Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his commitment. The gentleman has demonstrated his commitment to this issue as much as anyone, more than most in the Congress of the United States. And I am going to review the numbers and take his representation of how that funding has come together and have further discussions with the AIDS community. They are so concerned because since the President's commitment, over 7 million people have died. And also we will have an amendment coming up today from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), and although I do not want to preempt the gentleman's presentation, I would hope the gentleman would join me in helping to put that down because that would undermine all the work that he has done.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his interpretation of what I am attempting to do here. I do not know what law the gentleman is referring to. There is no law that would have us dictate when elections are to take place in Haiti. There is no law that we would be in violation of by not using our influence to make those elections happen. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is being driven by Mr. Noriega at the State Department because they have helped to create this chaos in Haiti with the removal of the democratically elected president, and this democratically elected president will probably not be able to return to Haiti. That is not a problem. That is not something that anybody should worry about. What we should be concerned about is why they are insisting on holding these elections in this atmosphere of violence, corruption, and complete chaos in Haiti. So I do not think the gentleman is referring to any law that he can reasonably point to that we are in violation of.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to be on the floor this evening speaking about this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I was hoping over the next few days I could concentrate all of my time on the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus that we are working so hard on. But this is National Homeowner Month, and I could not help but focus on the fact that in America owning your own home is one of the most ideal things that you can do. Americans aspire to own their own homes. We socialize in such a way that we teach our children to go to school, to get an education, to get a good job or have a good career, become an entrepreneur, and buy your home. And so as I focus on National Homeowner Month, I am outraged that the Supreme Court of the United States of America last Thursday made a decision that local entities could take American's homes in eminent domain proceedings for something other than public use. I am amazed that the Supreme Court of the United States on a 5-to-4 decision, I believe it was, decided that the law, the Constitution as we know it, I think it is the fifth amendment, that says yes, you may use eminent domain for good public use, is something other than what was intended. This ruling says you can take anybody's home for private use. In this case Susette Kelo, the woman from New London, Connecticut, who brought the case, was trying to protect her home from the desire by a huge corporation to build some condominiums. And so now with this Supreme Court decision, the State, the city, the public entity, can take your home for private use. They can take your home and they can give it to private developers to build shopping centers. They can take your home and give it to developers to build a condominium. They can take your home for any reason that they decide is in the public interest, and they are trying to hide behind the idea that there are some cities and some entities that need to get rid of slums and they need to redevelop in the best interest of the citizens of that community. Yes, it may go to a private company or to a private corporation and yes, they may get rich from that development. But if the city fathers get together and believe that that somehow is in the best interest and it is already all right, that flies in the face of the Constitution of the United States. I do not think Members have to be a strict constructionist or a liberal constructionist. All you need is good sense to know that the Constitution of the United States did not mean for your city government or any other entity to be able to ride over your rights and take your private property and give it to somebody else. As a matter of fact, I think this is dangerous. I think it is dangerous because your city fathers could get together with developers and take land in ways it has never been done before. We know too many stories about the influence of developers on county council members and on city governments. We know too much about the flow of money. We know too much about campaign contributions to those who would just as soon institute eminent domain as do anything. As a matter of fact, without this interpretation that we got last Thursday, we have city fathers who have tried it, even though they did not have this ruling. You have communities that have to fight against city council members and mayors getting together trying to take their property and at least trying to call it for public use. But now the Supreme Court has made it clear that they can take it for private use. I do not like it. Members do not have to be a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Members just need to be an American with good sense that says you will not stand for it. Mr. Speaker, I am going to get together with some of my friends on the other side of the aisle and we are going to create a law that will undermine this decision of the Supreme Court and take back amendment 5 of the Constitution so we can redefine the meaning in the way it is supposed to be defined.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the time, and I applaud him for his efforts to expose what is wrong with CAFTA, the U.S. Central American Free Trade Agreement. I must say he has put many hours into helping to organize us around this issue and to present the real facts about what CAFTA is and what it is not. CAFTA is yet another unfair trade deal that will hurt working families in both Central America and the United States. CAFTA is not only the latest unfair trade deal in a decade of failed trade policies. Over the last 12 years, the U.S. trade deficit has exploded from $39 billion in 1992, to over $617 billion in 2004. As a matter of fact, I think the most interesting thing about what is happening in the Congress of the United States is this tremendous trade deficit under what is supposed to be a conservative President. And aside from the trade deficit, the United States deficit that we have here in America under this administration. I think people should take note of that. In my home State of California, over 353,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1998. Nationwide, almost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Bush took office in 2001. CAFTA is modeled on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. And let me say I did not support NAFTA, as I do not support CAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement had a devastating impact on many American workers. When NAFTA was passed in 1994, the United States had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. In 2004, we had a $45 billion trade deficit with Mexico. NAFTA caused almost 1 million American manufacturing jobs to be exported to Mexico. CAFTA will cause even more manufacturing jobs to be lost to American workers. I do not care whether it is a Democrat President or a Republican President, I do not support these unfair trade agreements that cause us to have such huge trade deficits and who displace American workers. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the press conference he organized where he had several business people who came to Washington, to explain how small- and medium-sized businesses will be unable to compete with cheap labor in Central America. What I loved about that press conference was the fact that we had these representatives from small and medium-sized businesses coming to Washington, D.C. to tell the truth about how they have not been represented here in Washington. Many people think when the Chamber of Commerce speaks, they are speaking for all businesses. They made sure that everybody knew that this was not true. They also made sure that everybody understands that the National Manufacturers Association was not speaking for everybody. These are small and medium-sized businesses that represent the heart and soul of America: Mr. Alan Tonelson with the U.S. Business and Industry Council, Mr. Jim Schollaert with the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, Mr. Fred Tedesco with the PA-Ted Spring Company of Connecticut, Mr. Jock Nash with Milliken & Company of South Carolina and the National Textile Association, Mr. Mike Retzer with the W.W. Strohwig Tool & Die of Wisconsin, and Mr. Dave Frengel with Pen United Technologies of Pennsylvania and Manufacturers for Fair Trade. These business persons are the kind of business people that we talk about all the time. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle talk about how we support small and middle-sized businesses, how they are the heart and soul of America. And how they really are responsible for creating more jobs than even the big conglomerates and the international corporate businesses. We talk about how we want to give support to them. Well, this is how we can support them. Enough of the rhetoric. Let us get down to business. If we want to support our small and medium-sized businesses in this country, we will not support CAFTA. We will not support what they have come to Washington to tell us undermines their ability to stay in business. I think we could not have had a more clear representation of what is wrong with CAFTA than to watch these American business persons talk about what is wrong with CAFTA. When American workers lose good jobs in manufacturing, they often have no choice but to take jobs with low wages and no benefits. The countries of Central America that are included in this agreement are some of the world's poorest countries. The average Nicaraguan worker earns only $2,300 per year, or $191 per month. Forty percent of Central American workers earn less than $2 per day. Central American governments do not enforce fair labor standards, and thousands of Central American workers work in sweatshops with dreadful working conditions. CAFTA will do nothing to improve wages and working conditions in these impoverished countries. Opposition to CAFTA is wide spread, not only in the United States but in Central America as well. CAFTA will increase agricultural imports into Central America by large corporate agri-businesses. These imports will put an estimated 1.2 million farmers out of work, displacing families and causing an increase in world poverty. When poor Central American farmers lose their jobs, they will be forced to move into overcrowded cities and seek work in sweatshops producing manufactured goods that are currently made in America. CAFTA will cause American workers to lose good manufacturing jobs and again seek jobs with lower wages and no benefits. At the same time, CAFTA will cause Central American workers to lose their farms and seek jobs in sweatshop with meager wages and no benefits. CAFTA is not a free trade agreement at all. It is an outsourcing agreement. I say it again: this is not free trade; this is about outsourcing American jobs to third world countries for cheap labor. That is what it is. Let us call it what it is. It allows profit-hungry corporations to ship American jobs to impoverished countries where workers can be forced to work long hours for little pay and no benefits. It is a bad deal for Central American workers, and it is an equally bad deal for workers here in the United States. So I would urge this President, Mr. Conservative President, Mr. President who claims to have concern about American businesses, Mr. President who should not be the President, presiding over a big trade deficit, a huge deficit in the United States, I would urge him to withdraw this CAFTA agreement and negotiate a trade agreement that will create good jobs and provide real benefits to the impoverished people of Central America as well as the working people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is awfully ironic that I am, who is considered a progressive and a liberal, even more conservative than the President of the United States when it comes to preserving American jobs and getting rid of a trade deficit that we do not deserve to have.

Ms. WATERS. I think you are so right, and I thank you so very much for the leadership you have provided on these issues. I thank you for opening up opportunities for women to go down to Mexico and take a look at what is going on there. It is because of you that a lot of people in this Congress have become interested in this issue, and I appreciate the work you have done.

Ms. WATERS. It could not have been better stated.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening to talk about something new and wonderful that has happened in the Congress of the United States of America. I am here to talk about a new caucus that is named Out of Iraq Caucus. I am here to talk about the men and women of this House who have decided they can be silent no longer. I am here to talk about men and women who represent various points of view relative to support for the President from the time that he first announced he was going into Iraq to now. I am here to talk about why we have formed this caucus, what we plan to do, but more than that this evening, we are going to focus on our soldiers and those who are in Iraq serving this country, those who are there in harm's way, those who have been killed in Iraq, those who are up at Walter Reed Hospital suffering from serious injuries, having lost limbs, having lost their eyesight, those who do not know what the future holds for them. We are going to focus on that this evening because it is extremely important for the families of these soldiers to know and understand that we support these soldiers. We know that many of them went there because they were called to duty. They were recruited to go to Iraq because their President asked them to do so, and they wanted to serve this country despite the fact they did not understand all of the reasons why. Many of them went to serve because they thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. But, of course, we know now that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 9/11, and many of the soldiers know that now. So this caucus has been formed. We have 61 members, and they are still adding on. We met this morning at 10 a.m., and we will continue to meet as we develop our mission statement, as we help to define who we are. Basically, we have come together to say we want out of Iraq. We want out, and this caucus is not putting a time certain. This caucus has not concocted demands about how we want to get out. We simply want our young people out of Iraq. So we will provide support to other Members of Congress, other caucuses who want to get out of Iraq. We will provide support to the citizens of this Nation, the organized national groups who want to get out of Iraq. We will organize not only coming to the floor as we are this evening to talk about various aspects of this war. We will also organize workshops and seminars. We will travel, some of us, to different regions in this country, responding to citizens who are asking for Members of Congress to come and explain this public policy to them. We will be available to meet with the families of servicemembers who have been killed, who have been injured. We have families who are asking to meet with somebody, anybody. We have people who are asking to meet with Donald Rumsfeld, who cannot get any response, who are not being talked to. We are going to meet with them. We are going to talk with them. We are going to share with them what we know. But more than that, we are going to be an ear to family members who need to talk with someone about why their son or daughter died in Iraq. We are going to spend the time and give them some attention because we think that the least that we can do is sit and talk and listen to family members. Some of them will say that they are very proud that their child or their son or their relative served in this war, and we will commend them for the pride that they feel and the fact that their relative, their child, their brother, their father served. Some will say that ``I once support the war but I no longer support it.'' We will listen to them, and we will hear what they have to say. And we will explain to them how we feel at this time about getting out of Iraq. And so this is a caucus that will have the ability to extend itself not only to the organized groups and organizations but again to the family members. I would like to point out something about this war. We have heard many of the statistics and much of the data over and over again. But we have to remind folks we have been there now since March 19, 2003. We have 1,722 soldiers who have died in this war, and the numbers mount each day. The number of soldiers injured: 13,074. We have many Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who are going up to Walter Reed Hospital to see the soldiers there who are injured, and the stories that we hear coming back from those visits break one's heart. These are stories of young men and women who had hopes and dreams. Many of them went to war because they had no jobs. They did not know what the future held for them, and they thought, Perhaps if I go and serve my country and get an income, perhaps I can do good. I can not only serve my country, but perhaps I can get ahead. Perhaps I can learn a trade. Perhaps I can learn something. Perhaps I can exploit some of my talents and show what I can do. But when I come home, I want to go back to school. I want to go to college. I want to get married. I want to have children. I want to contribute to my community. Well, unfortunately, these 1,722 will never be able to realize their hopes and their dreams. They have died. But the question still remains for many of us, Why are we in Iraq? What is the real story? We know now there are no weapons of mass destruction. Why are these young people dying? I want to relate an interview that I watched on television this past Sunday. This past Sunday, as many folks in America do, I watched some of the great television shows, and I was watching George Stephanopoulos as he interviewed the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. And he interviewed her. They talked about, of course, the work that she is doing in the Middle East, working with the issue of Israel, the Palestinians. But then he segued to the war in Iraq. And he said to Condoleezza Rice, ``As you know, there has been a lot of talk back here in the United States about these Downing Street memos, the minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the spring of 2002 where they discuss their meetings with the United States.'' And then he said, ``I want to show you what one mother, Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a U.S. soldier, had to say about that memo this week.'' And then they showed Cindy Sheehan, mother. She said this: ``The so-called Downing Street memo dated the 23rd of July, 2002, only confirms what I already suspected. The leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry- picked intelligence.'' And then George Stephanopoulos said to the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, ``How do you respond to this, to what Mrs. Sheehan said? How do you respond to that?'' Condoleezza Rice started out with her explanation. She started out by saying, ``Well, I can only say what the President has said many, many times. The United States of America and its coalition decided that it was finally time to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein.'' And she went on with the typical kind of discussion and explanation in line with the message that is given by this administration. Along the way, she said, ``When you consider what the Iraqi people had gone through in the Saddam Hussein regime's reign, what about the responsibility to the Iraqi people?'' I was struck by this conversation because not one time did the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, acknowledge Cindy Sheehan, who had been on the screen with the question that was raised by George Stephanopoulos. Not once on Father's Day did she say, we are sorry your son died, we feel your pain, we understand how you must feel. Not once did she recognize her. Not once did she recognize the death of her son. Not once did she show any sympathy. But oftentimes we hear from this administration how much they care about the soldiers. Well, the Out of Iraq Caucus is going to show not only do we want them out of Iraq but we care about them. We will never fail to acknowledge a mother who is in deep pain about the loss of her son. Not ever will we be on national TV and not take a moment to say we too care about our soldiers. No. This conversation basically focused on our responsibility to the Iraqi people. My first responsibility is to Americans and to those American soldiers. My first responsibility is to their safety. My first responsibility is to their well-being. My first responsibility is to acknowledge them and their families and their parents. And my responsibility, as a public policymaker, is to tell the truth. We all know now there were no weapons of mass destruction. We cannot tell these young people why they are really there. We cannot tell them that there is an exit strategy. We cannot tell them why many of their friends that they met in this war died in vehicles that had no armor. We cannot tell them why they died up in Fallujah. We cannot tell them why they died in Operation Lightning. We cannot tell them what they are doing in Operation Spear. We hear all of these fancy, concocted names for the operations, but what we do not hear is the definition of why they are doing what they are doing. Are they simply being organized into these special operations to try to send a signal to the American people that they are really in charge? What are they to do when they go into these battles and into these special operations? Are they to shoot whatever moves? We know that, yes, thousands of Iraqis have died because we have young people in these special operations, Operation Lightning, Operation Spear, operation this, operation that, who were told to shoot anything that moves. Many of them cannot live with the psychological damage that is fostered upon them because they are shooting and they are killing and they do not have all of the answers. So today we focus on our soldiers, and we say to Cindy Sheehan we are sorry about the loss of her son and we thank her for caring enough to ask the questions, to be involved. We are trying to get public policymakers to do the right thing. So tonight, as we further announce the Out of Iraq Caucus and the Members who have signed up to do the work of providing the platform of creating the voice for those who want to speak out, we focus tonight on our soldiers in Iraq. Our prayers go out to them. We want them to be returned home. We want them to realize their dreams and their hopes and their aspirations. I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been on this floor night after night talking about these issues, the gentlewoman from California that basically said we want out of Iraq; administration, tell us how you are going to do it.

Ms. WATERS. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and ask him to remain for a colloquy if he has a few moments with all of us here. I thank the Members for focusing our discussion tonight on our soldiers and helping to remind people that these are real human beings, as I said before, with hopes and aspirations. And when they die, not only are those hopes and aspirations gone, but the family members are left devastated and destroyed by these deaths, and we have got to do more to slow our support for them. It is not their fault if they are there. They answered the call for many reasons, some of which the gentleman described so wonderfully well in his presentation. Some people looking for just a job, for income. Some folks looking to serve their country, to answer the call for whatever reason. And what we have got to be sure about is that we do not allow these sacrifices to be taken lightly. For example, we hear some Members saying, who wish to support the war, to continue to support the war, saying all they show on television are the bombings, the suicide bombings. All they show are the deaths and the destruction. They do not show the good stuff. Well, I get very upset when I hear that, because what they are literally saying to me is that somehow the loss of lives of our soldiers should take second place or third place to some news about perhaps cleaning up a street somewhere. I cannot say news about new electricity or clean water or schools or any of that, but they simply say over and over again, all they show are these suicide bombings; they do not show the good stuff. Well, I do not like hearing that because, again, they are relegating the loss of lives to some secondary status. And tonight we draw attention to the importance of the soldiers, how we are proud of them and their families. And I mentioned earlier that in this interview on Sunday with Mr. Stephanopoulos and Condoleeza Rice, even though he drew her attention to Cindy Sheehan, the mother who had a comment who had been here in the Congress trying to raise the discussion, he drew her attention to her and something she had said and Condoleeza Rice never acknowledged her, never said she was sorry about the death of her son, never gave any attention to the fact that this woman in pain was attempting to create this discussion. So tonight there is a mother who has not been answered, who has been trying to get some response from Donald Rumsfeld. Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has put together a letter to Rumsfeld saying, please talk to her. Not only has she been knocking down the door, making the telephone calls, she is talking about other mothers and other families. Please talk to her. Please respond to her. I signed on to that letter today. We are going to encourage all the members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to sign on to that letter. But I would like to ask all Members here tonight, do you think that we should not only join as the Out of Iraq Caucus in asking Donald Rumsfeld to respond to Ms. Sheehan and perhaps other mothers and families, should we not have an organized way by which they really are talked to, that they have an opportunity to even come to Washington? If we can offer $40,000 to their children to come to Iraq, can we not help them to come to Washington and be recognized and talk with them, not just in ceremony, not just one day perhaps out of the year; but when they say they need some answers that they want to know, should not we encourage Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice and this administration to be more sensitive, more sensitive?

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). We appreciate so very much the work that she has been doing and her wisdom and early warnings about this war. Next, I would like to call on the Congressman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who is a veteran who knows a lot about war because he served. He is a gentleman who has been unsettled about this war for months. And he has taken many opportunities to ask what we are doing. When are we going to have a discussion? When are we going to speak out? When are we going to have hearings? What is going on with this? Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank him for raising those questions. I wanted to thank him for being a part of what we are attempting to do with the Out of Iraq Caucus. And I welcome him this evening to this discussion.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), not only for being here this evening, but for all of the work, all of the hours, all of the time that she has put into this effort. I now yield time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who too has been a leader in opposing this war. She warned us early on that we should not just give permission to the President of the United States to go to war without understanding what the reasons were and without having that debate. So, unfortunately, our debate is taking place a little bit late, but it is taking place. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from northern California, the Oakland area, (Ms. Lee), for all of her work and for being here this evening.

Ms. WATERS. Those are certainly tough questions and, of course, just as Condoleeza Rice gave the framed message that she always gives when she is speaking publicly, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States. Now, the Middle East will be better off without Saddam Hussein. Those are the kind of answers I suspect that she would give. But I think when Condoleeza Rice is on national television in an interview where millions of people are watching, and you have a mother who is shown on television raising a question and you do not even take the time to acknowledge that mother, to say, Ms. Sheehan, I am sorry about the loss of your son.

Ms. WATERS. Well, Cindy Sheehan has already made the inquiry. She had made calls. She has written the letter and now she has asked the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to help her. He started to circulate a letter, which I signed, and I would like to encourage others, because we are not encouraging her to start this. She has already been doing it. And she is simply put out with the fact that she can get no response, no returned telephone calls, anything. And I think that we should give her some support. In addition to that, I do think perhaps one of the things we should look at further is support for all the families who have questions, because what I am hearing is families are not being told how their children died. They get the message that it has happened, but when they start to ask for details and particulars they are not getting it. And as they put together these budgets, these budgets ask for whatever they think it is they need. And I think it is time to include in the budgets some assistance to the families, that they can at least be respected enough to be given the information, for somebody to sit down and talk with them and answer the questions, tell the truth. They may not get the truth. They may not get the questions answered in the way they want to, but I think we are going to have to try to work at forcing that to happen. I am awfully sorry that our time has expired. I see two more Members just entered the room. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) just entered the room and I know that they wanted to be part of this.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I come this evening to further announce to the people of this Nation that we have formed an Out of Iraq Caucus here in the Congress of the United States of America. There has been quite a bit of debate this weekend about the activities that took place here in Congress. There was a lot of discussion this weekend about the hearing that was held right here in the basement of the Capitol headed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in conjunction with a group that is now known as AfterDowningStreet.org. And that hearing helped to give exposure to the famous, now famous, infamous memorandum that basically some see as a smoking gun, discussing who knew what, when did they know it, and what did they plan to do. In essence, it is easy to conclude reading that memorandum that this administration, the President of the United States of America and others, had decided that they were going into Iraq, that they were going to attack Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. So that hearing took place, and it was a very interesting one. It was a very revealing one and over 30 Members of Congress joined in the basement in this crowded room. And I have had a lot of questions this weekend about why were we jammed into such a small room, and I had to answer truthfully and let the people who asked the question know that the Republicans are in charge. They are able to determine where we meet, if we can meet, what kind of space we will have. And they have said to us, they are going to stop allowing us to use any committee rooms. And so even though it was a very small room, it was all that we could get. But, of course, those who have the power can choose to use it responsibly or irresponsibly. And I would say to the people of this country at this time that we will be thwarted in our efforts to get the word out, to have this kind of discussion; but we will persist, we will not give up. Further, aside from that hearing, we did form the Out of Iraq Caucus. Over 60 Members have now signed up. And I am being asked by journalists and TV personalities, what happened? Why are you having this discussion and this debate that is occurring at this time? I must answer those questions by saying, first of all, we have Members of Congress who were elected by their constituents on peace, justice and equality issue. We have Members of Congress who have long histories fighting and agitating for peace. Whether you talk about the Vietnam War or the work that many of us did to end apartheid in South Africa or the work that we are doing now to try to bring attention to genocide in Sudan, this is who we are. This is what we do. Philosophically, we cannot sit here and allow this war to continue with no exit strategy, no answers, no reports from the President of the United States about how they are really going to get the training done, what does that mean and basically when are we going to bring our troops home. So we have joined with the American public. The American public have been waiting on us. They are against this war. The polls now are showing us that the American public wants this war to end, and so we have joined with them to provide some leadership. Our caucus is made up of an array of Democrats, some who come from the New Democrats, some from the Blue Dog Democrats, some from the Progressive Democrats, but we have come together to talk about coordinating activities, helping to give a platform to this discussion, to work with the national peace organizations, to bring in people who have been trying to get to Congress but since we have no hearings that are going on, they have not been able to connect with anybody. We are going to connect with them, whether they are veterans against this war or mothers and fathers and family members who have had their children and relatives killed in this war. They are now going to have Members to talk to. We are going to create this discussion and this debate, and some people are saying out now. Some people are saying, Mr. President, give us a strategy. Some people are trying to come up with a date certain. We have a bipartisan effort that has been put together with a date certain attached to it. As far as our caucus is concerned, people see it a little bit differently, whether or not out now, whether or not we just beg the President to give us a strategy or whether or not we insist on a date certain. The most important thing is we are all organized just to get the word out. We want out of Iraq. This thing will evolve, and as it evolves, we will know what the right timing is. The President will have an opportunity now, given that he has seen the polls and he understands what is going on, he can denounce it or reject it in any way that he wants, but the fact of the matter is the people of this country want us out. The new caucus that I am so proud of that we have formed will work to make sure that we have the debate that we have not had.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important amendment. This amendment would simply cause to have funds withheld for State or local antidrug task forces that do not collect and make publicly available data as to the racial distribution of convictions made as a result of their operation. This is so important. I had many of the members from Tulia, Texas, here at the Congressional Black Caucus week where we do our legislative conference. Thirty-nine of them were black. They were arrested on drug charges. There were 38 convictions, based primarily on the testimony of one informant who was later discredited. This one informant, this one man, had a record, he had a history, he lied, they came from a small town where nobody cared whether or not there was real evidence, and this was just outrageous. The gentlewoman from Texas is absolutely correct. This information must be made available so that we can stop this kind of misjustice and miscarriage of the law. I not only support it, I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support House Joint Resolution 27 to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization. The WTO is not about free trade or fair trade. It is about corporate power. WTO rules allow America's labor, environmental and public interest laws to be challenged by multinational corporations seeking profits and power. Other countries have also seen their domestic laws challenged in order to expand corporate power. The WTO sacrifices the rights of workers, the protection of the environment and the health and safety of working families. WTO rules support corporations to move their operations from one country to another in search of the cheapest labor and the least government regulation. If a country enacts a minimum wage law, a corporation that does not want to pay a decent wage can simply move its factory to another country. If workers in that country organize a labor union, the corporation can move the factory to a third country. Many corporations prefer to operate in countries such as the People's Republic of China, which outlaw independent labor organizations. The WTO has no restrictions on sweatshops, child labor, prison labor or slave labor. WTO rules promote investment opportunities for multinational corporations without regard to their impact on workers, the environment or the public interest. Countries' labor, health and environmental laws can be challenged if they have a side effect of restricting trade. In the 10 years since the WTO was established, a wide variety of U.S. and foreign laws have been challenged. With only two exceptions, every health, food safety and environmental law challenged at the WTO has been ruled illegal. Meanwhile, multinational pharmaceutical companies have used WTO intellectual property rules to deny poor countries the right to provide live-saving medicine to people with terrible diseases like HIV and AIDS. They tried it with Brazil. The world protest against the attempt to keep Brazil from using generic drugs to save lives, prevent HIV and AIDS was fought off because of the protest, and they had to back down. But look what they did in South Africa. I wish I had time to tell my colleagues about it. In 42 out of the 48 completed cases brought against the United States, the WTO has labeled U.S. laws illegal. U.S. laws ruled illegal by WTO include tax laws, anti-dumping laws, sea turtle protections and clean air rules. And when the WTO ruled in favor of the United States in a case on bananas, it was to benefit who? A large corporation, Chiquita, that has now driven Grenada and some of these small countries into poverty. We do not produce any bananas here in the United States. We protected Chiquita, who mistreats its workers in Central America, and we put small Caribbean farmers out of work. Mr. Speaker, after the WTO rules a country's laws illegal, the WTO authorizes economic sanctions that cost the country millions of dollars. These sanctions put small businesses out of business and workers out of work. History has proven that the WTO does not prevent trade wars. It authorizes trade wars. The WTO puts profits of the world's wealthiest and most powerful corporations ahead of the health, safety and welfare and well-being of working families. I urge my colleagues to support the WTO Withdrawal Resolution. It's time to stop the global expansion of corporate power and put working families first.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA, the United States Central American Free Trade Agreement, is yet another unfair trade deal that will hurt American workers. CAFTA is the latest unfair trade deal in a decade of failed trade policies. Over the last 12 years, the United States trade deficit has exploded from $39 billion in 1992 to over $618 billion in 2004. If CAFTA becomes effective, the result will be fewer jobs for American workers. CAFTA is modeled on NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which had and continues to have a devastating impact on many American workers. When NAFTA was passed in 1994, the United States had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. In 2004, we had a $45 billion trade deficit in Mexico. That means our trade deficit with Mexico increased by an average of $4.7 billion per year over the last 10 years. As a result of NAFTA, the United States has been exporting American jobs to Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the countries of Central America already receive preferential trade benefits. About 80 percent of exports from CAFTA countries enter the United States duty free. If CAFTA is passed, 100 percent of nontextile manufactured goods from Central America will enter the United States duty free. CAFTA supporters like to claim that CAFTA will create new markets for American products, but this argument is highly flawed. The six countries of Central America, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic are among the world's smallest economies. These six countries have a combined economic output of only $85 billion. My home city, Metropolitan Los Angeles, with a $411 billion economy, produces nearly five times the volume of goods and services as the CAFTA countries. The CAFTA countries are simply just too small to absorb a significant quantity of American manufactured goods. Unfortunately, the countries of Central America also are among the poorest countries. The average Nicaraguan worker earns only $2,300 per year, or about $191 per month. Forty percent of Central American workers earn less than $2 per day. Central American workers simply cannot afford to buy American cars from Ohio or American computers from California. Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of my time in Congress working on the issue of debt relief for poor countries. Two of the CAFTA countries, Honduras and Nicaragua, are included in my legislation, H.R. 1130, The Jubilee Act, which cancels the debts that poor countries owe to multilateral institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 2004, Nicaragua paid these institutions $107 million in debt service payments. That is $107 million that Nicaraguans could not spend on American products. As long as these countries remain heavily indented and deeply impoverished, their people will never be able to afford American products made by American workers. Any way you look at it, CAFTA is a one-sided deal that offers limited benefits to foreign workers at a tremendous cost to American workers. The only service these six teeny Central American countries can provide to the United States is cheap labor. It is no surprise, then, that the largest share of U.S. exports to the CAFTA countries consist of fabric. This fabric is stitched into clothing and shipped right back to the United States where it is sold to American consumers. CAFTA is not a free-trade agreement at all, it is an outsourcing agreement. It allows profit-hungry corporations to shift American jobs to impoverished countries, where workers can be forced to work long hours for little pay and no benefits. It is a bad deal for Central American workers and it is an even worse deal for workers here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, American workers need good jobs that pay good wages. They do not need another NAFTA. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating CAFTA.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support certainly of H.R. 1817, but it is not enough. It is not good enough. This administration claims to make fighting terrorism its top priority, and that is why we set up the Department of Homeland Security. You are not supposed to tell us from homeland security what it is we cannot do, but what we can do. I agree that maybe Secretary Ridge did not have enough information, did not have enough at his disposal, so he told us about the alerts; the yellow lights, the orange and the red and all of that; told us to go out and buy flashlights, duct tape, water, and plastic sheeting. But it is time to get serious. Homeland security should not be a sound bite or a reelection strategy. We have got to do something about the border. This President promised us 2,000 border agents. We have citizens who have taken it upon themselves to protect our border, and here we are talking about we do not have enough money to fund 2,000 agents when we are giving a bonus to Halliburton. Give me a break. We need money for first responders. We need money for our ports and our containers. This substitute will help to fill that gap. It is time we put our money where our mouths are.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, allow me to shock the Members on the opposite side of the aisle and join with them in support of this amendment. Mas vale tarde que nunca. It means, better late than never. And while my colleague here, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), is absolutely correct, we have put the cart before the horse, I suppose it is never too late to try and correct our errors. I do think that we should have been involved in studies a long time ago. We are basically forever speculating and coming up with anecdotes without a basis of facts for our decisions. So I am hopeful that we will get the support of our colleagues in this Congress so that we can study. While this is limited to the link between illegal aliens and gang membership, we need more studies on gangs, period. We need to find out, number one, where the young people are coming from. What is it about gang membership that entices them to want to be a part of that gang? What are their parents like? Are they the children of those who are already incarcerated? If we had an opportunity to support them getting back into school, moving out of neighborhoods, et cetera, what would happen? So, again, even though this is a little late in coming, I do support the amendment, and I ask for an aye vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for me to say on behalf of most of the Members, if not all of the Members of the Congress of the United States of America, we are all against crime. We do not support criminals. We are indeed passionate about victims. We want hard-core criminals off the streets. What we do not support is using this terrible issue to get your law and order credentials on. We do not want you using this issue on the backs of young people who may be victims of gangs rather than criminals themselves. Let me just say this: we are against mandatory minimum sentencing because it takes away the discretion of the judge. The judge may give more time, given all of the facts. And, yes, they may give less time, given all of the facts. We need to let judges be judges. We cannot sit here in the Congress of the United States and continue to take away the ability of judges to make decisions. So I stand here today with this amendment to say, let the judges make the decision. You do not know if there is a kid who happens to live in a neighborhood that is infested with gang members and they must pretend to be in the gang in order to survive. Do you want that kid caught up in a situation where they are going to be given mandatory minimum sentencing, when they did not have an opportunity to have a judge understand what the extenuating circumstances were? I do not think that is good legislating, nor is it good public policy. I would ask my colleagues to please support this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)