Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I and others who have taken to the floor to speak about this attempt by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) to open up the Federal system to youth and try them as adults is very serious with us because of what we already know about how the system works. Let me continue with some of the statistics that we have begun to roll out. Black youth are much more likely to end up imprisoned as adult offenders. In 1995 nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred to adult criminal court by judicial waiver. Of these proceedings, cases involving black youth were 52 percent of all the children and adolescents waived to the adult court. Youth Law Center, America's assault on minority youth, the problem of over representation of minority youth in the justice system; we are telling the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) aside from the problem with minority youth we are exacerbating the problem for Native Americans. As my colleagues know, what they are doing is going to have a disproportionate impact on them, and let me just say that minorities do fare worse in this system because they do not have the contacts, and people acting on their behalf and tweaking the system; Mr. McCollum, he has used his influence to get off people in the system who have committed serious charges. Black youth and minority youth do not have that opportunity to have that kind of support.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today we are going to witness a lot of rhetoric about what causes juvenile crimes. If we were to accept the majority's position, one would think that it is access to the Power Rangers that kill our children, not the access to guns. The rhetoric is tired. Let us be clear. We know that prevention works. Despite this common knowledge, we have witnessed time and time again the Republicans' failure to properly fund education, Head Start programs and other programs we know that work. Instead, the majority wants to rush our children from the crib to the jails. The McCollum amendment allows Federal prosecutors rather than judges the discretion to try children as adults, lowers the age to 13 in some cases at which children can be tried as adults in the Federal system, and broadens the scope of Federal crimes for which juveniles can be tried as adults. This provision would mean that more children would be placed in adult jails, and children are not specifically prohibited from contact with adults. This places children at serious risk of abuse and assault and flies in the face of current studies which indicate that trying children as adults increases rather than decreases youth crime. The McCollum amendment allows children to come in contact with adults in adult jails in the Federal system. Children as young as 13 years old would be allowed to be in the same jail cell with adults. Allowing contact between juveniles and adults in adult jails would place children at risk of assault and abuse, as children are 8 times more likely to commit suicide, 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and twice as likely to be assaulted by even staff in the adult jails than in juvenile facilities. The McCollum amendment imposes new mandatory minimum sentences for children who are convicted of certain offenses. These new draconian mandatory minimums would likely impose harsher penalties on youthful offenders than adult criminals guilty of the same offenses under the current law. Let me say this. Because I am an African American woman, I have had to pay attention to the disproportionate sentencing of minorities. When we take a look at what is going on according to the September 1998 Juvenile Justice Bulletin, it was estimated in two States that one in seven African American males would be incarcerated before the age of 18. This statistic is compared with one in 125 white males. And then I come here today and find that there is a bill being produced that talks about putting more Indian children, more Native American children, in jail because of the way the Federal system is constructed. According to the September 1998 Juvenile Justice Bulletin, minority youth represented 68 percent of the juvenile population in secured detention and 68 percent of those in secured institutional environments such as training schools, even though minority youth constituted about 32 percent of the population at the time of the study. I could go on and on and on. Let me just say that I am absolutely worried and concerned that we are going in the direction of placing more minority youth in prisons and in the Federal system. It is not right and we should not allow it.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the tremendous work they did in the Committee on the Judiciary on H.R. 1501 to really put forth before this House a real bill to deal with the problems of young people and the juvenile justice system. Unfortunately, it is now all threatened because there is some attempt to try and divert people's attention away from the gun safety issue and to literally take this piece of legislation and pile on it everybody's wild thoughts about every issue that they have been concerned about, I guess, all of their lives. We have people who would destroy the Constitution by piling on here all kinds of amendments that will undermine our first amendment rights. We have people who have decided they are going to take this bill and force the Ten Commandments to be posted somewhere. We have every kind of thought in over 40 amendments piled on top of this bill that will simply destroy the bill. The American public and families want some assistance. They want some help. We can do a better job of crime prevention. And we do not need to do it with these kinds of outrageous amendments, nor do we need to talk about locking up young people and killing them with mandatory minimum sentencing. I think we are better public policymakers than that and we can do a better job. I think the New York Times got it right when it said, ``Republican mischief on gun control.'' What they basically describe is how they have undermined the system of this House and how they have confused everybody, divided these bills, taken a good bill and destroyed it, and they are attempting to do the work of the NRA with a second bill where they will water down what was done on the Senate side. This is outrageous. We should not have to put up with it. We should not destroy the work of the committee that was done in order to have a good juvenile justice bill. And we need to stop it right now. We need to stop it. We need to take the juvenile justice bill that was heard in committee and hear it and pass it out without all of these amendments, and then we need to deal with the gun safety legislation coming from the Senate side and vote it up or down. I am absolutely outraged by the idea that mandatory minimum sentencing for 13- or 14-year-olds in this bill would create not only new Federal crimes but simply take away the discretion of judges, lock up kids 14 years old, put them in the Federal system, create more people in our prisons, and do nothing to reduce crime. We know what mandatory minimum sentencing is doing. It is simply filling up the prisons and throwing away America's youth. We can do better than this. This is outrageous. Please do not let them get away with this.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to me once again, would the gentleman agree that if we kept religion out of our public schools, we would not have this worry? If we followed the intent of the Constitution for separation of church and state where we were not in any way teaching, imposing religion on anybody at any time, we would not have this worry?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, does the gentleman believe that if that is what the Constitution is designed to do, that we should all respect that, not try and rewrite the Constitution, not try and recreate ways by which we can basically say some religion is all right, and some is not all right?

Ms. WATERS. Would the gentleman agree that the Constitution of the United States of America basically protects religious freedom?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has said that he really does not know what this amendment does, is that correct?

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I would hope that even if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not agree with those of us who believe that this is a real infringement, and we believe that it is confusing, and we believe that this is an attempt by some to get rid of the values that we have built up dealing with intolerance, et cetera. Just do it because the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) asks you to do it, and he says that you are breaking faith with Members on this side of the aisle when you said you would not do this kind of thing. I too do not know what you mean about the religious beliefs of any juvenile or adult in the program. I do know that at one time there was a religion that taught that black people did not have souls. So I do not know what the gentleman is talking about. He is tinkering with something that he does not know what he is doing. I would suggest that the gentleman needs to get out of the business, number one, of trying to interject religion into government and trying to get it paid for by government, your teachings, et cetera. I would suggest that the gentleman back off all of this, because he is placing us in the kind of situation where there will be confrontation around these kinds of issues. I would simply say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they have gone too far, and they are treading on the dangerous realm of the unknown and they should not do that. I would hope that my colleagues would take the wise advice of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and drop this amendment this evening.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a protestant, a Baptist in particular. I am not of the Jewish faith, I do not practice Judaism, I do not practice the Muslim faith, I do not know anything about Buddhists. I respect each of those. But when I send my child to school, I expect my child not to be influenced by anybody else's religion. I expect to teach my child in my house what I would like to teach him about religion. While I respect everybody's religion, I do not want it imposed on my child where I send him to school. Now, my colleague thinks it is all right to have the Ten Commandments. I do not know what is synonymous to that in any of these other religions. I know one thing. I do not want anybody else's religion displayed by way of their commandments in the classroom where my child is, maybe teaching him something different than what I would teach him. As far as I am concerned, I teach my child that God is God. It may be Jehovah, it may be Allah, it may be something in other religions. But that is the point. The point is this is a Nation where we are allowed to practice whatever we would like to practice. It is central and basic to our democracy. It is installed in our Constitution. It is sacrosanct. It is the most precious thing that we can have, freedom of religion. When the gentleman talks about the Ten Commandments, he is talking about something that is central to Christianity. Why in God's name would he want that to be the symbol of everybody's religion? The fact of the matter is, he would not like it if somebody else imposed something else on his child. So he has got to see it in a more comprehensive way. It is unconstitutional. It flies in the face of the Constitution of this land and it should not be done.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am as religious as anyone else, so I do not take a back seat to anyone when we talk about religion. But I do stand up for the Constitution. It is amazing what I have heard here today, the assault on the Constitution, on First Amendment rights, on freedom of religion; the basic First Amendment rights, the 10 amendments to the Constitution that hold this democracy in good stead. The gentleman can talk about the Constitution all he wants, but he cannot amend it on this floor tonight, on this piece of legislation. Even the most right-wing of Supreme Court Justices will not allow what the gentleman is trying to do. This speaks to the heart of religious freedom. No, we do not want to intrude on anybody's rights by having religious memorials and symbols on our schools. The gentleman would not like it if someone denigrated his religion or tried to dominate school property with their religion. The gentleman can speak all he wants to tonight on this crime bill, and the gentleman can assault the Constitution if the gentleman would like, but I guarantee Members, even if the majority of this Congress votes for religious symbols on memorials any time, anyplace, anywhere, they are going to lose in the Supreme Court, because no matter how right-wing those Justices are, they respect the Constitution. They know the Constitution, and they are going to hold that Constitution up and keep it from being defied and dismantled by the likes of Members who do not understand what a democracy is all about.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I think this is an excellent amendment that is being offered by the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). And let me tell my colleagues why. This amendment, as I understand it, is an amendment that would make drug dealers liable for the poison that they put out on the streets and the harm that is perpetrated on those who end up being the victims of these drug sales. And it does not matter who is doing it, but if they are found to be guilty and liable for selling these drugs, then that creates a cause of action. The reason that I am supporting this is because I have been working for some years trying to help unfold what happens in the intelligence community as it relates to trafficking and drugs and covert operations. What we have discovered is that the CIA, as one of the intelligence agencies, knew very well about the trafficking in drugs, particularly as it related to getting profits from the drugs that went to support the Contras in the war between the Contras and the Sandinistas. For many months now we have had people who have been working on this, and they have said to us that all of the damage that was caused by these drugs, the crack cocaine that was let loose in these communities in an effort to fund the Contras, is directly the fault of the CIA and those intelligence agencies that were involved in these covert operations. So this gentleman is absolutely correct. They should be made liable for what they have done. They have admitted now that there were drug traffickers in their midst. They have said they were not responsible directly, but they have said they had a memorandum of understanding, which some of us question. Well, there is no longer a memorandum of understanding, and this amendment would take care of that. I am thankful to the gentleman for offering this amendment. Because it does not matter who it is, whether it is a drug dealer on the streets, in the cornfields of Iowa, or a drug dealer up in New York or the Midwest, wherever it is, or the intelligence community, if they are dealing in drugs for any reason, they should be liable for the devastation and the harm that is caused to the individuals who end up being the victims of those drug sales. So I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to embrace this amendment, to support this amendment, to vote ``aye'' on this amendment. It is very important that we finally have an opportunity to seek justice for those victims that were created as a result of trafficking drugs by our own intelligence community. We have some young people who are actively working on a lawsuit coming out of the San Francisco area on this very issue. This will support that. This will help them to be able to get all of the victims to come forth, some of them who will be able to comply with the conditions of this amendment. As I understand it, the conditions of this amendment would have those victims identify those persons who were responsible for selling the drugs. We have people who are claiming to be able to identify people in the intelligence community who were involved. Also, we have people who are able to identify the assets of the intelligence community, many of them still in this country, some of them have fled to Nicaragua and down in Guatemala and other places, who should really be extradited and brought back here for the harm that they caused. I would ask support for this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it is a sound amendment. Mr. Chairman, finally, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) that he is doing the work that is needed to be done to get at the drug dealers who would dare dump this poison on our children and in our midst.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about violence. However, I never dreamed that I would see the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary assault the Constitution in the way this amendment does. This amendment is outrageous and it does danger not only to the children of this society, but to all of the citizens of this society. I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we are not going back to burning books, we are not going to lock people up for artistic expression. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us freedom of expression. We cannot violate the Constitution in the name of wanting to do something about violence. What we should be doing is using our power to assist families and children and to help parents, many of whom are working, to deal with the problems of young people in a considered way. I am absolutely outraged by the fact that one of the best legal minds in this House would bring this trash to the floor of the Congress of the United States of America. It is outrageous and it should be defeated.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this unjust and unfair rule. The Majority Leadership is still refusing to allow several Democratic amendments to be considered by this House. I am especially opposed to this rule because my amendments to extend Section 2323 of Title X of the U.S. Code were not ruled in order. Section 2323 established a five percent contract goal for small disadvantaged businesses and certain institutions of higher education, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic- serving institutions. Achieving this modest goal is the objective of the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and NASA. This important law is scheduled to expire in the year 2000. I proposed two amendments to extend Section 2323 beyond the year 2000 and improve the implementation of this important provision of law. My colleague, Ms. Velazquez, also proposed two amendments to extend and modify Section 2323. So there were four different proposals regarding contracting for small disadvantaged businesses and minority institutions and none of them were ruled in order by the Republican leadership. Recent trends have provided compelling evidence for the continuing need for affirmative action goals in Federal contracting. Following the Adarand v. Pena decision by the Supreme Court, the Federal Government undertook a review of affirmative action programs, and subsequently, 17 of these programs were altered or eliminated. These changes have led to a significant drop in the number of Federal contracts awarded to minorities and women. For example, in 1995, the Department of Energy, which contracts out 80 percent of its purchases of goods and services, awarded $215.8 million in contracts to women and minority-owned businesses. In 1997, the amount dropped to $66.1 million. It would be extremely unfortunate if a similar decrease in Federal contracting with minority-owned businesses were to occur at the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and NASA. Section 2323 is a modest goal to encourage contracts with minority- owned businesses and other small businesses. As a result of this provision, many businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals have been able to compete for, have been awarded and have executed Defense, NASA and Coast Guard contracts. Section 2323 has allowed small disadvantaged businesses and minority institutions of higher education to make a positive contribution to the national security of the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose this unjust rule and support a fair rule that will allow the Members of this House to consider the extension of Section 2323.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Skelton amendment, which would strike from this bill a dangerous Republican provision that bars the use of funds for operations in Yugoslavia after September 30 of this year. I would ask my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle to please stop the political micromanagement of this conflict. We should be on this floor congratulating the President, giving support to our troops, and commending our negotiators and NATO for ethnic cleansing and genocide. This provision could not be more untimely than it is today. Just yesterday, Yugoslavian and NATO officials signed an agreement that requires a demonstrable withdrawal of Yugoslavian military forces from Kosovo by this afternoon and a complete withdrawal within 11 days. The agreement also requires an immediate cease-fire by Yugoslav forces and a suspension of NATO air strikes once the withdrawal of forces has begun. NATO officials are monitoring developments in Kosovo as we speak to ensure that Yugoslavia abides by its agreement. Stop undermining our troops and the President. Let us have all of us get together on this issue.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the Gilman-Goss amendment. This foolish and dangerous amendment would prohibit the use of funds to maintain a U.S. military presence in Haiti after December 31 of this year. The effect of this amendment is to gut US Support Group Haiti, an important humanitarian, engineering and civic affairs operation, and deny our President the flexibility he needs to determine our nation's troop deployments. Haiti is currently planning to hold elections later this year. This elections follow months of political instability. It is vital that the United States show our support for the democratic process in this country. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Members on the other side of the aisle have attempted to interfere in our nation's support for democracy in Haiti. Last month, Republicans led an effort to squash a human rights observation mission that represented the one credible human rights organization in Haiti during this difficult time. Now, these same critics of our nation's policy toward Haiti are attempting to force our troops to leave at a time when their presence is especially important to support stability and aid in democratization efforts. The people of Haiti are looking forward to having elections later this year. Requiring the courageous and dedicated men and women of our nation's armed forces to leave the country now would send a terrible message to the Haitian people about our willingness to support the democratic process in this country. Now is not the time to consider withdrawing these men and women at this critical point in Haiti's history. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gilman-Goss amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Sanchez amendment, a bill that would restore women the right to equal access in health services at military hospitals. This amendment is first and foremost about protecting women's health. It would give military women the access to the health care they need and deserve. Soldiers in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and risk their lives in defending our country. They should not be asked to sacrifice their health, their safety and their basic constitutional rights for a policy with no valid military purpose. Let me clarify that the amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion to perform an abortion. The amendment merely reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 to 1988 and again from 1993 to 1996. This policy gives women in the military who are stationed overseas the same rights as military women in their own country, the right to pay for a safe and legal abortion with their own private money. Enough is enough. Every woman should be guaranteed the same rights as any other woman, particularly if those same women are fighting to protect the freedoms of this country. How can we in good conscience deny our service women any right at all? We will hear a lot of inflammatory language and a lot of discussions designed to frighten and intimidate. That is not what it is all about, Mr. Chairman. It is about women who want to take their own money and pay for a service that should be available. It is not, but they are paying their own money to have this service, one of the health care benefits that they should be afforded that they are not being afforded. How can we say to a military woman who is out there risking her life for us in our Armed Services that we are going to deny access to service? We do not do that to men in any shape, form or fashion; do not do it to women.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I support disaster relief for the people of Central America and the Caribbean. This assistance is long overdue. I support funding for our troops in Kosovo. I also support full funding for Census 2000. Nevertheless, I must oppose H.R. 1141, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999. This supplemental bill includes a $1.25 billion cut in food stamp funding, a $350 million cut in the Section 8 affordable housing program, and a $22.4 million cut in unemployment insurance programs. These harmful cuts target the most vulnerable sections of our Nation's population. And they will cause tremendous suffering to numerous low-income Americans. The food stamp cut in this bill is unprecedented and immoral. Excess funds provided to the food stamp program have always been used for other nutrition programs. They have never been transferred to nonnutrition programs. The proposed cut in food stamp funding would take away food from hungry people and set a dangerous precedent for using nutritional assistance as a budgetary offset. I am also deeply concerned about the $350 million cut in the Section 8 affordable housing program, which provides housing assistance to poor and elderly people, including many of our Nation's veterans. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this rescission will result in a loss of subsidy for approximately 60,000 families and exacerbate the current waiting list problem on which many families must wait months or years to receive the housing assistance they so desperately need. The rescission could also disrupt the Section 8 program and cause many landlords to opt out of the program altogether. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, the President asked for $7.2 billion for both of the supplementals. This is almost $15 billion. Members have thrown in everything but the kitchen sink. The American taxpayers are tired of this kind of programming, this kind of legislating. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. We cannot move forward with this mess. It is outrageous and we should not want this on our records. Mr. Speaker, I support disaster relief for the people of Central America and the Caribbean; this assistance is long overdue. I support funding for our troops in Kosovo. I also support full funding for Census 2000. Nevertheless, I must oppose H.R. 1141, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. This supplemental bill includes a $1.25 billion cut in food stamp funding, a $350 million cut in the Section 8 affordable housing program and a $22.4 million cut in unemployment insurance programs. These harmful cuts target the most vulnerable segments of our nation's population, and they will cause tremendous suffering to numerous low- income Americans. The food stamp cut in this bill is unprecedented and immoral. Excess funds provided to the food stamp program has always been used for other nutrition programs; they have never been transferred to non-nutrition programs. The proposed cut in food stamp funding would take food away from hungry people and set a dangerous precedent for using nutrition assistance as a budgetary offset. I am also deeply concerned about the $350 million cut in the Section 8 affordable housing program, which provides housing assistance to poor and elderly people, including many of our nation's veterans. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this rescission will result in a loss of subsidy for approximately 60,000 families and exacerbate the current waiting list problem, on which many families must wait months or years to receive the housing assistance they so desperately need. The rescission could also disrupt the Section 8 program and cause many landlords to opt out of the program altogether. Supporters of these rescissions claim that the funds being cut from housing assistance, food stamps and unemployment insurance will probably not be used during this fiscal year. If this is the case, the money can be rescinded at the end of the fiscal year or used to fund housing, nutrition and unemployment programs for fiscal year 2000. We know there are unemployed, hungry and homeless people in America today who have been left behind despite recent economic growth. If the funds Congress has provided for these people are not reaching them, it stands to reason that we should improve the outreach of the programs, not cut their funding. H.R. 1141 is supposed to be an emergency spending bill. Emergency spending bills are not subject to budgetary spending caps and should not require any offsets at all. The Republicans have been blatantly inconsistent on the subject of offsets in emergency spending bills and they have needlessly politicized the appropriations process. First they included offsets in H.R. 1141, which was originally a bill to provide disaster relief to the victims of Hurricane Mitch in Central America and the Caribbean. Then they included billions of dollars in non-emergency defense spending but no offsets in H.R. 1664, the Kosovo supplemental bill. Now they have combined these two contradictory approaches and included a whole new set of offsets at the expense of the poorest people in America. If the Republicans would stop loading emergency spending bills with non-emergency projects, they would not need to worry about offsets. I strongly support the extension of funding for the Commerce, State and Justice Departments and the federal court system through September 30, 1999, which is contained in this supplemental appropriations bill. Without this extension, the Commerce, State and Justice Departments and the federal court system could be shut down completely for the remainder of the fiscal year. However, if the Republican majority had fulfilled its responsibility to appropriate the funds that were necessary to operate these departments last year, the Republicans would not have needed to include this extension in an emergency spending bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act and oppose the disastrous offsets, which could cause tremendous harm to poor, hungry and unemployed people throughout the United States.

Ms. WATERS

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, on December 10, 1997, he was sentenced to almost 20 years in prison. Federal prosecutors have also charged General Guillen with a broad conspiracy to smuggle up to 22 tons of cocaine through Venezuela to the United States and Europe while he was head of the anti-drug unit of the Venezuelan National Guard between 1988 and 1992. Since Venezuela does not extradite its citizens, General Guillen is still at large. 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 CIA should not be allowed to bring cocaine or other illegal drugs into our country. Intelligence agencies should be working to stop the harmful trafficking in illegal drugs that is destroying our communities. They should not be assisting the drug traffickers. I urge my colleagues to support this very reasonable amendment to stop the drugs that are used in covert operations from seeing their way into our cities and our towns. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment to H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000. My amendment prohibits the employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, from participating in drug trafficking activities. My amendment clearly defines drug trafficking activities to include the manufacture, the purchase, the sale, the transport or distribution of illegal drugs and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. My amendment also requires CIA employees and covert agents to report known or suspected drug trafficking activities to the appropriate authorities. 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 or other law enforcement authorities. This remarkable and secret agreement was in force from February of 1982 until August of 1995. I have been investigating the allegations of drug trafficking by the Nicaraguan Contras during the 1980s. My investigation has led me to the conclusion that the United States intelligence agencies knew full well 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. Last year, the CIA Inspector General released a report of investigation on drug trafficking by the Contras which confirms allegations of CIA knowledge of and support for drug trafficking in the United States by the Contras. The report provides extensive details of the evidence available to the CIA regarding drug trafficking by Contra rebels and their supporters. Even more remarkable is the fact that there is evidence that the CIA was actually participating in drug trafficking activities. In the late 1980s, the CIA began to develop intelligence on Colombian drug cartels. To infiltrate the cartels, the CIA arranged an undercover drug smuggling operation with the Venezuelan National Guard. More than 1.5 tons of cocaine were smuggled from Colombia to Venezuela and then stored in a CIA-financed Counternarcotics Intelligence Center in Venezuela. The Center's commander and the CIA's agent in Venezuela was General Ramon Guillen, who was also the head of the anti-drug unit of the Venezuelan National Guard. Now we know that, in certain circumstances, the Drug Enforcement Agency arranges controlled shipments of illegal drugs in which the drugs are allowed to enter the United States, then tracked to their destination and seized. However, 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 them, turned them down flat. But the CIA ushered this shipment of drugs into the United States, and it got lost on the streets of New York and south central Los Angeles and in our neighborhoods and our communities. The CIA let the drugs walk into our communities. On November 19, 1990, part of that shipment, 800 pounds of cocaine, was seized by the U.S. Customs Service at the Miami International Airport. Customs traced the cocaine right back to the Venezuelan National Guard and General Guillen and the CIA. General Guillen's top civilian aide, Adolfo Romero Gomez, was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine in September of 1997.

Ms. WATERS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and though 1 minute is not enough, I will try. I simply want to, first, thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman, and our ranking member, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Carrie Meek) for stopping and focusing us and getting us together to give our thanks to Reverend Jesse Jackson. Reverend Jesse Jackson is truly a remarkable man. He is a man who truly believes in the power of prayer and the ability to argue the moral and humane position, no matter how difficult it looks, no matter how difficult it seems. He was criticized. They said, do not go, Jesse; do not mess up our diplomatic relations, even though we had none. But Jesse went in spite of that, with a faith-based coalition and our own Congressman, to say to Mr. Milosevic, let them go. And despite the fact that we all believe that Mr. Milosevic is without a moral center, that this is a man who has been involved in ethnic cleansing, that this is a man who had lost his moral compass a long time ago, Jesse convinced him. He did not stop on the first try. They told him it was not on the agenda. Jesse Jackson went to bed; and he said, it is on my agenda. And he got up the next morning, and he continued with the mission, and he made it happen. We are pleased. The mothers of these young men are pleased. We are so glad we have a Jesse Jackson. The world should thank Jesse Jackson.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Con. Res. 21, which has been offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) to authorize military air operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I am not a hawk, not by any stretch of the imagination, and I have been a peace activist for years. I do not support a full-scale war with Serbia. We are not in a full-scale war, and I hope it can be averted. I believe, however, we should do everything possible to avoid taking any actions that would create a full-scale war. However, I vowed that I would never again remain silent in the face of genocide, and the Albanians in Kosovo are clearly facing genocide. The United States did not act quickly enough to stop the Holocaust during World War II. Throughout the 1930s, persecution against the Jews in Nazi Germany continued to escalate, yet the world community did nothing. Even after the United States entered the war, we did not take any action to shut down the gas chambers. As a result of this genocide, 6 million Jews were murdered. Between April and June of 1994, the Tutsi people of Rwanda were systematically slaughtered. Throughout the months of April and May of that year, the U.S. Government failed to support any action to stop this genocide. The United Nations finally authorized the peacekeeping force, but it was too late to save the lives of 1 million Rwandan people who were slaughtered. Kosovo is not the only place where genocide is happening today. The Government of Sudan is conducting a genocidal war against the people of southern Sudan. More than 1.5 million people have been killed since 1983 as a result of aerial bombings, massacres and attacks on civilian villages. The survivors of these attacks are routinely murdered or taken to northern Sudan and sold into slavery. We cannot allow genocide to be ignored. I know there are limits to what the United States can do to stop genocide. Although war is not always the answer to oppression, we know that silence can never be the answer. We must take action to stop genocide in Kosovo. That is why I support the President's efforts and the efforts of our troops to stop those deplorable crimes.