Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his words of support. I do not think there would be any other information which would lead to opposition to the amendment, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his support and superb leadership on this committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, at the end of 20th century, the world community came together under the leadership of several of the world's most influential churches and created the Jubilee 2000 movement, a worldwide movement to cancel the debts of the world's poorest countries. The Jubilee 2000 movement included the Catholic Church, the Episcopalian Church, the World Council of Churches, Bread for the World, many other Christian, Jewish and other faith-based organizations. Student groups, HIV/AIDS activists, development specialists, business leaders and labor unions also joined this diverse movement. In 1999, Jubilee 2000 convinced the G-8 group of industrialized countries to develop the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, known as HIPC, a program to significantly reduce poor country's debt. In 2000, Jubilee 2000 convinced the United States Government as well as the governments of other G-8 countries to authorize this debt relief program and appropriate the funds to carry it out. Unfortunately, the Enhanced HIPC Initiative has failed to provide a lasting solution to poor country debts. At least 18 heavy indebted poor countries are still spending more money on debt payments than they are on health care. The goal of Jubilee 2000 was to completely cancel the debts of the world's poorest countries. We must do more to accomplish this goal. We must do more to proclaim Jubilee for the poorest of the poor. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 643, the Debt Cancellation for the New Millennium Act. This bill would urge the President to negotiate with the IMF and the World Bank to completely cancel 100 percent of the debts of the world's most impoverished countries who owe these institutions and give these countries a fresh start in the new millennium. This bill has 45 cosponsors. H.R. 1298, the Global AIDS bill, included a debt relief provision, Title V, urging the administration to advocate deeper debt relief within the Enhanced HIPC Initiative. Title V states that the Secretary of the Treasury should immediately commence efforts with the IMF, the World Bank and other creditor countries to modify the Enhanced HIPC Initiative to reduce poor countries' debts to ensure that poor countries are not required to spend more than 10 percent of their annual current revenues on debt payments. For poor countries facing a public health crisis as a result of HIV/AIDS, the limit would be 5 percent. The Global AIDS bill was signed into law by the President on May 27, 2003, and is now Public Law 108-025. Title V of the Global AIDS bill, which was added in the Senate by amendment and subsequently approved by the House, reflected provisions in H.R. 1376, a bipartisan debt relief bill introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Maloney). H.R. 1376 would have required the Secretary of the Treasury to submit reports to Congress describing the efforts and progress made in negotiating improvements to the Enhanced HIPC Initiative. Unfortunately, Title V of the Global AIDS bill does not require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the administration's effort. My amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the progress made in modifying the Enhanced HIPC Initiative as called for in Title V. This simple reporting requirement would enable Congress to monitor the administration's effort to achieve deeper debt relief for poor countries. A reporting requirement also could provide an incentive for multilateral development institutions and other creditor countries to support proposals for deeper debt relief. Deeper debt relief for the world's heavily indebted poor countries will remove a major obstacle to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention, poverty reduction and economic growth. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Miller Amendment. Since this Administration has taken office, over 3 million people have lost their jobs; the unemployment rate is at its highest levels in 9 years. Yet to add insult to injury, the Administration is now proposing a regulation that would cut overtime wages to as many as 8 million Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey/Miller amendment which would prohibit the Department of Labor from using funds to carry out this appalling regulation. Too many Americans depend on overtime pay in order to make ends meet. We must not take it away from them. This Administration has no shame. They continue to push their ``Big Business/Special Interest'' agenda at the expense of the working Americans that make this country great. Perhaps this helps explain why this bill is lacking adequate funding for so many programs that Americans depend on. The Chairman and Ranking Member have worked to craft the best bill possible with the terrible cards they were dealt by the unfair and irresponsible Republican Budget Resolution. But the truth of the matter is, the President and the Republican leadership have decided that tax cuts for the few are more important than programs for the many. They decided that to provide an average of $88,000 in tax cuts for those earning $1 million or more is more important than increasing enrollment in Head Start, increasing Pell Grants, fighting the AIDS virus, funding medical research adequately or a host of other important programs. Time will not permit me to discuss all of the many problems with this bill, such as the inadequate funding for the NIH and for the Social Security Administration to process claims from retirees, so I'll just focus my comments on one problem: the immoral neglect of the Head Start program. Mr. Chairman, additional funding for Head Start should be a ``no- brainer. There are few, if any, programs that have the success rate of Head Start. Government reports, early childhood experts, teachers and most important families all recognize the magnificent results Head Start has produced. There are many keys to the program's success; from the small child staff ratios, to the nutritious meals the children receive each day, or the doctor visits that each child is afforded. However, one of the most important factors in Head Start's success is the way that the child's parents are included in the educational process. We all know that parents are children's most important teachers and involving parents in their children's education is strongly related to children's achievement in school. Head Start capitalizes on that relationship. The only thing that is holding the Head Start program back today is the lack of funding. Today, only 60 percent of eligible students are able to enroll in Head Start; only 4 percent of eligible Early Head Start and 19 percent of the eligible Migrant and Seasonal Head Start of children are enrolled. This is much too low. Thousands of children are waiting on the sidelines, waiting to benefit from Head Start. We should make every effort to allow these children to enroll. Yet, look at how this bill treats Head Start. The President asked for an increase for Head Start of only $140 million. This bill provides a $148 million increase. Mr. Chairman, the $148 million increase is not even enough to keep pace with inflation. It certainly is not enough to sign up new children in the program. Nor, will this paltry increase enable Head Start to ensure that its teachers and volunteers are properly trained. Mr. Chairman, in today's economy, education is the key to success. The sooner that we get children excited about learning the better off they will be. Head Start has an exceptional track record of success in getting children excited about learning. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Head Start. It works. We must provide the funding that it deserves and needs to extend its benefit to all eligible children. We can and must do better than this inadequate bill. I urge my colleagues, for the sake of our children, our families, our seniors, our working people, to vote yes on the Obey/Miller amendment to protect workers' overtime pay and then vote no on this bad bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to discuss one of the best programs in America, a program that is 38 years old and has served the children of America extremely well. This program has been commended, lauded and talked about by Presidents Clinton and Bush, Sr., and even President Ronald Reagan commended the Head Start program. This program has never served all of the children who need this program. As a matter of fact, we only serve about 60 percent, I believe, of the children who need the Head Start program. We find this diverse program in various communities around the country. We find it in the inner cities, in suburban areas, and even in rural communities. And for those communities who are fortunate enough to have the Head Start program, we hear nothing but praises from the parents, from the people who work in the program, from community leaders and elected officials. Head Start was instituted under the War on Poverty some 38 years ago because the educators and researchers discovered that to the degree that we are able to provide young children with a Head Start experience, they will be better prepared for kindergarten and for education. When they started this program, preschool was only available to the upper middle class, for the most part. Certainly poor people could not afford to give their children a preschool experience, nor could working parents really afford to do that. So little children who did not have access to preschool programs did not have the opportunity to take trips to the zoo. As a matter of fact, they did not have opportunities to take trips to farms. They did not have opportunities to take a ride on a train. They found that most of the children, particularly in poor communities, had never been 20 miles away from home. So Head Start came into being under the War on Poverty, and what a wonderful program it has been. This program was developed a little bit differently than regular education. It was decided that Head Start would address the whole child and the family and the community. In Head Start, children get a physical examination. In Head Start, children get nutrition. They get breakfast, and they are served lunch. In Head Start, not only do children have physical examinations, receive proper nutrition, but one of the most important components of Head Start is the parental involvement component of Head Start. I know about this program, because 38 years ago I had the great opportunity to work with the Head Start program. I started with Head Start at its inception, and I started as an assistant teacher in the classroom, working with the children. But I soon learned that I really wanted to work with the parents, and I eventually became the Supervisor of Parent Involvement and Volunteer Services. I had the opportunity to welcome parents to the Head Start site. I had the opportunity to get parents involved with the inspection of the program, in helping determine the budget of the program, in helping to give input to the teachers. Parents soon learned that they really did have a lot to give. Many parents who thought, because they were not educated, that they could not be of assistance to their children, but they soon learned that they could determine their children's educational destiny. What a wonderful experience it was, seeing parents getting more involved with their children, and children becoming alive. We found children with learning disabilities, learning disabilities that never would have been detected had they not come to Head Start. We found that there were children who did not see well, whose parents would never have had the money for eye examinations and who received corrections. We discovered that there were children with emotional and mental difficulties, and, for the first time, they had access to psychological and psychiatric help if it was needed. Now we are at a point in time where this administration wants to change Head Start. Some of our Members are saying if it is not broke, do not fix it. That is absolutely true. Why do we have this administration now wanting to take our precious Head Start program and block grant it to the States? They are simply saying we want to get the Federal Government out of the business of running Head Start programs. What they are saying is we want to dump it into the laps of the States. Please do not send it to California. We have a $38 billion deficit. If this administration block grants Head Start to California with no mandates, I will tell Members what will happen to Head Start. They are going to siphon off the money to help pay the bills. As we look around the country, we are finding that many of our States are in great difficulty. This administration is not only talking about block granting Head Start, but also section 8 housing programs, everything they can get their hands on, divesting itself of the running of programs that are so vital to this country. I do not want this administration to make the mistake of dismantling this program. Mr. Speaker, all I can say in closing is we have to fight to keep Head Start. We have to make sure that this program is available to the children, not cut back, not block granted, but expanded so more children will have the opportunity for this wonderful experience.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his leadership, for his years of commitment to the continent and for the constant effort that he puts forward in this Congress to draw attention to Africa and to try and negotiate funding to help not only this administration but past administrations understand the role we could truly play in helping Africa to become the continent that it could truly become. Now, Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the world are on Africa. Clearly everyone is watching because the President of the United States is visiting five countries in Africa. We are pleased that the President of the United States has decided to go to Africa. As a matter of fact, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus truly believe that there will never be another President, no matter Democrat or Republican, who can avoid Africa. We are very pleased about the leadership that Bill Clinton provided, and we are proud that this President is following in his footsteps. We are in a state of confusion about this President and his policies toward Africa. While he is visiting five countries in Africa at this time, it was just a short while ago right prior to his election in a debate that I believe he said something to the effect that we have no strategic interest in Africa and, no, I would not have intervened in the genocide that took place up in the Congo there with the Tutsis and the Hutus. And so we are perplexed by this visit, that comment; but we are pleased also that we have moved this government to the point where this President came forward with significant funding for HIV and AIDS in Africa, and we hope that it gets into the budget and that that funding will become a reality. We are perplexed by the recent revelations that, in fact, the President made an announcement in his State of the Union that a country in Africa had supplied Saddam Hussein with materials for biological warfare. We now know that that is not true, that that statement was not based in fact. And while we are pleased that the President is providing some funding for HIV and AIDS in Africa, we are perplexed by the statements and the accusation of the President about a country in Africa supplying Saddam Hussein with dangerous materials, materials for biological warfare, and we expect the President to explain that to us. The President is visiting South Africa, but the fact of the matter is we do not have, as one of the countries in Africa, we do not have an Africa policy. We do not know where the President is going with all of this. Today he gave a stirring speech from Goree. He went to Dakar, to Goree Island where he said he understood what had happened at Goree Island. He understood that slaves had been sold there, that they had been beaten there. They had been housed and stored and stacked like animals there, and that they had gone through the door of no return where many of them were simply just dumped into the ocean because they were sick or too weak to be sold into slavery from that point. We listened and most of us read very carefully the words in that speech. But we are wondering as we stand here whether the President truly understands that we are the descendents of those slaves that he talked about. We wonder if the President really understands the connection between our work and our history. We wonder if the President of the United States truly has an appreciation for what we have been trying to do for so many years. Most of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been working on the problems of Africa for years. Long before I came to the Congress of the United States, I was involved, as were others, in trying to dismantle the unconscionable apartheid regime of South Africa. We worked to free Nelson Mandela. There are those who are wondering why Nelson Mandela may not be meeting with the President on this trip. The President certainly needs to get to know Nelson Mandela and understand who he is and where he came from. He needs to understand the struggle that Nelson Mandela was involved in. But he needs to understand why we work so hard to dismantle apartheid in South Africa. He needs to understand why we urge this country not to support Mobutu, not to have a puppet up in the Congo that would dance to the music of the United States and kill his own people. We tried to get the Presidents in the past to understand why we were opposed to Savimbi that was supported by Reagan and others who were up in the bush causing displacement in Angola. We tried to get them to understand. We visited these places. We have been to Dakar. We have been to Benin. We have been to Botswana. We have been in Zimbabwe and Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda and many countries in Africa. We understand. The President of the United States needs to talk to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. We are pleased that he is now paying attention to Liberia, and we believe that Charles Taylor needs to be dealt with. We do not know if the President is dealing with him in the proper way. And the President does not know whether or not he is dealing with him in the proper way, but he ought to talk with us. Should he be working out an agreement with Obasanjo of Nigeria to give him asylum? There is a warrant out for Charles Taylor's arrest. He is responsible for working with RUF and the chopping off of the limbs of the people of Sierra Leone and other places. He is responsible for children being soldiers in the war. He is responsible for the rape and the pillage of many people. Should he not have to stand before the bar of justice in the U.N.-supported and -backed court that has a warrant out? Should he be allowed to have asylum and just go off up into Nigeria somewhere with the billions of dollars that he has stolen, the wealth he has reaped from the blood diamonds that came out of Sierra Leone? The President of the United States needs to talk to the Congressional Black Caucus because we understand the complications, and we understand what has been taking place in many of these spots. We would like to engage him on the future of Liberia and what should happen with Charles Taylor. We would like to help this President to build a real policy for the continent of Africa. Mr. Speaker, we have been working on HIV/AIDS, and we are glad that the President has gotten involved in it and we will continue to do this work. We have got a long way to go. I have been involved for years in working on debt relief for Africa. Africa needs assistance in many ways, but Africa is rich in resources and talent that needs to be developed by people who have Africa's best interest at heart. Africa has been exploited, not only in many ways by our own government, by other governments and other countries. Everybody comes to Africa to get a little bit of gold and a little bit of diamonds. Everybody comes for the rich resources of Africa without real thought and planning and work for the development of Africa and the utilization of those resources for the benefit of the people. We can do better. If this President is not simply reading a speech written for him by others in a photo opportunity, talking about that which he may not really understand, if he really wants to understand what is going on, the President of the United States needs to talk to the members of the Black Caucus. It seems to me that if the President can go to five African countries and talk to Africans about what is going on in Africa, he ought to be able to talk about the descendents who are here in the United States, who are just a few blocks away from him that he refuses to meet with. Yes, some of us are concerned about why the President has not engaged us in any discussion. I do not believe that the President would travel to Israel, would take actions on Israel without speaking with the Jewish Members of the Congress of the United States of America. We need to talk with the President not only about what he is doing in Liberia, but about the future of that continent and about the possibility, about the importance, yes, there is oil, and, yes, there should be the kind of trade relationships that would help us to benefit from some of those natural resources and oil so that we are not dependent just on one section of the world. But this will never happen unless we go to the continent with good intentions, not unless we are all engaged as a family working in the best interest of our country. I am not happy about the fact that the President took this as an opportunity to say simply, Mr. Charles Taylor, I want you out of Liberia within so many hours. That is not the way to handle this. We do not want to simply see American soldiers deployed there. This should be an international effort. But there should be international peacekeeping efforts not only in Liberia but in Iraq and other places because we do have to be concerned about stretching ourselves too far and too thin. We do have to be concerned about protecting our soldiers wherever they are. We want to help. We want to help frame and shape how that help should be given. With that, I know that there will be those who will say perhaps there should be no challenging of the President at this point, no criticism of the President at this point while he is traveling in Africa. If the President wants to talk about Africa, now is the time for us all to do it. We have been working too long and too hard to get this debate on Africa. We have fought and worked. We have tried to leverage and do everything within our power to get Africa on this President's agenda. Now perhaps we can do it, and we welcome the opportunity. Mr. President, we are waiting for you.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a sham Republican prescription bill because elderly women are dying from preventable diseases. This is nothing more than a false sense of security.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, last night we debated the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Republicans made excuses about not spending enough money to truly secure our homeland. Tonight, the Republicans are crying broke and claiming we do not have enough money to fund credible prescription drug coverage for our seniors. This bill provides no coverage when a senior's prescription drug costs are between $2,000 and $4,900 per year. This huge coverage gap affects 47 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is also a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices. The primary beneficiaries of this bill are not the beneficiaries of Medicare. They are the wealthy special interests and the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry that give huge campaign contributions to the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have given huge tax cuts to the wealthy, promised the Iraqis a universal health care plan. They are spending millions attempting to buy the loyalty of warlords in Afghanistan, and the President just gave Musharraf $3 billion. Seniors, call your Republican Members and ask them why they do not take care of the seniors of this country.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this Medicare privatization plan, which is masquerading as a prescription drug bill. This bill would force seniors who want prescription drug coverage to get it from private insurance companies. It provides no guarantee that insurance plans will be available, and when they are, premiums and benefits will vary widely. The bill also provides no coverage when a senior's prescription drug costs are between $2,000 and $4,900 per year. This huge coverage gap affects 47 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is also a give-away to pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices. The primary beneficiaries of this bill are not the beneficiaries of Medicare. They are the wealthy special interests in the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry that give campaign contributions to Republicans. However, the most outrageous aspect of this bill is what it does to traditional Medicare. The bill would increase seniors' cost for visits to the doctor's office by raising the Medicare Part B deductible and indexing it for inflation. This could cost American seniors an estimated $8 billion. While this may seem like a tiny fraction of the Republicans' $350 billion tax-cut-for-the-rich, it is a huge expense for senior citizens, many of whom live on limited incomes. This bill also divides Medicare into 10 or more regional plans in 2006 and then converts the entire Medicare program into a voucher program depending upon private insurance companies in 2010. If the Republicans really want to privatize Medicare, they should be honest with the American people and call this plan what it is, the Medicare Privatization Act. The Democrats alternative prescription drug plan on the other hand provides prescription drug coverage under Medicare with guaranteed and affordable premiums and benefits for all American seniors and no gaps in coverage. It is time for Congress to make prescription drugs available to all seniors who need them. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican Medicare Privatization Act and support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask that the Bush administration provide the American people with a full account of the events leading up to the war with Iraq. The amendment sponsored by Representative Kucinich is a good starting point but there is still much that we do not know about the basis of our war with Iraq. Since August of last year, when the administration began beating the war drum, they have offered little concrete evidence backing up their claims that Iraq posed an ``imminent threat'' to the United States. The rhetoric employed by the administration was strong and unwavering: On September 12, 2002, the President told the UN: ``Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons . . . . Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'' On October 7, 2002, the President said: ``It [Iraq] possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.'' The Vice President said earlier this year on ``Meet The Press'' that: ``we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' And the Secretary of Defense joined in saying: ``We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.'' Yet, despite this certainty, 3 months after the fall of Baghdad, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found. Nor have the facilities to make these weapons been found. The administration has tried to capitalize on our fears born out of the September 11th terrorist attacks, suggesting there was a link between Saddam Hussein and leaders of al Qaeda. Even though this connection has been disproved consistently, the President still cites it as fact. And today, we learned that at least one member of the intelligence community felt pressured to shape his reports to fit the administration's position on weapons of mass destruction even though he had no evidence to support those claims. Congress must work to ensure that the information that comes out of the intelligence community is reliable and is not unduly influenced by anyone. This is not a partisan issue. This is about restoring the credibility of the United States both with our constituents and throughout the world. The President has said that he is confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found; the evidence is strong he says. I encourage him to shine the light of day on the evidence so that the world can understand why the United States went to war--unprovoked--and put the lives of thousands in danger.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment had been accepted, there would be no need for my amendment. His amendment did what I think needed to be done in order to make our Homeland Security Department real. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment would have shored up what we say we want to do by appropriating $1 billion to improve aviation security, maritime security, infrastructure security, and border security and port security. Now, it seems to me if this administration was serious about homeland security, we would not hear these weak arguments that we are hearing on the floor tonight. It is absolutely amazing that the people on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can get up and defend against needing more money to make our homeland secure. It is really not to be understood how they can defend contracts going to foreign companies when we have Members on this floor begging for the opportunity to have these contracts in their districts to do something about this unemployment that was created by this administration. Mr. Chairman, the day is over for flashlights and duct tape and plastic material. This is about some serious business. Some of us really do take this seriously. We want to fight terrorism. We want to spend the money on it. We want to have real homeland security, and I am absolutely amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not understand that. I come because I have got a problem in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles International Airport, which is located in my congressional district, is the third largest airport in the United States with a capacity to serve 78 million air passengers per year. On July 2, 2002, Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn proposed a plan to expand LAX by constructing a remote passenger check-in facility. The mayor estimated that this project would cost 9 to $10 billion. The environmental impact report on this project is due to be released in the near future. Supporters of this proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the safety and security of LAX and prevent terrorist attacks at LAX. However, it is even more likely that the concentration of passengers in a remote passenger check-in facility could actually reduce the safety and security of LAX. The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed remote passenger check-in facility, which was released on May 14, 2003. The study concluded that the proposed project would not improve the security of LAX. The study also concluded that concentrating passengers in the proposed remote passenger check-in facility would make the check-in facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The study even suggested that concentrating passengers in the remote passenger check-in facility could exacerbate the effects of an attack on airport operations. The Rand study did conclude that limiting the capacity of the airport could reduce the overall vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks. However, this could be accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing capacity, with no additional airport construction projects. My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in facility at LAX to determine whether the project will protect the safety of air passengers and the general public. The Secretary will be required to transmit to Congress and the Federal Aviation Administration a report containing the results of the review. Mr. Chairman, I am simply saying homeland security, look at this, review it, give us an assessment. If we are about the business of securing the homeland, this is a very simple request. If, in fact, my airport, which is already identified as one of the highest security risks in the United States, is attacked because we are concentrating passengers, I have been to the Committee on Rules twice. I am on this floor, and if I cannot get support for a simple review to talk about whether or not this would be safe, then something's wrong with those who purport to want homeland security. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to say that again the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) amendment should have been accepted because this amendment will ensure that we have a real emphasis on homeland security in fighting this terrorism. Without it, we are just joking; we are playing games. We do not really mean that we want to support terrorism. Point of Order

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my dear friend who passed this morning, Maynard Jackson. Maynard Jackson was a dear and treasured friend. He was a man that I worked very closely with. He was a man that I had the greatest respect for. I held him in high esteem because he was a learned individual who loved politics and who loved public policy, and demonstrated his ability to lead. As my colleagues know, Maynard Jackson was a young man that graduated from Morehouse College when he was but 18 years old. He went on to get his law degree, and he was inspired by the death of Martin Luther King to enter politics, and enter politics he did. He first ran against Mr. Talmadge, Herman Talmadge, and he lost that race. But he proved that there was a need for a new direction. He won the votes in Atlanta. He did that when outside of Atlanta, as a matter of fact, he lost by 3 to 1. But that really did launch his political career. Maynard Jackson went on to serve as Mayor for 3 terms in Atlanta. I loved Maynard Jackson because he was a man of impeccable integrity. Not only did he provide a new kind of leadership for Atlanta, he opened up opportunities for African Americans and people of color. When Maynard Jackson, the first African American mayor to be elected in Atlanta, took office, African Americans were not really a part of the business community, and he actually alienated some of the white business community, because he insisted on opening up these opportunities. When I look at the airport there, I know the stories about how Maynard Jackson helped to implement affirmative action, and when we see some of the concessions that are there, they are there because Maynard Jackson led the way for much of that to take place. Maynard Jackson loved the Democratic Party, and he served on the Democratic National Committee for many years. And as many folks know and understand, I encouraged him to run at our last winter meeting to be head of the DNC. Even though he started late, we created a conversation and discussion about what kind of leadership we needed for the DNC. Maynard Jackson certainly did not win that election. As a matter of fact, he bowed out and he supported Terry McAullife. The debate that we created had to do with the direction of the party. Where are we going? Where is this party going? Maynard had a plan: the southern strategy plan. Maynard knew and understood that unless we increased the turnout and understand the importance of the South to the Democratic Party, then we could not win, and we will not win. When we were in our struggle for Maynard to lead the Democratic National Committee, we finally agreed that Maynard would take over a new position that we created in the Democratic Party called the National Development Commission, of which he would be chairman. Under that, he would have the Voting Rights Institute. And Maynard set about with that designation to increase the awareness about what was wrong with the voting systems in this country. We had just come out of Florida where votes had been stolen, where people had been turned away from the polls, where folks were identified as felons and put on lists who had never been to jail, and Maynard was convinced that we had to clean that up. And he begged the DNC to take this as their number one issue and their number one priority. Maynard identified people who were to serve with him as he tried to carry out his vision of this Voting Rights Institute. But, for whatever reasons, it did not happen. Maynard called me and he said, I am going to resign the position. I do not think that it is going to happen in the way that we thought it would happen. And I consider that one of the greatest losses for the Democratic Party. Maynard went on back to Atlanta, to Jackson Securities, a company that he had founded where he did tremendously well. He was a fine businessman, and he worked well with so many elected officials around this country in order to achieve the kind of success that he was able to achieve in the bond business. I am going to miss Maynard. He was a dear and close friend, and the Democratic Party and all of us who wish to see this party go in a new direction, understanding the significance of the South, are going to miss him, and unless his thoughts and his ideas are accepted by this party we are going to continue to lose.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect for and in support of this resolution. Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful organization, with 1,655 affiliates in all 50 States. Habitat for Humanity has built nearly 150,000 houses worldwide, and it has an ambitious goal of building another 50,000 homes by 2005. So I certainly support their efforts, and I am pleased the House and Senate staff and Members will join Habitat for Humanity in building a couple of homes right here in Washington, D.C. Yet, even as I congratulate Habitat for Humanity for all of its work, I believe that all of us need to take a broader look at the issues of affordable housing and housing policy generally. We are falling very short of where we need to be in order to make the goal of affordable housing a goal that is obtainable for all Americans. Much more work needs to be done. The unfortunate reality is that the Bush administration's homeownership record is one of feel-good rhetoric and photo opportunities, not one of substance. When it comes to creating affordable housing and helping to revitalize sustainable community development, the Bush administration is simply missing in action. Only 47.1 percent of African American and Latino communities respectively are homeowners. Where is the administration's plan to improve percentages to those of other populations? We need to put a stop to predatory lending to vulnerable consumers. Where is the administration's plan to eliminate predatory lending to consumers who are new to the homeownership process? As Members know, predatory lending is the making of unethical and abusive mortgage loans that include excessive fees, inflated rates and such practices as making loans that the borrower cannot repay. The predatory lending industry has grown significantly over the past 10 years. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect homeowners who are subject to predatory practices. Predatory lending affects borrowers of all races and income levels, but such lenders often target elderly homeowners and people of color. For example, borrowers 65 and older are 3 times more likely to hold subprime mortgages than borrowers 35 years of age. Simply put, when it comes to housing, there is much more we need to be doing than just commending Habitat for Humanity for building some housing. For example, we need to adopt legislation that ensures that consumers will pay no penalties when prepaying all or part of a mortgage credit loan balance. We should be working to ensure that there is no financing of credit, life, disability or unemployment insurance on a single premium basis. We also need to protect anyone from knowingly engaging in the practice of flipping a mortgage loan or extension of credit. We also need policies and practices that will nullify any mortgage or loan contract that does not contain all the written terms of the contract or has blank spaces for such terms to be filled in after the contract is signed. Mr. Speaker, increasing the supply of affordable housing, protecting consumers from predatory lending and predatory mortgage servicing. This is the housing agenda we need to be pursuing. I urge the Bush administration to join us in this effort. I commend Habitat for Humanity for its tremendous work and urge all my Colleagues to support this Resolution.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The so-called Class Action Fairness Act has nothing to do with fairness. This corporate defendants' ``Choice of Forum Act'' is a one- sided, unfair gift to the polluters, the Enrons, and the pharmaceutical companies that will hurt consumers by delaying their access to justice. It will indefinitely delay hearings for people who may be victims of defective products, fraud, discrimination, and environmental pollution. Mr. Chairman, this class action bill was a terrible bill when the House passed it in the last Congress; and fortunately, that bill died in the other body. Incredibly, H.R. 1115, this year's iteration of the bill, is even worse, as it now contains retroactivity language that will allow some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen, to remove cases filed against them in State court to the Federal courts where their attorneys can use the huge civil case backlogs in our Federal court system to just ``slow-walk'' the victims of their misconduct. The bill provides an automatic right of an interlocutory appeal of a class action certification, slow walk, and a stay on all discovery while the class certification appeal is pending. Slow walk. This unwise, ill-conceived intrusion on the jurisdiction of the State courts will destroy access to justice while overwhelmingly increasing the burdens on our Federal courts. That is why this bill is opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Conference of Chief Justices. It is also strenuously opposed by every Democratic member of the caucus who has served as a trial judge at either the State or Federal level. It is even opposed by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Finally, the bill will destroy the efficacy of private attorney general actions that consumers may now bring in the State of California to combat corporate fraud and wrongdoing. No one is better situated than the people of California to protect their rights as consumers under California law. That is why we should not support any bill that would allow corporate defendants to remove these cases to Federal court where they can avoid having to answer to those State court judges with real expertise and the greatest knowledge of California law. I strongly support the amendment that the gentlewomen from California (Ms. Lofgren) and (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) will offer to strike the language permitting California private attorney general actions to be removed to Federal court. Mr. Chairman, this bill will injure consumers and assist those corporate defendants who simply want to game the system. We can protect consumers from any perceived abuses in coupon settlements without adopting this assault on consumer access to full, fair, and timely justice. I urge my colleagues to reject this latest Republican miscarriage of justice. I urge my colleagues, just simply oppose this bad bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for that brilliant presentation on Head Start, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for this important discussion on the floor, the esteemed chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. In closing, Mr. Speaker, you have heard brilliant presentations, comprehensive presentations from the members of the Congressional Black Caucus here this evening who have identified the value of Head Start: the fact that Head Start provides nutrition, the fact that it provides physical examinations, the fact that it prepares young people for education, the fact that it involves parents and gets them involved in helping to determine the educational destiny of their children, the fact that Head Start gets communities involved. Mr. Speaker, this cannot be taken lightly. Head Start is indeed a successful program that has been in this country now for 38 years. Many children and families have benefited from this program, children from all over America, from communities all over this country. We value Head Start, and we appreciate all of those who had the vision to bring this valuable program to this Nation. Again, we think that this program should not be tampered with. There is no reason to want to block grant this program. We would like to think that it is just a misunderstanding, that this administration really does not understand the risk that they are creating by tampering with this program and block granting it to the States. Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, in addition to not having the requirements to go along with block grants, the one thing that strikes me as extremely detrimental to this program is the fact that nowhere in this block granting does it require that the parental involvement component remain with Head Start. Many of us wax eloquently about parent involvement and family values and what it means for parents to be involved with their children and their education, but yet we see an attempt to change a program that has a strong component of parental involvement, an attempt to dismantle a program that has worked. Mr. Speaker, Head Start will be reauthorized this year. It will not have all of the money that it needs. It will only have a small increase. There will still be children waiting to get into Head Start. But one way or the other, I know that this program is going to be reauthorized. I hope that it is done in the traditional, bipartisan fashion in which our children are not left behind. However, H.R. 2210 suggests that we are off to a very bad start. It would be a tragedy if the Republican leadership chooses to try and force this bad bill through for partisan political purposes. We can and must do better than H.R. 2210. I urge the Republican leadership to heed the will of the American people and produce a bipartisan bill that both sides of the aisle can support. Millions of lives depend on Head Start, and we cannot afford to let them down. This Congress has been criticized, Members on the opposite side of the aisle, who somehow cut out the poorest and most vulnerable families from the tax bill. We cannot afford to continue to have the kind of criticism and distrust that is mounting of this Congress over what appears to be an assault on families and children. We have the issue of the child tax credit before us. It is shameful what has been done. I do not think that all of the Republicans on the other side of the aisle support what has been done. I do not think that they believe in what some of the leadership is saying about poor people not deserving to have this tax break. I believe that there are those on the other side of the aisle that will join with us on this side of the aisle and put an end to this attempt to undermine our Head Start program. Mr. Speaker, I am so blessed, and I feel so blessed, to be able to be here tonight to speak on behalf of the children and to stand up for Head Start. I feel so blessed to have been a part of Head Start and to have learned what it means to invest in our children. I feel so blessed to have learned that we can indeed make our children successful in their education experience. Many of those children who are being left behind are being left behind because they do not have the value of an early childhood education. I am delighted to have been a part of this evening.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her longtime concern and actions on behalf of children. I thank her for taking time out of her schedule to be here this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Ms. WATERS. I would certainly think so. Again, we talk a lot about education being our number one priority, about children being our number one priority. But there are some States that are not putting the money where their mouths are, and we are not giving the children of this Nation the kind of support that certainly a rich Nation such as ours should be giving. I think this is a prime example of what we are talking about this evening, the Head Start Program. It is underfunded, children on waiting list, only a 2 percent increase; and it is a proven program of success that not only helps to prepare our kids for kindergarten and for school, but it also helps to make parents stronger in their support for their children. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct; that money could be used for educational purposes.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), an educator with a background in education, to make her presentation.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman for her presentation this evening, not only on Head Start but the discussion about the child tax credit and helping to unveil what is really going on in this administration. The question that you raise is one that I am sure many of our colleagues would like to respond to this evening, and if they were here, they would tell you that many folks worked very hard to get some assistance to the States because many of the States are in deficit positions. They are cutting programs. They are cutting health and education. They are cutting the school week in some States. In 2003 in the United States of America, the school week has been cut down from 5 days to 4 days. Members of this Congress are shocked on both sides of the aisle about the kind of cutbacks and the deficits that we have in the States. That money is not meant to be banked. It is meant to offset the debt and the cuts that are being experienced by these States, and certainly though we did not support that tax bill for good reasons, that part of that bill that sends the money to the States is a part that many of us do support because we want to make sure that we do not have these hardships experienced by our constituents because of cutbacks.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his passionate plea to our colleagues not to allow this program to be dismantled, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, which does not allow consideration of several Democratic amendments. I submitted two amendments regarding Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which is in my district, and neither was made in order. The operator of LAX is proposing a major expansion project that would include the construction of a remote passenger check-in facility that would force all passengers to check-in and leave their baggage in the same location. This project could cost an estimated $9 to $10 billion. Supporters of this controversial project claim that it is necessary to protect public safety. Yet a RAND Corporation study concluded that this project will not improve public safety and could increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack by concentrating large number of people at the check-in facility. I submitted an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the proposed remote passenger check-in facility and determine whether it would, in fact, protect public safety. My amendment would have prohibited the construction of this project unless the Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that it would protect the safety of air passengers and the general public. I also submitted an amendment to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted on dubious LAX expansion projects like this one. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and allow me to offer my amendments to protect the American people from both threats to public safety and unnecessary and expansion airport construction projects.