Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004.

I am very pleased to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner); the ranking member the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and my good friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) on the wonderful work they have done, along with all of the other members of the committee.

I just want to give recognition to the fact that there was some controversy that developed around the WIC-only stores, but a good compromise has been worked out, and the compromise language in the bill is intended to make sure that the program serves the maximum number of eligible women, infants and children.

The language is not intended to eliminate WIC-only stores or to force the WIC-only stores to price their products less than the larger retail stores.

The WIC-only operators have agreed that they will make their prices more competitive, because that was one of the criticisms. I commend the WIC-only stores for providing special services to limited English speaking families and poor families that allows them to receive this valuable service with dignity and respect. The language in the bill also allows the WIC-only stores to use promotional items in the same way that the larger retail stores are allowed to do.

I would like to thank again all of my colleagues for working this out. The compromise language makes good sense, and this helps us to move forward in ways that serve the maximum number of women, infants and children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite) for their work on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4345, and I am very proud to support opportunities for our veterans to own their own home. Who better can we support to realize the American Dream than those who fight to keep the American Dream alive for all Americans? Unfortunately, in many cities, including my home city of Los Angeles, the goal of owning a home is elusive for many families because of the high price of homes. However, this bill will provide significant assistance to veterans who wish to own their own home, and I am pleased to support it.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), H.R. 1735, which would have increased the maximum amount of the home loan guarantee. However, I am pleased to support this bill, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite) and supported by the gentlewoman from California, which will increase the maximum loan guarantee to $333,700 and index loan amount to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac Conforming Loan Rate to make the VA's home loan program compatible with the home loans available to the public nationwide.

By indexing the loan rate Congress will assure that veterans will continue to have the opportunity to purchase homes regardless of how high the Conforming Loan Rate climbs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a small but important gesture to thank veterans for their service to our country. I am pleased to support this bill and urge my colleagues to support is also.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for all the hard work that he has put in on this legislation, and I would like to thank Lou Dobbs at CNN for his constant exposure of the practice of U.S. firms that are outsourcing jobs. These firms are simply exporting American jobs to Third World countries for cheap exploited labor. This bill is a prime example of what Lou Dobbs has been reporting about. This bill is a $140 billion tax boondoggle at a time when U.S. unemployment rates are still too high and at a time when this administration has created historic deficits.

This bill gives $35 billion of the $140 billion tax break that they have created to U.S. firms to invest in jobs overseas, not American jobs, not jobs in your city, not jobs in your hometown, not jobs in your county. The Republicans have become experts at outsourcing jobs. The Republican National Committee and George W. Bush even outsourced their fund-raising solicitation telephone calls to a firm that employs workers in India. This brazen, costly tax giveaway to corporations exporting jobs, 60 percent of whom pay no taxes, is an assault on hardworking Americans who are now collectively paying more taxes than rich corporations. Shame, shame, shame.

The Republicans refused to support targeted U.S. manufacturing credits. These so-called conservative Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscal conservatives, no longer care about the huge United States deficit. They have become the big spenders of the taxpayers' dollars, outsourcing the jobs to foreign countries for cheap labor. These are conservative Republicans piling up this deficit and giving away our American jobs. They no longer care about the joblessness of Americans in their own hometowns.

Shame, shame, shame.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to deal with immigration problems. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3722. As a matter of fact, I am surprised at the gentleman from California. Does he not understand that this would transform our health care personnel into the border patrol? This bill will have a disastrous impact on emergency care and community hospitals throughout America.

Mr. Speaker, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and health care personnel are trained to be caregivers, not adjuncts of immigration law enforcement. Do our health care personnel not have enough to do already without imposing this huge reporting burden on an already overextended health care system?

Mr. Speaker, forcing health care personnel to start taking fingerprints and snapping pictures of patients suspected of being undocumented when perhaps they need a blood transfusion or something to save their lives will cause people who urgently need medical care to refrain from seeking such care because they fear that they may die trying to get service or they will be deported. We all know that in health care an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When any persons delay their access to health care, their medical condition is much worse.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is unsound public policy. I am ashamed of it. Do not do it.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing to the floor this important resolution recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this resolution calls upon Congress to do more than just noting the historical significance of the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. It asks Congress to renew its commitment to continue building on the legacy of Brown with a pledge to acknowledge and address the modern-day disparities that perpetuate a separate but unequal society.

Yet while we celebrate the Brown I decision, we must candidly discuss the many challenges that remain in the quest to achieve equal opportunity for all Americans. Professor Charles Ogletree of the Harvard Law School has written a very powerful book on the legacy of the Brown decision, entitled ``All Deliberate Speeds: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education.'' Professor Ogletree reminds us the second Brown case, decided on December 31, 1955, was every bit as important as the first Brown case, which was decided on May 17, 1954.

While the first case contains the powerful language that we all know, declaring that separate but equal educational facilities were inherently unequal and no longer had a place in American society, in the Brown II decision the Court called for school desegregation to proceed, and I quote, ``with all deliberate speed.'' Mr. Speaker, deliberate means slow, and, unfortunately, while we surely are making progress, the last 50 years of history demonstrates that our progress toward a color-blind, racially equal society has been slow indeed.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly quote Professor Ogletree's powerful words. He said, and I quote, ``Brown v. Board of Education was important because it ended legal segregation. However, the Court's decision, though unanimous, contained a critical compromise which undermined the broad purposes of the campaign to end racial segregation immediately and comprehensively.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my outrage and disappointment in the soldiers who physically and mentally abused Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison.

I do not believe that these actions represent the character of our Armed Forces or of the United States. Unfortunately, however, these soldiers, through their despicable actions, have severely damaged the reputation of the United States and significantly complicated our task in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the President did not apologize to the Iraqi people for these deplorable actions. An apology from the President clearly was in order.

I am also outraged, as all of us should be, that the Secretary of Defense failed to make Congress aware of these accusations in a timely manner. According to news accounts, the Department has been aware of the infamous photos, and the abuse, since at least mid-January. Yet, we only found out about them in the last week. This is outrageous and unacceptable.

Unfortunately, this is just one more example of the Administration not playing straight with the Congress or the American people. We have been misled about the weapons of mass destruction, troop levels and the length of their deployments, and the costs associated with the war-- among others.

This Administration must change its way. Congress deserves better and, certainly, the American people deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) which would ease the paperwork requirements for certain small public housing authorities and reduce their need to hire consultants to prepare housing plans, and I would like to congratulate both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for the leadership they provided, recognizing that it is important for us to come together from time to time to work to get rid of unnecessary regulations and they have done that with this bill.

H.R. 27 would exempt small housing authorities that administer 100 or fewer units of assisted housing from the requirement to prepare an annual public housing agency plan. The threshold would include both public housing units and vouchers under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.

The affected small housing authorities would remain subject to the Public Housing Reform Act's requirement to submit a 5-year PHA plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development that addresses the Agency's mission and its plan to achieve its mission.

In order to qualify as a small housing authority under this bill, an agency would have to provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of HUD that notwithstanding the inapplicability of certain provisions relating to resident advisory boards and public hearings and notice, residents of public housing administered by the Agency will have an adequate and comparable opportunity for participation and notice regarding establishment of the goals, objectives and policies of the public housing agency.

The objective of this legislation simply is to reduce the administration workload of small PHAs. The goal of H.R. 27 is to give executive directors of small PHAs more time to focus on the needs of their tenants, rather than having to spend time and resources completing an annual plan for submission to HUD.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation will help to limit the burden on small PHAs while providing the necessary protections to ensure that tenants will have the opportunity for input into the small PHA's 5-year plan. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record what happened here today with the visit by Mr. Gerard Latortue, who is the illegally appointed Prime Minister of Haiti. Somebody invited him to come here to the House of Representatives; and two meetings were set up, one at 10:30 where members of the Congressional Black Caucus were invited to meet with him, and a later one at 1:30 where members of the Committee on International Relations were invited to meet with him.

Those meetings were not attended in any appreciable numbers by either the members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the 10:30 meeting or the members of the Committee on International Relations. Of the 39 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am told that perhaps maybe six people showed up; and for the Committee on International Relations, where there are 49 Members, 26 Republicans and 23 Democrats, only about six members of that committee showed up.

I think it is important to note that this took place. It is important for the world community to know and understand that just as CARICOM, that is, the nations of the Caribbean, rejected Latortue, and do not accept him as a legitimate representative of that government, the Congressional Black Caucus does not accept him and recognize him as a legitimate Prime Minister for Haiti; and it was indicated today by the lack of attendance.

It is important for me to say this because Latortue is trying to make the world community believe that he is gaining the support of the Congressional Black Caucus. That absolutely is not true. We consider that he was illegally appointed. It is in violation of the Haiti Constitution, and he is presiding over crisis and chaos in Haiti.

Haiti is worse off than it has ever been. Not only do we have killings that are going on every night; we have members of the Lavalas Party, the party of President Aristide, in hiding. They are being killed. Their lives are being threatened; but worse than that, this so- called Prime Minister, Mr. Gerard Latortue, embraced the known killers who have occupied the northern part of Haiti and recently appeared on a platform with Mr. Guy Philippe, Mr. Louis Jodel Chamblain, Mr. Jean Tatoun, all of whom are known to be criminals. Mr. Guy Philippe is a known drug trafficker. Mr. Chamblain and Mr. Tatoun have been convicted in absentia for their role in the massacre of thousands of Haitians at Raboteau in 1994.

They were all in exile. They were all recruited to come back into Haiti and join with the so-called opposition, and they played a role in the coup d'etat. They threatened to kill President Aristide, and they are still running around Haiti, armed, trying to reestablish an army, recruiting Haitians,

burning down police stations and killing members of Lavalas. This so- called Prime Minister called them in a public meeting freedom fighters. It is so outrageous, it is so ridiculous, and that is one of the reasons he is not being accepted. He is not being respected, and he is not considered as a serious person with any leadership ability or any vision for Haiti's future.

So, let the record indicate that he came to the Capitol; that he was not received by any appreciable number of people; that he did not get his message across. We have said to the State Department and to Secretary Colin Powell that it is important, it is imperative that they arrest and incarcerate the thugs and the criminals who are in control of Haiti. There is no way that they can ask us to recognize this puppet and this puppet government and to recognize this illegally appointed so-called Prime Minister until at least they take those steps.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to one of my most distinguished constituents, Sr. Margaret ``Peg'' Dolan, R.S.H.M. I commend her to my colleagues and thank her for her service to Loyola Marymount University, to Los Angeles, and

to our Nation. Last Friday, April 16th, Sister Peg, who currently serves as the Alumni Chaplain at Loyola Marymount, celebrated her golden jubilee, the 50th anniversary of taking her vows in the order known as the Religious Sacred Heart of Mary. Sister Peg has been a unique link to Loyola Marymount's history, having been present on the campus since the historic merger of Marymount and Loyola. Her many years at LMU have been extraordinary.

Born and raised in the Bronx, Sr. Peg grew up in a diverse neighborhood of Irish Catholics, Jewish, Italian, and German families. Her parents had come to the United States from Ireland. Her father worked two jobs to put all five kids through Catholic school and died at the age of 54. Her mother lived a long life and spent many hours caring for sick neighbors along with her five children.

In 1952 when she graduated from high school, Sister Peg chose to enter the Religious Sacred Heart of Mary. She studied Scripture, theology, and philosophy at Marymount College in Tarrytown, NY for two years. After taking her vows in 1954, she moved to California to study History at Marymount College. In 1957, she earned a teaching credential and began teaching at a boarding school also called Marymount in Santa Barbara.

In 1973, Sr. Peg enrolled at Loyola Marymount University to complete a Master's Degree in Counseling while serving as a Counselor in Training. She was such a big hit with the students that, at the end of that year, the residence hall advisors asked the administration to find her a job. She took a part-time position in Student Affairs at Loyola Marymount. In 1975, after she earned a Master's Degree in Applied Spirituality, Sister Peg joined the LMU Campus Ministry team as Chaplain where she did retreat work and counseling.

In 1985, she was promoted to Director and became the moderator of Gryphon Circle, one of five major service groups for students at LMU. In 1989, because of her interest in doing even more one-on-one counseling, Sr. Peg resigned her position as Director and returned to the Campus Ministry. In 1996, she accepted the invitation from the president of LMU to become Alumni Chaplain.

Reaching out to Loyola Marymount alumni and their families, Sr. Peg single-handedly launched the Alumni for Others program where students, alumni and friends spend a day working together on a community service project. Currently in its fifth year, the program's projects have included the painting and repairing of inner city schools and fixing homes for low-income elderly residents in such areas as South Central Los Angeles Watts, East Los Angeles and the Hilo River Reservation in Arizona. Since the program's inception, more than a thousand people have volunteered.

In recent years, the Alumni for Others program has directed its focus toward assisting inner city schools in need. After St. Columbkille School in South Central Los Angeles had closed its seventh and eighth grades due to financial constraints, Sister Peg spearheaded a development committee to reopen the classes and build a new library, raising over $800,000. Construction of the new library began last June.

Mr. Speaker, Sister ``Peg'' Dolan has generously offered support and wise counsel to students, alumni, fellow chaplains, fellow staff members, and all members of the Loyola Marymount community. She has dedicated her life to community service and counseling and has made a tremendous contribution to our community. I am pleased to commend and thank her for her outstanding work, and look forward to many more years of her service.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for surface transportation projects that are planned or required to implement Alternative D of the Master Plan for Los Angeles International Airport or any other proposal to build a remote passenger check-in facility at

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is unfortunate that there seems to be some agreement between my friends on the opposite side of the aisle and my own caucus in opposing my project. It is very important to my district and all of the areas in the surrounding communities that has formed a coalition, and this is simply a request to say let us not use any of this money for any selfish projects.

This has nothing to do with the building of the facility itself; and, unfortunately, since there has been an agreement, I know that it will be voted down, but I am not at all happy about it.

Mr. Chairman, I prepared a statement to come to the floor, but I am not going to use a statement. I am going to simply read from a letter that has been sent to the Members of Congress from the Disabled American Veterans:

``For veterans' discretionary programs, primarily veterans' medical care, H. Con. Res. 393 would provide $1.1 billion below the minimum amount of funding determined necessary by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and $2.7 billion below the amount of funding recommended by ``The Independent Budget'' prepared by the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

``The inadequate appropriations provided in H. Con. Res. 393 will support medical treatment for 170,000 fewer veterans than the Department of Veterans Affairs could treat with the funding recommended by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and will support 13,000 fewer full-time employees for veterans' medical care. With the level of appropriations in the House budget resolution, VA will be required to delay medical care for some veterans, and deny it altogether for other sick and disabled veterans, just to enable it to meet inflationary costs, including increases in employee wages.''

I could go on and on and on with this.

I have served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. When I was first elected to Congress, I served on that committee for about 4 years. I have never seen the level of lobbying, the letter-writing from veterans that I am seeing today. And this letter comes from one of the most vulnerable veterans' populations. It is shameful.

We cannot support this. Listen to what the veterans are saying.

Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it reduces the number of Section 8 housing vouchers which provides subsidized housing for women, children and families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor a wonderful public servant and a good friend who has made pioneering contributions to the field of public housing administration in the City of Los Angeles and throughout our country, Donald Smith.

Don will be retiring on April 30 as executive director of the Housing Authority for the City of Los Angeles (HACLA). For 32 years, Don has played a vital role in improving the lives of countless families by helping them to obtain clean, safe, and affordable housing; and he will be sorely missed. His expertise, sound judgment, and good humor are tremendously rare and valuable assets. He will be leaving very big shoes to fill.

Don began his career as HACLA's director of management from 1971 to 1980 before moving to the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission, where he served as assistant director of the housing division, director of assisted housing, and assistant executive director of housing. In 1994, Don returned to the HACLA as executive director.

Since Don's return, HACLA has been rated as a ``high performer'' by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in recognition of its high lease rate in public housing and its record of achieving 100 percent section 8 voucher utilization even in a difficult market. In addition, under Don's leadership, HACLA was the first housing authority to receive a Welfare-to-Work grant from the U.S. Department of Labor and subsequently received local and national recognition for its excellence and success with this program.

During Don's tenure, HACLA has helped to improve and beautify my City of Los Angeles by demolishing public housing that dates from the 1940s and replacing it with vibrant, mixed-income communities including Harbor Village/Normont Terrace in the Harbor area and Pico Aliso and Aliso Village/Pueblo del Sol in Boyle Heights. Don was a prime reason why HUD chose the HACLA to administer all of its section 8 properties in 10 Southern California counties.

HACLA is a state-chartered public agency that administers the largest stock of affordable housing in the Los Angeles area. While the HACLA gets the majority of its funding through HUD, Don has built many key partnerships with city and State agencies, nonprofit foundations, community-based organizations, and private developers, which have proven invaluable to achieving HACLA's mission.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of his dedication to the City of Los Angeles and the thousands of people he has helped, I have introduced a resolution recognizing Don for his outstanding work. I hope that the Congress will join me in thanking Don for his service to Los Angeles and to our Nation.

Thank you, Don, for your tremendous work and for your friendship. I wish you all the best in your retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

I would first like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for the leadership that they have provided in this committee not only on this issue but on all of the issues that we work with on the Committee on Financial Services. I think someone said it earlier, and I agree, I believe it was the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) who said it, we do have a way of working together, and we do have a way of respecting the work that is done on both sides of the aisle; and I am appreciative for the comradery that has developed out of that committee. So with that, I would like to thank also the chairman and the members of the Committee on Rules for making my rule in order.

During the course of a bank merger process, both the Federal financial supervisory agency and the Department of Justice review the merger proposal for competitive concerns. After a Federal banking agency approves a merger, DOJ has 30 days to decide whether to challenge the merger approval on antitrust grounds. At a minimum, the merging banks must now wait 15 days before completing their merger. As proposed, section 609 would reduce the minimum 15-day waiting period to 5 days when the Department of Justice indicates it will not file suit challenging the merger approval order.

This amendment is designed to preserve the existing 15-calendar-day waiting period in which members of the public may challenge a bank merger after the Department of Justice has approved a merger between banks or between bank-holding companies. This mandatory waiting period protects the rights of the public to raise concerns with respect to the propriety of bank mergers once the Department of Justice decides whether to challenge a merger on antitrust grounds. Currently, banking law allows third parties, other than Federal banking agencies or DOJ, to file suit during the post-approval waiting period. Such private enforcement is critical to ensuring that important policy concerns including the adequacy of the banks' Community Reinvestment Act performance, are taken into account when Federal courts evaluate whether an agency's approval of a proposed bank merger should be upheld. Such private suits are the vehicle through which community organizations may gain information about a proposed bank merger to ensure that the merger will not result in disproportionate branch closures in low-income or minority communities.

The existing law strikes the proper balance between the right of third parties to seek judicial review of bank merger approval orders and the rights of parties to the merger to finalize their transaction. Section 609 of the bill as reported would seriously impair the right of community organizations to seek this judicial review of Federal bank merger approval orders. The current 15-day waiting period should be preserved.

So my amendment has been made in order under the proposed rule, and I would ask support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for recognizing that Missouri, too, is the State of my birth, and I am delighted to be on the floor today with him because he has provided wonderful leadership for our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I came today to the floor to shame the Republicans and the President for politicizing this tragic war in Iraq. God bless our soldiers. They do not deserve to be made pawns in political gamesmanship. There are many Members who love and support our soldiers but refuse to be blackmailed into supporting this preemptive strike doctrine of this administration and to be used by this President. Just as President Bush is attempting to use the New York 9/11 scene as a backdrop in his political advertisement, this resolution is being used to paint the picture that this President is a tough leader, fighting terrorism and winning.

Mr. Speaker, this President is not winning. Our country and the world is not more secure. Tragically, over 564 soldiers have died since the war began last year, and thousands more have been injured. The administration has spent $157 billion so far in this war, and even the allies who have supported him are being retaliated against.

If my friends on the opposite side of the aisle were sincere about gathering us all together in a resolution to say to our soldiers thank you for your sacrifices, they would have done what was asked of them by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) today: Pull this one-sided resolution off the floor, get Democrats involved, let us join hands and support our soldiers.

This is the most divisive administration that this country has ever had, polarizing us, putting us at each others' throats. It is a shame, and I do not mind saying it on this floor today. You need to withdraw it.