Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am so proud of Democrats this evening. They have taken this evening to come to the floor to speak up for this Nation's veterans. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am joined here on the floor of the House of Representatives by my colleagues to simply bring to the attention of the President of the United States and to our Republican colleagues the mistakes they are making in the way they are mistreating our Nation's veterans in the 2004 budget that passed our House in the wee hours of the morning last Friday. The irony of the President of the United States leading the deep and harmful cuts in this budget while we are in the middle of a war in the Persian Gulf, with our brave men and women in harm's way, is more than any American can understand. The veterans of this country are honored in ceremonies on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and at conventions, dinners, receptions and on and on and on, but when it comes to putting our money where our mouths are, increasingly we are abandoning our veterans and not taking care of their needs, as we promise them when we recruit them and when we benefit from their services. God willing, these young men and women fighting in Iraq will some day be veterans. They are going to have medical needs, housing needs; and we will need to pay for special programs and services to attend to the problems that they will have created by their service to this country. How then can we in good conscience turn our backs on these young men and women by cutting their budgets? We should be happy to provide services for our veterans. The President of the United States will probably try and tell the American public that we really cannot afford to take care of our veterans, but how can the President explain to our veterans why he insisted on a $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001 and has come back to Congress with a demand for $675 billion in new tax cuts, tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people in our society? Madam Speaker, it does not take a Harvard scholar to know we cannot keep cutting and cutting and cutting our income and pay for our basic services and have money for a rainy day. This President is simply mismanaging this country. We are now in deficit. The economy is failing. Our President and the members of his party have failed to come up with a stimulus package, and we have placed our Social Security system in jeopardy. Education is underfunded, and millions of Americans have no health care. But one of the most unconscionable consequences of the Republican budget is the deep and devastating cuts to our veterans. Let me just give my colleagues an example of how devastating it is. The Republican budget cuts $25 billion from veterans programs at a time when the Department of Veterans Affairs is already severely underfunded. The 2004 House budget has reduced funding for veterans health care by $844 million below the President's inadequate recommendation for next year. Over 10 years these programs will be cut by $9.7 billion. The House budget cuts $463 million from benefit programs such as disability compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation, education and survivors benefits this year. Over the next 10 years, these programs will be cut by $15 billion. These cuts will likely result in the loss of 9,000 VA physicians and 19,000 nurses. It could also result in the loss of 5,000 nursing home beds for veterans. Madam Speaker, I am so proud this evening to be a Democrat because my party developed our own budget, and we tried to convince our Republican colleagues not to make the deep cuts that they are making. The Democratic budget took a much more responsible approach to our Nation's heroes. Unlike the Republican budget, the Democratic budget does not include any cuts to veterans benefits over the next 10 years. In fact, it provides much-needed increases. It provides for more health care than the President's budget and the House Republican budget in each of the next 10 years. The Democratic plan provides $216 million next year for veterans health programs, including medical research and construction. It increases funding for these programs by $2 billion over the next 10 years, and it fully funds compensation for service-connected disabilities, burial benefits, means-tested pensions for permanently disabled low-income veterans, Montgomery GI Bill education benefits, rehabilitation benefits and housing loan programs. In conclusion, the Democratic budget is an important and responsible budget that truly respects the sacrifices our veterans have made for our country. This evening I call on the President and my Republican colleagues to stop the empty rhetoric and support our veterans before we finally resolve the differences in the budget and come up with a budget that is going to be signed by the President of the United States. I hope we can reverse the harm that is being done in this Republican budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, some Members of this United States Congress support President Bush's preemptive strike against Iraq. Some Members have done their elected and patriotic duty and raised questions about the President's diplomatic failure and inability to resolve this conflict peacefully. However, every Member of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, strongly support our men and women in uniform. Why, then, could our Republican Members not agree to a clean-cut, clearly worded resolution of support for our soldiers? The Republican leadership chose to politicize this moment in history with a politically worded resolution designed to trap the opposition into supporting a war that we do not support. They have cheapened this debate by trying to use this resolution to legitimize this war. This war is neither legitimate nor necessary. No matter, our troops are in harm's way. We support our soldiers and their families and will do everything in our power to make sure our men and women in uniform are honored and respected as they bravely serve our country. And when they return home, my office and my staff are always available to our men and women in uniform, and we will work very hard for them.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget is simply unfair and unrealistic. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have sacrificed prudence for politics. Long-term planning for short-term gain. How else can we explain $1.3 trillion in tax cuts, most of which are given to the most privileged at a time when our schools are crumbling, our veterans are being deprived of the healthcare that they need, and a $348 billion deficit. The Republicans have proposed cutting $51 billion for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, depriving 5.3 million children of health insurance; cutting $2 billion for the Ryan White programs, depriving people living with AIDS, medical care, and social support they need; cutting $1.5 billion for community health centers, eliminating health care for millions of low-income and uninsured people; eliminating the section 8 program that provides housing for over 300 million low-income families. Even the President's No Child Left Behind education bill, which he constantly touts as a major success, is cut by 8 percent below the inactive level of funding year 2003. Homeland Security is not properly funded. As a matter of fact, it is severely underfunded, putting our police officers, firefighters, and all of our first responders in danger. Where is the compassion that the President promised during his campaign? I support the Congressional Black Caucus/Progressive Caucus alternative budget because it truly provides relief to Americans and it provides a stimulus to help the economy get back on its feet. Our budget provides healthcare for all Americans. It provides for vital infrastructure improvements throughout the Nation which provide jobs and protect America from potential terrorist threats. It provides $3.5 billion in relief to those inflicted with HIV/AIDS throughout the world, and importantly it provides our men and women in uniform the resources they need. It is indeed a balanced budget that does not burden our children with debt. We must resist this Republican budget, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support this alternative. In conclusion, the Republican budget is an unjust and shameful budget. If Congress enacts this budget, many Americans will be harmed. Finally, Mr. Chairman, my constituents have been paying attention to what has been going on with this preemptive strike; and when they heard about the billions of dollars offered to Turkey and other countries in exchange for their support, they said to me, Ms. Waters, I thought we were broke. I thought we were in deficit. I thought we had no money. Where are you getting the billions of dollars from for Turkey and other countries that you are offering to them simply if they will support this preemptive strike?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a potential problem hidden deep in the President's budget. The budget says that the President is seeking to give States the opportunity to exercise more control over Head Start and that he would like to move responsibility of Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education. Now, this may not seem like a big deal to many listening tonight, but I believe that it will have a damaging effect on our most vulnerable children. They say this change is intended to focus Head Start on school readiness and teacher training. Well, for those who do not know what Head Start is, that may seem like an admirable goal. Head Start already does that and I agree that these are important goals and should be worked on continuously. Moving the program to the Department of Education will fundamentally alter the philosophy of the program. Head Start is already a readiness program and more. It is a program that prepares the whole child for life. The program teaches families about proper nutrition. It also provides health and mental health screenings and other important services that many of these children would not have if Head Start did not exist. It is important to remember why we created Head Start to begin with under the War on Poverty. Poor children and the children of working-class families did not have the opportunity to have a preschool experience before going into kindergarten. These were children that often times had never had a physical examination. And we were able to discover that there were children with dyslexia, with learning disabilities, with hearing problems, with sight problems. We caught that in Head Start, and we were able to truly give these young people a chance to be successful. Prior to Head Start, children were going into school with these deficiencies and getting put in special education classes because they thought they could not learn. President Johnson began Head Start and the War on Poverty because he saw a need to help families prepare their children for school and to break the cycle of poverty that many low- income families fall into. Head Start has been a tremendous success. Study after study has shown that children who were enrolled in this program were more ready to learn when they entered kindergarten than their counterparts who were not enrolled. In addition, they were less likely to repeat a grade and more likely to graduate from high school; and these same students experienced greater long-term social and economic benefits than those students who were not enrolled in the program. Put simply, this is a program that works. Instead of fundamentally altering this program, ruining its core philosophy that has guided it over the past 37 years, we should be nurturing it. I am here tonight to urge the President and my fellow Members of Congress to fully fund Head Start, resist the urge to provide funding in the form of block grants, and to keep the program within the Department of Health and Human Services. All of these would strip the program of its effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters from parents and students who are asking that Congress not make any changes to Head Start. I would like to read you have a couple of lines from them. One simply states, ``I have 3-year-old twins and a 9-year-old daughter, all of whom have been in Head Start and it has been a wonderful experience for them.'' Another says, ``It not only taught my daughter her 1-2-3s and ABCs but it also taught her self-esteem.'' And it concludes, ``It has brought my family closer together.'' Said another, ``I cannot express to you how grateful I am for the life-changing experience Head Start gave to me.'' Mr. Speaker, we must not change Head Start. It is too important, and it has helped too many people to improve their lives. I am not simply speaking about what I heard. I worked in the Head Start program, first as an assistant teacher, then as supervisor of parent involvement and volunteer services where I got parents understanding that they could be in control of their children's educational destiny. These parents become successful parents in the PTA programs once they are transitioned into kindergarten. And that is what it is all about, involving parents in their children's education, helping them to know that they can make their children successful. So we do not want to mess with Head Start. We want to make sure, again, we support and nurture it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), I want to thank him for taking time out in the schedule of the Congress of the United States to allow the members of the Congressional Black Caucus to take the floor to talk about our concerns and to describe our feelings about the preemptive strike that we are poised to carry out as we stand here tonight. I thank the Chairman because he knows and I know that we are going to be criticized. We are going to be criticized, and there will be those who even call us unpatriotic. We will be criticized. We will be called unpatriotic, and there will be an attempt to intimidate us and say to us that at this point in time we should not raise these questions, we should not talk about our deep feelings and our concerns, we should only support whatever the President is doing. But I would like to remind those who would criticize us that we are indeed patriotic Americans. As a matter of fact, if we take a look at the history of African Americans in this country, one can only conclude that we are indeed patriotic. We believe in America. We believe in America despite the history of America as it relates to African Americans, despite slavery, despite discrimination, without racism. We stand by America. We have decided that it is our job and our responsibility to make America the kind of place that America can be and it should be, and so we take this floor this evening to try to raise the question how did we get to the point where the President of the United States is issuing an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein in Iraq to be out of that country within 48 hours, he and his sons, or face the consequences of a preemptive strike? How did we get to this point? How did we get to the point where all diplomatic efforts have been abandoned? How did we get to the point where we have some 250,000 to 300,000 young men and women in Kuwait, in Qatar and on the sea awaiting the order to strike? Where did it all break down? How did we lose our allies? What made France and Russia and Germany and even China decide that they could not stand with the President of the United States in a second resolution? What made France say no matter what, they were poised to veto any resolution being described in the way the President of the United States was describing the second resolution? When we ask the question of how, when, and where did the diplomatic efforts fail, we cannot help but understand that the diplomatic efforts could not work because the case has not been made for preemptive strike. The case has not been made, and there is no documentation as of this date that even Saddam Hussein is harboring weapons of mass destruction. As we have sent our inspectors there, they have found some things; but we have also discovered that some things that were supposedly in place in Iraq were not in place. We listened very carefully as our Secretary of State described sheds and operations where weapons were being developed only to discover that they were old and dilapidated, full of dust with no electricity. As there was an attempt to document why we had to have this preemptive strike, we found each day that the representations were less than factual. As a matter of fact, our own intelligence community headed by the CIA said that they could not find in Iraq that which was being described by our own Secretary of State, the President of the United States. Some would say the President moved on this preemptive strike after 9- 11, the President was so concerned about terrorism and 9-11 that he decided that he must take some action. The President of the United States of America had the support of this Congress to take action to find the terrorists, to bring them to the bar of justice. We said yes, Mr. President, 9-11 is a terrible thing. It was a terrible thing. We should not be the victims of terrorism, and we should find those who are responsible. We were told that Osama bin Laden and others were responsible. And we said, we support you, Mr. President. Let us go after Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar and any of the rest of those leaders leading al Qaeda that were responsible for terrorism. We are still looking for Osama bin Laden. Where is he, Mr. President? We still do not have Mullah Omar, supposedly one of the high operatives responsible for terrorism. Mr. President, not only do we support finding the terrorists, you have taken a lot of steps above and beyond what some of us even thought should be taken when you moved to change the Constitution of the United States to try to locate folks that supposedly were responsible. You have locked up people. Some of them we still do not know where they are. You have brought folks who still have not been identified with terrorism but are being held, but we have not had a breakthrough. We have not had a breakthrough, and we are worried that the war on terrorism has taken a back seat to a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein. Mr. President, you cannot substitute a preemptive strike on Saddam Hussein for finding the terrorists. We want the terrorists to be found. We give you all the support that you need to do that. And, Mr. President, we want the homeland secured. We have given you all the support that you need for homeland security, but we find as of today the terrorists have not been located. Some of our airports are still exposed. We have nuclear power plants that are exposed. We have ports where we have containers that are still coming in that are not inspected; and as of this day, not all of the baggage that goes into the belly of the airplanes that are traveling throughout this country is inspected. Mr. President, we want to find the terrorists. We want to secure the homeland. We are worried that you have been diverted, that you are about to do this preemptive strike without the documentation. Yes, we know that Saddam Hussein has done some terrible things. We have been successful in containing him. I do not think that he presents us nearly as much of a problem as North Korea. If we take a look at Kim Jong Il in North Korea, we find that not only has he developed nuclear capability, he has opted out of the nuclear proliferation treaty. He has decided to test missiles. He has challenged us. He has interfered with our airplanes in the sky. What are you going to do about Kim Jong Il? And on top of that, we now discover that Iran has plutonium that could be developed into nuclear capability for weapons of war. Mr. President, something is wrong with this picture. What is wrong with this picture is this: we are sophisticated enough to know that some of our allies, Pakistan, have nuclear capability and so does India and they could go at each other any day of the week. We also know that Israel has nuclear capability. We also understand that Russia still has nuclear capability. There is too much nuclear capability in the world to talk about focusing our sights on Iraq that still does not have nuclear capability, and we still have not found the weapons of mass destruction. I know that Saddam Hussein is clever and of course he has been cooperating. The more we push him against the wall, the more he cooperates. Yes, we can now send our planes and we can do the surveillance. Yes, he is now dismantling the Samoud missiles. Yes, he continues to cooperate as we push him against the wall, and the more he cooperates, the more our allies and others say let us continue to do the inspections, let us see if there are weapons of mass destruction. We should not stop in the middle of these inspections. But there are those who say all of this talk is too late, that you have decided, Mr. President, that it is just a matter of time after issuing the ultimatum that we will move. I am naive enough to believe, I have enough hope, that even at this late date, you have identified that we will move at a time of our choice, that that time will not come. I still hope despite the billions of dollars that we have spent deploying these soldiers that we will bring them home. We love our soldiers. We support them and we embrace them. Our hearts are torn apart as we see these families torn apart, mothers and fathers leaving the babies. We watched this in the Gulf war only to find that our soldiers came home, many of them had no apartments. They had no homes. They had no furniture. We do not want to replay this. Yes, every country should be able to defend itself, but we are in no danger from Iraq. As a matter of fact, that is probably one of the weakest points on the globe for us to attack. We are not threatened by Saddam Hussein. Mr. President, I hope that you do not think that with this preemptive strike that somehow this will translate into we have a war on terrorism. It does not. We know the difference, Mr. President. Striking Saddam, striking Iraq is not fighting terrorism. What about our friends in Saudi Arabia who pay for the madrasas and the schools where right- wing fundamentalism is taught? Those madrasas are the breeding grounds for the al Qaeda operation, but, no, they are our friends. We are tied to them because of oil. They are not a democracy. The House of Faud is but a very rich family that has been able to manipulate its way into a friendship and a relationship despite the fact the support and the money comes from Saudi Arabia. The terrorists, all of which have been identified with 9-11, all were born, bred in Saudi Arabia. Our friends that we have aligned ourselves within Pakistan as we have moved into Afghanistan turn out to be those who are supplying North Korea with some of the plutonium and the nuclear capability that they are developing. It does not add up, Mr. President. What we see and we are witnessing is the mismanagement of America. Someone today criticized Senator Daschle because he talked about the diplomatic disaster. Mr. President, it is a diplomatic disaster. We are watching before our very eyes the mismanagement of our beloved country. Our schools are falling apart. You said you wished to leave no child behind, but, Mr. President, you have not funded assistance to education that will have our children in the best possible situations where they can learn. Our health care system has fallen apart. In my city, in my county we are closing healthcare clinics. We are closing hospitals. And the stock market has not performed since before 9-11. What are you doing to stimulate this economy? Mr. President, I do not think the average person will believe that by eliminating the taxes on dividends that somehow it is going to stimulate this economy. Mr. President, you are not able to tell us what this war is going to cost and what the cleanup, what the revitalization, the reconstruction of Iraq is going to cost. The American people need to know where our dollars are going. The American people need to understand the cost of this war and why. Mr. President, the worst thing that could happen to us is that you have this preemptive strike, you go into Iraq, occupy it, and we spend billions of dollars after this so-called regime change where we are going to institute democracy, and the terrorists are still operating. When are you going to break up the al Qaeda cells right here in America? When are we going to get with our allies and put together a strong approach to rooting out the terrorists all over the world? Mr. President, we must raise these questions. We must raise these questions because we are patriots. We are folks who love this country. We are folks who have stood by this country no matter what, and we will continue to stand by this country. We will continue to stand by our soldiers. But, Mr. President, you are going to have to account for the leadership that you are giving, and I say to you and all those who are advising you, be it Wolfowitz, be it Secretary of State Colin Powell, be it Condoleezza Rice, be it Carl Rove, or any of those in the inner circle, you are going to be held responsible for what takes place in this world, what takes place with this preemptive strike, what takes place with our soldiers and our families. We would like to see this situation resolved in a way that will not cause the body bags to come home. We would like to see this situation resolved in a way that our young people would not be put in harm's way. It is not too late, Mr. President. We will all stand up and applaud you if you do the courageous thing of saying, yes, we deployed; yes, we spent billions of dollars to do it; but we do not have the allies, we cannot afford the costs, and we cannot afford the loss of lives. I am going to bring our soldiers home. We will stand with you and praise you and applaud you and say you are a great man. Unless you can do it that way, Mr. President, you are going to have to accept the responsibility.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today we are here to debate a bill, H.R. 5, written for us by the insurance industry. Supporters of restricting jury awards and malpractice lawyers' fees say excessive billion-dollar damage awards in medical liability suits is the reason medical malpractice insurance premiums have risen so sharply and that nearly half the States are experiencing an insurance crisis. However, others say, and I agree, that rising malpractice rates are part of the cyclical nature of the insurance business, and insurers are raising premiums now to recoup recent stock market losses. In addition, I believe any crisis that exists is specific to certain medical specialties and regions of the country. Let us, Mr. Speaker, say it like it is: the insurance industry wants this bill because it will increase their profits. Well, forgive me if I do not support the insurance industry over injured patients. I do not represent insurance industry profiteers. I represent the people in my district, the people who will be severely disadvantaged if this bill passes in its current form. We have gone back and forth on this issue for a long time now. The medical malpractice insurers tell us again there is a crisis, there is a shortage, there is a stoppage, or whatever else they think will bully Congress into doing their bidding. It is truly terrible that good doctors are paying the price for the insurance industry's bad business decisions. It is truly terrible that the insurance industry has fooled doctors into believing that injured patients are to blame for high premiums, and it is truly terrible that the insurance industry has this control over the health care system. I would say to my colleagues, it is time for us to put an end to the misrepresentations of the insurance industry. It is time for us to stand up for our constituents and for people who have been injured, who have been maimed, and even killed, who deserve to be protected. I say vote ``no'' on this bad bill. Our citizens deserve to be compensated for medical malpractice.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 659; and I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and our chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for expediting this legislation, because it is certainly needed. I stand in strong support because FHA insures hospitals certainly under the section 242 loan program. The funding year 2004 administration budget is requesting the authority to insure $700 million of such hospital loans in funding year 2004. Decade-old statutory language authorizing FHA-hospital loans requires as a condition of a loan a State certification that there is a need for the hospital, or if no State procedure exists for such a certification, the State must commission an independent study of market need and feasibility. H.R. 659 addresses that concern that this Certificate of Need requirement makes it difficult, if not impossible, for hospitals in many States, including California, as was mentioned, to be eligible for FHA loans. This bill replaces existing statutory requirements with one that simply requires the HUD Secretary to establish a means for determining need and feasibility for any hospitals applying for a loan, with a proviso that a hospital located in any State with an official procedure for determining need, that a Certificate of Need must follow that procedure. So I think that it has been well stated that the need is there. There are so many States that are waiting on us to provide them the opportunity to have access to this insurance, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, AIDS activists and interesting, caring legislators and others have been working on this AIDS issue for the past 20 years. President Bush did not get active on this issue over the past 2 years, but he has come to the table now to talk about emergency plan for AIDS relief in Africa. And according to the administration, this proposal will provide $15 billion for global HIV/AIDS programs over the next 5 years, including $10 billion in brand new money. Now, we have to take a very close look at this here proposal. A closer look at the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 indicates that it may not be a pure $15 billion that will be spent over the next 5 years. One would think that $15 billion over 5 years would amount to $3 billion per year. However, the administration's budget for global AIDS programs for fiscal year 2004 is only $2 billion. An increase of just half a billion over the fiscal year 2003 level. Administration officials have indicated that they plan to phase in the proposed funding over the next 5 years. Phasing in funds is particularly troublesome in the case of the AIDS epidemic. Every year, another 3 million people die of AIDS, another 5 million become infected with HIV. How many people will we have to have die before we have an emergency plan, a real emergency plan that is triggered immediately? The President promised that his proposed emergency plan for AIDS relief would provide $10 billion in new money for global AIDS programs. When we look at this and upon close attention, it becomes very clear that the administration is transferring money from other development assistance accounts in order to fund this new proposal. The President's budget for fiscal year 2004 severely underfunds one of the Federal government's most important development assistance accounts, the Child Survival and Health Account. Funding for this account was cut by $470 million, relative to the fiscal year 2003 level. Indeed, when you combine the President's proposed increase of half a billion dollars for global AIDS programs with his proposed cuts of almost half a billion dollars in the Child Survival and Health Account, the total funding for the two programs is virtually identical to fiscal year 2000 funding. Cutting funds for Child Survival and Health in order to fund AIDS relief is no way to improve global health. Another problem with the proposal in this plan for AIDS relief is that it virtually eliminates funding for the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The global fund encourages developing countries to combine the efforts of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and civil society into a comprehensive strategy to fight epidemics in a manner appropriate for local needs and conditions. The global fund also allows donors to pool their resources so that developing countries do not have to deal with as many funding agencies. Now, the President's proposal of $15 billion over 5 years for global AIDS program includes only $1 billion for the Global Fund. The President's budget provides only $200 million for the global fund in fiscal year 2004 and presumably $200 million per year over the next 5 years. This will drastically reduce the Global Fund's activities which received $400 million from the United States this year alone. The President is apparently determined to ensure that his $15 billion emergency plan for AIDS relief will be implemented almost exclusively by the United States government agencies, Jeffrey Sacks, the Chairman of the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health evaluated the President's proposal and concluded, ``The U.S., as it is wont these days, has decided to go it alone.'' AIDS is a global epidemic. It deserves a global response, not a unilateral one. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) just mentioned the global gag rule and the President is complicating AIDS treatments and prevention even further by attempting to apply the Mexico City policy to global AIDS programs. The Mexico City policy known as the Global Gag Rule prohibits U.S. funding of international organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion referrals or counseling with their own money. In the past the Mexico City policy has been used to restrict the use of family planning funds. It has never ever been applied to HIV funds and it is unwise for the President to politicize this. Under the administration's new proposed policy, only organizations that do not offer abortion-related services or those that offer abortion-related services, separate from HIV/AIDS services, would be eligible for AIDS funds. This would be an inefficient and unrealistic expectation for most clinics, organizations operating in developing countries. I will quickly say it is time for our President to really understand all of the work that all of us have put into this issue and get with the strategy and the plan that is developed by activists and people worldwide and do some real work in helping to deal with this pandemic.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our Democratic alternative. Unfortunately, the bill that has been offered by the other side of the aisle is a bill that is not really designed to get rid of poverty, and that is what we are trying to do. Our bill would move welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty; but more than that, we would allow for State flexibility to tailor services to help welfare recipients move into employment. I am very concerned about having State flexibility because we are in a time of high unemployment and it does not seem to be getting any better. Those people who have been on for 5 years and they have to come off, we are dumping them out into an economy where we do not have jobs for them; but if the States have the flexibility to tailor the programs based on meeting the needs of the recipients, then I think it is fair. It is fair that not only do we have that flexibility, but we continue to have child care, child care support, and we continue to have fairness for our immigrant families.

Mr. WATERS

Mr. WATERS. Unfortunately, the Republican bill does not do that. I would ask for an aye on the Democratic alternative.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt sympathy to the families of the seven astronauts who lost their lives Saturday morning. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the crew and the communities that loved and supported them. This was a terrible tragedy that no family should ever have to endure. Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Payload Commander Michael Anderson, Mission Specialist David Brown, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon gave their lives in the pursuit of knowledge. The seven brave men and women, who composed this crew rose to the top of their fields through hard work and determination. The international crew of the space shuttle Columbia was a group of men and women of extraordinary intelligence, brave hearts and dedication to one of the greatest endeavors that mankind has ever known. The crew was as diverse as America itself. The six Americans were joined by Ilan Ramon, the first Israeli to go into space. Together, regardless of race, religion or national origin, they worked to ensure the integrity of the mission and to conduct scientific experiments that someday might improve the lives of thousands. They accomplished the mission's goals in outstanding fashion.'' I thank these remarkable individuals for their dedication. As a Member of Congress I will not rest until we know why this tragedy happened and I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen again. In the wake of this horrific accident, as we search for the cause, we must not abandon our space program. It has brought so many wonderful innovations in technology and medicine. What we must do is find the root of the problem and provide the means to ensure that the Columbia and Challenger tragedies are never repeated. I call on the President and Congress to honor the memories of these heroes by ensuring that NASA has all the necessary resources to protect future astronauts from tragedy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to add to the words of my colleagues about a most unusual man. Terry Morris sits at that desk, impeccable in his dress, never a hair out of place, a smile on his face, serving day in and day out. He goes so far as to remind Members they have not voted by looking for them in every imaginable way, connecting with his eyes, reminding Members they have voted twice and they should not do that. He is perhaps one of the friendliest clerks and assistant that we have in this House. He helps Members regardless of party, and he has made friends on both sides of the aisle. One of my joys in this House is coming in and seeing his face, speaking with him, exchanging a few words and just knowing he is going to be there for me and all of us. I am sorry to see him leave. He is one of those persons we would like to have stay forever; but after 33 years he deserves to retire. I wish him well.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my hometown WNBA team, the Los Angeles Sparks. Today we passed H. Res. 532 which honors the Los Angeles Sparks players and staff for winning the WNBA championship and completing a remarkable season. On August 30th, they won the WNBA title for the second year in a row. The Sparks were competing against New York Liberty for this year's title. It was a competitive series and the decisive game went down to the last couple of seconds. With the game tied at 66, rookie Nikki Teasley got the ball and scored the winning basket--a three pointer, putting the team up for good and clinching the championship. Both teams played superbly. It was exciting, a great show of gamesmanship and the fans were treated to an exceptional game. Lisa Leslie was named the series Most Valuable Player. This is an honor she received last year, as well. She finished the game with seventeen points. With this championship, the LA Sparks join the Houston Comets as the only multiple titleholders in the league's six-year history. In addition, by winning every playoff game they played, they tied the Comets record of sweeping all six playoff games. The team's winning streak is nine if you count the last three games of the regular season. It was not an easy season, but the women worked hard, played hard and were rewarded for their efforts. That is something from which we can all learn. So as I close, I would like to congratulate the Sparks and thank them for being leaders. I hope they continue to set good examples for our city.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for the hard work they put in trying to get this election law passed so that we would not experience what we have experienced in Florida and other parts of this country. Mr. Speaker, my ancestors could not vote. My ancestors were blocked from being able to vote with such tactics as forcing them to have to pay poll taxes and take literacy tests. And we saw some of the same kind of tactics used in Florida and some other parts of this country in the national election that basically stunned the world. And so when the Democratic House minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), asked me to lead the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on election reform, I said, yes, I must do this. The committee was given the responsibility to travel throughout America and examine our Nation's voting practices and equipment. Over a 6-month period, this committee held six public field hearings in Philadelphia, San Antonio, Chicago, Jacksonville, Cleveland, and Los Angeles. We heard from election experts. We heard from election experts and hundreds of voters about what is right and wrong with our election system. I was overwhelmed about the outpouring of interest and the support we received from our Nation's voters. The conference report before us today authorizes grants to test new voting equipment and increases access to polling places by voters with disabilities. The conference report establishes election standards that require States to allow voters to check and correct their ballots, provide access to disabled voters, allow provisional voting when there is question of an individual's eligibility. This is not a perfect conference report, and I had to think long and hard about supporting it. I do not like any ID requirements. We do not have any in California. I do not like having to ask people for a driver's license or a Social Security number. But despite those things that I do not like and what I think is wrong with this bill, I am going to support it because we need to get started with correcting what is wrong with our election systems here in America. And hopefully, we will continue to work on this so that we can come up with perfect legislation to deal with those problems.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 454 I inadvertently voted ``nay''. I intended to vote ``yea''.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for yielding me time; and I commend him on the tremendous work that he does in this Congress dealing with the many complicated problems of foreign relations. I thank him for the time that he is allocating to me this evening. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution which would authorize the President to use unilateral military force against Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the President has provided sufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam Hussein currently possesses significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction. Although I am aware that weapons inspectors found significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, those materials have been destroyed. Since that date, there have been allegations of a growing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, but there is to date no credible evidence of such an arsenal's existence. Even if Saddam Hussein does possess weapons of mass destruction, Iraq does not represent an imminent threat to the United States of America. There is simply no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein with the 9-11 terrorist attacks. There is also no evidence to indicate that Saddam Hussein has ever given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. Furthermore, Iraq is 6,000 miles away from the United States and the Iraqi regime lacks the capability to strike the United States from within its own borders. The ultimate weapons of mass destruction are nuclear weapons. If administration officials are really concerned about other countries having weapons of mass destruction, they should turn their attention to Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel, all of which are known to possess nuclear weapons. No one doubts that Saddam Hussein is a potential threat to his neighbors in the Middle East. He has attacked them in the past, and certainly he could do it again. However, Saddam Hussein's neighbors do not support military action against Iraq at this time, and it would be diplomatically and militarily unwise for the United States to initiate a war in the Middle East without the support and participation of a coalition of countries in the region. If administration officials are concerned about countries that support terrorism, perhaps they should turn their attention to our friend and ally, the most undemocratic country, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been financing extremist Islamist madrassahs in Pakistan and other Islamic countries. These madrassahs, or schools, teach young boys an extreme interpretation of Islam, combined with a support for terrorism and hatred for America. But they are our friends, and I do not see talk or discussion from this administration about trying to bring about democracy in Saudi Arabia, or being concerned about the financing of the madrassahs and the things they have been doing for so very long. The human and economic cost of a war on Iraq are completely unjustified. It has been estimated that a war on Iraq would cost between $100 and $200 billion. This would come at a time when we are already spending billions of dollars to wage a war against terrorism in Afghanistan. A war on Iraq could lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens in Iraq and unknown numbers of American servicemen and women. Mr. Speaker, we would like the President to finish the war on terrorism. While we have had some success in Afghanistan, we still have not located Osama bin Laden. Our servicemen have been fired on in Afghanistan every day, and they are all set to assassinate the President or the leader that we have supported in Afghanistan, and it could happen at any time. I am deeply concerned that a unilateral war on Iraq would make Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home. A unilateral war on Iraq could lead to an increase in anti-American extremism throughout the Muslim world. This could destabilize countries in the Middle East and South Asia. It could also provide al Qaeda with an opportunity to recruit additional terrorists within these countries. Al Qaeda is America's greatest enemy. We should be focusing our efforts on confronting the al Qaeda threat, while encouraging the people of the Middle East and South Asia to support democracy and oppose terrorism. Instead of authorizing a unilateral war, Congress should support the efforts of the United Nations to resume weapons inspections in Iraq. The resumption of weapons inspections would allow us to determine whether Saddam Hussein has the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration claims he has. Working with the United Nations would also illustrate to our allies and people throughout the Muslim world that the United States respects the rule of law and considers war a last resort. I urge Members to oppose unilateral use of America's Armed Forces and give United Nations weapons inspectors an opportunity to do their work. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. I disagrees with the gentleman, also; and I appreciate the time that the gentleman is giving me to counter some of his points. In addition, would the gentleman agree that our inspectors decided to leave Iraq after it was discovered that they were there doing some of the work of the CIA instead of doing the inspections that they were supposed to be doing?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to talk about what really has happened with the relationship that we have had with Saddam Hussein. Does the gentleman understand that we are the ones that gave him anthrax?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill is being considered today. As it has been stated, it would rename the post office at 8200 South Vermont Avenue, which is California's 35th Congressional District, after Representative Augustus Hawkins. Representative Augustus Hawkins represented this district for nearly 30 years. Mr. Speaker, this is a small gesture to a truly great man. Congressman Hawkins was a distinguished Member of this House. He worked hard, and he carried the respect of all those who worked with him. Again, he was first elected to the California State Assembly in 1935. He served in the Assembly for almost 28 years. In 1962, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and was California's first African American Member of Congress. He served a total of 13 terms. Throughout his career, Gus focused on education, labor and employment issues. He served as chairman of the Committee on House Administration for 4 years. He also sat on the House Education and Labor Committee. However, it is for his work on monetary and economic policies that he is often talked about. He teamed up with Senator Humphrey to sponsor the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. One aspect of the bill, which has become known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Report, required the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to report to the House and Senate Banking Committees on the economy and monetary policy twice a year. This report has become one of the most important speeches given by the Federal Reserve Chairman. While the statute has officially expired, the report is still provided to Congress and remains a benchmark for evaluating the economy. In 1971, though already in office for nearly a decade, Congressman Hawkins joined 12 other African American Members of Congress to establish the Congressional Black Caucus. Today, only the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the pioneering group remain in the House. Over the past 31 years, the CBC has grown in influence and in size. Today, we have 38 Members from all over the country. The CBC owes much of its success to Gus Hawkins and the other founding members. In 1991, after 14 terms in Congress, Congressman Hawkins decided to retire. I was fortunate enough to be elected to serve in the district that he had represented so well for so many years. Recently, Congressman Hawkins partnered with Dr. Vinetta C. Jones, the Dean of Howard University School of Education, to form the Black Education Leadership Summit. The group is comprised of education, civil rights, nonprofit, business and community groups that seek to remove the public education debate beyond rhetoric-based theory. The ultimate goal of the group is to develop and enhance the education of all African American students. I certainly appreciate the work of Congressman Augustus Hawkins, and I am very pleased and proud to represent the 35th Congressional District, that area which he served so admirably for so long. I would like to just close by giving my very fond thoughts about the length of time that I have known Congressman Hawkins. The conversations that we have had over the years helped me to understand that not only do I have a responsibility to come to this body and represent my constituents in the absolutely best way that I possibly can, but Congressman Hawkins taught me to ``trace the money.'' He came home often, and he always went to city hall to find out what they were doing with the Federal funds that we were sending down there. I learned to pay attention to that. Because of Gus Hawkins, even today I am tracing the dollars from the CDBG Grants, Section 108 loan guarantees and other areas of government where we appropriate money that goes into the local government to be disbursed. It was because of Gus Hawkins that I think our city began to do a better job of making sure, as Gus said, that all of the money was not concentrated downtown, that the money got out into the communities and out to the district that he represented, and certainly to the district that I now represent. Again, I am pleased and proud to be a part of the efforts here today to name this Post Office after a most deserving gentleman, Congressman Augustus Hawkins.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) said to me last week he was concerned about Patsy, that he thought she was at risk, I could not grasp what he was saying to me. I could not think about her being at the kind of risk that would cause her death. My sincere condolences to John and to her family. Patsy was my friend. I knew her long before I ever came to the Congress of the United States. Patsy was on the cutting edge of the women's movement. Patsy was there when all of the great strategies were formed, when all of the great organizations got started. Patsy was there with Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem and women who dedicated their lives so that women could have justice and equality in America. She was there for ERA. She was there for pay equity, and certainly it has been mentioned time and time again that she cosponsored Title IX, women's educational equity. It was just a few months ago that I sat at the WNBA All Star Game where Patsy was honored for 30 years' recognition of Patsy's work. As I looked at all of those strong, tall women out there playing and my dear child, Lisa Leslie, who won the All-Star honor that evening, I thought it was a short, little woman that caused this tall, big woman to be able to realize her dreams, to be able to hone her talents. What a wonderful moment that was. We are going to miss her because she was a woman of impeccable integrity. She was not about misleading anybody. She did not do a lot of small talk. She was a passionate woman, a brilliant woman, who was a passionate and articulate debater and debate she could. When Patsy took the floor and she decided to let anybody have it, she really could do it. Let me just say, Patsy was an expert on any number of subjects and certainly on education, but the mark of this woman was the fact that this brilliant woman devoted her time to poor women. Many people get very sophisticated and want to talk about other kinds of subjects once they have served in the Congress of the United States, but she stayed with poor women. She was an advocate for poor women. She fought for poor women to have a safety net as we debated welfare reform, and people tried to make it something else. She simply talked about the need for poor women and their children to have a place to live and food to eat. We love you, Patsy. We will miss you.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.