Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the United States is in a trade war with the European Union. It is in a trade war about bananas. We do not grow any bananas in the United States. How did we get into this trade war? One man, Carl Lindner, has triggered a trade war, Carl Lindner of Chiquita Bananas. How did this happen? It is very simple. The European Union has a relationship with the Eastern Caribbean. The European Union that was once the colonizers, when they left independence to the colonies, they created a relationship so that these colonies could sell their bananas and be independent. Carl Lindner cannot compete with the Eastern Caribbean, and our Trade Representatives, starting with Mickey Kanter, and before, Charlene Barchefsky, who promised we would not get into this trade war, took this issue before the World Trade Organization. They made the case on behalf of Carl Lindner, who is everybody's friend, Democrats and Republicans, and he has gotten us into this trade war. We had better wake up. This is not something we should be in. I am going to talk about this a lot.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to appoint managers from this House to prosecute the President in the Senate. The lame duck Congress that impeached the President did so without the consent of the new Members. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why new Members would get elected, come here to represent their constituents and take a vote today without having participated in the impeachment. They are being asked to take for granted that the Committee on the Judiciary, that the House, had the facts, they had the information. How could anyone who has said to their constituents that they are coming here to represent them, that they will be involved in the deliberations of this House, come here and on the first day after being sworn in vote mindlessly and blindly to send some managers over to the other House to prosecute the President of the United States? That is disrespectful of one's intelligence. In addition to that, since the vote on this House floor, we have Republicans who have said in a letter that they signed to the Senate saying, we do not wish this to go any further, we would really like to censure. We did not have an opportunity to vote in this House on censure. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our new Members are more intelligent than they are thought to be by those who are saying, just blindly follow what has already been done, this partisan effort that was made in this House without an alternative on the floor that would give Members the opportunity to vote censure? I think the Members, the new Members on both sides of the aisle should rebel against that. I think the Republican Members, who come here knowing that some of their constituents do not want that, should not vote these managers to the Senate.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened to bring to my colleagues' attention the death of my good friend, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham on Monday, December 14, 1998. Judge Higginbotham was one of the ``true giants'' of the civil rights struggle. Judge Higginbotham was a leading legal scholar, author, historian and professor in addition to his stellar twenty-nine year career on the federal bench. Judge Higginbotham believed that the law was the vehicle to right the wrongs he experienced growing up under segregation. According to stories that Judge Higginbotham often recounted, the President of Purdue University flatly told him in his freshman year of college that the school was not required under law to provide black students with heated dormitories and, therefore, never would. The Judge said that particular experience persuaded him to become a lawyer. Judge Higginbotham was committed to a practice of law which he viewed as a commitment to social justice. He held deep convictions and continually fought for the underdog. He argued for justice and fairness. Judge Higginbotham was a friend to members of the Congressional Black Caucus. He was always available with an analysis of the issue that only he could articulate. Judge Higginbotham helped us with many projects after his retirement from the bench. The most notable was his preparation of an amicus brief in the voting rights case Shaw vs. Reno. Judge Higginbotham was a frequent witness here on Capitol Hill. His most recent testimony was two weeks ago, Tuesday, December 1, 1998, in front of the House Judiciary Committee. As he often did, Judge Higginbotham provided clear, insightful testimony. In his opening statement, he asked the Members to listen to ``Luther Standing Bear, a member of the Lakota Tribe, who said, `Thought comes before speech' when dealing with one of the most important constitutional issues which this committee will ever have, to pause and to give thought before you speak and before you vote,'' truer words have never been spoken. ``I am pleased to have broken protocol at the end of Judge Higginbotham's opening statement to give him a rousing round of applause. Who would have thought this would be the last time I would see this great man alive?'' Recently Judge Higginbotham has stated that he felt many of the advances he had applauded over his long legal career were endangered by the cutbacks in affirmative action and reduced opportunities for black lawyers and judges. He further stated in an article in The New York Times Magazine, ``I witnessed the birth of racial justice in the Supreme Court and here now, after 45 years as a lawyer, judge and law professor, I sometimes feel as if I am watching justice die.'' When I read today that Judge Higginbotham's first meeting with former Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall was during the ominous Sweatt vs. Paine Supreme Court case, I realized his previous statement was hauntingly true. The 1950 case was whether the court should compel the state of Texas to admit a black student to the University of Texas Law School. The 1995 Supreme Court case, Hopwood vs. State of Texas, was about a white student suing the University of Texas Law School for admission above their affirmative action rules. It scares me, as it scared Judge Higginbotham to see this happen right before my eyes. I have long been a proponent of affirmative action, but I am even more resolute in my fight to ensure the continuation of affirmative action to make Judge A. Leon Higginbotham's legacy is never abandoned. We cannot sit idly by and allow affirmative action in the United States to be erased. Judge A. Leon Higginbotham's legacy is too important.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the most senior Member of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, how must our American soldiers feel to have their Commander in Chief under attack while they are engaged in battle? They have the right to feel betrayed and undermined. Today we are here in the people's House debating the partisan impeachment of the President of the United States of America while the Commander in Chief is managing a crisis and asking world leaders for support. This is indeed a Republican coup d'etat. Mr. Speaker, Americans all, the Republicans will couch this extremist radical anarchy and pious language which distorts the Constitution and the rule of law. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the real targets, and the Republicans are the vehicles being used by the right wing Christian Coalition extremists to direct and control our culture. The rule of law has been violated in denying the President notice of charges, by the abuse of power in the collecting of so-called evidence and the denial of the presumption of innocence. President Clinton is not guilty of the trumped up charges presented in these four articles of impeachment. Yes, Bill Clinton is guilty of certain indiscretions in his private life. However, he did not commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Rather the President is guilty of being a populist leader who opened up government and access to the poor, to minorities, to women and to the working class. President Bill Clinton is guilty of not being owned by the good ole southern boys or the good ole eastern establishment. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is guilty of being smart enough to outmaneuver the Republicans in the budget negotiations, electoral politics and the development and implementation of the people's agenda. Mr. Speaker, I am an African American woman. I am accustomed to having to fight and struggle for fairness and justice. Ken Starr, I know and recognize abuse of power when I see it; he is guilty. However, I am greatly disappointed in the raw, unmasked, unbridled hatred and meanness that drives this impeachment coup d'etat, the unapologetic disregard for the voice of the people. Mr. Speaker, I say to my Republican friends what they do here today will long be remembered and recorded in history as one of the most despicable actions ever taken by the Congress of the United States of America. I dare the Republicans of this House to allow themselves to move just one inch and give me and my colleagues the opportunity to vote for an alternative. I dare them to be fair. I dare them to allow us to vote for censure.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the respected retiring member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, well, the CIA has finally admitted it and the New York Times finally covered it. The Times ran the devastating story on Saturday, with the headline: CIA Said to Ignore Charges of Contra Drug Dealing in 80s. In a remarkable reversal by the New York Times, the paper reported that the CIA knew about Contra drug dealing and they covered it up. The CIA let it go on for years during the height of their campaign against the Sandinista government. Among other revelations in the article were that ``the CIA's inspector general determined that the agency `did not inform Congress of all allegations or information it received indicating that contra- related organizations or individuals were involved in drug trafficking.' '' The Times article continued pointing out ``[d]uring the time the ban on [Contra] funds was in effect, the CIA informed Congress only about drug charges against two other contra-related people. [T]he agency failed to tell other executive branch agencies, including the Justice Department, about drug allegations against 11 contra-related individuals or entities.'' The article continues stating ``[the Report] makes clear that the agency did little or nothing to investigate most of the drug allegations that it heard about the contra and their supporters. In all, the inspector general's report found that the CIA has received allegations of drug involvement by 58 contras or others linked to the contra program. These included 14 pilots and two others tied to the contra program's CIA-backed air transportation operations. The Times reported that ``the report said that in at least six instances, the CIA knew about allegations regarding individuals or organizations but that knowledge did not deter it from continuing to employ them.'' Several informed sources have told me that an appendix to this Report was removed at the instruction of the Department of Justice at the last minute. This appendix is reported to have information about a CIA officer, not agent or asset, but officer, based in the Los Angeles Station, who was in charge of Contra related activities. According to these sources, this individual was associated with running drugs to South Central Los Angeles, around 1988. Let me repeat that amazing omission. The recently released CIA Report Volume II contained an appendix, which was pulled by the Department of Justice, that reported a CIA officer in the LA Station was hooked into drug running in South Central Los Angeles. I have not seen this appendix. But the sources are very reliable and well-informed. The Department of Justice must release that appendix immediately. If the Department of Justice chooses to withhold this clearly vital information, the outrage will be servere and widespread. We have finally seen the CIA admit to have knowingly employed drug dealers associated with the Contra movement. I look forward to a comprehensive investigation into this matter by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, now that the underlying charges have finally been admitted by the CIA.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4683, the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), ranking Democrat, for sponsoring this most important bill here in the House. This bill would bring much-needed attention to research and prevention programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that target the particular health concerns of women, including osteoporosis, breast and ovarian cancer and the aging process. I am particularly pleased that in addition to the reauthorization of these important programs, the bill includes a new research program at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to target heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women. The language of this provision was drawn from the Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act that I and Senator Boxer introduced earlier in the Congress. I introduced this bill because I strongly believe that aggressive steps needed to be taken to combat this silent killer of American women. There has been far too little focus on the number one killer of women in the United States, cardiovascular disease. This is despite the fact that more than 500,000 women die of heart attack, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases. One in five females has some form of cardiovascular disease. While all women are at risk, statistics show that African American women are especially at risk. For African American women between the ages of 35 and 74, the death rate from heart attacks is twice that of Caucasian women. Yet studies show that four out of five women are unaware of the threat of cardiovascular diseases. It is tragic that the symptoms of women's heart disease often go unrecognized or are often misdiagnosed. H.R. 4683 would target this killer of American women. It would educate women and doctors about the dire threat heart disease poses to them, educate doctors on the risks and symptoms unique to women and improve research and services for women in cardiovascular disease. I want to thank the American Heart Association, the American Medical Women's Association, the Washington Hospital Center and many other organizations and individuals for all of their work on this issue, and especially Dr. Davidson. In particular, I want to recognize the work of the American Heart Association. They have worked tirelessly to educate the public about women's heart disease. They have launched a special initiative focusing on women and heart disease and made the Women's Cardiovascular Diseases Research and Prevention Act a centerpiece of their legislative strategy. Once again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for all that he has done and Senator Frist, who carried the bill on the Senate side, for including heart disease in this important women's health research and prevention bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the American public is watching Members of Congress trying to put a spin on why we have not done our work. In the final analysis, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have either completed our work or we have not. We have not completed our work. That is for sure. We are here, and we have not passed all of our appropriation bills. We see people coming to this floor talking about, oh, Mr. President, please do not shut the House down. Well, the buck stops at the top. The Republicans are in charge of this House. They make every decision about how the committees work or when we come to this floor. I fly all the way from California almost every week. No votes are up. Sometimes, we only work a day and a half. I fly all the way back home, and I come back thinking we are going to work on a Monday. Guess what? No votes. We do not need to tell the American public about who is going to shut the government down. The American public is smart. They know who is in charge. They know who has not done their work. Let us stop spinning and tell the truth.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. No, I will not yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield because this is a shame, and I want the press to get this scandal about to happen. I want them to know what you are doing. As a matter of fact, this is the kind of legislating the American public hates, sneak attacks for billionaires who use their power to come to the floor of this Congress and get something like this at the last minute. Get out of the WTO's business. Let them work this out in the way that they are doing. Stop being lackeys for Carl Lindner. It is outrageous that you would do this today.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the strongest possible opposition to this politically motivated sneak attack on the small Caribbean banana farmers on behalf of the massive Chiquita Banana Corporation and its CEO Carl Lindner. The Republican leadership, led by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) in the House, are trying to move this punitive attack on the small banana farmers from the former island colonies in the Caribbean. This bill would force punitive, harsh measures on thousands of small farmers and their families throughout the Windward Islands of the eastern Caribbean. The small island nations of the Caribbean, which depend on the banana trade for their economic survival, are at great risk if this bill passes. Let me just tell you what the real deal is. First of all, we have to ask ourselves, why at the eleventh hour do we get this sneak attack, with all of these Members tied to Carl Lindner lined up on the floor talking about unfair trade practices? I will tell the Members why. Chiquita Bananas and Mr. Lindner lost $356.9 million and now they have got their representatives running to this floor to help him make more money. He is worth $13 billion. That is not enough. I tell my colleagues what he is trying to do. He is trying to get rid of the competition that comes from these small Caribbean islands. Yes, there was a relationship between the European Union and the former colonies. It was a relationship that allowed them to sell their bananas on the European Union market, because they had been colonies depending on that relationship. Now, with them having their independence, this is what they do to earn a living. These are small family farms. I have gone down through all of these countries, countries like Dominica depend on this banana. It is 70 percent of its economy. We took them to the WTO. It was my friend, Mickey Kantor, who was working for Carl Lindner. Mickey Kantor was with this administration, and I do not back up from Democrats or Republicans on this one. Mr. Lindner has bought his way through this House and through this administration. Mickey Kantor took the message from Carl Lindner. We went to the WTO, even though we do not grow any bananas here. This is not about American workers. Mr. Lindner's farms are all down through Central and South America, with slave labor, unfair practices. These people are at risk in these farms because they are at risk from the pesticides, with no help, limbs falling off. They make less than minimum wages, but Mr. Lindner wants to keep those farms going, wants to make more money, so he comes in here and gets all of you to act on his behalf, including Mickey Kantor, and the WTO made a decision. The WTO ruled against these small farms, but they recognized it was wrong, so now the United States and the WTO and these small-farm islands are involved in negotiations and working so that they can help these little countries diversify their economies so they will not starve to death. The drug dealers are just waiting to pounce on these little countries because they know, without the banana, they have nothing else.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 3014.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Republicans to limit the debate on this very important resolution to decide whether this body will move with an inquiry to impeach is a continuation of the partisan, unfair, inconsiderate actions that have dictated the management of this impeachment crisis since independent counsel Ken Starr dumped his referral in the laps of this Congress and in the laps of the public. This continuous, shameless and reckless disregard for the Constitution, basic civil rights and the citizens of this country cannot be tolerated. This is a sad and painful time for all of us. The least we can do is handle this matter with dignity and fairness for everyone involved. Four and one-half years, $40 million. Unnecessary. Subpoenas of uninvolved individuals, and Mr. Starr's close relationships with groups and individuals, with demonstrated hatred for the President, taints the independent counsel's investigation. This Congress does not need a protracted, open-ended witch-hunt of intimidation, embarrassment and harassment. The tawdry and trashy thousands of pages of hearsay, accusations, gossip, and stupid telephone chatter does not meet the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. The President's actions in this matter are disappointing and unacceptable, but not impeachable. Mr. Schippers, the general counsel for the Republicans, extended the allegations in search of something, anything that may meet the constitutional standards, and even the extended and added allegations do not comport with the Constitution. It is time to move on. Reprimand the President, condemn him, but let us move on. These grossly unfair procedures will only tear this Congress and this Nation apart. I ask my colleagues to vote down this open-ended and unfair resolution. It does not deserve the support of this House. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have constantly warned this body about the dangers of a prosecutor run amok. They have warned this body about the abuse of the power of the majority. We ask our colleagues to listen to us as we remind our colleagues of the history of our people who have struggled against injustice and unfairness. Let us not march backwards; let us be wise enough to move forward and spend our precious time working on the issues of education, health care, senior citizens, children, and in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, justice, and opportunity for all Americans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members of Congress, the decision of the Republicans to limit the debate on this important resolution and to decide whether or not this body will move an inquiry to impeach President Clinton, is a continuation of the partisan, unfair, and inconsiderate actions that have dictated the management of this impeachment crisis ever since Independent Counsel Ken Starr dumped his referral in the laps of this Congress and the public. This continuous, shameless, and reckless disregard for the Constitution and basic civil rights cannot be tolerated by the citizens of this country. This is a sad and painful day for all of us. The least we could do is handle this matter with dignity and fairness for everyone involved. Four-and-one-half years and $40 million later, unnecessary subpoenas of uninvolved individuals, Mr. Starr's close relationships with groups and individuals with demonstrated hatred for the President taints the Independent Counsel's investigation. This Congress does not need a protracted, open-ended witch-hunt, intimidation, embarrassment and harassment. The tawdry and trashy pages of hearsay, accusations, gossip, and stupid telephone chatter do not meet the standards of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The President's actions in this matter are disappointing and unacceptable, BUT NOT IMPEACHABLE! Mr. Schippers, the General Counsel for the Majority on the House Judiciary Committee, extended the allegations in search of something--anything that may meet the constitutional standards for impeachment. However, even the extended and added allegations do not comport with the Constitutional standard for impeachment. It is time to move on! Reprimand or condemn the President--but let us move on! These grossly unfair procedures will only tear this Congress and this nation apart. I ask my colleagues to vote down this open ended, unfair resolution presented today by the majority. It does not deserve the support of this House. Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have constantly warned this body about the dangers of a prosecutor run amuck. The Congressional Black Caucus has warned about the abuse of power by the Majority. We ask you to listen to us and we remind you of the history of our people who have struggled against injustice and unfairness. Let us not march backwards. Let's be wise enough to move forward and spend our precious time working on the issues of education, health care, senior citizens issues, children's issues, and justice and opportunity for all Americans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind the Members of this body of the unfinished business we have regarding the dark, terrible, still classified secrets of our intelligence agencies. The list of misdeeds by our intelligence agencies is long and much of it still remains shrouded in secrecy, in many cases acting to protect criminals who have died and dictators who are no longer in power. We must end our senseless protection of these terrible acts. Congress has the power to do so, and must not shirk its duty. I have focused my energies on investigating the allegations of Contra-CIA drug dealing. But, there are many other sordid, terrible tales of U.S. intelligence activities that remain a secret to the American people. Some have been investigated, while the reports remain classified. Others have yet to be investigated. The list includes the CIA's involvement with the brutal Battalion 316 in Honduras, the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala and Allende in Chile, the death squads in El Salvador, Duvalier's drug dealing regime and the ton ton macout death squads of Haiti, and of course, the many illegal assassination attempts against Fidel Castro. We must release the information we have about these affairs, investigate the others that remain unexamined and bring those responsible to justice. We cannot exhort other nations to follow the rule of law without ensuring that we likewise follow the rule of law. My investigation into the allegations of CIA-Contra drug dealing has led me to an undeniable conclusion--that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies knew about drug trafficking in South Central Los Angeles and throughout the U.S.--and they let the dealing go on without taking any actions against it. Robert Perry and Brian Barger first broke the shocking story of Contra involvement in drug trafficking in 1985, at the height of the Contra war against Nicaragua. As a result of this story's revelations, Senator John Kerry conducted a two year Senate probe into the allegations and published the sub-committee's devastating findings in an 1,166-page report in 1989. Remarkably, the Committee's findings went virtually unreported when they were released. Then in August 1996 Gary Webb published his explosive series in the San Jose Mercury News. It resulted in a firestorm of anger and outrage in the Black community and throughout the nation. Here was evidence that, while the nation was being told of a national ``war on drugs'' by the Reagan Administration, our anti-drug intelligence apparatus was actually aiding the drug lords in getting their deadly product into the U.S. The resulting grassroots outrage put tremendous pressure on the CIA, the Department of Justice and Congress to investigate the matter and report the truth. The Inspectors General of the CIA and Department of Justice were forced to conduct investigations and publish reports on the allegations. The DOJ's Report and Volume I of the CIA's Report published brief executive summaries that concluded that the allegations made in the Mercury News could not be substantiated. However, both Reports, and in particular the DOJ Report, are filled with evidence that contradicts their own conclusions and confirms all of the basic allegations. Quite unexpectedly, on April 30, 1998, I obtained a secret 1982 Memorandum of Understanding between the CIA and the Department of Justice, that allowed drug trafficking by CIA assets, agents, and contractors to go unreported to federal law enforcement agencies. I also received correspondence between then Attorney General William French Smith and the head of the CIA, William Casey, that spelled out their intent to protect drug traffickers on the CIA payroll from being reported to federal law enforcement. Then on July 17, 1998 the New York Times ran this amazing front page CIA admission: CIA Says It Used Nicaraguan Rebels Accused of Drug Tie [T]he Central Intelligence Agency continued to work with about two dozen Nicaraguan rebels and their supporters during the 1980s despite allegations that they were trafficking in drugs . . . [T]he agency's decision to keep those paid agents, or to continue dealing with them in some less formal relationship, was made by top [CIA] officials at headquarters in Langley, Va. (emphasis added) This front page confirmation of CIA involvement with Contra drug traffickers came from a leak of the still classified CIA Volume II internal review, described by sources as full of devastating revelations of CIA involvement with known Contra drug traffickers. The CIA had always vehemently denied any connection to drug traffickers and the massive global drug trade, despite over ten years of documented reports. But in a shocking reversal, the CIA finally admitted that it was CIA policy to keep Contra drug traffickers on the CIA payroll. The Committee has yet to release Volume II of the CIA Inspector General's investigation into the CIA-Contra drug network. But this body is moving ahead with reauthorizing the Central Intelligence Agency. I call on Members of the Committee and this body to end our policy of protecting criminal conduct by intelligence assets. Declassify and release these reports so that the many who have suffered can seek justice and we can bring the many still protected criminals to justice.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4005, the Money Laundering Deterrence Act of 1998. I would like to thank Chairman Leach, Ranking Member LaFalce and Representatives Roukema and Vento for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor. This tough bi-partisan bill reflects a new willingness by Congress to get tough on drug money laundering. The illegal drug trade is one of the world's largest industries, with annual revenues of more than $500 billion a year worldwide, eclipsing even the revenues generated from the production of oil and gas. But the illegal drug trade would come to a screeching halt tomorrow without the ability to launder drug profits through financial insitutions globally. By making our money laundering laws tougher and closing up the loopholes this legislation is an important step in putting an end to the ability of the cartels use to profit from their terrible trade. Now the need for tougher money laundering is clearer than ever. We only need to look at the massive money laundering, murder and drug trafficking case involving Raul Salinas de Gotari, former Mexican cabinet minister and brother of Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gotari. This case highlights allegations of the use of Citibank/ Citicorp's private bank system by Salinas and other drug traffickers in laundering at least $130 million dollars in drug proceeds. Citibank's private banker, Amy Elliot was central to the allegations. Ms. Elliot set up an elaborate and secretive system for Salinas to get his money that was banked in Mexico out of the country, and into offshore and Swiss bank accounts. Ms. Elliott used Citibank's concentration accounts to transfer hundreds of millions of Salinas' proceeds. The concentration accounts acted to effectively cut off the paper trail of Salinas' money, making it next to impossible for law enforcement agencies to track the drug money. With Ms. Elliot's skillful assistance, the former President's borther is suspected of laundering hundreds of millionas of dollars in drug proceeds. Two weeks ago, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that the Swiss Attorney General's office has completed a 369 page report on this case that asserts among other damaging allegations that ``[w]hen Carlos Salinas de Gotari became President of Mexico in 1988, Raul Salinas de Gortari assumed control over practically all drug shipments through Mexico. Through his influence and bribes paid with drug money, officials of the army and the police supported and protected the flourishing drug business.'' This is simply one of many cases that point to the need for comprehensive money laundering legislation. The Money Laundering Deterrence Act of 1998 is a very good first step. I offered a number of amendments to the bill in Committee to focus attention on the ``private banking'' system and the dangers of its abuse by major money launderers, drug cartels and organized crime syndicates. I also amended the bill by calling for tougher enforcement of our nation's money laundering laws and closer scrutiny of our domestic financial institutions. These amendments added important weapons in the battle against major money laundering operations. My amendments strengthen H.R. 4005 by: Requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to submit to the House and Senate Banking Committees a report on the ``private banking'' system; Prohibiting banks from maintaining accounts that prevent the name and account number of a customer from being associated with the account activity of an account holder. This would outlaw certain concentration accounts in use by banks, if they can be used to effectively hide the identity of the account holder; Requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to issue ``Know Your Customer'' regulations within 120 days from the date of enactment of the Act; and Identifying areas outside the United States where money laundering is concentrated and increasing penalties for violations of United States money laundering laws associated with activities in these identified countries. I am pleased we are moving forward in the pursuit of the money laundering kingpins who are at the center of the half a trillion dollar annual drug trade and I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this once- failed ``Fast Track'' trade authority legislation that the Republican leadership has chosen to bring to the floor. Our urban centers and rural communities nationwide have suffered greatly from the corporate flight and job loss promoted and encouraged by NAFTA. Wages for manufacturing workers have been depressed by brutal global competition with terribly exploited workers overseas. And the violent turmoil in the world's financial markets threaten to ruin the economies of many developing nations. But, in these uncertain financial times, the Republicans are using this bill for their partisan purposes and ignoring the danger signs, throwing protections for American workers and families out the window. But they should not, and will not, pass this bill. They still have no real protections for American workers who face the loss of their jobs overseas. Environmental concerns continue to be ignored. And, despite all the Republican rhetoric about being tough on drugs, this legislation does nothing to stop the increase of the flow of drugs into the U.S. Loosening the rules of trade, without building in any safeguards against drug trafficking, has meant a virtual explosion of the flow of cocaine, heroin and other narcotics into the U.S. In November 1997 I called for the addition of specific, core language in trade agreements that addressed drug trafficking. I published a report ``Drug Trafficking on the Fast Track'' that documented the dramatic increase in drug trafficking that came as a result of NAFTA. And this week's New York Times highlighted these dangers reporting that the brother of Mexico's former President Carlos Salinas, ``assumed control over practically all drug shipments through Mexico.'' He used government trucks and railroad cars to ship tons of narcotics into the United States using influence and bribery to buy protection from the nation's army and police force. So we negotiated a free trade treaty having absolutely no drug trafficking protections built in, with a government that was literally directing the flow of cocaine and narcotics into the United States. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. We cannot sign trade treaties with governments who are involved in, or complicit with, drug cartels and international drug trafficking. Until we address this issue, and protect the rights of American workers, we should reject this legislation. We need a fair trade agreement that protects American families. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this fast track legislation. [From the New York Times, Sept. 19, 1998] Salinas Brother Is Tied by Swiss to Drug Trade (By Tim Golden) Mexico City.--After a nearly three-year inquiry into drug corruption in Mexico, Swiss police investigators have concluded that a brother of former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari played a central role in Mexico's cocaine trade, raking in huge bribes to protect the flow of drugs into the United States. In a secret 369-page report, the investigators assert that Salinas's elder brother, Raul, used his wide influence in the administration to organize an elaborate network of protection for drug smugglers. He also channeled drug money to his brother's presidential campaign, the report alleges. ``When Carlo Salinas de Gortari became President of Mexico in 1988, Raul Salinas de Gortari assumed control over practically all drug shipments through Mexico,'' the report states. ``Through his influence and bribes paid with drug money, officials of the army and the police supported and protected the flourishing drug business.'' From a low-profile position in the administration's food- distribution agency, the report states, Raul Salinas commandeered Government trucks and railroad cars to haul cocaine north, skimming payoffs that the Swiss estimate at upwards of $500 million. On what some of his reputed former associates referred to as ``green light days,'' he arranged for drug loads to transit Mexico without concern that they might be checked by the army, the coast guard or the federal police. A partial copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times. It appears to be based largely on interviews with nearly 90 former drug traffickers, reputed Salinas associates and other witnesses, most of them unidentified. Swiss officials said they expected the report to be the basis for their Government's seizure in the coming weeks of more than $130 million that Raul Salinas deposited in Swiss banks. Lawyers for Salinas dismissed the report Friday as the slanderous product of a Swiss crusade to confiscate what they insisted was a fortune that their client earned by legitimate means. ``The report is absolutely false,'' Salinas's lead attorney, Eduardo Luengo Creel, said in an interview. ``It contains statements, assertions and situations that do not correspond to the facts. It is a police report. It does not have the validity of an evaluation by an investigating judge.'' ``We do not even know who these people are,'' Luengo said of the many confidential informants listed in the document, which Salinas's lawyers received two months ago. ``To accuse someone with anonymous witnesses is unconstitutional in any country.'' The document states that Swiss investigators were unable to determine conclusively what involvement the former President, his father and other family members might have had in the purportedly illicit activities of Raul Salinas. Some family members, it implies, were among a group of people around Raul Salinas who were implicated in criminal activities. It based that finding on witnesses it described as ``principally credible'' but did not identify. The report says the investigators did not look further into the matter because the people mentioned were irrelevant to their inquiry into whether Salinas's Swiss funds came from illegal activities. Nonetheless, the report adds, somewhat obliquely. ``We have to seriously question the probability that a person with as much power as the President of Mexico for years did not learn about criminal activities of this extent, even if his brother was heavily involved.'' Carlos Salinas has been living recently in Europe. The Swiss report is by far the most exhaustive assessment to date of Raul Salinas's reported dealings with the Mexican underworld. It is clearly a prosecutorial document, one that cites Salinas's own version of events mostly to show how it appears to contradict other facts. Because the Swiss seizure of Salinas's assets would be a civil court action, the report also aims at a considerably lower threshold of proof than would be required in a criminal case. Raul Salinas was widely rumored to have grown rich on dubious business dealings during his brother's presidency, but the accusations were almost never public or specific. Shortly after Carlos Salinas's term ended, in December 1994, his chosen successor, Ernesto Zedillo, shattered a long Mexico tradition of impunity for presidential families by authorizing Raul Salinas's arrest on charges that he ordered the murder of a leader of the governing party who was his former brother-in-law. In the tiny maximum-security prison cell where Salinas has spent the last three and a half years, he has been struck by wave after wave of new allegations. Federal prosecutors in New York are pressing ahead with a criminal investigation into the possibility that he may have laundered illicit funds through his accounts at Citibank headquarters in New York. And after a series of reversals in their murder case, Mexican officials say they are close to announcing new corruption charges against him. Much of the Swiss evidence seems to come from witnesses who are identified only by pseudonyms like ``Ludmilla'' and ``Juan,'' and whose credibility is difficult to judge. Some claimed they had arranged the protection of drug shipments with Salinas directly. Others, including bodyguards, chauffeurs and secretaries, said they had attended meetings at which they saw Salinas receive suitcases full of cash from smugglers. Still others, including an American drug enforcement agent, testified to matters they had learned about second-hand. As the true names of several of the witnesses have leaked out over the course of the Swiss investigation, Salinas's lawyers have attacked their accounts. But even when the informants are convicted criminals, the report often asserts reasons why their claims are credible. Legal experts in Switzerland and the United States predicted that the confidentiality of the sources arrayed against Salinas might well prove a weak point in the Government's case. If a seizure is ordered and lawyers for Salinas challenge it in court, as they insist they will, the judge who evaluates the case will have access to the witnesses' identities but the lawyers will not. In contrast to law enforcement officials in the United States who have studied Mexican drug corruption for years, the small team of Swiss federal police investigators had virtually no background in the subject. But since their arrest of Salinas's third wife, Paulina Castanon, as she tried to retrieve phony passports with her husband's picture from a Swiss safe-deposit box in November 1995, the Swiss detectives managed to scour American court files and jail cells for anyone who might claim a link to their target. In at least a few such cases, United States law-enforcement officials have acknowledged, those informants had been ignored or misused by prosecutors in the United States until the Swiss sought them out. The Swiss report also cites some confidential witnesses who are described as people who once worked or socialized around Salinas, and it contains what two American investigators described as a meticulous analysis of his financial dealings. ``For us, what they have would be a triable case,'' said a United States law-enforcement official who is familiar with the Swiss evidence.'' It wouldn't be a slam-dunk, but you could definitely take it to court.'' For the family of a former President who was once celebrated as the bold architect of a new relationship between Mexico and the United States--the man who championed the North American Free Trade Agreement and brought to power a new generation of Ivy League-educated technocrats--the report paints a devastating portrait. Quoting unidentified former associates of the family, the report contends that both Raul and Carlos were ``introduced'' to the drug trade in the late 1970's by their father, Raul Salinas Lozano, a former Government minister. It did not make clear what that introduction involved. ``Raul Salinas Lozano, with his political influence, would have preferred Raul at the head of the Government in Mexico,'' it continues, quoting an informant close to the family to present a dark new twist on an old story of brotherly ambition. ``But because Raul Salinas de Gortari's infamous earlier life would not have permitted him to hold a high-level government position, the father decided to support his son Carlos instead.'' Long before Carlos Salinas began to make his name in the mid-1980's as Mexico's young, Harvard-trained Budget Minister, the report suggests, his father had built a friendship with one of the legendary figures of Mexico's north-border drug trade, Juan N. Guerra. Such a relationship has been reported in the past, and angrily denied by Raul Salinas Lozano. The eldest son of the one-time border Senator--Salinas Lozano was a dominant figure in the politics of his home state of Nuevo Leon--and a nephew of the trafficker Juan Garcia Abrego, inherited the connection, the report contends. Quoting a series of former drug traffickers, the Swiss investigators state that Raul Salinas began arranging protection for both Garcia Abrego and traffickers of the Medellin cartel in Colombia even before his brother became President. One of those traffickers, identified as ``Giuseppe,'' appears to be Jose Manuel Ramos, a former high-level Medellin cocaine distributor who operated out of northern Mexico and Texas until his arrest in 1990. Three American law- enforcement officials familiar with his case described Ramos, who remains in prison, as highly credible. Both Ramos and his wife, Luz Salazar, (the ``Ludmilla'' of the report) referred the Swiss detectives to payment ledgers and other documents that had been seized at the time of their arrest. According to the report, the documents helped to corroborate that from 1987 to 1989, they paid Salinas $28.7 million on behalf of their boss, Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha. Another convicted trafficker who gushes with information about Raul Salinas, Marco Enrique Torres, has weaker bona fides. While the report notes some corroboration of Torres's account by an F.B.I. agent who pursued his case, Orlando Munoz, it fails to note Salinas's denials that he ever knew Torres. Nor does it raise questions about the more improbable parts of his tale of a long criminal friendship between a mid-level drug smuggler and a member of the Mexican political aristocracy. Once Carlos Salinas became President at the end of 1988, the report states, his brother's power to assure the safe northward passage of drugs grew sharply.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition that the gentleman has for the concern of the Congressional Black Caucus and myself as we try and deal with the issue of drugs and he is right. It has touched an awful lot of lives. But as a fiscal conservative, I know that you would not throw your money away time and time again. You talk about, for example, the war on poverty and you make the case, well, what do we have to show for our money, you say? I can show you more there than you can show me in terms of advancements that we have had, given the money we have been throwing down this rathole. I am saying to you as a fiscal conservative, you should not want to keep doing the same old thing. You have got to try something new. When you find time and time again and you have an article even in today's newspaper that says once again, these are the very people that we are funding to help fight the war on drugs are the drug dealers themselves and they are protecting those who are trafficking in drugs. You ought to want to change. You should not want to keep on doing the same old thing.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for working with me to accommodate me and give me the opportunity to get this amendment up, who happens to be the chair of the Republican Drug Task Force. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida for the work that he has put into this legislation. I do have some concerns that this legislation did not travel the traditional course and have the oversight of all of the committees that should have seen it. However, I am one of the cosponsors on the legislation. Mr. Chairman, having said that, I would like to make it absolutely clear that one of the priorities of the Congressional Black Caucus is the eradication of illegal drugs in our country. The Congressional Black Caucus, in formulating its agenda at the beginning of the 105th Congress, made this a priority simply because we were tired of sitting around and waiting for someone else to make this happen. We have put millions of dollars into the eradication of illegal drugs in our society. We have had presidents and elected officials for years now talking about the eradication of drugs, and to tell the truth, those drugs continue to show up in our communities. And the gentleman is absolutely correct; too many lives are lost, too many families are destroyed, too many dreams and hopes unrealized because, in fact, these drugs continue to flow. And let me tell the gentleman what a lot of the young people say. They say, ``Ms. Waters, we don't have any planes, and we don't have any boats, and we don't have the money to go out and buy huge shipments of drugs to bring them into our community. Why don't you go and get the big boys? Why don't you do something about interdiction? Why don't you do something to stop the flow of drugs into the communities?'' And this bill attempts to do something of that nature. This amendment is simple, direct and crucial, and I join with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do something about the eradication. However, I am simply asking that we strike two provisions that currently give direct military aid to the Colombian National Police and army as well as the Mexican military. I believe this is a crucial amendment due to the disturbing and most recent revelations about the involvement of the Colombian and Mexican military and police in drug trafficking. The first part of the amendment strikes section 201, which gives additional eradication resources for the army and national police of Colombia, the section which gives $165 million of direct military aid to these forces at a time when they are being alleged to have ties and providing protection for Colombian drug cartels. The second part of the amendment strikes section 204 that gives direct military aid to Mexican military forces at a time when they are being implicated for their ties to drug cartels. In fact, just today in The New York Times, we have reports that elite Mexican drug officers are said to be tied to traffickers. The Washington Post ran an article last week on reports of those supposedly incorruptible anti-narcotics police who were taking suitcases full of cocaine and walking around the drug-sniffing dogs in Mexico City's airport and then placing the suitcases back on the luggage racks for the cartel agents to pick up. Other similar revelations have surfaced regarding the Colombian military. A June 22 New York Times editorial wrote of the ties between the paramilitaries in Colombia and drug cartels. Colombia's investigative police say Carlos Castano, a top paramilitary leader, heads a drug cartel. According to reliable sources, his paramilitary drug cartel is also receiving protection from Colombian police and security forces. In fact, the Colombian military and anti-narcotics police units based in Guaviare have been recently implicated in supporting Carlos Castano and his paramilitary when they carried out a massacre that took place from October 18 through October 20, the day before our own General Barry McCaffrey landed at the capital at San Jose del Guaviare. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support on this amendment to make sure we stop dumping our dollars, our taxpayer dollars, into corrupt police officers who are part of the drug problem in Mexico and Colombia. October 29, 1997. Hon. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Albright: We are writing to you regarding the human rights situation in Colombia. We have just received credible information that military and anti-narcotics police units based in Miraflores, Guaviare actively supported a paramilitary massacre that took place from October 18 through October 20, the day before Gen. (ret.) Barry McCaffrey landed at the capital at San Jose del Guaviare. According to the Public Ombudsman's office, on October 18, heavily armed men calling themselves the Autodefensas del Sur (Southern Self-Defense Group) entered Miraflores and executed four men, identified in press reports as Jose John Gordillo Daza, Pablo Quejoa Menza, Silvano Batioja Castro, and Florentino Torres. Apparently the paramilitaries had a list of names that they used to search out their victims. In the formal complaint, witnesses said that they overheard the men say, ``Who said we couldn't come to this town? From here on, we give the orders here.'' Over the course of three days, at least six people were reported executed. Miraflores has the permanent presence of three security force units: the army's ``Joaquin Paros'' Battalion, the navy, and the anti-narcotics police. Although the surrounding countryside is controlled by guerrillas, the town itself is heavily militarized. Eyewitnesses reported that security force personnel did not leave their barracks until 45 minutes after the first three people had been killed. Then, their only activity was to collect the bodies left in the street. According to our information, they did nothing to apprehend the paramilitaries, who were still in town searching for more people on their list. One more person was killed that day and two more on October 20. On the afternoon of October 18, our information indicates that army soldiers provided an escort for two of the gunmen to the army-controlled airstrip. Eyewitnesses also claim that soldiers summoned a private airplane with an army radio, which arrived shortly thereafter, boarded the gunmen, and left. Subsequently, Miraflores mayor Edgar Emilio Lozano and many other residents fled Miraflores out of fear. We are also concerned because the security forces have not impeded this paramilitary group's free movement in the region using a DC-3 airplane. According to local residents, Autodefensas del Sur landings are frequent and notorious. The group is also implicated in the October 16 killings of Jorge Puerto and his mother, Maroa, near the town of Puerto Trujillo, Meta. Paramilitaries led by Carlos Castano publicly identified the department of Guaviare as a military objective a year ago. Like the attack in Mapiripon, Meta in July, which left seven confirmed dead, the Miraflores massacre appears to be part of a paramilitary plan to expand their operations into areas historically dominated by guerrillas. Although the role of the security forces in the Mapiripon massacre is not clear, eyewitnesses have provided compelling testimony about the role of Colombian units in the Miraflores attack. We know you must share our dismay at the apparent role played by the Colombian military and anti-narcotics police in the Miraflores massacre. If confirmed, security force assistance in the massacre would constitute a serious human rights violation. It would also challenge the United States decision to permit anti-narcotics aid to be sent to units operating in the department of Guaviare, according to the August end-use monitoring agreement. We ask you to carry out an immediate inquiry of the Miraflores massacre, and particularly the reported involvement of the Colombian military and anti-narcotics police. We also request that U.S. intelligence relevant to the incident be shared with the Fiscaloa and Procuraduroa, to aid them in their on-going investigation. Finally, we urge you to ensure that appropriate action is taken with regards to the provision of U.S. assistance to units operating in Guaviare and Meta under the guidelines laid out in the Leahy amendment. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Sincerely, Jose Miguel Vivanco, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch/Americas. Coletta Youngers, Senior Associate, Washington Office on Latin America. George Vickers, Executive Director, Washington Office on Latin America. Jamie Fellner, Associate Counsel, Human Rights Watch.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, we are being laughed at. I want to call my colleagues' attention to when our drug czar went down to Mexico and wrapped his arms around Drug Czar Gutierrez Rebollo, a week before it was revealed that he was on the payroll of the Juarez cartel. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to Colombia, when people were saying that the National Police were clean. I will tell you what happened to Pablo Escobar. They were supporting him until we put so much heat on them, and they tried to make it look as if they were better, they killed him. But these are the same National Police that we are talking about putting more money in their hands. This is above and beyond the current appropriations. I am simply saying, we need money to fight drugs in this country. We need good interdiction. What we do not need is to keep talking about giving our money to dope dealers under the banner of their police. Our own officers that we send down there to train them are disgusted and they are saying we are the laughingstock. I know that we need to get up in those mountains, but I think we need to go up there ourselves and stop giving our money.