Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H. Res. 450, an unprecedented and undemocratic ``bill-in-a-rule'' on our nation's trade policy. Normally, the House passes a ``rule'' to specify the procedures for consideration of a bill. A ``rule'' for the consideration of a trade bill would determine how many amendments will be allowed and how long the debate will last before a final vote on the bill. H. Res. 450, however, is a ``rule'' that actually provides for the automatic passage of a 191-page trade bill. The Republican leadership is trying to force the Congress to pass a 191-page trade bill with no opportunity for amendments, no final vote on the bill and virtually no time for debate. This 191-page ``bill-in-a-rule'' includes the text of H.R. 3005, the Republican Fast Track trade bill that was passed by the House on December 6, 2001, by a one-vote margin. H.R. 3005 is a trade bill that would sacrifice labor and environmental protection in the name of free trade. H.R. 3005 would not require our trade negotiators to promote labor rights or protect the environment. It would not even require our trading partners to prohibit sweatshops, forced labor, child labor or slavery. Instead, it would allow our trading partners to weaken their environmental standards in order to gain a competitive advantage over the United States. It would also require our trade negotiators to expand the rights of foreign investors to sue governments and demand compensation for the impacts of public interest, food safety and environmental regulations. Clearly, H.R. 3005 would do more to promote corporate power than trade. The Republican leadership's ``bill-in-a-rule'' also includes several trade provisions that have never been considered by Members of the House of Representatives. This ``bill-in-a-rule'' cannot be amended and has never been considered by any House committee with jurisdiction over any aspect of our nation's trade policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ``bill-in-a-rule'' that attempts to expand corporate power without committee hearings, markups or amendments and only one hour of debate on the Floor of the people's House.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I enter my objection and opposition to this irresponsible bill that will do nothing to help the senior women of this country. Every day, millions of American seniors are forced to choose between buying prescription drugs and buying food. The Republican leadership in Congress has responded to this crisis with H.R. 4954, a prescription drug bill that does nothing to help them. The Republican bill would force seniors who want prescription drug coverage to get it from private insurance companies, but the bill provides no guarantee that insurance companies will offer prescription drug policies. Even the Health Insurance Association of America has admitted that insurance companies will not offer drug-only policies. So the Republican plan is guaranteed to fail. Furthermore, even if prescription drug policies do become available, the premiums, deductibles and co-payments will vary widely. Low-income seniors could be denied the drugs they need if they cannot afford the co-payments. For many middle-income seniors, the benefits would be so limited that it would not be worthwhile for them to enroll. H.R. 4954 is a poor excuse for a prescription drug plan for our nation's senior citizens. The Democrats have proposed a prescription drug plan that would provide a guaranteed prescription drug benefit under Medicare to all seniors who want one. This bill would ensure that all seniors who choose to participate would pay the same low premiums and receive the same benefits. Beneficiaries could choose to obtain their prescriptions from any willing pharmacy and would be guaranteed coverage for any drug their doctor prescribes. Premiums and co-payments would be waived for seniors who are living under 150% of the poverty level. The bill would use the collective bargaining clout of all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate fair and reasonable drug prices. Finally, no senior would have to pay more than $2 thousand per year in out-of-pocket expenses for the prescriptions they need. It is time that Congress make prescription drugs available to all seniors who need them. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4954 and support the Democratic plan to provide guaranteed prescription drug coverage to all seniors who desire it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 247, I was unavoidably detained and could not reach the chambers to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Williams sisters on their magnificent play during the 2002 French Open. The two sisters, Venus and Serena, met recently in the finals of the French Open and provided an exciting game for us to watch. In the end, Serena defeated her big sister in straight sets, 7-5, 6-3 to become champion. It was a great match and I look forward to watching them compete in the future. I would not be surprised to see them competing against each other in other finals over the next few years. Recently, Venus was ranked number one in the world by the Women's Tennis Association. And Serena was ranked number two. It is the first time sisters have ever held the top two spots in the world. It is quite an accomplishment. Venus and Serena have dominated the tennis scene since they arrived in 1994 and 1997, respectively. Together, they have won over 27 tournaments and six grand slam titles. When Venus won the 2000 Wimbledon championship, she became the first female black champion since 1958 when Althea Gibson won the title. In the same year, she teamed up with her sister to win the doubles championship. Venus went on to win Wimbledon last year and is the top ranked woman this year. She also won the Olympic gold medal for singles and doubles in the Sydney Games. To win the Olympic doubles gold medal, she paired up with Serena. The two sisters overwhelmed the competition with power and hard work, winning the gold medal match 6-1, 6-1. With that victory, Venus became the first woman, since 1924, to win the gold in singles and doubles competition. Serena is also quite accomplished. She has fifteen career wins under her belt. As I mentioned, she won her second Grand Slam title at the French Open this year, her first coming at the 1999 U.S. Open. When she won that title, Serena became the lowest seed to win the women's title in the Open era. She is ranked number two at Wimbledon this year. So it appears that most expect the sisters to reach the Wimbledon finals this year. If it does happen, it would be the third all-Williams Grand Slam final in 10 months. And their seventh championship in the past 12 Grand Slam singles events. In closing, I wish Venus and Serena the best of luck at Wimbledon and offer my sincere congratulations to them for their remarkable achievements.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to offer my congratulations to Tiger Woods. Over the weekend, he won the 102nd U.S. Open, held this year at Bethpage Black Golf Course. The victory did not come easy. A strong field started the tournament on Thursday and the players had to fight through three days of torrential rain. The course, the longest in U.S. Open history, was also regarded as among the most difficult courses ever played. But Tiger's poise and concentration, as well as wealth of talent, helped him through the week. He managed to shoot a 277, three under par. Tiger was the only golfer of the 155 that competed, who managed to finish under par. With the victory, Tiger's tally of major tournaments won climbed to eight. He has won six of the last nine major championships, and seven of 11--an unbelievable streak. Despite all his accomplishments, Tiger is still aiming higher. He now says he wants to win all four majors in the same year, a grand slam-- something that has never been done before. But, I'm certain with Tiger's discipline and talent he will accomplish this as well. So as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to congratulate Tiger in his most recent victory. I would also like to congratulate and thank Tiger for being such a positive role model for our nation's children. He is a great inspiration for them. Lastly, I would like to wish him good luck in his efforts to win the grand slam and achieving all the other goals he sets for himself. He is a tremendous athlete and fine individual and deserves all the best.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), in order to celebrate the 30-year anniversary of title IX. I would like to take this moment to thank her for her leadership, for what she has done for girls and women in this country. This month, we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the passage of title IX of the education amendments of 1972. The achievements we have made since then are impressive and worth celebrating. The percentage of bachelor's degrees awarded to women has increased from 44 percent in 1971-1972 to 56 percent in 1997 and 1998. The percentage of doctorates awarded to women has increased by nearly 30 percent, from 16 percent in 1971-1972 to 42 percent in 1997-1998. Women and girls have made strides in athletics, also. In 1971, girls comprised a mere 7 percent of high school varsity athletes. Last year, the figure had increased by 847 percent, to 41.5 percent of all athletes. At the college level, the change is also very dramatic. There was a 403 percent increase between 1971 and 2001 in the participation of women in intercollegiate sports, from 2 percent in 1971 to 43 percent just last year. Meanwhile, men's participation levels at both the high school and the college level have also increased, contrary to reports that imply the gains for women have come at the cost of losses for men. Improvements have also been made within the government. Until recently, only four Federal agencies had complied with the requirement that they issue rules regarding title IX. However, in August 2000 the Department of Justice issued final regulations for 20 Federal agencies. These new regulations provide Federal executive branch agencies with the means to enforce title IX's prohibition against sex discrimination. Unfortunately, not enough has changed. There are continued efforts to diminish the gains women and girls have made under title IX. For example, critics of title IX argue that colleges and universities have been forced to eliminate men's teams in order to fund women's teams. This ignores the fact that women's teams have been cut, too, as needed by school budgets, et cetera. The argument also dismisses the fact that in 1999, for example, men's sports and intercollegiate athletics received greater funding across the board. Disparities existed for scholarships, recruiting, head coach salaries and operating expenses. In some categories, the funding for men was twice that of women. Other efforts to dismantle title IX include funding cuts and a rise in lawsuits, seeking to roll back title IX protections. Recently, the National Wrestling Coaches Association and other groups filed suit to challenge the United States Department of Education's interpretations of title IX. While I applaud President Bush's call to seek dismissal of this suit, I am dismayed that the President has not been supportive of title IX in other ways. For example, President Bush's 2003 budget allocates no funding to the Women's Educational Equity Act, which is the only Federal program specifically focused on increasing educational opportunities for females. In addition, the Republican presidential agenda for the 2000 election included attacks on title IX and gender equity, and while women and girls have gained a great deal since 1972, there are still gaps in every area. Wage parity has not been achieved. The average salary for women professors in 1971 was $11,649, only 91 percent of women's average of earnings at that time of $12,768. Thirty years later, the average salary for women full professors had fallen to a mere 88 percent of men's earnings. Women associates and assistant professors earned only 92 percent of what their male counterparts earned. These salary gaps exist for teachers and principals in elementary and secondary education as well. Women continue to lag in educational degrees received. We are underrepresented in traditionally male fields such as math and science, ones that have greater earning potential. For example, women earn only 39 percent of physical science degrees, 27 percent of computers and information sciences degrees and 18 percent of engineering degrees. This disparity is even greater in doctoral degree programs. There, women received only 26 percent of doctorate degrees in mathematics, 16 percent in computers and information sciences, and 12 percent in engineering-related technologies. Not only does this negatively affect the women themselves, but also it creates a void for young girls who need role models in these fields. Females are also underrepresented in athletics. We are drastically underrepresented in coaching positions and as athletic directors. Even head coaches of women's teams are filled by males more often than by females, in Division I, II and III schools. Girls still have 30 percent fewer opportunities to participate in high school and college sports than boys. When viewed in light of all of the positive attributes of physical activity, including psychological, sociological and physical benefits, this lack of opportunity is troubling. As we stand here today, we can be pleased and proud of the progress that has been made in attaining gender equity in education, employment and athletics, but we must not forget that the journey certainly continues and that we must persevere in seeking equal opportunities for all women and girls. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that it is often said that one person cannot really make a difference, that unless we have millions upon millions of people moving perhaps at the same time, nothing is going to change, but I am standing here looking at one woman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). Long before I came to the Congress of the United States, I was working with the gentlewoman, and I know about her efforts at that time, and if it had not been for the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), we would not have the progress that we have today with title IX. So in addition to celebrating this anniversary, I stand here to commend my colleague and my friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for being the leader in this area.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight the importance of Social Security to millions of individuals and their families. Social Security is the Nation's most successful antipoverty program. It has lifted over 11 million seniors out of poverty. The program has been especially important for women. Sixty percent of all Social Security recipients are women. Nearly two-thirds of all women 65 and older get half or more of their income from Social Security. Nearly one-third of those receive 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security. Without Social Security, the poverty rate for elderly women would be more than 50 percent. It is currently about 12 percent. While this statistic is still too high, it shows how important the program is. But the President and some Members of Congress want to fundamentally change Social Security, preventing Social Security from carrying out its important role. The President and other supporters of privatization are using the program's long-term financial problems to advance their political agenda. The President suggests that by allowing individuals to divert part of their payroll taxes into private accounts, Social Security will return to firm financial footing and will still be able to continue helping recipients. However, this simply is not true. Privatization will harm Social Security, leaving the well-being of millions of people uncertain. Privatization will likely result in benefit cuts and increase the retirement age for individuals. In early 2001, the President announced the formation of a commission to develop a plan to strengthen Social Security. The commission's report advocated three plans, all of which would allow for some level of private accounts. What the report fails to mention, though, is that all three plans have significant drawbacks. For example, accounts would likely lose 20 to 40 percent of their value due to administrative charges and management fees. Therefore, senior citizens would have less money at retirement. I am also concerned that individuals would be exposed to significant risk under privatization. Under current law, an individual's benefits are determined by their earnings and payroll tax contributions. He or she is guaranteed a monthly benefit, adjusted for inflation, for life. Under the President's plan, individuals would be required to play the stock market, exposing themselves to the whims of the market. A person would then have to pick the right time to retire. No matter how skilled an individual is in reading the market, he or she should not have to gamble with retirement savings. This is unfair. It leaves too much up to chance. We are not trying to scare our senior citizens. Rather, we want to provide them with both sides of the argument. While Social Security's financial outlook needs to be made more certain, we should not rush to embrace a particular solution that may end up being worse than the current system. As Congress proceeds with this very important debate, we should be providing our seniors with facts, not lofty promises about reforms. Our seniors deserve no less.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report on S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. The purpose of the Export-Import Bank is to create American jobs for American workers. Unfortunately, the Bank has a history of providing assistance to companies that have been exporting American jobs and hiring cheap, foreign labor. For example, the Export-Import Bank insured a $3 million loan to help General Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make parts for appliances that will be exported back to the United States. As a result, 1,500 American workers will lose their jobs to Mexican workers who will be paid only two dollars per hour. When the House of Representatives considered its version of the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act, an amendment was offered to ensure that the Bank does not subsidize companies that are exporting American jobs instead of American-made products. Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted. I am especially concerned by the fact that the Conference Committee deleted the Office on Africa provision from the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act. The House version of this legislation included a requirement that the Export-Import Bank establish an Office on Africa to monitor Export-Import Bank lending for projects in African countries. This provision was supported by both the Financial Services Committee and the full House of Representatives, and there was no reason for the Conference Committee to delete it. I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today we spent much of the day talking about raising the debt limit. I think for most Americans, much of this debate, was difficult to follow because it focused on House procedure. What I would like to do is try to explain why this debate will have a negative effect on Social Security. Currently, the Federal government does not have enough money to run its day to day operations. There are many reasons for this, including: a decline in the economy, a reduced tax revenue, the burst of the stock market bubble, and the President's $1.7 trillion tax cut from last year. In order to meet its obligations, the government borrows money. Much of the borrowing comes from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, since it currently takes in more money than it pays out in benefits. So the government writes an ``IOU'' for the trust fund and uses the money to pay for its operations. Currently, this is not a big deal. However, beginning in 2017, Social Security will pay out more than it takes in. In 2041, the trust funds' reserves are exhausted--in other words there is no more money to pay full benefits. The money the Federal government takes in will only pay for 73 percent of benefits. Now here is where the debt ceiling comes in to play. The Federal government will need to borrow money so that it can continue paying for the Nation's defense, improvements to the roads, improved schools and teachers and many other things. It will also have to borrow to allow the government to continue paying full benefits for Social Security recipients. The debt ceiling limits the amount of money the Federal government can borrow. If we raise the ceiling today, we will have to pay off a larger debt, we will have to pay more in interest, we will have to use more of the trust fund to finance the day-to-day operations of the government. This makes it nearly impossible to address the needs of Social Security that millions of people depend on. If we do not address Social Security, women will be particularly affected. Sixty percent of all Social Security recipients are women. And without Social Security, over half of all elderly women would be poor. Nearly two-thirds of all women 65 and older get half or more of their income from Social Security. Nearly one-third of those receive 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security. On average, women spend about 14 fewer years in the workforce than men because of pregnancies and raising children. Therefore, our pensions tend to be smaller. But Social Security's spousal benefits protect us, ensuring that we have enough to get through retirement. Social Security's progressive benefit formula provides women, and others, with benefits that are a higher percentage of their earnings. So despite a lifetime of lower earnings--on average, women earn 73 cents for every dollar that men earn--we will have adequate income for retirement and will live at a comfortable level. And, since women generally live 6 to 8 years longer than men, we need to receive benefits for a longer period of time. Under the Social Security's benefit formula, women will receive benefits for as long as they live. We do not need to worry about out- living our personal savings, which is a huge comfort for many us. In short, Social Security is a vitally important program. It allows millions to retire in dignity and comfort. Raising the debt ceiling makes it harder for the Federal government to meet its obligations. We are, in effect, asking that our children and grandchildren increase their taxes, cut benefits and raise the retirement age for millions of potential beneficiaries so that we can avoid taking responsibility. It is just plain unfair.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this substitute because the legislation, H.R. 3129, as introduced, needlessly expands the scope of Federal authority and threatens the protection of civil rights by granting broad search immunity to customs agents and by allowing warrantless searches of outgoing international U.S. mail. We have said over and over again that we support efforts to give protection to customs agents; and when they talk to the Members of Congress about their need for protection, they were not in any way saying that they did not have some immunity. What they were saying is they wanted to get through the courts faster. This bill goes far too far, and it is unfortunate that the majority has not been able to discuss or compromise on the critical issues of racial profiling and privacy that are raised in this legislation. This substitute does address those civil liberties questions and retains the portion of the bill that fairly addresses issues of border security. It has been consistently stated by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others that the existing doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil damages if their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person should have known. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the reasonableness of an officer's behavior, not the subjective good-faith standard used in this legislation, is the proper test for liability. What the Customs Service has complained about is the pace of trial through the Federal courts. Bluntly stated, they want the cases against their agents disposed of faster, like every other civil litigant in the country. This bill's response in section 141 is the creation of a broad category of immunity, unavailable to any other law enforcement officer. That provision is both unnecessary and dangerous to the rights of the public who deserve their day in court to protect against racial profiling and other illegal and unconstitutional searches by the Customs Service that have been highlighted in recent GAO studies. It is important to note that the Customs Service has argued that section 141 of this legislation would apply retroactively and result in the dismissal of a host of lawsuits, many of which were brought by African American women, who are contesting the legality of disparate, intrusive searches documented by the GAO. When viewed in that light, this provision looks less like a tool to address terrorism than a broom to sweep away troublesome cases that raise issues of questionable conduct and policy. The substitute replaces section 141's grant of immunity with an exclusive remedy against the government for the actions of customs agents who act within the scope of their authority. This compromise fairly balances the interest of customs agents who follow policy with the interests of those aggrieved persons who have been the victim of questionable searches. With respect to privacy interests, the authors of this bill have completely failed to make a case for weakening the legal standard for the search of U.S. mail. Under current law, the Customs Service is empowered to search, without a warrant, inbound mail handled by the United States Postal Service and packages and letters handled by private carriers such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service. The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons, shipments, drugs, or other contraband inbound or outbound is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant when it has probable cause. Short of an emergency, postal officials can always hold the package while they wait for the court to issue a warrant. The U.S. Postal Service has even taken the position that there is no evidence that eroding these long-established privacy protections will bring any significant law enforcement improvements over what is achieved using existing statutorily approved law enforcement techniques. In short, experts from the postal service have determined that this provision is unnecessary. As we search for increased security, we must remain mindful of the fact that our civil liberties are a precious resource, and ensure that freedom is not a casualty. We believe the Rangel substitute strikes the appropriate balance between civil liberties and security by correcting deficiencies in H.R. 3129 as introduced, because increased security should not come at the cost of our constitutional rights. Of course, I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Rangel substitute. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I am.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thought we had the right to close. The Rangel amendment, the substitute states that Customs inspectors are not liable for civil damages for suits brought in connection with a personal search. However, the bill does state that the U.S. Government consents to be sued and to be held liable for civil damages for suits brought in connection with the wrongful personal search. I think it is necessary for me to say that because I think there is some confusion about what this amendment does. Before I talk about this amendment any more, I think it is important for me to clarify that there are many good things in this bill. This bill includes good legislation, all of which we include in the substitute. This bill includes important authorization for appropriations such as providing Customs with funding above the administration's request and equals that provided in the appropriations process. Most of the increased funding allows for an authorization of $308 million for each fiscal year to ensure that the Customs automation system will be developed in a timely fashion, providing USTR with more than requested by the administration and providing the International Trade Commission with its full fiscal year request. The bill also authorizes such sums as needed to reestablish New York Customs headquarters and operations. Finally, the bill authorizes $1.3 million for Customs to hire additional personnel to assist ATOA beneficiaries to comply with visa and textile transshipment requirements. The bill also includes provisions that will help ensure the safety of our borders, including requiring all carriers to file an electronic manifest describing passengers and cargo before entering the country. So I do not want anyone to get the idea that somehow because we have a substitute that we have ignored those parts of the bill that we think are good, but we think that it is very important for us not to jump on the bandwagon of undermining the civil liberties of American citizens in the name of fighting terrorism. We believe in fighting terrorism, but we do not believe that we undermine or waive the Constitution of the United States to do so. Let me just say that our Customs agents have all of the authority that they need to do the searches that they want to do, that they are protected with qualified liability, and they do not need to have this bill which, in fact, goes far beyond anything that they have requested. Let me remind the Members of this Congress that with this authority, with this protection, we do expect our agents to be careful and to be reasonable. They have the ability to strip-search. My colleagues heard the GAO study. We are not making this up. The GAO study talked about the fact that African American women are searched much more than other women. It talked about the fact that African American women have much less contraband, despite the fact they are searched more. While there are those who are willing to throw out the Constitution, I suspect they are only willing to do it until their wife comes through, or their sister, or their neighbor or their friend, and is strip-searched in ways that they cannot believe is reasonable. Let me just say that this bill will transfer the liability from the individual agents to the government where it belongs. There are many people who work for government and are agents of the government of the United States and they do not have to accept the liability, that it is on the shoulders of the government of the United States, and that is the way that it should be. I think that the case has been made here today. I think that these issues were brought up in committee. We see the dissenting views of those who signed a letter indicating their dissenting views, and I would say that not only has the case been made but that the Members of the Congress of the United States should not go throw out the Constitution of the United States in an effort to deal with terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to continue to deal with the question that is before us. I think the gentleman misunderstands. The fact of the matter is the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) explained that we are not stripping away the protection. They will have immunity from liability. We are taking the liability and placing it in the hands of government rather than on the individual that would have made that decision who thought that it was a reasonable decision at that time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment to H.R. 3994, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, but first I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for the work that they have done to bring this comprehensive piece of legislation to the floor. I think it has been well structured and that it speaks well to our intentions. And I think that the people of Afghanistan, for the most part, are going to be very, very pleased to receive the assistance that is so indicated in this bill. Madam Chairman, my amendment would ensure that the United States government policies in Afghanistan work to eliminate the harmful trafficking and illegal drugs that destroy communities throughout the world. My amendment has been structured so that it is in 4 sections. The amendment would prohibit foreign assistance to any Afghan agency, organization, warlord, or other individual who is engaged in poppy cultivation or the growth, production, or trafficking of illegal drugs unless there is an agreement to cease all poppy cultivation or drug trafficking activities. I know this portion of my amendment is going to present some concerns, because, on the one hand, how do you uplift this devastated nation and begin to get them out of poppy cultivation; how do you deal with the many factions who have been involved in the cultivation as the only way that they know to earn a living and, at the same time, say to them that we will not help them if they are involved? This portion of the amendment would simply say that we raise it as a concern and have people respond to say, okay, I will not do it any more. And that allows them to get the assistance that we would like to give them. This does not prohibit this country from exercising its assistance, but it simply gets all of those agencies and individuals understanding that this is a top priority of this government; that we would like to stop the cultivation and trafficking of illegal drugs. That is section 301. Section 302 would prohibit Federal officers and employees who are involved in the provision of assistance under this bill from encouraging or participating in drug trafficking activities in Afghanistan. It would also prohibit the use of American aircraft and any other vehicles to facilitate the distribution of poppies and illegal drugs. There are some people who would look at this portion of my amendment and say, well, no one representing our country would be involved in assisting with drug trafficking, no one would use our aircraft, no one would be involved in distribution. Let me just say to my colleagues, we all know enough now about trafficking and illegal drugs to know that many innocent people get caught up in drug trafficking because it is so lucrative. Many folks just lose their sense of what they are all about when they get thrown into situations where there is drug trafficking all around them, and some are tempted to take a chance, to try something. We want to send the message that we do not want anybody that we are putting on the ground in Afghanistan to take a chance, to be tempted to get involved. The other portion of the amendment would require all Federal officers and employees who are involved in the provision of assistance under this bill to report known or suspected drug trafficking activities by recipients of foreign assistance in Afghanistan to the appropriate authorities. Why am I doing this? Because I try and learn from our experiences. I spent almost 3 years dealing with the drug trafficking aspect of the war that we were engaged in when the Contras were fighting the Sandinistas down in Nicaragua. We discovered several things: We discovered that the warring factions on both sides, the Contras and the Sandinistas, were involved in drug trafficking, and we kind of turned a blind eye. It was just a way of doing things.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for taking on a very difficult issue. It is very easy for all of us to stand here and talk about how we will do anything to protect our children. We are parents and we are grandparents; and of course we are concerned about predators and placing our children at risk, and we know that the Internet opens up opportunities that we never dreamed of. However, I am taking the floor today to say to my colleague that I appreciate the very difficult work of trying to focus us on the fact that there is a Constitution and that there are hard-won gains in civil rights and civil liberties that we must always be reminded of. This is very tough work, and we do not have all of the answers. But we do have some Members of this Congress who are courageous enough to talk about what it means to live in a free society and what it means to live in a police state where one is being wiretapped, where one is under surveillance, where one is being wiretapped and one is not even aware of it because we keep expanding and expanding and expanding the ability to be wiretapped and to have our citizens under surveillance. Let me remind all of my colleagues, even though this bill is going to pass, and it is going to pass almost with every Member of Congress supporting it, because we wish to show that we want to protect our children, let us not forget that when those people came to the shores from Britain, they came because they wanted to get out from under tyranny. They wanted to get away from the fact that they could not speak and they could not be free from being under police watch all of the time. So I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his attempts to at least keep us focused.