Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, our children are not failing because they did not have a national test. Our children are failing because in many cases there are just plain lack of resources in districts that are poor, that do not have the resources. We have discovered from the testing who does best, as I identified with Beverly Hills and South Central Los Angeles. Our children are failing because many of our teachers are inadequate. Many of our teachers are not trained and prepared to do the kind of teaching that they should be doing to make our children successful. We are failing because we are not having the real debate about the needs of our schools and our children. I tell my colleagues far too many schools in America cannot even have computer labs because they are not wired to accept the computers to do what they should be doing. Let us forget about this so-called national test. Let us get into a real debate and design what our children need to make them successful.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Goodling amendment to deny funding to the President's national testing proposal. Mr. Chairman, widespread misuse of educational testing has disproportionately penalized poor and minority children. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus opposes the administration's proposed national testing standards for 4th and 8th graders and why we support the Goodling amendment to deny Federal funding for the initiative. The CBC cannot support any testing that may further stigmatize our children and force them into lower educational tracks and special education classes. The national testing proposal provides no enforceable safeguards against the misuse of test results that can harm our children. Tracking, retention in grade, and ability grouping have all been used to the detriment of millions of students. Testing is being misused right now in schools across the Nation, as demonstrated by the case in North Carolina where 14 students have filed an equal protection claim based on the misuse of testing. This test appears designed to consciously disregard the estimated 3 million children nationwide with limited English proficiency by refusing to offer the 4th grade test, reading test, in any other language than English. American students are among the most tested children in the world, yet our educational infrastructure continues to struggle. Paying for a national standardized test while continuing to neglect the pressing needs of our public schools reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the crisis in our educational system. We need serious solutions to the pressing needs of our Nation's students, not misguided sound bite legislation. I recently reviewed the test results of a test in California, it may have been the achievement test, and it told me what I already knew. The kids from Beverly Hills did very well; the kids from Compton and from Watts did not do as well. So we know a lot about tests and the results of tests. We need to ask now what do we do? How do we apply the resources to bring those children up? What do we do to invest in their opportunity? If we want to do some assessments, let us not just test the children, let us take whole schools and school districts. Let us look at the teachers. Let us look at the principals. Let us look at the facilities. Let us find out whether or not they are wired to accommodate computers. Let us find out whether or not they have science laboratories. I just talked to two of our staffers right here in Congress, and I asked them what did they think about this. They said their children go to schools where they do not have books; our children are attending schools where they have to send the paper towels for them to wash their hands; they have to send toilet tissue. They have to send everything to the school to try and make life in that school just decent for their children, yet at the same time we are in some debate about tests? Let us have a real debate on education. Let us find out why we could not get a measly $5 billion in the budget to rehabilitate our schools where the roofs are falling in, where we do not have air-conditioning, where heating is less than adequate. Let us have a real debate about education to talk about in-service training for our teachers. Let us have a real debate. We are being sidetracked into a nondebate about educational testing. We have all kind of tests in the State. And if it is truly voluntary, and some will be doing it and some will not be doing it, why are we trying to have a national test? It is only national if we force it on everybody. So what if only half the Nation participates in this so-called national voluntary testing? I join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and a lot of people are going to wonder why the Hispanic Caucus and the Black Caucus are joining with those on the other side of the aisle that we normally disagree with on so many issues. Well, I tell my colleagues, we are all taking a common sense approach to this issue. Be it Republican or Democrat, Latino Caucus or Black Caucus, we are taking this common sense approach because we have the lessons of our community about what is wrong with education.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. I thank her for taking the time to organize this tribute to Betty Shabazz. She is one of the busiest persons in this House. Not only does she have the regular legislative duties, but given all that is going on in the District, I know the hours that she is spending working with the very serious problems that are confronting this District and this Nation. I want to tell her, for her to have time to get us to stop and focus and do this tribute is more than admirable. I admire her stamina, and her courage, but I also deeply respect the fact that she decided no matter how busy she is, that our dear friend and sister Betty Shabazz deserves the attention of this House, of this body. I thank very much the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that she and I both attended the memorial services for Dr. Betty Shabazz in New York. We were there and we watched as people came from all over this Nation to pay tribute to Betty Shabazz. We watched our friends mount the podium there and talk about their relationship with her. We watched people she has worked with both in the political arena, in academia, step forward to tell us about their very special relationship with this remarkable woman. When I was there, I talked a little bit about Betty Shabazz, my friend that I have worked with, that I have known, that I have spent time with, that I have exchanged all kinds of information with, about our families, et cetera. But I could not help but think about how long it took me to meet Betty Shabazz, even though I had met Malcolm many years ago. Of course, I and the Nation met Malcolm X as he came forth with his brilliant oratory and presence to help make this Nation think about who we are and what we are doing, to help draw attention to the injustices of our own society, to help us to articulate our pain, to force legislative bodies to pay attention. He did all of that, this magnificent man with this brilliance and this kind of presence that many of us have never witnessed before. And so I met Malcolm X and I can recall being in Los Angeles, going to wherever I would hear he was going to be, to listen one more time. I was finding my own self in those years, coming to grips with not only my philosophy about life but about what I really felt about what I had learned, my experience growing up in St. Louis. And so I met Malcolm X, I listened to him. I was profoundly influenced by him, carried away with his brilliance, with his ability to articulate what I was feeling so often. But I never asked, and what about his family? What about his children? What about his wife? It was only after Malcolm's death did I meet and get to know Betty Shabazz. Too often we see leaders, we see people in high visibility roles, and somehow we think about them without thinking about them in relationship to their families, their children, their home environment. After I met Betty Shabazz, I understood why Malcolm could comfortably do what he did. In order to be the leader that Malcolm X was, he had to have tremendous support and understanding. This was a woman who was with one of the most controversial leaders of our time. This was a woman who knew that her life and the life of her children were in danger. Their house was set afire. This was a woman who knew that even though her husband had evolved to a point where as some describe him as more international, more wanting to bring people together, there were people who did not feel the same way as I felt and many, many others felt about Malcolm X. But this was a woman who loved her husband. This was a woman who raised the babies. This was a woman who knew that at any point in time, her husband could be killed, her house could be burned, she could be killed, but she believed in Malcolm X and they believed in each other. He loved Betty Shabazz and Betty Shabazz loved Malcolm X. And so, even though I had not met her, I did not know her, it became very, very clear to me after meeting her why Malcolm X was able to do and be in the manner that he was. And so this Betty Shabazz that I met was not a woman with her head hanging down, it was not a woman who had been scarred by the assassination of her husband, it was not a woman whose very life, existence and ability to thrive, this was a woman, a very wise woman, who, of course, felt the deep pain of having lost this brilliant man that she loved, but this was a woman who had counseled with her husband, had talked through the possibility of his death. This was a woman who witnessed her husband's assassination with her babies but was not destroyed by it. This was a woman whose wisdom goes far beyond that which most of us hope to be able to achieve. She suffered the pain of the loss of her husband, she mourned his death, and she went on to do and be what Malcolm would want her to do. Not only did she find a way to raise the children, she went back to school. This is a woman who got a Ph.D. This is a woman who not only became the professor, the teacher, the leader; she spread out in the overall community, in this country, and went on to become a speaker, a leader, someone who joined with her sisters to try and make life better for others. This was a woman who said to me once, ``Maxine, I came out to Los Angeles, and I had an opportunity to speak with these young men, some of whom were in gangs, some of whom had left the gangs, but they sat with me, and I had an opportunity to talk with them and tell them about Malcolm, and what Malcolm would have them do.'' And she said, ``I'm coming back again. I'm going to come back to talk with them. Because I think it is important for me to share what I know.'' So this woman, raising children, teaching, being available to the many groups and organizations who demanded of her time, not only did I see her all over this country at the many Malcolm X celebrations that go on, we sat and talked about these celebrations and her role and her responsibility. She never tired of responding to the request. I would often see her at the Congressional Black Caucus dinners. We hold these Congressional Black Caucus weekends, and she would always come, and we would joke, ``Well, she won't be with us at this Congressional Black Caucus weekend.'' But she will certainly be remembered. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia and the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus for helping me to select Betty Shabazz as one of the awardees. I as the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus will be presenting awards to Betty Shabazz, posthumously, and to Coretta Scott King and to Myrlie Evers, 3 women who have lost their husbands, 3 women whose husbands were the civil rights leaders recorded in history never to be forgotten, 3 women who stood by their husbands, who raised the children while their husbands were shot down in America, but who did not go away, who did not vanish, who did not become so devastated that they did not continue to play a role in American life. They are all speakers, they are all heads of organizations, they are all teachers, they are all keepers of the flame of the faith. And so we are going to award them the chairwoman's award at the Congressional Black Caucus weekend. We are going to say to them, thank you for being who you are. We are going to say thank you for persisting in the quest for freedom, justice and equality despite what was done to your husbands. We are going to say to Coretta Scott King and to Myrlie Evers, we love you, we love you and we want you to know that. We want to use the most important platform that we have in the Congressional Black Caucus, and to Betty, who we will not be able to say it to because she is gone now, to her children who will be there and Attalah, her daughter, who will accept the award, we want them to know that we loved their mother, and that we hold her in the highest of esteem, and we hope that this small token that we are able to present that evening from all of us will speak to our love for them. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing us the opportunity to focus some attention from this House on Betty Shabazz.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we train them and we send them back. Then we rely on them. We support them. Guess what? Members cannot be concerned about drug dealing and drug trafficking as long as they are supporting the very ones who are dealing the dope back to us. When are we going to be serious about a war on drugs? Yes, we may be do-gooders over here, but we are do-gooders who are challenging Members to wake up and smell the roses and stop this nonsense, and get about the business of getting rid of drug traffickers. Get rid of the work and manuals and training of the School of the Americas, and that will go a long way toward getting rid of the real dope dealers in this hemisphere. I challenge Members today to stop the nonsense of defense of a school that you can no longer defend. How can Members get up on the floor year in and year out and say they are going to do better, leave them alone for now, give them the American taxpayers' dollars. It is shameful, it is unconscionable, and Members need to stop it and support this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me make it absolutely clear that if the President of the United States wrote to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], called, and insisted on funding the School of the Americas, then I am opposed to the President and the President is wrong. Let me make it abundantly clear that if Mr. McCaffrey called, he should be the first one to understand that it is a war. His life just got threatened when he was down in Mexico among the drug traffickers who sent him a message in no uncertain terms. I think he knows it is a war now.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the gentleman. There is a war going on in this hemisphere. Is the gentleman not aware of what is going on in Mexico? Is he not aware of the drug wars that are going on? Is he not aware of the war that is going on against our young people in our neighborhoods and our American cities? I want to tell the gentleman, this is the war. The war is drug trafficking in this hemisphere that is killing thousands of people, that is causing our prisons to explode, that is causing people to be shot down on the streets of America. It may not be, in the gentleman's estimation, sir, a war, but this is the most devastating kind of war. This is the worst kind of war. It is the kind of war that we are going to have to come to grips with and begin to see it as a war. As long as we think we are lucky----

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago the gentleman from Ohio started out listing the who's who of human rights violators in the hemisphere, the school's roster of graduates. I would like to continue that for a moment. One hundred of 246 Columbian officers cited for war crimes by an international human rights tribunal in 1993; six Peruvian officers involved in the killings of 9 students and a professor in 1992; Colonel Julio Alpirez, linked to the cover-ups and the murders of Efrain Bamaca and United States citizen Michael DeVine in Guatemala; ranking officers in notorious Honduran Battalion 3-16; Argentina dictator Leopoldo Galtieri and Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega. Let me just stop at this point and say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am absolutely surprised and appalled at the energy that they are expending to defend the School of the Americas. I do not know why those who posture themselves as law-and-order policymakers, I do not know why anybody who gets up time and again talking about how tough they are on crime and criminals and human rights violators, would expend so much time and energy defending this U.S. Army School of the Americas. We know the list of violators who have been the graduates of this school. How can we defend them? It is not enough to say, oh, some of them made mistakes, some of them were not right, some of them killed some people. What are Members talking about? We are talking about people who are trained in the School of the Americas who go back to these countries. They become our direct contacts. These are the ones we support. We support them in the leadership of those nations. I cannot believe that some of the Members have forgotten about Haiti already. We spent a lot of hours in this body about trying to right the wrongs of Haiti. It took a great threat by the President of the United States, ready to move in with our own military unless we got rid of the graduates of the School of the Americas: General Cedras, have Members forgotten him already? Have they forgotten Mr. Francois in Haiti, who headed the police force, a graduate of the School of the Americas? These two gentlemen, if they can be called that, in Haiti were the ones who built the airstrip where the drug runners were able to come in and bring their dope into Haiti to be shipped out to America and other places. These places on the globe that we are discussing are the locations for the transshipment of drugs right into the United States. The Congressional Black Caucus has made it absolutely clear that getting rid of drug trafficking and drugs is our number one priority. We do not take kindly to those who would call us do-gooders because we have decided that there must be, at some point in time, a real war on drugs. Are Members not tired of the failure of this government to deal with drugs and the drugs that enter this country? Are Members not tired of the relationships we have with the Noriegas of the world? These become our partners in crime. Whether it is Noriega or Cedras or Francois, they were all supported by our government while they were dealing dope into our communities. We are sick and tired of you simply going out on the street corners of America locking up these young black and Latino males, and even white, with small amounts of drugs. We want to stop drugs and the big dope dealers, and those who are allowing their countries to be transshipment points to bring drugs into the United States. You cannot defend Noriega and Cedras and these graduates of the School of the Americas. These are dope dealers who we embraced, that we trained and sent back. What is wrong with the School of the Americas? Once they make the contact in this country they become our leaders. They become the people we rely on.

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

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, for their work, and I know how hard he struggled. However, this Congress is about to pass the most profound and drastic tax cut this Nation will experience in many years to come. This is a true redistribution of the wealth, and let me tell my colleagues why. The top 1 percent in our Nation will get a tax cut of about $16,000. That is people who make over $645,000. The next 4 percent, people who make about $150,000 will get a tax cut of $1,492. But let us take a look at the lowest 20 percent, the lowest 20 percent in our Nation, people who make $6,500 will have to pay $39 more. The next 20 percent, people who make $15,000, will only get about $114, and the next 20 percent, people who make $27,000, will get about $194 in tax cuts. Well, let me just show my colleagues this. In capital gains, this means the CEO's of major corporations like Donald Trump and over at Nike, they will be able to take their pay in stock options and the stock options will only be taxed at 18 percent which means they will be paying about half of what the average working person will be paying in taxes. So who is getting the short end of this deal? Not only are the poor in inner cities, where the economy is not performing, still no jobs, low paying jobs, jobs that have been exported to Third World countries for labor, let me tell my colleagues about districts like the district of the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], in her State's panhandle with the median income of less than $25,000 per year and a per capita income of $11,530. These are working and poor people in districts like that of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Charles Canady], Poke County, FL, with a median household income of $25,315 per capita and personal income of about $12,277. I want to tell the Members, this is not the right way to go. It is going to pass. Republicans are going to take credit, Democrats are going to take credit. Nobody knows what is in the details. But I want to tell the Members, the American people will find out. They will know in the final analysis. This is no deal for the average Americans. Rich people will make out again. They will be partying on Wall Street tonight.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the first portion of my remarks to thank the gentleman from Florida who so eloquently expressed our fine appreciation for Justice Brennan. I think it could not have been done better, and I am delighted that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] saw fit to immediately call me and focus us on the fact of the death of Justice Brennan, and to say that the Congressional Black Caucus must indeed take the leadership in paying tribute to this giant of a human being. He said to me, this is important that we take this leadership; and I immediately understood why. Justice Brennan represented our struggle, he represented our hope for what America could be and what it should be. And so, I open this special tribute this evening and I share this time with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are here and some who have left their statements, and I do so with great pride. Justice Brennan was laid to rest this afternoon. However, he placed an indelible mark on many of this Nation's laws. The famous Brennan decisions serve as the underpinnings and guideposts for the advancement of civil rights in this Nation. During his 34 years on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Brennan was described as ``the chief strategist behind the court's civil rights revolution.'' Justice Brennan was considered a liberal. We heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] pay tribute to liberalism. How proud I am, also, this evening to pay tribute to this liberal. Liberals have been demonized by those who set out to limit the power and the ability of the poor, to limit the power and the ability of people of color and people who are powerless, limit the ability of all of these to be active decisionmakers and participants in this democracy. This democracy has set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which states, and I will remind folks as I quote this, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Justice Brennan was a student of the Constitution and a believer in the Declaration of Independence. He cherished first amendment rights, and he acted on his beliefs. He worked hard to construct the arguments and convince his fellow justices that this could and should be a Nation that protects the rights of all individuals and groups. He actively worked to make the Constitution a vibrant living document. He called the Constitution, and I quote him, ``a sparkling vision of the dignity of every individual.'' Witness the great Brennan decisions. Baker versus Carr, 1962. This case allowed Federal courts to hear constitutional challenges to the way States drew their legislative districts. The case forced reapportionment of previously discriminatory districts and enforcement of one-person one-vote principle. NAACP versus Button, 1963. This case struck down a State law that prevented civil rights organizations from soliciting plaintiffs for desegregation cases stating that such restrictions violated the first amendment right of association. What a great decision. Do my colleagues understand that literally what the State has said was we do not care how much someone has been discriminated against, we do not care how representative this is of wrongs in our society; you cannot go out and solicit and find them and get them to be a plaintiff. Thank you, Justice Brennan. United Steelworkers of America versus. Weber, 1979. This case ruled that Federal anti-discrimination law does not prevent employers from adopting voluntary race-conscious affirmative action programs. Well, we are in a great debate in this Nation about affirmative action. In a matter of days, perhaps, and certainly if not in a matter of days, when we come back in September, we will be fighting in the Brennan way against an attempt to turn this decision on its head. We will be fighting against a bill that will attempt to do away with all affirmative action. And it has been branded a civil rights role acting in just the opposite way that Brennan intended affirmative action to operate. Furman versus. Georgia, 1972. This case invalidated State death penalty laws as cruel and unusual punishment. I know, it is not political to be against the death penalty. People do not want to run for office for re-election without trying to make the people believe that they are absolutely protecting them by supporting the right for a free people in a democracy to kill in the name of justice. Well, I suppose the death penalty is riding high now and it is very unpopular to be against the death penalty. I submit to my colleagues, a society that attempts to right wrongs by doing worse than the person they would point to that committed the wrong is a society headed in the wrong direction. A State, a Nation that kills in the name of justice will be held accountable for that in so many ways. Metro Broadcasting versus. Federal Communications Commission, 1990. This case upheld minority preferences for FCC broadcast licenses. Some people say, ``Well, what is important about that?'' I will tell you what is important about that. As we watch attempts now by the rich and the powerful to buy up everything, radio stations, television stations, what happens when you have the powerful owning the voices that you hear on radio and television able to talk to people day in and day out, expressing certain points of view, without any real opportunity to hear the minority point of view, to hear the other point of view? In a democracy, we should never allow monopolies, the rich and the powerful, to have control of our airwaves, to have control of what our children hear, to have control of what goes on in every household. It is one of the most dangerous things that could happen in a democracy. We live in a democracy where we ought to feel free enough and strong enough to let everybody say what they need to say. But if minorities do not have the right to own, do not have the ability to own, do not have the capital to own, you will shut down the voices oftentimes of opposition. And so this was a powerful decision. It is quite clear that Justice Brennan was a rare and talented human being whose clarity of thought and commitment to justice and equality guided his work and his vision for America. Justice Brennan will long be remembered. The legacy of Justice Brennan will not be lost or simply overturned or forgotten. His work was too profound, too impeccable, too undeniable. No matter the attack on liberalism, no matter the winds that blow toward the right, in the final analysis, the humanity demonstrated by his leadership can stand tall and strong against the most inhumane attacks, the most intolerant voices, the most misguided and ignorant in our society who would have the powerful just trample on the rights of the powerless and the majority simply ignore the pleas of the minority. Justice Brennan, you make me so proud to stand here tonight branded a liberal. It is because of you and the powerful in high places who served with principled dignity and who continue to serve with principled dignity that I am able to be here in the hallowed halls of Congress imploring my colleagues to serve as you served, care as you cared, and to do as you did, serve all the people all of the time, upholding the Constitution of the United States of America and fighting for justice and equality for all. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to begin a special tribute by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for the late Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., one of the most influential and visionary jurists in our Nation's history. Before I take time, I would like to yield the first of this hour to one of the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus, who immediately upon the passing of Justice Brennan said it was important for the Congressional Black Caucus to take this floor and pay tribute to, give honor to the man who assisted this Nation in our civil rights efforts. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Alcee Hastings].

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] to enter something into the Record.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are here this evening and those who submitted statements for the Record. I again would like to thank the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Hastings for his foresight and his vision and helping to get us all here to make sure we do what we must do. There are those who will look at us and say, ``So they are there celebrating this liberal justice and I guess they must all be liberals.'' And sometimes, because again liberals have been demonized, people do not know what a liberal is. They do not look behind the label to try and discover the philosophy of those of us who come to this House and implore our colleagues to do the right thing by all human beings. We are a people whose people were brought to these shores in slavery. We are a people whose ancestors were tarred and feathered and hung without a court. We were a people whose ancestors did not have an opportunity to offer a defense, no one to speak up. We are a people who were not able to access jobs and opportunities. Our history is such that we have to have champions, and they came from many directions. Of course, everybody knows of the great histories of the African Americans who fought and died. Many people do not know the great histories of those who were not African Americans, such as Justice Brennan, who joined us in this struggle for justice, equality and freedom. They do not know that he was driven by the ideals embodied in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, those great documents that helped to drive a people to these shores seeking justice and freedom from the mother land of Great Britain. And so when we take to the floor to honor him and to praise him, we cannot be anything but liberal in thought, liberal in philosophy. It is that kind of philosophy and thinking that have gotten us and our people to this point in history. We wish it was all over and we did not need to have to struggle. We wish we did not have to sit here and stand here and wish that we could get some more Justice Brennans on the Court. We wish we did not have to be worried about a Canady bill. We wish we did not have to be worried about some of those who sit on the Supreme Court today. But we must, and what must be understood, because of who we are, from whence we came, because of our love for freedom, our love for justice and equality, we will not go away. We will be fighters and struggling in this cause for as long as we breathe. If someone else said ``You don't have to do this; we'll pay you not to do this; we'll give you all the riches in the world if you would just shut up,'' we could not do it if we wanted to. Thank you, Justice Brennan, for joining with the many who love this country, who love those great documents that have held us in good stead. We honor you this evening and we do it proudly. Thank you for being a liberal. Mass of Christian Burial--The Honorable William Joseph Brennan, Jr., April 25, 1906--July 24, 1997 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997, Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle, Washington, DC) Faith in Ordinary People ``The Dream though old is never old, like the Poor Old Woman in Yeats' play Cathleen Ni Hoolihan: `` `Did you see an old woman going down the path?' asks Bridget. `No, I did not;' replies Patrick, who had just arrived after the old woman left. `But I saw a young girl' he said, `and she had the walk of a queen.' ''--The Honorable William Joseph Brennan, Jr. Ministers of the Liturgy Reverend Milton E. Jordan: Principal Celebrant. Reverend John T. O'Hara: Homilist. Reverend Monsignor W. Ronald Jameson: Rector of the Cathedral. Priests of the Cathedral, Visiting Priests: Concelebrants. Reverend Mr. Ulysses S. Rice, Reverend Mr. Lawrence C. Gordon, Reverend Mr. Bart Merella: Deacons. Reverend James D. Watkins, Reverend Charles V. Antonicelli: Masters of Ceremonies. Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Honorary Pallbearers. Law Clerks to Justice Brennan: Richard Arnold, Owen Fiss, Merrick Garland, John McInespie, Daniel O'Hern, Daniel Rezneck, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Clyde Szuch, Paul Washington: Pallbearers. Hugh Brennan, Nancy Brennan: Lectors. William Joseph Brennan IV: Reader of the Intercessions. Mary Anne Gaffney, Constance Phelps: Giftbearers. Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist of the Cathedral. Seminarians of the Archdiocese of Washington, Altar Servers of the Cathedral: Servers. Ushers of the Cathedral: Ministers of Hospitality. Jay R. Rader, Cathedral Organist, Conductor; Jennifer Muller, Cantor; Ann Kramschuster, Assistant Organist; Members of the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle Chorale: Ministers of Music. The Order of Celebration Prelude Jesu dulcis memoria (Jesus, the sweet thought of you)-- Tomas Luis de Victoria. O taste and see.--Ralph Vaughan Williams. Entrance Procession Joyful, Joyful, We Adore You.--Henry Van Dyke; Ludwig van Beethoven; Tune: Ode to Joy: Joyful, joyful, we adore you, God of glory, Lord of love; Hearts unfold like flowers before you, Opening to the sun above. Melt the clouds of sin and sadness; Drive the dark of doubt away; Giver of immortal gladness, Fill us with the light of day! All your works with joy surround you, Earth and heav'n reflect your rays, Stars and angels sing around you, Center of unbroken praise; Field and forest, vale and mountain, Flowery meadow, flashing sea, Chanting bird and flowing fountain, Praising you eternally! Always giving and forgiving, Ever blessing, ever blest, Wellspring of the joy of living, Ocean depth of happy rest! Loving Father, Christ our brother, Let your light upon us shine; Teach us how to love each other, Lift us to the joy divine. Mortals join the mighty chorus, Which the morning stars began; God's own love is reigning o'er us, Joining people hand in hand. Ever singing, march we onward, Victors in the midst of strife; Joyful music leads us sunward In the triumph song of life. Introductory Rites Greeting and Sprinkling with Holy Water. Opening Prayer. Liturgy of the Word First Reading Responsorial Psalm General Intercessions Liturgy of the Eucharist Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts Preface Acclamation Memorial Acclamation Great Amen From Mass of Creation by Marty Haugen. Communion Rite Lord's Prayer Sign of Peace Breaking of the Bread Agnus Dei Music During the Communion Procession How lovely is thy dwelling place--from Requiem by Johannes Brahms. Prayer After Communion Eulogies final commendation Invitation to Prayer Song of Farewell: Come to His Aid--Dennis C. Smolarski, S.J., Louis Bourgeois; Tune: Old Hundredth. Come to his aid, O saints of God; Come, meet him, angels of the Lord. Receive his soul, O holy ones; Present him now to God, Most High. May Christ, who called you, take you home, And angels lead you to Abraham. Receive his soul, O holy ones; Present him now to God, Most High. Give hime eternal rest, O Lord. May light unending shine on him. Receive him now, O holy ones; Present him now to God, Most High. I know that my Redeemer lives; The last day I shall rise again. Receive him now, O holy ones; Present him now to God, Most High. Prayer of Commendation Procession to the Place of Committal In paradisum--from Requiem by Gabriel Faure. May the Angels lead you into paradise; may the martyrs receive you, and lead you into the holy city of Jerusalem. May the choir of Angels receive you, and with Lazarus, who was once poor, may you enjoy eternal rest. Postlude Carillon--Louis Vierne.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order this evening. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Metcalf]. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], and perhaps even others had been here, their amendments would have been protected against a point of order. However, they were not here at the time, and therefore they have not been allowed to take up their amendments. I think that that amendment falls in the same category. However, I am aware that there may have been some attempts to recraft the amendment to comply with being able to take it up in the general provisions. If so, if that is the case, how then was it recrafted to comply? And if it has not been, the point of order I think should prevail.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the gentleman's offer to withdraw. We are stuck on whether or not we are going to have specificity in language or whether or not we are all generally agreed and we trust our leaders to do the work. We really do trust not only our ranking member but we trust the chairman. If it is one thing that I have heard here this evening, it is that two Members, one Republican, one Democrat, one ranking member, one chairman, talk about their relationship, how well they have been able to work together, how well they have been able to resolve differences. We place full trust and confidence in our ranking member and then, across the aisle, this chairman that has demonstrated on more than one occasion not only his willingness to work out problems but certainly his expertise and his leadership in doing it. So I would ask both sides of the aisle to join with us and place our trust with these two Members to go to conference with general direction to resolve this in the best interests of the people that we all want to serve and the beneficiaries.

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

Ms. WATERS. The general points that my colleagues have made are the outline of some kind of agreement that appears acceptable to all of us. My colleague's suggestion about the prompt involvement of Treasury is something I do not know how to frame in this agreement. I hear them, and I do believe that if we adopt or if we accept the general outline, there is a need; Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, there is a need for both sides to get together and basically finalize this agreement. The general agreement seems fine. We need to get together, finalize it. If we move forward in that way, I think we have something.

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

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

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