Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Knollenberg, as well as Ranking Member John Olver for their hard work on this bill,

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

On the point of order, I would object to the characterization of this program as unauthorized.

As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that the program indeed is authorized. It is couched in something called consolidation, which means that it really is authorized, and I would challenge the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle for thinking or saying that this is an unauthorized program. And if that is his reason for objecting to the program, I would ask that you certainly make a ruling based on the facts and we could move forward with including funding for this program to make sure that it is retained.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, this is an economic development program that has served our country well. As I just took a look at the number of cities that have benefited from this program, I have hundreds of cities that have benefited from this program all over the country. This will be traumatic to all of a sudden pull the rug out from under a program that creates investment in cities and towns all over America, that is helping them not only to create jobs but to create opportunities for small businesses, to redo dilapidated areas, to create new possibilities with these old towns that are being developed, to take these old dilapidated buildings and turn them into productive centers.

I do not think that perhaps my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle realizes the damage he may be causing even to his own area. And just as perhaps he thought it was not authorized when it really is, I would ask him to take a second look and not object to this program.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for all of their hard work on this bill. I deeply appreciate their concern and their attention and responsiveness to my concerns about the need for U.S. assistance to Haiti.

I had planned early on to offer an amendment that would have added $20 million for Haiti in fiscal year 2007 in order to restore the funds that were cut from the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. However, I decided not to offer this amendment because I sincerely believe that the chairman and the ranking member have made a tremendous effort to protect funding for Haiti as much as possible in both the supplemental appropriations bill and the bill before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I have paid attention to Haiti, this very small, poor country in our hemisphere, because I think they have been the stepchild of foreign aid and foreign consideration by our own government and other governments in this hemisphere.

The people of Haiti have suffered a lot. The Republic of Haiti held elections on February 7, 2006, and many Haitians walked miles on election day to reach a polling station and waited for hours in line to exercise their right to vote. An overwhelming 2.2 million Haitians, more than 60 percent of registered voters, participated in these elections and demonstrated their commitment to democracy. Rene Preval was declared the winner of the presidential election after receiving over 51 percent of the vote in a crowded field of candidates.

Now, the challenges facing President Preval and the newly elected government are enormous. The people of Haiti have suffered tremendously in past years as a result of this poverty, political violence and natural disaster, and the newly elected government will need the support and assistance of the United States to ensure national reconciliation and sustainable development and to improve the lives of the Haitian people.

So I come today not only to congratulate and thank my friends and my colleagues, but to say that we have an opportunity to really reach out and help this small, poor country, a country where we have sided with dictators in the past, Papa Doc and Baby Doc and others who kept their foot on the necks of the poor, who sided with the elite and who have sided with outside interests to control the economics of Haiti. They have driven this country into the ground.

My greatest desire, I would say to Ranking Member Lowey, is that they will get a water system. They don't have potable water in Haiti. My greatest desire is that we will have education for the kids and health centers. My greatest desire is that we will support a government with a justice system, with trained judges and a supreme court and courts that will be able to deal with the problems of violence and crime, et cetera. This will help so much.

I think what you have done here is sent a message to other potential funding sources. You are saying to IMF and to the World Bank and others that we really do care and we really do want to lend a hand and that we really believe in the possibilities for Haiti. I want to thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the CBC budget is the most fiscally responsible budget. It creates a balanced budget by eliminating the tax cuts for those earning more than $200,000, and eliminates tax abuse shelters and corporate tax loopholes.

Unlike the Republican budget that underfunds education, the CBC fully funds No Child Left Behind. Unlike the Republican budget that cuts health care for programs including Medicare, the CBC budget provides $20 billion for health care for the more than 45 million uninsured Americans. The CBC budget honors our veterans returning from Iraq by providing $250 million more for veterans mental health programs and $200 million for direct medical services. Finally, it gives real meaning to protecting our homeland by providing an additional $1 billion for port security, $50 million for air marshals, and $420 million for police and fire departments, the first responders to a disaster or terrorist attack.

The CBC budget is balanced and even creates a surplus by 2011. I urge my colleagues to reject the irresponsible Republican budget and adopt the CBC budget.

Mr. Speaker, l rise in strong support of H.R. 4912, the ``Rural Health Care Capital Access Act of 2006'', of which I am an original sponsor. The Committee on Financial Services marked-up H.R. 4912 on March 13, 2006, so I am delighted that this important measure has reached the floor today. Mr. Ney, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Affairs, is to be applauded for his efforts on behalf of rural communities.

The bill would allow hospitals located in rural areas access to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program for hospitals, under Section 242 of the National Housing Act. These hospitals are located in rural areas of the country, and are not always able to meet the bed capacity requirements for critical care facilities. Thus, the bill would extend the exemption for another 5 years, enabling rural hospitals to be exempted from critical bed requirements.

The bill addresses the mortgage insurance needs of Critical Access Hospitals. These hospitals are rural hospitals with a maximum of 25 beds and must be 35 miles from the nearest hospital. Another requirement is related to the so-called ``patient day'' requirement. Under Section 242, not more than 50 percent of a hospital's adjusted net patient days could be ``assignable to the categories of chronic convalescent and rest, drug and alcoholic, epileptic, mentally deficient, mental, nervous and mental, and tuberculosis . . .'' These are onerous requirements for small rural hospitals to meet. When we passed the Hospital Insurance Mortgage Act of 2003, it eliminated the patient day requirement, but it expires on July 31, 2006.

By supporting H.R. 4912 to extend the exemption for another 5 years, we will be addressing an issue of major concern in rural areas. Hospitals are far and few apart. Within many of our rural communities hospitals double up with nursing homes to meet these bed requirements, as well as to share in cost savings, to qualify for Section 242 mortgage insurance. H.R. 4912 removes another barrier to health care in rural communities, and therefore, I urge support of the measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4954, SAFE Ports Act. Port Security has been on everyone's lips for the past two months with the proposed sale of the six major U.S. ports to the Dubai World Ports, a state-sponsored company backed by The United Arab Emirates. However, we all realize that port security was not really addressed by the outcome on that deal. What we still have at our ports is the free movement of cargo from just about every place in the world. Something must be done to establish security at our American ports. Today, we have an opportunity to do just that by supporting, H.R. 4954, SAFE Ports Act.

The major provisions of the bill address a number of issues that became even more relevant after the Dubai debacle. One, the bill establishes security standards for all cargo containers entering the U.S. after six months of enactment. This is long overdue, since containers represent the major device being handled by our Ports. The Port of Los Angeles handled 7.3 million containers in 2005, and is expected to handle even more this year, setting new records. The bill also authorizes a study of the current radiation and nuclear detection scanning technology. It came to light that this type of technology in this country is not up to par with many of our trading partners. Moreover, the bill creates a dedicated stream of funding for port security, which is necessary to maintain the level of security recommended by our own Coast Guard.

In addition, the bill would establish a Port security worker training and exercise program. This would ensure the readiness of these workers, particularly in a changing threat environment. Port security personnel must be prepared for these threats. The bill also accelerates the U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater program. Further, the bill established maritime command centers to ensure a coordinated response to our Port security needs.

Similar measures have advanced in the Senate, where Senators Stevens and Inouye have introduced S. 1052, the Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2005, and Senators Collins and Murray the Greenlane Maritime Act, S. 2008. These bills require marine terminal operators to comply with Coast Guard regulations to secure cargo and terminal facilities at all of our nation's ports, regardless of who operates them.

Inspections of all containers and security measures like the security IDs are important to security. Port Security is a major issue in the State of California, and of major concern to me is security at the Port of Los Angeles, one of the nation's busiest ports. The Port of Los Angeles is the largest container complex operating in the U.S., and the 8th busiest container port in the world. When combined with the Port of Long Beach the two ports rank as the 5th busiest in the world. The Los Angeles Port handles 162 million metric tons of cargo (7.3 million containers) in 2005, representing approximately $150 billion.

What is astounding is that the Los Angeles Port covers 7500 areas, 8300--water and--4200 land. This means that the Port of Los Angeles has 43 miles of water front facilities to secure. The City of Los Angeles cannot provide adequate security alone for the Port, but in cooperation with the federal government we can begin to address the concerns of workers, port and terminal operators, and others, by supporting this bill.

Mr. KING of New York, Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this issue with the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and it is important to note today, as we consider the SAFE Port Act, that the Committee on Homeland Security is concerned that the list of criminal offenses that will initially disqualify a worker from holding a maritime transportation security card includes vague and overly broad crimes. The proposed list of disqualifying offenses appears to go significantly beyond the already existing mandate of exclusion and we hope that TSA and the Coast Guard, as it finalizes its rules, will narrow and limit the list of disqualifying criminal offenses to more accurately identify individuals that pose a terrorism security risk and who are therefore unworthy to hold a maritime transportation security card.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees authored by my California colleague, Mr. George Miller. While the underlying bill, H.R. 2830, purported to strengthen the defined benefit system, the numerous technical changes that were proposed for the funding rules that apply to defined benefit plans will change how the liabilities under the pension plan are valued and the accounting for contributions made. First of all, let me say that I fully opposed the bill that passed on December 15, 2005 by a vote of 294 to 132 because it would cause millions of Americans to receive reductions in their pension plan. Furthermore, its provisions would facilitate the freezing or complete termination of pension plans by corporate boards.

Under the so-called Pension Protection Act, if an employer funds a tax-qualified pension plan under 80 percent, then the covered workers cannot receive benefit increases, COLAs, or lump sum pension payments. Executives can continue to provide themselves lavish benefits under non-qualified plans without any restrictions. Only if funding drops below 60 percent, are executives prohibited from transferring corporate assets to executive compensation.

This Motion by the Gentleman seeks to fix a major source of these potential dangers to our hard-working constituents. It ensures that corporate heads do not profit at the peril of their workers--they will have to adhere to the same retirement rules as do their employees. The situation surrounding Exxon Mobil's outgoing CEO, R. Lee Raymond whereby he was slated to bail out of the corporation with a ``golden parachute'' of a $98 million in lump sum pension payment is a slap in the face of the notions of corporate ethics and duty to employees and shareholders. Raymond's total retirement package, including stock options and severance pay--is valued at $400 million. This is just one more example of out of control executive pay at American companies.

As the Motion to Instruct states, Conferees should craft its report to apply the same benefit restrictions between workers and CEOs and use the earlier effective date of the House bill, December 31, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, in my state of California, seven oil companies control more than 95 percent of the state's refining capacity. That translates to thousands of workers whose benefits will be jeopardized by this bill. We need to force corporations to institute fairness in their pension programs where employees are not treated like animals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to condemn the genocide that is taking place in Darfur, Sudan and to voice my support for the individuals and organizations throughout the United States who work tirelessly to stop this crime against humanity. I would like to recognize the ``Teens Against Genocide'' organization--also known as ``TAG,'' in particular, for its efforts in Los Angeles, California.

Among many other events, TAG has joined with religious, advocacy, and charity groups in the area to organize ``Camp Darfur.'' Camp Darfur is an ``interactive awareness and education event that [brings] attention to the ongoing genocide in Darfur and [gives] individuals the opportunity to discover their own power to make a difference.''

On April 7, 2006, Camp Darfur first opened in Lennox, California, on the sports field of Lennox Middle School adjacent to LAX. In addition, TAG organized a rally and brought Camp Darfur to Westwood, California last Sunday, April 23, 2006. Through candlelight vigils, interactive presentations, video, photography, speeches from experts, legislators, and educators, simulated refugee camp exercises, the groups joining TAG are expanding the awareness of the atrocities taking place in Sudan to bring about peace. It is even more significant that teens are undertaking such mature efforts of advocacy for issues in which they truly believe.

I applaud these young adults and organizations and would like to let the American people know that Camp Darfur will be brought from Los Angeles to Washington, DC in the near future. We must offer our continued support for these efforts and others in order to bring about action. In fact, this coming Sunday, April 30 at 2:00 p.m. in front of the Capitol, the ``Save Darfur Coalition'' will hold the

``Rally to Stop Genocide.'' The murder, rape, and torture that have occurred--and still occur--in Sudan must stop.

In July of 2004, the House of Representatives and the Senate declared that the atrocities occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan constituted genocide. On September 9, 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that ``genocide has been committed in Darfur, and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility.'' It is estimated that 200,000 people were killed by government forces and militias from 2003 through 2004, and an additional 200,000 people died as a result of the deliberate destruction of their homes and livelihoods.

Nevertheless, almost two years later, these atrocities continue unabated. The government of Sudan continues to carry out air strikes against civilians in Darfur, and the Janjaweed militias, with the support of the government, continue to terrorize the people of Darfur.

Earlier this year, I traveled to Sudan as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation led by my good friend from California, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. We visited the camps. As far as the eyes could see, there were crowds of displaced people who had been driven from their homes, living literally on the ground with little tarps just covering them. It is unconscionable that this should continue.

Our delegation also met with Sudanese Vice President Taha. He was unapologetic, he was arrogant, and he was uncompromising on their position in Darfur. Sudanese government officials don't like the use of the word ``genocide,'' but Vice President Taha admitted that they had funded the Janjaweed in order to retaliate against the rebels of the south who were resisting the Sudanese government.

There can be no doubt that what is taking place in Darfur is genocide, and the government of Sudan is responsible. There are two million displaced people in camps in Darfur and another 200,000 in camps in neighboring Chad. Each month, it is estimated that another 6,000 people die.

On April 5, 2006, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This bill imposes sanctions on the government of Sudan and blocks the assets and restricts travel for individuals who are responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in Darfur. I urged my colleagues to support this bill, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 3. This legislation was long overdue.

The world stood by and watched the genocide that occurred in Rwanda. The world has noted over and over again the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yet we cannot seem to get the international community to move fast enough to stop the genocide that is taking place in Darfur.

The world cannot continue to turn a blind eye to genocide when it is staring us in the face. We must put an end to these atrocities, or millions more will die.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to encourage and support the work done by advocacy groups such as Teens Against Genocide and to continue legislative action to stop these crimes against humanity.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment, which would require the President to submit to Congress a report describing any authorization in the past 10 years to engage in intelligence activities related to the overthrow of a democratically-elected government.

In February of 2004, our government was a party to a coup d'etat that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically-elected President of Haiti. Former soldiers and other heavily-armed thugs took over several Haitian cities and then marched into Haiti's capital, while opposition groups representing Haiti's wealthy elites staged confrontational demonstrations throughout the country. Early in the morning on February 29, U.S. Marines and Embassy officials entered President Aristide's home and told him to leave immediately or he and thousands of other Haitians would be killed. President Aristide was flown aboard a U.S. plane to the Central African Republic and left there.

The Bush administration had been working with the wealthy Haitian elites who hated President Aristide to force him to step down. The International Republican Institute, which is affiliated with the Republican Party, funneled U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Aristide- haters; and Roger Noriega, President Bush's former Assistant Secretary of State for Western

Hemisphere Affairs, conspired with sweatshop-owner Andre Apaid to organize, train and finance the opposition.

Congress has a right to know why the Bush administration allowed a small minority of wealthy elites and a group of heavily armed thugs to overthrow a democratically-elected government. More importantly, Congress has a right to know whether U.S. intelligence agencies and operatives were directly involved in this coup d'etat.

I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment and demand that Congress uncover the truth about the coup d'etat in Haiti.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4916, a bill to authorize U.S. participation in the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment Fund (the Fund/MIF). The bill provides $150 million for the Fund. While this may appear to be a small amount compared to some of our other commitments to multilateral institutions, the reauthorization of the Fund represents an important step in our continuing efforts to underwrite economic development activities outside of our own borders.

In the broadest sense the Fund is designed to promote private sector development in Latin America and the Caribbean. There are two overarching themes related to the Fund. One is to reduce poverty and promote grass roots economic growth in this part of the world. By strengthening micro and small enterprise capacities, the Fund stimulates improvements in the business environment and engages the private sector in the development process. Two, by underwriting projects that promote innovation, the Fund pilots new concepts, determining their feasibility for the commercial market, as well as whether they can be adapted on a larger scale.

To date, more than 75 percent of Fund project activities have been undertaken in partnership with the private sector. More than $1 billion has been approved for 800 projects. Through these projects MIF has become one of the best known organizations with private sector partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. As the largest provider of technical assistance in the Region, it is no doubt why this reauthorization has bipartisan support. Indeed, the Fund provides a stellar example of how we can best use our resources to promote development, while reducing poverty and raising the standard of living of our neighbors. Madam Speaker, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to keep my remarks along the lines of the housing and community development concerns that I have as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Affairs, but I cannot sit here and witness what I just heard from the opposite side of the aisle without joining with my colleagues and certainly calling the Republican budget resolution irresponsible. And certainly we support the tax alternative, the Spratt alternative, the Democratic alternative, because not only do we have a more responsible alternative, we have said over and over again to the opposite side of the aisle, while the President of the United States has been spending like a drunken sailor, that you cannot, you cannot wage this war, you cannot spend the money that has been spent on the military and have the kind of deep tax cuts that he has imposed upon this Nation, over $2 trillion since 2001. And to add to that, the President of the United States promised us that we would get money from the pumping of the oil in Iraq, we would use that money to help rehabilitate, to rebuild Iraq. But instead they cannot account for $9 billion unaccounted for, and about $2 billion of that was stolen by Halliburton, and so to challenge us about responsibility is laughable.

As a matter of fact, when we take a look at this budget, aside from the disaster that has been caused by these tax cuts, we find that this budget is cutting the most vulnerable people in our society. When I look at the fact that persons with disabilities are going to be cut 50 percent in the housing budget, when I look at the fact that the elderly will be cut by 25 percent, then who are they to call us irresponsible?

Mr. Chairman, there is a housing crisis in the United States of America, and not simply because of Katrina and Rita. Those trailers down there under this administration are sitting, they remain empty, the public housing units have not been rehabilitated. We are confronted with a real catastrophe here.

Further, there is not a single metropolitan area where extremely low income families can be assured of finding a modest two-bedroom rental home that is affordable, and there are literally millions of people who are homeless.

I am also concerned about the $736 million in cuts this budget makes to Community Development Block Grant program. CDBG is an indispensable program to communities across the Nation for housing, neighborhood improvements, and public services. My own State of California will lose $119.7 million and Los Angeles County would lose $41.1 million in CDBG funding, especially if these cuts are enacted. And I want to tell you, little towns all over America depend on these.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I would like to commend the bipartisan effort of the International Relations Committee, and thank you for the work that you have done on this most important issue.

I was just part of a bipartisan delegation led by minority leader Nancy Pelosi to the Sudan. Genocide is taking place as we stand here today. We met with Vice President Taha. He was unapologetic, he was arrogant and he was uncompromising on their position in Darfur. They don't like the use of the word ``genocide,'' but he admitted that they had funded the Janjaweed because they retaliated against the rebels of the south who were resisting the Sudanese government.

We are on the right track. This Congress has been good in helping to identify that, number one, genocide is indeed taking place. Over 200,000 people have died.

We watched what happened in Rwanda. We have noted over and over again the atrocities of the Holocaust. Yet we can't seem to get the U.N. and others to move fast enough to stop this genocide that is taking place in Darfur.

I support this resolution today, this Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 today, because this will impose sanctions on the government of Sudan and it will block the assets of and restrict travel for individuals who are responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity in the Darfur region of Sudan. It is long past due. We should be tough about it. The sanctions movement is growing. We need to squeeze them. We need to make sure that we have the kinds of actions that will be felt.

I was up in the camps. As far as the eyes can see, millions of displaced persons who have been driven from their homes, driven from their camps, living literally on the ground with little tarps just covering them. It is unconscionable that this should continue.

Again, I thank the International Relations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 556, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a National Methamphetamine Prevention Week should be established to increase awareness of methamphetamine and to educate the public on ways to help prevent the use of that damaging narcotic.

Meth addiction is a growing problem in the United States and one that is destroying lives, families and towns.

I agree that the United States must face this problem head on. However, there are many drugs that are equally as damaging and should not be overlooked.

Crack cocaine has ravaged our cities for more than 20 years. Crack is very addictive, and after even a small amount of use can cause significant damage to a user's health.

One way the U.S. Government attempted to fight the crack epidemic was to impose mandatory minimum prison sentences. Under the terms of these mandatory minimum sentences, someone caught carrying just 5 grams of crack received an automatic 5-year prison sentence. To receive the same sentence for powder cocaine, a person must be caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine under current law.

As Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) notes, mandatory minimum sentences affect people of color disproportionately in three ways: More arrests for drug crimes, overall increases in the severity of drug sentences, and harsher treatment compared to white arrestees.

This sad fact is clearly revealed in our Nation's prison statistics: Two-thirds of the 2 million Americans in jail or prison are African American or Hispanic. African Americans make up approximately 12 percent of the population and are 13 percent of the drug users, yet they constitute 38 percent of all drug arrests and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses. Nationwide, African American males sentenced in State courts on drug felonies receive prison sentences 52 percent of the time, while white males are sentenced to prison 34 percent of the time.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress debates how best to address the meth problem, I urge my colleagues to resist the simple answer of ``more jail time.'' Mandatory prison sentences do not work and do not provide hope for our Nation's drug users.

Instead, we should push education, as this resolution calls for. We should also substantially increase funding for treatment and job training because without these tools, addiction will be a vicious cycle for most people.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this legislation. I have an appreciation for those members on the Education Committee, many of whom have worked hard to try and put a decent product before this body, but this just doesn't make it.

I am disappointed that my amendment that would have helped to increase the teacher capacity and supply in the areas affected by Katrina and Rita and future disasters was not made in order. But I am more disappointed in that section of the bill that deals with the private post-secondary schools.

There is something called the 90-10 rule. The rationale for the 90-10 rule was that if the education provided was worth paying for, a company should be able to attract at least 10 percent of its students on a paying basis. But, no, these private post-secondary lobbyists have come in here, and they have thrown in the nonprofit schools and they have manipulated the rules so that this won't apply, so that basically they can get 100 percent of their money from the taxpayers. They go out and they recruit illiterates, they recruit the most vulnerable people, who should perhaps be trying to get a GED someplace, but they recruit them, and they help them to fill out the Pell Grants. They get the money. Many of them don't have qualified teachers, they do not have computers, and some even close down the schools, take the money, and then they show up under another name.

They are ripping off billions of dollars from the American taxpayers, and why they are able to wield their influence in this subcommittee, I just don't understand. It is a scandal. It has been reviewed and exposed by ``60 Minutes'' and others on television, but we keep allowing the lobbyists to come in here and do what they want to do, to get richer and richer and basically undermine the ability of these vulnerable people who really do want to get an education.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I thank the gentleman from American Samoa, and I would like to thank the Chair of the International Relations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the ranking member of that committee, my colleague from California, Congressman Lantos, and the Chair and ranking member of the International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Congressman Burton and Congressman Engel.

I would also like to commend Congressman Foley, and before I talk a little bit about our visit, I would like to thank many Members of Congress: Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who cochairs the task force on Haiti with Congressman John Conyers and the Congressional Black Caucus; Congressman Delahunt; Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky; the many Members of Congress who have fought and stayed with the problem and did not give up.

Haiti, and the people of Haiti have suffered mightily. The struggle between the haves and the have-nots is legendary, the rich versus the poor, the elite versus the rejected, the mulattos versus the blacks.

Haiti needs a break. Haiti has experienced economic dislocation. It has experienced devastating hurricanes. But the people of Haiti have worked and they have believed in democracy. And so the people, on February 7, 2006, they went to the polls and they voted. More than 60 percent of the people of Haiti registered and they voted. They demonstrated their commitment to democracy.

Oh, they had all kind of obstacles. On that day there was a shortage of election workers and polling places, and there were long lines that caused voters to have to wait for hours before they could exercise their right to vote. But they voted. And they did what they had to do. They walked for miles and they voted. And in the end, President Preval emerged victorious.

The people of Haiti voted, including the Lavalas Party, the party that had elected President Aristide. They voted in large numbers. They are the predominant party in Haiti. And despite their lingering concerns about the way in which their democratically elected president, Mr. Aristide, had been removed from office, they did not boycott the elections. Despite the obstacles and the inconveniences of the election, they were determined to cast their vote and have their voices heard.

The people of Haiti elected Mr. Rene Garcia Preval. The people of Haiti simply want what all democracy should afford: fairness, justice and equality.

Haiti is a poor country. Haiti deserves our support. Haiti deserves the support of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Haiti deserves bilateral support.

The people of Haiti want investment and trade. The people of Haiti do not deserve to have their will undermined by the powerful elite who are well connected to the power brokers in the U.S., Canada and France. We can encourage investment in Haiti and support fair wages and decent housing and public education for all of the children.

Mr. Preval is a smart, capable leader who loves Haiti. We need to support him and help him to develop Haiti.

Mr. Foley and I just returned from a trip to Haiti where we met with President-Elect Preval. President Preval was a gracious but determined host. President Preval recognizes that he has a great responsibility, but he is not deterred.

President Preval is hopeful and optimistic. And since his election, people are out cleaning the streets. The uniforms are back on the children. They are going to school. Business and commerce was going on in the marketplace. I have great hopes for Haiti.

When we spoke with Mr. Preval, he talked about investment. He wants to create jobs. He talked about the fact that they must have electricity. We must encourage support from the World Bank and from the International Monetary Fund and from our own country to help them get the electricity.

The people must have clean water. They need a new water system there. They do not want to spend their money on an army. They want a well- trained police force and community policing. There is much to be done. There is reconciliation to be had. But we are hopeful.

We congratulate the president and we thank the Members of Congress for all the support that they have given.

Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to come down here and support the gentlewoman's amendment because yesterday 4,007 codes expired. We do not know where those people are. We do not know if they have housing. As a matter of fact, there are news reports this morning that are telling us there are people who have nowhere to go.

I thank the gentlewoman for attempting to send some direction to FEMA. It is shameful and outrageous what has happened with the poor victims of Hurricane Katrina. From the time they started with the shelters until now, they have not come up with a reasonable program by which to provide housing.

I thank the gentlewoman for everything she has done, and I simply hope we can get support for this amendment so that the $88 billion that we have appropriated to deal with this catastrophe can be used. I know FEMA has used 25 percent of this money on administrative costs. That is outrageous. We want that money to be used to provide shelter to the people who need it.

Mr. President, we need a sign. The American people believed you when you told us that you had to have a preemptive strike because there were weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

You told us we would be welcome, our soldiers would be welcome with open arms. They are not welcome with open arms. The Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds all want to end this occupation. They want us out of there.

Mr. President, you told us that the oil that you would pump from the oil wells in Iraq would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. They are pumping less oil now than they were before the war.

You claimed that you were training soldiers to take over the security of the country. But we are finding bodies every day. In the last 2 days, there were 85 bodies found. In the last couple of weeks, there have been over 2,000 bodies found. The civil war has begun. The IEDs are exploding every day.

And Mr. President, you said that you would redeploy. We need you to give us a sign. All of those people who support him, you need to give us a sign. You can do that with this amendment by simply supporting the Lee amendment that will not allow for permanent bases. You have let us down on everything else. You can do this one. Support the Lee amendment. No permanent bases in Iraq.