Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conyers amendment. Just once this year, we should do something that protects consumers; this amendment would accomplish that purpose. Mr. Chairman, we are entering a brave new world in telecommunications law. In theory, the deregulatory provisions contained in this legislation will unleash a new era of competition between local and long-distance carriers, as well as between the telecommunications and cable industries. However, free market competition is predicated on nonmonopolistic power relationships between competing firms. The Conyers amendment would ensure that local telephone companies would not impede competition through monopoly behavior. The Conyers compromise language would perfect language currently in the bill. It would preserve the Justice Department's traditional role as the primary enforcer of antitrust statutes. It would do so alongside, not in conflict with, the regulatory responsibilities of the FCC. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an experiment. No one knows for sure what the outcome will be as we enter the 21st century telecommunications world. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of Head Start. How dare the gentleman from Louisiana, who has never been to a Head Start site, who has probably never talked to a Head Start parent, how dare he attack Head Start on the floor of Congress? I was an employee in the Head Start Program. I worked first as a teacher's aide. Because of Head Start, I returned to college. I graduated. I became supervisor of the Parent Involvement and Volunteer Service. Mr. Chairman, Head Start is not a baby-sitting program. It is an early childhood development program. It is a program for children of working parents and poor parents. Yes, rich parents can buy early childhood experiences for their children. Working parents do not have the money to do it. [[Page H 8323]] Head Start provides a little bit of an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we have children who have learning disabilities that never would have been discovered had it not been for Head Start. They would have sat in school, not been able to learn, and been relegated to being a dropout. Mr. Chairman, we had children who never owned a book.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Lowey amendment to restore funds to title X. I rise in support of this amendment because I want Members to understand most of us, all of us, want to prevent pregnancies. We do not like the fact that younger and younger people are bringing babies into the world and we want to do something about it. Some people like to throw these statistics at us day in and day out and say, ``Why don't you stop it?'' If we had a magic wand, perhaps we could wave it and stop it. Mr. Chairman, these young people are sexually active. They are not just kids from one community. All communities. Your children. Children from the Christian Coalition, children all over America. We have to do something about preventing pregnancies. You cannot wipe out title X. You go too far. This is extreme. I want Members to know, most of their constituents do not support wiping out family planning. If we are ever to get a handle on this, Government must be involved.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer six amendments today, one on Head Start, Healthy Start, dislocated workers, summer jobs, School-to-Work Program, and Foster Grandparents Program, putting money back in, but then I realized, even if all of those amendments had passed, I could not vote for this bill. This bill is so outrageously bad that there is no way I could support it. It devastates education and job training. Mr. Chairman, since I can only speak for a short time, I came to speak about Head Start. I know about Head Start. It changed my life. I was just a little teacher aide, a mother of two children, went to work for the Head Start Program. They encouraged all of us to continue our education, the parents and the workers. I went back to school and received my degree, and so did many of the parents in that program. We learned how to help children build self-esteem, we learned how to get parents involved in the budget, and we learned how to get people making decisions about their children's education. Mr. Chairman, I saw Head Start change lives, change families, change communities. How can my colleagues say they care about children and take away money from Head Start? This is a wonderful program that not only helps children and families, it breaks the cycle of poverty. I say to my colleagues, all of you Republicans who say you care about children, shame on you that you would do away with the program that everybody agrees is a good program that's helped America. These children need Head Start. Only 50 percent of the children in America who need Head Start are being served by Head Start. I wish there was some way I could convince you not to do this awful, terrible bill that is going to hurt so many children, but I know I can't. You're going to slash this program. You're going to get rid of some of the programs in this country that support Head Start. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing we can do about it but vote against this awful bill, and I believe there are some Republicans who are going to stand with us on this terrible bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the point has been made that nothing was authorized. Nothing has been authorized. We have not had a piece of legislation proposed by the chairman of the subcommittee, by the Republicans, to authorize anything for HUD. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, if nothing has been authorized, how then is it that we have Members from the [[Page H 7879]] other side legislating on the appropriation, when, in fact, this side offers amendments and we are told we are not authorized? Would someone please explain this little move, this little trick, this little manipulation that is being used by which they, somehow, let others have amendments? As I understand it, we have another unauthorized amendment that is going to be put before this committee tonight. Will someone explain please how they get to do it and we do not get to do it? That is really what this discussion is all about. Mr. Chairman, people do not mind losing fairly; do not mind being voted down. But to simply have a rule that says some can and some cannot, it is hard for us to accept. So, what I would like to say, somebody needs to explain how it is that the other side can move forward with unauthorized amendments and this side cannot. Please explain that.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It is fundamentally flawed. It would ravage communities, uproot families, and disrupt the lives of thousands of Americans. We must reform public housing, but Republicans have gone about it entirely wrong. This bill would increase rents paid by residents recieving section 8 vouchers from 30 to 32 percent of adjusted income. The average voucher family has a yearly income just under $8,000. This increase would have the affect of taking away $140 per year from these families. It would also decresae the work incentive for able-bodied adults. It would zero out community development banks, a bi-partisan programs which generates private-sector economic development. This bill reduces housing for seniors, for the sick, and for the needy. It legislates a series of changes which would greatly inhibit our ability to house Americans, expand opoprtunities, and develop economically. It is extreme and it should be defeated. I urge defeat of this bill.

Ms. WATERS. I will try. The fact of the matter is it is not authorized because we have had no legislation in committee to do any authorizations and so no one else has been authorized. But a cute little trick took place and the Committee on Rules waived for those they wanted to waive for and they are denying an opportunity. Whether you say I am speaking to the point of order or not, I am, and it is unfair, and I do not expect that from this chairman because he usually is fair. I would ask him to withdraw his point of order and let the gentlewoman take up this most important measure because she has not had an opportunity to have it authorized.

Ms. WATERS. I think it is relevant.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. chairman, I, too, would like to thank the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for his leadership and work that he has done in this area. I would like to thank the ranking member of this subcommittee, of the Committee on Appropriations, for all that he has done over the years in the area of fair housing. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy-Stokes-Waters amendment. This amendment would strike legislation contained in this appropriations bill which would have a devastating impact on our effort to fight discrimination. The Fair Housing Act is the law. The courts have ruled that part of HUD's responsibility under the Fair Housing Act involves property insurance. The language in this bill would strictly prohibit HUD from implementing this part of its mission. Let's be clear. Legally, HUD's responsibility to enforce fair lending supercedes the Federal Government's general noninvolvement in insurance matters under the McCarren-Ferguson Act. Since the Fair Housing Act was updated in 1988, HUD has investigated, negotiated settlements, and represented complianants in cases of property insurance discrimination. This amendment would stop HUD in its tracks on this whole range of activities. Without this amendment: Individuals who have been victims of discrimination would be denied their basic rights under the Fair Housing Act. HUD would have to cease its ongoing investigations at the end of the fiscal year. If ongoing settlement negotiations stopped, many of their statutes of limitations would expire before new authority for HUD could be reinstated. Administrative hearings for cases underway would cease. Recent cases of discrimination could not be investigated by HUD. HUD could not engage in any research or educational activities that would clarify solutions to discrimination problems for insurers, consumer and community groups, and State regulators. HUD would be required to stop any voluntary programs, like those they are currently engaged in with the mortgage banking industry. Why would this Congress want to prevent one of our primary antidiscrimination agencies from enforcing a civil rights law? Insurance redlining is a problem, Mr. Chairman. HUD has years of experience enforcing the Fair Housing Act. Property insurance compliance is part of that law. I am deeply offended that this Appropriations Committee would, without hearings, without consulting the authorizing committee, without any public discussion--place a strightjacket on HUD's ability to enforce an important antidiscrimination law. A few weeks ago, the Banking Committee debated a similar rollback of the Fair Housing Act. That discussion was heated, it was emotional, and it was intense. At the end of that discussion, after several hours, the Banking Committee resoundingly voted to uphold the Fair Housing Act. I think it was wrong then to try to take away people's rights without a proper airing of the view; without a proper forum. I think it would be wrong now. I would ask this House to use reason. I would ask that we act with fairness. Do not vote to curtail basic civil rights. Support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that a flier is going around signed by two of [[Page H 7888]] the Members of this House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and they say things such as: Everyone agrees that proper insurance underwriting is based solely on factors of economic risk, not on race, not on sex, not on ethnicity. They deny that there is any redlining. I live in a redlined area. I live in what is known as south central Los Angeles. It is not fiction. It is not imaginary. I know that there is redlining and there is discrimination. Before we completed our debate in the committee on fair housing, at one point I asked the chairman of that committee to please provide some leadership. I asked the chairman if indeed we were going to sit there at 11 at night and undo fair housing laws in this country without any airing, without any hearings, without any authorization. Let me tell my colleagues something. It was a proud moment because the chairman took over and gave some direction. And do my colleagues want to know what? Republican Members of that committee said no, this is not right. We are not going to do it. It is not fair to sit here and dismantle fair housing and civil rights laws. Guess what? Because of a bipartisan effort, we stopped the madness and we got a grip. We got a handle, and it did not happen. I am going to say this evening, I hope reason will prevail. I am going to ask that some leadership be provided; not let us move into this kind of dismantlement of civil laws in this country.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order. Some people are sitting here wondering what is going on. Let me tell you what is going on. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] came to the floor and attempted to have an amendment passed that would allow apartment owners to have some section 8 but not all section 8. That was not authorized by anybody. He legislated on the appropriation.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this speaks to the point of order. He went to the Committee on Rules.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of order.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I will not try to deal with this business about HUD has no business. HUD did not just take over this area of responsibility. It is in law, and it was supported by Reagan and Bush. Let me just say this to my friends on the other side of the aisle: You do not know what it is like to be a person of color, to walk into a bank and not be able to get a loan. Even though you look at whites with the same income level, the same credit profile who can get loans. You do not know what it is like to live in a redlined community and not be able to get insurance. I cannot tell you here tonight and make you understand that. I would simply ask you to get out into America, go into these cities, hold some hearings. Do not do this in the dark of night. Do not undo and dismantle civil rights laws and fair housing laws that a lot of people sacrificed for. Do not take this kind of action simply because you have the power to do it. At least be fair about it. Give us a level playing field. Let us fight in the open. Let us fight in the hearings. Let us bring people out to tell you about racism and discrimination. You give us an opportunity to do that, and we will fight you and we will win. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, this bill, and this process. In my tenure here in Congress, this is among the most heartless legislation I have seen. To begin with, the Appropriations Committee has vastly exceeded its legislative authority in this bill. This bill legislates across the board. It infringes on the Banking Committee's authority by legislating in the area of housing. It enters the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction by legislating with respect to the environment. It is bad enough that the actual appropriations figures contained in this bill represent a virtual abandonment of this country's poor and moderate-income families. But the overt encroachment into authorization committee territory compounds this disaster. I do not understand. We had a bipartisan effort with the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and myself where we did rent reform that encourages people to work so that when they go to work their earnings are not taken up by the housing authorities [[Page H 7816]] and public housing charging them more rent, encouraging people to work. That is done away with. Mr. Speaker, this bill raises rents on poor people--it prohibits HUD from enforcing the Fair Housing Act with respect to property insurance. It prohibits HUD from implementing the final RESPA rules. This bill targets its deepest cuts at vulnerable populations--the poorest residents in public and assisted housing, the homeless, the poor, working families, and the elderly. These cuts are unwise, unworkable, and unfair. We should reject this rule and bring up an entirely new bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, rollcall No. 566, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall No. 567, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I would like the Record to reflect, due to unavoidable delay, I was unable to be present. personal explanation

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely impressed with the new-found consciousness about racism that is being displayed here this afternoon. I do not wish the actions of the ATF, which some of us are certainly going to deal with and must be dealt with, to be used as a shield for those who want to protect the actions of the militia and other kinds of things. I would say to this body that it does not make good sense to punish secretaries and mechanics, et cetera, et cetera, for the actions of a few, maybe at the top, and I do not want my colleagues to be fooled to think that some of us who work on this business of racism day in and day out are going to be fooled or sucked in on these kinds of arguments. I ask you to vote against this senseless amendment. It does not do any good to take away the bonuses of innocent people to get at what they care about, and I say let us deal with racism in a real way at some point in time on this floor.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] to pull this back from the floor. Walk over here with your colleagues and friends from Florida, get together an amendment that will encourage Haiti that we can agree on and let us move forward as friends on this one because we are winning all the way. Would you please do that, Mr. Goss?

Ms. WATERS. Let the record reflect, if I may, that this amendment is not asking for a higher standard than that standard which oversaw this election in Haiti, that the gentleman is not asking that they are in some absolute or letter perfect compliance with the 1987 Constitution, but, rather, what just took place is all right. That is what the gentleman just said.

Ms. WATERS. If they reach it, that is fine?

Ms. WATERS. And you are not asking for a higher standard than that?

Ms. WATERS. That the agreement that operated and oversaw this election was fine?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, so you believe that this election was in substantial compliance?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Goss, you have specifically identified in your amendment that there would be substantial compliance with the 1987 Constitution for the 1995 elections. What does that mean? As you know, there was an agreement for this election, to oversee and operate this election. Everything was not in place. So they had to put the electoral council in place, not as the Constitution identified. Would you agree that that agreement is sufficient?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I love America. I love the Constitution. I love all of the symbols of our free society, our democracy. My ancestors loved America. They loved America even when America did not love them. My ancestors loved America when they were not free to pray to their God. They loved America when they were not free to rally or protest. They loved America even when they had to die to help America live up to her ideals. Their sacrifices instilled in me an undying loyalty and commitment to always defend the Bill of Rights. It is the Bill of Rights that gave my ancestors hope that there could be a democracy for all people, even people who look like me. This amendment being offered here today endangers the most profound protection guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights, the right to disagree, the right to confront, the right to rally, the right to march, the right to protest. The flag is, indeed, a precious symbol, a powerful symbol, but no symbol is more powerful than the powerful ideas embodied in the Bills of Rights that guarantees to us all the freedom of expression, the right to express ourselves as a proud and determined people.