Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I would like to deal with the way in which the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] characterized the inquiry that I am seeking. I asked that a study be done to make determinations. I did not come to any conclusions about the involvement of the CIA. The idea of asking for the study is to make certain determinations, and I think that should be clear. Further, allow me to share with the Members of this House that I believe that the gentleman from Florida and I are saying the same thing. It needs to be looked at. I brought this to the floor today because I intended very much to create a platform for a discussion about this issue. I am extremely concerned, even though the gentleman from Florida believes that I should know that some studying has been done, that just as I do not know other Members of this House do not know, the public does not know, and that we are left with the accounts that we have learned about. We have heard the CIA say, yes, we had the information and, yes, we should have revealed it. That much we know. I think the gentleman from Florida and I and other Members of this House want to shed some light on this. We want more information. We want to be able to share with the American public everything that we know about what happened, and we want to be in a position to use whatever power we have to make sure it never happens again. So I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that I am joined and embraced, by way of this substitute amendment, because while it may be structured a little bit differently, I am pleased that it would get the information a little bit sooner than the way that I had structured the amendment. Either way, whether it is 1 year from now or 2 years from now, and for some reason it falls on my birthday, August 15, that is all right with me. So let me just say that I think that having brought it here, it served a purpose. It got me what I wanted. It forced the discussion. It created the debate about something that never should be in the dark, and it got my colleagues on the other side of the aisle joining with me to have a study so that we can reveal everything that we know. And with that, that is all I ask. I am pleased to accept the substitute and I thank the gentleman from Florida for recognizing that it needed to be done.

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to establish a study of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA. This study is designed to explore the involvement and the use of chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf war. Specifically, this amendment requires the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct a study and submit to Congress in both a classified and declassified form a report of its findings. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to expand a little bit on why I would want such a study. In order to do that, I would like to read information from the New York Times, May 6, 1997, the Tuesday late edition. It starts with the information concerning George J. Tenet, the fifth nominee for director of Central Intelligence in the last 4 years. It states that he would be questioned by a Senate committee on that Tuesday, and the betting is, they said, that his nomination will be quickly approved by the panel and then promptly confirmed by the full Senate. The article goes on to explain what has been happening in trying to keep directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the turnover and the turmoil that this agency has been experiencing. Mr. Chairman, they say, ``This turmoil at the top of American intelligence has no parallel except in the Watergate era, when five men served in rapid succession as director of Central Intelligence from 1972 to 1977, years when the agency was devastated by a disclosure of its Cold War history of assassination plots, coups, and dirty tricks.'' What is important about this article, however, is that it identifies much of the turmoil, much of the criticism, much of the faux pas, much of the problems that this agency has been experiencing. But this amendment today centers on what happened in Iraq. It talks about secret operations were exposed in Iraq, France, Japan, India, and Italy, but then it really targets in on the agency, the fact that the agency sat on evidence that chemical weapons had been present at the Iraq munitions dump blown up soon after the Persian Gulf war. Members have heard references to this today, when they talk about the 20,000 soldiers that were exposed to sarin gas. Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. As Members know, I served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I learned a lot in the period of time that I served on that committee. I gained deep respect for the sacrifices that are made by families and members in our armed services. I also witnessed a lot of other things having served on that committee. These loyal individuals who gave of themselves, most of whom were very proud to serve their country, many of them belonging to families where they had other family members who had served their country, had died serving their country in previous wars, many of them now ailing and sick and disabled, many of them fighting day and in and day out because they cannot get their claims adjudicated with their own government. I learned deep respect for the veterans of this country, having served, watched them come to the Congress of the United States oftentimes asking for assistance and not getting that assistance, many of them not being taken care of properly in the veterans hospitals around the Nation, but they continued to be very loyal, very committed, very patriotic. And I learned something else: Members of this House could wax eloquently about their support of the Members who had served, our veterans, members of the armed services. They could say over and over again how much respect they had for them, how much they honored and cherished them and how we should do everything in our power to make their lives comfortable once they had served. But it is very interesting, when we look at what the Central Intelligence Agency did to them in Iraq, how they had information about the chemicals that were stored there and they did not share this information, they did not tell them they were at risk and they exposed these 20,000 individuals. How can we be comfortable with this agency that has been identified over and over today as an agency with serious problems, with serious trouble, an agency that is too closely associated with trafficking in drugs, an agency that has relationships with some of the worst people in the world, murderers, drug dealers, terrorists, an agency that has broken down where we have members who are there to protect and serve, who are selling us out, identified in a most prominent way in all of the news media of this country? Knowing all of this we do not want to in any way touch them. Why are we so afraid of the CIA? Why are we as public policymakers not willing to pull them in? Why are we not ready to rap their wrists? I have heard Members on this floor talk about all of the agencies that have failed and how they want to cut them. I have heard many times about the poverty programs and how they have not worked and how they have been fraught with problems and troubles. Well, we have an agency that is embarrassing us, an agency where our allies are telling us, get them out of their country, an agency that has committed just about every ill and every sin that any intelligence group could commit. Do we want to cut them back a little bit? Five percent? No, we do not want to do that. Do we want to share information about the budget? Do we want to shine the spotlight on this agency in any way? No, we do not want to do that. In this post-cold-war era, we are satisfied to continue to let them run rampant. But I do not think we ought to do that. I think if we do nothing else, if we do not care about the children and communities that are the victims of drugs having been brought into this country where we have identified CIA involvement, which will be in my next amendment, if we do not care about the terrorists, who we claim to want to get rid of in the world, being associated with our own intelligence community, if we do not care about the fact that the breakdown in the agency is causing too much strife and dissemination of information, do we not care enough about the veterans to send a message to them to say to them, yes, the CIA was wrong; no, you should not have been put at risk; no, they should not have withheld this information; yes, they should be punished for having done so; yes, we should do everything that we can to make sure it does not happen again? This is not about a movie. This is not something somebody made up. This is not gossip or speculation. This is fact. The fact of the matter is 20,000 soldiers exposed to sarin gas, information withheld, information that the CIA simply could say, oh, yes, we forgot to tell you; yes, we apologize; no, we should not have done it. That is not enough. Thirty billion dollars being spent on an intelligence community, no real oversight, no real transparency, no real understanding by the public policymakers who come to this floor year in and year out and simply give their vote to the intelligence community, not knowing how it is spent and what they are doing. I think it is about time we live up to the responsibilities that have been bestowed upon us as public policymakers. It is about time that we say, no agency is so big and so bad that it threatens us in ways that cause us not to be good public policymakers. Yes, there is a need for intelligence. I am not naive. I do understand that we need intelligence. But I am saying to my colleagues, the CIA does not deserve our support. I am saying to my colleagues, on the Senate side, Senator Moynihan has said, strike them from the budget. Get rid of them. Over here, a modest amount tried, just cut them by 5 percent. And we sit and hold our hands and get up and make excuses about why we cannot control the CIA, why we do not have a right to do the oversight that we must do, why they are different from every other agency that we deal with, why we do not want to know, why we want to keep our heads in the sand. It is not right. We can do better than this. So I offer this amendment. It is a very modest amendment. This amendment would simply, again, establish a study of the Central Intelligence Agency and their involvement in the use of chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf war. This is a limit to design, to do that, and I would like to send a message to the veterans that we all honor and cherish, the ones that we love so much because of the sacrifices that they have made, the ones who may die from this exposure, the ones whose families may never be satisfied that their health needs will be taken care of. I would like us to send a message here this evening, if we have got the guts to do it, I would like for us to send a message that we care. And not only do we care, we are going to do something about it. It is time to get rid of the rhetoric and step up to the plate and put our actions where our mouths are in terms of loving the veterans and the soldiers that have given to us and do this modest, very modest amendment that would shed some light on what happened in the Persian Gulf War; why did it happen and how do we prevent it from ever happening again? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Goss to the Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

Ms. WATERS. A study of the Central Intelligence Agency involved in the use of chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf war.

Ms. WATERS. If the gentleman will yield, it is amendment No. 6.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be snowed, I do not want to be patronized, I do not want to be talked to in that way. I have asked. I have made an accusation on the floor of Congress about the CIA and the Venezuelan drug deal, and I am asking the gentleman based on the information that he has, is there any way that he can shed some light or share this information with the American public? I want to know.

Ms. WATERS. Could the gentleman be a little bit clearer about what it is he is committing to? The gentleman said he would attend to it. Could the gentleman tell me how he can satisfy the concerns that I have raised, and I am not being facetious at this point, but I have made a specific charge, and I am asking the gentleman, even though he was not the Chair, the records did not leave with the last Chair; I want to know what can the gentleman do to shed some light on this information?

Ms. WATERS. That is right.

Ms. WATERS. And also would the gentleman add to this discussion whether or not the former drug czar who worked with the CIA is going to be extradited for this case? Is there an extradition problem?

Ms. WATERS. The gentleman from Florida or anybody else who can answer that.

Ms. WATERS. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] said that he felt a responsibility to answer my charge. What the gentleman from Florida is saying is if I can bring him more information----

Ms. WATERS. Oh, no. I have been to every budget committee, every appropriations committee where there are appropriations for drugs to talk about the Black Caucus' No. 1 priority of eradicating drugs in this Nation. It is not only our No. 1 priority, we have come, we have testified before the committees, we have supported the drug czar, we have supported the President's budget, we have even asked for more money, and we have come up with ways by which to work closer with the drug czar on this issue. So we are serious about this, but let me just say this: Given my friend and my colleague's representations, along with the gentleman from Florida, about feeling a responsibility to respond to the very serious accusation that I have made here today, I accept that as not only a representation for himself, but for him and others, and the committee; and even though we are clear that my bringing forth new information is not a condition for his moving forward, if I have or can locate new information, I will be happy to work with the gentleman on it. But I do expect that this commitment on the House of the floor that has been made about shedding light per the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] and supported by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is something that we can rely on. So let me just say this: My colleague whom I have worked with not just since I came to Congress 6 years ago, but about 30 years now, having served with him in the State of California in the assembly and prior to that when I managed campaigns and all of that, I accept----

Ms. WATERS. I thought when the gentleman heard the word ``accept'' he would be generous, and I thank him very much. I accept his representations that these investigations are going on now, and I know that. And I do think that perhaps it is a little premature, and maybe that is something we will do after if, in fact, we do not believe that the information is credible, the work has been good, or we learn more about it. I do think that that would be the correct order of things. Today provided us with the opportunity to shed more light, to get something moving. I accept that he rejects, he does not accept, my amendment. He believes the commission is premature. He will work with me. I will work with the gentleman, I will work with the other gentlemen, and everyone else. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It seems almost impossible that this Congress would not embrace a 10-percent, a measly 10-percent reduction in this intelligence budget. I am not going to talk at this moment about everything that I have learned about the CIA and their drug dealing and other activities. I am just going to talk about what some of our allies think about them. In a Los Angeles Times article Monday, March 17, 1997, our international allies' dislike of the CIA's clandestine activities is stated as such. I quote: ``Around the world, America's friends are sending a quiet but stern message to the Central Intelligence Agency: The cold war is over, the rules of the spy game have changed, and it's time for the United States to curb its espionage operations on its allies' turf. ``At least four friendly nations, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and France, have halted secret CIA operations on their territory during the past 2 years.'' In Germany a CIA officer was ordered to leave the country, get out, apparently for trying to recruit a German official. In 1995 there was a major intelligence failure in Paris when the French uncovered and put an end to an economic espionage operation run by our CIA. In the Washington Post there was an article entitled ``House panel affirms some allegations against CIA.'' This was March 18, 1997. The Washington Post reported that a House intelligence committee report affirmed a previous conclusion that CIA contacts in Guatemala were involved in serious human rights violations with the agency's knowledge and their involvement, which was improperly kept from Congress in the early 1990's. In fact, the article stated, and I quote, ``The report represents a sharp criticism of the CIA from a Republican-controlled committee that has tended to be more sympathetic to CIA arguments that it must deal with unsavory individuals to get good intelligence,'' unquote. What is the mission of the CIA in the post-cold war environment? Is it necessary to continue allocating $30 billion to this intelligence effort? Should we not use these funds for other purposes such as job development or school infrastructure or rehabilitation? I am encouraged that the New York Times on March 3, 1997, recently reported that the CIA was doing some scrubbing, they called it, in an effort to sever ties with 100 foreign agents, about half of them in Latin America, whose value as informers was outweighed by their acts of murder, assassination, torture, terrorism and other crimes. According to these articles, the Latin American division of the CIA's clandestine service proved to be the one most riddled with foreign agents who were killers and torturers, and that the CIA also has had on its payroll people who are terrorists and drug dealers. I am going to talk about drug dealers in an amendment that I am going to bring up, but I want Members to keep fixed on that. Drug dealers who were terrorists and, of course, drug dealers. It is not enough to cleanse some of the rogue agents employed by the CIA in their clandestine activities. We really need to eliminate the CIA. The Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, needs to take over the functions and responsibilities currently held by the CIA. There are overlapping functions between the CIA and the DIA. So while I think they need to be eliminated, certainly this very small modest request for a 10-percent reduction, a 5-percent reduction, 5 percent, 10 percent, whatever, should be done. It should be embraced by everybody. It would show that at least we are concerned about this agency that is just riddled with problems. I mean this agency is a disgrace. Time and time again we find these articles that are appearing that are talking about not only our agents who are selling us out but all of the rogues and the terrorists and the dope dealers that they are dealing with. Do we not want to do something about the CIA? Are we not ashamed? Do we not feel that we have enough power to rein them in? I will be back with my own amendment to deal with them on dope dealing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic alternative tax bill. The Democratic Caucus finally came to the realization that Republican style tax-relief for the rich is not the kind of tax relief that should be adopted by this Congress. Not all tax relief is bad. But, Republican style tax relief is immoral. The Republican tax plan benefits the rich plain and simple. The Democratic Caucus has finally defined, shaped and organized sensible tax relief for the people who need it and deserve it--the low- wage and middle-income workers of America. The Republicans denied tax cuts to the poorest, hardest working Americans. Waitresses, drug store clerks, janitors, maids, busboys, hospital attendants, garment workers, receptionists, aides, elevator operators, farm workers, dishwashers, department store clerks, and bank tellers--these hardest-working, poorest-paid Americans are the ones who really deserve a tax break. What is in the Republican tax plan for them? Nothing, nothing, and nothing. In the Democratic alternative, nearly three-quarters of the tax benefits go to middle- and lower-income families making less than $58,000 a year. The Republicans give the majority of their tax breaks to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans--those making an average of $250,000 a year. The Democratic family tax credit covers 20 million more low-income children than the Republican plan. The Republicans want to deny the family credit to 28 million children from families making less than $20,000 per year. The Democratic alternative would also stimulate economic investment in economically distressed urban communities across the country-- including my own district--by honoring the commitment made as part of the budget agreement to authorize a second round of the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program. The Democratic alternative values working families over increasing corporate profits and tax breaks for the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to help working America. Support the Democratic plan.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican reconciliation tax bill. Their $85 billion tax cut package gives the wealthiest huge tax benefits while ignoring the plight of the working and poor families who struggle every day to get by. The combined effect of their spending and tax bill also gives the wealthiest 20 percent of the U.S. population a whopping 87 percent of the net benefits, while the bottom 60 percent would share only 4 percent of the net benefits. In fact, under the Republican tax bill, the average savings for the 20.7 percent of families with incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 would be a measly $38. At the same time, the wealthiest 1.4 percent of households would get a tax break of over $21,000. These tax cuts that benefit upper-income people include open-ended estate tax cuts that benefit only the richest 1.5 percent of families and include the deficit-busting capital gains tax breaks. At the same time, the Republicans' proposal denies the working poor the tax relief they guarantee the rich. The Republicans took the President's education tax package, including the HOPE scholarship, and undermined its goal of reaching the neediest students. The bill undercuts the wages and benefits of millions of workers by enabling employers to consider them independent contractors and not employees. The bill also denies the $500-per-child tax credit to over 15 million families. Let me give my colleagues an example of what this means. In the State of California, 56 percent of the children do not get the child credit under the Republican bill. That is more than 5.5 million. The Republican tax bill is an outrage. They do not want us to say it, but we are going to say it over and over again; it benefits the wealthiest in this Nation. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the reconciliation spending bill that we just passed leaves me deeply concerned about this Congress and where we are heading. The spending package violated the letter and the spirit of the budget agreement and hit hardest at the working and poor families of our Nation that struggle every day to get by. Before I speak about tomorrow's vote on the unfair Republican tax cut package, I want to say a few words about what we as a body have done in voting for this budget reconciliation spending bill. While there are many serious attacks on working families in the spending bill, like privatizing portions of Medicaid and food stamps, slashing the Federal funding for those hospitals who serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients, and block-granting children's health care, one of the most serious attacks is against the minimum wage and workplace protections for workfare participants. The budget reconciliation bill condemns working welfare recipients to second class citizenship. The bill specifically states that benefits provided to these workers in their jobs are not to be considered wages or compensation. With this devious language, the bill denies these hundreds of thousands of hard-working mothers and parents the rights that all American workers now enjoy, and it denies these workers the enforcement and remedial protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is wrong. It must not be retained in the final passage of the bill. Tomorrow we turn our attention to the other half of our Nation's budget, the tax cut package. The Republican leadership have made their priorities known with their budget proposals. Their $835 billion tax cut package gives the wealthiest Americans the largest tax benefits and pushes the poor further into poverty. The wealthiest 20 percent of the U.S. population would receive a whopping 87 percent of the net benefits. But the bottom 60 percent would share only 4 percent of these tax benefits. In fact, the poorest 20 percent of the population that has only 4.5 percent of the Nation's after-tax income would receive none of the gain. Most of the tax cuts benefit upper-income people. Open-ended estate tax cuts would benefit only the richest 1.5 percent of families. They give the wealthiest Americans deficit busting capital gains tax breaks. In addition, the Republicans have the audacity to propose that these tax breaks for the wealthy be indexed for inflation. And this is the same leadership that is opposed to cost-of-living increases for working Americans. At the same time, the Republicans' proposal denies the working poor the tax relief they guarantee the rich. The Republicans took the President's education tax package, including the HOPE scholarship, and undermined its goal of reaching the neediest students. The Republican plan would cover only half of tuition costs, even for the first 2 years of college. The bill also denies the $500 per child tax credit to over 15 million families. It does this by denying the full benefit of the child tax credit to the poorest of working poor, those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit. Contrary to what the Republicans allege, it is only those that are employed and pay payroll taxes that are eligible for their earned income tax credit. They deserve all the help they can get, and this bill denies them this much needed help. We should not forget that the budget deal was a serious compromise from the President's original budget proposal, which many of us felt fell short of the Nation's needs in many critical areas. For example, the measly $5 billion requested by the President for education infrastructure, that is, to fix up the Nation's schools, schools with no air conditioning, schools where the heating systems are broken, schools where windows and roofs need repair, all of this was denied, taken off the table because the Republicans said no. But at the same time, conservative estimates put the real cost of addressing the infrastructure problem at over $100 billion, and we could not get them to agree to $5 billion. And what about a real jobs program that pays a living wage, instead of trying to pay the working poor subminimum wages and deny their workplace rights? Let us be clear, this Republican tax bill is an outrage. We will all end up paying dearly for it in the end. It will make it much more difficult it address our Nation's real problems. I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair tax cut bill and reject this attack on working Americans and poor Americans.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of this House the fact that we have some actions that are going on as we attempt to bring together this budget and to reconcile the differences in the deliberations that have gone on, attempts to come through the back door on some very important issues. I am very concerned about attempts to treat welfare recipients who are would-be welfare workers differently than we treat other workers in America's workplace. I am concerned that there is an attempt to pay welfare workers less than minimum wage. I am also concerned that there is an attempt to deny workplace protections for recipients who go to work. I am also concerned that along with these two mean-spirited denials of protections in the workplace we find an attempt to deny protection from discrimination. One would ask, how could this be in 1997, when all of these gains that have been made are gains that were hard fought for, gains that individuals made tremendous sacrifices for? How could we in 1997 have attempts to turn back the clock? We know that in the last Congress there were some attempts by Republicans to deny an increase in minimum wage. That issue was hotly debated. We had the American public join in that debate in ways that we have not had the American public involved in in a long time. We engaged the citizens of this country in that debate. The citizens spoke in a loud and clear voice. What did they say to us? They said, not only do we want an increase in minimum wage, we want the American people to be paid fairly for their labor. We do not think this increase is enough. We think it should be more. We do not like the fact that major CEO's in America are making a million dollars while there is an attempt to continue to squeeze the workers at the bottom. We do not like the fact that entry- level wages have gone down. We do not like the fact that more and more Americans are on part-time labor. We do not like the fact that American workers are going to the negotiating table, not fighting for increases, but are forced to have to fight to hold onto the gains that have been made historically. So the American people spoke, and they spoke loud and clear. When the American people spoke, we discovered that even some of those on the other side of the aisle who had been attempting to deny this increase in minimum wage got the message. They got the message and they joined with us in the final analysis and supported the increase in minimum wage. I thought all of the Republicans had learned a lesson. I thought they had heard the American public. But obviously that is not the case, because what we see now is a back-door attempt, a back-door attempt to not only deny that increase that we made for low-wage workers, but an attempt to single out a category of workers and pay them less than the minimum wage. What they could not do in the front door they are now trying to do through the back door. What they are literally doing is sending a message out to workers, many of them who only make minimum wages, your job is in jeopardy. Your job is in jeopardy because we have found a whole new class of people that we are going to pay less than what we are paying you, so all of those low-wage workers, all of those people working for minimum wage in many of our industries, in our restaurants, in our hotels and places, we have a Republican Congress that is trying to create workers who make even less than they make. I want the American public to pay attention as we fight this battle. We are going to stand up for low-wage workers. We are not going to allow this back-door attempt. I would like for the American public to stay tuned in to this battle. In the final analysis, if they join with us, we can win again.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we often hear the complaint that people just don't care anymore; that the ``I've got mine, you get yours'' mentality permeates all segments of our society. People who say that, obviously, haven't crossed the path of Black Women of Achievement. This volunteer, professional women's organization has spent 14 years quietly working to raise funds to support the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and honor black women for outstanding achievements and significant contributions to their communities. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is an organization that uses the law to pry open the doors of opportunity for African-Americans, other people of color, women, and the poor. BWA has been on a mission, and it has succeeded over and over and over. In just the last 3 years, the organization has raised over $500,000 for LDF. In addition, some 200 African-American women have been honored at its annual fund raising luncheons. On June 20, 1997, BWA will honor 16 extraordinary African-Americans. It is my pleasure to enter into the Congressional Record, this tribute to Black Women of Achievement and its 1997 honorees. They represent the best of America. I commend them for their tenacity, determination, and spirit. They are blazing a trail that gives future generations hope for a world of equality, fairness, and justice. The 1997 honorees are: actress/minister Della Reese; actress JoMarie Payton-Noble; renowned entrepreneur-artist Synthia Saint James; Rachel Marie Burgess, division chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department; Adrienne Y. Crowe, regional senior vice president, Bank of America; Shirley Douglas, vice president, business development, Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.; Sheila Frazier, producer, Black Entertainment Television; Angela Gibson, public affairs director, Pacific Telesis; Carolyn L. Green, director of government and public affairs, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corp.; Rae Franklin James, executive officer, customer relations and communications, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority; Jacqueline E. Massey, administrator, network design, GTE; Iris Stevenson, teacher/director, Crenshaw High School Elite Choir; Debra J. Williams, program manager, Southern California Edison; Rhonda Windham, general manager, LA Sparks; and Della Walton York, district sales manager, AVON. BWA also pays special recognition to the outstanding achievements of others who support the goals of the organization and their communities. Special recognition has gone to such notables as actor-activist Ossie Davis and veteran news anchor Pat Harvey. The 1997 special recognition award will go to John W. Mack, president of the Los Angeles Urban League. The 1997 luncheon will be opened with an invocation by Rev. Dr. O.C. Smith, City of Angeles Church of Religious Science. BWA Committee members are: Beverly Whitaker, 1997 chair, Occidental Petroleum Corp.; Betty A. Johnson, 1997 cochair, Department of Water & Power; Pat Johnson, 1997 cochair, Health Point Services of America; Josephine Alexander, Chi Eta Phi; Berlinda Fontenot-Jamerson, Pacific Enterprises/The Gas Co; Carolyn J. Fowler, AT&T; Angela Gibson, Pacific Telesis; Jackie Hempstead, Bank of America; Karen (Kay) Hixson, Karen Hixson & Associates; Beverly A. King, King & Wright Consulting; Doris LaCour; Office, Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke; Jackie Massey, GTE; Gloria Pualani, Northrop Grumman; Natalie L. Sanders, M.D., Association of Black Women Physicians; Rose Mary Spriggs, consultant; Sylvia Swilley, M.D., Kaiser Permanente; Pat Watts, Edison International/ retired; and Linda Young, public relations consultant.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I am delighted to join with all of my colleagues here today to support this legislation. It is extremely important that Americans know that there is bipartisan support for this legislation. There is bipartisan support because all of our communities, whether they are inner cities or rural areas or suburban areas, are now under attack. The greatest threat, the greatest security threat to America is drugs, the illegal use of drugs, the drug addiction, the violence associated with drugs. The No. 1 priority of the Congressional Black Caucus is the eradication of drugs in our society. We worked for days to put together our legislative agenda. We have decided that we are going to put all of our time and effort in on eradicating drugs. We went around this country talking about something that had happened in south central Los Angeles. And many people wondered why I spent so much time dealing with the accusation of CIA involvement in drug trafficking. I spent an awful lot of time because in the 1980's, in south central Los Angeles, I witnessed an explosion of drug addiction and violence and I wondered what was happening, why were so many young people getting involved. I wondered why the explosion of violence and crime. What is important about my involvement in this issue and trying to seek out answers is not so much to be able to identify who said what, who did what, who wrote the memo, my involvement is because in the town hall meetings across this Nation, whether I was up in Brooklyn, NY, or St. Louis, MO or south central Los Angeles, was the outpouring of parents and grandparents talking about what had happened to their children and their families. Crack cocaine is one of the most vicious drugs that was ever manufactured by anybody. That is not to say that marijuana and methamphetamine are not dangerous and addictive. They are, and they are problems. But I want you to know what we have witnessed with crack cocaine should not happen to humans anytime, anyplace, anywhere. The Congressional Black Caucus is determined that we are going to take back our communities, we are going to give leadership, we are going to provide a platform for debate and discussion on this issue, we are going to engage communities, we are going to hold the town hall meetings, we are talking with young people, we will be involved at campaigns, we are going to do everything that is possible to do to take back our communities, protect our children, be involved with prevention and rehabilitation, and, yes, redirection. This bill speaks to that. This bill speaks to it because it talks about community coalitions, engaging communities, getting everybody involved in this problem. We have introduced seven bills from the Congressional Black Caucus. Many of those bills would complement this bill. Not only do we talk about community coalitions also, but we talk about rehabilitation and we talk about prevention. But we also ask the Department of Justice to help to monitor the drugs that are confiscated so that they do not get back out on the streets in ways that we have learned that they are doing in some of our communities. I am so pleased and proud that the Members who have worked on this had the wisdom and the foresight and the vision to understand where we must direct our attention. We cannot talk about job training, we cannot talk about teenage pregnancy prevention, we cannot talk about keeping young people in school until we get rid of this scourge in our community. And we can do it. The American people have not used their power to deal with this issue. We have allowed this explosion. We have allowed young people increasingly to turn to drugs for answers. And we have sat back waiting on somebody else to solve the problem. Well, nobody else is going to solve this problem. We collectively are going to solve this problem. We are going to solve this problem because we are going to take the bull by the horns. These are our children. They did not drop down out of Mars. They did not come from someplace else. They are our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews, our neighbors. These are our children. And if they are to be secure, if they are to be responsible, it is because we are going to provide that leadership, we are going to be the examples, we are going to be the leaders, we are going to be the organizers, we are going to be the ones that will set America free and allow our children to realize their potential. I do not know any parents who do not believe that their child can be President of the United States of America. I do not know any parent who does not understand that our children are precious and they should have the opportunity to realize their potential. And while we all have these dreams and these visions, we have allowed the scourge of drugs and drug traffickers and those who would peddle in death and destruction to increasingly creep into our lives and our communities and contaminate our children, contaminate our neighborhoods. Enough is enough. I will join hands with the most right wing of Republicans, the most left, if they can get on the left of me, of Democrats in order to get this work done. It is our job. It really is our challenge. But you know what? We are smart. We are committed. We work hard. We have the energy, and we have the love for humanity, we have the love for our families and our children. This bill really sets the tone and defines what we care about. The seven bills of the Congressional Black Caucus will further do that. I want my colleagues to watch the Congressional Black Caucus on this issue. I want my colleagues to watch us take leadership. I want Members to see what we have committed to do on this issue. I know there are those who have said, well, we have not heard enough. We were just naive enough oftentimes to believe that somehow somebody else, be it the White House or somebody else, was just going to do this work. Now that we have all decided to get involved, I am more inspired than I have ever been. If I do nothing else in my career, if I do nothing else in providing leadership, the leadership that I will provide as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus will be centered and focused on this issue, on getting rid of drugs in our society, freeing our communities, as this bill indicates. I thank the Members, all Members who have worked, who have labored, who have put it together. This is what we need. Combined with all that we are going to be doing and the bills that we have put together in the Congressional Black Caucus, I think we will see a change. The data, the statistics, will be different a year from now. If we continue in the fashion and the way that I know we can, 5 years down the road, we can all stand up and be very proud about the significant reduction that we have made in the use of drugs, in the crime and violence associated with drugs. We can see the reductions in the Federal penitentiaries, of young people who are getting convicted under mandatory minimums, many of them just 19 and 20 years old, addicted themselves, out hustling, selling small amounts of drugs because they think somehow they can get over. We are going to see a change in that. We need those resources that we are putting into prisons to do other things with. We do not need to be continuing to take the taxpayers' money to deal with the problem that way. The Rand study that just came out said that is not the way to solve the problem anyway. This is the way to do it. We are going to wrap our arms around this program, we are going to put our hearts, our heads, and our minds together and we are going to let our children know that we truly love them and we are going to show them we love them because we have made them our No. 1 priority through our public policy work and through sharing of resources to deal with this problem. Again, I am so proud, I am so pleased and delighted to be a part of this kind of coalition, of this kind of effort until I will not only commit again my time and my attention as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, but every member of the Congressional Black Caucus is committed and will be working beyond the Halls of Congress, on the streets, in the neighborhoods, in the townhall meetings, in the community centers and in the churches.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel]. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I take this moment not to introduce my friend, the gentleman from the great State of Mississippi, Mr. Bennie Thompson, but, rather, I take this moment to thank him and to say to him all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are extremely appreciative for the work that he has put in on helping to bring about this Congressional Black Caucus budget. The gentleman met with the Blue Dogs and he met with every Member of the Congressional Black Caucus and others in an effort to get input. He met early in the morning, he met late at night. He worked very hard to put together the kind of document that we could be proud of; and indeed, we are very proud of the product that he has produced. This budget represents our hopes, our desires, our dreams, our aspirations. It is everything that we could have asked for. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Mississippi, the person who is our senior member representing us on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bennie Thompson.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.