Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to bring an urgent matter to the attention of my colleagues in the House. After recording the largest corporate fraud in United States history, costing thousands of jobs and $176 billion in losses to investors, representing three times that of Enron, WorldCom is back, just rebranding themselves to their former name MCI.

As a supporter of reforming our bankruptcy laws, I am shocked how MCI or any other company can be rewarded for cooking the books, cheating and stealing, and stand to gain by their criminal behavior. Reorganization under the bankruptcy laws should not apply when the assets are the product of criminal activities. Bankruptcy should not be the vehicle for laundering stolen goods. This is the case with MCI, even though they have changed their name and recently rolled out a new marketing campaign to distance themselves from their ``criminal stigma.'' What an artificial advantage for MCI, our bankruptcy laws.

In conclusion, here is an idea how MCI can market themselves. They can market by saying: MCI stands for massive corporate indiscrepancies.

Mr. Speaker, the first tragedy of today is we did not have democracy at its best. Democracy at its best would have called for a debate on this great floor of the House of Representatives so that the Democrats and Republicans would have had an opportunity to roll out their respective plans so that the people of America would have known what the Republican plan was and what the Democratic plan was.

However, it must be out of fear that the majority had decided that they were going to completely silence the minority by not allowing them to debate the issues on the floor so that the American people can see what is happening here in this House of Representatives.

Therefore, I am compelled to come to make a statement in Special Orders as opposed to debating with my colleagues on something that is so fundamental and so important to our great Nation. It is important to its future, and it is important for our children and our children's children. So I have to rise today to express my concern and opposition to the huge, unfair, and illogical tax cut which the majority just propelled through the House of Representatives today.

I listened to the debate this morning, and I had to wonder how long it would take, if you would call that a debate. Because it was only an hour and we did not have an opportunity to do anything else on our side, I had to wonder how long would it take before we, as a body, realize that this tax cut is nothing more than the 2001 tax cut in 2003 clothes.

In May of 2001, we, those of us who are Democrats, made a passionate plea to the administration to temper and equally disburse its 10-year tax cut which did not protect the Social Security trust fund, did not include funds for much-needed domestic priorities, and was almost totally based on projected revenues barring any catastrophic event. A modest tax surplus meant that Americans had earned some tax relief.

My Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, led by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), proposed a fair and responsible tax cut, job creation and economic stimulus plan. Most importantly, we tried to convince the administration that should some major national emergency require us to draw on emergency funds, there would be none if we spent it all then. The media and many called us pessimists and naysayers. But then sad for all of us, September 11 happened; and on September 12, 2001, we found ourselves poised to expend the greatest amount of personal, monetary, and political resources in our history.

The debt ceiling has now become a ballistic missile, and it is unguided at that. Most importantly, we are now faced with the largest deficit in the history of this great country. This does not sound like fiscal responsibility to me. What this $550 billion fiscal monster does effect is another round of tax cuts tilted toward the affluent and deficits that will become a future tax on the rest of us and our children.

The Social Security trust fund surpluses will be misused every year for at least 11 years to mask the even larger deficits. Estimates are that by 2012 the resulting debt load will be about $50,000 per American household. This is a travesty, and we should not be a part of it. Some say, what about some tax relief? I agree with providing some tax relief. I agree with not allowing marriage to be a discriminating tax category. I believe people should be given incentives to save more for their retirement, especially when they live longer, and the Republican policies that we see will make us live longer, but without Social Security.

I cannot agree with leveraging Social Security, earned income and child tax credits, food stamps, family support, student loans, public housing, drug elimination programs, section 8 housing opportunities, and the virtual zeroing out of all unemployment compensation in order to make the rich richer and the real people the holders of a budget- busting, loose-cannon tax cut promissory note.

So, as I conclude, we sought then, as we do now, to provide tax relief that is fair, responsible, and immediate.

This tax cut is aimed at the coffers of the rich. We all know that tax cuts for the rich and affluent will not help the economy. The people who will spend the money are those who need it the most! Let's keep in mind that 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost since the end of 2000! It is 2003 and we are still paying for unintended consequences, ill-conceived tax

cuts and growing domestic obligations. This is not the time for ``country store'' give-aways!! and if we give anything away--we should at least give everyone something to spend and not just those who have it already. We should seek to do something that is fair, responsible and immediate.

Economists nation-wide are in agreement that this type of tax cut will do little or nothing to crate jobs or stimulate the economy. More than 400 professional economists, including ten Nobel Laureates agree that: ``Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near term.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that such comments are not politically driven. They do not reflect some partisan attempt to dismantle sound and effective fiscal policy. The in-coming Director of the Congressional Budget Office, a Republican appointee, has testified to the skepticism of these tax cuts either stimulating the economy or paying for themselves.

Mr. Speaker we sought then--as we do now--to provide tax relief that is fair, responsible and immediate. Throughout the day's debate, extension of remarks, special orders and other comments, my colleagues have eloquently highlighted the Democratic alternative: fair, responsible, and immediate have been our cry. I won't repeat the details--Mr. Speaker you know what they are. We were unable to even bring a Democratic alternative up for debate and that, Mr. Speaker, is the real tragedy of this debacle.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Chair, the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Cummings), for organizing today's Special Order on Haiti. I want to salute the members of the Haitian Task Force and my good friend and colleague who is from California and shares the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Financial Services with me, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for her outstanding leadership and tireless commitment to the people of the Nation of Haiti and in combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic wherever it raises its ugly head. The Nation indeed owes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) a debt of gratitude.

There is a saying that all politics are local. And for me, Haiti is a local political issue. I am proud to represent the constituents of the sixth congressional district of New York which has one of the largest Haitian American communities in America.

But that is not the only reason why the Haitian people are important to me and why the Nation of Haiti is important to America. Haiti is important to me because America cannot and should not continue to have a foreign policy towards Haiti, which is one of the poorest nations, if not the poorest nation, in our hemisphere, a foreign policy which, in many ways, fails to support the rights of the Haitian people for democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity. This administration cannot talk with credibility and moral clarity about willingness to use our political, economic, military, and diplomatic foreign policy instruments in the name of spreading America's universal values globally. Yet, we only apply it selectively when it is in our national interests.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Haiti are a proud people, a people who have a long history of being at the forefront of struggles against slavery and for independence against European colonialism in this hemisphere; a history which connects the people of Haiti with African Americans. In 1791, Haitian slaves initiated a successful slave revolt against France. The Haitian slaves ousted Napoleon and by 1804, the island became the first black independent nation. At first, our Nation did not recognize Haiti as an independent Nation out of fear that Haiti could serve as an example to others to fight against any country which practiced slavery. It was not until 1862 that the United States finally granted Haiti diplomatic recognition and sent noted abolitionist Frederick Douglass as America's Consular Minister to Haiti.

But as we know today, for many developing nations, political independence from their former colonial masters did not automatically translate into stable democracies, economic independence, and sustainable development. Haiti, like many post-colonial developing nations, has struggled with internal civil wars and political instability. The people of Haiti have been dripped in decades of structural violence, dictatorship, human degradation, and economic poverty the likes of which are an affront to humanity.

While the reasons for such sufferings are complex, the fact that it exists in today's world of wealth and technology right here in our hemisphere is something that we cannot ignore. We cannot ignore that our immigration policy treats Haitians differently from other immigrants seeking to escape political violence. We cannot ignore that our foreign policy regarding Haiti has become tied to partisan politics. We cannot ignore that Haiti faces an HIV/AIDS epidemic and this administration has played a role in hindering international economic assistance to Haiti because we cannot come up with a policy approach that balances the needs of the Haitian people with our requirement that assistance be used properly.

So, Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say that if America can muster the political will and mobilize billions of dollars in resources to wage a war thousands of miles away from our shores, what about Haiti? When will America mobilize the same kind of resources and political will to wage a war against poverty, against disease, against human suffering right here in our hemisphere? If such rights and values are truly universal, Haitians deserve nothing less. We can do more to support the people of Haiti so that they can reclaim their human dignity. We can and we must.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my friend, for her tireless effort, commitment, and hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 165.

I want to thank my good friend Doug Bereuter, Chairman of the Sub- Committee on Europe for his leadership on keeping the issue of Cyprus on the table.

With so much focus on Iraq, it would be easy to forget about other true multilateral efforts to support peace and stability in the world.

Mr. Speaker, some may wonder why the issue of peacefully re-uniting Cyprus (a nation divided for nearly 30 years) is important for Americans and for the world?

For many Greek and Turkish-Americans this international issue is deeply personal because it directly affects loved ones.

In spite of the recent setback, Cyprus does represent one of the better examples of how America and Europe, working in cooperation, can help resolve international disputes.

While we share the disappointment that the United Nations-led effort to craft a comprehensive settlement for Cyprus was not successful, it does not change the fact, that the effort itself represents a shining example of how important and relevant the United Nations truly is to pursuing peace and stability in the world.

Mr. Speaker, for smaller nations in the world, which don't have strategically important resources, and live next to more powerful states, who have even more powerful allies, the United Nations and international law represents one of their only shields of defense, one of their best pillars of stability, and a means by which their voice is heard in the international community.

House Resolution 165 allows this Congress to say to Americans, the citizens of Cyprus, and the people of the world that we stand with all those who wish for a re-united Cyprus that is prosperous, democratic and stable; and that global cooperation remains the best path for peacefully making that wish come true.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and of course from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa, we spend a great amount of time on exploring and understanding conflicts in Africa and how devastating the symptoms of the civil war and low-intensity conflicts can be in terms of loss of life and loss of development opportunities.

However, we often do not spend sufficient time on the underlying causes of conflicts of the wars, including wars started and perpetuated over trying to control who gets to benefit from the free trade of Africa's vast natural resources like diamonds. Today's bill makes a positive step in the right direction to bring an end to those who would profit from conflict and war and violence at the expense of socioeconomic development. It makes a step in the right direction to wage a war on the international trade nexus of money, diamonds and weapons which help fuel conflicts in Africa.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for supporting this initiative. It represents a compromise between doing more to help stop the trade of illegal conflict diamonds while also protecting the trade of diamonds from countries which produce and sell diamonds in ways which support economic development.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1584 is a measure we can all support. We must not lose sight of the fact that for centuries Africa's vast resources have been used in legal and illegal ways and provide little benefits to African societies.

If we want to change these realities, if we want the trade of Africa's diamonds, oil, and gold to support economic growth and development, we must devote as equal a level of attention and financial resources as we spend on trade liberalization and privatization efforts to assist African societies in building the necessary economic, regulatory, supervisory, and enforcement institutions and laws that every society must have to have a transparent, competitive and free market economy, an economy where both the rights and obligations of the private sector and consumers are protected, an economy which provides opportunities and freedom for all. This Congress can start today with

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the troops, to our troops overseas and everywhere in the world, thank you. I thank them for their bravery, thank them for their courage, thank them for believing in this Nation, thank them for being willing to give their life for our freedom. We love them, we support them, and I am sure that is all 535 Members of Congress.

As I look at this resolution, to me it is like a contract, and if a person signs a contract, that means they agree with everything in the contract. I do not agree with the doctrine of preemptive strike. Therefore, as to page 4, line 4 through 7, I disagree, and therefore, I cannot sign on to this contract.

I really wanted to sign on to and vote for this resolution, and we had an opportunity to speak as one Congress, House-Senate alike, sending the same message. That is unity. What a great opportunity we had. What a great opportunity we missed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 314, the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act. As an original cosponsor of the bill, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for his leadership on this bill. My thanks also go to the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who worked on a bipartisan basis to bring this bill to the floor.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, and the other cosponsors of the bill from both sides of the aisle for their support and help for bringing this bill to the House floor.

The bill before us is largely technical in nature and seeks to address a change in market practices not anticipated by the original Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. This act is a consumer protection statute which was established in order to protect consumers from deception and abusive practices by third-party debt collectors.

Under the FDCPA, debt collectors are required to give certain notices to debtors regarding the nature and the amount of the delinquent debt. The original intent of this notice was to ensure the debtor understood why the collector was calling and what was owed.

Under the act, collection activities by the original creditors were generally exempt from the FDCPA. However, third parties such as debt collectors are generally considered to be covered and are required to provide such written or oral communications to consumers. These notifications are generally referred to as the Miranda warnings to consumers.

The reason for the bill before the House is to distinguish between mortgage servicers and third-party debt collectors. In the mortgage market, mortgages are bought and sold on a regular basis in order to provide liquidity for lending and better rates for the borrowers. In some cases, originators will keep loans on their books, but will decide to sell the servicing rights to other parties.

This legislation was developed in response to a growing concern that some mortgage servicers were unclear whether these transfers were covered by the FDCPA and what the appropriate communication should be between the mortgage servicer and the consumer. H.R. 314 would clarify this problem by providing a narrow exemption from the requirement to provide Miranda warnings under the FDCPA for a mortgage servicer who acquires responsibility for servicing mortgage by assignment, sale or transfer. Under this exemption, a mortgage servicer would not be required to provide a Miranda warning for any loan that is actually in default at the time of the transfer of servicing rights. This means that the exemption is narrowly drawn so as to affect a small number of mortgages.

In addition, this bill ensures that this exemption only applies to collection activities in connection with these specified loans. As a result, a mortgage servicer cannot use this exemption with respect to other loans which may become in default after the transfer occurs.

I also want to highlight the fact that this bill does not provide an exemption from other substantive borrowers' rights. Rather, this exemption is narrowly drawn to apply only to the Miranda warning which third-party debt collectors are required to give to consumers.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for

time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for his leadership in bringing us to the House floor to speak to the American people tonight about the Bush administration's decision to choose war as the best way to make the American people safe. It is a choice which I believe is wrong.

First and foremost, in opposing President Bush's decision, let me say unequivocally I support in every way the men and women of our armed services and the sacrifices they and their families are being asked to make. May God bless each and every one of them in this time of crisis and bring them home safely.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in a strong America. We have more instruments of power than any nation on Earth. However, our greatest source of power is our moral clarity and purpose in how we use our strength. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has failed to understand this.

As our President prepares to unilaterally and preemptively use military force against a nation which is not an imminent threat to us, we may be on the verge of threatening the very international laws and norms which are the foundation of global stability. Many of the consequences of such actions have already become known. America is more isolated than ever and anti-American sentiment is rising globally. However, it is the unknown consequences of this administration's choice for war which will likely be even more dangerous. My single greatest fear is that this war will jeopardize the help we receive from moderate Muslim nations in successfully bringing to justice those who directly attacked us on 9-11 and prevent attacks against Americans at home and abroad against known imminent terrorist threats.

Contrary to the President's force dichotomy that our choice was either war or doing nothing, I believe we do have alternatives to this war. If Iraq was such a threat, we can continue to use robust inspections, sanctions, and a military containment box. There are others that I think are on the list that are much more of an imminent danger to us here in America, but it is clear to the world that this war is not really about Iraq's threats to America.

The world believes that this war is about changing a regime we once supported and a test case for the Bush administration's doctrine of preemption, a doctrine that was not just created after 9-11, but a doctrine that was espoused back in 1991 by many of the same individuals in the Bush II administration during the Bush I administration. So it is not a new doctrine that we have to go by because of 9-11; it is a doctrine that was preached and talked about prior to 9-11 by many members of this administration.

I believe it is a disservice for the strongest Nation in the world to adopt such a doctrine, because it represents a policy of fear and weakness. More importantly, it signals a dangerous devaluation of diplomacy as an instrument of statecraft to the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a question in my mind that our military will defeat Iraq, but the real question for America and the world is what will come next and what damage to the region and international order will this cause? What will happen in the Arab and Muslim worlds when the U.S. military occupies Iraq in the name of stability? In the end, the question is: Will this make America safer? I believe not. I think we are making a mistake; but may God bless all of the men and women again that are there, that they may return home to their families safely.