Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Yet the U.S. government is blocking aid to Haiti in order to expand the influence of a single Haitian political party. This party, known as the Democratic Convergence, is supported by less than four percent of the Haitian electorate. Meanwhile, Haiti's population is facing a serious humanitarian crisis. Haiti's per capita income is only $460 per year. Four percent of the population is infected with the AIDS virus, and 163,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS. Every year, there are 30,000 new AIDS cases. The infant mortality rate is over seven percent. For every 1000 infants born in Haiti, five women die in childbirth. Furthermore, there are only 1.2 doctors for every 10,000 people in this desperately poor country. Not only has the United States suspended development assistance to Haiti, the United States is also blocking loans from international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank. U.S. policy has effectively prevented Haiti from receiving $146 million in loans from the Inter-American Development Bank that were already approved by that institution's Board of Directors. These loans are desperately needed by the people of Haiti. It is time for the United States to end this political impasse and restore bilateral and multilateral assistance to this impoverished democracy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Yet the U.S. government is blocking aid to Haiti in order to expand the influence of a single political party that is supported by less than four percent of the Haitian electorate. Meanwhile, the people of Haiti are facing a serious humanitarian crisis. Haiti's per capita income is only $460 per year. Four percent of the population is infected with the AIDS virus, and 163,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS. The infant mortality rate is over seven percent. For every 1000 infants born in Haiti, five women die in childbirth. Not only has the U.S. suspended development assistance, the U.S. is also blocking loans from international financial institutions. U.S. policy has effectively prevented Haiti from receiving $146 million in loans from the Inter-American Development Bank that were already approved by that institution's Board of Directors. These loans are desperately needed by the people of Haiti. It is time for the United States to end this political impasse and restore bilateral and multilateral assistance to this impoverished democracy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and too many Republicans are holding the airline security bill hostage. They refuse to federalize airport screeners. September 11 revealed the glaring inadequacies in airline security. Since September 11, a passenger entered the cockpit of an airplane and attempted to attack the pilot. In another well-publicized incident, a passenger was allowed to get past screeners with seven knives, a can of Mace and a stun gun. Just a few days ago, at Boston Logan International Airport, an Argenbright security guard left her checkpoint unattended for several minutes, allowing people to walk through unchecked. The American public does not feel safe, and we should be ashamed of the fact that we cannot get an airline security bill passed in this House. Enough is enough. We should not go home until we get it done this weekend. Mr. Speaker, I challenge all of the Members of the House, but particularly those who are holding up this issue based on whether or not they will agree to federalize those screeners, to stop the politicking, to stop playing with people's lives. Let us get on with airline security.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for the work they have done. I recognize that it was a very difficult job to try and live within the framework that was foisted upon them. Mr. Speaker, this VA-HUD conference report is certainly an improvement over the House version. However, the funds are still terribly inadequate to fulfill HUD's mission to support the most needy people in this country. This report cuts funding for public housing, terminating $310 million for the successful drug elimination program, and $157 million for the capital fund that provides for the rehabilitation of housing units to bring them up to today's standards. This bill will also cut all of the jobs of public housing residents that are associated with the rehabilitation. In addition, this conference report cuts funding for proven economic development programs that are sorely needed to stimulate the economy. For example, the Community Development Block Grant has been cut by $58 million; Empowerment Zones funding has been cut by $45 million; the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund has been cut by $38 million. Funding for these programs should be increased, rather than decreased. These programs inject capital into communities that need it the most, creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Cutting these programs at a time like this is simply inexplicable. This conference report, while certainly, again, an improvement over the House, is still troubling. It is troubling because of our need to support poor people, rather than abandon them at this time. We have to remember that at the same time that we are doing this, there are some Members in this House who are proposing obscene tax cuts for the richest corporations in America. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a vote on this bill, because this is the best that we can do. But we must have a better vision for the future. We must work harder to change our priorities for the future and empower and support the most needy citizens in this Nation. Let me just close by saying I worked very hard for about 10 or 15 years with all of the public housing programs in my district. I knew and I know today that there are still drug problems and that drug traffickers find their way to poor people, encouraging them to get involved in this underground of drug selling. It is unconscionable that we would cut drug elimination in these public housing projects at the same time that we want to strengthen them, we want to clean them up, we want to encourage people to go to work and get in job training programs. They cannot do it without the kind of support that is offered through the drug elimination program and other like programs. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on this issue.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to proceed with floor consideration of H.R. 1408, the Financial Services Antifraud Network Act of 2001. When we initially considered marking up this legislation in the Financial Institutions subcommittee, there were a number of problems with the structure and the content of that version. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Bachus for his willingness to postpone that markup so that we could work together to improve this bill. A number of improvements have been made to this legislation since it was introduced. The structure for information sharing among the regulators has been greatly simplified. The categories of information to be shared among the regulators have been narrowed, and safeguards have been put in place to protect individuals. In addition, certain due process protections have been added to the bill, which grant individuals the right to receive notice and respond when information from the network is used to take action against them. Finally, this bill provides insurance regulators with increased access to information when conducting criminal background checks on financial professionals. Additional safeguards are provided governing the use of this information. I want to thank my colleagues Chairman Bachus, Congressman Rogers, Congressman Moore, Congressman Gonzalez, Ranking Member LaFalce and Chairman Oxley as well as their staffs for working cooperatively to improve this legislation. I am pleased that the process went so well and has resulted in a better bill, and that agreement has been reached on the final outstanding issue regarding financial regulators' access to confidential supervisory information. This issue is not a partisan one. We all want to combat fraud and protect consumers. In light of the events of September 11, it has become even more crucial to ensure that criminals do not evade detection merely by varying their methodology. I think that once we began working together, in a bipartisan manner, on this legislation, we realized that common ground was not an elusive goal. I would hope that we can continue to work together across the aisle on other issues of mutual concern as this Congress continues. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we, the Members of the House, have an opportunity to make a rather easy decision this evening. We must decide to make airline travel safe for the people of the Nation. We must support the Democratic substitute and restore the confidence of our citizens to ride airplanes. The Aviation Security Act will eliminate the irresponsible private contractors who win the lowest-bid contracts for providing screening services at our airports. These contractors have failed the basic job of keeping our airlines safe for flight. Further, this bill will ensure all planes are retrofitted to secure the cockpits and to protect the pilots and passengers from hijackers. In addition, we must purchase the equipment to screen all baggage and all packages that are placed in the belly of each and every airplane. This bill will place more air marshals on our planes. These are simple safety measures that must be enacted. Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with us? What has taken us so long to make the flying public safe? Members, do not let history record the horrible details of the September 11 disaster, and further record that Members of Congress were not unified enough, not wise enough to pass good public policy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic alternative to the stimulus package. I ask my colleagues to reject the shameless boondoggle offered by my Republican colleagues. Capital gains tax break? Alternative minimum tax? Elimination retroactive? Give me a break. The Democratic plan is a well-planned alternative that will extend and expand unemployment benefits, supports health care for laid-off workers, a tax rebate to the working poor that receive no benefits from the Bush tax reform, and it creates jobs. I have worked very hard on an economic development plan; and I chased my colleague, the gentleman from California down. I put it before him. I worked on it. I worked with his staff on it. It is a plan that will help small businesses. We have the CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant, and all the cities and counties, they need money. That money can get into the economy very quickly. We have the Community Development Financial Institution that supplies monies for small businesses to create jobs. We have the enterprize zones, and it is all paid for. So do not tell me you want to be about job creation. You have ignored it. You have rejected it. You are doing nothing but creating a higher and bigger budget deficit.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are passing H.R. 3004, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act today. It is crucial that we take steps to ensure that terrorist funding is cut off at its source. I have been working on money laundering issues for years, and I believe that the time for action is long overdue. I am pleased that this bill addresses may concerns I have been raising about money laundering for years. This legislation authorizes Treasury to take special measures against foreign countries or financial institutions deemed to be primary money laundering concerns. This provision is similar to one I have advocated in the past. I am also pleased that other measures I have sponsored over the years, particularly heightened due diligence for private banking, and correspondent accounts, are included in this bill. Additional scrutiny will be required for these accounts, which have ``flown below radar'' for many years. In an October 28, 1999 letter, Citibank's Private Bank division defined private banks as banks ``which provide specialized and sophisticated investment and other services to wealthy individuals and families.'' The letter went on to say that private banks ``are inevitably exposed to the risk that an unscrupulous client will attempt to `launder' proceeds of illegal activities through the bank.'' This is stating the situation mildly. A 1998 GAO report on Private Banking detailed how known drug trafficker and international criminal Raul Salinas was able to transfer between $90 million to $100 million of proceeds through Citibank's private banking system. In November of 1999, the Senate's Committee on Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) presented revealing accounts of how Raul Salinas, and several other private banking customers, were able to launder funds through Citibank's private banking system. According to the Subcommittee's minority staff report, a key problem area within the private banking system is the use of concentration accounts. Currently, concentration accounts are bank accounts maintained by financial institutions in which funds from various bank branches and bank customers are commingled into one single account. Banks have used concentration accounts as a convenient, internal, banking-transfer mechanism. However, by combining funds from various sources into one account, and then wire transferring those funds into separate accounts, the true ownership and identity of the funds are temporarily lost, and more importantly, the paper trail is effectively ended. Law enforcement officials have stated that one of the biggest problems they encounter in money laundering investigations, particularly where there is an international flow of funds, is the inability of investigators to reconstruct an audit trail for prosecution purposes. This legislation will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to ensure that concentration accounts no longer shield the identity of individual customers. These new regulations will prohibit banks from telling their customers about concentration accounts. It will also prohibit banks from allowing their customers to direct that their money be moved through concentration accounts. And it will establish procedures to document the identity of and the amount of funds attributed to each customer whose money is moved through these accounts. I look forward to working with Treasury on these issues and seeing strong regulations implemented as soon as possible. I am particularly pleased that this legislation also includes and amendment I offered during markup which will ensure that an institution's record on money laundering issues is taken into account when the institution is attempting to merge with or acquire another institution. I have been told that the regulators can currently consider this factor, but my amendment makes it clear that they must consider an institution's record when considering an application from them. I would like to thank my colleagues, Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member LaFalce for working so quickly to bring this legislation to markup, and for including many strong provisions that I have championed for years.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we are debating a rule that is going to determine whether or not we vote on one of the most important items perhaps in some of our careers. We are talking about whether or not we are going to take a product that was produced by the Senate in the wee hours of the morning on one of the most important issues we will ever debate in this Congress, and rush it to the floor and vote on it, where significant changes have been made. There is a significant difference in what the Senate produced and what the House produced. What normally happens in this process is we have the House bill that is heard; we have the Senate bill that is heard. When there are differences, they go to conference and we try and work it out. We worked very hard in the Committee on the Judiciary in order to have a product that everybody could embrace. The right wing came together, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); and the left, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), myself; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and others. We gave a lot. We worked on this to make sure that we could get a bill that would respect the civil liberties of the people of this country, and now it has all been undone because of one person on that side who will not allow them to bring it up. I would ask the Members of this Congress to reject that kind of action.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This is a Senate bill that was voted out at 3 a.m. this morning. This bill is quite different than the bill passed by the House Committee on the Judiciary. Under the rules of the House, the Committee on the Judiciary's bill should have been heard on this floor and the differences between this bill and the House bill should have been worked out in a conference committee. Mr. Speaker, we had a bipartisan bill, and John Ashcroft destroyed it. The Attorney General has fired the first partisan shot since September 11. Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans worked hard to come up with a bipartisan bill. Attorney General John Ashcroft undermined the work of the Republican committee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the Democratic ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary. I consented to some policies I did not particularly care for. For the good of the House I compromised. Some of the Republicans on that committee compromised also. We had a bipartisan bill. The bill before us today is a faulty and irresponsible piece of legislation that undermines our civil liberties and disregards the Constitution of the United States of America. This bill takes advantage of the trust that we have placed in this administration. Our law enforcement and intelligence community have all of the laws and all of the money that they need to do their job. Mr. Speaker, they failed us; and now this Attorney General is using this unfortunate situation to extract extraordinary powers to be used beyond dealing with terrorism, laws that he will place into the regular criminal justice system. The question to be answered today is can we have good intelligence and investigations and maintain our civil liberties? This bill says no. I say yes. Let us not give away our privacy. Let us not undermine our constitutional rights. The gentleman did not finish the quote by Patrick Henry. He said: ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' I say the same today. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2975, pursuant to H.Res. 264, the amendment considered as adopted pursuant to that rule be modified by striking section 1001 and renumbering the remaining section accordingly.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Over the past 3 weeks, over 100,000 people have lost their jobs. Individuals who earn their living in the airline, hotel, tourism, and other related industries have been hit extremely hard. Many other industries have felt the pinch, too. We all know that the Twin Towers provided jobs for thousands of analysts, brokers, and other financial workers, but it was also the source of jobs for janitors, window washers, cooks, and others. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) represented over 500 of these workers. These were not high paying jobs, and many of these individuals live paycheck to paycheck without large savings accounts. Now, their future remains in doubt. Congress acted swiftly to help the airline industry but forgot about the airline employees. Organized labor decried the bailout bill. They insisted that any bill passed should help all the workers who lost their jobs because of these disasters--not just the airline industry. And they are right. We should be extending and increasing unemployment benefits for workers. We should be increasing job training opportunities. And we should be increasing access to healthcare. Our country's livelihood depends on these workers and we should do everything possible to assist them through these tough times. Some of the proposals we have seen will help displaced workers, but we should do more by creating jobs by investing in infrastructure, helping small businesses, and supporting programs that help businesses invest in our communities. If we pursue this course, jobs will be created and businesses will surely benefit. We will never forget that thousands of lives were lost and many more were devastated because of these terrorist acts. But as Members of Congress we can help put these lives back together.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment that the Ambercrombie language is not included in the Defense Authorization bill, and I support the motion to recommit so that it may be restored. Representative Abercrombie's amendment was an effort to ensure that the most knowledgeable and experienced individuals are contracted with to do the work for the Department of Defense. And his amendment was adopted in Committee by a bipartisan majority. But what the other side wants to do is contract out these projects which does not guarantee the best workers for the job, it does not guarantee that the work will be done at a lower cost. All it does is jeopardize the jobs of thousands of federal employees and put the lives of Defense employees on the line. The language was intended to place Federal employees on equal footing as private contractors. It does not say that the Federal government cannot contract out but rather that the best people must be employed to do the job. The government must look at all the options. The recent events have illustrated that our federal employees are constantly on the front line. We should be doing everything possible to protect them and their jobs. I urge that my colleagues support the motion to recommit.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by Representatives Sanchez and Harman. This amendment is a common sense approach to the question of abortion procedures for servicewomen at bases overseas. The law is clear here in the United States: women have the right to choose to have an abortion and to obtain it without undue interference from the government. Roe v. Wade established that right nearly 30 years ago, and no case since then has struck it down. That right belongs to all women residing in the U.S. It should not be taken away when our women decide to serve this country and are stationed overseas. Without this amendment, our servicewomen will not have access to safe abortion procedures in U.S. military medical facilities overseas. They are at risk of being subjected to unsafe methods in non-military medical facilities. Meanwhile, overseas servicemen and servicewomen seeking any other type of health care are able to access good, safe health care at military medical facilities. This amendment does not ask the government or taxpayers to fund the abortions. And the amendment would not force anyone in a U.S. military medical facilities overseas to perform the procedure. Rather, this amendment merely gives our servicewomen the right to have an abortion in a safe facility, provided that they pay the cost of the procedure and the doctor agrees to perform it. This is the very right those same women would have here in the United States, if they had not willingly sacrificed so much to serve our country. The amendment simply would restore previous policy that was in effect for decades, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. It is the least we can do for our servicewomen. Mrs. LOWEY, Madam Chairman I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. And I want to thank my colleague Loretta Sanchez for her fine work on this important issue. Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country. And yet, these women--for the past 7 years--have been denied the very Constitutional rights they fight to protect. My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? Mr. Speaker, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed. This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions because no federal funds would be used for these services. This amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures they are opposed to because they are protected by a broad exemption. This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access to safe and legal abortion services. As our Nation prepares for a severe and lengthy battle to preserve our freedoms and democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the path of our troops overseas. We know that not one of these restrictions on abortion does anything to make abortion less necessary--it simply makes abortion more difficult and dangerous. It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our military personnel. I urge passage of the Sanchez amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which I believe is critically necessary at this time. My bill, the ``Home Equity Loss Prevention and Economic Recovery Act'' or HELPER, will restore the tax deduction for personal interest, such as that on automobile loans and credit card debt. It will also eliminate the limitations on the deduction of student loan interest. This legislation will help prevent the reprehensible practice of stripping home equity to pay nondeductible debt. I have been working on ways to stem predatory lending for years. These practices often end in families losing their homes. I decided to turn to the tax code to eviscerate this problem of predatory lending, known as home equity stripping. Home equity loans have historically been the privilege of the middle class and wealthy, who generally have high credit ratings, income, and home equity. However, beginning in the 1980s, non-depository finance companies--lending institutions other than commercial banks, thrifts, and credit unions--began to provide home equity loans to lower-income communities, which were not served by mainstream lenders. Persons in low-income communities typically have little disposable income, but may have substantial home equity as a result of paying down their mortgages or through the appreciation of their property values. This equity can secure sizable loans. While offering loans to low- income and minority communities can benefit these communities, predatory lending practices, which oftentimes use the borrowers' home as collateral, have milked the last drops of wealth from many of these neighborhoods, leading to increased poverty and public dependence. When vulnerable persons incur substantial medical costs, suffer sudden loss of income, require credit consolidation, or need funds to maintain their homes, predatory lenders step in, offering loans secured by the borrower's equity. Unfortunately, predatory home equity lenders target the most vulnerable homeowners--the elderly and people in financial or personal crisis. The primary selling tools of these loans is the need to consolidate debt on which the interest is not deductible into a home equity loan, so that the interest can be deducted. Individuals with car loans, credit card debt and certain student loans cannot deduct the interest paid on these loans from their taxes. Often, these individuals will strip equity from their homes and pay high fees in an effort to consolidate this debt into one loan on which the interest is deductible. Frequently, these transactions involve high fees which offset any tax benefit that may be realized. Furthermore, after a loan consolidation, many consumers will accrue additional credit card debt. My bill will remove the greatest incentive for equity stripping by making the interest on personal loans deductible, meaning that people with car loans, credit card debt and student loans that fall outside of current parameters, will now be able to deduct the interest they pay for these loans. The deductibility of the interest will lower the cost of borrowing for individuals and will prevent many individuals from overextending themselves in an effort to reap tax benefits. I have been working on this legislation for several months, but decided that now is the appropriate time, because it has the potential to provide much needed economic stimulus. People will keep more of their money with these deductions, and will not be encouraged to pay high fees and risk losing their homes. I think that the time is right to restore the deductibility of personal interest and I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of uncertainty and apprehension. To the President of the United States, I will be asked by my constituents did we give you the power to declare war? Many in this Congress will argue that we are not giving you the power to declare war. Others will argue that we are giving you the power to do anything from assassinate an individual, to declare war on an entire country. Mr. President, I am going to vote yes on this resolution because I believe the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 were in fact a declaration of war against the United States of America. However, I vote yes with great reservations. To be honest, Mr. President, I do not know what this means. The language of this resolution can be interpreted in different ways. Mr. President, you have the awesome responsibility of leading this Nation and making the best possible decisions for the people of this country. Mr. President, do not misuse this authority. Mr. President, do not abuse this awesome power. Mr. President, I plead with you to use this authority with great care and great wisdom. Mr. President, with this power, the decisions you will make will determine the future of this Nation and perhaps the world. May God bless you with restraint and compassion to make wise decisions, and may God have mercy on your soul if you do not understand the awesome power that you have been afforded by the Members of Congress who are placing our trust in you on behalf of the American people. announcement by the speaker

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this great country is a mighty democracy built on the hopes, dreams, and sacrifices of many hardworking people who throughout our history were determined to develop, live, and prosper in the world's greatest Nation. The history of this Nation is one of struggle, and yes, oftentimes disappointments, dashed hopes and dreams. But through it all we have persevered, worked hard, and sacrificed to make this Nation a great Nation. We have come a long way in the elimination of poverty, prejudices, and injustice. We are immensely proud of our successes, and we are confident enough in our freedom to confront our shortcomings. We are a diverse Nation of many religious and political persuasions. We are an amazing patchwork of hopeful people who believe that we all have potential and we all deserve happiness and success. We do not take lightly any attempts to dim our hopes, to dash our dreams, to destroy, maim, or kill. We deplore terrorism, and we will not and cannot tolerate terrorism and destruction. We will not allow terrorism to erode the constitutional rights and personal freedoms that define us as Americans. I stand here today to reassure the citizens of New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Boston, New York, San Francisco, and others cities throughout the country that this legislative body will indeed work to ensure that the persons responsible for these acts of terrorism will be swiftly brought to justice. We are a wise people who have transcended a history that has taught us that violence begets violence, and violence serves no useful purpose. The cowardly attacks on the New York Twin Towers Trade Building and the Pentagon, the hijacking of American and United Airlines airplanes, the death, pain, and destruction that has shaken the very core of our society, must be responded to immediately. We will indeed identify and deal with the perpetrators. We are good people; not a perfect people, but we are good people. We do not deserve to have innocent Americans' lives destroyed by evil minds that plot and plan sneak attacks on our establishments and our structures and our people. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the harmed and the deceased. We grieve with them. Their losses are our losses, but we ask that they rest assured that our loved ones, their loved ones, will not have died in vain. We ask God to have mercy on their souls. We know we must take an honest assessment of all of our public policy at all levels, and strengthen our resolve for peace on Earth. We ask God to guide us in our response.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Chiquita Brands International has played a historically controversial role in Latin America. Beginning from its inception as the United Fruit Company, Chiquita has assisted in the overthrow of democratically elected governments who refused to yield to its economic demands. Other allegations against the company include producing false documentation, intimidating potential competitors and bribing government officials in order to maintain its hold over Latin American banana production. During the Clinton Administration, Chiquita also became embroiled in a well-publicized legal standoff with the European Union. The litigation resulted from the company's claim that the banana regime of the European Union, which attempted to protect small-scale producers in Africa and the Caribbean, would lead to business losses for Chiquita in the European banana market. In response to Chiquita's complaints, the White House challenged the European banana regime in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Despite such strong-armed tactics, Chiquita has not been able to maintain market share nor profitability in the 1990s. Since Chiquita has never been a proponent of open competition and fair play at any time in its history, the company's claims that built-in competitive advantages for small producers hurt large producers seems especially dubious. Chiquita must begin to accept responsibility for its economic and strategic failings, rather than assigning blame to those who would assure a competitive market. The attached article on Chiquita's irresponsible behavior was co- authored by Ernest Hartner and Randall Johnson, Research associates with the Washington-based Council on hemispheric Affairs (COHA), an organization that is committed to addressing issues associated with democracy and human rights throughout the Western Hemisphere. COHA's researchers have often spoken out about U.S. policies and practices toward Latin American countries. The article, which appeared in the June 18, 2001, edition of COHA's biweekly publication, The Washington Report on the Hemisphere, examines Chiquita's dubious history in Latin America. I request unanimous consent to include this article in the Congressional Record. Capitol Watch: Chiquita Banana's Hard Days The long battle between Chiquita Brands International and its many foes may be approaching an unanticipated ending. The company's recent financial restructuring indicates that a declaration of bankruptcy could occur in the near future. Chiquita has long attracted fiery criticism from human rights groups, labor unions and small-scale competitors over accusations of unethical and anti-competitive over accusations of unethical and anti-competitive business practices. Nevertheless, news of the company's financial difficulties came as a surprise to its detractors, who have often tended to see it more as a gun-toting mafia than a traditional corporation. Chiquita's possible demise should serve as a cautionary tale for companies seen as chronically operating outside the law, rather than acting as good corporate neighbors. A suspect history Through its 120-year existence, Chiquita has been a leader in the world's banana industry. The company's long presence in Central and South America has emphasized political manipulation, dirty tricks and a history of labor exploitation. First created as the United Fruit Company in the 1880's, Chiquita historically has sought to take advantage of the systematic corruption and tainted operating conditions to be found, or to be created, in such countries as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Colombia. While still known as United Fruit, Chiquita went so far as to arrange the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Guatemala which has refused to yield to its self-serving economic demands. More recently, in the Otto Stalinski affair, Chiquita financed an alleged assassination attempt, produced false documents, and bought judges and hot-shot Washington lawyers in order to secure its dominance over the local banana industry. Preceding the 1990 Banana War, rival banana exporter, the Fyffles Group, alleged that Chiquita illegally undercut agreements that it had made with independent banana suppliers. Fyffes' Stalinski accused the company of filing a fraudulent warrant and corrupting local judges and other officials to carry out its will, resulting in the confiscation of his company's banana shipments. Chiquita claims that the warrant was filed only as a cautionary measure, in light of Fyffes' defaulting on mortgage payments owned to it. The warrant was later invalidated, but not before Fyffes had suffered serious financial losses. Beyond lost banana shipments, Stalinski also accuses Chiquita of financing an attempt to kidnap him, with the intent of doing bodily harm, using a false arrest warrant and paramilitary forces. Roots of financial troubles Despite attempts to manipulate the global banana market in recent years, Chiquita has found it increasingly difficult to maintain market share and profitability in the late 1990's. While other banana producers such as Dole and Del Monte successfully adapted to changes in EU trade policy, Chiquita became embroiled in litigation and various schemes to buy influence in high places. On Chiquita's behalf, the White House Trade Office filed suit with the WTO against the EU's Lome agreement, an accord developed to guarantee its former colonies preferential access to European markets and lucrative aid packages. The morning after the complaint was filed, Chiquita's CEO Carl Lindner expressed his thanks to the Clinton administration was a $500,000 donation to several Democratic state committees' coffers. This donation represents only one in an unprecedented series of gifts made to U.S. political candidates, without regard to party affiliation. In fiscal year 1994, perhaps in an effort to hedge his bets, Lindner was the second largest soft money contributor to political campaigns, with $525,000 given to Democrats and $430,000 given to Republicans. Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor continued to defend Chiquita's interests before the WTO in the face of allegations that contributions made by Lindner had influenced his actions, and that Lindner had, in effect, purchased a foreign policy. Chiquita and U.S. officials worked actively to eliminate Lome preferences, with the WTO ruling in Wasington's favor, but in the end succeeded only in securing a partial compromise. The quotes first introduced by Lome gave way to a first-come-first-serve policy that was later replaced by a partial distribution of EU banana licenses. During this period, Chiquita experienced a severe financial crisis that has led to its impending financial restructuring. Chiquita's economic difficulties date back to 1992, several years before the signing of the Lome agreement. The eagerness of Chiquita's Lindner to assign responsibility for its losses to the EU quota system should come as no surprise, given his traditional reluctance to operate within the confines of a competitive market. Traditionally, Chiquita has ruthlessly sought `sweet-heart' deals with host countries leaders, which allowed to it to gain domination of the local banana industry, ofter after arranging for the purchased cooperation of local officials. `Strong armed' business tactics Despite some questionable cost-cutting measures aimed at maximizing profit margins, such as the use of fertilizers profit margins, such as the use of fertilizers banned in the U.S., anti-union tactics and the alleged corruption of judges and government officials, Chiquita still has been unable to sustain the economic growth experienced in the 1980s. The record profits of that decade were exhausted through Chiquita's single-minded devotion to protecting its banana turf, excessive legal expenses, and a series of poor management decisions. Instead of diversifying its product line, as Dole did by expanding into such new product lines as freshcut flowers, Chiquita chose to increase its involvement in the European banana market by making a determined assault against the relatively minor concessions made to the English- speaking Carribbean islands. It spent millions of dollars on refrigerated ships and advertising campaigns which sought to strengthen its hold in Europe, but saw little returns as a result of few changes in banana importation policy. This resulted in the heavy debt burden that leads many to predict Chiquita's downfall. Chiquita has never been a staunch proponent of open competition and fair play, as evidenced by the accusations of bribery, fraud and kidnapping. The company filed suit against the EU alleging the `preferential' treatment of small-scale banana producers. Chiquita adamantly views the guarantees established by Lome, as an attack on the WTO's free trade provisions. In an attempt to account for its financial decline, Chiquita has focused attention upon problems caused by Lome, rather than accept responsibility for its failed economic strategy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Frank for offering this amendment to prevent unnecessary rent increases in affordable housing and I urge my colleagues to support it. We are in a housing crisis. The economic expansion of the past few years has been accompanied by skyrocketing home prices and rents. There is a severe shortage of affordable housing, and in many areas, any type of housing. In my home state of California, about half of renter households pay more than the recommended 30 percent of their income toward shelter. However, 91 percent of low income renter households, with annual incomes less than $15,000, spend more than 30 percent of their income toward rent. These low income households outnumber low cost rental units by a ratio of more than 2-to-1, both statewide and in Los Angeles County. About two-thirds (66 percent) of senior renter households pay more than 30 percent of their income toward shelter. 85 percent of low income senior renters pay more than 30 percent toward rent. And with the aging of our population, these percentages will soon translate into much higher numbers. Furthermore, the rising tide of the recent economy has failed to lift all boats. Household incomes of renters in my state have failed to keep pace with inflation, falling significantly between 1989 and 1999 in inflation adjusted terms. The inflation adjusted income of poor renters fell nearly 14 percent, and the median income for renters with children fell 11 percent. Overcrowding and substandard housing conditions continue to be a severe problem, particularly in Los Angeles County. The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) multifamily mortgage insurance programs support new construction and substantial rehabilitation of apartments by both private and nonprofit developers. These units are crucial to meet the critical need for affordable rental housing. In my home state of California, there is a shortfall of almost 600,000 affordable units. These programs, which require federal budget appropriations in the form of a credit subsidy allocation, have been shut down since April because funding for fiscal year 2001 has been exhausted. This has jeopardized more than $3 billion in construction loans for more than 50,000 rental units across the country. This shutdown impacts more than $53 million in loans for 827 units in my home state of California, where, as I have stated, the need for such units is dire. In addition, this Administration has refused to use $40 million dollars in emergency funds that were appropriated at the end of last year to keep these programs open. An additional $40 million was allocated by the House in this year's supplemental appropriations bill, but the money was stripped in the Conference Committee. As a result, the program is unlikely to reopen until the next fiscal year. Furthermore, the Administration's budget request for FY 2002 is also inadequate. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as most of the housing industry agree that the current system of calculating credit subsidy needs is fundamentally flawed. Currently, there is a HUD study underway in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that is likely to show that these programs are self-supporting without congressional appropriations. This study is expected to be completed by the beginning of the next fiscal year. In the meantime, to address the credit subsidy shortage, HUD plans to increase the mortgage insurance premium for these programs by 60 percent, from 50 basis points to 80 basis points. This will relieve the alleged need for credit subsidy but will undercut the ability of the programs to provide affordable rental housing. This premium increase will raise rents in the affected housing developments by 4 or 5 percent, by HUD's own estimate, and may reduce the production of affordable rental units. This amendment by my colleague from Massachusetts will prohibit HUD from raising premiums in excess of what they need to run the program without a credit subsidy. The Frank amendment will prevent a build up of surplus funds that are not used for housing and would end up returning to Treasury for other purposes. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prevent unnecessary rent increases for affordable housing. We should not penalize those who can least afford it for the Administration's failure to address this issue. Point of Order

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak this morning. I know that people are all poised to go home, and we wanted to see if we could expedite the proceedings today so that we can get out as early as possible. But I could not help but come to the floor to speak on this issue. I cannot believe that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle who define themselves as law and order, who would have us believe that they have some values that are better than others, who would have us believe that they are the only ones who care about crime in America, who would have us believe that we do not pay enough attention to crime, would dare come to this floor and support the elimination of a drug program in America's public housing projects. America's public housing projects, for the most part, are poor people and some working people who are living basically in congested areas on top of each other, having to deal with some of the most difficult problems any human being could ever envision. We have a lot of young people who are attracted to the lifestyles they see on television, who want to go to the concerts; a lot of young people who want the cars; a lot of young people who want what we tell them America can afford. No, they do not have the kind of support oftentimes that will ensure that they keep going and they get educated. Many of them are dropouts. Many of them are coming from families who are in trouble. But they are all stacked into many of America's public housing projects; and, yes, the dope dealers and others come into these places. Mr. Chairman, we need the opportunity to educate, to prevent, to teach, to say to young people, there is another way. But Members on the other side of the aisle will tell us on this floor that we do not need to have a drug elimination program. Drugs are not a problem in the housing project, is that what they are telling us? No, what they are saying is, it is a problem, we know it is a problem, but we do not want the public housing project management to take the responsibility for the elimination of the drugs in public housing. What we would rather do is have the police run in, catch a 19-year-old with one rock crack cocaine and send him to the Federal penitentiary for 5 years on mandatory minimum sentencing. No prevention, no rehab, no inclusion of drug elimination in the management. It is so outrageous to say this is not our core program. This is not what we do. We would not tell a high-paid co-op in New York, we would not tell the resident, we do not have anything to do with your security and drug elimination; we do not have anything to do with making sure this building is safe and you are not at risk. And we are not going to allow you to say that here today. It is absolutely hypocritical to talk about eliminating this drug program in public housing. We know that many of us can talk from experience. We heard the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York, talk about his life, his experiences. Well, I want my colleagues to know many of us in the Congressional Black Caucus represent most of the public housing projects in America. They are part of our districts. We work there. We advocate for them. We try to make them safer. We try to give people hope. We try to give them a way by which they can get up and get out. But when our colleagues come to the floor and they tell us that they do not care enough to support the idea that we can eliminate drugs, we can eliminate crime, that we can provide some security in public housing, then we must come to this floor and we must take our colleagues on and take our colleagues on our will. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle on this vote to forget about the fact that somebody told them they do not want to do this job. I do not know this new Secretary, but I am hopeful that is not the message that he sent to this floor. I am hopeful that somehow the gentleman is a little bit confused about the message. I would ask that we support the amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for putting this back on this floor so that we could have this debate.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment sponsored by Representative Kucinich which would create a commission to oppose the privatization of Social Security. Individuals may question why we would create a commission whose outcome is already known. Well, I would pose that question to the President. On May second, when the White House Commission on Social Security was announced, the President said that when reforms are made, benefits must be maintained at their current level, payroll taxes cannot be raised, reforms must restore Social Security to ``sound financial footing,'' and young workers must be allowed to invest part of their earnings in private accounts. So we knew what the Commission was going to recommend privatization. But if we do privatize there is no way that we can satisfy the other requirements of President Bush. Privatizing will result in reduction of benefits and it will surely wreck the financial stability of the program. First, advocates of privatization suggest diverting part of the payroll tax, which funds Social Security, into the private accounts. However, by doing this we actually put the program in greater jeopardy. Studies have shown that by diverting just 2 percent of the payroll tax to private accounts, we bring the solvency rate closer. The President's very plan to restore stability to the program actually bankrupts Social Security sooner than if we do nothing at all. In addition, privatization does not guarantee financial security. As an Economic Policy Institute study shows, ``a bursting of the stock market bubble has meant the largest absolute decline in household wealth since World War II, even after adjusting for inflation. In relative terms, the market's drop represents the sharpest decline in household wealth in 25 years.'' So it is very possible that this kind of market volatility could happen throughout a worker's lifetime, jeopardizing his or her retirement savings. From the end of 1999 to the end of 2000, the total financial assets of American households declined 5% or $1.7 trillion. Therefore, the money some were planning on retiring with is not there any longer. Those who wanted to retire have to stretch their savings even further or continue working. That is a scary and unfair proposition for our seniors. But what really concerns me is the idea of individuals putting their money in the stock market without sound financial advice. Many working families do not have the time or the extra money to hire financial advisors to make recommendations on where to put their money. The President's plan, indirectly, favors wealthy individuals and families because they are the only ones who have disposable income to invest, hire professionals and the time to meet with them. Social Security is the most successful social policy to keep individuals out of poverty in the history of the United States. To privatize Social Security, especially without any type of professional advice, means to put individuals, mostly women and minorities, into poverty. In 1997, 9 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 or older were in poverty. Without Social Security, that number would have risen to 49 percent. In addition, without Social What my colleagues and the public should be concerned about, though, is that the members of the commission had no alternative but to support privatization. In fact, as a condition of being named to the group, you had to support the idea of privatization. It has been said many times that this is another way for President Bush to pay back his supporters who helped him into office. By supporting privatization, President Bush will put millions, probably billions, of dollars in the pockets of Wall Street firms and their CEOs. In fact, Wall Street firms are starting a multi-million dollar advertising campaign to win public support of the plan. As the Wall Street Journal reported: ``. . . a range of financial-service firms are pooling their efforts, and millions of dollars for advertising, to assist him in raising public concern about the retirement program's woes. But the ad dollars are a pittance compared with the billions at stake for Wall Street should Mr. Bush achieve his goal of carving private accounts out of Social Security.'' The group's name? It is ironically called ``Coalition for American Financial Security.'' The only financial security they ensure is their own. So by adopting this amendment, sponsored by Mr. Kucinich, we will be able to provide a report to the President and to the public to show why privatization is a bad choice. Only then, when we can see both sides of the story, can we make an informed and sound decision.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, there was a demonstration out front the other day and up and down Connecticut Avenue. It was the Falun Gong trying to tell us about religious persecution in China. Yet we chase after China, we give them Most Favorite Nation status for trading purposes, and we forget about their human rights violations. Yet 90 miles off the shore of Miami, we have a small country that is trying to survive, and we keep our foot on the back of their necks simply because there are few people who cannot get over the fact that he overthrew Batista. Batista had literally given Cuba to the multinationals, who practically owned it, to the gangsters, and everybody else who wanted to go down to Cuba and do whatever they wanted to do. Well, we may not like the revolution, but we need to get over it. He has been trying to survive all of these years. It is time to do away with this policy. It does not make good sense. Let me just tell you, Canada is reaping $260 million in trade; China, $156 million; France, $216 million. It goes on and on and on. The Farm Bureau wants to open up trade opportunities.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee-Leach amendment which would increase the funding for the United States contribution to the Global AIDS Fund from $100 million to $160 million. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for all of their leadership that they have provided on this issue. Last year I recall that they came to this floor and they asked for a bit more assistance; and the Members of Congress saw the wisdom in their words and work, and they supported them. I hope that the House will give support to this amendment that is being placed before Members today. The global HIV/AIDS pandemic is the most severe health crisis of our time. Over 36 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS, and 95 percent of them live in developing countries. The impact of the pandemic on sub-Saharan Africa defies description. Seventeen million Africans have already died of AIDS since the beginning of the pandemic, and 25 million Africans are living with HIV/AIDS. Over 6,000 people die from AIDS-related diseases every day in sub-Saharan Africa. The pandemic has been especially devastating for children. Approximately 1 million children are living with HIV/AIDS in sub- Saharan Africa, and an estimated 600,000 African infants become infected with HIV each year through mother-to-child transmission either at birth or through breast feeding. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, U.N. AIDS, projects that at least half of all 15-year-olds will eventually die of AIDS in the worst-affected countries such as Zambia, Botswana, and South Africa. Furthermore, over 12 million African children have lost their mother to AIDS and are considered AIDS orphans. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has curtailed the economic development of many African countries. AIDS is believed responsible for shortages of skilled workers and teachers, high rates of absenteeism, labor turnover, and the deaths of Africans at upper levels of management in business and government in many areas of sub-Saharan Africa. USAID has estimated that Kenya's GNP will be 14.4 percent smaller in the year 2005 than it would have been without AIDS. In the Ivory Coast, five teachers reportedly die from AIDS during each week of the school year. Teachers and other skilled workers can be very difficult to replace. In some parts of Africa, employers find it necessary to hire two workers for each job opening because they expect one out of every two workers to die from HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has disrupted the lives of farm communities and reduced agricultural production. When adult members of farm families become ill, they become unable to continue farming. Farm tools and animals may be sold to pay for their care. Children are forced to leave school and care for their parents. Sharp reduction in crops such as maize and cotton and other crops in Zimbabwe have been attributed to widespread illness and death from AIDS among farm families and agricultural workers. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has asked for the establishment of a Global AIDS Fund to address this devastating pandemic. He estimated that it will take $7 billion to $10 billion per year to mount a successful effort to treat HIV-infected people and stop the spread of AIDS. The Global AIDS Alliance estimates that it will take $15 billion per year, yet current spending on HIV/AIDS is only $1 billion per year from all sources combined. This bill provides a paltry $474 million in funding for international HIV/AIDS programs. The United States certainly can do better. The United States should be a leader in global AIDS funding. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Lee-Leach amendment and demonstrate the commitment of Congress to worldwide efforts to stop the spread of this deadly disease. Mr. Chairman, I know that some of us are beginning to sound like a broken record. But we will be on this floor day in and day out at every point that we can join this issue. We will be here. We will not sit silently by and watch the devastation that we are witnessing in the world, and particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and be quiet. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said, What more do they expect? We are putting money in the budget. We keep putting money in the budget. Members heard what the estimates are. $1 billion from all sources when we need $10 billion to 15 billion. We have a long way to go. Mr. Chairman, Members will be hearing from us often. Members will be hearing from us in the most profound way we can put forth this issue. We have got to have more money to stop the pandemic.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this coming weekend, from July 20 to July 22, President George W. Bush will be meeting with the heads of government at the G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, to discuss international economic issues. I urge the President to support the complete cancellation of the debts that the world's poorest countries owe the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, referred to as HIPC, was developed in 1999 to provide debt relief to the world's poorest countries. The HIPC Initiative requires countries to invest the savings from debt relief in HIV-AIDS treatment and prevention, health care, education, and poverty reduction programs. Unfortunately, the IMF and the World Bank have not provided their fair share of debt relief. While the United States agreed to cancel 100 percent of the debts owed by poor countries, the IMF and the World Bank have agreed to reduce these countries' debts by less than half. As a result, the countries that have begun to receive debt relief have seen their debt payments reduced by an average of only 27 percent. Most of these countries are still spending more money on debt payments than they are on health care. Zambia provides an excellent illustration of what is wrong with the approach of the IMF and the World Bank. Zambia is a deeply impoverished country with a per capita income of only $330. The infant mortality rate exceeds 1 percent of live births, and 27 percent of Zambian children under 5 are malnourished. Zambia has also been ravaged by the HIV-AIDS pandemic. Almost 10 percent of the population is infected with the AIDS virus and 650,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS. AIDS has also ravaged the educational system by causing a shortage of trained teachers. Yet Zambia's debt payments have actually increased following the receipt of debt relief. Moreover, Zambia spends more than twice as much money on debt payments as it does on health care. How can the International Monetary Fund tell countries like Zambia to use savings from debt relief for poverty reduction when the IMF knows there is no savings? On April 26, 2001, I introduced H.R. 1642, the Debt Cancellation for the New Millennium Act. This bill would require the IMF and the World Bank to provide complete cancellation of 100 percent of the debts owed to them by all 32 impoverished countries that are expected to qualify for the HIPC Initiative. The bill would also allow three additional impoverished countries, Bangladesh Haiti, and Nigeria, to participate in the HIPC Initiative. Furthermore, the bill would prohibit the imposition of user fees for education and health services and other structural adjustment programs as conditions for debt relief. Seventy- six Members of Congress representing both political parties have cosponsored this bill. The IMF and the World Bank have sufficient resources to completely wipe away poor countries' debts. It is time for the IMF and the World Bank to do their share to make debt relief a reality for poor countries and their people. It is time for the IMF and the World Bank to allow these countries to invest their resources in health, education, and the elimination of poverty. I urge President Bush and the world leaders who attend the G-8 summit to tell the IMF and the World Bank to completely cancel 100 percent of the debts of the world's most impoverished countries once and for all.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for some of us to say that we were raised in church, and that we are religious people. We went to Sunday school every Sunday when I was a little girl coming up. We went back to the 11 a.m. service with our parents, and then we went back at 6 o'clock in the evening to BYPU for the young people. I do not want anybody to think that because we are against this bill, somehow we are not religious, or we do not believe in religion. We certainly do. What we do not believe in is discrimination. We cannot, as public policymakers who understand the Constitution and appreciate it, and understand the struggle of those people who came to this country fleeing religious oppression, sit here and allow something called a faith-based program to reinstitute discrimination. It is wrong, and we cannot stand for that. Religious organizations in this country participate in this government in many ways. For those people who say we have to have this bill in order to have participation, they are wrong. Let me just tell the Members, last year Lutheran Services, the largest faith-based organization to receive government aid, received about $2.7 billion, Jewish organizations received about $2 billion in government aid, Catholic Charities received $1.4 billion, and the Salvation Army received $400 million. So what are we talking about? They have separate 501(c)3s that they apply under because they separate from the collection plate the money that comes from the government in order to carry out these programs, and that is the way it should be. We should never allow commingling of the government and taxpayers' dollars in the collection plate. It is wrong, it violates separation of church and State, and we should stop it on this floor right now, and not support the so-called faith-based organization initiative. I would say to my friends and colleagues here today, we have the opportunity to uphold civil rights, to say we are against discrimination, to say we are not going to allow taxpayer dollars to turn people away who are applying for jobs, and most importantly, we are going to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. I ask for a no vote on the faith-based organization initiative.