Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes for this debate, 1 minute on each side.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who represents Berenson's parents.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is not fair. I reluctantly supported this bill last year. I attempted to amend this bill, and I was made to believe that my concerns would be addressed on the Senate side last time. They were not. Now this bill, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, is before us. It is no better now than it was last year. It still imposes unfair conditions on Africa. Those of us with long histories working on behalf of Africa know the history of the rape of Africa. Many of the same corporations who fought us to the bitter end when we were trying to free South Africa are now lined up spending millions of dollars to pass this legislation led by the big oil companies, some of whom we are still trying to make good corporate citizens in places like Nigeria. Let me just tell my colleagues what I tried to do. I tried to amend the bill. One amendment would have struck the most onerous conditions of the bill, these conditions that require African countries to cut corporate taxes, reduce government spending, and remove restrictions on foreign investments. We do not allow foreign countries to dictate our economic policies, nor should we attempt to dictate the economic policies of African countries. My second amendment would have clarified that these conditions apply only to new programs and benefits established by the bill and not to existing foreign aid programs and trade benefits. This amendment is essential to ensure that countries that cannot meet these strict conditions can continue to trade with the United States as well as continue to receive foreign aid. A third amendment would have allowed African countries to qualify for the programs and benefits in the bill even if they are unable to meet all of the bill's difficult conditions. None of my amendments were made in order, and my amendments were timely, as were other amendments when we attempted before the Committee on Rules. Let me just say we are not here simply because we want to oppose this bill. Again, we know the history of Africa, and we are not going to support the rape of Africa a second time in a more sophisticated way.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is really where the rubber hits the road. Whenever we talk about real dollars and real investment, everybody can find reasons why it cannot be done. A sense of Congress is not an amendment. It is not something that has any teeth. We tried on this bill before as we wished to have done in the Committee on Rules to have some substantive amendments that would ensure that there would be business opportunities not only for Africans but for those small businesspersons who want to couple with Africans as we move forward to trade. Here as we look at this amendment and we talk about and direct ways by which we can help the infrastructure and AIDS, not a sense of Congress on AIDS but real money that could be used to deal with AIDS, again we find reasons why it cannot be done. I want to tell my colleagues, no matter what happens with this bill, I want the same Members, particularly on that side of the aisle, to help me make aid for Africa a line item in the budget of the United States of America and increase the aid to Africa that they care so much about. I rise in support of this amendment and I think everybody should support it.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important for us to understand what we do when we talk about a sense of Congress as opposed to actions that are actually taken that would create public policy or appropriate money. It is a good thing to be able to have language that says something nice, and we do that from time to time. But I want to make sure that everybody understands that this sense of Congress neither appropriates money nor does it create public policy. We cannot play around with this AIDS problem in Africa. Since 1983, 85 percent of all of the debts in sub-Saharan Africa is related to AIDS. We have only seen 1 percent of the medicine that they need in this area. Seven out of 10 in sub-Saharan Africa, infected with HIV or AIDS. So I think it is nice to at least mention it in this trade bill, but my colleagues have got to understand it means nothing to talk about trade. Where are the workers going to come from if we do not have the medicine, if we do not have the resources, if we do not have a real commitment by this country to deal with AIDS? I know the pharmaceuticals, the companies are all up in arms because they do not want their patent stolen. They do not want people replicating without their permission. They do not want them purchasing. We see that fight going on now, and it is a fight that must go on. But the fact of the matter is while colleagues are focused, while colleagues are focused and we are saying nice things, we are sitting over in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, we are trying to fashion AIDS as a factor in debt relief. We do debt relief. We are going to get some debt relief for Africa this year. It will not be done in anyplace else other than the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. We do not want to send a message that we are taking care of AIDS in the trade bill and not get the opportunity to leverage what we are doing so that we can truly do something about AIDS; so, know it for what it is, and again, it is all right to say something nice and to try and encourage people, but when I come back to my colleagues with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others on debt relief where we are factoring in AIDS in order to increase debt relief, and they are going to be those who will be opposed to it, I do not want them to forget and think, oh, we have already done something because my colleagues do nothing today when they support this sense of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I must oppose this bill. I oppose this bill because I am not simply talking about Africa as a business opportunity. I love Africa. I have spent 20 years of my life working on behalf of Africa. We cannot see this as a business opportunity, and one more way of sophisticatedly exploiting Africa. For those who love Africa as I do, help me stop Savimbi in Angola from running over dos Santos. They created Savimbi, the right wing did, along with Mobutu. They were the ones that supported de Klerk when we were trying to do something about getting rid of apartheid in South Africa. I am sitting, as the ranking member in the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, trying to do something about the IMF. Some of the same language from IMF and the World Bank on structural adjustment is in this bill, not wanting Africa to own its own infrastructure, wanting them to reduce its corporate taxes, wanting them basically not to be able to be in control of their railroads and their airports, because we want to have the ability to own it all when we come in on this trade bill. Yes, I am concerned about Africa. If Members love Africa as I do, help me make it a line item in the budget for foreign aid. Ensure that trade is not going to replace foreign aid. Do for Africa what we do for Israel. Do for Africa what we do for Russia. Give it most-favored- nation status, the way we do China. I will tell Members how much they love Africa, they love it enough to want to give it to the corporations and allow them to do whatever they want to do. I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) loves Africa as I do, and he wants a good trade bill, but he has to amend it and make it right, I say to the gentleman from New York. This is not right.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Weldon-Barr amendment which will, if passed, have a devastating impact on many Indian tribes in my home State of California as well as throughout the country. This amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from implementing important new regulations for mediating differences between States and Indian tribes on Indian gaming activities. These regulations are a long-awaited development in the stalemate between tribes and States over gaming compacts. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires Indian tribes to negotiate compacts with State governments for the operation of certain types of gaming facilities. In the event that States and tribes are unable to negotiate a compact, the act gives the Department of the Interior the authority to mediate between the States and the tribes. Congress never intended to give States a blanket veto power over an Indian tribe's right to conduct gaming. The supporters of this amendment claim the regulations would bypass State authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. The alternative procedures proposed by the Department of the Interior would come into play only after a State has refused to negotiate. Furthermore, during the mediation process the State has 10 different opportunities to join the process and participate as a full party to the negotiations. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would encourage States to ignore their obligation to negotiate with tribes that seek to operate gaming facilities. It would permit States to refuse to negotiate gaming compacts and thereby prevent tribes from operating gaming even when other citizens of the State are permitted to do so. This unfairly discriminates against Indian tribes. Gaming is to Indian tribes what lotteries are to State governments. Indian gaming revenues are used to fund essential government services, including law enforcement, tribal courts, economic development, and infrastructure improvement. These revenues serve to promote the general welfare of the tribes. Through gaming, tribal governments have been able to bring hope and opportunity to some of the country's most impoverished people. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago when I got up to speak against the Young amendment, I mentioned the President's visit to an Indian reservation and this trip that he did around the Nation to try and initiate economic development opportunities in poor communities through this new initiative. Again, I would like to reiterate the look of shock on the face of the President of the United States when he described the poverty on this reservation. He said it was absolutely off the scale. Now picture an Indian reservation that has gotten involved in gaming who is now providing health services, who are building schools, who are educating their young people. They are literally doing what America teaches us to do, pulling themselves up from their bootstraps. We have people who have been relegated to nothingness out on the reservation with little or no help, and they decide they are going to do something about it, self-determination. What do we see? We see rising opposition from suspicious sources such as this amendment would do. We know of this game. In California, we just defeated a proposition that was placed on the ballot to deny Indians the right to have gaming on their own reservation, on their own land. Mr. Chairman, this is not right. This is not fair. This is discriminating. Someone challenged us, I do not know who it was, just a few minutes ago. I think it was the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), when he said, if one does not like gaming, if one does not like gambling, outlaw it for one's entire State. But one cannot with a straight face stand up and say it is all right for some, but it is not all right for others. Who are those others? The same people whose rights have been trampled on. The same people who have been discriminated against historically. Shame on my colleagues for even attempting this kind of thing. This is beneath the dignity of anybody who is elected to represent all of the people. People deserve better representation. My colleagues deserve to be better representatives themselves. I ask us to reject this discriminatory amendment that would simply put the foot of the United States of America on the necks of the Indians and Native Americans one more time. I do not believe my colleagues would actually carry this out.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Young amendment which would cut the funding for all the discretionary programs in this bill. I am particularly concerned about the effect this amendment would have on Native Americans. I am deeply disappointed by the amount of funding provided in this bill for the programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. This bill provides $114 million less than the administration requested for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and $15 million less than the administration requested for the Indian Health Service program. The cuts in Indian school construction programs will be particularly devastating for Native Americans. The administration had proposed a new initiative to provide $30 million in bonds for school construction by Indian tribes in addition to an increase of $22 million in the funding for new school construction by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Committee on Appropriations did not provide any funding for the bond initiative, and the funding in this bill for school construction is virtually the same as last year. I realize the Committee on Appropriations has limited funds to work with in providing for programs in this bill; however, new school construction is desperately needed by many Indian tribes. Without new schools, Indian children will be unable to receive the education they so desperately need to succeed in our society. The Young amendment would make further cuts in school construction, health care, and other programs that serve Native Americans. This draconian amendment is unwise and unfair. The funding in this bill for programs serving Indians should be increased, not cut. The economy in the United States today is extraordinarily healthy. Nevertheless, the people who live on Indian reservations are some of the poorest people in our Nation. They desperately need funding for new schools and other infrastructure, health care and economic development. We cannot allow them to be left behind. Let me remind my colleagues that the President just took a tour of the poorest areas in our country to talk about new initiatives to help bring these communities on line with the new possibilities that are being created with this well-performing economy. I had a long conversation with the President when he finally reached California. He had been on an Indian reservation. The President of the United States, President Clinton, said he had never ever seen poverty like he saw on this Indian reservation. He said it was beyond comprehension. He said if someone thinks what they have seen in any inner-city in America is bad, they need but go on some of these Indian reservations and see the abject poverty that they are experiencing. So, to have this kind of an amendment that would further exacerbate this kind of poverty is unconscionable, and I will ask my colleagues to reject the Young amendment and do not support this kind of cut in our discretionary spending. Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, what a contradiction for so-called law and order Members of this House to be advocating this amendment. The Paul-Barr-Campbell amendment should be entitled: The Drug Dealers' Improvement Act of 1999 because the amendment will increase the ability of drug dealers to launder drug profits. There are few legitimate cash transactions in excess of $10,000. It is unusual to have someone walking around with $25,000 of cash in their wallet or their purse. Therefore, it is inappropriate to raise the reporting requirement to $25,000. It indeed guts the Bank Secrecy Act. I would ask every Member of this House to say no to the dope dealers and those that would support their ability to launder money.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. I must oppose this legislation because it distorts the intent of the members of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services who worked hard to develop a credible piece of legislation that would cover the mergers of banks and commercial interests. Instead of respecting the bipartisan work of the House Committees on Banking and Financial Services and Commerce, the House Committee on Rules hijacked this bill. They stripped out the Lee anti-redlining amendment that had been adopted in Banking and the Markey amendment was stripped out on privacy that had been adopted in Commerce. I have never seen this before. You vote, you get an amendment passed, and then the Committee on Rules literally takes it out without a vote? The Committee on Rules then denied a rule to have a debate on privacy. And, of course, they denied my amendment on lifeline banking for low-income consumers who do not have bank accounts with traditional banking institutions. The House Committee on Rules further added a dangerous amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) that allows private medical record information to be given to subsidiaries and sold to others. Then, to add insult to injury, the Committee on Rules made in order an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) that can only be identified as the Dope Dealers and Money Launderers Act of 1999. The Paul amendment adjusts the currency transaction reporting requirement from $10,000 to $25,000, making it easier for drug dealers to spend and launder drug proceeds. Let us go a little bit further. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) will have Members believe that he is doing something about domestic violence and protecting the victims. It is a trick. He is allowing these mutual insurance companies to move out of their States that do not allow them to take their proceeds away from the policyholders and put them in the hands of the officers. He is trying to make Members believe that he is doing something for women. Members do not want their fingerprints on this bill. This is a bad one. Vote ``no.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think it will make it an even stronger bill. I am so pleased about what is happening on this particular legislation. The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 is precisely what we need to deal with foster care problems in our country. I am particularly excited about the idea that we are finally going to do something to help transition 18-year-olds who come out of the foster care system and help them to become productive adults and not just dump them out on the streets. So again, I commend my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson) and say that I believe that this is the way to go. This is the thing to do. I commend all of those who have worked on support of this amendment. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Dixon and I, rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Barbara M. Boudreaux, a dedicated public servant who is ending her service today as a member and Vice President of the Board of Education for the Los Angeles Unified School District. We are proud to join her many friends and colleagues today in honoring and celebrating her many years of exemplary service. Barbara's remarkable record includes not only eight years as a member of the Board of Education, but more than thirty years of service as a highly respected career educator. During the span of her career she has been a teacher, a training teacher, a vice-principal, and a principal. She also has served the district as a mentor for teachers, as a leader of the district's Academy for Administrators, and as an assessor of promotional examinations for principals. She was also an evaluator of textbooks, and assisted in development of the district's handbook on preventing and controlling anti-social behavior among our youth. Barbara always understood that the health of our educational institutions is closely linked to the health of our communities. She has been, and continues to be, heavily involved in the life of our community. in 1991, Barbara was elected to represent District 1, on the Board of Education. During her tenure, the Board was faced with some of its most difficult challenges. One of the most pressing of these were the problems of infrastructure and the need to modernize older facilities, and build new campuses in under-served communities. Barbara realized that these barriers to learning had to be removed. Under her leadership, the Board placed a school bond initiative, Proposition BB, on the ballot which would address the district's infrastructure needs. More important, she reached out to the larger community and invested the hard work and persuasive power required to obtain the unprecedented two-thirds voter margin required for passage. Armed with resources from the bond measure, the Board has set out to repair and renovate older schools, build new schools and reduce overcrowding. As a result of her tireless efforts, classrooms that were once too hot, have been retrofitted with air conditioners creating a more conducive learning environment for the school children. Barbara understood, however, that more than cooling the classrooms would have to be done to help our children succeed. So she marshaled the needed funds that will ultimately put computers in all of our classrooms. And, when the district's under-achieving schools were identified, she made sure that there was a special intervention of resources and talent that has resulted in higher test scores. As Barbara prepares to leave the Board of Education, she can take great satisfaction in knowing that she leaves the district in better shape than when she was first elected, and that the foundation for a successful future has been built. Mr. Speaker, Barbara Boudreaux has made an important difference for our children in Los Angeles. We appreciate this opportunity to honor the exceptional legacy she leaves, and to salute her distinguished contributions to the Los Angeles community. We know our colleagues join us in wishing her and her husband Albert and their family a future that is full of good health and prosperity.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) what percentage of teachers have been sued under the conditions that he has described in the last 5 years?

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering). The amendment would eliminate E-rate benefits for schools and libraries that fail to implement filtering or blocking technology for computers with Internet access. Let me be clear. I do not advocate allowing schoolchildren access to pornographic materials, but the scope of this amendment is too broad and undefined. For example, it would require repayment of E-rate funds within 30 days if the school district is unable to comply with FCC rules. Procurement rules for individual school districts make it highly unlikely that schools will be able to comply, even though many are already seeking to do so. Mr. Chairman, the strange thing about all of this is this: The Congressional Black Caucus went over to the FCC when the vote was taken for E-rate. The only people who voted against it were Republicans, despite the fact we made a lot of pleas with our colleagues about the digital divide, between the haves and the have-nots, and some of the same ones who spoke on this floor today who are against E-rate for poor children, for children who do not have access, are now here trying to set up another roadblock. The E-rate program is instrumental in closing the digital divide that exists between the haves and the have-nots. The reality is that only 27 percent of America's classrooms are linked to the Internet. In poor and minority communities, only 13 percent of the classrooms are linked to the Internet. Schools in high-minority enrollment areas are almost three times less likely to have Internet access in the classrooms than predominantly white schools. While 78 percent of schools have at least one Internet connection, that connection is often only in the administrative office. It is for these reasons, among others, that I have been an ardent supporter of the E-rate program. I am among the 74 percent of Americans who recognize that computers improve the quality of education. Let us not sacrifice the access to technology that our children in poor districts need so badly by succumbing to the rhetoric of this poorly drafted amendment. I urge a vote of no. Let me just say this: For all of those Members who forever talk about how families should raise their children, let me just tell them something. I have a grandson who is a whiz, loves the computer, knows it backwards and forwards. I said to my daughter, do not block anything. You tell your son, my grandchild, what he is to do and what he is not to do, and you discipline him if, in fact, he violates the rules of your house. For those people who want the government to take over the rearing of their children by dictating, by censuring, where is their ability to raise their children? Where is their will to discipline? Where is their desire to have some faith in their ability to instruct, to rear, and provide the kind of parenting that we all need to see in America, rather than thinking somebody else is going to do it for us? My grandson will not be censured, and guess what? He is going to do what his mama tells him and what his grandmother tells him, and that is what is going to be the order of the day in their house.

Ms. WATERS. Does that mean that there are 4 instead of 2?

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman said he does not know, and there has not been a large percentage. I am sorry, that is precisely what I needed to know. Secondly, what teachers does the gentleman know that have been sued that have not had their defense paid for by the school district or the State in which the suit took place?

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

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has just admitted that, number one, they do not have any data. They do not have any information that shows that there is a rash or increase in lawsuits. There is not that information available; he is absolutely correct. It is minuscule. That is number one. Number two, the gentleman is not able to represent that anybody that may have been sued, and the few that may have taken place, have not been protected by their school districts or their States. They do not know of anybody who are out-of-pocket because they have been sued, they have been ruined because they have been sued. This is a fallacious argument. It is one that does not deserve the attention of this floor. I would ask my colleagues to disregard it and vote no.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the solution that is being proposed here in this amendment is far-reaching. I do not think any parent in America would like to give immunity to all of the school personnel and send their kids off to school with personnel that may or may not go beyond their duties in disciplining. Now, if there is a student that is acting out in the ways that have been described, no teacher should have the responsibility of disciplining a violent student. That teacher should be able to call the appropriate persons and have that student removed. Do not put the teacher in the position of limiting liability, or eliminating liability, so that they are responsible for handling or taking care of a violent student. They should not have to do that under any circumstances. So as my colleagues reach into the States to dictate to the States and to the school districts how they should handle violent students, they really are doing violence to the Constitution of the United States of America, and that should not be done. As a matter of fact, it is safer for the students and the families to have the liability responsibilities, and it is safer for the teachers not to have to confront it. I would ask that my colleagues vote no on this amendment. In closing, let me just say, if anyone knows of a teacher who was acting within their framework for doing their job and they have been sued and they have to pay out of their own pockets, tell them to see me. I am not a lawyer and I will get their money back for them.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy-Roukema amendment on behalf of all of the children who have died, on behalf of all of the children who have died in gang warfare and drive-by shootings.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.