Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close on this debate?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, then I take it that the gentleman from New York and I will go together. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I think that I have already signaled my intent, so that question is moot. But I would like to ask the gentleman from New York, would he consider going with me to the Committee on Appropriations to expand the amount of CDBG money so that we can expand the population of people who can be taken care of, taking in consideration those who are above the limits that are allowed in CDBG. Would the gentleman do that?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Every election cycle, the Republicans want the House to participate in their ritualistic attack on women and the very difficult choices that they have to make on the issue of choice. The reality of this situation is that this bill would leave the health of women completely unprotected. In the past 25 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a woman's health and life must be protected throughout pregnancy. The court has mandated health and life exceptions to restrictions. H.R. 3660 flies in the face of the law, the difficult medical decisions that families have to make, and the American people by containing no exception for a woman's health at any point in the pregnancy. Knowing how extreme their position is on this issue, the Republican leadership allowed no markups in the Committee on the Judiciary, no offer of amendments in the Committee on Rules, and even denied the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute, which would provide for a Federal ban on all post-viability abortions except those needed to preserve the woman's life or to avert serious adverse health consequences. The Republican leadership says that the Hoyer-Greenwood substitute is too broad. Since when is the preservation of a woman's life too broad? And why would the Federal Government want to impose its will on a family's decision in this very, very difficult situation? The reality is that H.R. 3660 is too broad. The bill is not about protecting the woman's health. It is about protecting the will of the right wing base of the Republican party. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this politicizing of this issue in this political year. I would ask them to vote ``no'' on the rule of H.R. 3660 and please oppose this legislation that seeks to endanger a woman's life.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, which specifically makes in order twelve amendments offered by Republicans and waives all points of order against these amendments. Only two amendments offered by Democrats were made in order by this partisan rule. I plan to offer an amendment to restore a mere $210 million in funding, which was requested by the President to provide debt relief to Mozambique and other heavily indebted poor countries. This Republican rule does not allow my amendment. Mozambique--one of the world's poorest countries--has recently experienced its worst flooding in 50 years. There are now hundreds of thousands of displaced people who are in desperate need of food, clean water, medicine, blankets and tents. The government of Mozambique cannot possibly address the needs of these displaced people or repair its damaged infrastructure while continuing to make debt payments to foreign governments. Debt relief has never been more important for Mozambique than it is now. Debt relief for the world's poorest countries is supported by a worldwide movement of churches, religious groups and non-governmental organizations. This movement, known as Jubilee 2000, was begun by Christians who believe that the year 2000, the two thousandth anniversary of the coming of Christ, is a Jubilee Year. According to the Bible, the Lord instructed the people of Ancient Israel to celebrate a Jubilee--or a Year or the Lord--every 50 years. During a Jubilee Year, debts were forgiven. Debt forgiveness for poor countries is the moral thing to do. This partisan rule also did not allow consideration of the Pelosi amendment, which would have added funding for drug treatment and prevention programs. This bill contains $1.7 billion for international counter-narcotics programs. We need to focus on demand reduction here in the United States, which fuels the production of drugs abroad. I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair and shortsighted rule.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I join all of my other colleagues who have stood here today, rising in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). This debate has become a long debate because we have a growing number of legislators who are concerned about this wrongheaded policy that we are pursuing. Mr. Chairman, this supplemental appropriations provides over $1.1 billion in aid to the government of Colombia. Most of this money will go to the Colombian military and be used in the Colombian civil war. This civil war has been going on for 40 years, and both sides, both sides have profited from the drug trade. Furthermore, the Colombian military has been known to cooperate with drug traffickers. Colombian military officers also provide support to right-wing paramilitary organizations that traffic in illegal drugs, and carry out extrajudicial killings and other gross violations of human rights. This bill gives money to drug traffickers who kill other drug traffickers and murder innocent civilians. This bill is unwise and immoral, and we should not support it. We are focused today on what is happening domestically. We are rising in opposition to this funding and supporting the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) because we are very concerned about what is not being done in America. We are just growing our prison system. The number of inmates in State and Federal prisons has increased more than fivefold from less than 200,000 in 1970 to 1,232,900 by 1998. An additional 592,000 are held in local jails. As of July 1999, 131,112 offenders were incarcerated in approximately 100 Federal facilities. There are 115,363 inmates housed in Federal facilities rated to hold 89,696. At the end of 1998, State prisons held 1,178,978 inmates. In June of 1998, 592,462 offenders were held in local jails. The number of persons on probation and parole has been growing dramatically along with institutional populations. There are now 507 million Americans incarcerated, on parole, or probation, an increase of 209 percent since 1980. A few more statistics. Mr. Chairman, 71 percent of those sentenced to State prisons way back in 1995 were convicted of nonviolent crimes, including 31 percent for drug offenses and 29 percent for property offenses. Fifty-seven percent of jail inmates in 1989 reported they were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time they committed their offense. One in four inmates way back in 1989 was in jail for a drug offense compared to one in ten in 1983. Drug offenders constituted 21 percent of 1997 State prison inmates and 60 percent of 1996 Federal prison inmates. I could go on and on with these statistics. Mr. Chairman, I am sick and tired of this wrong-headed policy. I am just overcome by the fact that we cannot get it right here in our own country. We are talking about throwing away money down in Colombia; and nothing is going to happen but drug dealers are going to fight drug dealers, both in and out of the government. And here we have mandatory minimum sentencing that is locking up young folks, young folks in rural and inner cities, at an alarming rate. Mandatory minimum sentences. Many of these young people, 19 and 20 years old, first-time offenders. The judge has no discretion. He must send someone in possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine to prison for 5 years on a first-time offense, as opposed to those with powder cocaine, 100 times more. Some of these young people may be stupid, but they do not deserve to have their lives taken away from them. And this is not black. Black, white, green, rural, inner city. Prisons just filling up. And, oh, let me tell about the conspiracy charges that they are now arresting the mothers and the women and the girlfriends and the mates on. We are spending millions of dollars, and our country is going down the drain. Mr. Chairman, it was unwise for them not to make the Pelosi amendment in order, and it is unwise for us to support this appropriation to Colombia.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute budget. I rise to support the alternative budget resolution presented by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). In particular, the CBC's alternative is significant for the funding allocated in the International Affairs portion of the budget resolution. Between the fiscal years 2001 and 2005, the CBC budget resolution would allocate $43 billion more to International Affairs compared to the Republican budget resolution. This would provide essential funding to institutions such as the African Development Bank, the African Development Fund, the Child Survival and Disease Fund, and the Peace Corps. This additional funding is critical particularly to ensure full funding for debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries. Today, I am introducing the Limpopo River Debt Relief and Reconstruction Act to provide assistance to Mozambique and other countries of southern Africa that have been devastated by recent floods. The Limpopo River Debt Relief and Reconstruction Act would completely cancel the debts owed by these countries to the United States and provide assistance for the repair and reconstruction of damaged infrastructure in these countries. Limpopo River Debt Relief and Reconstruction funding is essential to enable Mozambique and other southern African countries to provide for the needs of their people, repair their damaged infrastructure and rebuild their economies. Debt relief is desperately needed by many other heavily indebted poor countries as well. The governments of these countries have been forced to make drastic cuts in basic services such as health and education in order to make payments on their debts. Nigeria, for example, is a deeply impoverished country that would receive tremendous benefits from debt relief. Nigeria's per capita income is only $300 per year and the country spends no more than $5 per person per year on health services. Without debt relief, Nigeria's fragile democracy is in danger of collapse. Debt cancellation will give Nigeria a fresh start and a sound basis for a democratic future. For these and many other important reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Congressional Black Caucuses' alternative budget.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the alternative budget presented by the Progressive Caucus. This resolution is a significant alternative for many reasons. Particularly, it is significant for the funding allocated to education, training, employment services, housing, and community development programs. For Fiscal Year 2001, the progressive budget resolution will provide $9.13 billion more to education, training, and employment services and $15 billion more to community and regional development programs compared to the Republican budget resolution. This would provide essential funding to programs and institutions such as the Community Development Block Grant, the Economic Development Agency, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, historically black colleges and universities, summer youth employment, community technology centers, Head Start, and Pell Grants. These programs are essential to enable America's most vulnerable citizens to improve their economic, educational, and housing circumstances. Conversely, the Republican's budget resolution would cut those programs and other essential services such as Women, Infants and Children's nutrition program, known as WIC; the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the Child Care Block Grant, and Section 8 Housing. The Republicans intend to cut these important programs in order to give unreasonable and massive tax cuts. Unlike the Republicans' plan, the Progressive Caucus's alternative budget puts America's most vulnerable citizens first. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Progressive Caucus's alternative budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), for his leadership in sponsoring this resolution. I would like to also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and other members of the Committee on International Relations for their quick response. I rise in favor of H. Res. 431. This resolution supports the efforts of the United States to provide disaster assistance to Mozambique in the aftermath of two consecutive cyclones resulting in torrential rains and severe flooding. The resolution also encourages the international community to continue to provide emergency relief, and urges the International Monetary Fund and other international creditors to fully accelerate debt reduction efforts for Mozambique. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this resolution. Upon learning of the severe flooding, I immediately contacted Assistant Secretary Susan Rice for Africa, and I immediately sent a letter to President Clinton encouraging swift and substantial relief for Mozambique and the other surrounding countries. I wanted to make sure we did not make the mistake of waiting too long. I did not want the kind of delay we had experienced with Rwanda, a different kind of disaster, but indeed a disaster that could have been mitigated had we moved faster. Mozambique is experiencing its worse flooding in 50 years. Flooding along the Limpopo River is particularly severe. Several other countries in Southern Africa are also affected by these floods. The extent of the death and destruction is still unknown. However, the floods clearly have a devastating impact on the people of the region. There are now 250,000 homeless people living in camps in Mozambique alone. Those displaced people are in desperate need of food, clean water, medicine, blankets and tents. Relief efforts are continuing, but they have been hampered somewhat by the destruction of the country's infrastructure. Many roads and bridges have been completely washed out, and others are still under water. All relief delivered to date has had to be airlifted, which is slow and expensive. Disaster assistance is essential, but it is not enough to adequately address the critical needs of the people of Mozambique or other countries of Southern Africa affected by the floods. We must also enable the governments of the affected countries to begin to repair and reconstruct their damaged infrastructure. These countries need funding and technical assistance for the repair and reconstruction of roads, bridges, schools and hospitals, energy facilities, telecommunications, and other essential infrastructure. For these reasons, I will introduce the Limpopo River Debt Relief and Reconstruction Act to provide assistance to Mozambique and other Southern African countries affected by flooding to enable them to provide for the needs of their people, repair their damaged infrastructure, and rebuild their economies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 431.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I join in this discussion because I want to raise the question of why we are using this time to try and talk about the need for tax cuts for the wealthy. This is all about increasing minimum wage. We are being sidetracked. We are being taken off course while the Republicans are attempting one more time to get their outrageous tax cuts into law by any means necessary. Whether we are talking about the tax cuts that are being indicated in order, as they would say, to do minimum wage increase, or whether we are talking about the ongoing, continuing effort to just give more tax breaks to the rich, we find ourselves having to defend time and time again against trying to do more and more for the rich corporations and the richest Americans in this country. Let us force this discussion on whether or not there is a need for an increase in the minimum wage for the poorest of the working people in this Nation at a time when everyone is touting how well we are doing in this economy, how well people are doing in Silicon Valley. There are 260,000 millionaires in Silicon Valley alone. My colleagues would dare say that we cannot have this modest increase in minimum wage until we do some more tax cuts for the rich. This is outrageous. We have had to fight our Republican friends every step of the way. The alternative that we have designed would, of course, take care of some of those areas where we could do some targeted tax cuts. This is not the way to do it. I would ask my friends and my colleagues to resist this effort to give more tax cuts to the rich.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, now I know why we are here trying to convince some of the Members on the other side of the aisle that we should allow a $1 raise over a 2-year period of time. They really do not understand. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) just told us that there are no real people out there who are working for a minimum wage that are taking care of families. He said they are teenagers and they are people just starting in the workplace. Well, I do not know what he knows about home health care workers, people who do some of the toughest work who make minimum wages. I do not know if he knows that many of the people who serve food in our restaurants, waiters and waitresses, make minimum wage. I do not know if he knows what is happening in the nursing homes, where they are taking care of the sick and the elderly, that many of them are on minimum wage. I do not know if he knows that the airport safety workers who check us when we go through the metal detectors are making minimum wage. He does not know that they are elevator operators. Well, now I know why we must tell this story over and over and over again. They are ignorant of the facts.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2990. I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct the conferees to begin meetings of the House-Senate managed care conference committee and insist upon the provisions of the Dingell-Norwood Managed Care Reform bill. The Dingell-Norwood bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a strong bipartisan vote on October 7, 1999. Nevertheless, the Republican leadership has made no progress whatsoever towards the enactment of this critical legislation. There has not even been a single meeting of the conference committee since the bill was passed. The Dingell-Norwood Managed Care Reform bill, also known as the Patients' Bill of Rights, would protect patients and their families from irresponsible actions by HMO's. It would prevent health insurance companies from rewarding doctors for limiting access to health care, and it would hold managed care plans legally accountable when their decisions to withhold or limit health care result in injury or death. The Patients' Bill of Rights would ensure that medical decisions are made by health care professionals and not bureaucrats. Health care should be provided by doctors--not HMO bureaucrats! It is time that Congress hold health insurance companies accountable and protect the rights of American families to quality health care. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct the conferees and send the Patients' Bill of Rights to the President's desk without any further delay.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to discuss my recent visit to Cuba. I just returned last evening from a 6-day trip to Cuba where I had the opportunity to meet with the various ministries. I met not only with the minister of health but I went into the neighborhoods, into the neighborhood clinics. I talked with the doctors there, I talked with the patients there, and I got a good understanding of the kind of health care that Cubans are involved with based on health care being one of the national priorities. I also went to the University of Medicine, where they are training young doctors throughout the region, and I was absolutely amazed at the fact that they have 5,000 young people who are there from all over the Caribbean who are being trained as doctors. It amazes me, because here in the United States it is just so difficult to get young people of color into the universities so that they can be trained as doctors. But they are showing that it can be done there. Over 60,000 doctors have been produced in Cuba. Having said that, my real reason for being there was to follow up on a commitment that I made 11 months ago when I visited Cuba. When I visited Cuba 11 months ago to basically try and get a handle on the pros and cons of the embargo, I discovered that we have a waiver on medical supplies and equipment. However, not one aspirin had been sold in Cuba. I talked with people to try and understand why this was true. We finally came back and we got together with representatives from the Treasury Department, from Commerce and from the State Department to try and understand the rules and the laws as it related to the waiver. We finally all got on one track and we got with those individuals who have been trying for years to get a medical trade show going in Cuba, and we finally got it on track and that trade show did open. I was there to help cut the ribbon, along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and many of our representative of our business community. I was very pleased that we had almost 300 representatives there from various businesses in the United States representing over 90 of our largest businesses who were delighted to be there to show their medical supplies and equipment. We had companies like ADM. We had companies like Eli Lilly, Procter Gamble, Pfizer, many of the huge companies of America with goods and products that they want to share, that they want to sell. I think it is foolhardy for the American business community to allow China and Germany and Canada and all of these countries to be in Cuba selling their goods, selling their supplies, and we are just 90 miles from Cuba. They have many, many needs. They want to do business with us, particularly with medical supplies and equipment. They have trained the professionals. They have trained the doctors. They have children who desperately need the supplies, the state-of-the-art equipment. I think that our American firms should continue to seek these opportunities and to be there. Now, having said all of that, none of this happens in a vacuum. As you know, the center of debate in Cuba and it appears in the United States is Elian Gonzalez, this young child who is in Miami, who one side is saying he should be kept there, he should be given citizenship, he should not be allowed to return to Cuba to his father. Well, I met with his father while I was there, Juan Gonzalez. There is no logical argument, none that anybody can make, that should take this child from his father. This child lost his mother on the sea. This child should not be deprived of his father. This child should be returned to Cuba immediately. This political spectacle that is being created in Miami is unconscionable. There is no reason a little child should be a political pawn. This is not about whether or not we like Castro. This is not whether or not we agree with the revolution, that we are one of the Batista people, that we do not believe in what is going on there. This is about parental rights. This is about the right of a father to have their child and to raise their child. By all accounts, this man is a good father; he had a great relationship with his child. Let us stop the political madness. Let us allow little Elian to go home.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have deep concerns about the amount and use of the funds authorized by H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization bill for fiscal year 2000. However, I am especially gratified that the Conference Committee included Section 313, ``Reaffirmation of Longstanding Prohibition Against-Drug Trafficking by Employees of the Intelligence Community,'' in the conference report. Section 313 clearly states that the employees of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other intelligence agencies are prohibited from participating in drug trafficking activities. Drug trafficking is clearly defined to include the manufacture, purchase, sale, transport or distribution of illegal drugs. Section 313 also requires CIA employees to report known or suspected drug trafficking activities to the appropriate authorities. Section 313 is based on an amendment that I offered during floor consideration of H.R. 1555. The House adopted my amendment by voice vote on May 13, 1999. Most Americans would assume that the CIA would never traffic in illegal drugs and would take all necessary actions to prosecute known drug traffickers. History, however, has proven that this is not the case. For 13 years, the CIA and the Department of Justice followed a Memorandum of Understanding that explicitly exempted the CIA from requirements to report drug trafficking by CIA assets, agents, and contractors to federal law enforcement agencies. This allowed some of the biggest drug lords in the world to operate without fear that their activities would be reported to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) or any other law enforcement authorities. This remarkable--and secret-- agreement was in force from February 1982 until August of 1995. For the past three years, I have been investigating the allegations of drug trafficking by the Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980's. My investigation has led me to the conclusion that U.S. intelligence agencies knew about drug trafficking by the Contras in South Central Los Angeles and throughout the United States and chose to continue to support the Contras without taking any action to stop the drug trafficking. Even more remarkable is the fact that there is evidence that the CIA has actually participated in drug trafficking activities. In the late 1980's, the CIA began to develop intelligence on the Colombian drug cartels. To infiltrate the cartels, the CIA arranged an undercover drug-smuggling operation with the Venezuelan National Guard. More than one and one-half tons of cocaine were smuggled from Colombia into Venezuela and then stored at a CIA-financed Counternarcotics Intelligence Center in Venezuela. In certain circumstances, the DEA arranges ``controlled shipments'' of illegal drugs, in which the drugs are allowed to enter the United States and then tracked to their destination and seized. However, in this case, the CIA was more interested in keeping the drug lords happy than confiscating the drugs and prosecuting the traffickers. The CIA asked the DEA for permission to ``let the dope walk,'' that is allow the drugs to be sold on our nation's streets. The DEA refused, but the CIA ushered the drugs into the United States anyway. On November 19, 1990, a shipment of 800 pounds of cocaine was seized by the U.S. Customs Service at the Miami International Airport. Customs traced the cocaine back to the Venezuelan National Guard and the CIA. Unfortunately, we may never know precisely how much cocaine entered the United States through the CIA's pipeline or how much eventually reached our nation's streets. No one at the CIA was ever charged. The inclusion of Section 313 in H.R. 1555 sends a clear message to our nation's intelligence community: intelligence employees, agents and assets are not above the law. The CIA should be working to stop the harmful trafficking in illegal drugs that is destroying our communities. It should not be assisting the drug traffickers. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this important issue and I especially appreciate the willingness of the conferees to include Section 313 in the conference report for H.R. 1555. Despite the inclusion of Section 313, I am deeply concerned about the amount and use of the funds authorized by H.R. 1555. The United States government spends tremendous amounts of money on covert activities, espionage and other intelligence activities with little congressional oversight and without the knowledge or support of the American people. Spending on intelligence activities should be decreased considerably and congressional oversight over intelligence agencies must be improved. Furthermore, I cannot in good conscience support an intelligence authorization bill as long as the total amount of funds spent on intelligence activities remains classified and unknown to the people we are elected to represent. I therefore must urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1555.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I have spent hours on this bill. I served on the conference committee. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I have spent hours on this bill, and I am absolutely surprised that the Members of this House can support a bill that would do what this bill is about to do to working people and poor people. We have something called CRA, Community Reinvestment Act. It is an act that basically forces the banks to put something back into the communities where they get deposits. Now, there are those who have never liked CRA. They have winnowed away at CRA every year. They have tried to dismantle it. The President did away with all of the paperwork, because they said it was too much paperwork. But that is not enough. They came back this time with something called ``sunshine.'' Well, what they are doing is they are intimidating the activists. They are intimidating them by making them do something called disclosure and accountability and reporting. They are doing it in such a way that they will discourage them from being activists. If they get investigated and they fall short of the expectations, they will not be able to be involved in this work for 10 years. They know what they are doing. They want to get people out of the business of challenging the banks. This is a one-man vendetta that took place on the conference committee. We should never have negotiated with them, but the negotiations took place in the back room, not in public. Those who say that CRA has not been weakened are wrong. It has been weakened. Well, in addition to what has been done to CRA, the privacy provision should cause one to hesitate on this bill. One's information will be given to third parties. Do my colleagues know what they are? They are boiler rooms where they hire people off the street to come in and do telemarketing who are dialing to sell one something. They are going to have all of one's information. They are going to have one's bank account. They are going to have one's tax returns. They are going to have everything. Privacy, CRA, fair housing, and the people got nothing. I tried to get lifeline banking. I said, let us have a study on the escalating fees that banks are charging. I said, let us do something about surcharging at ATMs. The consumers got nothing. We were voted down on every attempt to do something for consumers. This is the big boys' bill. This is the big banking bill. This is nothing for the people.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, serving on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services I understand and I understood for a long time that one day we would have a bill that would allow these entities to come together, banking and commercial interests, and merge. I knew that would happen, but I always knew that we could protect the consumers if we wanted to do that. What I am surprised about is the mean-spirited way in which we have undermined the Community Reinvestment Act. There was no need to have CRA on the table except for one person, who does not like CRA, came into the conference committee, determined that he was going to weaken it and he did. These reporting requirements are unnecessary. They are simply there to intimidate. What other situation do we have where two private entities, with an agreement, have to report on it? No place, no place else but with CRA. I do not care what they say the intent is. CRA has been weakened. The rural communities and the inner cities will feel the impact of it because the activists will go away. They will not be able to comply with these requirements. But that is not what is going to undo what we do here tonight. The poor people do not have the power. The activists could not stand up against the big banks. I knew that CitiCorps and Travelers would not undo their relationship. They would have had to undo it in two years if we did not have this law tonight because they acted on their own to come together and merge, but I knew they would win. Too big to fail. What is going to undo what we do here tonight is the invasion of privacy of American citizens. What has been done is the opportunity has opened up for one conglomerate to know everything there is to be known about an individual and their family, everything from their medical, financial records, everything. We will pay a price for this. We have paid a price for mistakes in the past as we dealt with the S&Ls. This will be another one that we will regret.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the chief sponsor of the bill. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of bestowing the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor to a very worthy and outstanding American. Father Hesburgh was educated at Notre Dame and the Georgian University in Rome, for which he received a bachelor of philosophy degree in 1939. He was ordained a priest by the congregation of the Holy Cross in Sacred Heart Basilica on the Notre Dame campus June 24, 1943 by Bishop John F. Knoll of Fort Wayne. Following his ordination, Father Hesburgh continued his study of sacred theology at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., receiving his doctorate in 1945. In 1952 he was named the 15th president of Notre Dame, where he served until retiring in 1987, ending the longest tenure among active presidents of American institutions of higher learning. Father Hesburgh has held 15 presidential appointments over the years, most recently to the U.S. Institute for Peace, and they involved him in virtually all of the major social issues: civil rights, peaceful issues of atomic energy, campus unrest, and Third World development, to name only a few. His stature as an elder statesman in American higher education is reflected in his 133 honorary degrees, the most ever awarded to any American. Highlighting a lengthy list of awards to Father Hesburgh is the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor, bestowed on him by president Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Notre Dame's president emeritus has served four Popes, three as permanent Vatican city representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna from 1956 to 1970. Justice has been the focus of many of his outside involvements. He was a charter member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, created in 1957, and he chaired the Commission from 1969 to 1972, when President Nixon replaced him as chairman for his criticism of the administration's civil rights record. Among his more recent and visible off-campus activities has been as co-chairman of the nationally-influential Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, and his involvement with the Center for Civil and Human Rights. There are 292 cosponsors of this legislation, and, of course, it is led by my colleague and friend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who has done a magnificent job in helping to organize and focus us on the fact that this human being has contributed so much we need to give him special recognition.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thought since my colleague had given the background and history of Jubilee 2000 that I would just note some of the participants in this coalition that we have around the world on this very important issue. So I am going to call off a few of these names. Maybe I can get most of them in. The supporters of the Jubilee 2000 Campaign in support of debt relief include the following: The Pope Africa Faith and Justice Network Africa Fund Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) American Friends Service Committee Bread for the World Catholic Relief Services Center of Concern Church of the Brethren/Washington Office Church World Service (CWS)/National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA Columban Justice & Peace Office Conference of Major Superiors of Men Episcopal Church Episcopal Peace Fellowship Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 50 Years Is Enough US Network for Global Economic Justice Friends of the Earth (FOE) Leadership Conference of Women Religious Lutheran World Relief Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns Medical Mission Sister's Alliance for Justice Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Nicaragua-US Friendship Office OXFAM-America Preamble Center Presbyterian Church/USA Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur Sojourners United Church of Christ United Methodist Church US Catholic Mission Association Washington Office on Africa Witness for Peace African Methodist Episcopal Church Church of the Brethren/General Board Church Women United Dominican Sister of Hope Ecumenical Program on Central America & the Caribbean (EIPCA) Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) Interreligious Foundation for Community Organizations, Inc. (IFCO) Lewis Metropolitan C.M.E. Church Lutheran World Relief (LWR) National Summit on Africa NETWORK B A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby Progressive National Baptist Convention Rainbow-PUSH

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned and I failed to mention but I must underscore her recognition of the chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). I do not know if there could have been anyone else that could have executed this in the way that he has done. As my colleague knows, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is a highly respected Member of this House who has given leadership to that overall committee on many very important issues, none more important than this one. And it is because of his patience, it is because of the high esteem in which he is held in this House that he was able to work so well with all of these groups that make up Jubilee 2000. So I would like to thank my colleague for the special recognition she has paid to him and to say on my behalf that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) probably will mark this success that we are going to have as one of the highlights of his career. I know that he has done many things and he has been involved in many complicated pieces of legislation that have had far-reaching effects. But this molding and shaping and moving of debt relief for the world and the countries that need it so desperately will go down in history as one the most important efforts that he has made.

Ms. WATERS. Less than 1 percent. And I think that should be said over and over again so that we can get rid of the notion that somehow we are bankrupting our country in order to make this very humane gesture. We see pictures of children with extended bellies; we see pictures of people who live in remote villages who carry water for miles because they do not have running water. We saw, when we traveled to Africa, children in makeshift classrooms who have little in the way of books or materials but who want to learn. We see countries that are confronted with the problem of AIDS, such as we are seeing in Third World countries and in Africa. Right next door to us, right in our own hemisphere, we see countries that are struggling to make sure that people just have one little piece of bread and maybe a little something to drink. Milk is out of the question for many of these children. So I do not think any of us can be proud that despite that which we do not have, and we would like to have for everybody, we have enough that we can share with these very desperate souls around the globe. And that is what we are all about in America. One of the things that we are proudest of is the fact that we believe that we are spiritual people; that we believe in a higher being; that we worship in so many different ways, in whatever fashion. We feel it is important for us to worship. But central to all of that is the belief that we can share; that we can help out; that we can extend a helping hand. And how better to demonstrate that than through this wonderful Jubilee 2000. And what a wonderful name for what we are doing. We are celebrating our humanity. We are celebrating that, no matter what the distances are around this globe, we are one people. We are one people, and we should all care about each other. So this debt relief is one of the most important actions that we can take. We are going to send a message to Zambia, for example, who is spending one-third of its government revenue to servicing the debt. We are going to send a message to Mozambique, whose debt service payments in 1997 absorbed about half of all government revenue. We are going to send a message to Nicaragua, where over half of the government's revenue was allocated to debt service payments in 1997. We are going to send a message to all of these children that we care. We are going to proudly attack the fact that almost 200,000 children die annually in Mozambique from preventable illnesses, such as malaria, measles, and respiratory infection; and only half of the rural population has access to safe water. So this is work that we can be proud of. This is work that everybody can take part in. And, again, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I am proud to be a member of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services offering some leadership in this area. And I look forward to the negotiations and the passage of the appropriations line item that will fully fund the bilateral debt relief and to using our leverage at IMF and the World Bank to make sure that we have multilateral debt relief and we work out all of the questions of how we are going to reap the benefit of the gold, through gold sales, in a way that will satisfy everybody and allay the fears about what it means to be involved in utilizing this possibility for helping to pay for this debt relief. So I really do appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership.