Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

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

Ms. WATERS. We have documentation.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I have here a letter from the very people that he referred to in the Human Rights campaign. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch; Coletta Youngers, Senior Associate, Washington Office on Latin America; George Vickers, Executive Director, Washington Office on Latin America; and Jamie Fellner, Associate Counsel, Human Rights Watch, raising these questions about the National Police. I have great sympathy for the fact that you have a relationship and that you certainly are pointing to someone who lost their life. Yes, a lot of people have lost their lives; however, we cannot stop them from dumping these drugs in our country.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertantly voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 428. If I had been aware of this, I would have changed my vote to ``nay'' instead of ``yea.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the proposed rule we are considering. I am here as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and a member of a coalition of Members of the House concerned about fairness in this process. As policymakers, we find ourselves in the difficult position of having to formulate rules and procedures to receive a report from the Office of the Independent Counsel without statutory laws or rules that dictate procedure for carrying out this special work. It is up to the Members of this House to construct and implement a fair process. The Congressional Black Caucus has made the decision to become the fairness cop. We have assigned to ourselves the role of being the best advocates we can for ensuring that this process recognizes the rights of everyone involved, as we go through the process. I would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Americans want fairness, fundamental fairness. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus understand this perhaps better than most. Our struggle for fairness, justice and equality, is a responsibility that we have accepted for the rest of our lives. This resolution reported out of the Committee on Rules is not fair. It is one-sided. It is partisan. The Republican chair of that committee, the Speaker of the House, and other Republicans are saying, oh, we want to be bipartisan, we want a bipartisan operation, we want to cooperate with the Democrats. In the words of my grandmother, ``I cannot hear what you say. I am watching what you do.'' You rolled over us yesterday, and you are rolling over us today. We say without qualification, the President of the United States of America deserves the right to review, prior to its release, a copy of the report written by the independent counsel, who has spent 4\1/2\ years investigating the President, and the last 8 months devoted to the Monica Lewinsky matter. Our position is not one of unquestioned support for this President. We have, and I have, disagreed with him on many occasions. In a court of law, it is a basic right for a defendant to know what they have been accused of and to be given the opportunity for preparation and response. To release this report is unconscionable. Do what you did for the Speaker, for President Nixon and Oliver North. Give the President 1 hour, 2 minutes, 1 minute, but be fair.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, again I find myself taking the floor to support the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in her efforts to keep Members of this House from running roughshod over the District of Columbia. I support her efforts to strike the bar to the use of local funds again. It is absolutely amazing to me that we can in this House, on this floor, representatives of the people who sent us here because they believe in representative government, they believe in democracy and they believe in the right of the citizens to have a voice and to be represented, find myself on the floor of Congress arguing to allow the District of Columbia residents the right to go to court. On July 4, a group of 51 District residents filed a petition to Congress declaring that they lack political representation in the House and the Senate. The D.C. Corporation Counsel signed the petition, and they have a law firm that is going to, basically, agree to represent the petitioners pro bono. It is inconceivable that a serious legislator of any stripe could come on this floor with legislation that says, citizen, I do not care what you are attempting to do. Citizen of the District of Columbia, you do not have the same rights as other citizens in this Nation. We are going to use our awesome power to deny you the right to go to court on a very fundamental question of whether or not you have representation and that representation can vote in the House and in the Senate to represent the people of the District of Columbia. We know what the long struggle has been in this District, and we know that this representative, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), worked hard to be able to exercise her right to vote on the floor. My colleagues took it away from her. They literally came into power and snatched away from this representative the right to vote in this House. Again, this abuse of power. I am almost ashamed for them that they would say not only to this representative that she indeed cannot represent her constituents on the floor but to tell the residents who organized and who petitioned that they are going to shut down their right to go to court. Every American citizen deserves the right to fight, to struggle, and to go to our court system and to ask that they be heard. It is inconceivable that they would use their power in this way. But since they have decided one more time to do that, let me remind them that this is beyond the question of local control. But again, you are saying that they cannot use their own funds, the taxpayers' money, not Federal money, they cannot use their own funds to petition and to go into court on a very basic and fundamental right that most citizens in this country enjoy without thought. This again is a local argument. I would ask any Member on the other side of the aisle who is opposed to this amendment to justify to your voting constituents, to justify to your constituents who see the court as something that is guaranteed to them in this democracy for use when they feel they need to go there to be heard, to get an opportunity to voice their opinions and to petition their government, I dare you to make an argument that would indeed conclude that somehow it is all right for your citizens in your district, in your State, in your city or your town but somehow it is not good enough for the citizens of this District. Again, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a woman that you must look in the face every day and refer to as the gentlelady, a woman whom you say you respect, a woman who is an attorney, who is a professor, who gets on this floor with facts, with the kind of background and knowledge that is necessary to represent her people, you would deny her and take it away from her with this kind of action.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this Congress voted not to use any Federal funds for needle exchange programs. That is done. If that is done already, what is this extra measure that is being used, directed right at the District of Columbia? Again, it is that running roughshod, it is that disrespect. At the time that this is going on, 33 Americans are infected each day with HIV because of injection drug use. We had better get our heads out of the sand. Members know that needle exchange is not about promoting drug use, needle exchange is about saving lives. It is about saving lives, because 75 percent of babies diagnosed with HIV/AIDS are infected as a result of tainted needles used by their parents. If we get drug users coming in to exchange needles, we get a chance to talk with them. We get a chance to know who they are. We get a chance to convince them, and God forbid, if we ever have drug rehab on demand, we can get them into the hospitals, into the clinics, and we can begin to change lives. Maybe Members do not care, but let me tell the Members why I care so much. It is the leading killer of African Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. People are dying, babies are dying. We need to have a sensible policy to deal with drug use. Needle exchange is such a policy. Members ought to be ashamed of themselves for denying it to the District of Columbia, using their own money.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is not and should not be a debate necessarily about the act itself. We all know where some of our colleagues stand on the issue. We know that they take every opportunity to remind us of where they stand on the issue. We certainly do not need to be reminded about how special the birth of a child is. We are mothers. He has got four; I have got two. Most of us have children. We did not watch somebody else's child being born. We watched our own children being born. So we do not need to be told about that. This is about local control. This is about the District of Columbia that is being trampled on by my friends on the other side of the aisle. This is about the District of Columbia using its own funds, not Federal money, for poor women. This, again, is about whether or not the Congress of the United States is going to not only exercise its will but simply run over these citizens and deny them the ability to use their own taxpayer dollars for those services that they deem important and necessary. This is about local control. It has been said over and over again, local control is fine when it acts in ways that some want it to act, but they do not like it so much when people are providing services they do not like. This District deserves more respect than it is being given. There is something strange about power. Really powerful people really do understand how to use power. You never, ever step on folks simply because you have the power to do it. I think this is an abuse of power. The Members of this House who would deny the District the ability to be in control of the decisions about its own dollars are disrespecting and abusing the citizens. Local control, that is what this is all about, not all of the abortion arguments that are being brought in at this time. Let us ask the gentleman who just raised the question, what happens in his own State? I believe they have State-funded abortions. Why does he not spend his time there trying to deny? They would run him out of town. That is why he cannot do it there. But he can come here with the majority, because they have got more votes, and they can step on this District, and that is precisely what is happening.

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this debate is unbelievable. Everything that I have been taught as an elected official, and prior to ever being elected to office, had to do with involvement in community. I was taught that it is important to be involved in neighborhood watch programs, to be involved in tree planting programs, to be involved in cleanup programs in the neighborhood, to be involved in one's city in ways that will help drive the politics at City Hall, in the State, and even in the Federal Government, oftentimes. Community involvement is very, very special. For communities with a lot of money, oftentimes people do that because they have assistance that frees them up to be able to do it. They have money that they can put in, they have resources. They can call on their wealthy friends. But not all communities are free to be involved in those ways. Many poor people, many average workers, give what they can of their time and their resources, but I firmly believe that every local government ought to have support for citizens who want to be involved in their government. One of the things I have been very pleased about, as I have come to spend time in the District of Columbia, is the local involvement of the ANCs. I have seen the work they do and the notices they put out in the neighborhood. I am absolutely appalled, and really do not understand why anybody, particularly my friends on the other side of the aisle who claim to be about the business of involving citizens, good citizenship, about people being involved in their government, would pull the rug out from under local citizens who are doing just that with their own resources and their own money. I dare tell the Members that none of the persons on the other side of the aisle can tell us what dollars are being spent in their many cities and towns for all kinds of activities. They would not dare confront the citizens of any of those towns and cities in their district and tell them they could not accept money from their city for involvement in ways that they have decided. It is easy to come to Washington and pick on the District. Oh, yes, the District has had its problems. They would not do this kind of mess at home. They would not do it, because their citizens would not stand for it. Well, maybe the citizens do not have all they need to fight them back. But for them to stand here and look the gentlewoman in the face and tell her that they are going to dictate to her citizens in the District of Columbia, using their own money, that they cannot be involved in local government, is outrageous.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, yet another proposal tonight that violates the Republican principles of States' rights and local control. This school voucher scheme that has been dreamed up by the majority leader, that would provide only $3,200 a year for poor students to attend private and religious schools, is well below what the local private schools charge to begin with and, in addition to that, it would take nearly $7 million from the school District's budget and give it to only 3 percent of the District students. I think Members on this side of the aisle have made wonderful arguments about why this is not a sound proposal, but let me just ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who have talked about how much they care about these poor children, and how much they want them educated, and how much they want them to be a part of the American dream. Would my Republican colleagues please just let them have a summer job? As I understand it, they are taking away their right to work this summer, and they depend on that money so that they can have clothes to go back to school. I tell my colleagues, do not worry about the voucher, just give them a summer job and we will be very happy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment to restore full funding for the Census Bureau so that the agency can get on with the business of conducting an accurate census that includes everybody. Placing a 6-month cap on the funding of the Census Bureau and making only one-half of the funds available is an obstruction to an accurate and efficient census. We have heard by now that the 1990 census was the first in this Nation's history to be less accurate than the preceding census. Mr. Chairman, in particular, 834,000 people were never counted in the State of California. African Americans were undercounted by 7.6 percent and Hispanics by 4.9 percent compared to the 2.3 percent undercount for whites. In fact, the City of Inglewood, a city in my Congressional district, had the State's highest undercount rate among major cities. In addition, 342,095 of California's children were missed altogether by the last census. In the last census the monies allocated for schools, school lunches, Head Start, senior citizens centers, health care facilities, and transportation never reached the communities where people were not counted. Simply put, if individuals were not counted in the last census, they did not receive their fair share of Federal fundings for public services. We have a chance to correct the errors of the past census by employing modern techniques that have been proven to be efficient and cost effective. It is illogical for this body to profess to be a democratic institution but, at the same time, refuse to adequately fund a census which employs a method which counts everyone. It seems the right wing faction of the party would prefer to have no census rather than have an accurate census. The Mollohan amendment is a reasonable one. It would restore the full funding to the Census Bureau so that it may do its job without interruption. The amendment further provides that funds for a statistical counting will be cut off if the Supreme Court finds sampling unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, it is unreasonable not to proceed without this kind of obstruction.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to the point of order. I would like to reiterate the point that was made by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). We cannot in fact have an underlying piece of legislation that is in order that is legislating on an appropriation, and then even discuss the possibility that an amendment to that is out of order because it is legislating on an appropriation and it does not fit, for any reason. I think it is important that this debate not be stymied by any attempt to manipulate the rules. This may be one of the most important debates we will have in this House. It is not just about the basic questions that are being raised in the underlying legislation. The amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) fits so well in this discussion. We are watching unfold before our very eyes a violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. If there is one thing I cherish, it is my privacy. We cannot have a special prosecutor who will go to a bookstore and demand to know what books someone purchased in America. That is unacceptable. But there are other questions that are being raised as it relates to the special prosecutor that deal with the violation of the Constitution of the United States, not only the violation of privacy that I just alluded to. We have questions of wiretap and wiretapping. We are looking at a whole new debate about attorney-client privileges. This is too important to be sidelined by someone who does not want to hear it because they have got another agenda. Mr. Chairman, there should be no question that this is in order. I hope we do not have to get to the point that the chairman will even have to rule on this. I do not want this body divided on a partisan basis on this issue. This is not about partisan politics at this moment. This is about the Constitution of the United States of America, and whether or not citizens are going to have basic protections that we thought were guaranteed to us by the Constitution. So whether we are talking about the special prosecutor or whether we are talking about the underlying legislation, what we are talking about is individuals who have run wild, who are tramping on our rights, who have gone absolutely too far. It does not matter whether they are from the right or they are from the left, or where they live in this country, what color they are. The fact of the matter is that we have violations of the Constitution being perpetrated on us by those who work in the Justice Department, and it is off the scale when we look at this special prosecutor. He has gone too far. This should be ruled in order.

Ms. WATERS. I wish to speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this debate is long overdue. It is about time we dealt with what is wrong with the Justice Department and with unethical prosecutors in this Nation. Legislators at the state level, at the federal level have been absolutely supportive of the criminal justice system. They have done everything to give law enforcement the ability to apprehend criminals. They have done everything to be supportive of the Justice Department. When we look at the generosity of public policy makers on wire tapping, no-knock, search and seizure, all of that, when we look at mandatory minimums, three-strikes-and-you-are-out conspiracy laws, we have been very generous, sending a message to the people of this Nation, we want criminals locked up. We never knew that they would take the generosity of good public policy makers and turn it on its head. We never knew that they would take out after innocent people in so many different ways. I cannot even get into telling my colleagues how they use conspiracy laws. No evidence, no documentation. These conspiracy laws are filling up the prisons. I do not know all of the details of the case of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). I have heard about it. But I want to tell my colleagues, I know thousands of Mr. McDades who do not have any money, who do not have any attorneys, whose grandmothers and mothers come crying to my office for me to help them and I cannot do anything because my powerful government, prosecutors, have run amuck. Let me tell my colleagues, my hat is off, my hat is off to the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, my friend from Detroit, Michigan, for this amendment. But I want to tell my colleagues, I want to make it very clear, he is talking about a generic prosecutor. I am talking about generic prosecutors, but I am talking about Ken Starr also. I want to tell my colleagues, he is under investigation. He is the poster boy for unethical prosecutors. I want to tell my colleagues he is under investigation because he has leaks about Hillary Clinton getting indicted, leaks about Bruce Lindsey getting indicted, leaks about Monica Lewinsky meeting with Ken Starr in New York City, leaks about Betty Currie's testimony, leaks about FBI wire conversations at the Ritz Carlton hotel. Even the Republicans have said he should be investigated. So let me make it clear. We would not be in this debate today, we would not have this amendment today if this poster boy for unethical prosecutors had not violated all of us in the way he has done. I am so glad this debate is taking place. I wish we had this in our committee. It should have been in subcommittee. It should be in full committee. We should bring people in here to tell their stories about what has happened to them. I should be able to tell my colleagues about a young woman named Kimber Smith, who is 19 years old who is sitting in a federal penitentiary today. And so I do not know all of the details about the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). I have heard some. But I want to tell my colleagues, indeed, I know many because I have heard the stories and I have seen the devastation of unethical prosecutors. It is time for America to believe that even though we want criminals prosecuted, indicted and locked up, we do not intend for them to be violated and run over and disrespected by anybody's prosecutor. I want to tell my colleagues something. No matter what they think about the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the left or somebody on the right, there is one thing that I hold dear that was drummed in my head as a student, and that was the Constitution of the United States of America. I was made to believe that I would be protected. Even when things were going wrong, there would be some hope because we had a system of justice that would make sure that the average person, in the final analysis, would have an opportunity for redress. And I believed in this Constitution. They taught it to me too well. And that is why I can stand here and fight for it and feel very comfortable with it. I do not care about some other prosecutor who is a prosecutor in a state somewhere in Georgia who gets up and defends all prosecutors. I know the reputation of some prosecutors. I know the lives that have been ruined by some state prosecutors. They are no better than these federal ones that we are talking about. I want criminals to be apprehended, to be investigated, to be locked up. But I want people to have a chance to have their voices heard and to have a chance to be innocent until proven guilty, and that is why we have got to go after this special prosecutor.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, reluctantly I must rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 213. While I understand and support the interest of our domestic agricultural sector, this resolution could have far reaching negative ramifications. This Sense of Congress expresses Congressional disapproval of the European Union's trade practices. In fact, the United States and the European Union should be getting together to explore how to develop better trade relations. This bill does not help this process. I am particularly concerned about this hard line bargaining stance given the growing crisis for the many small banana farmers in the Caribbean Windward Islands. The United States Trade Representative, acting on behalf of the giant U.S. multinational corporation Chiquita Banana, unilaterally went to the World Trade Organization in an effort to tear down the relationship the European Union had with small and family farmers in the Carribean. The European Union had set up a special trade relationship with their former colonies in the Carribean and West Africa. This was going to be sunseted in 10 years but Chiquita wanted it ended immediately, before the Carribean had a chance to develop alternative economic strategies. The United States Trade Representative still refuses to negotiate with the Windward Islands and they now face imminent economic catastrophe. Our actions directly led to this negative outcome. This legislation only increases the possibility that other small developing countries will suffer as a result of our battles with other economic giants like the European Union. We need to approach each trade situation on a case by case basis and use thoughtful negotiating to avoid other Carribean like disasters. For these reasons I oppose this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, today I want to speak in support of the Mollohan-Fox- Ramstad amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will suffer another devastating blow. As currently written, this bill provides only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is a 50 percent reduction, or a cut, of 142 million from Legal Services funding year 1998 budget. Mr. Chairman, such a reduction would crush an already vulnerable Legal Services, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide legal services for the poor. Let us be clear. Legal Services has already been cut to the bone. This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. We have cut legal services from a budget of 415 million in fiscal year 1955 to 283 million in fiscal year 1998. The effects of these cuts are already being felt by those low-income clients that depend on legal services organizations. Mr. Chairman, in my own State of California the Legal Services Corporation provided legal services to 217,015 clients in 1997. Those represented included our most vulnerable citizens, including the elderly, battered women and families who are barely surviving poverty. Moreover, if the Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad amendment is not accepted, we, as legislators, would effectively be abandoning the longstanding commitment to legal services for the poor. To make matters worse, in the State of California many of the poor are already without service because of Governor Pete Wilson's veto of the State bar fee authorization last year. The poor in California have been failed by their Governor, and this amendment is really their last hope. Moreover, the deep cuts in legal services will mean that whole sectors of our society will be left without access to the Legal Services Corporation. In many poor and rural regions of the country there will be no publicly-funded legal assistance available to the poor. We must not forget that 40 percent of the 23 million people over 18 who live in poverty in this country are the working poor. They also depend on legal services organizations for legal assistance. One Legal Services Corporation for every 23,600 poor Americans is simply not enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the poor will fall from 4,871 in funding year 1995 to a mere 2,115 in the next fiscal year. This means that thousands of poor people in the South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest will have virtually no legal services representation. The American public supports federally-funded legal services for those individuals who would not otherwise be able to afford an attorney's service in certain civil matters. The provision of adequate Federal funding for legal services cannot be provided elsewhere. Pro bono services will never be able to replace federally-funded legal services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through legal services organizations. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time. I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of my colleagues' would have no other legal representation without the existence of Legal Services Corporation. It is for these reasons that I call on my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad amendment. Mr. Chairman, I alluded to senior citizens, and this particular group in our society must have some support and some services from their government. Many of them are being caught up in schemes where they are losing their homes. There are many unscrupulous individuals out there who misrepresent who they are, and it is spreading across this Nation. We are going to find that these particular problems will be dropped in the laps of Congress because the States are not protecting our seniors from those who put their sights on their homes and come up with all kind of sophisticated schemes by which they take these people's homes. Mr. Chairman, the only defense they have are the Legal Services Corporations. If we reduce the amount of money that we are going to put to support Legal Services Corporation, that means more seniors are going to lose their homes to these unscrupulous schemes. I ask my colleagues to please support this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the 35th congressional district and the people of the State of California, I, along with all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, join with the President and other Members of Congress and, of course, the citizens of this entire Nation in sending our heartfelt condolences to the families of slain Capitol Police Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and Capitol Police Detective John M Gibson. We, too, are pained by the tragic death of two very fine officers who lost their lives while serving and protecting those of us who work and visit the Nation's Capitol each day. Officer Chestnut was shot while guarding the east entrance of the Capitol. Detective Gibson was shot twice while protecting majority whip Tom DeLay's leadership office. They were the first officers in our history slain while protecting the Capitol of the United States. These officers, these husbands, these fathers served their country unselfishly before they lost their lives last Friday. Both were 18 year veterans of the Capitol Police. Yes, each was a father and each was indeed a husband. Officer Chestnut was married with 5 children. He also was a grandfather. Detective Gibson was married with 3 children. We may never be able to make sense of why Russell Eugene Weston, who had a history of mental illness, barged into the Capitol, barged in on Friday to shoot innocent people. We do know this, however: We know that Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson are heroes. They made the ultimate sacrifice. They gave their lives so that others might live. For that, we are indeed eternally grateful. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Members of the House, please remember to take time to acknowledge all our officers and, really, all of the workers who protect and maintain the Capitol and the office buildings. Say hello to them. Ask them how they are doing. Treat them with respect on a daily basis. After all, their lives are at risk every day to protect us and the citizens of this country who visit their Capitol.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today and take this opportunity to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to an unusual human being. I am delighted to be a part of this tribute, because long before I came to the Congress of the United States of America, I knew who Lou Stokes was. But, of course, most African-Americans in this country not only knew who Lou Stokes was, they knew about Lou Stokes and Carl Stokes. Because Lou Stokes and his brother Carl were pioneers. They were in the forefront of African-Americans getting elected to important and high offices. Most of us who watched them from afar aspired to be like them. They let it be known that they were prepared to work hard, to do what was necessary to provide leadership to this Nation. And so they helped to pave the way for us. We have watched and we have appreciated his work for many years. He was a friend of my husband's long before I met my husband in Cleveland. My husband played for the Cleveland Browns. My husband as a football player had to have mentors and those that he looked up to. And, of course, it was Lou and Carl. They were the shining examples not only of what those who wanted to be elected officials would like to be but for all of the young men in America who were aspiring to realize their full potential. It was the Lou and the Carl Stokes of the world who helped them to understand what they could be, and what they should be. And so I want you to know, when I came to the Congress of the United States, I came with full knowledge and appreciation for Lou Stokes. And as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I stepped into this role and this position behind many great individuals. Lou Stokes was one of those. He took over the chairmanship of the Caucus in 1972, and he served in 1972, 1973 and 1974 following the resignation of Mr. Diggs. And he set the tone. And he helped to make the rules. This was after he had helped to found the Congressional Black Caucus. They set the tone, they made the rules, and they determined where it was going to go, and what we should do, those of us coming behind them. And so in my work today, I have to ask myself almost on a daily basis, what would Lou Stokes do in this case, in this situation. What must I do to follow in that tradition? How must I make decisions that will make him proud of me and my work? So I have to look at what he has done. Let me just say for the Congressional Black Caucus, we look to him for guidance all the time. When we are going down the wrong path, we will get a visit in the Congressional Black Caucus from Lou Stokes, and he will quietly join in the discussion, and he will tell us what he thinks. No one has anything else to say after Lou has spoken. When Lou speaks, the world listens. We know that when he takes time to give us his guidance that we should take it, and we do. I have a real appreciation for that, because this is a man who is not only a great family man, who has the kind of marriage and family that is a guide to what we should all try and do, he and his wife are a team. When you see them together, you know right away that Jay and Lou Stokes have profound respect for each other, and they work together, not only in the guidance of their family, but carrying out much of the work of the Caucus and the spouses and this Congress. This man, whose wife is his soul mate and his teammate have four wonderful, accomplished children and, I think, about seven grandchildren. They are truly a very strong family. I thank him for providing that picture for America so that they can see that, not all politicians, perhaps, are able to carry out this great family life, but there are some who do it and do it well. Not only is he a family man, but he is a public policy maker extraordinaire. He really has helped to write the book about what a legislator should do and be. Yes, he has paid attention to African-Americans in this country. Yes, he understood that he was on the cutting edge of work that must be done to help give recognition to and to legislate for people who had not been legislated for in the history of the Nation. Congressman Louis Stokes authored the Disadvantaged and Minority Health Improvement Act that has paved the way for thousands of poor disadvantaged and minority young people to pursue careers in the health professions. He established the Minority Access to Research Careers Program, the Minority Biomedical Research Support Program, the Office of Research on Minority Health and other offices of minority health at various Federal agencies. He has done all of this while he certainly has been in the mainstream legislating for all of America, working with both sides of the aisle. He is a fine example of oftentimes what people say you cannot do. He has paid attention to African-Americans in this country. At the same time, he has not been locked into legislating for any one aspect. He works better with Jerry Lewis than other Republicans do. They work together so well, it is like watching band leaders as they plan and plot and strategize and try to respond to the requests of their Members. I do not know how well Jerry Lewis does for Republicans when he is working on their behalf, but I know what Lou Stokes does for us. I cannot go into detail because I do not really want you to know how much we get from that committee, but we do quite well, and that is because of Lou Stokes. He has never turned anybody down. If you go to him with a problem, he is going to work on it, and he is going to help to solve it. This giant of a man, great family man, this great public policy maker is one of the greatest humanitarians you will ever meet any time, any place, anywhere. He cares about individuals. He cares about human beings. He wants to know what more can be done for the homeless and those who are without. So I come today to join in the chorus. I am glad the chairman gaveled because I could talk all day about Lou Stokes, and I would do it unless the chairman told me I could not do it any longer because there is a lot to be said about him.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a poison pill proposal designed to kill campaign finance reform. Pure and simple. But what is amazing about what the Republicans are doing here tonight is that it is anti- American, that it disregards States rights, that it is an intrusion into the privacy of American citizens. Just a little while ago we voted with the Republicans to deny the right to spend one dollar to help a senior citizen to the polling place on Election Day. Now we have a proposal that would say voters have to present a Social Security number and card and proof of citizenship. Well, all of this is undermining the voting rights of all of our citizens and, of course, the Voting Rights Act that so many fought and even died for. What are my colleagues on the other side doing? Are they taking us back to the time that many of us know too much about? Literacy tests? Poll tax? Well, some of us and our forefathers have been in this struggle. They have been in this fight to get rid of that kind of discrimination and marginalization and denial. Some of us even joined to help our friends in South Africa against national ID, known as pass laws. We are not going back there. Mr. Chairman, if this is some attempt to kill the bill, let me just tell my colleagues this. It does not matter whether or not they are able to convince people on this floor to vote for this kind of anti- American proposal. We will beat them in the courts on this, because this is unconstitutional. So I would hope that my colleagues would live up to who they are supposed to be. I cannot imagine what the American people will think about the kinds of things that they are doing that are so anti- American. This is unconstitutional, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Today I renew my call on CIA Director George Tenant to immediately release the CIA Inspector General's classified report on the allegations of CIA involvement with Contra drug trafficking. I also call, once again, on the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Porter Goss), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to hold prompt public hearings on the findings of these reports. Today's New York Times, front page, put it bluntly. ``CIA says it used Nicaraguan rebels accused of drug tie.'' The times reported that, and I quote again, ``The Central Intelligence Agency continued to work with about two dozen Nicaraguan rebels and their supporters during the 1980s despite allegations that they were trafficking in drugs.'' The Times finally reported the explosive truth that the Senate investigators and investigative journalists alike have been telling the American people for nearly 15 years. This front page confirmation of CIA involvement with Contra drug traffickers evidently came from a leak of the still classified CIA review of the allegations stemming from Gary Webb's 1996 Dark Alliance series. Webb's series and his recent book details the CIA's involvement with Contra drug trafficking, including ties to south central Los Angeles' largest crack cocaine network. Until today, the CIA has vehemently denied the charges. But, apparently, even the CIA is having trouble hiding the truth from the American people. The leaked CIA report remains classified, sitting at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, because the CIA refuses to declassify a report full of what are being described as devastating revelations of CIA involvement with known Contra drug traffickers. I have repeatedly called for the public release of these CIA reports, and I applaud Senator Kerry in calling for the immediate public release of the CIA Inspector General's reports. Senator Kerry has worked for 15 years to bring truth, having chaired the Senate investigation that first uncovered the sordid details of Contra drug trafficking in the 1980s. There is no conceivable reason to keep this report classified. It is tantamount to protecting drug dealers. This administration should call on the CIA to immediately release the report of the Contra drug network. The Contras were a creation of the Reagan-Bush administration and run by Reagan's CIA and Oliver North. This administration can and should reveal the truth and put an end to this terrible affair. I cannot understand why a CIA report which details the illegal efforts of Reagan-Bush administration officials to protect the involvement of top-level Contras in drug trafficking should continue to be protected. Although today's New York Times story is somewhat confusing to follow, the story includes some explosive details. Perhaps the most amazing revelation from these leaks is the admission that the CIA knew of drug trafficking allegations against the infamous Legion of September 15 Contra organization. This group included the key Contra military commanders, including the Contra's top military commander Enrique Bermudez, and was the core of the most famous of the Contra armies, the FDN. They were comprised of a group of violent ex-bodyguards of Nicaraguan dictator Somoza. And they had proven themselves among the worst human rights violators in the entire Contra-era war. The Times somewhat inaccurately reported this organization was disbanded, they said, in 1982. Of course, the Legion of September 15 had, by then, been merged into the FDN. That is the Contra army. So we now know that the CIA knowingly worked with Contra rebels involved in drug dealing, including the core of the FDN. We also know that the CIA and Attorney General had a secret Memorandum of Understanding that allowed drug trafficking by CIA assets to go unreported to law enforcement. This, of course, was confirmed in documents I submitted for the Record in May. And we know that CIA officials at the highest levels knew of the Contra drug trafficking activities. What we do not know yet are the many damaging details of the 500-plus-page CIA report. The American people must be able to see this report for themselves. We forced these investigations. A lot of people said, oh, there was nothing to it. The first half of the CIA reports were unleashed, and that is when we determined the Memorandum of Understanding existed that they did not have to report drug trafficking.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I must rise today and voice my very strong opposition to this amendment. It is outrageous that this authorizing bill would be considered as part of this appropriations bill. Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate have been working to come to agreement on public housing legislation. To use this last-minute maneuver to undercut this process is the worst form of lawmaking. As a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that considered this legislation, I know the significance of this bill for millions of low-income persons that live in public housing across this country. The amendment includes provisions that will undermine the basic mission of public housing, the provision of decent, safe and affordable housing for those who would not otherwise be able to secure it. The income-targeting provision will mean that 709,000 poor families over the next 10 years will not have access to public housing and the Section 8 certificate program. In an effort to diversify the income mix of public housing, we cannot allow a wholesale abdication of our responsibility to the poor. Provisions that would turn over control of the Federal public housing dollars to local municipalities would jeopardize the welfare of poor families. The requirement that residents of poor public housing work as a condition of residency is another of the punitive provisions of this legislation. Why do we feel that we can impose this requirement on poor people when we do not impose the same kind of requirement on other beneficiaries of Federal support? For these reasons, I urge a no vote on this amendment. Let me just say, I am really surprised that my chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), would support this. He has a reputation for being fair. He has a reputation for respecting the legislative process. This is legislating on an appropriation. I would ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment