing. It is about manufactured housing, also, and so we worked to make sure that the outreach that is done is comprehensive. This outreach will ensure more residents will have an opportunity to share in the American dream and break their dependence on public housing assistance. I am also pleased that the committee report on this bill includes report language clarifying that funds appropriated for this program should be new money and not be offset by a reduction in HOME block grants. Sometimes we come up with bills and we talk about the costs, but yet we do not appropriate new money. We reduce the money in some other pot, and we have language in this bill that will prevent that from happening. Mr. Speaker, owning a home also can provide a sense of security and contribute to safer, stronger neighborhoods. A financial and personal stake in a residence helps the residents to create a better neighborhood where families, children and all the elderly can thrive and enjoy a better quality of life. I am pleased to be a part of this committee. I am pleased to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left on this side?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1276, the American Dream Downpayment Act, a bill to assist low-income families in achieving homeownership by providing downpayment assistance under the HOME Investments Partnership Act. I would like to thank the chairman of our Subcommittee on Housing, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), for his leadership. I would like to thank him for his evenhandedness in the management of the committee that helps to bring us all together in support of legislation that makes good sense for all of the Members of this Congress. I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and tell her how fortunate she is as a new Member to have the support of her administration in seeing to it that she is able to have a bill that will truly do something for American families that we would all like to do. Normally, this bill would be thought of as a liberal bill. This is the kind of bill that the Democrats would normally roll out, if we were in power, because it is talking about spending money, it is talking about spending money for poor people who want to have homeownership, but cannot afford that downpayment. Downpayments are very tough. Many people who pay their bills regularly, who have never missed paying their utility bills, they pay their rent on time, they work every day, just cannot manage to come up with that 10 percent or 15 percent or whatever is being required in those markets for downpayments. And so that is why this bill is so important. It would create a new subtitle within the Home Investment Partnerships Act to authorize grant by formula to States and localities for the exclusive purpose of providing downpayment assistance to low- income first-time home buyers; families, that is, with 80 percent or lower of local median income, the formula to be established by HUD, based on a grantee's need for and prior commitment to assistance to home buyers. The bill authorizes $200 million in funding in each of the next 2 fiscal years. The administration projects that $200 million in funding would assist 40,000 low-income home buyers. The downpayment assistance authorized under this will be administered by the Home Investment Partnership Program that is referred to as HOME. HOME is an existing grant program that helps communities nationwide expand the supply of housing for low- and very low-income families. The House appropriated $125 million for this program in funding year 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill approved by the House earlier this summer. This is an increase from the $75 million appropriated in the funding year 2003 VA-HUD budget for the program contained in the omnibus appropriations bill for funding year 2003 passed in February of this year. Unfortunately, HUD is still writing regulations for this downpayment assistance program and has not yet released the funding year 2003 funding. According to HUD study, entitled Barriers to Minority Home Ownership, the overall home ownership rate is 68 percent, while home ownership rates for African Americans and Latinos are 48 and 46 percent, respectively. The HUD report established that one of the most persistent barriers to minority home ownership is the lack of capital for downpayment and closing costs. Without going into a lot more detail, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that this is a bill that will get support from both sides of the aisle. Democrats have been advocating for a long time for these kinds of expenditures to deal with the housing crisis in America, and so I expect that we will have unanimous support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I had not come to the floor prepared to say anything; except when I heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talking about the success of Iraqi Freedom, I just have to remind the Congress of the United States that we have been asked for $87 billion to continue this war that was a preemptive strike that most of us, or many of us, did not agree with. The fact of the matter is we are finding out every day that we have been misled, that we have been told stories that are not true. They have still not found the weapons of mass destruction, and now we are asked not only to support our soldiers, but we are now asked to rebuild Iraq. Most of us are certainly in support of our soldiers, and we are very upset that they have not had the equipment and the supplies and other kinds of things good planning would have caused any army to have. But most of us are not satisfied with the fact that we are asked to rebuild Iraq when, in fact, this administration told us that they were going to get the money from the oil wells, the oil wells that they secured when they first went in, to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq; $87 billion, not now.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding me this time. I know how hard he and others have worked on the bill, and I certainly know what they are attempting to do. I just feel as if I would be derelict in my duty if I did not speak to some of the issues that I have spent so many years working on. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) did not have to allow me this time, knowing that I oppose the bill, and I am extremely appreciative for that. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition both to the process that has brought this bill to the floor under suspension of the rules and to the substance of the underlying bill, H.R. 2086, the reauthorization bill for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the so-called Drug Czar's Office. Mr. Speaker, why is this bill before us today under suspension of the rules with only 20 minutes of debate for each side and no opportunity for Members to offer amendments? Is there anyone who truly believes that this bill could not be improved if we had a full and fair debate on the many issues raised by H.R. 2068 and if Members had the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill? The Director of the ONDCP manages a Federal drug control budget of almost $20 billion. The Federal drug control budget for the last 5 fiscal years alone was almost $100 billion. ONDCP is tasked with managing an enormous Federal drug control budget. What is the return on the investment? Where is the bang for our Federal dollars? Surely, something more than such cursory floor consideration is in order for these major issues. The war on drugs is a joke. It is ineffective, and it is a waste of taxpayers' money. This money should be spent on prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. During proceedings in the Committee on the Judiciary, I certainly tried to offer amendments to defund this program altogether. We need to start all over again. Mr. Speaker, the nationwide prison inmate population today is about 2.1 million people, over 160,000 of them in my State of California alone. Many of the inmates are serving time for drug offenses. Nationwide, more than 40 percent of the prison population consists of African American inmates. About 10 percent of the African American men in their mid to late 20s are behind bars. In some cities, more than 50 percent of young African American men are under the supervision of the criminal justice system. Given the role of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses in producing these statistics, we need to have a serious debate about the efficacy and soundness of the war on drugs and on mandatory minimum sentencing. Mr. Speaker, Americans need real help in diverting their children from drug use. Families need rehabilitation to save and unite families. This so-called war on drugs is merely a joke, and I believe that we can do better. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in a major speech this summer to the annual meeting of the American Bar Association on mandatory minimum sentencing, he said, ``Our resources are misspent.'' This is a Supreme Court Justice. ``Our punishments too severe, our sentences too long. The Federal sentencing guidelines should be revised downward. I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of Federal mandatory minimum sentencing. In too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unwise and unjust.'' These task forces go out into these poor communities and find some misguided kid with one gram of crack cocaine. They spend all this time locking them up, taking them to court, getting mandatory minimum sentencing where they spend 5 years or more under mandatory minimum sentencing. The judge has no discretion. It does not make any difference whether they have ever been in trouble before. It does not make any difference that their families are good, they are professionals. The child makes one mistake. They are not cracking the big drug czars. They are not getting the people who are really responsible for putting the drugs on the streets. They will lock up anybody that they can easy so that they can get some more drug task force money. I just had all the defendants here at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation weekend from Tulia, Texas, where they arrested 10 percent of all of the African American men in the town of Tulia, Texas, arrested them on the testimony of one lying guy, one man who was a part of the drug task force, the drug agent, Mr. Thomas Coleman, who is now, by the way, under indictment for his misconduct in Tulia. He just simply lied. And he went to the judge, no jury, they gave people sentences from anywhere from 4 or 5 years to 20 and 30 years. They had to take an army of pro bono lawyers from the big law firms and from the NAACP and from the ACLU to go out and get these sentences overturned. This is a joke, and it needs to be stopped.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think I made the case as clearly as it can be made. I was told by everybody that certain California laws after 1996 were protected. Now I find that they have been preempted. And I really do not think it is fair that I find myself here on the floor today having the laws of my State preempted and a manager's amendment that does not attempt to correct it. I suppose I believe that my ranking member is going to do everything he can, I guess working in conference somewhere, to try and give back the protections that we have in California. I have always maintained that the Federal standard should be the floor. If any State would like to protect its consumers more, who is the Federal Government to tell them they cannot do it? That is wrong. I do not buy the argument that it is inconvenient for some bank or financial institution to have to deal with California, because California has better consumer laws, and they would just rather be able to deal with them the same way that they deal with everybody else. I do not think it is fair, and I do not think we should use the powers of our government to do that. Let me just say this, that knowing that I was today that we were not preempted, and this does not have anything to do with SB1, I am talking about those laws that I referred to. Knowing that I was told that, I would expect my colleagues, who have worked pretty well on both sides of the aisle, to try and get a bill that everybody could support, that you would at least represent to me that you are going to try and undo the mistake. That you are going to try.

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

Ms. WATERS. Yes. That is the latter part. That is the latter part of this amendment. But the amendment that I am speaking to now is the one where I said consumer reporting agencies must disclose the names and addresses of all sources of information. California requires consumer reporting agencies to, with a reasonable degree of certainty, match at least three categories identifying information. I read a list of items that had been preempted that none of us thought had been preempted, and I am trying to carve out for California and put them back in.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)