Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, I object to Florida's electors, and in view of the fact that debate is not permitted in joint session and pursuant to title 3, I move that the House withdraw from the joint session in order to allow consideration of the facts surrounding the slate of electors from Florida.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, the motion is in writing, it is at the desk, and because it involves the prerogatives of the House, therefore Senate assent is not required.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed with events in Florida, but it is important that I bring to your urgent attention, voting difficulties experienced in my District. In 1996, there was heavy voter turnout in the Fourth Congressional District. The heavy turnout was responsible for sending me back to Congress after an unfriendly redistricting fight. However, at that time, voters were forced to wait for hours in order to cast their vote. Too many of them had to stand outside in the weather because the polling places were cramped and too small to accommodate the large number of voters who showed up to vote. People were standing outside and in some cases the lines extended down the street. We all were very proud to have excited the electorate to vote. However, that experience should have alerted the planners of our elections of the need for adequate facilities for voting; apparently it did not. Regrettably, the electoral process in the Fourth Congressional District was once again marred by exactly the same logistical difficulties as were experienced in 1996, only this year they were even worse. From election day continuing through today, my office has received phone calls from constituents saying that they experienced excessively long delays in voting, some having to wait as long as five hours, and even worse, many said that they left the polling station without having voted at all. In stark contrast, I am told that the polling stations in the northern precincts of the district, which are majority white, moved quickly (in some cases in as little as 15 minutes) and voters did not experience any where near the difficulties experienced by black voters in the southern part of the District. I am concerned that we might be seeing a new pattern and practice that has black voter suppression as its intent. Complaints in my district are rampant, and I've heard similar complaints from other parts of my State. I don't want to place blame on any of the innocent election workers whose task it was to service large numbers of voters under severe circumstances. In large measure, they did an admiral job under the circumstances. But the right to vote in this country is sacrosanct and that right should be protected. I am calling on the Department of Justice to investigate what happened in my district because sophisticated black voter suppression is still black voter suppression and that's against the law. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 9, 2000. Hon. William Clinton, President, Washington, DC. Dear President Clinton: I am extremely disappointed to have to write this letter to you today. But in light of events in Florida, I think it is important that I bring to your urgent attention, voting difficulties experienced in Georgia's Fourth Congressional District. In 1996, there was heavy voter turnout in the Fourth Congressional District. I am pleased about that. The heavy turnout was responsible for sending me back to Congress, Max Cleland to the Senate, and you to the White House. However, at that time, voters were forced to wait for hours in order to cast their vote. Too many of them had to stand outside in the weather because the polling place was cramped and too small to accommodate the large number of voters who showed up to cast their vote. People were standing outside and in some cases the lines extended down the street. We all were very proud to have excited the electorate to vote. However, that experience should have alerted the planners of our elections here of the need for adequate facilities for voting; apparently it did not. We worked very hard this year to encourage all the voters in the district to participate in the November 7th election and as a consequence, there was once again a strong turnout. Regrettably, the electoral process in the Fourth Congressional District was once again marred by exactly the same logistical difficulties as were experienced in 1996, only this year they were worse. From election day continuing to today, my office and the DeKalb County NAACP have received countless phone calls from constituents complained saying that they experienced excessively long delays in voting, some having to wait as long as four to five hours, and even worse, many said that they had left the polling station without having voted at all. These constituents complained that the polling stations were completely underprepared for the turnout. There were simply too few voting booths, voter lists, and elections personnel at the black precincts in the Fourth Congressional District. In stark contrast, I am told that the polling stations in the northern precincts of the district, which are majority white, moved quickly ( in some cases in as little as 15 minutes) and voters did not experience any where near the difficulties experienced by black voters in the southern part of the District. By way of example, constituents complained that at Stone View precinct, there were at least 1200 people standing in line waiting to vote, but election officials confided that they could process only approximately 100 voters an hour and that at that rate voters would be voting until 8:00 a.m. the following morning. Hundreds of people eventually left the precinct without voting after having waited four to five hours to vote. Additionally, we received complaints that constituents waited as long as four to five hours in line only to be told when they finally arrived at the desk that they were at the wrong precinct and because of the lateness of the hour, they were not going to be able to vote at all. Tragically, many of the people waiting in line to vote were forced to stand for hours in the rain with infants and young children. One constituent complained that after he had waited for hours to get his ballot form at the front desk, he was not allowed reentry into the building when he left the voting line to check on his small children who were outside. Also, several motor vehicle accidents occurred at polling stations, in large measure I am sure, because of the voting delays leading to traffic congestion at the polls. In light of the above, I am extremely concerned that a new form of black voter suppression might have been experienced by voters in the Fourth Congressional District, constituting a potential violation of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. President, I do not want to place blame on any of the innocent election workers whose task it was to service large numbers of voters under severe circumstances. In large measure, they did an admirable job under the circumstances. But the right to vote in this country is sacrosanct and that right should be protected. I respectfully request your immediate investigation into this matter. Sincerely, Cynthia McKinney, Member of Congress.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, although it is 16 years after the titled date of 1984 in George Orwell's novel of the same name, Big Brother is really here and now he is reading our e-mail. Our constitutional rights to privacy are currently being trampled by government-sanctioned invasions currently over at the FBI. These privacy invasions use today's latest technology through the FBI's Carnivore system which monitors and captures our e-mail without our consent or our knowledge. What business is it of the U.S. Government what I say in an e-mail to my family and to my friends? We must never knowingly allow any government agency to use our e-mail to do to us today what they did with other technologies to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King yesterday.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is not a secret, Paul Coverdell and I were about as different as night and day. But vastly different paths in life led us both to serve in the Georgia legislature and then on to Congress so that we could work together on behalf of the people of the great State of Georgia. And when it came to the interests of the people of Georgia, we often saw eye to eye. I want to send all of my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the Coverdell family and to all the people who knew and loved Paul Coverdell. Immediately after the 1996 election, when I had been redistricted and had a vastly changed district and we were able to pull out a victory in a very close race, Paul Coverdell and I got together and decided that we needed to build bridges with each other so that we could do the work that the people of Georgia sent us both to do. Our first project together resulted in about $20 million being protected on the Senate side for my constituents who live in and about the environs of Peach Tree De Kalb Airport. Paul Coverdell's latest project that we all were working on was a veterans cemetery for our Georgia veterans. But more than anything else, I have to say that I am struck by the finality of death and the incomplete way many of us in public life lead our lives. We are so busy, we are rushing here and rushing there and going to meetings and going here and going there and always, always, always in a rush and too busy to appreciate the people around us, too busy to stop and say ``I love you,'' too busy to stop and say ``I thank you'' to the people who make a difference in our lives. This past weekend, I was looking at the Coverdell report on television; and now I am standing here today sending condolences to Paul Coverdell's family. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the dean of our delegation, for providing us this resolution so that we can pay our respects to our senior Senator. I want to thank all of the people who are responsible for all of us being here serving our people of our State. I would like to thank my colleagues, who, through difficult times, have stood beside me in particular. And perhaps I have not said thank you appropriately enough, but I want to say thank you today. I want to say thank you to my Georgia delegation members. Because we do not see eye to eye on a lot of issues and we do not even meet as often as we probably should, but I do not think there is a single issue that will benefit the people of our State that we do not come together and work on. And then finally, I would like to thank the Coverdell family for sharing their leader with the people of our State and the people of our country for about 30 years of public service.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), has it right, and I am pleased to support his bill. It is the only moral position to take. It is amazing how far backwards this Congress will bend for big business. This Congress should stand for small people, for human need, and not corporate greed. Why else would a young woman work 70 hours a week for pennies an hour and end up owing the company? Two hundred years ago they called that sharecropping, and it was black people, but they never called it freedom. Yet, Kathi Lee Gifford handbags and Huffy bicycles and Timberland shoes and of course Nike, operate factories where the standard is to do just that. We will hear folks talk about China trade bringing democratic values to the people. I think the people of China already have democratic values, and these corporations work with the repressive Chinese government to deny the Chinese people the democracy that they want. Besides, U.S. corporations are running away from developing democracies as if they have the plague, and are instead investing in the world's worst authoritarian regimes. They have a history of doing that. That is why the slave trade flourished; so, too, trade with the Nazis. By definition, what is happening in China, especially to women, is slavery. If it was bad for America and it is bad for Sudan, then it is bad for China. We should not be supporting it. I know American corporations can do better than that. That is why I have introduced the Corporate Code of Conduct. I urge my colleagues to support the Corporate Code of Conduct and to support this bill.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the World Trade Organization is in need of serious reform. Interestingly, while Western economists are proclaiming that foreign investment and trade have been a blessing for the world's poor, we hear quite a different message coming from the poor themselves. The recent meeting of developing countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America known as the G-15 saw host Hosni Mubarak say that despite assurances early on that globalization would lead to an improvement in living standards, instead, imbalance in the world economy is increasing instead of decreasing. In fact, in 1999, 45 percent of the world's income went to the 12 percent of the world's people who live in rich, industrial nations. The three richest Americans own more than the world's 20 poorest countries. Mr. Speaker, developing countries were sold a bill of goods, but so were we. Corporations, with the help of the WTO, have forced workers throughout the world into a deadly game of chicken. The WTO should protect basic social services and prioritize human rights and the environment in an environment that is democratic and transparent. Instead, it hurts the poor, benefits the rich at the expense of us all, and it does it in secret and in back rooms. Mr. Speaker, this is no way to build a new world order. We need to put our money where our professed values are: fair trade, democracy, respect for workers, sensible environmental standards, and allowing poor countries to grow. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the Corporate Code of Conduct Act because I do not think that freedom, equality, human dignity and human rights are for sale. Unfortunately, the folks at WTO do not agree. They have unleashed unbridled corporate excess on all of us. The current system is wrong and in need of a serious fix. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, in the Bible, justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. But in Texas, it is just a trickle. Is it not ironic that, in the State of Texas, a juvenile is tried as an adult, but in Connecticut, an adult is tried as a juvenile? Texas has executed more juvenile offenders than any other State in America. Another 26 juvenile offenders now sit on Texas' death row. George Bush boasts of his international experience. Well, his death row experience has put Texas right in line with Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Democrat Republic of Congo as executionists of juvenile offenders. A Federal court has already stated that there is significant evidence to support Gary Graham's claim of innocence. Why not let the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles review the new evidence? Should George Bush kill Gary Graham? He could very well be killing an innocent man. Or does George Bush want to follow in the footsteps of his ``Willie Horton'' father to win brownie points in a close election?

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support and cosponsor the legislation of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that calls for an apology for slavery. I have heard the snickers, the snide comments, the perplexed faces from Members baffled by the gentleman's quest for justice. I think we all need to check ourselves. This great Nation of ours did something terribly wrong during its infancy: I was written out of its Constitution, and it turned its head on slavery. And when our country actually saw itself for the first time in a mirror, its response was to proclaim that the black man had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. It took a second look, however, and began to exorcise its demons; that is what reparations to Native Americans, Holocaust victims, and Japanese Americans was all about. Sadly, nobody thought about me. Yet an unarmed black man can be murdered on the streets of America and no one blinks an eye. Innocent black men disappear to death row. Crack cocaine dumped into our neighborhoods. Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., murdered in conspiracies. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is trying to close these wounds, not reopen them.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has lost one of its bravest warriors. Mr. Earl Shinhoster was one of Georgia's finest, one of America's finest. This brave warrior fought for over 30 years with the NAACP to make America a better place for all of us. He worked tirelessly to empower the powerless and to give hope to the hopeless. He labored thanklessly to make a difference. He certainly made a difference in my life. I knew him to be a loving husband, an understanding father, and a great friend to all of us. Earl Shinhoster has now received his very last battle scar, but his memory will never fade. His mantle may not have been filled with trophies. His battles were not put to song. No chest of shiny medals. But true warriors do not wear medals. They wear scars. Earl Shinhoster was a warrior in the truest sense of the word, and he will surely be missed by us all.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support real steps to protect the American public from nuclear holocaust such as the de-alerting of nuclear weapons, the START process, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. And the most significant obstacle to meaningful nuclear arms control right now is the National Missile Defense program, the sequel to President Reagan's Star Wars fantasy. The administration has told us that the decision on whether to deploy Star Wars II will be based on four criteria: the technical progress of the system, the cost, an assessment of the threat, and the impact of deployment on existing treaties, and arms control efforts. I believe in each of these areas, the evidence clearly leads to a decision to reject deployment. With respect to the impact of deployment on arms control, the proposed missile defense clearly violates the ABM treaty which is the foundation of real arms control efforts, including the START reductions. Deployment will also violate the spirit, if not the letter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, particularly Article VI. Even our closest allies in Europe have voiced opposition to deployment. A February 15 article in the International Herald Tribune reported that ``European governments without exception oppose the U.S. anti-missile project.'' With respect to the real or perceived threat, the threat of a limited missile attack from a rogue state is overstated. The CIA's own analysis is revealing. They reported that ``U.S. territory is probably more likely to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction by nonmissile delivery means than by missiles, primarily because nonmissile delivery means are less costly and more reliable and accurate.'' The last point is very important because Star Wars II advocates must ignore reality and assume two things. First, that the threat of massive retaliation by the United States is no longer a valid deterrent. Second, that a country with the advanced technical capability to build a weapon of mass destruction and the missile technology to deliver it will not be able to figure out how to sneak a bomb into the United States on a boat. With respect to the cost, since President Reagan announced his strategic defense initiative, we have spent more than $60 billion on researching technical means of hitting a bullet with a bullet. The current estimate for deployment is another $60 billion, bringing the total cost to the program at least $120 billion. While such a staggering sum is undoubtedly of considerable interest to the weapons industry, it is also, in the final sense, a theft from programs designed to meet human needs. In fact, if we decide to pursue this program, in the end, it will cost every American family $1,760.56. This is welfare for some of the wealthiest corporations in the country paid for by working Americans. With respect to technological assessment, the most recent independent analysis, a study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and MIT found that the hit-to-kill technology of NMD can be easily fooled by countermeasures using existing technology. An independent panel headed by retired Air Force General Larry Welch said that the deployment decision should not be made until 2003, after testing how the various components of the system work together. The panel characterized Congress' push for early deployment as a rush to failure. I believe the jury is regarding each of these criteria. To date, proven arms control efforts have eliminated thousands of Russian nuclear weapons aimed at American cities, saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. Conversely, despite the billions wasted on development, NMD has not eliminated a single missile, and it never really will. Mr. Chairman, there are active and robust government and nongovernment programs in place that are doing more to reduce the threats from rogue states or terrorists right now than Star Wars ever will. They include efforts by USAID, USIA, the State Department, National Endowment for Democracy, the Asia Foundation. U.S. NGOs, including the Carter Center, universities, unions, faith-based organizations, research and policy institutions are among the most active in the world in promoting democracy and goodwill. Ultimately the security of America is not served by a neo- isolationist fortress America type of foreign policy. If we truly seek to promote democracy and enhance the security of all Americans, we should divert some of the billions that we waste on programs like this and instead invest it on agencies and organizations that are capable of doing the job. I urge a yes vote on the Kucinich amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to recognizing, as normal, China's persistent violations of fundamental human rights, labor rights, reproductive rights, religious freedom, political rights, social and economic rights, as well as their export of sophisticated and destabilizing weapons, and their overt threats to Taiwan, by granting them Permanent Normal Trade Relations. To be sure, some people will benefit from granting PNTR to China. If you can shut down your production lines in the United States, turn out your employees, and move your production to China where you can pay workers 25 cents an hour in sweatshop conditions--and have no moral qualms about that--then this deal can be a sweet one, indeed. But I thought the United States was supposed to stand for more than just making a quick buck. I thought the United States was supposed to stand for what is good in the world. It used to be that we did stand for good in the world. And because of that, we gained the respect and the moral integrity to make our word prevail throughout the world. Indeed, our power and authority went well beyond our ability to rattle sabers and exercise gunboat diplomacy. But it is obvious now to me, that by negotiating agreements like this that are devoid of moral content, my country has completely abdicated its professed concern for human rights. My vote against PNTR is not a vote against trade. However, my vote against PNTR is a vote against the terms of trade that are being employed today by U.S. firms in China and elsewhere. By granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations, we now eschew one of our most important tools for examining the human rights practices of China. Unfortunately, the human rights record of China will likely get worse before it gets better. And the presence of U.S. corporations has not had and will not have a positive impact on the human rights record of China or on workers' rights. Each year, the State Department submits to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, where I serve as Ranking Democrat, its Country Reports on Human Rights. This is our government's formal assessment of basic human rights practices around the world. The record is clear. China's human rights record has markedly deteriorated as we have expanded trade. In fact, this year, my friend and Chairman of the Subcommittee, Congressman Chris Smith and I had to hold two hearings on the State Departments annual human rights report--one for China, and one for every other nation in the world because China's record is so deplorable and is getting worse. But after a historic look at rhetoric versus reality, that should not surprise us. After all, we had robust trade with the Nazis before World War II, extensive trade with Iraq just prior to Operation Desert Shield and we maintained an extensive trading relationship with South Africa during the dark years of apartheid. In fact it was the people of this country--not the corporations--that put South Africa's human rights record on the national agenda. By focusing on South Africa, the people demanded the opposite of normal trade relations--an embargo! U.S. corporations had nothing to do with changing South Africa's internal policy toward its black majority nor U.S. policy of supporting the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. The U.S. corporate community, in fact, protested the embargo and some never abided by it. If we had waited for U.S. corporations to export democracy, Nelson Mandela would still be on Robben Island. On this issue, the people were heard over the high-priced lobbyists in Washington, DC. And that is what now scares the high-priced lobbyists in Washington. The way to keep China's human rights record on the national agenda is through our annual NTR review. That is one way that human rights activists in China and in the America's right to know has been severely damaged as a result of this vote. Freedom, equality, human dignity, and human rights are not for sale. And that's one reason why I chose to vote against this tremendous human rights give-away. Many proponents of PNTR, including Governor George Bush, say that ``Trade is the way to export freedom.'' A recent study entitled, ``Dollars and Democracy'' shows the post-Cold War decline of US trade and investment in developing democracies. In other words, US corporations are running away from the countries that are struggling to institute democracy--the countries we say we do like-- and are flocking to the authoritarian regimes around the world--the kinds of regimes we say are not good. More to the point, if given a choice between an emerging democracy and an authoritarian regime then US corporations take US taxpayer subsidies and choose the regimes that don't respect human rights, worker rights, or the environment. For example, Charles Kernaghan in ``Made in China'' states that at one of the factories where Kathi Lee handbags are being made for Wal- Mart, the workers are forced ``to work 12 to 14 hours a day, seven days a week, with only one day off a month, while earning an average wage of 3 cents an hour. However, even after months of work, 46 percent of the workers surveyed earned nothing at all--in fact, they owed money to the company.'' Companies are allowed to get away with this kind of worker treatment in authoritarian regimes, not democracies. Furthermore, democracies tend to be more transparent and less corrupt. Yet US private investment currently favors the authoritarian over the democratic. Supporters of PNTR dribble on about the need of engagement to facilitate a ``movement'' toward democracy. Yet the facts are that US corporations are leaving democracies at an unprecedented rate. US taxpayers subsidize this new ``corporate flight.'' And unfortunately, one need only look at Chevron Corporation and Occidental Petroleum Company to see examples of just the kind of ``movement'' that we ought not want to export. In fact, Chevron is in federal court today for aiding and abetting in the murder of Nigerian citizens demonstrating to protect their environment against Chevron's wanton pollution of their indigenous lands. Occidental Petroleum seems to be on the same path as Chevron, willing to run over Colombia's fledgling democracy in order to despoil the sacred lands of the Uwa people. The U'wa have vowed to die before Occidental is allowed on their land. None of this bodes well for anyone involved--except the stockholders, perhaps, of both Chevron and Occidental. And in China, workers who protest their conditions are fired or could face prison for life! Americans who buy Huffy bicycles, Alpine car stereos, RCA TV's, or Timberland, Keds, Fubu and Nike shoes or Spiegel clothing should have a right to know the conditions under which those items are made. American workers who used to make those items and who are now struggling to find their place in the new economy, certainly should have a right to know why their jobs ``fled'' to China. Despite the rhetoric, the vote on China PNTR will not protect the US worker, nor will it protect the Chinese worker. There is a need for something more. That is why I will soon be introducing the Corporate Code of Conduct Act. This bill will establish minimum human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection guidelines based on US and internationally recognized standards. This legislation will allow us all to put our money where our professed values are: fair trade, democracy, respect for workers, sensible environmental standards, and no child labor. I believe that our corporations can export freedom, prosperity, equality, and justice; and our bill, the Corporate Code of Conduct Act, will ensure that they do.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, 17 years and over $40 billion, one would hope that such an investment would be directed towards upgrading our schools, providing job training, or making payments on our national debt. Instead, this astronomical amount has been squandered on Star Wars. Now, they have changed the name to National Missile Defense, but it is the same thing. After 20 years of trying, it still does not work. Reagan started it to beat the Soviets. Now they say we need it to protect us from Iraq. But Timothy McVeigh was not in Iraq. The greatest threat to our country is having leadership that fails to recognize real threats. Instead of funding more government waste, deadly corporate welfare, and a missile build-up that jeopardizes the ABM Treaty, I suggest that we concentrate on our problems at ground zero and leave Star Wars to the movies.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, if this bill were not so serious, I would think it is a joke. Once again, the United States is proposing a huge military alliance with the foreign military known for its human rights abuses. Now, you think we would have learned our lesson by now. How long ago was it that Bill Clinton went to Guatemala and apologized for fueling that country's generation-long slide into chaos? But just a year later you can say here we go again. No one seriously denies the link of paramilitary groups to the Colombian government, and here we are going to turn over to known human rights abusers the means by which they can perfect their trade. As we stand here on the floor today, 3,000 union leaders, students, parents, shopkeepers and others are standing before 3,000 armed Colombian soldiers, forming a human shield to protect the peaceful U'wa people that the Colombian government wants to move off their ancestral land to make way for Occidental Petroleum's oil rigs. We should be standing with the people, not giving aid and encouragement to Colombia's brutal military. We should have learned our lessons well about going in with the military where only diplomacy should be allowed to tread. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not. Because in addition to Plan Colombia, this bill also provides an additional $5 billion to keep us in Kosovo, another failed military blunder that diplomacy should have resolved. After our military gambit in Kosovo, we have left 31,000 rounds of depleted uranium rounds and 50 percent unemployment, in some areas rising to 85 percent. The crumbling infrastructure is yet to be rebuilt, and our European allies have not lived up to the commitments they made at the beginning of that adventure. Time and time again, this Congress commits our troops to military adventures without a plan to bring them home. Last year, U.S. aircraft flew over 1,000 sorties in Iraq, nearly a decade after that war was supposedly over. In Kosovo, our limited military engagement has turned into a permanent occupation. Now we are being asked to fund the Vietnamization of Barry McCaffrey's war without an exit strategy or end game. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this so-called emergency amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thought Southern good ol' boys were a dying breed. How mistaken could I have been? They must have all just been hiding in Lockheed Martin's management suites. Now, why do I say this? Just imagine a black woman having to get a bathroom pass from her white coworkers and then one of them having to escort her to the rest room to make sure she actually tinkles in the toilet. And if you are in need of Ku Klux Klan robes and membership cards, I know where you can find some. Just imagine coming to work and finding a noose hanging around your tool box. Also, seems Lockheed has found the fountain of youth. How else could they have so many 50-year-old black boys working for them? Not surprisingly, discrimination claims are being filed against Lockheed Martin all across the South from Alabama to North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if John Rocker needs a job, I think I found the perfect place to hide him.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, right now the United States Government is destroying public land at a loss of $300 million per year to taxpayers. That is a lot of money to spend on the destruction of our national forests. Some of my colleagues say that if we do not expand our corporate welfare to the timber industries, there will be no money for our Nation's children. That is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Timber sales have been decreasing and the money for rural schools is on the decline. We need to provide a real solution to the problem, not a false choice between trees or schools. Supporters of this bill say we need to address the declining rate of funding for schools. Yet 13 States will experience a permanent reduction in education and infrastructure funding under this bill. The fact is we can afford to give our rural schools the funding they need and deserve, but we must separate funding to rural countries from timber receipts. I am a strong supporter of rural education. I ask my colleagues that if they are true supporters of rural education, then give students what they need, payments that are not dependent upon fluctuating timber sales. Our children deserve a steady supply of funding and a healthy environment. This bill provides neither. This bill was not written to help students. It actually scratches the back of the timber industry. The National Forest Protection and Restoration Act provides for rural counties by offering them guaranteed annual funding. Counties would no longer have to depend on the Forest Service for what they need. They would have a budget that allows them to plan for the future. They would no longer have to clearcut for our kids. It seems that the supporters of this bill cannot see the students through the trees, so their solution is to chop the trees down. We are talking about the future of our Nation's children. Let us give them what they need without pandering to big business. I support a no vote on H.R. 2389.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, America is supposed to be a force for good in the world, but with our failed policy in Africa I am beginning to wonder if that is really so. How can a mother allow the world's children to be offered up as the most innocent victims of U.S. foreign policy? Madeleine Albright's first stop in Africa was a stark example of our continued failure on that continent. It was U.S. policy to do nothing to help the fledgling democracy of Sierra Leone. Only after that policy became a shameful embarrassment, the U.S. brokered the peace that gave important ministries in government to rebels whose hallmark was to rape little girls and chop off their arms. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a share in government for rapists and mutilators is in Albright's own words the necessary price of peace, just like 5,000 dead kids a month in Iraq. After standing in line to shake hands with the victims of her do - nothing - to - help - when - a - little - help - can - make - a - difference policy, Albright remarked, ``It's hard to extend your hand to shake hands with people who don't have hands.'' Mr. Speaker, the President has allowed his Africa policy to become insensitive, uncaring, and shameful.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, a flag is made of cloth, not carved in stone. But it appears, Mr. Speaker, that the heart of at least one Senator is carved in stone and it is stone cold. I have long known that some of my brothers and sisters in the South are still fighting the Civil War. But guess what, Mr. Speaker, the United States won. The Confederacy lost. The South shall rise again. But this time under the leadership of a New South coalition that unites us rather than tears us apart. But some folks particularly in North Carolina did not get the message. Like the slaves who did not get the word until years later that they were free, it appears that Jesse Helms still has his heart in Confederate bondage. From fighting the Confederate flag on the Senate floor to singing ``Dixie'' in Senate elevators, Senator Helms has ricocheted the Senate back to the Tara Plantation of ``Gone With the Wind.'' Thank goodness those days really are gone with the wind. Carol Moseley-Braun could be our next ambassador to New Zealand if President Clinton stands by her.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, why are we having this debate today? Because in one sleight-of-hand, backroom maneuver, the Republican leadership has succeeded in turning back the clock 30 years on educational progress for girls and young women. We need the Mink amendment to protect our young girls and women who are helped by educational equity. By dropping the Women's Educational Equity Act from the bill, the Republican leadership demonstrated that even without their guru, Newt Gingrich, they are still as meanspirited as ever. We have a need for these programs that help level the playing field between boys and girls. For instance, girls are not learning the technology skills they need to compete in the new information revolution; a very small percentage of girls take computer science courses even though 65 percent of the jobs in the next millennium will require technology skills. Studies show that poor self-esteem as a result of unequal treatment is a factor in this persistent educational gender gap. Sometimes, without realizing it, teachers and administrators carry society's biases against girls into our schools and classrooms. This becomes yet another factor which discourages girls from achieving. Gender equity training, resources and materials are needed to counter stereotypes and to assure that girls and young women are given equal educational opportunities. We all were so proud as we watched the USA Team in the Women's World Cup games. Even the Republican leadership scrambled to congratulate those young women. However, we want our women to score goals on and off the field. By supporting the Mink/Woolsey/Sanchez/Morella amendment, we can assure that this little piece of Republican misogyny is put into the trash heap where it belongs.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the IMF fiddles while the world's poorest countries burn, in poverty, disease, ignorance and debt. The International Monetary Fund uses its control over global finances to impose economic and social policies on poor countries. The result: poor people in poor countries have virtually no health care, no education, and crippled economies. The IMF is not a doctor with a cure, it is a quack selling poison potions. The United Nations just released a report saying that over 800 million people go to bed hungry every night, and the world's three richest people, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Paul Allen, have more than the GNP of all poor countries on the planet combined. The time to act is now. We must stop the IMF from imposing austerity and poverty on countries too poor and hungry to fight back.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in the Senate are strutting around as if they have done something. Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, our Nation's chief diplomats, have put this planet on notice that when it comes to nuclear testing, America would become the world's cheerleader. Now, we know that this Republican Congress just loves to play the game of brinkmanship. Using the guise of fighting for Republican budget priorities, Newt Gingrich showed that he did not care about taking the whole country into the abyss with him as Republicans threw the whole government into shutdown chaos. To fail to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not just reckless, it denies U.S. leadership in the fight against nuclear proliferation. We have no moral or legal ground to stand on should any rogue state like North Korea or Afghanistan decide to go nuclear. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans do not seem satisfied with America in the abyss. It seems now they want to take the whole world there with them.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, black women who are pregnant are dying at an alarming rate. Maternal death rates among black women are four times those of whites. This represents the largest racial disparity in all public health. We need to know why. We need to get data and improve standards of care. A report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that for minority women, motherhood is deadly. The discrepancy of maternal mortality rates between black and white women is bordering on a crisis. Despite tremendous advances in the last 20 years, we have failed to make progress on maternal mortality. I have joined the bipartisan effort to close the gap of maternal mortality rates between black and white women by cosponsoring the Safe Motherhood Monitoring and Prevention Research Act. Women have joined hands across the aisle to support this bill. This legislation is the cornerstone of our effort to promote better health and to educate women about their pregnancies. Let us work to promote safe motherhood.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this resolution. I would like to take this moment to personally thank the brave men and women who represent us on the front lines in our embassies and posts around the world and who, if particularly lucky and gifted, can climb their way to our most senior diplomatic posts in the State Department or in the White House. Additionally, we have seen that, increasingly, to join the Foreign Service means a willingness to put one's life on the line in service to our country, because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, individuals who disagree with our policy, or just plain madmen with a means to destroy. I commend all these individuals who care enough about the world and our place in it that they are willing to serve in posts from Australia to Zanzibar representing our country's interests. Unfortunately, though, while I intend to vote for this measure, I chose not to cosponsor it because I requested that language regarding the treatment of black and minority Foreign Service officers be included in the bill. It is important to recognize how far we have come and to celebrate the good things; however, we should never purposely omit critical information about challenges yet unmet. First of all, I can understand why Madeleine Albright's State Department would not want any mention of how minorities are faring in her State Department. A description in one word would be, poorly. After choosing to use scarce resources to fight rather than settle a lawsuit filed by black Foreign Service officers, the State Department has still not admitted having discriminated against black Foreign Service officers. At least the Department of Agriculture admitted having discriminated against black and minority farmers. I am saddened that Madeleine Albright's State Department will not admit such behavior. Yet, after its reorganization, the State Department will have to contend with two additional lawsuits filed by African Americans against the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America. These two lawsuits, Brown versus Duffey/USIA and Dandridge versus USIA, are representative of the paucity of the presence of black men and, moreover, their treatment once employed by the Voice of America. Dandridge versus USIA is still pending before the EEOC and also addresses the disparity of treatment in hiring and appropriations by Voice of America toward African American male employees. Words cannot express how deeply saddened I am by this state of affairs. Everyone knows that women interested in international service had to file a lawsuit against the Government in order to get fair representation in the Foreign Service. After that lawsuit, the numbers of women rapidly improved, and we all worked hard to get Madeleine Albright into her historic position. Yet a woman, in charge of the State Department, is stalling on this important area of bringing minority representation up to where it should be. America's foreign policy apparatus is supposed to discriminate against no one. That is why women from across this country filed two lawsuits, the now famous original Hartman case and the appellate Palmer case. The State Department has responded to the Hartman lawsuit, and now it has really improved the numbers of white women represented at all levels. However, when one looks at the State Department's own numbers for their absorption of minorities into the Foreign Service, the shocking fact is that Latinos, Asian Americans, and Native Americans are grossly underrepresented. And despite having filed a lawsuit, as white women did, black Foreign Service officers did not even get fair treatment with their lawsuit, with Madeleine Albright fighting it tooth and nail. Even as late as last year, yet another lawsuit has been filed against Madeleine Albright's Department of State. We have too few minorities serving right now as either ambassadors or deputy chiefs of mission. Additionally, the seventh floor of the State Department building, from which this country's foreign policy is run, has historically, never, itself, had more than token minority representation. We have had precious few minorities in deputy assistant or assistant secretary positions. We have never had a minority serve as an under secretary or even as the public affairs spokesperson for the Department. Finally, Madam Speaker, I recently accompanied the President on his trip to the United Nations. On that plane, with dozens of foreign policy advisers, the State Department had not one minority accompanying the President. Is this the picture that we really want to paint to an increasingly shrinking world, that we are not willing to accept the best and brightest among our own citizens, even if they happen to be minorities? I join my colleagues in recognizing the Foreign Service for achieving 75 years of service this year. However, I also recognize that the State Department has a long way to go before it sheds its nickname, ``the last plantation.'' And at the rate it is going, it will be a long time indeed. Madam Speaker, I continue to be ready to work with the State Department to improve the figures that are submitted for the Record as follows: Diversity Fact Sheet--Department of State Overall, African American men and women are 22.8% of the Department of State's workforce. While on the surface, this looks good, as always, the devil is in the details: 46% of all African Americans employed at the Department of State are concentrated in the lowest GS levels in the Department of State. Of the 3,466 African American men and women employed at the Department of State, 1,588 hold the positions of GS 10 to GS 2. These are certainly not the policy making positions within the Department of State. Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians are worse off: Hispanics make up 3.9% of the overall Department of State workforce; Native Americans make up \1/2\% of the workforce; and, Asians are 3.4% of the workforce. Thus, the numbers are even smaller when looking at the Foreign Service. African Americans only hold 5% of White Collar jobs-- management, policy and leadership positions. Hispanics hold 6.3% of all DOS white collar jobs; Native Americans hold 1% of DOS white collar jobs; and Asians hold 4.8% of all DOS white collar jobs. The pattern is consistent: The higher up in DOS management you go, the less likely you are to find minorities, including women. As late as January 20, 1998, law suits have continued to be filed against the Department of State. Michael T. Johnson v. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State was filed on behalf of African American males complaining of employment discrimination. ``The Thomas Case'' was filed on behalf of African American Foreign Service officers, and accused the Department of State of racial bias in hiring and promotions. The law suit was settled by a consent decree and DOS is currently implementing the details of the consent decree. In settling in this manner, DOS did not admit discriminating against black FSO and admitted no wrongdoing of any type in their hiring and/or promotional practice as related to African American DOS employees. James A. Baker, III, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, also known as ``The Hartman Case'' (Carolee Brady Hartman v. U.S. Department of State) filed, on behalf of women Foreign Service officers, has been in litigation and various stages of settlement since 1977. ``The Palmer Case'' (Allison Palmer, et. al., v. James A. Baker, III, Secretary of State), also fought by the Department of State, noted that while women needed to prove further allegations of discrimination in promotions, the information provided to the court by the Department of State, did not successfully rebut evidence of promotion discrimination by DOS based on sex. Voice of America has 2 law suits alleging discrimination in hiring and promotions. Brown v. Duffey/USIA, was filed on behalf of U.S. born African Americans alleging discrimination at VOA. This case is in the process of being settled. Dandridge v. USIA was filed on behalf of 9 African American employees and has not been certified as a class action lawsuit. It is currently pending before EEOC with no action taken thus-far-to-date by EEOC.

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.