Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I suppose most of the Members present here today heard the debate that we have just finished on H.R. 1701. My motion to recommit sends H.R. 1701 back to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to amend the bill in one key respect: to strike a provision in H.R. 1701 that preempts the States from applying credit or installment sales standards to regulate rent-to-own transactions. This is the provision that my colleagues heard the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) come to the floor and talk about today. It is because of that provision that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary decided to vote against the bill when this bill was marked up in the Committee on the Judiciary. I think that is a very important point. Mr. Speaker, I suppose most of the Members on the floor heard the debate. We talked about a lot of things that are wrong with the rent- to-own legislation, H.R. 1701. We spoke about preemption, abusive practices, about attempts to force the consumers to accept all of the liability on the contracts. But we talked mostly about preemption. Proponents of H.R. 1701 say that the bill does not preempt State laws, but they are absolutely wrong. Section 1018 of the bill expressly supersedes State laws that regulate rental purchase agreements as a security interest, credit sale, retail installment sale, conditional sale, or any and all other forms of consumer credit that treats a rental purchase agreement as the creation of a debt or extension of credit. Section 1008 of the bill also expressly supersedes State laws that require the disclosure of percentage rate calculation, including a time-price differential and annual percentage rate, or an effective annual percentage rate. Because of the bill's restrictions, rental- purchase transactions cannot be subjected to the State usury laws and finance charge limits, as well as APR and other disclosures. As a result, the bill preempts the strongest State laws in Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Vermont and prevents other States from adopting similar legislation in the future. Since 1997, legal actions responding to State consumer law violations have produced legal judgments or settlements against the Nation's largest rent-to-own chain amounting to $16 million in Wisconsin, $60 million in New Jersey, and $30 million in Minnesota. Why should Congress cancel out stronger State laws supported by all of the consumer groups and literally all of the States' attorneys general? Consumers need more, not less, protection from predatory financial practices. Mr. Speaker, the Members may not be paying attention, but they ought to. They ought to pay attention because we have just been roundly criticized because of what we did not do with major corporations in America. Many people pleaded ignorance that they had supported the efforts of Enron and WorldCom and Quest and all of those other major corporations that have been found to be gaming the system, corporations that put their pensioners at risk. People who were paying into their 401(k)s thought they had protected their future; but, in fact, they had been supporting their companies while the heads of those corporations, the majors in those corporations were literally exercising their stock options and getting richer and richer. Well, we can tell the American people that we really did not understand, that we really were not paying attention; but we cannot keep doing it. We cannot keep saying, oh, I made a mistake. Right on the heels of this great debacle in America, we find ourselves confronted with predatory lenders that come in all stripes and sizes. We know that the pay-day lenders are on every corner in inner cities and little towns and now lined up outside of our American Army bases where they are luring people in to get these small loans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3295 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Ms. Waters moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 3295 be instructed to take such actions as may be appropriate to ensure that a conference report is filed on the bill prior to October 1, 2002.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for yielding to me and giving me an opportunity to voice my support for House Concurrent Resolution 464. I was not here when the vote was taken. I was on a plane coming from Los Angeles. I had to stay in the district to take care of some very important problems there. I tried very hard to get from the airport here to the House floor so that I may take that vote, because I think it is so important for all of us to show that we really do care and we really do honor the memory of those who lost their lives and for those families who are making sacrifices, even today, because of the devastation that they are experiencing in their families and in their homes and in their lives. So I would like it to be known that had I been present for the vote on House Concurrent Resolution 464, Roll Call No. 384, I certainly would have voted yes. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for taking out extra time on the floor. Having done what we all should have done, and that is voted, the gentleman has remained here, because he had something additional that he wanted to say to the families and to the friends and neighborhoods and the communities. Just as I walked in, the gentleman was talking about what happened on that airplane in Pennsylvania when a decision was made by a vote ``to roll,'' to try and take the plane away from the hijackers, in an effort perhaps to prevent them from coming to this Capitol or to the White House. The gentleman is absolutely correct, we should never forget that, and we should all know and feel that we are very blessed because there were very brave people who decided to take a courageous action in the interest of saving lives. So I thank the gentleman for the extra time that he is putting into this.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall vote 384 on House Concurrent Resolution 464. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged and appalled by the continuing incarceration of Lori Berenson on charges of collaborating with terrorists in Peru. Lori Berenson is not a terrorist, nor has she ever collaborated with terrorists. She is an intelligent and caring young woman who is committed to justice. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently vindicated Lori Berenson. The Inter-American Commission came to the following conclusion: ``The Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees, of personal integrity, and of the right concerning the principle of legality to the detriment of Berenson, having judged her in the military court, submitting her to inhumane and degrading conditions of detention, starting a new trial conforming to Legal Decree 25475 (antiterrorist law), and permitting the evidence collected during the first [military] process with a value of proof in said [second] trial.'' Lori Berenson has been unjustly imprisoned in Peru for nearly seven years under the harshest possible conditions. She has never had a trial that respected her rights or met international standards of fairness and due process. Not only has Lori never wavered in her insistence that she is innocent of the charges against her, she was charged under the antiterrorist laws that the Inter-American Commission has deemed unacceptable. The Peruvian government is challenging the decision of the Inter- American Commission by filing a lawsuit against the Inter-American Commission at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Peru's lawsuit is mean-spirited and frivolous and will only result in the unnecessary further incarceration of Lori Berenson. In similar cases, the Inter- American Court of Human Rights has confirmed the rulings of the Inter- American Commission that Peru's antiterrorist laws violate the American Convention on Human Rights. These court decisions have resulted in the release of the defendants whose rights were violated. Lori Berenson's health has been damaged by her wrongful imprisonment. The Inter American Commission on Human Rights concluded that the conditions of her incarceration are ``degrading and inhumane.'' Continued incarceration while awaiting a decision of the Inter American Court will cause her needless additional suffering. Legal and humanitarian considerations require that Lori Berenson be released immediately. I urge the Peruvian government to set her free.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Turner amendment. This amendment provides a reasonable balance between the protections needed by the liability insurance market and the access to compensation needed by the public and certain industries, such as the airlines. The Turner amendment uses language which has received strong support from both sides of the aisle, language that was contained in the bill reported by the Committee on Government Reform. It provides a sensible alternative to the bill, and particularly to the Army amendment we just debated. H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act, only requires sellers to carry liability insurance to the extent that it is reasonably available from private sources at prices and terms that will not unreasonably distort the sales prices of sellers' antiterrorism technologies. That simply means that if a company cannot obtain insurance that is reasonably priced, it does not need to have any insurance whatsoever and victims cannot recover one penny for their injuries. Amazingly, the Army amendment is even worse. It would give total immunity from lawsuits for any kind of wrongdoing, including willful and malicious corporate misconduct. This is true so long as the designs for the antiterrorism products and services have been approved by the Homeland Security Department. The only exception is if the seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct prior to that approval. The seller is free to deceive the public or continue to market a product subsequently determined to be dangerous or defective. Even worse, the Army amendment protects corporate wrongdoers against all other kinds of lawsuits, so a buyer cannot sue the corporation for breach of warranty, breach of contract, public nuisance, or anything else. In other words, the corporation's protection allows it to make products that do not even work. The Army amendment protects the corporation against lawsuits by the injured victims and against lawsuits by the airlines or other groups who purchase the product. We do not need to be giving blanket immunity to all corporations. Too many companies are acting in ways that are contrary to the public interest, and too many of our constituents are suffering as a result. We should not pass such a Draconian amendment. What we should do is support the Turner amendment. This amendment maintains a cap on the liability of corporations, recognizing the importance of doing so in order to stabilize the liability insurance market. That stability makes it easier for corporations to obtain capital to develop technologies. The Turner amendment also includes an indemnity clause, such as the one used by the Department of Defense. This will enable victims to receive compensation from the government for costs that exceed the corporate liability cap. This is a good, balanced approach to the real problems we are facing as a Nation. Let us protect companies and compensate victims. Support the Turner amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Oberstar-Menendez amendment that deletes the deadline extension for airports to install explosive detection equipment. Since September 11, Congress and the administration have been consumed with fighting the war on terrorism. Congress has responded to all of the administration's requests, developed its own initiatives, and bent over backwards to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks. Today we are completely considering of H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act, a massive and complex piece of legislation, to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Members of Congress have been working hard on this legislation. Eleven standing committees of the House of Representatives have made individual recommendations on various aspects of the legislation in order to improve our Nation's ability to anticipate and prevent every conceivable type of potential terrorist attack. Now at the 11th hour, we are being asked to undo a critical provision of anti-terrorism legislation that we passed last year. We are being asked to extend for a whole year the December 31, 2002, deadline for airports to install explosive detection equipment. This equipment would allow commercial airlines to screen the baggage that is checked at the gate and loaded into the bellies of the airplanes. The deadline extension was not recommended by the committee of jurisdiction or the administration. Even if some airports are unable to meet the deadline, last year's law gives the Department of Transportation Administration the flexibility to have baggage screened by other means while the installation is being completed. These alternatives include positive bag matches, manual searches, and bomb- sniffing dogs. We must maintain the deadline in last year's law. We want every airport to make every effort to install explosive detection equipment as quickly as possible.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been a part of the conference committee, and we are finally legislating a corporate responsibility bill. It is long overdue, and if, in fact, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), our ranking member, had had his way on the House side, we would have had a tougher bill and we would have had it a long time ago. Unfortunately, even though I am very appreciative for the work that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) eventually did on this bill, if he had taken the leadership of our ranking member, we would have had this bill passed out a long time ago, and it would have been even tougher. This bill will make corporate CEOs and others responsible. They will have to sign the financial statements, and they will have to take responsibility. I participated in one aspect of the bill for disgorgement so that these people who are committing fraud will not be able to realize the gains that they would have, to put that money back into a disgorgement account. We are also, in this bill, curbing the practice of the insider loans. We are protecting whistleblowers. We are eliminating conflict of interest and setting up an independent board to oversee accounting firms. This is a good start. We are going to see more of the scenes that we are seeing with Adelphia where corporate giants who have committed fraud are going to be taken out in handcuffs. We are going to have to do more as the days roll along. We are going to find that there are more crimes being committed. I am very appreciative to the Democrats in this House for providing the strong leadership that was necessary to force the adoption of this conference report and this legislation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act, which would expand the size of Chicago O'Hare International Airport and undermine the rights of States and local communities to make decisions regarding local airport development. O'Hare expansion would destroy approximately 1,500 homes and exacerbate the pollution, traffic congestion and noise endured by residents who live near the airport and north of Chicago. O'Hare expansion is also opposed by residents of the south side of the Chicago region, because it would make the construction of a third regional airport virtually impossible. O'Hare expansion would deny the people who live on the south side of the Chicago region any opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits of having access to a local airport. H.R. 3479 would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the Federal Government to preempt State and local laws that could limit airport expansion. Such a precedent could prevent the people of southern California from developing a regional solution to our region's aviation needs. The people of my congressional district in southern California are already overburdened by the noise, pollution, and traffic congestion generated by Los Angeles International Airport. Other communities in southern California would like to attract service to their local airports. Legislation to impose LAX expansion would undermine southern California's efforts to ensure that the benefits and burdens of airport development are fairly distributed throughout our region. Last week I introduced H.R. 5144, the Careful Airport Planning for Southern California Act, known as the CAP Act. The CAP Act would cap LAX air traffic at its current capacity of 78 million passengers per year and would encourage airport development in southern California communities that actually want airport development. I urge my colleagues to support the CAP Act and oppose the expansion of Chicago O'Hare and LAX. Mr. Speaker, I join this debate because there is nothing worse than having the folks sit in Washington override the people in local communities and in the States, telling them what is best for them when in fact the people have a right to make those decisions in their own regions and in their own communities. I respect the right of the people of the south side of Chicago to talk about what is in the best interests of their area, of that region. If we are sincere about not trying to override local control, we will not allow this to happen. I would ask my colleagues to please oppose H.R. 3479. Someday it may happen to you in your area, in your region; and you would not want the Federal Government to put its foot on your hand and tell you what you can or cannot do.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, it is time to lift the embargo and stop the blockade. The Castro-haters took this floor tonight to talk about limiting travel. But Members of Congress go to Cuba whenever they want to go. People are going to Cuba from all over America. Jimmy Carter was there, the Pope was there. Let the other American people go who want to go. People talked about limiting the remittances, but Members of Congress go to Cuba and they take the money to their families, all of the money that they want to give to them. Let us be fair to all of the families in Cuba. Let us stop strangling the trade. Cuba wants to trade. Trade is the cornerstone of capitalism. Members say that is what they want. That is what Fidel Castro wants. It is time to allow our agricultural products and our medical products to be sold. China is there. Canada is there. Germany is there. American business people need the opportunity to be there. What is all of this fear? We do not really fear Fidel Castro. Lift the embargo.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very important piece of legislation. A supplemental appropriation is absolutely necessary to take care of the very important needs of this country and this world. It is absolutely important that we fight this war on terrorism and that we have the resources to do so, and to establish homeland security. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and others for the $200 million that they have appropriated for AIDS in Africa. This is extremely important. I know that it is very difficult to satisfy everybody with a bill like this, but I think we have done some good things with this bill: money for Israel, money for Afghanistan, money for the Palestinians, and money for Africa. If there is one request that I could have had in addition to all of this, it would have been to appropriate more money for the famine in southern Africa. We have about 13 million people who are at risk of starvation. Unfortunately, there has been a drought. Unfortunately, the grain silos are empty; and there are people in villages who are going to die. Even with the food resources that we are trying to get there, it will not reach there and the rains are going to set in in September or October. These people, whole families, babies, children who are now eating dirt and bugs, are going to die. So if there was anything else I would have done with this supplemental appropriation, it would have been to try and avert that famine that is taking place in six nations of southern Africa. Having said that, I appreciate the work of this committee, and I appreciate the manner in which they tried to take care of all of these very difficult problems. I am hopeful that that which we were not able to do relative to southern Africa, perhaps we can do it in the agricultural appropriations bill. Perhaps there will be some room there that we can find a way to get more money to those who are going to die of starvation unless we attend to it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, last week I was here on this floor for an hour speaking of the crisis in southern Africa, speaking about the famine, speaking about southern Africa's plight. Approximately 13 million people in southern Africa are in danger of starvation. Last week, I talked about the fact that people were resorting to eating whatever they could find, dirt, bugs, weeds, whatever could fill their stomachs. I talked about the depiction of this famine on ABC last week. I raised the question of why it has taken us so long to respond to what is now impending death in these six nations. I have asked over and over again for this issue to be addressed in the Congress of the United States. On July 18, the Secretary-General of the United Nations launched the consolidated national appeals for the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. The United Nations is requesting $611 million for immediate food, medicine, and other emergency assistance to respond to this crisis. This assistance is needed within the next 2 months. It cannot wait until next year. In the midst of this crisis, the administration is proposing to cut total funding for food assistance programs by 18 percent. This would reduce food assistance funds from over $2 billion in fiscal year 2002 to less than $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2003. This lower level of funding would have to provide for the continuing needs of Afghanistan as well as the emerging famine in southern Africa. On June 20, 2002, I sent a letter to the conferees on H.R. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, asking them to provide an emergency supplemental appropriation of $200 million to respond to the food crisis in southern Africa. This letter explained that an emergency appropriation is essential to enable the United States Government to provide desperately needed assistance to millions of starving people. Sixty-two Members of Congress signed my letter. Unfortunately, the conference committee reported the conference report for the supplemental appropriations act last Friday and provided not one dime, no additional assistance, for southern Africa. This conference report is scheduled to come to the House floor tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to recommit this conference report to the conference committee with instructions to add at least $200 million for famine relief for southern Africa. According to Mr. Kenzo Oshima, the United Nations Under Secretary- General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, there still is an opportunity to avert famine and save lives, but this window is closing rapidly. We cannot afford to wait until fiscal year 2003. We cannot even wait until Congress returns in September. We must recommit the conference report with instructions to add immediate funding for famine relief. The people of southern Africa need our help now. Mr. Speaker, today's Wall Street Journal includes an article on the United Nations' appeal for humanitarian assistance for the people of southern Africa. I submit this article for the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, we can wait and wait and wait and then all feel very sorry when we see dying people in southern Africa depicted on television in the next few months. Or we can do something about it now. I would ask my colleagues to please join me and recommit the conference report so that we can add the needed $200 million to avoid this devastation, this famine in southern Africa. U.N. Warns West to Act to Help Southern Africa Avoid Famine (By Michael M. Phillips) Washington.--Nearly 13 million people in southern Africa face imminent starvation unless the U.S. and other wealthy nations contribute more than $600 million in food, medicine and other emergency assistance over the next two months, the United Nations warned. Drought conditions have left six nations struggling to meet their food needs, but a bad situation has been turned into an impending disaster by the repressive policies of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, the U.N. said. ``It is not inevitable that people should die in substantial numbers,'' said Ross Mountain, the U.N.'s assistant emergency-relief coordinator. So far, donor nations have pledged roughly $170 million of the $611 million the U.N. says it needs by September if a famine is to be averted in Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The U.S. has pledged $98 million of that for food aid, and Mr. Mountain was in Washington to plead for more in meetings with the U.S. Agency for International Development and the National Security Council. The brewing famine is the worst the region has seen since a drought 10 years ago threatened 18 million people, the U.N. said. But today's situation may prove even more disastrous. One difference, the U.N. said, is that now the working populations of the countries involved have been gutted by AIDS. In Zimbabwe, for instance, HIV infects 35% of pregnant women, and many households are now headed by children or grandparents. Zimbabwe's government has pushed the region closer to the edge of catastrophe through policies that have devastated local food production and prevented private food aid from entering the country, the U.N. said. Mr. Mugabe, who kept power through an election widely criticized as rigged, has distributed white-owned commercial farms among his supporters--a politically popular but economically disastrous move in the view of the U.S., U.N., and other foreign entities. The government has barred food imports that don't go through official channels, the U.N. said. The crisis ``is very much complicated in the case of Zimbabwe by a number of policy decisions that have turned that country from one of the grain baskets of Africa into one of the basket cases of Africa,'' Mr. Mountain said. Zimbabwe needs about half of the assistance the U.N. is requesting. Sign Chavbonga, press counselor at the Zimbabwean Embassy in Washington, said the food situation is serious, but denied that government policies have worsened the effects of the drought. He said World Food Program aid is starting to reach drought-stricken areas.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I come this evening to talk about a very serious problem in this world. Last evening, I watched in horror as ABC, the Ted Koppel Show, depicted the food crisis in southern Africa. I watched as one woman was identified as having lost one of her twin babies to hunger, died from hunger, while the other baby was clinging to her breast, attempting to get milk that was not there. I watched as a man was shown sitting on the ground sifting dirt to eat, and the man said he was eating the dirt because it would fill up his stomach and help to do away with the hunger pains. I watched little children eating bugs and insects and others trying to find a morsel of some kind in the weeds. I watched all of this in horror because I have been working on this issue. I have met with Mr. Natsios on two different occasions. I went to the Committee on International Relations, even though I am not a member of that committee, but I wanted to sit in on a hearing that was being held about the food crisis in southern Africa. Mr. Natsios was there. I heard him testify, I believe at that time, that he was on top of it. Mr. Natsios is in charge of USAID, and he said that they were on top of it, that they were in front of it, that they had organized the food that was to be shipped there, and that they were not worried about people dying, that we would not have the kind of devastation that we had seen during the starvation crisis in Ethiopia some years ago. I was concerned about that, because at that time, I was getting information that people were already dying. But he said that he was on top of it. We had some of the agencies testifying there who are responsible for distribution of the food, but they seemed to talk in more cautious terms. They seemed to speak about this crisis with the hope that we would be able to keep people from starving and dying, but I did not hear the kind of confidence in their tone and in their voices that I was looking for. So I continued to monitor what was going on. Just last week I went to a meeting that was held where all of the ambassadors from the countries that are in crisis attended. There was the ambassador from Lesotho, from Malawi, from Mozambique, from Swaziland and Zimbabwe and, again, Mr. Natsios from USAID was at that meeting. I challenged him about our actions in these countries, told him of my concern, and I said to him that I was proposing to put $200 million in the supplemental appropriations bill to make sure we would have enough money for the grain and for the corn, for the food that we were going to dispatch to these hungry countries and get ahead of the curve so that when the rains come in October, we would not have to be worried about the trucks not being able to get where they needed to go. I wanted to get ahead of starvation so that we could get the food to the villages, so that we could get the grain in the grain storehouses. I wanted to avoid precisely what I saw last evening. I did not want ever in my life again to see the kind of starvation, the kind of death, the kind of devastation that I have witnessed too many times as I have watched the stories coming back to us from poor countries across this world. Mr. Speaker, I wanted the United States to be in the forefront of helping people in the world, and I want us to use the bully pulpit of this great Nation to say to other countries that can be of assistance that they must join. The Super 8 powers of the world, with all of the resources, must join together to help the poor people of this world. This is how people define us. This is how people determine whether or not we are caring people. As a matter of fact, this is the best kind of diplomacy that we could ever employ. When we show that we care about people, that we are willing to stop little babies from starving to death, that we are willing to lend a helping hand, I think it does more for us than silly negotiations where people are not getting anywhere or getting people to believe much of anything. Mr. Speaker, my grandmother always said, it is not what you say, it is what you do. So I watched in horror last evening for precisely that which I was trying so hard to avoid. It is not just I who was concerned about this issue. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and many others have begun to work on this in different ways. I know some people were trying to work over on the Committee on Agriculture. Some people have tried to work from within the Committee on International Relations, and we have gone to people sitting on the appropriate subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations to talk with them about this issue. So I know a number of people have been trying. So I certainly did not expect to see those images broadcast on ABC last evening. I certainly did not want to be told by a television program that people were already dying, and I did not want to see that the food is not getting up to the villages, and I did not want to see a woman who walked many miles to get a sack of grain that she placed on her head and walked back to her village with, only to have it distributed among all of the villagers, and she ended up with a 2-day supply, knowing that there would be no more food coming for another month or more. She will probably be dead by the time the next supply comes, and her babies will be dead. We could have avoided this. We could avoid this by, number one, making sure that we do what we can to appropriate the dollars that we can afford to appropriate, that we talk with the other nations that should be contributing, that we give some leadership to this problem. We know that we need some more money and we have a supplemental appropriation that is coming up, and we know that we are placing money in that supplemental appropriations bill for any number of countries. We know and we understand that there will be money in there for Afghanistan, and it should be. We know that there will be money in there for Israel, and it should be. We know that there will be money in there for many countries, because there are emergencies in the world. But why we have not been able to get the support from this administration to make sure that we can meet the needs of the food crisis of these very, very poor countries, I will never understand. As a matter of fact, when I said to Mr. Natsios at the last meeting that I wanted to know if he would support $200 million in the supplemental appropriation, he said flat out, no. And he followed it up with saying, you are not going to cause me to lose my job. Well, that simply means he does not have the support of this administration. I did not wish to come to the floor to have to talk about this. I have tried in the best fashion possible to address this at every possible point that one can inject an issue like this in the Congress of the United States. But Mr. Speaker, there is a food crisis and people are dying. The children of these countries are already dying. Southern Africa is facing its worst food crisis in nearly 60 years. Almost 13 million people in southern Africa are in danger of starvation. In Zambia, people have turned to some of the desperate measures that I have alluded to, and they are even eating potentially poisonous wild foods. The crisis, as I have identified, very much affects the people of Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. The effects of the food crisis has been exacerbated by the AIDS pandemic in sub- Saharan Africa. The AIDS pandemic has created many orphan children and left large numbers of African families with fewer productive family members to produce food or generate income with which to purchase food. Furthermore, high rates of HIV infection have caused many Africans to have increased vulnerability to the effects of malnutrition and related diseases, such as cholera and malaria. The World Food Program estimates that 1.2 million metric tons of food assistance will be needed over the next 9 months to meet the minimum food consumption requirements of these six countries. Yet, as of July 12, the United States government has provided a total of 132,710 metric tons, and that is about 11 percent of the need. Clearly, we can do more. In the midst of this crisis, the administration is proposing to cut the total spending on food assistance programs by 18 percent. This would reduce food assistance from over $2 billion in fiscal year 2002 to less than $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2003. There it is. This is what we did in 2001, $2,125,100,000; and in 2002, $2,021,500,000. But now, for 2003, we are only getting from the administration $1,652,000,000. This is unacceptable, and it is unexplainable. Furthermore, it is unconscionable. On June 20, 2002, I sent a letter to the conferees on H.R. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, asking them to provide an emergency supplemental appropriation of $200 million to respond to the food crisis in southern Africa. An emergency appropriation is essential to enable the United States Government to provide desperately needed assistance to millions of starving people. Sixty-two Members of Congress signed my letter, but I have not heard anything. Today, I brought this up in a meeting that was being held, I believe it was a whip meeting this morning. Most of the people in that meeting were alarmed, and they said they did not know about it and immediately said they wanted to do something to help. I went to the conference committee immediately following the whip meeting this morning, and I gave the information out once again. I have been told that, oh, I am a little bit late; that somehow, we cannot get back to that section, that we would have to take this up in the conference committee. I am not late. I sent this letter in June to this conference committee. I am not late. I had 62 Members of Congress sign this letter. I am not late because I went to the Committee on International Relations over 2 months ago. I am not late because I have been working on this issue long enough for this issue now to be taken up in the supplemental appropriations bill. Why are we not getting a response? We are not getting a response because I suppose people just do not pay enough attention to countries that are not politically powerful. I suppose Africa is still at the bottom of the list. I have lived long enough to see starvation on the continent. I have lived long enough to see 1 million people killed in a senseless war in Rwanda. I have lived long enough to watch this pandemic, where Africa is at the top of the world with HIV and AIDS infections. I am watching as we have worked so hard over the years to get rid of apartheid in South Africa, and still there are Africans who have no place to live, who are living up in huts, and even last night as they showed the people of Malawi living in grass huts, one little space for families with children, with nothing but a few pots and pans and dirt floors. Well, I said to myself a long time ago, I may be one person in the Congress of the United States, and I may not be able to get the assistance that Africa needs, I may not be able to convince my colleagues, I may not be able to get the appropriations, but I will never stop trying. I will never be quiet. I will never go away. I will never allow this kind of devastation to take place and pretend it is not happening. The people of Africa, many of them in many of these places that I am talking about may be poor, uneducated, may not have anything, and do not know how to lobby these major countries of the world. They may not have representatives that are doing the best job. But that does not matter. Those of us who are here who claim to care about people, who claim to be about the business of humanitarian assistance to the least of these, must speak out. We must talk about this starvation. We must talk about this devastation. Oh, yes, there are problems in Africa, and some of them are political. And, yes, they have, in some places in Africa, leaders who do not always do the right thing by their people. When we look at Zimbabwe and the problems they are having, there is a lot that we can criticize Mugabe for. But the little people who are hungry and dying are also at the mercy of the leadership. They are not making the decisions. They cannot be blamed for the sins of Mugabe and anybody else. The babies do not deserve that. The families do not deserve that. We cannot punish the hungry and the weak and the ignorant and the uneducated and the poor because they happen to have leaders that perhaps we do not like. We cannot ignore these countries because they do not have the sophisticated lobbying power and the communications and the ability to get people to act. I am challenging this administration to do the right thing. It is not enough to go to the big G-8 conference and stand with one leader from Africa, as was done recently, and talk about what we are going to do for Africa while we have a crisis going on. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: get the food to these six countries. Let us get some grain to the farmers, so they can plant the seeds, so they can get ahead of the famine. Let us give some support so they can dig the wells and have the irrigation. Part of what is wrong now in these countries is the fact that there is a drought. They have been devastated, first by flood, then by drought. Then, I want to know about the International Monetary Fund and why they told the leaders of Malawi to sell the grain to pay off their debt. I want to know why they are part of helping to drive this country into starvation. There are a lot of powerful forces at work in the world. Whether we are talking about the World Bank or the IMF or any of these entities, they can find a way to lend money to major corporations to build pipelines in Africa so American corporations can get richer and richer; but they cannot find a way to irrigate the land and to help bring water in so that people can have crops during times of crisis. We have not found a way to give agricultural assistance so we can fertilize the land and we can have the people plant the seeds so they can produce the food that they will need. So we have a crisis and people are dying. This administration must step forward and must provide some leadership; must use its prestige in the world to reach out to other countries and get them to do what they should be doing. I am going to talk about this ad nauseum. I am going to talk about it until I cannot talk about it anymore. I want to say to my colleagues that we cannot sit back and watch these images of dying children continue to come on television and say that we are legislators doing our job on the domestic and the international agenda. I know that we can do better than this. I know that we know it is a crisis. I know that Mr. Natsios now knows that he is not ahead of this problem. As a matter of fact, it is going to get worse. When the time comes, after the rains, when the trucks cannot get up into the villages, many, many people are going to die. So I come this evening to share this information and to sound the alarm, and to alert all those within my voice to join me in urging and pressing this administration, to join me in getting my colleagues to move, to join me in making this Congress what it could be and what it should be. I am very, very concerned, frustrated, and unhappy about what is going on; and I am not going to allow this frustration to cause me to walk away. Even though I will go to bed tonight dissatisfied, frustrated, and even upset, I am going to get up tomorrow morning and start all over again. I am going to get with my leadership again. I am going to talk with the leaders on the other side of the aisle. I am going to call Mr. Natsios and bug him one more time; and he is going to hear my sharp tones, as he did today, every day. I am going back to the supplemental conference committee. I am going to keep on working this at every turn until I can try and get a real response.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the United States government has a history of leasing lands belonging to Indian tribes and individual Indians. The government has been receiving grazing, timber and mineral royalties from the lease of these lands--royalties that the government was supposed to hold in trust for the rightful owners of the lands. Unfortunately, the United States government has admitted that it mismanaged these trust funds for decades and lost the money of our nation's first peoples. Federal courts have ruled that the government owes Indians an historical accounting of all Indian trust funds going back to the date the funds were deposited. This bill includes provisions to restrict the ability of the Federal government to provide an accounting of Indian trust funds. The bill even presumes that all trust fund records prior to 1985 were correct. These provisions defy court decisions and have no place in an appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to strike these unjust provisions and let Native Americans know what happened to their money.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps amendment to prohibit the use of funds for new oil drilling on 36 leases off the coast of California. Oil spills would devastate the sensitive marine environment of California's coast. The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 dumped over four million gallons of oil into the sea, killed thousands of animals, blackened beaches and decimated the local marine envirorunent. The coast took years to recover. California's economy depends upon the health of its coasts. Tourism brings in nearly $30 billion a year to our state, and the fishing industry is also important to our economy. California cannot afford the risks of offshore oil drilling. The people of California are strongly opposed to offshore oil drilling. Leases off the coasts of Florida, Alaska and North Carolina have already been terminated. It is time to terminate the California leases as well and respect the will of California's people. I urge my colleagues to support the Capps amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I do not delight in having to reveal that the Chairs of both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary just did not do their job. My friend on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), is a good chairman; and I suppose if he had had the support of his Republican conference perhaps he could have had a stronger bill; but the bill that we passed was just too week. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) never had an opportunity in the Committee on Financial Services to really get his amendments set forth in the way that he would like. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) did not even take up the bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) was trying so desperately, begging him to take up, so we could have a stronger response to corporate crime. Now we have an opportunity to instruct the conferees. The Sensenbrenner bill that surfaced yesterday does not do what we need to have done. It is not even in conference. As a matter of fact, they would want us to believe that it is tougher because they have some tougher sentencing, but all of the issues that have been identified here in the Conyers motion are what we all need to embrace. Unless we do it, we are not sincere about doing something about corporate crime.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why the American public does not trust the Members of Congress. We passed a bill out of the Committee on Financial Services that was not good enough. It was weak. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), refused to take up a good corporate responsibility bill that was headed up by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Now the Senate has passed out a pretty strong bill, and finally, this gentleman is a Johnny-come-lately with a bill on the floor that we have never heard in the Committee of the Judiciary. Do not be tricked or fooled by this. There is no reason to be here. If there is some concern, go to the Conference Committee where we have a House bill and a Senate bill to be reconciled, and try to get additional concerns put in. But to do it this way does not make good sense. We are undermining the process and trying to jump on the bandwagon at the last minute when the gentleman should have been leading on this a long time ago.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act, which would force airport expansion on a community in the Chicago region that is already overburdened by airport operations. The people of my congressional district in Southern California are overburdened by the noise, pollution and traffic congestion generated by Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Airport expansion would only exacerbate these problems. That is why I am introducing the Careful Airport Planning for Southern California Act (the CAP Act). The CAP Act would cap LAX air traffic at its current capacity of 78 million passengers per year. The CAP Act would encourage airport development in Southern California communities that are eager for the benefits of a local airport. The CAP Act would ensure that the benefits and burdens of airport development are fairly distributed throughout the Southern California region. I urge my colleagues to support the CAP Act, to oppose the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act and oppose the expansion of Chicago O'Hare and LAX.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Yet the U.S. government is blocking aid to Haiti in order to expand the influence of a single Haitian political party. This party, known as the Democratic Convergence, is supported by only a small fraction of the Haitian electorate. Nevertheless, the Democratic Convergence and the Organization of American States raised questions about the May 21, 2000, elections in Haiti. Meanwhile, Haiti's population is facing a serious humanitarian crisis. Haiti's per capita income is only $460 per year. Four percent of the population is infected with the AIDS virus, and 163,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS. Every year, there are 30,000 new AIDS cases. The infant mortality rate is over seven percent. For every 1000 infants born in Haiti, five women die in childbirth. Furthermore, there are only 1.2 doctors for every 10,000 people in this desperately poor country. Not only has the United States suspended development assistance to Haiti, the United States has been blocking loans from international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Inter-American Development Bank. U.S. policy has effectively prevented Haiti from receiving $146 million in loans from the Inter-American Development Bank that were already approved by that institution's Board of Directors. These loans are desperately needed by the people of Haiti. The Board of Directors of the Inter-American Development Bank recently agreed to send a special mission to Haiti to review conditions for the renewal of lending to Haiti. This mission, which will take place later this month, is purely technical. Its purpose is twofold. First, the mission's participants will reassess past loans to Haiti that are in arrears. Second, they will assess current efforts by the Haitian government to resolve the political crisis. Unfortunately, there is no indication that participants in this mission will discuss conditions for the restoration of loans or development assistance to Haiti. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has taken several steps to address the concerns raised by the international community regarding the May 21, 2000, elections. Yet the U.S. government continues to refuse to negotiate with the Haitian government. It is time for the United States to end this political impasse and restore development assistance to this impoverished democracy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for organizing today's Special Orders on Global AIDS. Over the past 5 days, the 14th International AIDS Conference has been meeting in Barcelona, Spain. The statistics that have been reported at the Conference are devastating. More than one in five adults in seven sub-Saharan African countries are already infected with HIV. In Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, the rate is one in three. The AIDS pandemic will cause a decline in life expectancy in 51 countries over the next two decades. This demographic effect is without precedent in modern times. Seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa now have average life expectancies of less than 40 years. By the end of this decade, 11 African countries will have life expectancies of less than 40 years. This is a level they have not experienced since the end of the 1800s. Sub-Saharan countries could lose 25 percent of their labor forces by 2002. At the Conference, there was overwhelming support for a $7-10 billion annual commitment to fight global AIDS. This worldwide commitment should begin with a commitment of $2.5 billion from the United States in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, the countries that attended the recent G-8 Summit offered only empty promises of more development assistance for Africa. We need to do more. On March 12, 2002, I sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee requesting a total of $2.5 billion in the fiscal year 2003 budget for bilateral and multilateral HIV/AIDS programs. Sixty-eight Members of Congress signed this letter, but our letter was ignored. I call on this Congress to provide $2.5 billion for the fight against global AIDS in fiscal year 2003.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act, which encourages the construction of airport capacity expansion projects at congested airports like Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). LAX is the third largest airport in the United States, serving approximately 65 million air passengers per year. Nevertheless, the operator of LAX had proposed a massive expansion plan that could have increased the airports' capacity to as many as 120 million air passengers per year. A diverse coalition of over 80 cities and several grassroots organizations, known as the Coalition for a Truly Regional Airport Plan, organized to oppose LAX expansion and support a regional approach to Southern California's air transportation needs. The proposed expansion of LAX would have had a severe impact upon the surrounding communities. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Report released by LAX expansion proponents, increased traffic in and out of LAX would have added 1,592 tons of pollutants per year to Los Angeles' air; an additional 7,150 persons would have been exposed to noise levels above 65 decibels; and inadequate noise mitigation efforts would have forced residents to remain indoors or move. Because of these negative impacts, many residents of the surrounding communities expressed strong opposition to LAX expansion. Furthermore, the proposed expansion of LAX would have interfered with the development of a regional solution to Southern California's air transportation needs. While the communities surrounding LAX have been forced to endure a disproportionate share of the region's air traffic, other communities are eager for the economic benefits of development at their local airports. The expansion of LAX would have made it extremely difficult for these communities to attract service to their local airports. Residents and businesses in these communities would have had no alternative other than to commute to an expanded LAX for their air transportation needs, resulting in an increase in traffic congestion on the streets surrounding LAX. Clearly, the proposed expansion of LAX would not have ended air transportation-related gridlock in the Southern California region. On April 18, 2002, I sent a letter to Chairman Mica and Congressman Lipinski, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, regarding the effect of airport streamlining legislation on the Southern California region. This letter, which was signed by three other Southern California Representatives, explained that we would oppose any legislation that would prevent the State of California and its regional and local governments from enacting a regional solution to our future aviation needs, including limiting or prohibiting the proposed expansion of LAX. Airport expansion should not be carried out over the objections of local communities. It would be both unfair and unwise for the Federal government to disregard local concerns or override the authority of state and local officials to plan local airport development. I strongly oppose H.R. 4481, the Airport Streamlining Approval Process Act. Airport expansion is a local issue. It should not be encouraged by the Federal government.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for taking this time out for us to come to this floor and talk about one of the biggest crises confronting this country today. I would like to start with an observation. Yesterday, the President of the United States of America was on Wall Street. He was up on Wall Street, and he was expected to give a very, very tough speech. He had signaled the press that he would give a very tough speech on Wall Street on corporate responsibility. Well, the President went to Wall Street, and it was staged very well. The curtain that hung behind him, the backdrop, had ``corporate responsibility'' written all over it, and he had great opening statements. Of course, before getting into the subject matter, he talked about terrorism and how we were hunting down the terrorists who seek to sow chaos, and talked about his commitment. And, of course, he got a big applause on that, because Americans are concerned about terrorism, and the President knows when he speaks about terrorism, especially in New York, where we experienced terrible devastation, that that will soften up any crowd. But then he went on into the speech, and many people sat watching, I am sure, as I did, wondering when was he going to get tough. He mentioned in the speech that we have learned of some business leaders obstructing justice and misleading clients, falsifying records, and business executives breaching the public trust and abusing power. He kind of talked about that, and the CEOs that he had learned about earning tens of millions of dollars in bonuses, but he did not call any names. He did not call any names, despite the fact that we had just come from the Committee on Financial Services, where we had the top management and ex-management of WorldCom before us. We had very well documented that there had been accounting tricks where the operating expenses had been moved over to the capital column, which made the bottom line look bigger than it was, and the company look healthier than it was. However, he did not call the name of Enron. He did not call the name of WorldCom. He did not mention the names of any of those who have been prominent in the news. He could not let it come out of his mouth. He could not say anything about Arthur Andersen and Tyco and Rite-Aid and Global Crossing and Xerox. I think people expected him to call names and to talk about what we really have learned thus far, and to talk about what we were going to do about it. But as we further examine the speech, we found that the President talked a lot about more bureaucracy. He is going to create a new corporate fraud task force, headed by the deputy attorney general, which will target major accounting fraud and other criminal activities in corporate finance. The task force will function as a financial crimes SWAT team, overseeing the investigation of corporate abusers and bringing them to account. Now, I am considered a liberal, a progressive. I am the one that they point the finger at and talk about creating bureaucracy. They say that people who believe as I do oftentimes do nothing but spend government money, create more bureaucracy, and we have to get rid of government; too much government. Not only did he create more bureaucracy in his speech, he asked for $100 million, $100 million to give to the SEC. Now, this is a conservative spending money. Well, of course, this President has shown since he has been in office that he sure knows how to spend money. We are back into a deficit situation. So he went to Wall Street, he talked about spending $100 million more, talked about creating again another task force, but I forgot to tell the Members, at the top of his speech he said to the business people who were there, do not forget, in so many words, I have done tax reform, and I am now making it permanent. So at the same time that he is spending money, he is talking about how he is going to allow them not to be able to pay more taxes. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, we have to get tough on corporate crime. We have to call it for what it is. We have got to put people in jail. They have to do some time. This business of having all of these stock options, this exorbitant pay, the severance pay, like the executive of Tyco who left with $100 million in severance pay, this business of corporate heads being able to borrow huge sums of money, like Mr. Ebbers, who got $408 million, we do not know what the terms are. We do not know if that was collateralized. All we know is they sit in the board rooms and they pass the money among themselves while the workers lose their jobs, the investors lose their investments, and the companies get driven in the ground. Enough is enough. No, Mr. President, you were not tough enough. You were not believable. You did not send the real signal. You did not do anything. As a matter of fact, Wall Street did not pay any attention to you. There was no rally. As a matter of fact, I think we lost some points on Wall Street after you spoke. Get real, Mr. President. If you want to get tough, the American people are waiting. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Serena Williams on her impressive win at Wimbledon. Over the holiday weekend, Serena beat her older sister, Venus, to win her third grand slam title but her first Wimbledon title. I congratulate the two sisters on a great match. Serena said she gained a lot of momentum from her French Open win, and it showed. In the end, Serena won in straight sets. With the win, Serena became the first woman to win the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back since Steffi Graf in 1996. The next day, the two sisters teamed up to win the Wimbledon Doubles Title over French Open champions, Paola Suarez and Virginia Ruano Pascual. While the weather did not look great, the skill these young ladies displayed certainly was. It was an entertaining match, but in the end the Williams sisters proved too strong for their opponents. They won 6-2, 7-5. With that win, the sisters' 2002 Wimbledon record was 19 wins and 1 loss. The one loss came when Venus lost to Serena in the Singles Finals. Serena now is ranked number one in the world. Venus, who previously was ranked first, is now second. They are quickly becoming the most dominant figures in tennis. They are extremely skilled, they can hit both forehands and backhands with pinpoint accuracy. And their serves are clocked at well over 100 mph. Venus and Serena enter each match well-prepared and confident, but the sisters always handle themselves with grace. What is perhaps most telling about them, though, is their love for each other. Even after battling it out on the tennis courts for nearly two hours, Venus said, ``Serena is my sister and I'm really happy she won, especially her first time. I would have loved to have won. At the same time, I'm so happy for her.'' These young ladies are true competitors, but also great individuals. Again, I would like to congratulate Serena on her win this past Saturday. I wish both of them, Serena and Venus, the best of luck in upcoming tournaments.