Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to restore a modest financing level for the African development fund. This amendment is fundamentally about fairness. Our regional development lending institutions are strapped. The United States is in arrears on more than one of them. However, our obligations remain. However, this appropriations bill only zeros out one program, the African development fund. It appropriates $25 million for the Inter-American Development Bank, $100 million for the Asian development fund, and $13 billion for the Asian Development Bank. In addition, Mr. Chairman, comparable institutions like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development receives $12 million, and the North American Development Bank gets $50 million. I cannot accept singling out the African Development Bank and the African development fund, both of which are zero funded in this bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would appropriate half the administration's request for the African development fund. This modest replenishment will allow the fund to do priority poverty alleviation work in Africa's poorest countries. The fund has depleted its resources and has not been able to make new loans. These loans that assist the indigenous private sector development of these countries, as well as create export and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses, investing in primary education, preventive health care, and physical infrastructure, are crucial components of a growth and development program for Africa. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the African Development Bank group has had organizational difficulties. However, since those problems came to a head 2 years ago, enormous progress has been made. For example, they have a new president who is committed to remaking the institution. Term limits have been adopted for all senior bank officials. Twenty percent of the staff has been dismissed and 70 percent of the managers have been replaced. A comprehensive audit of the bank group is underway. New lending policies have tightened access to lending for noncreditworthy borrowers and new inspector general type offices have been created and staffed. These changes represent one of the most, if not the most, expansive form of an institution of this kind ever. Given this progress, it would be irresponsible for the United States, a leader, a prime pursuer of reform, to shirk its responsibility at this crucial time. The United States has a foreign policy and national security interest in the program of economic development in Africa. The African Development Bank group serves as a prime facilitator of this progress, especially the fund, which provides highly concessionary loans to poor borrowers and technical assistance grants to support lending operations. This country must lead, not walk away from its responsibility. Hopefully, at a later time in the budget cycle this year, we will not be forced to make the difficult choices faced in this amendment. However, it is crucial that this House make a modest contribution to our international obligation for the African development fund. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of fairness. It is just inconceivable and unconscionable that every institution, every other bank, multilateral bank, has been funded and the African Development Bank and the fund both were zeroed. There are those who will make the argument that funds were put in other places, but the cuts are continuing to grow as it relates to Africa. It is unfair, I take this opportunity to challenge us to do the right thing. point of order

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this amendment being offered by the Republican Member from California, Mr. Riggs, is a fine example of what Democrats can do when we are persistent in our demands for justice for workers. The Republican leadership resisted and resisted and resisted. Finally, some Republicans, such as Mr. Riggs, who have heard from their low wage working families, have been brave enough to say no to Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask all of those Republicans who support this Democratic initiative to stay the course, stay in this fight, and resist the Goodling amendment that will come after this vote. In particular, the Goodling amendment will undermine the minimum wage increase and exclude some 10.5 million workers in certain businesses. Members cannot give with one hand and then take back with the other hand. Those who claim they are now in support of the minimum wage increase must stay this course if they are to have any credibility. I sincerely thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and his allies in this effort for joining the Democrats on this most important initiative to increase the minimum wage for those low wage earners who are so deserving of a little bit of support from the Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, for those who ask the question why was it not done early, let us get rid of that rhetoric. Then was then, and now is now. Let us do what we can do for American workers. For those who say why do they want it, I would ask my colleagues, have any of my colleagues in their lifetime ever turned down an increase in wages? If offered an increase, if offered one, have my colleagues ever said no, that will not be good for the economy; no, that will not be good for business; no, that will not be good for the American public? Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I think all of our lives we have taken whatever increases have come our way. Do not ask anything less of low wage workers in America. Let them have this little bit of a 90-cent increase in wages.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the gentleman from California, Ranking Member Dellums, for including my amendment in the en bloc amendment. As in other sectors of society, the defense industry has undergone a wave of mergers in the past few years. With this much consolidation, I think it makes good sense for the Department of Defense to take a hard look at some of the consequences of this massive change. In 1994, Northrop and Grumman merged, Loral and IBM-Federal Systems merged, and Martin Marietta merged with both General Dynamics-Space Systems and Lockheed that year. In 1995, Loral merged with Unysis-Defense. Litton merged with Teledyne-Electronics. Raytheon merged with E-Systems, and Hughes merged with Magnavox-Electronic Systems. Already this year, Northrop-Grumman has merged with Westinghouse- Defense Electronics and Lockheed-Martin has merged with Loral-Defense. The Defense Department would report their findings to Congress 6 months after the date of enactment of this bill. This would give us a reasonable chance to evaluate, analyze and digest the information before we begin next year's funding cycle. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support on the en bloc amendment. I think this addition of the en bloc will make this a better bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the DeLauro- Harman amendment and all women who want to exercise their constitutional right to choose. American women are simply sick and tired of men who want to control our bodies, including the Catholic bishops. Our military women are not second-class citizens who can be denied the right to pay for their own abortions. Mr. Chairman, these women serve our country. It is hypocritical to ask them to defend our Nation but restrict their rights while they are doing it. A military woman may find herself in a position of having no other medical facility available except our own military hospital. If she is willing to pay for abortion services, they certainly should be made available. I know of no medical services that are denied to men. Support the DeLauro amendment. Servicewomen stationed overseas must have the same access to abortion services as do women in the United States.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is, too, about the Brooke amendment, but it is about more than the Brooke amendment. It is about whether or not we are going to develop some sensible public policy that will allow people to become independent. My friends on the other side of the aisle claim to understand that we have a lot of policies in government that do not allow people to really pull themselves up by their bootstraps. When we look at public housing, we will find a lot of that. One of those policies is the policy that will take more from people when they go to work, which serves as a disincentive. Recognizing this, we are simply saying, and the chairman needs to understand this, because I do not think he is a dishonest man. I really believe that he is little bit confused about this. When we say that we want to make sure that we are not taking away more than 30 percent, we are doing this so that we can create incentives for people to go to work and earn more money without their rents being raised to 40 and 50 percent. It is as simple as that. We here in this House, many of us make as much money, take home as much money as these residents make in an entire year. We heard what the income is of these residents. We take that much money home a month. Let me say, taking that much money home a month, some Members on the other side of the aisle sleep in their offices at night and they get free rent. How dare we talk about taking away more money from the poorest of the poor. We have policies now in public housing where, if one of the members of the family goes to work, we take away more money. This is outrageous and unconscionable. My colleagues ought to just quit it.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has stated it and I think it should be understood. But I want to be clear, will the housing authorities have the ability to raise the rents as high as they would like to, above the 30 percent, regardless of ability to pay.

Ms. WATERS. Is this an attempt to get the operating expenses that they rescinded and cut out of the budget, trying to get as much money as they can from the tenant in order to offset the money that they cut from the budget?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is very, very interesting. My friend, the chairman of the committee, has just expanded, would like to expand, rental assistance so that they pull in more people making more money, up to $40,000 that they could make under his proposal. One would be able to earn $40,000 and get rental assistance. What he does not do is protect those, no, he does not protect those who really need it, who make very little money, 30 percent of median income, and this is very interesting. At the same time that he is talking about reducing Government's involvement in peoples' lives, at the same time that they are talking about shrinking Government, he just opened it up so that people earning $40,000 could avail themselves of rental assistance. Yet we know that it is those who earn very little money who need it, those who earn very little money that can go out in the marketplace and find a home, those women and children who desperately need to get assistance. He is squeezing them out of the market. This is unbelievable. I am surprised that he would take this approach. It is indeed not to be supported. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is saying let us protect the poorest of the poor, let us make sure that 75 percent of those who earn very little money, who are only at 30 percent, will have the ability to go out and get assisted and have a place for them and their children to live. I think, again, the chairman may be a little bit confused about the direction that his legislation is taking. It is very simple. Does the gentleman want to expand it, get more people at higher incomes? Does the gentleman want to protect the poorest of the poor? Does the gentleman want to make sure that families who would have no other place, no way to get assistance, are protected or in this legislation? The answer to that, I think most people will conclude, is that we want to protect those who do not have the ability to purchase housing.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is really not a complicated amendment. Early on when I came to Congress, I discovered something called section 108 loan guarantee funds in HUD. These were funds that basically are used to provide economic development assistance to cities. It is a fund or a loan guarantee type program that is not scored in the budget. When I discovered this item, I moved to expand the opportunity for cities to have economic development programs that would increase the job opportunities, that would support businesses, that would basically direct some attention toward commercial development. One of the things I have been very concerned about is the fact that we have put an emphasis oftentimes on developing housing and low-income housing, but the problem is precisely what we have created in public housing projects. We have provided some housing opportunities and basically placed poor people on top of each other without any businesses and without any services. So I thought that the use of these section 108 loan guarantee funds would have well served our cities if we had an opportunity to support business and commerce so that we do not continue to have housing and low-income housing without businesses in those communities that would provide goods and services and job opportunities. Section 108 loan guarantee funds I was able to expand to the tune of about $2 billion over 5 years. All of the cities have been applying for these funds. Many of the cities welcome the opportunity to have some funds by which they could create projects working with the business community to expand job opportunities, to expand entrepreneurship. But some of the cities have begun to use this money in ways other than economic development that was anticipated. I recognized that some of the cities have a need to be very creative in the way that they use these section 108 loan guarantee funds and they put a little bit off maybe into some infrastructure, maybe a little bit off into some housing. But my appeal here is to say let us put a cap on how much of this money can be taken and further used maybe for housing or anything else. Let us really pay attention to how we can empower communities and develop real economic development so that in fact the people that we say that we want to make independent, we create some opportunities for them to be independent. We hope, we know that small businesses, for example, create more job opportunities than any other entities in America. We know that, to the degree that we are able to develop small businesses, we expand job opportunities. I do not have oftentimes the opportunity to come to this floor and to really tell Members what I understand about business and economic development. There are those who would like to say all she and those others care about is welfare, all they care about is low-income housing, all they care about are government expenditures for the poor. That absolutely is not true. Many of us understand a lot more about business and business development and how to really support commerce and entrepreneurs in these communities than we often have an opportunity to demonstrate. I am here today because section 108 loan guarantee funds in HUD is a real opportunity to create economic development projects. This loan guarantee basically is given to those cities and the CDBG moneys are kind of used as a guarantee working with HUD. They get with local business persons, and they think about utilizing the resources of local government. Maybe there are some land opportunities. Maybe there are some programs in local government that they can match with some investment by the local entrepreneurs and this loan guarantee opportunity, and they come up with projects that they can locate in these communities and not only support business, small business and entrepreneurship but do job creation. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues must pay more attention to what the Government can do to help create jobs in our community. We want welfare to go away, we need jobs. We want people to be able to use the training that they are supposed to be getting through the use of our job training programs. There must be a job at the end of these job training programs. Do we want JTPA to be viable? I simply ask that my colleagues support me. Join hands in supporting that we limit the use of section 108 so that the money is not siphoned off into other projects but goes into economic development. I ask for an aye vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment to accommodate the concerns of the chairman.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate that. I know it was inadvertent. I appreciate the opportunity to at least express my views on the Durbin amendment. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to share with this House that I have the highest respect for Congressman Durbin. I consider him a friend and I consider him a leader, and I consider him to have been the author of some of the best legislation that has ever been presented before this august body. However, I do rise to disagree with the amendment that the gentleman is offering for this legislation. I know that his intentions are good, and I know that he is concerned about violence and gunfire and other kinds of things in public housing projects. I also would like to say, I have absolutely nothing in common with the NRA. I do not like guns, I wish there were none in our society. However, I have a passion for fairness. This passion for fairness drives me not to allow there to be law created for certain segments of our society, even though we are trying very desperately to solve problems. It is illegal to have an illegal weapon. It is illegal to have an illegal weapon. Whether you live in housing projects, whether you live in condominiums, whether you live in cities, whether you live in rural communities, on farms, it does not matter. You are in violation of the law if you possess an illegal firearm, and that is for everybody, and we should not change that. We should not create law again for special segments of our society. There is absolutely no reason why we should move our concerns to housing projects of America and say ``Oh, but you are different. You are different because you live in public housing. We are going to create an additional law for you.'' Somehow it is not enough for your gun to be illegal. Your gun is illegal, illegal, illegal, and we are going to create a whole new Federal crime, because you happen to live in a housing project. I suppose I could submit to this body a number of reasons why someone may find themselves in that position, but I choose not to try and make that argument, and I think there are some legitimate reasons why someone may find themselves in that unfortunate position of trying to defend themselves with an illegal weapon. But I choose, rather, to just simply deal with what I think we responsible public policymakers should be about. We should be about creating law for everybody. We should be about making sure that we do not use our power and our influence to single out any segment of our society and say somehow your crime is a worse crime than somebody else's.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say that is not a good argument, and it is not synonymous when you talk about what we do with schools. As a matter of fact, let me ask you in my own way, if in fact those terrorists, those people holed up in Montana somewhere, who are part of some kind of militia, do not live in public housing projects. However, they live out in the rural areas. We have people who live in communities that have firearms, illegal and otherwise. Some of them right now have the attention of this Nation. They are holed up. The FBI is not moving in on them, they want to be sensitive in the way they capture them, but they are dangerous people. They are very dangerous and they have decided to defy every law in America. They decided they are going to have their guns, they are not going to pay any taxes. They decided they are going to shoot FBI agents and others who would dare challenge them about the fact they are breaking the law. But somehow, under your proposition, their guns would not be as illegal as the firearms that would be discharged in housing projects. It does not make good sense. I tell you, again, I do not like firearms, I do not like guns and I wish we did not have any. But I cannot sit here and allow this kind of public policy to proceed through this House without challenging it. Again, my passion in life is that no matter what the law, it is fair, that it treats everybody the same. No matter what the law, it does not take those who may not have the political clout and somehow single them out for the kind of laws that we would not assign to other people. I say to you, an illegal gun is an illegal gun, and we have laws on the books in the state that will take care of those who have them, who would discharge them, who would brandish them, who would do anything. And I think it should be that way. I think we should apprehend them and we should apply the law to the fullest extent. Do I think we should create a special law for public housing project people who would fire an arm, but leave all the militia out there in America discharging firearms, and somehow they would not come under the same law? No, I do not think so. Mr. Chairman, that is my argument. I think it makes good sense.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if this business of one smacks of tokenism? It sounds familiar, that we will let one in, we will let one on, but we do not want too many if, in fact, we have more than one, they may being to have a collective voice and challenge some of the decisions. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman thinks that the accusation of the gentleman from New York where he says somehow that the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana that asks for 25 percent is any different than his asking for 1 percent, except that it is more involvement. Could the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] expand on that a little bit?

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue pretty much in the vein that the gentleman started, that talked about some of the things that we have done to carry out that kind of policy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the GSE's come to mind, the government service enterprises, where we have FNMA and Freddie Mac. That is not about anything more than ensuring that we have the vehicles by which we can get those mortgages on the secondary market to ensure that people can own homes. If we do not support the preamble and the goals of that preamble, are we then saying we want to remove our support from these GSE's and all of these instruments that we have developed to support ownership and means by which people can get into safe and decent housing? Would the gentleman not say that we have in place not only the GSE's, but veterans policy and other things to carry out the goals that we articulated in that preamble? Is that what the gentleman is referring to?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that I am so appreciative that he took the leadership to ensure that we did not somehow kill a philosophy that has held us in good stead as it relates to housing. I thank the gentleman. I would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for bending and for accepting that it is important to have this as part of our philosophy. I think that if we continue to work in this vein, we can straighten this bill out. We have a couple more amendments to go that I think are very important, but for the time being, I think it is worth it to note that an important step has been taken here in moving in the right direction. I thank the gentleman so much.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, let me just say that I tried to make the point earlier that to the degree people are involved, they accept more responsibility. We have a lot of young people in public housing authorities that have no idea how these decisions get made. Let me give some examples. I can recall in the city of Los Angeles when they would let contracts out for people to come into the public housing authorities and do work. They would contract with folks who would come from all over the extended Los Angeles area to come in and put up screens and to dig and to do all of these things. The people who lived there simply would watch out of their windows while other people come in and make money, take the money, and go home and spend it in their communities. Mr. Chairman, we organized a little bit in some of these public housing authorities and asked the residents: What do you think the policy should be about creating job opportunities where you live? They said, ``Ms. Waters we want to work. We think that the public housing authorities should create job opportunities for those jobs that are being done where we live. Many of these jobs do not even require training. Some of them may. We want to be trained.'' We organized and forced that kind of decision at the board to allow the residents to work in those public housing authorities where they live when the jobs become available. If there were contractors coming in, we developed a public policy where those contractors should have to hire some of the people there. Mr. Chairman, if they had been sitting on the board where these decisions were being made, they could have told them a long time ago. There are hundreds of decisions like that. We have people in local housing authorities who believe there should be some commerce inside the public housing authorities, that they should be able to create some businesses so they can get off of welfare, so that they can work. We will not get that unless we get people working at the board where the decisions are made, giving input, and helping those who come from every place else. But the communities, they are making decisions about understanding how to run these places. I think in my city and in the city of the gentleman that we have seen a lot of what goes on, and we believe that we can go a long way toward solving some of the problems if we but listen to the people who live there.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the radical Republicans are playing a cruel hoax on the American people. They refuse to raise the minimum wage by a lousy 90 cents and the bill before us would raise rent on the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, Americans who are only making minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, why can we bring a bill to this floor to raise public housing rents for the elderly, single mothers, and the working poor when the overwhelming majority of Americans, 78 percent, believe this Congress should consider a modest 90-cent increase in the minimum wage, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``No way.'' This rule on this bill shows clearly this Congress' contorted priorities. We could give 11 million Americans a tiny raise. Six out of 10 workers earning the minimum wage are women, many of whom are single parents. Seventy-two percent of these women are adults 20 years old or over. So much for Mother's Day. So much for family values, my Republican friends. They have just gone too far, Mr. Speaker. We cannot justify this attack on poor and working families. Let us oppose the previous question and craft a rule that will bring a minimum wage increase to this floor. If the Republicans want to raise the rents on seniors tomorrow, let them try. But let us give 11 million Americans a raise today. parliamentary inquiry