Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3763. I truly believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the committee, had good intentions, and I appreciate that he accepted one of my amendments on the disgorgement fund at SEC. However, the bill simply does not respond to the outrageous and corrupt behavior of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing, and perhaps many other corporations and Wall Street firms. What more harm to our citizens will we tolerate? This bill does not recognize the wake-up call we have been afforded. This bill will not prevent another Enron from happening. Unfortunately, there are major problems with the larger bill which does not offer strong enough protections to prevent what appears to be a growing number of unscrupulous corporate practices. Instead of instituting real accounting reforms, the Republican bill leaves the bulk of the work to the SEC, who can be pressured by the industry into issuing so-called reforms that are meaningless. The Democratic substitute, however, creates a powerful new regulatory board with authority to set strict standards on auditors, with strong investigative and disciplinary powers, recognizing that years of the accounting industry's self-policing has failed. The Republican bill fails to ban consultant services that create conflicts of interest. The Democratic substitute ensures auditor independence by prohibiting consulting services that create conflicts of interest, and gives audit committees of corporate boards authority to hire and fire auditors. The Republican bill protects executive corporate wrongdoers by making it more difficult to bar guilty officers and directors from serving at other public companies. The Democratic substitute holds CEOs accountable for their financial statements and subjects them to criminal penalties for knowingly lying. It requires those who make false or misleading statements to surrender their stock bonuses, and it also bars guilty officers and directors from serving at other public companies. The Democratic substitute bars analysts from holding stock in the companies they cover and ending incentives to act as salesmen rather than objective experts.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today, we are voting on H.R. 3839, ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act.'' Preventing child abuse, providing family support to decrease the numbers of abandoned infants, and establishing transitional housing for domestic violence victims are all critical pieces of keeping people safe. Making sure they have adequate food is another. Congress has an opportunity to do just that through the Farm Bill. Last week, Rep. Baca introduced a Motion to Instruct the Conferees to restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. It would allow children to be eligible for food stamps regardless of when they entered the U.S., and to reduce the work requirement for adults from 40 quarters to 16 quarters. I support this Motion to Instruct and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Nationwide, 37 percent of all children of immigrants lived in families that had trouble affording food. In 1999, the incidence of food insecurity in immigrant households was almost three times that of White non-Hispanic households. Extensive research has shown that children who do not have adequate diets have poor health, slow development, and difficulty concentrating in school. This Motion to Instruct does not take an extreme stance. We're talking about legal immigrants. These are people who work hard, pay their taxes, and contribute a great deal to our Nation. The Motion to Instruct also requires people to work 16 quarters, or approximately four years, before they can become eligible for food stamps. Importantly, restoring benefits to legal immigrant children will also help reach citizen children. Over 85 percent of immigrant families are ``mixed status'' and include at least one citizen child. Seventy-four percent of those families left the food stamp program from 1994 to 1998. Once someone has come in legally, and has worked hard to support this economy, they should be entitled to a little support for their families and their children. They should be eligible for food stamps. While we're working at keeping children and families safe, let's not forget that adequate food is the first step. Support the Baca Motion to Instruct the Conferees.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight the importance of Social Security. Social Security is important to millions of people, but it is particularly important to women and I think that it is so very, very important that we as women in the Congress of the United States pay very special attention to what is happening to Social Security. I would like to thank my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for organizing this hour for us to talk about Social Security. It is very important that we talk about it, and particularly because we will have a vote tomorrow to make the tax cuts permanent. We take Social Security for granted. Many people think, well, it has been there for a long time and it will always be there, and most people know that Americans depend on the fact that Social Security will be there for them in retirement. The poverty rate for Americans age 65 and older is 1.2 percent. The poverty rate for elderly women is almost 12 percent, nearly double that of men. While this number is tragic, it could be worse. Without Social Security, over half of all women aged 65 and older could be poor. According to the National Women's Law Center, the average monthly benefit for a widow is $775. For about two-thirds of women, this is half of their monthly income. For nearly half of women 85 years of age and older, it is 90 percent of their income. The reality is that of all the people that Social Security lifts out of poverty, three-fifths are women. Social Security is an extremely important program. On average, women live 5 to 7 years longer than men. In addition, because women are more likely to stay home while raising children, they work less than men and often have smaller pensions and other retirement savings to help them through their twilight years. Social Security allows these women to live in a secure and comfortable retirement. However, Social Security is on shaky grounds. By 2017, Social Security will begin to pay out more than it takes in. The program will continue its important role for another 24 years after that, until 2041, before it becomes completely empty. Then recipients will only be able to receive 72 percent of their promised benefits or will be subject to either a tax increase or delay of the retirement age. Despite the obvious importance to women, the Bush administration and the Republican leadership have shown they have no plan to preserve Social Security. In fact, over the next 10 years the Republican budget spends nearly all of the Social Security surplus, completely throwing away any opportunity to strengthen the program. Despite voting six times to preserve the Social Security surplus, the Republican budget will spend 86 percent of those funds. In January 2001, the Federal Government was expecting a Social Security surplus of over $3 trillion, but today, we are operating on a $1.6 trillion deficit, a reversal of over $4.5 trillion. The Republican party can no longer be called the party of fiscal discipline. It is obvious that we need an open discussion on the best way that we can return Social Security to firm financial standing. Lately, the debate has been hidden by smoke, mirrors and budget gimmicks. We cannot protect our seniors if we resort to these budget games. Far too many individuals, men and women, black, white and Hispanic, depend on it to allow them to retire in relative comfort. The longer we put this off, the more severe the problem and the more difficult it will be to fix. So I urge my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican alike, but particularly my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, to get real about Social Security and let us talk about how can we make tax cuts permanent and stop this drain, and at the same time, preserve Social Security. It cannot be done and I think we need to face up to it. Now is the time to do it. Again, we must share with the American public that Social Security is not guaranteed if we continue down the road that we are going. As a matter of fact, it will put many, many people in this country in great jeopardy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule on H.R. 476, the misnamed Child Custody Protection Act. By rejecting all amendments, the Rules Committee has shut out Members from debate on important amendments. I had offered an amendment in Judiciary Committee, and again to the Rules Committee, that would carve out an exception to the prohibitions of H.R. 476. Under my amendment, those prohibitions would not apply in cases where the minor child's pregnancy was caused by sexual contact with a parent, step-parent, custodian, or household or family member. This closed rule, however, makes it impossible for any Member to vote on this valuable amendment. Sadly, some pregnancies result from unwanted sexual contact. Adding to that horror is the fact that many families are unable or unwilling to deal with the realities of the situation. A mother may choose not to believe that the child's father or step-father could have done such a horrible thing. She may even share the child's confidences with the very person who committed the deed--thus potentially putting the child at greater risk. Let me tell you about the tragic case of Spring Adams, a 13-year old sixth grader from Idaho. She was impregnated by her father's acts of incest. When he learned that she was planning to terminate a pregnancy caused by those acts, he shot her to death. My amendment to H.R. 476 addresses this problem. When the child in such a situation turns instead to a grandparent, adult sibling, boyfriend, or religious leader, we should let her do so. And we should let them help her. Otherwise, we will find young girls, impregnated by relatives on household members, seeking to deal with it in any way they can--whether they do so by traveling alone to another state for the procedure, or take care of it through a self-induced or illegal, back- alley abortion. Unfortunately, the closed rule we have before us means that none of my colleagues can address this problem with H.R. 476. Instead, these children, who have been victims of incest or nonconsensual sex with a household member, will be forced to confide their pregnancy to the person who violated them. We should not demand that of the child. I urge a rejection of this rule that blocks valuable amendments from an overly harsh bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my extreme displeasure with the budget that is before us today. It can hardly be called a budget--that implies some logic and order to the document. In reality, the Republicans have filled this budget with ``funny math'' in order to say that it is balanced and fair. According to the Republicans, this budget protects our domestic agenda and allows for the nation to fight the war on terrorism. However, this budget is anything but fair. After pushing through $1.7 trillion in tax cuts last year and the $43 billion in tax cuts in the so-called economic stimulus signed into law on March 9, 2002 which largely benefits the wealthiest Americans and corporations, our nation's financial situation has deteriorated at an alarming pace. Just over a year ago, many experts were estimating a 10 year, $5 trillion surplus. However, under President Bush's watch and because of the tax cuts, $4 trillion of that surplus has disappeared. Over the next ten years we will have to dip into the social Security surplus--to the tune of $1.8 trillion. To protect those tax cuts, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have advocated a budget that cuts and slashes hundreds of millions of dollars from domestic programs. Programs that, up until recently, they have said are their highest priorities. For example, in the Budget Resolution Congress debated today, the Department of Education's budget is barely increased. In addition, the Republicans have underfunded elementary and secondary education by $4.2 billion. Indeed, they do not even appropriate enough funding for President Bush's signature education legislation, Leave No Child Behind. The budget for that is underfunded $90 million. The President also campaigned on strengthening health care for all Americans. Since assuming office, he has repeatedly urged Congress to send him legislation that will help Americans with the burdens associated with health care. However, we do not have to look any further than his own budget to see what a low priority he and his party place on health care. While there seems to be a $1.5 billion increase to health care services programs, in reality, the House Republican Leadership has required the elimination or reduction of several important programs in order to achieve this increase. For example, they have eliminated the Community Access Program, which coordinates health care to the under-insured and uninsured offered by public hospitals and community health centers and other community providers. They have also eliminated State Planning Grants, which help provide access to health insurance coverage. Additionally, the budget provides absolutely no assistance to those individuals and families who do not have health insurance, and requires States to return expiring SCHIP (State's Children Health Insurance Program) funds to the US Treasury. This means that 900,000 children would lose their health coverage. I urge adoption of a budget that will protect the programs that millions of individuals depend on. A budget that will protect Social Security so that retirees can be assured that their benefits will be paid and that future generations will not be saddled with massive tax increases or reductions in benefits. Unfortunately, President Bush and his party have rejected this kind of budget. While I support the President in his efforts to combat terrorism both here and abroad, I am concerned that we are neglecting our domestic responsibilities and putting intense strain on the nation's finances--a strain that will remain for generations after the war on terrorism has been won.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3986, which extends disaster unemployment assistance; and I commend my colleagues from New York for the hard work that they are putting in to try and make sure that people who have been victims of 9-11 are at least afforded some kind of relief. The disaster of September 11 demands that we focus on the needs of the many, many victims of that attack. However, life is going to be tougher not only for the victims of 9-11 but for most Americans because, as I review what we are doing right here in the Congress of the United States, I am disappointed with the budget resolution that the Republicans have voted out of committee. This budget resolution is a $2.1 trillion resolution that claims to be able to fund an extended and expanded war and to also fund the domestic needs, the unemployment needs, the health needs, and the education needs of this country despite the fact that we have passed out a $1.7 trillion tax cut for the 2002 budget that benefits the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, and in addition to that, another $40 billion in tax cuts that was recently passed in the so-called economic stimulus legislation. Because of the policies of this administration, we have reduced our surplus by $4 trillion, and we are now faced with dipping into Social Security, $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Despite voting five times for the Social Security lock box, today we are breaking that promise and raiding Social Security. It is indeed important that we address the needs of those who lost their jobs. However, what about the future? What about the retirement of Americans who expect Social Security benefits to be there for them when they retire? I want my colleagues to know that the Republicans are breaking the promise of protecting Social Security. I mentioned that we have voted five times for the Social Security lock box. We cannot escape the fact that, yes, we can do some Bandaid and temporary protections. For those in New York and others where we extend unemployment benefits, we come up with some additional support for disaster unemployment assistance, but the fact of the matter is this: we are doing nothing to protect the future for these workers. We are doing nothing to protect Social Security. Social Security is now at risk. It is at risk because this administration has done away and is doing away with the budget surplus that had been built up under the past administration; and because of that, whatever we do today is very temporary and these very same workers will be faced with a bleak future because we are dipping into Social Security. Americans must be concerned about the fact that now our Social Security benefits for the future are at stake.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment seeks to prevent a disgraceful action taken by some defendants. Specifically, it addresses the problems of withheld or shredded documents. We have recently heard allegations that Enron and Arthur Andersen have engaged in document shredding. Those documents were being sought by lawyers for the company's former employees, by Members of Congress and by government investigators. In any lawsuit involving shredded documents, the information those documents contain may be lost forever. So while a court may sanction a party that shreds documents, other parties will never be able to use the documents to prove their case. Under my amendment, any party that withholds or destroys material related to a court discovery order would be deemed to have admitted to any fact relating to the discovery order. Before that can happen, it would have to be proven that the party did, in fact, destroy or withhold those documents or that the party made a misrepresentation as to their existence; but once that has been proven, the party that engaged in illegal activity would have essentially admitted to the facts relating to the discovery order. That party would no longer have the option of arguing that it did not do the facts alleged under that order. Keep in mind that this amendment would not impact on the facts of the case. It only addresses the facts directly related to the discovery order that was violated. All this amendment does is to ask that parties comply with court orders. It says if they have broken the law by destroying or withholding evidence, then they cannot deny the allegations under the discovery request; we are going to rule that they are guilty with regard to the information destroyed or withheld. This amendment provides a common-sense approach to a very serious problem. We should provide a strong disincentive to companies that think destroying documents is a way to save their case. Mr. Chairman, I know that there are a lot of people who are tired of hearing about Enron, but Enron is not going to go away. The collapse of Enron represents the largest corporate failure in American history. At its height, Enron's total market capitalization was over $90 billion while today it trades at less than 25 cents a share. Enron's collapse resulted in tens of billions of losses for individual investors and pension funds. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely surprised that even with all of us knowing and understanding what took place at Enron, and each day we continue to learn more, I am surprised that we still have efforts anywhere to try and protect our corporations that not only are involved in wrongdoing, such as Enron, but Enron has gone beyond wrongdoing. It has tried to cover its tracks by shredding documents, and they did not just shred, get caught and stop. After it was discovered that they were shredding documents, they shredded more documents. It is absolutely unbelievable what we are learning about Enron. We not only wish to protect our consumers against the Enrons and the Global Crossings of the world and others that we are going to find out about, we want to create statutes that will to help to shine the light on these corporations in every conceivable way. It goes beyond the need for transparency. We still have those who would argue, and just a moment ago I was in our Committee on Financial Services where I had someone from American Enterprise arguing that we should not interfere, we should not try and create too many laws, we should allow the marketplace to work their will, correct itself. I am sorry, we cannot watch people be harmed. We cannot watch investors harmed. We cannot watch pensioners harmed and say, Well, Enron is going to go down and that is the price they will pay. How many times do we have to watch consumers hurt? How many times do we have to unveil the manipulations of the greedy corporations of America that will take advantage of anybody that it has the opportunity to take advantage of? This business of shredding documents should have us all outraged, but we do not hear a chorus of voices coming from those who are trying to protect Enron and the other corporations of America who are manipulating their consumers. What we hear is, Let us make a few new rules, not too many, let us do something to let the American public know we hear them, but let us not do too much. Well, I want to make sure that we pass laws in this Congress that will not only deal with the tricks of Enron and the way that they created all of these phony and funny companies, but I also want to deal with the accounting firms. I want to make sure they are never able again to receive consulting fees from the same company that it is supposed to be auditing; never able again to turn a blind eye to the practices of the corporation. We cannot do all of that in this legislation. This is about something else. But we have an opportunity here to do something about the shredding of documents. The shredding of documents shows intent, intent to hide something, intent to make sure there is not a certain kind of discovery. It is really criminal on its face. The shredding of documents by a major corporation in the middle of a scandal, where they have declared this huge bankruptcy, cannot be left untouched.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Everybody knows about the shredding that took place in Enron. We have all the employees who said, yes, we did it; they told us to do it. And so what we have here is such an admission and knowledge by so many people that with my amendment here they would not be able to get out from under the fact that they absolutely committed the shredding of the documents.

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct; and that is what is so outrageous about it all. They started shredding early, they continued shredding, and even after it was discovered, they shredded some more. So what they have done is to flaunt their criminal activity in all of our faces; and literally, in the way they are acting, they are daring us to do something about it.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is certainly welcome, and let me just say this to him. I believe that as we legislate in this Congress, we must take every opportunity to close every loophole, shut every door, shut down every opportunity for any corporation in America to ever do again what Enron and what appears Global Crossing is doing and has done. I hate to repeat it because I know people do not want to keep hearing it, but I know the stories of Enron employees who had paid into their 401(k)s. They only had $400,000 for their retirement to last them for the rest of their lives. It is gone. It is gone. There is nothing that anybody can say about us being too involved, overlegislating, attempting to micromanage. There is nothing that anybody can say that should keep us from using every opportunity.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). This has everything to do with Enron. As a matter of fact, I think the American public must know and understand the difference between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. We are about the business of protecting consumers, and we are about the business of allowing the average person to have their day in court. This bill would make it more difficult. It would put obstacles in the way. It would send class action lawsuits to the Federal court, which are overjammed. We do not have enough judges there. We have the big drug cases there. These cases would be backlogged, and they know it. They are creating obstacles to people getting their fair day in court. Members heard some of the cases referred to, where class action lawsuits are the only way people can get any justice. Let me remind Members of just a few of them. As a matter of fact, the average person would not be able to go into court and get any justice against Enron. It would only be through class action lawsuits. Remember Firestone? They knowingly sold defective tires, where tread separation caused more than 800 injuries and 271 deaths. They failed to recall and replace defective tires in a timely manner. What about Monsanto? They hid 40 years' worth of dumping of toxic PCBs, mercury, lead, and mustard gas in Anniston, Alabama. They continued dumping toxic chemicals even after dangers were known. It goes on and on and on. Without class action lawsuits brought in State courts, we would never be able to get at this kind of injustice. People on the other side said do not charge them with wanting to protect big corporations when they have done something bad, but they speak for themselves. They speak for themselves with this bill. What they are saying is, Poor consumers, working class people, we know you cannot afford to hire a lawyer. We know the only way you can get some justice is through class action, but we are going to make it tougher for you. We are going to make it more difficult for you. We are going to send you to the Federal courts, because you will never get there. As a matter of fact, people may go in the State courts under this bill and find out in the middle of the trial that it is going to be sent to the Federal court, another big obstruction. Well, it is very difficult for my friends on the other side of the aisle to claim to be for working people, for consumers, with this kind of action. This really tells who they really are and who they care about.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 3.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment and further request that such modification be considered as read.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I missed the last vote because of a problem at the elevator. I could not get here. Had I been here I would have voted no.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the nation's attention the plight of thousands of black farmers around the nation. From the day that we earned our freedom, many African-Americans have chosen to support themselves and their families through farming. And we pursued this profession with dedication and determination. Unfortunately, black farmers have faced opposition and intimidation from white farmers, Jim Crow laws, and the federal government. Local and state governments through the second half of the 1800s created laws that systematically stripped land from black farmers. The policy continued through the New Deal. President Roosevelt's much heralded policies which helped millions of people through those tough times, rarely helped black farmers despite the fact that they owned fourteen percent of the nation's farming land. Surprisingly, at a time when other blacks were achieving civil rights, the federal government pursued policies that made the condition of the black farmers worse. Thousands lost their land and, by 1978, tragically, there were only 6,996 black farms left. Today, there are fewer than 18,000 black farmers, which represents less than one percent of all the farms in America. These farmers worked their entire lives to get where they are today, and in many cases they are farming the same land as their grandparents and great-grandparents did. But due to unfair influences and the power of large corporations, these farmers are losing thousands of acres to development. What makes matters worse is that they are almost never given fair market value for their land. It is easy for many of us just to sweep this under the rug and pretend that nothing like this happened. But we must face the facts and realize that thousands of black farmers were systematically dispossessed from their land. I propose that the Federal Government create a commission so that farmers can have a free and fair forum to bring their complaints and reconcile this matter. Our farmers deserve nothing less.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as we move toward reauthorization of TANF, I join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the TANF Reauthorization Act of 2001 (H.R. 3113). This bill recognizes the need to build upon what has worked from the 1996 law in order to further reduce poverty in our country. We live in the land of opportunity, and those opportunities are founded in education. Higher levels of education mean higher earnings. Unfortunately, the current welfare law closes this door on TANF recipients by limiting their access to education. TANF rules not only limit access to education, but also fail to reward States which develop such innovative programs. Research in my State of California found that while only 12 percent of recipients in Los Angeles participate in education and training activities, these participants enjoyed earnings almost 40 percent higher than those of untrained recipients after 5 years. Many TANF recipients want to invest in their own futures by pursuing higher education that will lead to higher paying jobs. This bill ensures that when people take the initiative to pursue their education, we will not be a road block to their success.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Enron Employee Pension Recovery Act. This legislation will enable Enron employees who lost their retirement savings to recover more of their lost assets. When the Securities and Exchange Commission brings an action against a company or individual, any ill-gotten gains are placed in a disgorgement fund, and the proceeds are distributed to the victims of the wrongdoing. It is very likely that the disgorged profits of Enron executives will not begin to cover the losses experienced by Enron employees. These employees were encouraged to heavily invest in Enron stock, and were not permitted to divest when the stock value was plummeting. My legislation would provide that the Enron disgorgement fund contain not only the disgorged profits of the wrongdoers, but also any civil penalties that are levied. In addition, my bill alters the Federal Election Campaign Act to permit elected officials to contribute to this fund from their campaign accounts. In this way, the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were contributed by the officers of Enron can be used to benefit the employees. My legislation would work within an existing structure to ensure that real relief is granted to these employees who lost both their jobs and their retirement savings while the officers and directors profited. In addition, the staggering sums that were contributed to politicians by the officers and directors of Enron, can be redirected to benefit these employees. I urge all of my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring the Enron Employee Pension Recovery Act.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the ``Protecting Our Communities From Predatory Lending Act,'' much needed legislation to prevent predatory lending. This year, my home state of California became the third state in the nation to pass a law regulating predatory lending practices. Reverse redlining or predatory lending encompasses a number of lending practices that target minority communities, employing interest rates and service fee charges that are significantly higher than those prevailing in white communities. Such predatory lending practices are prevalent in many areas across the country and federal action in this area is long overdue. Home equity loans have historically been the privilege of the middle class and wealthy, who generally have high credit ratings, income, and home equity. However, beginning in the 1980s, non-depository finance companies--lending institutions other than commercial banks, thrifts, and credit unions--began to provide home-equity loans to lower-income communities, which were not served by mainstream lenders. Persons in low-income communities typically have little disposable income, but may have substantial home equity as a result of paying down their mortgages or through the appreciation of their property values. This equity can secure sizable loans. While offering loans to low- income and minority communities can benefit these communities, predatory lending practices, which oftentimes use the borrowers' home as collateral, have milked the last drops of wealth from many of these neighborhoods, leading to increased poverty and public dependence. My bill adds important protections to the law that will save many people from losing their homes. My legislation would prohibit the industry from making false, deceptive or misleading statements or engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and prohibit blank terms in credit agreements that are filled in after the consumer has signed. In addition, it would prohibit prepayment penalties and the financing of credit insurance. My bill will prohibit the ``flipping'' of consumer loans, in which the borrower refinances an existing loan when the new loan does not have a reasonable, tangible benefit to the consumer. This practice of flipping often costs the consumer thousands of dollars in fees and frequently leads to foreclosure. My bill will eliminate the practice of charging fees for services or products not actually provided. It will also prevent collusion between lenders and appraisers or home improvement contractors by prohibiting direct payments to home improvement contractors without a consumer cosignature and prohibits creditors from influencing the judgement of an appraiser. My legislation will remove the shroud of secrecy that currently surrounds the application process by requiring that a consumer receive disclosure of his or her credit score and an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the credit score, if one is used by the lender. My legislation will impose restrictions on late payments and apply additional safeguards by lowering the threshold for high cost mortgages. Finally, my legislation will prohibit steering consumers into loans with higher risk grades than the consumer would qualify for under prudent underwriting standards. This is merely the latest in a long line of practices that have targeted minorities and low and moderate income families, shutting them out of the American Dream of homeownership. This problem is getting worse, not better. According to an ACORN study, Separate and Unequal 2001: Predatory Lending in America, which was released last month, African-American homeowners who refinanced in the Los Angeles area were 2.5 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than white homeowners were and Latinos were 1.5 times more likely to receive a subprime refinance loan. And this is not merely a function of income: Upper-income African-Americans and middle-income African- Americans were more likely to receive a subprime loan than low-income white homeowners when refinancing. Middle-income Latinos were also more likely to receive a subprime refinance loan than low-income whites. We must continue to scrutinize predatory lending practices and protect American consumers who are easy targets for the predatory lending industry. Congress and federal agencies must recommit our efforts to ensure that greater opportunity to credit access means an increase in quality of life, not an increase in predatory lending and foreclosure. I will continue fighting on the federal level until predatory lending is eliminated and the term will only have relevance in history books. I encourage my colleagues to support my legislation and look forward to working with you to eliminating this blight from our communities.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican so- called economic stimulus plan and in support of the Democratic substitute. I am committed to the goals of improving the economy in general. I am specifically committed to providing relief to the working men and women of America and those who have recently lost their jobs. Many of these individuals did not fully realize the benefits of the recent economic expansion and are now being hit the hardest by this current downturn. I believe that it is crucial that their needs must be the top priority in any economic stimulus package, and any authorized spending should be in a form that can get it into communities as quickly as possible. I believe that true economic stimulus will be achieved by investing in certain existing economic development programs whose benefits far exceed their cost to the government. These programs invest Federal dollars in communities, resulting in job creation and economic growth. My proposal, which was adopted by the Democratic Caucus, increases funding to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, section 108 loan guarantees, Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities, and Community Development Block Grants. These proposals are based on provisions of my bill, H.R. 3033, the Job Creation and Economic Revitalization Act of 2001, which provides additional funding for current programs that invest in traditionally overlooked communities, creating jobs and building the economy. The funds allocated to these programs represent a small fraction of the total benefits to communities. For example, over a 2-year period, the CDFI awarded $114 million to organizations who, in turn, made $3.5 billion in community development loans and investments. Similarly, the section 108 loan program is a very low subsidy program--$15 million in appropriated funds this year will yield $609 million in loans. I am deeply disappointed that this economic stimulus package was not the product of bipartisan negotiations. This bill represents a failure to put aside petty partisan politics for the greater good. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and support the Democratic substitute.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I rise to oppose this rule and this bill. H.R. 3005 supports the expansion of trade rules that allow pharmaceutical companies to challenge countries that distribute essential medicines to people who desperately need them. This bill would make it more difficult for developing countries to make HIV-AIDS medicines available to people with AIDS. Twenty-five million people are living with AIDS in Africa. Our trade policy should not cost them their lives. This bill would also make it more difficult for the United States to respond to bioterrorist attacks. When the United States needed to acquire a large supply of the antibiotic Cipro to respond to the recent anthrax attacks, we knew that the health of the American people was more important than the profits of pharmaceutical companies. We had to get tough. The WTO could have ruled against us. Our trade policies should preserve our ability to respond to bioterrorist attacks in the future. I offered an amendment to restore the rights of all countries to protect public health and ensure access to essential medicines, but my amendment was not made in order. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Financial Services, both of which have worked very hard in a bipartisan manner to legislate cooperatively in the wake of the events of September 11. Last month, the Committee on the Judiciary reported out the PATRIOT Act, the antiterrorism bill. The committee product was a true bipartisan effort and was reported out unanimously. That product was then abandoned in the Committee on Rules for a partisan, inferior product. Similarly, this bill, H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, was reported out of the Committee on Financial Services by voice vote. The bill we are debating today is not the product of that committee's good work. It is, instead, a bill that does not contain a deductible for the insurance industry before government steps up to the plate; and even more disturbing, this necessary piece of legislation has become a vehicle for broad-based tort reform. The Armey substitute creates an exclusive Federal cause of action for lawsuits arising out of acts of terrorism, prohibits punitive damages, prohibits joint and several liability, limits attorney fees, and requires that any victim compensation shall be reduced by any amount the victim receives from other sources. These tort reform provisions are broad and far-reaching. These provisions are an appalling attempt by anti-consumer legislators to use this bill to further their own agenda by changing the laws on victim compensation. They would never get away with this under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. We have to respond quickly to the events of September 11, and we should do so in a bipartisan manner. I find it utterly shameful that certain Members see fit to exploit this terrible tragedy by using necessary legislation as a vehicle for special interest items. Unfortunately, this crass opportunism is becoming the hallmark of this House. So far, we have seen attempts to load up bills that respond to this tragedy with all sorts of tax breaks and Christmas presents for corporate America, while we still have not taken care of the unemployed. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been corrupted with these harsh limitations on victim compensation. These limitations are unrelated to the issue at hand and have no place in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and support the LaFalce substitute, which contains no limitations on tort actions or recoveries.