Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the CBC Chairman for organizing this Special Order and providing us with this opportunity to speak about one of the most important duties Congress has--establishing the budget for the Federal government.

It is often said that a budget is an indication of the President's priorities. As this budget certainly is a true reflection of the President's priorities, it's painfully obvious that working men and women have much to be concerned about. This budget cuts funding for dozens of important programs, leads us deeper into debt and does nothing to help stimulate the economy.

Since the President took office in 2001, 3 million private sector jobs and 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. The unemployment rate is 5.6 percent, though this figure is inaccurate because it fails to take into account the hundreds of thousands of workers that have given up looking for jobs and the many workers who have had to ``trade down'' in salary and benefits in order to become re-employed. If we were to include these men and women, the unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent. Tragically, the unemployment figures for minorities are far worse--almost 10 percent of African- Americans are unemployed.

We should not be proud of these figures. We should be ashamed of them. We certainly should not be praising an economic plan that has failed our workers, as the President, and all too many of my Republican colleagues continue to do each day.

Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget is a continuation of his failed economic policy. Each year the President promises economic recovery and significant job growth, and every year, the American people are disappointed. The so-called economic recovery that President Bush is touting is a jobless recovery and Mr. Speaker, a jobless recovery is no recovery at all.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of the promises that this Administration has made regarding job growth. In 2001, the President's Council of Economic Advisors promised 800,000 new jobs by the end of 2002 if Congress passed his $1.3 trillion tax cut which largely benefited the wealthiest of Americans. Instead of creating these jobs, 2.2 million workers lost their jobs in 2002.

In 2002, the President's Economic Advisors promised 300,000 new jobs if Congress passed the President's economic stimulus plan. Congress did, and thousands more workers lost their jobs.

In 2003, the Council predicted 900,000 new jobs if Congress passed the President's budget and subsequent tax cuts. Congress did but the results were the same as in previous years--thousands more workers without jobs.

This year, we continue to hear the same rhetoric from the President-- `pass my budget and watch the economy grow.' The President seems to suggest that recovery is just around the corner. However, that `corner' has proven to be elusive for the past 3 years, and there is no reason to believe that this budget will be any different. In fact, there is ample reason to believe that this year will be far worse.

Mr. Speaker, not only will this budget do nothing to help stimulate the economy, it fails to provide funding for educational, job training and other programs that our workers rely upon to become effective workers.

For example, the President's budget cuts funding for dozens of education programs including reading and vocational programs. It also eliminates another 38 education programs including community technology centers, dropout prevention programs, and literacy programs for prisoners.

The budget even underfunds the President's signature program, No Child Left Behind, by $9.4 billion. By underfunding this program, 2.4 million children will not receive the help with reading and math they were promised when the President signed this bill into law.

Furthermore, this budget places additional burdens on men and women who are trying to get off welfare and into decent paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, during reauthorization of our Nation's welfare programs, Congress implemented new requirements that required welfare recipients to work additional hours in order to receive benefits. Yet, we did not provide any additional funding for childcare. As a result, parents receiving TANF benefits often are left with the impossible choice of leaving their child home alone or skipping a day at work.

Unfortunately, this budget continues this devastating policy. It freezes funding for childcare at 2004 levels and flat funds it through 2009. As a result, the number of children that receive childcare assistance will decline by 300,000 over the next four years. In addition, the budget only provides half of the funding promised for after-school programs, meaning that 1.3 million children who were promised after-school services will not get them.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2005 budget is nothing more than a continuation of failed policies. It explodes the deficit, particularly in the fiscal years that the Bush Administration fails to describe in its budget documents. It fails to meet our people's need for healthcare, education, job training, housing, homeland security and many other critical programs. All these priorities are being sacrificed to pay for outrageous tax cuts for millionaires, those who need it least. I urge my colleagues to reject the President's budget and support a budget that will serve the poor and the middle class and provide meaningful assistance to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman from Maryland (Chairman Cummings) for the tremendous leadership he has provided to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and ultimately to this House. Today he organized the members and we took the extraordinary step of going to the White House to present our case. I would like to thank the chairman for the leadership that he provided in the room with the President, with Secretary Powell, with Dr. Condoleezza Rice, and others. He presented our case and he presented it well. It was supported by other members of the Congressional Black Caucus as we added to the presentation. In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, we were able to paint the picture to lay out the case of what is going on in Haiti at this moment.

What we have is this, Mr. Speaker. We have the President of Haiti whose back is up against the wall. We have the President who signed on to a peace agreement that was presented by the international community, led by the United States of America. We have the President with a dwindling police force; and members of his police force are being killed every hour, not simply by the opposition, but by thugs and ex- military folks who have been in exile and who have come back into Haiti to join in this mayhem. He is sitting there asking for help. He has reached out to the United States. He has done everything that we have asked him to do, and he is waiting for some help.

In this coalition that we have, the United States, France, Canada, the OAS, the U.N., and CARICOM, it is time for somebody to step forward. We made our case to the President tonight because we want this great Nation to step forward and to lend a helping hand to this small, poor country in this hemisphere. We think it is the right thing to do. We want our country to lead. But as we stand on this floor tonight, we are saying to France, we are saying to Canada, we are saying to CARICOM, the U.N., OAS, all of them, somebody please step forward and avoid the blood bath that we feel could happen at any time.

We believe that not only should the United States provide some leadership, but this peace proposal was based on a presentation by CARICOM. This is the CARICOM proposal that was put on the table. Our friends in Jamaica and in the Bahamas and other states of the Caribbean who are so intricately involved in this must step forward. As I stand here, it is necessary for Jamaica to be in contact with South Africa in order for South Africa to be able to respond under the banner of

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Haiti this past weekend. It was the third time I have been there since January 1. And I am on this floor tonight because I want to share in the most straightforward way that I possibly can that it is clear to me that a bloodbath in that country is imminent in spite of the fact that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has agreed to the peace plan worked out by the international community.

I went down to Haiti this past Saturday to be an observer as the international community, made up of United States, Canada, France, the OAS, CARICOM, and the United Nations, presented a peace plan; and it was a tough peace plan. The plan called for three persons from the international community, these organizations, to select a council of wise persons, of seven wise persons, who would then choose what would end up being a prime minister. First in the plan they offered the President, they said they would give him a name and he would either accept it or reject it. He asked them to give him more than one name. They ended up agreeing to give him two names that he could choose from, and the President accepted the plan. I was there. He accepted the plan.

But the opposition has rejected the peace plan. They have refused to negotiate. They also have sent a signal to groups of thugs and a newly formed army of exiled criminals that they will support the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti. These thugs and the newly formed army, made up of exiled former military officers and criminals known as The Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti, commonly referred to as FRAPH, have murdered many people in Cap Haitian, and they now control several cities.

For the last couple of days, these crooks, criminals, former military officers have been on television warning that they are on their way to Port-au-Prince. They are now on their way to Port-au-Prince; and if in fact these thugs who are armed with very sophisticated weapons, M-16s, go to that capital and they try to take the palace, there will be a bloodbath. Lavalos, the millions of people who support the President will be there to protect the capital, and this confrontation will end in the loss of many lives.

It is time for the international community to come to the aid of Haiti. It is time for us to understand that we can avoid this bloodbath in Haiti; and it makes good sense to say to the opposition who refuses to come to the table that the game is up; that, in fact, if they want to be obstructionists, we are going to insist that they get out of the way so that we can move with stabilizing Haiti.

We simply cannot stand by and watch this situation unfold and not recognize that a coup d'etat is in progress in Haiti. Immediate international assistance is essential to stop the escalation of violence. The United States should work with the Organization of American States, the nations of the Caribbean community referred to as CARICOM, and other countries to provide assistance to Haiti to stop the violence, disarm the thugs and death squads and protect the Haitian people.

I have been in conversation with the State Department trying to urge them to take some action. I have talked with representation, the ambassadors from Canada, and have on call the ambassador from France. I have talked with the OAS representative, saying to them somebody must take the lead in putting together the assistance to stop this carnage. It is quite unfortunate; and if there is a bloodbath, this country is going to have to take some responsibility in it.

The man that is leading the coup d'etat in Haiti was born in New York and holds an American passport. For the life of me, I do not understand what an American, born in New York, with a passport, is doing starting a coup d'etat in another country. Mr. Andy Arpaid, Jr., not only holds an American passport; he owns 15 factories in Haiti, sweatshops.

Unfortunately, we cannot continue. We will continue this at another time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order and I too commend him for taking so much of his time to organize us to come to this floor to help shed light on what is going on in this Congress and in this world. I look forward to every opportunity that he affords me to participate.

The massive costs of the war and how they will affect Americans in their everyday lives is an incredibly important issue that we must continue to discuss. This past Monday, the President sent his fiscal year 2005 budget to Congress. We found out that under this President's guidance, the Nation's debt has grown to record numbers. This year alone, the deficit is expected to be at least $521 billion. And the national debt has grown by $1.7 trillion since 2001. Yet instead of taking the necessary steps to bring our fiscal house into order, the President has proposed more of his failed policies.

I am having an interesting time, Mr. Speaker, discussing this with my friends. They say to me, Maxine Waters, I thought that you were the one

that has been accused of being one of those tax-and-spend liberals but now your President has outdone you. He is spending money like a drunken sailor. How can you explain it?

I say to him, I cannot explain it, but it falls into that category of misdirection, of tales that are being told that just do not hold up when you place them under scrutiny.

The President's budget is extremely dangerous. It calls for eliminating 38 education programs and cutting funding for dozens of others. It does virtually nothing for the 43 million Americans who have no health insurance. It cuts $1.6 billion from HUD's section 8 voucher program and an additional $130 million from public housing. The President's budget even cuts, by 7 percent, programs designed to protect our drinking water, keep our air clean and other important environmental programs.

The budget even calls for imposing copayments and enrollment fees for our veterans in order to receive health care for their injuries sustained while protecting our Nation. I find it appalling that our President would require our veterans to pay up to $250 enrollment fees in order to receive the care they need. But these are just a few examples of the administration's policies that penalize working Americans. The war in Iraq is a continuation of these policies. It is the working American that is fighting, dying and paying for this war. The wealthiest of Americans, on the other hand, are not being asked to make any of these sacrifices. None are serving themselves, and few if any have sons or daughters in the U.S. Armed Forces. And they are the beneficiaries of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts which makes it increasingly difficult to pay for this war.

To date, the President has asked for and received $157 billion for this war in Iraq. Amazingly, recent press reports suggest that the President will ask for another additional $50 million shortly after the next election for military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will bring the total to $206 billion. What is so disappointing, though not surprising, is the difference between what we were told the costs would be for this war and what the costs are turning out to be. Throughout the buildup to the war, and even during the early stages, the American people were assured that the costs would be minimal. Who can forget Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz' statement in March of 2003 when he said, ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' But the sad reality is that it is the American people who are paying for this war.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this administration and this war, we cannot help but now understand why the American people are finally waking up to how they have been misled and misdirected by this President and this administration. Of course, we heard references tonight to the reason we were told we were going into this war and we must say it over and over again; we did a preemptive strike because Saddam Hussein and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we were in imminent danger. We were told this over and over again and Colin Powell even had some maps. He pointed to some sheds where chemicals were being made and the weapons of mass destruction were being developed.

But we have been misled on many things by this President and now we find ourselves in a terrible situation in Iraq. We are not in control. Our soldiers are dying, being picked off one by one. Suicide bombings are taking place. Soldiers are losing their lives. I am sure their families are asking, why? Or what does this all mean? Not only are they losing their lives, we were told after the President could no longer support or justify the weapons of mass destruction that we really needed a regime change, that we had to be about the business of creating democracy in Iraq. Now we are at the point where our President has said they are going to turn over governance to the Iraqis, only to find out that this President does not want free and fair elections, he does not want free and fair elections because, oh, somebody may win that he does not like. And I want you to know that the protests are growing in Iraq about the fact that this President now wants to select and choose who will be in charge of Iraq. He wants to put in a council through some kind of caucuses to avoid the Shiites being in control, because they may be the ones that get elected in this war as opposed to the Sunnis that they would like to have elected. But whether we are talking about Iraq or Afghanistan, we really did not have a plan. We really thought we could just bomb everybody into submission, take over the oil fields and chop up the spoils. And are we disappointed.

My goodness, how much more insult do the American people have to take from this administration? Here we have the Vice President of the United States of America, Mr. Dick Cheney, who is still receiving paychecks from his old company, Halliburton. And what have we found out about Halliburton? They are cheating us right and left. Not only have they overcharged us for the oil they are importing from Kuwait to Iraq, we find out they are cheating us on the amount of the food that they are serving to our soldiers. They are giving us extraordinary numbers, only to find out that they are not really serving the numbers that they represent.

I talked about some of this last night, but it goes on and on and on. We are paying for a war that we should not have been in in the first place. We are paying contractors who are cheating us like Halliburton, who are getting no-bid contracts, and there is no end to all of this. This administration is going to have to pay a price for what it has done. I am glad that we are here talking about it this evening.

Mr. Speaker, the administration's rhetoric does not support the situation we find ourselves in today. We were not welcomed as liberators, there are no weapons of mass destruction, hundreds of U.S. soldiers are dying, and taxpayers are paying billions of dollars for a war that need not be fought. Meanwhile, our responsibilities here at home are being neglected.

The Senate's ricin scare yesterday reminds us that our homeland is not as secure as it should be. Our schools continue to be in disrepair and hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we need to reassess our priorities. Unfortunately, this budget does not do any of these things. There is so much more we can say, but I am going to yield my time to our leader here so that he can wrap this up tonight. But we have more to say and we will be back again because the American public wants to hear from us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns about corporate corruption of the highest order, corruption towards which President Bush and his administration have been utterly indifferent.

Halliburton, the Houston-based energy company formerly led by Vice President Dick Cheney for 5 years before the 2000 Presidential election, has been giving the shaft to the American people and our brave military personnel stationed in Iraq, and the American people know it. They also know that despite the President's attempt to talk a good game on this issue, the Bush administration will do absolutely nothing about it.

Vice President Cheney is still on Halliburton's payroll. He received $205,298 in 2001, $162,392 in 2002 in deferred salary, and is expected to receive similar amounts in 2003, 2004 and 2005. He also holds 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options.

It is deplorable to see corporations gouge the American taxpayers under any circumstances. To watch Halliburton overcharge our government and render inadequate services to our troops in a time of war is totally unconscionable.

The issue of corporate corruption and the Bush administration's willingness to look the other way at conflicts of interest when it would benefit their friends is not a new issue for me. On March 19 of last year, the year that the war in Iraq actually commenced, I circulated a Dear Colleague letter in support of my amendment to the Defense Production Act.

My amendment was designed to ensure that senior-level executives in the Bush administration could not use a conflict with Iraq to obtain financial benefits for companies with which they had been affiliated. Specifically, the amendment would have prohibited contracts under the bill with companies in which high-ranking administration executives were senior managers or members of the board of directors within the last 4 years.

At the time, I noted that there was a considerable amount of suspicion of the motives of this administration in pursuing a war against Iraq, and I expressed my concern about the importance of avoiding both actual and perceived conflicts of interest at a time when the administration's decisions about war and peace would be affecting so many.

My amendment failed. I offered similar amendments on several other occasions which were also unsuccessful.

Unfortunately, my concerns about Halliburton have proven to be all too accurate. Look at what has happened in Iraq.

Halliburton was the beneficiary of no-bid contracts, which have served as the vehicle for war profiteering, such as the contracts that Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, received to control Iraq oil well fires resulting from military action.

In the limited time available to me this evening, I want to look briefly at three issues: Halliburton's inflated oil supply contracts, the kickback scheme to which the company recently admitted, and the outrageous overcharges on its food supply contracts for our troops in Iraq.

Halliburton's inflated oil supply contracts. As my colleagues the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) have so ably demonstrated, the United States government paid the Halliburton company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others were paying to truck in Kuwait fuel. Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel to Iraq, subcontracted the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said, but Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to the documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Simply put, Halliburton was inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers. In October 2003, when Democrats first raised questions, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States Government and Iraq's Oil for Food Program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.

A breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents, recently provided the Democratic congressional investigators, and shared with the New York Times late last year, showed that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

The oil price gouging is just the first of many Halliburton misdeeds that give rise to grave concern. Consider the recent allegations concerning Halliburton's food supply contracts.

Corruption. Halliburton charges for food it did not serve. The February 2, 2004, Wall Street Journal reported that, according to Pentagon investigators, ``Halliburton company allegedly overcharged more than $16 million for meals at a single U.S. military base in Kuwait during the first 7 months of last year.'' The revelations have ``spurred an expansion of an already widening inquiry into Halliburton's government work in Iraq.''

Apparently, a Saudi subcontractor, hired by the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, billed for 42,042 meals a day on average. But guess what? They only served 14,053 meals a day. The Pentagon will now review 50 other dining facilities in Kuwait and Iraq for meal-billing discrepancies.

This announcement comes just weeks after Halliburton reimbursed the Pentagon $6.3 million after disclosing that two employees had taken substantial kickbacks from a Kuwaiti subcontractor.

I do not have time to finish all of this tonight, but there is more to come, more to come. We are going to learn more about Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States, and his company ripping off the American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sham Medicare proposal that will end Medicare as we know it and simply fatten the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry and the HMOs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased that this bill has been reauthorized for at least 5 years. I want to say that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) makes a very good point. Reform is always very difficult, and we need to recognize that there are things that fall outside of the traditional thinking about some of these floodplains.

For example, in my own city, in my district, there was flash flooding, the first time it ever happened in the history of the State, and we had this flooding and all of these little homes were damaged, they will not meet the FEMA assessment requirements, and we need to find ways in which we deal with that kind of freak of nature also. So I would like very much to continue to work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening because I came to defy the President of the United States of America. I came to talk about what is happening in Iraq.

I came to do that, understanding that this President does not want this kind of discussion. I recognize that the President does not want us to continue to remind him of this disaster in Iraq. This is a President who has tried to intimidate the news media and told them to stop writing about the bad things that were going on in Iraq, and he told them to write about good things that are happening in Iraq. But thank God that the news media of this country has continued to report on what is really going on in Iraq. Oh, yes, they have talked about some of the children returning to school, and they have talked about the book bags. But the American people want to know about what is happening with our soldiers. The American people are terribly upset about the loss of the lives of our soldiers.

So I am here in defiance of the orders and the attempts to keep us from talking about what is going on. The President's unilateral invasion of Iraq and his administration's subsequent mismanagement of the Iraq conflict have left our Nation in a quagmire. According to the Pentagon's own figures, 422 American servicemen and -women have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war and 2,041 have been wounded. No less than 284 Americans have been killed since the President announced the end of the major combat operations on May 1, and the casualties continue to climb.

I believe that this administration is in denial. Yes, the President posted that sign ``Mission Accomplished.'' However, the war really did begin after the sign was posted, and our soldiers have been picked off one by one.

Mr. Speaker, attacks on U.S. helicopters have killed nearly 40 soldiers this month alone, and the attacks continue every day. This past Monday, two more soldiers were killed in two separate attacks near the town of Balad, 45 miles northwest of Baghdad.

One soldier died and two more were wounded when Iraqi insurgents engaged their patrol with small arms fire. The other soldier was killed when a convoy was struck by a roadside bomb. Every day, more American soldiers are killed in Iraq with no exit strategy and no end in sight.

Mr. Speaker, I remember when our soldiers rolled into Baghdad. I remember the way the President bragged about Operation Shock and Awe. I remember how they said to the American people, we have all of the equipment and supplies and the military might that we need. We are going to shock and awe. And this kind of sloganeering that I thought was unbecoming of this administration was the order of the day.

Now, this administration is doing it again. The administration's most recent response to the mounting American casualties has been a new bombing campaign. This campaign is known as

Operation Iron Hammer in Baghdad and Operation Ivy Cyclone north of Baghdad. It involves heavy aerial attacks on so-called suspected terrorists' meeting places and infrastructure. For the past 6 days, U.S. forces have pounded targets with 500-pound bombs, cannon fire, and artillery.

I believe it is another public relations campaign. Mr. Speaker, this administration is famous for spinning and sloganeering and basically posturing, and this is another kind of spinning that is going on. They think when they come up with this kind of sloganeering that somehow they are more believable.

So we have this new Operation Iron Hammer in Baghdad, and what is it doing? We are told that they are hitting suspected terrorists. Who are they killing? What terrorists are they stopping when, in fact, the terrorists, as they have been identified who are killing our soldiers, continue day after day to pick our soldiers off. There is no evidence to suggest that this bombing campaign will accomplish anything. In fact, it may make the situation worse.

A top secret CIA assessment from Iraq, which was widely reported last week, warned that bombing campaigns like this one could only incite more Iraqis to fight against Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I will be coming often to tell the truth about what is going on in Iraq. I will not be intimidated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in this conference report. I regret that I must oppose it.

I support our troops and our veterans, and applaud the conference report's improvement in pay for our troops, but there are far too many things wrong with this bill. For example, under H.R. 1588, environmental standards are weakened and worker rights are severely limited. Yet again, the Republicans have placed a higher priority on partisanship and special interests than doing what is right for our country and our service men and women.

But, of all the many problems with this conference report, the most disappointing is the section on concurrent receipt that fails to end this horrendous policy for many of our disabled veterans. For months, the Republicans have refused even to allow a vote on H.R. 303 which would end the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. But now in a half-hearted attempt to appear responsive to the overwhelming demands of Democrats and veterans groups to repeal this tax, the Republicans have thrown our veterans a bone--a partial repeal of the concurrent receipt policy.

It is estimated that, under the Republican plan, two-thirds of disabled veterans will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities. This is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve all of the benefits that they have earned. Our veterans have sacrificed in order to ensure our freedom and safety. Congress must now do its part. Congress can and must completely end the disabled veterans tax-- immediately.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite unfortunate that we have a bill before us that pits the small business community or the business community against work opportunities in our prisons. It just should not have reached the floor this way.

It is absolutely obvious that prisoners need to have opportunities for work and rehabilitation while they are in prison. And every Member of the Congress of the United States has stated or demonstrated one way or the other that we support business, we support small business, and we have the office of SBA and a lot of other opportunities to show our support for small business. So we should not have this kind of tension. It really should be worked out.

I do not know where this bill is going, and whether or not it is going to receive the support of the Members of this House; but I know one thing, if we are to release prisoners into our community we should be releasing them with some kind of work experience. And I am sick and tired of prisoners being released with no money, no home, no rental opportunities, no health care, no anything. When they hit the street, if they do not have money for food, if they do not have money to pay rent, if they do not have a reasonable opportunity to have some time to find a job, you are going to continue to experience this recidivism that we are experiencing. And so my remarks today are a prelude to what I am going to do in an amendment.

My amendment is going to say that prisoners should be released with more money; that they should work with whatever the wages are under this system that we have; but for the last 2 years of their work, they should receive at least $2.50 an hour to be retained in a fund so that when they are released they can go and rent a place and have food and not be in the position of being tempted to commit crimes in our communities, in our neighborhoods, because we let them out of prison without anything.

So if I had my druthers, I would remove this bill from the floor. It has no business here creating this tension between business and prison opportunities for work, but I do not have my druthers on this, and so the bill is going to come up for a vote. And I will have an amendment that will deal with the last 2 years of a prisoners' time so that they could have a little bit more money to hit the street with the opportunity for rent, to pay the rent and to buy food.

Again, I know that it is important for prisoners to have the ability to work, and I would not want to eliminate that. I would want to make sure that whatever we do there are some opportunities for prisoners to be able to do this work.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have sat here and listened to this debate today on this very important legislation, H.R. 1829, and it is clear to me listening to the very thoughtful debate that has been held on this floor today that people care an awful lot, both about small business and about opportunities for inmates in our prison system to be able to work and earn money that can be helpful to them upon their release.

It is also clear to me that people are torn about the way that this bill has been presented. They want to make sure that they protect small businesses and not have them disadvantaged because we have our Federal Prison Industries able to produce goods without having to compete in the open market, and we really do not know how to fix this. We really do not have all of the answers.

We have people that are attempting all kinds of amendments. Some of the amendments are to study this, to slow it down and perhaps give us another opportunity to take a look at it. Some of the other amendments are a bit clearer than that, simply trying to make sure that we do not expand the opportunity for the Federal Prison Industries to expand and to continue to operate perhaps in the way that it is doing.

We heard some very interesting debate about NAFTA and about the exportation of jobs to Third World countries for cheap labor and some pointed references to China; and I was struck by the references that were made to labor that has been done in China by prisoners in China, and could not help but think if, in fact, we limit the opportunities for Federal Prison Industries to operate as it is doing, whether or not we are going to find small businesses who would get this work and then export it to Third World countries for cheap labor, and we find that prisoners in other countries are doing the kind of work that we are prohibiting our prisoners in this country from doing.

All of these questions certainly, I think, are on our minds. However, this is what I have attempted to do. I have attempted to find a way to recognize that prisoners are being released and that when they are released, if they have no money, if they have no resources, they are more likely to find their way back into the system. Recidivism is a real problem.

I would like to see those prisoners that are being released have at least enough money to rent a place to live, to have some food, maybe to have some transportation, to be able to be supported by their earnings until they can find a job. I do this by allowing the last 2 years of their wages to be increased to $2.50 per hour and then to be held in a special fund; and while they are working, they get no more than any other prisoner would get working in this industry, but the additional dollars would be available to them, held in this fund so that when they are released, they will have an opportunity to have money to do those things that I have alluded to.

I think my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), thought there may be some conflict between my amendment and the amendment by my colleague from California. I do not think so, but this amendment now incorporates my thought about the $2.50 and the thoughts of my colleague from the State of California about giving the authority to the board of directors to increase the wages if they desire to do so. I suppose before they can do it they at least need to be told that if they desire to increase wages up to the minimum they can do that. So that is included in this bill, and I am sure that she will better explain that and that authority that has been given to them.

So these two ideas are combined here, and the idea simply is $2.50, an opportunity to have a special fund, inmates able to make more money so

that when they are released, they can have money for food, clothing, job, transportation, and of course, the other idea of authorization to the board of directors so that they could, over a period of time, increase the pay up to the minimum wage if they so desire.

That is the essence of my amendment. I would ask an ``aye'' vote on the Waters amendment number 62.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion to instruct the conferees for the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to accept the Senate's higher levels of funding for global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs. The Senate bill provides $1.7 billion for these programs in fiscal year 2004. When combined with $700 million in the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations bill, this would provide $2.4 billion for these programs.

Last January, in his State of the Union address, the President made a commitment to the community of nations to provide $15 billion over five years to wipe out the scourge of HIV/AIDS, which is ravaging the continent of Africa and spreading rapidly throughout the world. Within four months, Congress passed and the President signed H.R. 1298, the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act, which authorizes $3 billion per year in funding over the next five years for global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria treatment and prevention efforts.

Unfortunately, it was not long before the President's State of the Union commitment began looking like another empty promise. In his FY 2004 budget, the President proposed only $2 billion for global HIV/ AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria programs, and the Republican congressional leadership refused to fully fund H.R. 1298. The House provided only $1.4 billion in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill and $700 million in the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations bill for a total of $2.1 billion for efforts to fight these devastating diseases.

I have been working for many years to bring attention to the AIDS epidemic, which is destabilizing economies and societies throughout the world. In the last year, over three million people died of AIDS, and five million people were newly infected with this dreadful disease.

The House's proposed appropriation of $2.1 billion for these widespread epidemics is grossly inadequate and a shameful, broken promise. The Senate's higher figure of $2.4 billion, while it comes closer to the $3 billion that the President promised, is still not enough. It is time for the Congress to take this issue seriously. It is time for the United States to keep its promise to the world community of nations and to the victims of these dreadful diseases and their families and friends.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I urge the conferees to go even further and provide $3 billion to fully fund global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria efforts for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight the inadequate treatment our troops and our veterans are receiving from this administration.

In all there are 1.4 million men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces. Tens of thousands of these soldiers are serving overseas, 130,000 troops in Iraq, 8,500 troops in Afghanistan, 37,000 in South Korea and the list goes on and on.

Throughout their deployment, the men and women who serve in the United States Armed Forces have done so with honor and distinction. However, the Republican Congress and this administration often have not lived up to their part of the bargain.

While the Congress has approved massive increases in funding for the Department of Defense, our soldiers are deployed to Iraq without life- saving protective body armor, and many humvees were also poorly equipped, leaving our soldiers vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades and other explosive devices. It was not until our soldiers began writing home asking their families to send them ceramic tiles so that they could make their own protective armor that the Pentagon finally woke up and said they would provide each soldier with Kevlar bulletproof vests.

It should never have come to this. If we are going to send our troops into battle, we must ensure that they have all the equipment they need. Unfortunately, the Republicans' record is grossly inadequate when it comes to helping our soldiers when they return from the battlefield.

While they have taken the long overdue step of providing funding in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to cover the costs our soldiers have traveling home on rest and recuperation, they still leave many military families vulnerable by only extending the higher rates of imminent danger pay and family separation allowance for 1 year, no matter how long they serve. While the Republicans heeded the demands of Democrats and ended the shameful practice of requiring wounded soldiers to pay subsistence charges for each day they were in the hospital recovering from a combat injury, they continued to refuse to provide other essential relief to our veterans.

The Republicans still refuse to end the disabled veterans tax which prevents thousands of disabled veterans from receiving full retirement and disabled benefits.

In short, the Republicans believe that by waving the United States flag and making a few cosmetic changes, they can dress up a second rate record on issues that are important to our veterans and our troops.

Mr. Speaker, we have to acknowledge the existence of a problem before we can fix it. One news organization reported earlier this week that soldiers are being housed in outdated barracks, some even without indoor toilets, and forced to wait days, weeks or even months for treatment of medical problems, including injuries suffered in Iraq. Yet this administration seems unable to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the clearest illustration of the Republicans' poor record on veterans issue is when we examine the inadequate funding the Republicans have provided for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Every veteran has earned the health care, educational, disability and other benefits he or she was promised when they signed up for military service. However, they are rarely receiving these benefits in a timely manner.

The statistics are dreadful. There are approximately 60,000 veterans waiting 6 months or more to see a doctor. Some veterans die from their conditions before they are able to see a doctor, and for the past 2 years, an average of 14,000 disabled veterans have been waiting more than 15 months for their so-called expedited disability claims to be finalized.

This log jam will only get worse as those troops currently serving overseas return home. Yet instead of providing the necessary funding to alleviate these backlogs and help those who need it most, the Republicans are passing massive tax cuts to benefit those who need it least.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican record on veterans issues is not one that I would be happy to call my own. I am certainly grateful that I do not have to defend it.

During the fiscal year 2004 budget debate, the Republicans attempted to cut funding over the next 10 years for medical care and other appropriated veterans programs by $14.2 billion below current service levels and cut funding for mandatory veterans programs by $14.2 billion over 10 years. Later, despite publicity promising to include $3.2 billion for veterans health care, Republicans have only appropriated $1.4 billion for veterans health care, leaving a shortfall of $1.8 billion and thousands of veterans without necessary health care.

The Republicans have prevented Members from voting their conscience on the disabled veterans tax which unfairly taxes disabled veterans, $1 in retirement benefits for every $1 they receive in disability benefits. The Republicans even propose to increase prescription drug copayments and impose enrollment fees on veterans seeking to access health care, and despite there being an estimated 299,321 veterans who are homeless on any given night, funding which helps provide housing and job training for veterans is woefully short.

This record is in no way to repay the sacrifice our veterans have made on behalf of us.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have another way. We have crafted a bill that will not only honor the men and women serving in the Armed Forces today but also provide the benefits that veterans have earned and deserve.

H.R. 2569, the Democratic bill, would increase funding for VA health care by $10 billion over the next 10 years, expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserves. It would completely and immediately end the disabled veterans tax. It would pay our veterans $500 a month when his or her disability claim has been left pending for longer than 6 months. For our troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, our bill would give a $1,000 bonus for those soldiers returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Lastly, the Democrats would extend the child tax credit to the hundreds of thousands of military families left behind by the Bush tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2569 is a comprehensive bill that not only acknowledges the sacrifice our men and women in uniform make but also ensures that they are properly taken care of after they stop wearing the uniform.

This recognition is long overdue. Democrats are committed to doing all that we can to pass H.R. 2569. We will continue to put a spotlight on the enormous gap between Republican words and deeds on veterans and troop-support issues. Our troops and our veterans deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not popular with this administration to talk about these issues. As a matter of fact, I am fully aware that the President of the United States basically tried to intimidate the news media by saying to them you are not reporting enough good news. And to prove that he was prepared to deal with them if they do not do it his way, he started to exclude the national media and go around them and deal with the regional media in order to teach them a lesson.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this President and this administration may not like the fact that some of us talk about what is really happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. He may not like the fact that the

news media is reporting the deaths of our soldiers, not only those deaths that are taking place in Iraq, but those deaths that are taking place in Afghanistan. And while there are those who do not want to have us talk about the fact that 15 of our soldiers were killed this past weekend, and in excess of 20 of them were wounded, and each day we continue to lose soldiers, one, two, three a day, they are being attacked and they are being picked off. Of course we are raising a lot of questions about the postwar planning, or lack thereof. We are asking this administration what were you thinking about.

Our soldiers are now in a situation that they have not been trained for. They do not know anything about Shiites and Sunnis. They do not understand the ethnic warfare between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. They do not know the language; they do not understand the cultures. They were not trained to be involved in guerrilla warfare. We have to continue to talk about this because we have to force the protection that is needed.

I am not going to talk about Afghanistan; they just killed two of our CIA agents there. The poppy fields are flowing; the warlords are in control. Mr. Karzai, who we hand picked and sat down in Kabul, is not running anything. It is a joke, and we are paying a terrible price for the way we have not done our homework and done our planning in these two places alone.

Hopefully, even those wounded will return home. Hopefully, this administration will get its act together and they will provide the protection and do the strategic planning; they will do what they did not do, even when the President posted the sign ``Mission Accomplished.''

It is time for the untruths and the distortions to stop. I was shocked when the President, whom we saw under the banner of mission impossible when asked by the press denied that the White House had anything to do with it. Certainly the White House planned the entire event, but that is typical of the kind of untruths and misinformation coming out of this administration.

What is going to happen to those soldiers returning home, those soldiers who are wounded, those soldiers who have been separated from their families, those soldiers and reservists who will return without employment? Some will not even have homes to live in. We are talking about not only what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq at this time, but we want to let you know, and hopefully they will be veterans returning to their respective towns and their cities, what will be there for them? Will they, too, have to wait in long lines to get the health care that they need? Many of them will need follow-up health care as a result of the wounds that they are receiving now in Iraq. What is going to happen to them when they discover that they will not get the retirement benefits they thought were coming to them because of the way this administration refused to fund it?

Well, we raise these questions no matter how unpopular they are. It is our duty and our responsibility as representatives elected to represent all of the people to be in the forefront of the issues for our veterans. If we cannot stand up for our veterans, we cannot stand up for anybody or anything.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette) as she continues our discussion in support of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for taking time from her schedule and being here at this hour to talk about her commitment for our veterans and the way that all Americans should feel about our veterans. Certainly the manner in which she has spoken really should give those on the opposite side of the aisle cause to revisit the way in which they can represent our veterans.

I would like to take a moment and reiterate, H.R. 2569, the Democratic bill, would increase funding for VA health care by $10 billion over the next 10 years, expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserves. It would completely and immediately end the disabled veterans tax; it would pay a veteran $500 a month when his or her disability claim has been left pending for longer than 6 months. For our troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, our bill would give a $1,000 bonus for those soldiers returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Lastly, the Democrats would extend the child tax credit to the hundreds of thousands of military families left behind by the Bush tax cut. I repeat that because I think it is important for the American people to know there is an alternative. No one can say that they did not have something that they could vote for to correct the inadequacies of the funding for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend when 15 soldiers were killed and over 20 were wounded, I watched as Mr. Rumsfeld and others attempted to respond to the press's questions about what had happened and what did they plan to do. I

sat in horror as I watched Mr. Rumsfeld say, I am sorry about what happened; I think this is a critical time for our American families who have soldiers who have been killed, but this is war and we should expect that people are going to lose their lives in war. We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and I am paraphrasing what he said, and we are not going to cut and run. These are the words that Mr. Rumsfeld and the President of the United States were using: we are not going to cut and run.

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk about making sacrifices when it is somebody else's child. I guess it is pretty easy to talk about we should expect that people are going to die. I am never comfortable with that kind of talk. I am never comfortable with the fact that any leader would try and sanitize the trauma of the death of our soldiers and speak about it in such a way.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that we do not see our soldiers' bodies being brought home. There are those who are saying that we do not see the bodies coming in because there is a plot and a plan by this administration to keep it out of public view, to not have the body bags returning in a way that Americans will focus on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that this administration can attempt to hide or to deny, to not allow the ceremonies to take place in honor of our soldiers as we have done in the past, but that is only going to anger the American public. Americans will not take kindly to dismissing the deaths of our soldiers. They will not take kindly to any attempts to change the protocol that we had gotten used to when we could, for a moment, stop and focus on the fact that lives had been lost and provide a ceremony in honor of them for all of the American public to see.

Mr. Speaker, while I am here talking about veterans, and I am trying to make the connection between how we can do better by those in Iraq than we are doing by those who have already served long before them, whether it was in the Vietnam War, whether it was in Desert Storm, whether it was in World War II, I am anxious to send a message this evening, and that message is that the people of this country want to see this administration and the Members of this Congress do better by our soldiers and our veterans. I am hopeful that we will not have to see our American people become so angry that they embarrass this administration and this President by demanding that we get the truth, that we understand exactly what is happening, that our soldiers are taken care of, that they are brought back in the traditional ceremonies that we have gotten used to. I want Mr. Rumsfeld and the President of the United States to look the press in the eye and show that they are truly sorry for the deaths that are being caused. I do not wish our leaders, whether it is the President or Mr. Rumsfeld, to just say in so many words: Get used to it. The sacrifices have to be made, that this is what war is all about and this is what we are going to be experiencing for some time to come.

Again, these are not the kind of words that people want to hear. This is not the kind of truth that the administration would like to confront. But as a Member of Congress, elected by the people to represent, I take this time leading up to Veterans Day to not only talk about our soldiers in Iraq but to say over and over again, we can do better by our veterans. We must do better by our veterans. Again, as it was said by the gentlewoman from Georgia, on Veterans Day, Members of Congress and leaders all across this country will be going to ceremonies. They will be at the veterans hospitals. They will be at the various VFW posts. They will be in places where veterans are. And they will talk about how they honor the sacrifices that our veterans have made. But what they will not talk about is what are we going to do to get the homeless veterans off the street? What are we going to do to create more cemetery space for our veterans? What are we going to do to reduce the long waiting times and the long waiting periods that our veterans are experiencing at our VA hospitals?

But, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful because of the Democrats, because of our bill, because we are saying what is possible, and we have laid it out in a very clear and concise way, that the veterans themselves in the middle of these ceremonies will look the Members of Congress and others in the eye and instead of allowing them to get away with the ceremonial side of this, will ask about the substantive side of the public policy issues and say: What are you doing to protect us or to provide services for us, to make sure that you respect the investments that we have made.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding, and I appreciate what the gentleman just said about our need to oppose this amendment.

I was baffled, a little bit stunned by the gentleman's amendment and cannot understand why he would single out Liberia and Sudan to be excluded. I think it is unwise. I think his motives are questionable, and I would hope that the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Wolf) caucus would follow his wise leadership and guidance and not allow an issue like this to create any kind of suspicion about anyone's motives. I know that on this floor we are not supposed to question our colleagues' motives, but this is kind of an unusual amendment that just jumps out at one; and, again, I do not understand why the gentleman is doing it, but I would like to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) thanks for opposing it.