Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to whether or not the three amendments that are being referenced are included in this group that is being agreed upon? These are three amendments that we had prepared. We did not realize that there would be perhaps a reduction or closing off of the opportunity to present amendments. I would certainly ask my colleagues to include these three amendments in this group.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4680, the Medicare Prescription 2000 Act. H.R. 4680 is a poor excuse for a prescription drug bill for our Nation's senior citizens. This Republican bill would force seniors who want prescription drug coverage to get it from private insurance companies. However, the bill provides no guarantee that individual seniors will have access to private insurance plans that cover prescription drug. Furthermore, even when coverage is offered, the premiums, deductibles and co-payments will vary widely, depending upon what plans are available in the area. Millions of seniors will not be able to afford to participate in these private insurance plans. The Republican bill would provide payments for prescription drugs to private health insurance companies--not patients themselves or their health care providers. Many private insurance companies have unfairly restricted health care for their patients in the past. Now is not the time to give these insurance companies additional government benefits. H.R. 4770, the alternative prescription drug bill proposed by the Democrats, would provide a guaranteed prescription drug benefit under Medicare to all seniors who want one. This bill would ensure that all seniors who choose to participate would pay the same low premiums and receive the same benefits, regardless of where they live. Moreover, low-income seniors who cannot afford to pay the premiums would not be denied prescription drug coverage under the Democratic alternative. It is time that Congress make prescription medicines available to all seniors who need them. I urge my colleagues to oppose this Republican giveaway to private insurance companies and support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson amendment would restore funding for international peacekeeping in the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act cuts funding for international peacekeeping efforts by $241 million below the President's request. That is a 33 percent cut in an essential international program. These funds must be restored. Peacekeeping operations play an important role in the maintenance and establishment of peace and stability in many parts of the world. In Cyprus, United Nations peacekeepers prevented two NATO allies from going to war. In El Salvador, peacekeepers helped bring a long and bloody civil war to an end. In Israel, peacekeeping operations on the Golan Heights helped preserve the peace between Israel and Syria. I am particularly concerned about the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The war that erupted in the Congo in August of 1998 has been a widespread and destructive conflict, involving forces from several different countries. The peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations are essential to bring peace and stability to the Congo and the entire Great Lakes Region of Africa. Once peace and stability have been established, the Congo may begin to develop its natural resources, invest in health and education for its people, improve its infrastructure, pursue economic development and participate in mutually-beneficial trade with the United States. There are conflicts all over the world that threaten peace and stability. These conflicts interfere with development and result in unimaginable suffering and countless violations of internationally recognized human rights. They also interfere with international trade and eliminate markets for American goods and services. They often cause significant increases in international refugee flows and illegal immigration into the United States. They threaten the lives of American citizens traveling abroad. Peacekeeping allows the international community to attempt to restore peace, protect civilians and promote stability and development. Support for and participation in peacekeeping missions allow the United States to promote American values. In countries experiencing internal conflicts, peacekeeping is an essential ingredient in the restoration of democracy. Peacekeeping is a critical investment in our national security. The cost of peacekeeping is small, and the benefits are tremendous. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson amendment and restore funding for peacekeeping.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 341, I was detained on an emergency call in my office and was not present on the floor when rollcall 341 was voted. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor. Since 1994, some Members of this Congress have been determined to eliminate legal services for the poor. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut Legal Services from a budget of $415 million in fiscal year 1995 to $283 million in fiscal year 1998. Today's bill proposes that we drop this figure to $141 million. This proposal is less than half of the current level, and 59 percent less than the administration's request of $341 million. Since its creation, the Legal Services Corporation has handled over 30 million cases, with clients including the working poor, veterans, family farmers, battered women, and victims of natural disasters. Two- thirds of the clients are women, and many of them are surviving violence. The cuts imposed by Congress in 1996 meant that 50,000 battered women did not get legal representation in cases where the primary issue was domestic violence. Americans support access to the courts, regardless of class. However, cuts into the Legal Services Corporation would affect representation for about one out of five Americans. Moreover, the deep cuts in Legal Services will mean that whole sectors in many poor and rural regions of the country will have no publicly funded legal assistance. One Legal Services Corporation lawyer for every 23,600 poor Americans is not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor fell from 4,871 in funding year 1995, to 2,115 in funding year 2000. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest have virtually no legal services representation. Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally funded Legal Services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through the Legal Services organization. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time. I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of yours would have no other legal representation without the existence of the Legal Services Corporation. I serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and many are going to be engaged in a discussion about predatory lending, because it is on the rise. We have many of these financial institutions who do this sub-prime lending who are providing equity loans; and in many of these communities senior citizens have paid for these homes, they have a lot of equity, and maybe they need a new roof, maybe they would like a room extension, maybe they would like some work done, and some of these lenders are now lending them money, more than they can afford to pay back. They look at their fixed and limited incomes, but it does not matter. They see all of this equity in these homes. They lend them the money, and guess what? The homes get foreclosed on, and they show up in our offices. Help me, they say. They are taking my home away from me. Where do you think we go for these people? They go to the Legal Services Corporation. They are the ones who are saving the homes of people who are the victims of predatory lenders who are taking away the only valuable asset they have. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know, this is not just happening in the inner city, this is not just happening in one or two communities. I do not know how some of my friends who oppose Legal Services get away with it. What are they telling the poor people in their district? What are they telling the senior citizens in their districts that are getting ripped off? I know there are a lot of issues to consider, and oftentimes we will get people waving the flag, talking about all kinds of issues; but you do not represent the poor people, the working people in your districts. They are losing valuable assets; they are losing their homes under these predatory lending scams. Legal Services Corporation is the only organization that will be there for them. I ask Members to support the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would rather not be here this time of the evening having to strike the last word to stand up for women who cannot stand up for themselves, but since there are those who have chosen to pick on the most vulnerable women, women in prison, those of us who are free, those of us who have a voice, must take this time to speak for those women. It is about time that we show some compassion and understanding regarding this very personal issue. I think it is time that we talk about this issue, at least in ways that we can respect everybody that is involved. Why would this Congress insist on bearing its weight again on this vulnerable population in our Federal prisons? Consider the plight of some of these women. Yes, it has been said here this evening, for whatever reasons, the numbers of women incarcerated is increasing. Those numbers, for whatever reasons, are getting higher and higher. Many of them are being convicted on conspiracy charges. Many of these women have not been proven to be guilty of anything. Many of them are the mates or the spouses of others, of men, who are involved in drug trafficking and they get caught up in this web through the surveillance techniques and all of those things that we have. So they are there. Many of them, yes, are HIV infected and some of them happen to be pregnant women, but pregnant women who are incarcerated. I do not believe that I have the right to force my will on this woman regarding the choice to bring a child into the world. I believe that woman, like her peers outside of the criminal justice system should have a choice, a say regarding the decision to carry to term the child. We talk about how much we love these children, but what happens to them? What happens to these children that are born unwanted? What happens to these children that sometimes are born HIV infected to drug- infected women? We do not know what happens to them, and I say to my colleagues, I believe that there are many who do not care what happens to them. They go out somewhere, maybe if they are lucky, they get into foster care. These are children that are doomed to poverty, doomed to the inability to have a decent life. So, that is not our choice, it is the choice of the woman who finds herself in this unfortunate predicament. It has been found that many female prisoners enter prison suffering from a marriage of physical and psychological ailments, and many are pregnant before they enter prison. I know that the issue of abortion is one that has deep religious and philosophical implications. Notwithstanding, abortion is legal in this country, and it is still a legal health care option for women in this country, whether we like it or not. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote yes on the DeGette amendment. Women in prison deserve to have access to needed health care services, and they deserve to have choice. Mr. Chairman, those of us who have been involved in this struggle so that women have the right to choice can stand here and make this argument, and my colleagues cannot do anything to us, they cannot pick on us. They have lost the fight. Abortions are legal. So what are they doing? They are moving to this vulnerable population because they think they cannot do anything about it. Are we not brave? Are we not great public policymakers? We can get those women in prison. However, they cannot do anything about all of those women who come to the floor, all of those women out there who are organized, all of those women who can stand up for their rights. They lost that battle a long time ago, but yes, women in prison, aha, we found somebody that we can take away this constitutional right, this guaranteed right. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to vote aye on the DeGette amendment. It is the only fair thing to do. It is the only reasonable thing to do. It is the only thing that good public policymakers, good public policymakers who would know how to use their power in a much better fashion than this, not picking on the vulnerable, not picking on those who cannot stand up for themselves. I think my colleagues deserve to treat yourselves better than that. Let us vote for this amendment and put it behind us.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that Member after Member who opposed this resolution will get up on the floor and agree that the WTO is making decisions that destroy the environment, endangering the health and safety of the peoples of the world, thumb their noses at human rights, but they say, yes, we know all this, but we do not want to leave. We want to stay. It does not make good sense. It does not make good sense unless they simply are doing the business of multinational corporations of the world in the interests of making more profits. I know a lot about the WTO. I have followed them intimately for the last 3 years. I have watched what they have done as they have destroyed the ability of small farmers in the eastern Caribbean to earn a living from producing and selling bananas to the European Union. Why do they do that? One man, Carl Linder from Chiquita Bananas, who gave money on both sides of the aisle, who is well-connected politically, simply teamed up with Mickey Kantor, who is our United States Trade Representative, took the case to the WTO, because he did not like competition. We do not grow any bananas in the United States, but they took the case on behalf of Carl Linder, who grows bananas down in Central America and who does a terrible job of protecting the rights of the workers, spraying pesticides on them while they till the soil, many of them dying and coming up with terrible diseases. They took this case on behalf of Carl Linder to the WTO, and guess what, we won, because Carl Linder and Chiquita are very powerful corporate interests. Do Members know what is happening over in the eastern Caribbean? The farmers no longer will have the banana crop. Do Members know what will replace it? Ganja, marijuana, drugs. It will be a transshipment point for drugs into the United States and into our communities. That is what the WTO did. In addition to that, he created a trade war that is now hurting our small businesses because of the sanctions that we have imposed on the European Union. It does not make good sense. Further, let us talk about the trade-related intellectual properties or the TRIPS agreement that provides another example of a WTO policy that benefits wealthy and powerful special interests. The TRIPS agreement gives patent rights over plants and medicines that come from small countries to wealthy corporations, the soybean in east Asia, which is patented by a subdivision of Monsanto Chemical; the mustard seed that was developed by the people of India has also been patented by Monsanto. I could go on and on and tell Members why we must get out of the WTO. I think reasonable minds will agree that the WTO simply is substituting for the responsibilities that we should be exercising as elected representatives. We have elected representatives in democracies around the world, and criminal justice systems in democracies that can resolve problems, can negotiate disputes. Yet, we have decided to give up our rights, and there is no transparency. They make all of these decisions in secret. They make these decisions in secret. We do not know who they are. We are beginning to find out that the multinational corporations have inserted their people, have gotten them appointed so that they are making decisions to protect them and their ability to make money on the backs of poor people, on the backs of small nations, on the backs of Americans who do not even know who these people are and how they are making these decisions. Mr. Speaker, I ask support for this resolution. It makes good sense.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Weldon amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Weldon amendment, which would have a devastating impact on many Indian tribes throughout our nation. The Weldon amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from implementing important regulations for mediating differences between states and Indian tribes on Indian gaming activities. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires Indian tribes to negotiate compacts with state governments for the operation of certain types of gaming facilities. In the event that states and tribes are unable to negotiate a compact, the Act gives the Department of the Interior the authority to mediate between the states and the tribes. The Department of the Interior's regulations are essential to ensure that tribes can operate gaming facilities when states refuse to negotiate compacts in good faith. The supporters of this amendment claim that the Department of the Interior's regulations would ``bypass'' state authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. The regulations come into play only after a state has refused to negotiate a compact with a tribe. Furthermore, during the mediation process, the state has several opportunities to join the process and participate as a full party to the negotiations. This amendment would encourage states to ignore their obligation to negotiate with tribes that seek to operate gaming facilities. It would permit states to refuse to negotiate gaming compacts and thereby prevent tribes from operating gaming even when other citizens and businesses in the state are permitted to do so. This unfairly discriminates against Indian tribes. Gaming is to Indian tribes what lotteries are to state governments. Indian gaming revenues are used to fund essential government services including health care, education, law enforcement, tribal courts, economic development and infrastructure improvement. These revenues serve to promote the general welfare of the tribes and their members. Through gaming, tribal governments have been able to bring hope and opportunity to some of the country's most impoverished people. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a debate on this floor this evening that should make us all question why we are in this place and what we care about. I cannot help but ask myself, are we to take the gentleman from Washington seriously? This is the same man who supported term limits and has now reversed himself. We are asked to believe that this is about good public policy. Well, it is not. This is about politics. This is not about an attempt to help the Indians. This is simply to provide political cover. This amendment adds a mere $20 million to an account that the Republicans already cut by $200 million. Native Americans are among the most impoverished people in the United States. Thirty percent of Native Americans are living below the poverty line. Native Americans suffer disproportionately high rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and substance abuse. Half of the roads and bridges on Indian reservations are in a serious state of disrepair. The unemployment rate among Native Americans is over 50 percent, and one- third of Native American children do not graduate from high school. Despite the pressing needs of our Nation's first people, the funding in this bill for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $320 million below the budget request submitted by the President. This bill cut funding for the housing improvement program by $7 million below the fiscal year 2000 level and provided no funds whatsoever for new housing construction. The bill also cut funding for school construction, $13 million below the fiscal year 2000 level and $180 million below the President's request. Funding for the Indian Health Service is an appalling $200 million below the President's request. The American economy is extraordinarily healthy today. However, the people who live on Indian reservations are some of the poorest people in our Nation. They desperately need funding for health care, education, school construction, housing and economic development. This amendment that we are confronted with, in light of what has already taken place in H.R. 4478 the Interior Appropriations Act, is appalling. I do not believe that any Member of this House could comfortably support this amendment and comfortably even support this bill knowing how this can be viewed by our voting public. The results of this can only be thought of as cynical. I would ask us all to oppose the amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Sanders- Boehlert-Kind amendment to H.R. 4578, the Interior Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. The Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment would cut funding for the Fossil Fuel Energy Research and Development program by $45 million and increase funding for energy efficiency programs by the same amount. Included in this increase would be an increase of $20 million in the Weatherization Assistance Program. The Weatherization Assistance Program provides assistance to low- income American families to improve their energy efficiency and lower their energy cost. Two-thirds of those served by this program have incomes under $8,000 per year, and almost all of them have incomes under $15,000 per year. Many of the beneficiaries were elderly or disabled and many are families with young children. Weatherization assistance enables those families to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in the summer. Mr. Chairman, I recall it was just 2 years ago, I believe, that we witnessed seniors dying in Chicago. Many of them were trapped in high- rise buildings, and we could not even get assistance to them. They literally suffocated in their homes because of the heat, and they had no air conditioning. I do not think that we want to see the reoccurrence of the kinds of deaths that we saw as a result of the weather and the heat at that time. Low-income families spend an average of $1,100 per year on energy expenses for their homes. These expenditures comprise 14.5 percent of their annual incomes. By contrast, other families spend a mere 3.5 percent of their annual incomes on home energy expenses. The Weatherization Assistance Program enables low-income families to save an average of $200 per year in heating costs. These savings can be used for other basic human necessities such as food, clothing, housing, and health care. The Fossil Fuel Energy Research and Development program funds government research on fossil fuel technologies that benefit, for the most part, the oil, gas and utility industries. This program was funded at $34 million above and beyond the amount requested by the President, although, the Interior Appropriations Act as a whole was funded at $1.7 billion below the President's request. Why are the Republicans increasing funds for this corporate welfare program? The oil, gas, and utility industries do not need this program. They sincerely can afford to do their own research. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Sanders-Boehlert-Kind amendment. Cut the corporate welfare and support funding for energy assistance for low-income Americans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, to add $1,000 to this particular item, Child Care and Development Block Grant. I rise in support of this meager amount because we need to show a sign that we are willing to support the children of this Nation. At a time when we have a $179 billion surplus, we are cutting programs for children and families. It seems to me in this well-performing economy where we are creating more and more millionaires day in and day out, we would be willing to support children and families. At a time when we can have Members wax eloquently about getting people off of welfare, it seems to me we would support families for safe and secure child care so that parents and single mothers in particular could go to work, could seek out additional educational opportunities, and feel comfortable that their children are being taken care of in safe environments. If we cannot support a meager $1,000 increase, then I think that we cannot be credible as we talk about trying to pass this appropriation from the floor of Congress. It is important that we understand that most eligible children are denied assistance. Nationally, only one of 10 children who is eligible for child care assistance under Federal law receives any help. No State is currently serving all eligible families. States are severely limiting access to assistance. Only five States set their income eligibility guidelines at the maximum level allowable under Federal law, 85 percent of their State median income in 22 States; a family of three earning $25,000 a year does not qualify for help. In three States, Alabama, Missouri, and South Carolina, a family of three earning $18,000 a year, 130 percent of poverty, cannot qualify for help. It is unconscionable that we cannot agree from both sides of the aisle to do what we know we could do in this budget for children. Let me just add that, in addition to this cut, this denial of care for children in this block grant, the idea that we cannot support the President's budget for Head Start is appalling to me. I worked in Head Start prior to coming to Congress. I served first as an assistant teacher and went on to become the supervisor of Parent Involvement and Volunteer Services. Head Start is the best thing that ever happened to this country. We empower children and families. Last Friday, when I left here, I went to the 26th anniversary of one of the Head Start programs in my district, training and research. Ninety percent of the parents whose children were enrolled in the program that I attended last Friday were enrolled in school themselves. They were inspired by their involvement in Head Start to get back into school and to get an education so that they cannot only determine their children's educational destiny, but that they could better themselves and their families. Head Start has been excellent for America. We have children who have had an opportunity for early childhood development who never would have had an opportunity. At one time in this country, early childhood education was only for the rich and the well off. For us not to support the President's budget on Head Start is again unconscionable. This $1,000 amendment will show us for what we are if we do not support it. I am sorry that we have to be in a protracted debate about supporting child care and education and health care for children. This is America. This is an America that is doing extremely well. I would ask all of my colleagues to please support this amendment in an indication that they care about children.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pelosi amendment to increase drug treatment funding by $600 million. This Nation has a problem with drug addiction, and we cannot continue to incarcerate our way out of this health crisis. With less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States has one quarter of the world's prisoners. The rapid expansion of the U.S. prison industrial complex has been fueled by the so-called war on drugs. While all of our communities are suffering, inner city, rural, black, white, Asian, Native American, name it, we have a problem. I am stunned and outraged by a report that was released last week by the Human Rights Watch which said that African American men are imprisoned for drug crimes at 13 times the rate of white men even though black and white rates of drug use are similar, with overall far more white than black users. This is an American problem. In our Federal system, 60 percent of the prisoners are drug law violators with no violent criminal history. According to the latest Bureau of Justice statistics, 55 percent of convicted jail inmates are using drugs in the month before the offense. Let us stop politicizing this. Let us do something about it. Support the Pelosi amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme pride that I come to the floor of the House of Representatives today. I want to share the fantastic accomplishments of some of my constituents--the students, parents, teachers, administrators and school board representatives of the Inglewood Unified School District in Inglewood, California. A recent Los Angeles Times article, ``Inglewood Writes the Book on Success: It's Elementary Schools Draw Experts Studying How Poor, Minority Kids Get Test Scores as High as Beverly Hills': Keys Include Phonics, Constant Testing, Intensive Teacher Training'' by Duke Helfand highlights the phenomenal educational achievements by Inglewood's students. The article extensively chronicles the success of this urban school district. The article explains that Inglewood's Elementary school students, 98% of whom are African-American and Latino, have scores on the Stanford 9 educational test in the top half of the list of all California school districts. These students are not considered the ``norm,'' the majority qualify for school lunch programs, have learned English as a second language and are being taught by a 45% uncredentialed elementary school teacher force. These students are defying all of the rules governing poverty, parental achievement and educational attainment. An educational environment exists where the administrator defied the state educational guidelines and stuck to the basics--phonics drills, writing exercises and children's literature. The schools did not follow the move toward bilingual education and continued teaching in English only, according to the article. The administrators involved the parents in their child's education, keeping in mind the parent is a child's first educator. Inglewood elementary schools have shattered the myths about poverty and education. I an excited to be here today to share that fact with my colleagues. Public schools work. The level they have reached is the level we expect from all our children regardless of where it is they happen to live. In Inglewood, educational excellence is the norm. In today's news, we usually only hear about problem situations with our young people. We often do not hear enough about the hard work of the majority of our own constituents. We do not hear the success stories of the young people, their parents, teachers and administrators. I am pleased to be able to share this exciting success story with you. I thank Mr. Helfand, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, for writing this informative article. I have attached a copy of the complete article for inclusion at this time. Congratulations, Inglewood Unified School District! You have made us all proud. Continue to keep up the excellent academic achievements you have begun. We are a better community for your accomplishments. [From the Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2000] Inglewood Writes the Book on Success; Its Elementary Schools Draw Experts Studying How Poor, Minority Kids get Test Scores as High as Beverly Hills': Keys Include Phonics, Constant Testing, Intensive Teacher Training (By Duke Helfand) It is an axiom of education that the best public schools are found in affluent suburbs. Parents shopping for a top- tier campus, however, might want to take note of a more urban exception--Inglewood. The city's elementary schools, many located under the landing path of Los Angeles International Airport, are filled with poor students who qualify for free lunches and who learn English as their second language. Yet they have leaped to the top ranks of California's new Academic Performance Index, defying the rule that equates poverty and minority status with low achievement in the classroom. Inglewood's elementary students--virtually all Latino or African American--have produced Stanford 9 test scores that equal levels found in more upscale cities. In some cases, the Inglewood schools register math scores surpassing those in largely white enclaves of affluence such as Irvine, Malibu and Beverly Hills. That success seems attributable to reforms that feature an intensive focus on basic reading skills, constant testing to detect students who fall behind and relentless teacher training. The model was perfected at two campuses that eschewed bilingual education and social promotion when both were popular, and that stuck with basic phonics when the rest of the state turned to a ``whole language'' approach to reading. ``You don't have to be white and rich to learn,'' said Nancy Ichinaga, principal at Bennett-Kew Kelso earned a 10 and Bennett-Kew a 9 on the state's new accountability index, which ranks schools from 1 to 10 on the basis of their Stanford 9 test scores. In all, eight of the district's 13 elementary schools ranked among the top half of campuses in the state, shattering the crippling link between poverty and low academic performance. Decades of research have shown that income and family background are the surest predictors of academic achievement. Students from low-income homes where parents have limited education consistently earn lower grades and test scores. Race and ethnicity are also closely associated with performance, with black and Latino students lagging well behind whites and Asians. The achievement gap between poor and affluent, as well as white and minority, has long been the glaring failure of public education. Since President Lyndon Johnson launched his Great Society programs in the 1960s, the federal government has pumped billions of dollars into schools that serve the poorest children. Nonetheless, the gulf has persisted. Inglewood's campuses fit the profile of schools that usually fail. They are among the most disadvantaged in the state when it comes to student poverty, lack of English skills, numbers of uncredentialed teachers and other obstacles associated with low performance, a Times study of state data shows. Nearly three-fourths of Inglewood elementary students qualify for subsidized lunches, the leading measure of poverty among schoolchildren. More than one-third are not fluent in English. Latinos and African Americans account for 98% of the students. Forty-five percent of the elementary school teachers have not completed their training and hold emergency credentials. But the elementary schools earned an average rank of 6.2 on the state's accountability scale and an average raw score of 654--exceeding the state median of 630. Districts with similar socioeconomic characteristics earned far lower scores. For example, El Monte's elementary schools scored an average 125 points lower on the accountability index and Montebello schools trailed by 166 points. ``It's impressive that virtually all of Inglewood's elementary schools performed better than expected,'' said Kim Rueben, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California who reviewed the test scores as part of a broader statewide study of academic achievement. ``I think we should try to take lessons from the district.'' Inglewood's middle and high schools do not show the same level of success. The city's two middle schools registered 3s on the accountability index, with an average score of 526, well below the state median. Its two high schools bottomed out with 1s, with an average score of 441. Officials say that the bulk of recent reforms have concentrated on the primary grades and that students who benefited from those measures are just now moving into the middle schools. Those reforms began to take root in the district three years ago under the late Supt. McKinley M. Nash. Wanting to duplicate the success of Kelso and Bennett-Kew, he pressed the other elementary schools to embrace their techniques and programs. Schools Adopt Same Reading Program Officials say a crucial reform had each school adopt the Open Court reading program, which uses heavily scripted lessons that combine phonics drills, writing exercises and children's literature. The lessons dictate virtually every detail of daily instruction. Some teachers complained that Open Court robbed them of creativity in the classroom. Others protested what they believed was a one-size fits-all approach for children with a range of abilities. They argued that it was particularly unsuitable for students new to English. But the schools pushed ahead, significantly boosting training for teachers in Open Court. Each campus The coaches have helped solidify the new reading program in Inglewood's elementary classrooms, where nearly one in two instructors holds an emergency credential. Ingelwood educators also introduced ``pacing schedules'' in the primary grades to ensure that teachers in every class covered the same reading lessons at about the same time. The idea, patterned after the practice at Kelso and Bennett-Kew, was to ensure that students at every school consistently acquired the same skills. Schools also began testing their students every six to eight weeks in spelling, vocabulary and other skills in the same way that Kelso and Bennett-Kew had done for several years. Teachers began poring over the data together to identify lagging students and to refine their practices. ``There's little wiggle room to fall through the cracks,'' said Betty Jo Steward, principal of Highland Elementary School, which earned a rank of 8 on the state index, even though more than two-thirds of its teachers are uncredentialed. Highland switched to Open Court five years ago, ahead of the other campuses. ``It's made a tremendous differences,'' Steward said. Inglewood's elementary schools have become urban laboratories for educators and researchers. Several of the state's largest urban school systems--including those in Burbank, Riverside and Oakland--have sent delegations to study Ingelwood's classrooms. The Los Angeles Unified School District is among the latest to send observers. In July, the district will begin introducing Open Court and reading coaches in most of its elementary schools. ``Anything Inglewood can do, Compton or Los Angeles can do--we are not unique,'' said Marge Thompson, Kelso's principal of 25 years until her retirement in February. She still visits regularly to help train teachers. Ingelwood's schools are among a group of campuses around the country that are gaining attention in education ranks for producing solid results with low-income and minority students. ``People need to make the study of schools like those in Ingelwood the single highest priority in the country,'' said Samuel Casey Carter, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., who included Bennett-Kew in a new book about 21 impressive campuses that serve low-income children. Carter found that the successful schools shared common practices and features such as an emphasis on basic skills, strong principals, frequent testing and assessment, and continuous teacher training. ``There is nothing these schools do that is beyond the reach of any school in America,'' he said. What Carter found at Bennett-Kew were students like Omir Perez. Omir's first language is Spanish; both of his parents were born in Belize. His family lives on about $18,000 a year. Yet the Bennett-Kew fifth-grader has produced Stanford 9 test scores that would please any parent: the 73rd percentile in math, the 80th in reading, the 97th in spelling. ``Education gets you a good job sooner or later,'' said Omir, who wants to be an airline pilot. Omir's record already is paying dividends. He won a scholarship next year to the exclusive Chadwick School on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, along with four other Bennett-Kew students who had equally high marks. The $11,600 tuition is nearly two-thirds of what Omir's father, a machinist, earns in a year. ``We had a lot of people praying for this,'' said Omir's mother, Isabel, who like her husband speaks English and is a naturalized U.S. citizen. ``It's a blessing.'' Omir is bright and studious, and his parents make his education their top priority. But his marks are hardly exceptional. ``We have 20 kids in the fifth grade like Omir,'' Ichinaga said. Closing a Stubborn Achievement Gap Ingelwood's schools are succeeding at closing a stubborn achievement gap that emerges as early as age 3--even before children enter school. Children from poor families arrive in the classroom with less exposure to books and smaller vocabularies than their more affluent peers. That gap widens the most during the elementary years but persists through high school and college--showing up in grades, test scores, graduation rates and other measures of achievement. Ultimately, it affects students' earning power as adults. The most recent round of national tests--in 1998-- demonstrated the scope of the divide. Among fourth-graders 39% of whites and 37% of Asians met the ``proficient'' level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. That meant that the students demonstrated competence over challenging subject matter. By contrast, just 13% of Latinos and 10% of African Americans met the proficiency standard. African American and Latino 12th-graders had fallen so far behind by the end of high school that they performed at about the same level in reading as white and Asian eighth-graders, the nationwide test scores revealed. A growing number of experts argue that more experienced and qualified teachers are the key to reversing the trend. Studies in Texas, North Carolina and other states have found that competent teachers--those who earn high test scores themselves and have a deep knowledge of the subjects they teach--produce higher-achieving students. ``If we took the simple step of assuring that poor and minority children had teachers of the same quality as other children, about half of the achievement gap would disappear,'' said Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that monitors student achievement in low-income communities. ``If we went further and assigned our best teachers to the students who most need them, there's persuasive evidence to suggest that we could entirely close the gap,'' Haycock added. But the reality is that urban schools serving the neediest students tend to have the greatest proportion of novices leading their classrooms. Ingelwood fits the pattern: 45% of its elementary school teachers hold emergency credentials. Only six of California's 1,000 school districts have higher percentages of teachers without full credentials. But Inglewood has overcome inexperience by literally molding its own talent and taking the guesswork out of teaching. Making Newcomers Competent Teachers The district has found a way to turn green newcomers such as Andrew Gin into competent instructors. At Payne, Gin was handed the Open Court reading program and a thick teacher's manual that told him what skills to teach every day, even when to praise his second-graders. ``It was a godsend,'' he said, ``like a huge outline.'' Meanwhile, Gin became a student in this own school. Payne's teachers became his mentors. Principal Georgia Leynaert began visiting Gin's classroom regularly to teach him techniques for engaging students. Two senior teachers met with Gin at lunch and after school, showing him how to design lesson plans and giving him tips on games that encourage learning, such as math bingo. A reading coach helped demonstrate Open Court. ``Whenever I need something clarified or explained, I know where to go,'' said Gin, 33, who is working toward his credential at Cal State L.A. More than half of Payne's teachers have emergency credentials. Still, in a school where 87% of the students qualify for subsidized lunches and 72% speak limited English, Payne earned a rank of 7 on the state's new accountability index, placing it among the top third of elementary schools in California. ``If you hire right, then inexperience doesn't have to be a negative,'' Leynaert said. ``You hire people who are going to be good. Then you give them structure so that no teacher is left out there alone.'' Driven by High Expectations Payne and the other schools also are driven by high expectations, an intangible quality that shapes the culture of their campuses. Teachers reject the idea that their students are destined for mediocrity because they are poor or speak limited English. Instead, they demand that students meet the state's academic standards. ``If you set high expectations for children, they generally rise to the occasion,'' said Norma Baker, principal of Hudnall Elementary School, which earned a state rank of 8 with nearly half the students still learning to speak English. ``You get what you expect.'' That message literally surrounds the students in Barbra Williams' fourth-grade classroom at Hudnall. Mock graduation caps with black tassels hang from the ceiling. Each has the name of an elite university scrawled in white letters on the back: Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton. The walls carry similar messages. A sign on one wall ways, ``ENGLISH MAJORS EXCEL,'' in big black letters, with student reports stapled to the wall. A sign on another wall ways, ``MATH MASTERS''; the wall features colored pictures of sliced pizzas that the students created to demonstrate fractions. The banner on a third wall ways, ``SOCIAL STUDIES

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose PNTR for China, such as gross violations of human rights and the lack of fair labor standards in China. These reasons have all been expressed eloquently by other speakers. What concerns me most is our Nation's selective trade policies and the policies of the WTO itself. Why China and not Cuba? Cuba is only 90 miles from our shores. I am especially concerned about our Nation's policy toward Cuba. The people of Cuba would like to buy food and medicine and agricultural products from the United States, yet the United States continues to maintain an embargo against Cuba. It makes no sense to expand trade benefits for China while prohibiting all trade with Cuba. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for the time that he has allocated to me today. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 3519, the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund Act, and I would like to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her leadership on this critical issue. H.R. 3519 was passed by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on March 15 by a bipartisan majority. This regulation would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations with the World Bank for the creation of a World Bank AIDS Trust Fund to provide grants to support HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and other less developed countries. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. However, I must say I am deeply dismayed that the funding authorized by this bill is only half of what had been approved by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. During the Committee on Banking and Financial Services's consideration of H.R. 3519, I offered an amendment to the bill that increased the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for payment to the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund from $100 million to $200 million per year. Although my amendment was passed by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the leadership, the Republican leadership, reduced the funding back to only $100 million before bringing the bill to the floor today without any discussion with those of us who worked so hard to double that amount. This undemocratic reduction was done without a unanimous-consent request, without a rule from the Committee on Rules, without any opportunity for the Members of the House to debate it. Given the magnitude of HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa, this reduction of funding is dangerously unwise. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are over 5,000 AIDS-related funerals every day. Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, over 80 percent of all AIDS deaths have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. By the end of 1999, there were an estimated 23.3 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living with HIV/ AIDS. This is 70 percent of the total number of HIV-infected people worldwide. The National Intelligence Council of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, released a report in January of this year on the threat of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases to our national security. According to this report, ``Some of the hardest hit countries in sub- Saharan Africa, and possibly later in South and Southeast Asia, will face a demographic upheaval as HIV/AIDS and associated diseases reduce human life expectancy by as much as 30 years and kill as many as a quarter of their populations over a decade or less, producing a huge orphan cohort. Nearly 42 million children in 27 countries will lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2010; 19 of the hardest hit countries will be in sub-Saharan Africa.'' Despite the urgency of this epidemic, Congress has not demonstrated a willingness to commit the resources necessary to stop the spread of this devastating disease. I am thankful for this $100 million. It should be more. I know that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) worked very hard on this. To tell my colleagues the truth, because he is so fair all the time, I was a little bit disappointed that this had happened without any discussion, without my knowing and others knowing, who had worked so hard to increase it, that it would come to the floor in this manner. All we have is $100 million. We do not have the $200 million. Certainly we are not going to turn it down. I support it. I hope we can do better in the future.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for organizing tonight's Special Order on the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa and for her general leadership on this issue. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) is providing the kind of leadership that has caused this Congress to finally focus on this crisis and on this epidemic. She is a Member of Congress that served on the staff of one of the most esteemed Members of Congress who is now retired, Congressman Ronald Dellums; and Congressman Dellums decided earlier this year that he was going to give priority time to this issue. Even though he is away from Congress working in the private sector in the health care industry, he decided that this is the most important issue confronting the world today. So he uses most of his time now not only speaking with Members of Congress, the President of the United States, health organizations, pharmaceutical companies, the USTR. He has just about spoken with everyone imaginable that has the power to do anything about this issue. So as a result of the efforts of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), working along with Congressman Dellums and the rest of us, we are finally, I think, being heard on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend President Bill Clinton for recognizing the importance of United States support for international HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. Earlier this year, the President requested an additional $100 million in funding for international HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. These funds would be in addition to the $225 million that the United States is currently spending on these programs. The impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on sub-Saharan Africa has been especially severe. Since the beginning of the epidemic, over 80 percent of all AIDS deaths have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. By the end of 1999, there were an estimated 23.3 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living with HIV/AIDS. That is 70 percent of the total number of HIV- infected people worldwide. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are over 5,000 AIDS-related funerals per day. HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention efforts in sub-Saharan Africa are complicated by poverty. Most Africans lack access to the most basic health care services and only the wealthiest people in Africa can afford HIV/AIDS medications and advancements in treatment therapies. Furthermore, high illiteracy rates combined with low levels of education funding have made prevention efforts more difficult. Nevertheless, experience has proven that HIV/AIDS-prevention programs can make a substantial difference if the programs are funded sufficiently and implemented in an effective manner. Uganda in particular has implemented a highly successful program which has reduced HIV/AIDS infection rates by over 50 percent. I happen to have been in Uganda when I was on one of my trips to Africa with the President when he was there. I had an opportunity to visit the clinics and to talk with people and to understand how seriously they had taken this whole epidemic and how they were moving forward and providing leadership on the continent; and it is working and it shows. Senegal has also developed a successful HIV/AIDS prevention program. However, effective HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs cannot be expanded or implemented in other countries without substantial financial assistance from the international community. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3519, the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund Act, was passed by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on March 15 of this year by a bipartisan majority thanks to the leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and to our Chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). This legislation would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations with the World Bank for the creation of a World Bank AIDS trust fund to provide grants to support HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs in less developed countries, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Now, during the Committee on Banking and Financial Services' consideration of H.R. 3519, I offered an amendment to the bill that increased the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for payment to the World Bank AIDS trust fund from $100 million to $200 million per year. While $200 million is still only a small fraction of what is needed for HIV/AIDS programs, it would represent a significant commitment of financial resources by the United States and set an example for the international community. Mr. Speaker, I know that at the time that I offered the amendment, our Chairman was a little bit worried, because this is a difficult issue; and at a time where we have competing interests and we have lots of needs here in this country, it is very difficult sometimes to get our Congress focused on a crisis like this someplace else. However, I feel that the crisis is of such proportions that we must be aggressive and we must be bold; and I still think $200 million is but a drop in the bucket. I am worried now, I am worried that when this bill is on the floor in a few days, that there will be an effort to reduce the amount back to $100 million because of the fear that it will not be passed if it is more than $100 million. I would like to encourage support from my colleagues to keep the amount at $200 million. Let us not go backwards. Let us move forward, and let us stand up for what is right. I hope that the recent report that was put out by the CIA and others and the work that has been done now by the National Security Council identifying AIDS as a world threat to peace will help our people to understand that we cannot retreat. We must move forward. We cannot reduce the amount in this bill from $100 million to $200 million. Mr. Speaker, I also offered another amendment that would allow the World Bank trust fund to provide technical assistance to countries to assist them in building the capacity to implement effective HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. I am pleased to report that both of my amendments were passed by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The rest of the world does look to us for leadership, and I think there is one other area that we have got to be profoundly supportive of. I would just like to give a little background on that, if I may. Most HIV/AIDS drug therapies are well beyond the reach, as I said, of all but the wealthiest elites in sub-Saharan Africa. Drug therapies that have extended the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States and other developed countries would cost between $4,000 to $20,000 per person per year in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the gross national product per capita in sub-Saharan Africa is only $503 per year. If South Africa is excluded, the GNP per capita is only $308 per year. Furthermore, according to the World Bank, no sub-Saharan African countries spent more than $400 per person per year on health care between 1990 and 1995. The agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, known as TRIPS, is one of the international agreements enforced by the World Trade Organization. The TRIPS agreement allows corporations to benefit from patents over plants and medicines. Corporations use their patent rights to force developing countries to pay for the use of plants and medicines. In some cases, these plants and medicines were developed by indigenous people in developing countries who have been using them for hundreds of years. As a result of the TRIPS agreement, many people in developing countries have been denied lifesaving medicines because they cannot afford to pay for them. In 1997, the South African government passed a law to make HIV/AIDS drugs more affordable and available for its people. This law allows the importation of commercial drugs from sources other than the manufacturers, a practice called parallel importing, and authorizes the South African government to license local companies to manufacture generic drugs, a practice called ``compulsory licensing.'' The U.S. pharmaceutical industry opposed this law and our own United States Trade Representative attempted to pressure South Africa not to implement it. Fortunately, USTR has recently announced in December of 1999 that it would be more flexible in its policies towards South Africa's situation. The amendment that I would love to have had passed in my committee would have required the United States Government to encourage sub- Saharan African countries to develop policies to make HIV/AIDS medications available to their populations at affordable prices. It would also require the United States Government to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make HIV/AIDS medications available to the populations of these countries at affordable prices. More importantly, this amendment would direct the United States representative to the WTO to encourage the World Trade Organization to exempt sub-Saharan African countries from the TRIPS agreement and other international agreements that prohibit them from implementing laws that make HIV/AIDS medications available to their populations at affordable prices. This would allow countries such as South Africa to enact legislation to expand the availability and affordability of HIV/AIDS medicines without worrying about WTO challenges to their laws. Mr. Speaker, access to affordable medicine is essential for sub- Saharan Africans living with HIV/AIDS. It should be the policy of the United States and the WTO to encourage policies that increase the availability and affordability of HIV/AIDS medicines in sub-Saharan Africa, not to challenge or oppose such policies. Again, the rest of the world looks to the United States for leadership. It is essential that Congress pass the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund Act that has been initiated and guided by my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); and it is equally essential that Congress fully fund the President's request for international HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs. Also, it is imperative that we do not pare back the $200 million that we adopted in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, but rather support it and move forward in a very proud way to join with other leaders in the world, some countries much smaller than ours who are doing more to deal with this crisis than we are doing. I am convinced we can do that.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Here we go again. If it is an election year, then it must be time to pass another mandatory minimum sentencing law. Today the Republican leadership has decided to put H.R. 4051 on suspension because they do not want a real debate on the gun control issue. What this bill would really do is placate the NRA's demand for a meaningless gun law. Nothing in this bill provides for a mandatory background check, gun locks, or closing the loophole in gun show laws. A minor could go to a gun show and buy a gun, get into a brawl, brandish the gun, and end up with mandatory minimum sentencing and even be tried as an adult at 14 years old. Instead, this bill would establish a grant program that provides $100 million over a period of 5 years to those States that have enacted a mandatory 5-year minimum sentencing for firearm offenses. We know that mandatory minimums do not work. We are witnessing the abysmal failure of mandatory minimum drug sentences, and now the Republican leadership wants to extend that failure to the gun area. Studies conducted by the Rand Commission and the Judicial Center clearly show that mandatory minimums fail to prevent crime, distort the sentencing process, and discriminate against people of color and low- level offenders. Even the conservative Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist has criticized Congress' reliance on mandatory minimum sentences. If the Republicans want to prevent senseless deaths they would support the McCarthy-Conyers bill, which incorporates the administration's $280 million gun enforcement initiative that would fund 600 new ATF agents, over 1,000 additional Federal, State, and local gun prosecutors, forensic ballistics testing and smart gun technology research & development. Unfortunately, this is an election year. That means that crime will once again be politicized for cheap political gain. The Million Mom March will be here, and they will not be tricked or fooled by this legislation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant statutes are found in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. When Congress passed the Housing and Community Development Act, the primary objective of the act was to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. Congress further declared that funds received under this act shall be used for the support of activities and the benefit of persons of low- and moderate-income. Unfortunately, the income requirements found in section 404 of H.R. 1776 violate this intent of Congress. My amendment strikes those provisions which undermine the Community Development Block Grant. Section 404 of the act titled Homeownership for Municipal Employees would expand the CDBG eligibility criteria for municipal employees who are first-time homebuyers. Under the act, municipal employees who earn up to 115 percent of the area median income would be eligible for CDBG funds. Also, municipal employees in designated high cost areas who earn up to 150 percent of the area median income would be eligible for CDBG funds. In an area where the median income is $60,000, a police officer making up to $69,000 or so, in a high cost area, $90,000, will now be eligible for the same pool of CDBG funds as a cashier making $48,000 or less. This bill allows more affluent persons to benefit from the CDBG program without expanding the funding of CDBG. Thus, less funds will be available to help the poorest communities that CDBG has intended to help. My amendment deletes these harmful provisions and brings this bill in line with the true intent of Congress and the spirit of the Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Chairman, I have been in conversation with two of my colleagues from the committee. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) will be on the floor shortly, and I have been speaking with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and we know that we have some issues that we must address. Our communities have some different requirements, and while I must always act on behalf of my constituents and make sure that the opportunities that we have created here in government are available to them I must also pay attention to the concerns of my colleagues who serve on that committee with me who are only trying in their best way to do what is best for their constituents. While we are going to have some discussion on this amendment today, I reserve the right to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just then make my closing of this side of the argument by saying that I really do understand the dilemma that my colleagues find themselves in, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who has spent some time helping me to understand his dilemma. I am very appreciative for the cost of housing and how it is increasing. I also understand that this great economic boom that we have has increased the cost of housing. There is less housing on the market, and something must be done about that. But I want to say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), my good friend, who is in the very privileged position of chairing the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of our Committee on Banking and Financial Services that it is incumbent upon us, when we recognize these problems, to take serious and substantial action to do something about it. I do believe we should have authorized additional funds in CDBG. We should go to the Committee on Appropriations to expand the pot so that we can take care of those who find themselves in this new situation. What is very, very troubling is that we have still the masses of poor people and people who are working for very low wages who need desperately to have access to resources that are offered in some cities only by CDBG and other very limited opportunities to have housing. These people, many are homeless, many of them are living two, three, four, and five families to a house. In California, we have people living in garages without running water, and they are in desperate need. So it is very, very troubling to talk about taking this very limited pot, this pot of money, and having to spread it even with those who may need it, but who make substantially more money, and have the opportunity to purchase something while we have so many people who do not have, can never dream of having a down payment, who can never dream of homeownership without some assistance from their government. While I am certainly going to work with my colleagues in every way that I possibly can to try and satisfy all of our concerns, I would say to those who are in the leadership, who are in power now, let us do the right thing and expand the amount of dollars that are available.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.