Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown.) (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) be permitted to control 10 minutes of the time allocated to me.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I take this moment to thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson) for her hard work, for her vision, and for the care that she has shown in bringing to us what we should have done a long time ago, the honoring of Rosa Parks in this very special way. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my colleague, the chair of our committee. I would like to thank him for all of his cooperation, for his support, and for the work that he did to make sure that we got this measure up before this House. I thank him very much for all that he has done to ensure that Rosa Parks is honored. We seek to honor Rosa Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor because of her love of justice and equality, because of her love of self and her people and all people, because she has helped to save America and pointed the Nation in the right direction after a favorable Supreme Court decision brought to an end the Montgomery bus boycott. Mrs. Parks moved to Detroit, Michigan, where she worked for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), her good friend and our colleague. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for seeing to it that Ms. Parks had food on her table. She stayed there until her retirement. Now, as if she had not done enough, in February of 1987, along with Mrs. Elaine Eason Steele, Mrs. Rosa Parks co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development. The institute, which focuses on social action and economic development among America's youth, is a realization of one of Mrs. Parks' long-awaited dreams. When we honor Mrs. Rosa Parks, we honor the best in ourselves. If she had not sat down, where would we stand today? Mr. Speaker, I hope the time the Members of the House have spent on the floor here today will serve as a history lesson to the young people of this Nation. We want them, like Rosa Parks, to be the absolute best human beings they can possibly be. We would like them and all Americans to dedicate their lives to freedom, justice, and equality for all people. We would like all Americans who have focused today on this history lesson to live for justice, to work for justice, to sacrifice for justice, and if necessary to even die for justice.

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every now and then God places in our midst an angel, a human being of extraordinary character and immeasurable compassion with the energy and courage to fuel their undying commitment to justice. Rosa Parks is that person. Rosa Parks is that angel, a woman of divine inspiration who, on December 1, 1955, refused to move from the white only section of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. When she was told to move to the back of the bus, she was arrested. Rosa Parks was a working woman, a seamstress of very modest means. She had neither political power nor influence. She simply had the courage of her convictions. Mrs. Parks did not move to the back of the bus. She took a stand. She was arrested. Her arrest sparked a revolution on December 5, 1955. The defiant spirit of Rosa Parks ignited the long suppressed longing for freedom, and the contagious sparks of new possibilities sailed through the Montgomery air. Men, women and children decided they would no longer suffer the indignities of a city that discriminated against them, marginalized them, brutalized and disrespected them. Montgomery's most egregious manifestation of segregation was in public transportation, in particular the bus company where African Americans were cursed and sometimes assaulted by bus drivers without provocation, forced to board from the rear door after depositing the fare in the driver's box and then often left behind after paying their fare, strictly forbidden from ever sitting in the first four rows reserved for whites. Black pride and self-determination took hold. Blacks got off the bus and the plantation. Blacks carpooled, blacks walked, blacks found a way to get around without bus transportation. They boycotted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Sometimes we believe that we have reached a point where people can put politics aside and just do the right thing. But we find ourselves confronted with a bill here today that would simply complicate the count and mess up the census. We find ourselves with a bill being proposed, H.R. 472, that would force a delay in the census of an additional 9 weeks, a disruption which will undermine an accurate count. The 1990 census was the first in this Nation's history to be less accurate than the preceding census. In my own State of California we lost $2.2 billion in funding because of an inaccurate census in 1990. In 1990 about 4.5 million people were counted twice and 8.5 million were never counted. The undercount, of course, fell hardest on the poor, children and minorities. Monies allocated for schools, school lunches, Head Start, senior citizens, all never reached the communities where people were not counted. A recent GAO study concluded that had an accurate counting method been employed in the 1990 census, the State of California could have received $2.2 billion in Federal funds. We have missed out on the sampling, but we can do a better count if we are allowed to just get about the business of doing it and not put on an extra layer of work by local municipalities who do not have the resources and who do not want to do it. Take the politics out of it. Let us all be the Americans that we say we are. Let us count the people, let us show that we respect our citizens enough to simply do the right thing and make sure we do the best job that we can do. I am out recruiting, holding town hall meetings, getting people signed up, getting welfare recipients to work so that they can be out there doing this count. Do not mess it up. Let us do what we can to count all of the people.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 2\1/2\ years, and I learned a lot. Republicans talk a lot about support for veterans; however, their support ends at the appropriations' door. This Republican budget gives a one-time increase which is not carried over into the next fiscal year. Smoke and mirrors again. Over a 5-year period, the Republican budget resolution cuts discretionary funding for veterans by hundreds of millions of dollars. Over a 10-year period, the Republican budget resolution cuts veteran funding by $3 billion below the 1999 level. In the area of health care, where our veterans are facing a medical emergency, the proposed budget includes several new health care initiatives, but guess what, without providing the necessary funds to support them. Unless the veterans' health care system receives significant increases in funding, critical services will be cut, health care will be denied, facilities closed, and dedicated employees are out of work. I have a full-time staff person dedicated to just working on veterans' complaints. Republicans, I want them to know they cannot look veterans in the face and tell them that my colleagues care about them when all my colleagues talk about is flag burning and desecration of the flag. My colleagues need to be talking about the real issues of whether or not veterans are being taken care of, veterans who have served their times, veterans who my colleagues say they care about, whether or not they can come forward with a budget like this where they are denying them the kind of funding that is so desperately needed. I ask my colleagues to reject this proposal, to reject the turning of our backs on the veterans who we claim to love so much, and do everything that we can to increase their funding. They have complaints that are not adjudicated. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing for veterans. Reject this Republican budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Obey amendment to H.R. 1141, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. This supplemental bill was supposed to have been a bipartisan effort to provide desperately needed funds to assist American farmers, respond to hurricane damage in Central America and the Caribbean, support the new government of Jordan and correct the amount of money appropriated to the Office of Minority Health. Unfortunately, this bill now contains provisions masquerading as offsets that are both unnecessary and harmful. So much for bipartisanism. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I am particularly concerned about a provision that would rescind $648 million in funds that were previously appropriated to guarantee the solvency of multilateral development banks. Neither the Committee on Banking and Financial Services nor my subcommittee were ever given an opportunity to consider this controversial rescission. There are three multilateral development banks--the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank--that provide loans to developing countries to promote economic growth and development. These banks have collected guarantees from the United States to sell bonds to commercial banks. The development banks use the proceeds from these bond sales to make their loans to developing countries. These guarantees, known as callable capital, ensure that the bank's lenders will be repaid even if a substantial portion of the loans made by the banks are not repaid. Prior to 1981, the United States appropriated funds to provide for our share of the callable capital of the multilateral development banks. The development banks have always been able to repay their bonds on time without calling upon the United States. The United States Government's guarantees to these banks have never cost the American taxpayers one dime. The supplemental appropriations bill includes a provision to rescind a portion of the banks' callable capital. The Republican supporters of this provision claim that it is an offset for the emergency spending in the bill. However, this is smoke and mirrors. This provision does not actually save any money and cannot be considered an offset. Since the United States has never had to provide any money to the multilateral development banks to cover their bonds, there were never any outlays. Furthermore, it is unlikely that there ever will be any outlays. In other words, the supplemental appropriations act is rescinding money that would never have been spent, anyway. The proposed rescission of callable capital contained in the supplemental bill will have no effect whatsoever on the size of the budget surplus. Shame on them for making people think that this is a legitimate offset that is going to save some money. Although the rescission of callable capital will not increase the budget surplus, it will, however, jeopardize the effective operation of the multilateral development banks. If the United States rescinds any of its callable capital, it will be a signal to worldwide financial markets that the United States may no longer be willing to meet its international financial obligations. Over the past 50 years, loans to developing countries from the multilateral development banks have promoted economic growth and created new businesses and job opportunities as well as markets for American exports. These banks are especially important to the world economy today. Many nations in Asia and Latin America are facing a serious economic and financial crisis. They are dependent on loans from the banks to stabilize their currencies and allow their economies to recover. Asia and Latin American markets are desperately in need of this capital. Let me just close my remarks by saying this was supposed to be a bipartisan effort, and the American farmers, the agricultural community that both sides of the aisle claim they care so much about, stand to benefit. That is Republicans and Democrats alike. If they mess up this supplemental appropriation by insisting on these offsets, they are going to hurt the very people that they are always mouthing off about that they care so much about. Let us stop playing games. Let us stop with the smoke and mirrors about offsets that do not realize one single dime, one single cent. Let us get on with the business of a supplemental appropriation bill. We will do what we started out to do.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, that is not correct.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I stood up, Mr. Chairman, to talk again about the multilateral banks and to talk about callable capital and to try and urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to identify this as meaningful and real offsets. However, before I do that, I would like to join with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), in asking that we do nothing at this point that would prevent us from coming back with a supplemental that we may need in case we have to expand our operations or support our operations in Kosovo. I think that is real. He is absolutely correct. We have spent a number of hours with the President, Republicans and Democrats alike, listening to and understanding what is going on there. And I think that he has done a favor to all of us by pointing out that we do not want to take this kind of action without understanding the seriousness of it. Beyond that, I think that at this moment every member of the Congressional Black Caucus, every member of the Hispanic Caucus, every member of the Asian Caucus should be on this floor. They should be on this floor right now because what they are seeing is a precedent that will destroy the ability of developing countries to be able to have any kind of reasonable economic development and to develop. I think every member of those caucuses, who have fought for so many years to try and be of assistance to these developing countries and develop markets there for our own economy, should come to this floor and help to make the argument why this should not go forward. What is the reason for this when everybody understands now that this is not real capital, that this simply is money that would not be spent, that it is not money that is going to be added to the budget? Then why are they doing it? If they cannot answer that question, then they should not proceed with this. This is not money that can be used to reduce the budget in any way. This is like a guarantee that in the event they are not able to pay back their loans it could be used. So if in fact the money is not going to reduce the budget, if in fact they are literally putting their foot on the necks of the most vulnerable countries in the world who desperately need the assistance of the multilateral banks, if they understand what we are trying to do in Africa and in Asia and in Central America, why then would they proceed with literally diminishing their ability to try and develop and to be independent and to feed their people and to provide markets for us? Why would they do it? It just does not make good sense. And so, I am going to ask them, in addition to the argument that has been made about Kosovo and the possibility that we will have a supplemental bill on the floor to help out, to also think about what I am saying. Why would anybody in their right mind want to do it if they are not going to yield any dollars for them?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal privilege. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) took the floor----

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute to correct the record.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would not be here unless it related to the debate that we are involved in.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas indicated that I had voted for such an action as he is prescribing for the offsets. There is a letter that has been disseminated by Secretary Rubin that says, ``The 1994 action and the current proposal are not analogous. In 1994, the U.S. had not subscribed the paid-in and callable capital which were rescinded. The current proposal, however, would reach back to capital to which we have formally subscribed and on the basis of which we have exercised voting rights for many years. This proposal has rightly become a concern of the markets.'' For the record, it should be clear that it is not analogous and that I and others did not vote for money that had already been appropriated.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this unpopular position. I rise today to ask my colleagues to put aside some of the rhetoric and to begin to focus on the facts. We are but 90 miles from Cuba, and we have countries from all over the world who have developed relationships now with Cuba and with Fidel. They are developing great resorts and they are doing business. Cuba wants to do business with the United States. I do not know why we allow China and Germany and Great Britain and Canada and other places to be there doing business, helping to promote economic development in their own countries, while we stand and we cannot figure out how to work out some kind of a peaceful coexistence with Cuba and with Castro. I think the time has come for us to recognize, we have to be about the business of talking about normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba. I met with dissidents on my trip there just 4 weeks ago.