Diane Watson

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Lantos for yielding. The United States has few, if any, better friends than India. And I feel strongly that the United States and India are destined to be great partners as they seek to meet the challenges of the 21st century. One of these challenges is the need to develop new sources of energy. The Indian economy is growing by leaps and bounds, offering new opportunities not only for India itself but for India's partners as well. India will need to develop tens of thousands of megawatts of new power capacity in the next few years to meet this need and lift India's poorest from poverty. But there is another 21st century challenge that India and the United States must meet together, and that is the challenge of nuclear proliferation, particularly the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of extremist governments and terrorist movements. India is, and has been, a trusted partner in meeting this challenge. As much as any ally of the United States, India knows the dangers posed by terrorism. We were so sadly reminded of this again, only a few weeks ago, when extremists murdered over 200 Indian commuters in Mumbai. My sincerest sympathies go out to the people of Mumbai and all of India. Together, I have no doubt we will eventually defeat the ideologies that spark such terror attacks as well as defeat the poverty and marginalization which fuels it. I have no doubt that India is a reliable steward of nuclear technology. But my concerns extends beyond India. I do not fear India with nuclear power. I do fear a world where both India and the United States must face a nuclear Iran or a nuclear North Korea. Our key tool for constraining the nuclear design of Iran and North Korea has been the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But I fear that this legislation will damage the NPT to the point that we will make it harder to stop the Iranian and North Korea nuclear programs. The U.S./India partnership is too strong to be harmed by one piece of legislation. I believe that, if we continue working with India, we can find ways to address our mutual security concerns and energy needs. But I feel this legislation fails to meet either challenge. Furthermore, I have concerns about our own constitutional processes here in the United States. Acceptance or rejection of any arrangement with India must include a full role for the United States Congress. The President cannot change American law without Congress's consent. I believe any such agreement with any foreign country must be approved by Congress.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute my brother fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, on the occasion of their centennial celebration and in support of H. Con. Res. 384, a resolution honoring the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity as the first Greek letter fraternity established for African American men. As a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, the first female and sister sorority of Alpha Phi Alpha, I know well the hard work and dedication that goes towards their goals: their mission of education, their mission of civic engagement and participation, and their civil rights leadership. I was extremely honored to be declared a Golden Soror at the fall Alpha Kappa Alpha's Boule last week. The Brothers of the Black and Gold have watched their mission grow and evolve in the 100 years since the fraternity's founding. They have taken their original collegiate support system and expanded it to serve as a role model in high school and college mentoring programs, a practice that I as a former educator and school psychologist highly endorse as one of the best routes to success. Their 70-year-old mission to increase civic participation by instilling the adage, ``A Voteless People is a Hopeless People,'' is still relevant today, as we just passed the Voting Rights Act amid some claims that it is no longer needed. Unfortunately, intimidation, threats, innuendo and deception are still used to discourage voter turnout; and so the Alphas, as they are known on college campuses, continue to lead the charge for a free vote and fair representation. My last commendation to my brothers is to applaud them on their efforts to enshrine Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy by building a memorial to him on the National Mall. I was pleased to carry the legislation in the year 2003 authorizing such a monument to our Nation's foremost pacifist and civil rights legend where it belongs, in a highly visible, national area. I know that the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity is working in a determined way to raise the funds for the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial; and I am pleased as usual to go into partnership with them in reaching their goal. I want to congratulate them, all of you, my brothers of the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity, for founding this long-lasting organization and for your tenacity in engaging us on crucial issues that transcend time. Congratulations.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki at the White House today, he needs to tell the Iraqi leader that the time has come for his government to shoulder more responsibility. Congressional Democrats have said this year that we need to have a significant year of transition from U.S. to Iraqi forces. That is not happening. In fact, the violence there is getting worse. Over the last month alone, the number of Iraqis who have been killed has doubled from 1,500 in May to more than 3,000 in June. Imagine that. One hundred Iraqis are now being killed every day. The sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites is clearly getting worse, and the Iraqi Government simply cannot stop it. For 3 years now, House Democrats have been demanding a serious debate on Iraq. Instead, last month House Republicans favored a partisan debate in the hopes that they would score political points. Today Iraq is close to fighting a civil war, and we must see that this does not happen.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming an election year tradition: House Republicans bringing up hot-button issues that have absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. This week, House Republicans will use pledge protection and gay marriage as a means to distract and divide our Nation. Are these really the priorities of the Republican majority when we have a hot spot virtually spinning out of control in the Middle East? The truth is this is nothing but an attempt to turn attention away from their failures over the last year on the issues that are the most important to the majority of the American people. Republicans have failed to join us in increasing the minimum wage, they have yet to provide any relief to the American consumer at the gas pump, they continue to stall negotiations on comprehensive border security and immigration reform, and they have allowed the issue of lobbying reform to fall off the legislative agenda after all of the lobbying corruption we have witnessed over the last year from the other side of the aisle.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the passing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is a crowning achievement of Congress and the civil rights movement. Some say that we no longer need a Voting Rights Act, that 41 years is enough. Others want to water down key expiring provisions in order to weaken the act. Yes, we have made considerable progress in the last 41 years. However, much work needs to be done. The sad fact is that in every national election since Reconstruction, in every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, American voters have faced calculated and determined efforts by persons and groups whose goal is to deny them the most fundamental right, and that is the right to vote. Gone are the days of poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, however, intimidation, threats, innuendo and deception are still used to discourage voter turnout. The list of strategies used to deny Americans their right to vote is long and varied. Please vote for this bill, attack and reject the amendments.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, all summer the American people have been facing record prices every time they go to the gas pump. Some have cut vacation plans, others are pinching their monthly paychecks attempting to make ends meet. Washington should be acting to pass a comprehensive energy package that relieves pain at the pump and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, House Republicans have refused to act on any substantial energy legislation this year. How bad do things have to get before House Republicans are finally willing to act? Instead of actually coming up with real solutions, House Republicans prefer the status quo. They refuse to act because of their cozy relationship with Big Oil and see no problem with the $16 billion in profit the three largest oil companies reported during the first quarter of the year. Mr. Speaker, while House Republicans are content with the status quo, Democrats are ready to take America in a new direction. We will stand up to Big Oil and protect consumers from price gouging.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the Chairman of the Science, State, Justice and Commerce Subcommittee in a colloquy regarding the importance of the State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. Mr. Chairman, additional funding for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs is important to further diplomatic efforts to protect intellectual property rights in countries that are not members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD. Countries that joined the OECD did so because they share a commitment to a democratic government and market economy which depends on adequate protections for intellectual property rights. The non-OECD countries especially need the benefit of United States diplomacy to understand the importance of protecting intellectual property, not just for others' intellectual property but also because it is in the best interest to protect their own ideas and creations with laws and then enforce those laws. Fighting intellectual property violations in developing countries will take more than cracking the whip on illegal sales. We need to create the political will at the top of the governance structure so we can drive a real impact on the ground. Mr. Wolf, I would like to thank you for your leadership on our Nation's diplomatic priorities and ask if you would be willing to work with me to provide additional funding for the State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs to give them the resources to work on developing institutions to enforce intellectual property protections in non-OECD countries.

Ms. WATSON. And I want to thank you so much, Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Wolf. Amendment Offered by Mr. Culberson

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, we are going to see that your passion spreads throughout this House. And I would like to ask, now, Mr. Mollohan the same question. Would you be willing to work with me to allocate additional funding for the State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs to give them the resources to work on developing political will to enforce intellectual property protections in the non-OECD countries?

Ms. WATSON. In conclusion, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Issa. When we traveled together to the Duma in Russia, we stated our position very clearly; and at that time there were 57 different locations in Moscow alone that were selling our copied materials. They would go out and close them and they would open right up in another location the next day. So we are acting as the watchdogs. I appreciate the help from the committee in keeping this on front and center and on the table, and we are going to continue to watch. So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this time.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with Mr. Issa, and offer this amendment that disallows the use of taxpayer dollars to negotiate Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization until Russia is removed from the United States Trade Representative's priority watch list for intellectual property violations. Russia should not be allowed consideration until it takes steps to protect intellectual property before we let them into the exclusive World Trade Organization. The cost of Russian piracy, from the copyright community from the motion picture and recording industry, to software inventors and patent holders, was over $1.7 billion in 2005, and losses topped $6.8 billion over the last 5 years. Russia has been on the USTR's priority list for intellectual property violations for 9 straight years without showing any significant signs of improvement. Delaying Russia's entrance into the WTO until Russia enacts and enforces laws to protect intellectual property rights will send a strong and serious message that the United States values its Nation's ideas and products. We learned this lesson the hard way with China. Once China became a member of the WTO, it has been a very difficult, time-consuming and expensive task to bring a case against them before the WTO to get them to enforce IP protections. The time to pressure Russia, to put an end to their egregious intellectual property violations is now, and I urge my colleagues to support the Watson-Issa amendment. Point of Order

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

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, recent reports have shown why the Republican prescription drug plan is not working for seniors. Prices are still going up, and millions of seniors are about to fall into the doughnut hole, a period where they receive no coverage but continue to pay their premiums. Democrats have long believed there is a better way, so we introduced a Democratic prescription for change. Our plan would give Medicare the bargaining power to negotiate lower prices with drug companies. The VA is doing that right now, and veterans are paying 43 percent less for their drugs than American seniors. With all the money we save from negotiating lower prices, we have closed the doughnut hole to ensure that seniors are not losing coverage for a substantial portion of the year. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans are really interested in helping our seniors with their prescription drug bills, they would join us in supporting this prescription for change. It just doesn't make sense to continue with a plan that isn't lowering costs and creates a giant gap in coverage.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act. In a Nation where children are taught at the earliest age that every citizen has a right to vote, it would be comforting to know that the last vestiges of voter discrimination had been swept away by the Voting Rights Act. But the facts paint a much different and unsettling picture. Sadly, African Americans and other minorities continue to face calculated and determined efforts to prevent them from exercising their fundamental democratic rights. That is why extension of key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act is critical. Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is a foundation of democracy, and the Voting Rights Act provides the legal basis to protect the rights of all Americans. It is my hope that this body will do the right thing and not allow weakening amendments that would undermine the effectiveness of this historical voter act to be passed.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I represent the Out of Iraq Caucus, and I support the Murtha resolution. This war of choice so far has cost us the lives of close to 2,500 American men and women, let alone tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and has cost us $320 billion and has weakened the United States' prestige and brought our interests and our values into question to a degree not seen since the Berlin Wall divided Europe. It is our failure here in Congress to perform our duty of oversight which has cost America most. From the beginning of the march to war, the President and his advisers blundered into failure after failure. False claims about African uranium and mobile anthrax labs. Unlikely claims of Saddam's leaks to al Qaeda. Stubbornly ignoring the advice of the uniformed military about troop levels. Turning a blind eye to the venal corruption that swallowed $9 billion of Iraqi money, U.N. Oil- for-Food money, without a trace. Shame on us. Mr. Speaker, our Founding Fathers in their wisdom gave us a mechanism, a defense against tyranny called congressional oversight, and it is about time we start doing our duty to the American people by performing that oversight. While I welcome this debate, it is a poor substitute for what we really should have been doing. I call upon you to withdraw this empty resolution, this meaningless, self-congratulatory, fraudulent scam and let us work together to examine our mistakes, fix them, and bring our troops home. Let Iraqis rebuild their own nation. The President says we need to stay in Iraq until the mission is complete, but the President cannot explain to the American people exactly what the mission is, let alone tell us when he expects to complete it. Let us take credit towards victory by sighting the completion of a democratic government in Iraq and killing the biggest terrorist there, claim these as a victory, and keep our word by honorably deploying our forces. Three and a half years is hardly cutting and running. We all share the same dream that the Iraqi people do. We want them to live in peace in a secure and prosperous society where they are free to choose their government. But the presence of our troops and our occupation of Iraq has become such an obstacle to that future that we can no longer ignore reality. How can we win a war against terrorism when terrorism is a concept? You must change the hearts and the minds to succeed. So let us work together to bring our courageous troops home and put an end to this devastating war of choice.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we should encourage our young people to strive to achieve their full potential. We must give them the resources and opportunities to make their dreams a reality. For many students these dreams begin with access to higher education. But after 6 years of Republican rule, access to college is now out of reach for too many of our Nation's youths. Since 2001, tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges have increased by 40 percent. At the same time, Republicans have made drastic cuts to higher education, including underfunding Pell Grants and cutting the higher education budget by $12 billion this year alone. These cuts not only mean that more students have to take out loans to pay for college, but they will also face higher interest rates as they pay them back unless they refinance by July 1. That is when the Department of Education will raise Federal student loan interest rates to offset the Republican cuts. As Members of Congress, we should be doing everything in our power to make college more accessible and affordable for all students, rather than cutting critical education dollars to fund tax breaks for the wealthy few.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Motion to Recommit that I am offering, together with Ms. Solis, on H.R. 5252, the COPE Act of 2006. This motion will send this bill back to the Energy & Commerce committee to fix two of the most glaring weaknesses of this bill--the lack build-out provisions necessary to make sure all neighborhoods and communities get service--and the lack of strong anti- discrimination language necessary to prevent redlining. Our motion will instruct the committee to include language, first to prohibit discrimination based on basis of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or income--the same common sense non- discrimination language that has formed the basis of so much legislation here in Congress--and second, to include so-called ``build- out'' provisions, which require the companies building large broadband networks to make sure that they are expanding their networks on a fair basis to all communities. The COPE Act--as currently written--allows service providers to cozy- up to some neighborhoods while snubbing others. Without build-out provisions that require service providers to reach all households, many Americans will lack quality service--or be deprived of service entirely--simply because they live in the wrong neighborhood. This means that, under the COPE Act, consumers won't choose their Internet provider--Internet providers will choose their customers. Furthermore, the COPE Act excludes the anti-discrimination language necessary to ensure equal treatment to all people, no matter what their race, ethnicity or economic situation. Americans will have no legal recourse if they receive inferior or no access to vital telecom services. This anti-discrimination language is necessary to protects all Americans from redlining, particularly those who have historically been denied access to services others take for granted. In short, the COPE Act as written will leave many people behind as we enter a new technological age. It permits and even encourages redlining by failing to require that telecom companies serve all Americans without discrimination. In the words of Doctor Faye Williams, Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, ``Had [this] kind of thinking prevailed during the civil rights movement--the `don't outlaw discrimination because the situation will take care of itself' claim-- we may have never had a Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act.'' Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues--we can fix this bill. I urge you to vote for the Solis/Watson Motion to recommit, so we can send this bill back to committee, fix these glaring weaknesses, and give Americans a telecom bill that brings the entire country--not just certain neighborhoods and people--in the broadband age.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the fact that the provisions that are going to be considered do not contain any language that would guard against discrimination, discrimination as to where people live, redlining. And we want to be sure that when we go into restructuring where we place our cable lines, I want to be sure no community is left out. Unless we can see that language in the bill, I cannot support it. Communications are too important, and I don't want the cable companies choosing the high-end communities and leaving the low-end communities out of the cable network. So I would hope that if we do not get a provision in the bill, and it looks like we are not going to, that we vote against it and try all over again. This will affect every area of my district, and many districts in this country, if we do not put provisions in there to eliminate redlining, to be sure we have antidiscrimination clauses in there, and be sure that people do not have to come to the FCC to get rulings when they find they are underserved. I would suggest that we vote against the bill.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 5252, the COPE Act. ``COPE'' is the perfect name for this act because we will be coping for the results of this act for decades to come. My constituents have been coping with high cable prices for years now, and because this rule omits several key amendments, many may be forced to cope with these high bills, inferior service, or lack of access for a long time. My colleagues and I offered amendments we think will truly strengthen the bill. We offered an amendment that would prevent telecom companies from picking and choosing the parts of communities they wish to service. It would have required gradual market-based build-out to all areas so all constituents will eventually be served in exchange for access to public rights-of-way. Unfortunately, because this amendment was blocked, oversight would be left to Washington, D.C. The FCC's oversight of local rights-of-way does in no way serve our cities, nor our constituents. They deserve a local court of appeal that knows the community and therefore can make sound judgments that benefit all of our constituents. Our other amendment strengthens the antidiscrimination language necessary to ensure that people of all races, colors, religions, national origins, or sex have a court of law to turn to in the event they receive inferior access or no access to important telecom services. This necessary safeguard protects all people, particularly those who have historically been denied access to services others take for granted. Because this amendment was blocked, telecom companies can redline entire neighborhoods, leaving minorities and others behind. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It does not offer an alternative to a weak telecommunications bill that only protects fair services for a few and not all.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, we need to declare victory with the Zarqawi killing, and this is a time to also declare that the Iraqi government has completed the formation of its cabinet and we can start withdrawing our troops. Now, all Americans are disgusted by what they see in Washington and they are looking for real leadership on the important issues of the day. First we could announce there are victories and we can start withdrawing our troops. But, unfortunately, Washington Republicans prefer to waste time on partisan politics, instead of focusing on priorities such as affordable health care, energy costs, the economy, the rising cost of staying in Iraq and the deficit. This week, the Senate spent 3 days debating a gay marriage amendment that everyone knew was going nowhere. In order to pass out of the Senate, the amendment needed 67 votes, and they couldn't even get a majority. The issue should be dead for the year, but now we hear the House leadership plans to bring it up later this summer. Mr. Speaker, let us give ourselves credit for what we have done in Iraq and let us focus on these issues and let us start withdrawing our troops.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the third time in 3 years to speak out against what I consider the wrong approach to media indecency, and that is increasing FCC fines. S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, represents a weak attempt at improving our media, an uncreative policy that will harm our creative community. Mr. Speaker, we all believe in the need to reduce indecency in media. Parents should not have to worry about what they might encounter with their children when they sit down together to watch TV. But indecency fines will not solve this problem because they do not address its root cause: media concentration and a lack of competition. When big media gets bigger, conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of diversity, localism and competition, crucial for the service of public interest. Will monetary penalties encourage return to these principles? I sincerely doubt it. Instead, we need a competitive media environment that provides viewers and listeners with real choices in their entertainment. We need programming that respects the public and performers rather than catering to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down our culture. A consolidated media market controlled by a profit-driven conglomerate is bound to offer cheaply made, shocking entertainment for the sake of increasing viewership and making a spectacle of itself. Our artists need to be able to work in an environment where creativity is honored. This will never happen under a system of censorship. Creators cannot read the FCC's minds on their definition of indecency. We must work with our creative community to encourage quality media content, not simply offer vague guidelines with high consequences. That is why I have supported making the fulfillment of public interest obligations an element of the broadcast licensees' renewal requirement and the restoration of the fairness doctrine. It is why I encourage the FCC to think about the impact that media consolidation has on media content and our national character as they begin rewriting their ownership rules, rules that upset millions of Americans and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the indecent media culture we witness today will not be modified by simply increasing fines. It must be transformed through less media consolidation and greater requirements to serve the public interest. I am sorely disappointed that both Houses have chosen the easy route of increasing fines rather than making a serious attempt to curb indecency by addressing the major problems in our media. So I would urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and let's try over again.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, once again the administration has put our Nation's veterans at risk. First it was underfunding the Veterans Administration services in fiscal year 2006, and now it is a security breach of 27 million veterans' personal information. The administration has jeopardized tens of millions of veterans' financial futures because they have failed to implement safeguards and adequate security measures at the request of the VA Inspector General. This information was known for 19 days before we found it out. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the 42,000 veterans that I represent, I call upon the President to act immediately to safeguard these brave veterans from identity fraud. We must protect our veterans who have protected us. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, the danger of a nuclear Iran may be the biggest security challenge facing America and the world, and now it appears that the Iranian regime might finally be willing to talk about ending their nuclear weapons programs. This opportunity raises many questions. Can we depend on Iran to negotiate in good faith? Is Iran truly ready to renounce terrorism? And what will be the cost to the people of Iran if we engage a regime that oppresses its own people? We must confront all these questions and scour our conscience for the answers. But these questions are dwarfed by a more immediate one: Do we have the courage, the foresight and the strength of will to seize this opportunity? Will we be brave enough to talk with Iran and risk a diplomatic failure? Or will we be so afraid to talk that we would risk war? I ask the President to confront his fears, justified as they may be, and choose the courageous path of reaching out to engage Iran on a diplomatic formula to end the Iranian nuclear program.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, in the months following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA sent notices to survivors indicating that they would receive up to 1 year of assistance. FEMA has recently announced that 55,000 families of Katrina survivors currently receiving housing emergency shelter assistance will have their housing assistance terminated or reduced significantly as of this May 31. Survivors are supposed to apply for assistance under section 408 and, if the application is accepted, they can reasonably expect further assistance up to 18 months from the date of the hurricane. Some reports indicate, however, that the rate of rejection has been as high as 80 percent or four out of five household applicants. Also, section 408 individualized rental assistance required reapplication every 3 months. Now, how many landlords offer 3-month leases? It has been a sham and a shame, Mr. Speaker. FEMA and this country has to do better to its evacuees. Mr. Speaker, in the months following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA sent notices to survivors indicating that they would receive up to one year of assistance. FEMA has recently announced that 55,000 families of Katrina survivors currently receiving housing ``emergency shelter'' assistance under Section 403 (Stafford Act) will have their housing assistance terminated or reduced significantly as of May 31, 2006. Survivors are supposed to apply for assistance under Section 408, and if the application is accepted they can reasonably expect further assistance up to 18 months from the date of the hurricane. Some reports indicate, however, that the rate of rejection has been as high as 80% or 4 out of 5 household applicants. Households who are rejected but are still in distress must rely on the good will of local and state governments, even though they may not be actual constituents in those jurisdictions. Section 408 individualized rental assistance required re-application every 3 months. How many landlords offer 3 month leases? According to FEMA numbers, the reapplication rate is only 30 per cent. These facts raise very serious concerns regarding low income, elderly, disabled and other vulnerable persons among the displaced will find themselves with inadequate assistance, and there are reports of widespread despair, anxiety and lack of faith in the government. Under FEMA regulations, only one head of household may apply for assistance. But this rule discriminates against low income African- American families from New Orleans, among whom multiple families living in one dwelling unit is common. Additionally, FEMA is telling many survivors whose applications have been refused that the basis for refusal is because their home has been deemed habitable, even when their homes are located in neighborhoods where no public services are available and where widespread destruction and environmental contamination remain. These inaccurate assessments of eligibility should be investigated and re-evaluated. Section 408 Individualized assistance does not cover utilities. However, section 2501 of the Supplemental Bill now in Conference Committee grants FEMA the authority to provide funds to a state or local entity to pay for utility costs associated with the thousands of leases currently in place. It is essential that the Conference Committee leave this language in place, because without it many Katrina survivor households will be in further jeopardy of being unable to retain current housing leases. FEMA has failed to submit its plan for permanent and transitional housing to Congress, which was due in January of 2006. Thus FEMA continues to operate without an overall plan, instituting more rolling deadlines and bureaucratic bungling which has brought additional hardship to survivors and their families. FEMA has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on mobile homes that have never been relocated to a place where survivors can use them, and on trailers that cost as much as $120,000 per unit after transport costs are paid, sometimes exceeding the cost of producing the unit. With FEMA set to receive $9 billion or more from the Supplemental Bill now in Conference Committee, FEMA could use the housing envelope to simply purchase apartment buildings at a unit cost that would be less than trailers. This would allow for permanent, not temporary housing and would avert the jeopardy of returning residents being caught in trailers during hurricane season, which is only weeks away. The President has the authority to institute alternative, comprehensive provisions for all Katrina survivors under the Stafford Act, and thus to ensure that no survivor is left homeless as a result of the disaster and subsequent evacuation.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, this fits a well-worn routine: another year, another Republican budget awash in red ink, a reflection of the same failed priorities that have caused the Federal debt to balloon by $3.5 trillion since President Bush took office. Mr. Chairman, we often talk about the national debt and budget deficit as though they were abstract value-neutral terms. In fact, they are very real threats to the security, prosperity, and health of our Nation. The national debt is money borrowed from our children and grandchildren's future. Furthermore, this budget slashes funding for the priorities critical to American families. Community health funding is cut by $99 million. Renewable energy programs are cut to protect billions in tax giveaways to oil companies. And hundreds of thousands of veterans will face new health care fees. Budgets are statements of what we value here in Congress, and this budget's lack of value should shame us all.