Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so proud of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have worked very hard to put together a budget that answers the concerns of the people of this country. Our CBC alternative budget is the budget deal the American people would negotiate. This is the real budget deal. Our budget not only balances finances, it balances values. I believe this is the budget that would win a vote of the American people. The CBC alternative budget will be presented in detail later on this evening. We have taken part in this part of the debate in order to introduce the vision, in order to talk about what is possible, in order to help the American people understand that we do not have to posture, we do not have to pretend, we do not have to put our hand in the wind and figure out which way the wind is blowing, that we can, indeed, fashion a budget that deals with the concerns of the American people in a real way. This budget that I am so proud of is a budget that would protect the elderly, reach out to the children, embrace the families, and it would do it without cutting taxes or increasing taxes. We could not have a more sensible, a budget that is put together any better than this one. Again, Mr. Chairman, we will present the details of this budget later on this evening, but I am pleased and proud that the Congressional Black Caucus was able to share this vision in this portion of the debate.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn]. (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens]. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I rise on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson] and the entire Congressional Black Caucus, first to thank those who have worked to present this House with a budget and, without spending time to discuss why the negotiated budget deal misses the mark, I would like to discuss another approach, another vision for America embodied in the CBC budget. The CBC budget alternative that will be offered later on this evening reaches budget balance by the year 2001, Mr. Chairman, not 2002, as the budget deal does. Each year between now and then our deficit is lower than that projected by the so-called budget deal. This Congressional Black Caucus alternative is a fiscally conservative budget. This budget, scored by CBO, reduces the deficit immediately and smoothly. This budget does not backload savings. The budget does not include tax cuts. This budget does not raise any tax rates, not on individuals, not on businesses. The CBC budget alternative achieves its savings through a balanced combination of military spending reductions, nondefense discretionary spending cuts, reductions in corporate welfare and modest reforms in Medicare and no increased premiums for seniors. Our budget makes the Medicare trust fund solvent into the future, as does the budget deal. The CBC budget alternative does this while staying within the overall domestic discretionary spending levels agreed to by the budget deal. This budget accomplishes balance in the following ways: We make $189.9 billion in military budget savings. Our budget presumes in the post-cold War period this country can rationally reduce military spending while protecting military families and investing in economically viable alternatives through economic conversion. Our budget saves nearly $20 billion in nondefense discretionary spending programs. By reducing Government subsidies to corporations in various parts of the budget the CBC alternative cuts billions in wasteful, unnecessary spending. Our budget closes $195.5 billion in corporate welfare loopholes over 5 years. This represents less than $40 billion in savings from corporate welfare per year. Surely, as this country embarks on its course to produce a balanced budget, multinational and other large corporations can and should pay their fair share. And finally, we would enact entitlement reform through a $25.5 billion in savings from Medicare. By eliminating waste and abuse from the program, we would not increase premiums or reduce Medicare benefits, but protect the trust fund and Medicare recipients. This is a modest fair approach to budget savings. Our spending cuts facilitate real increases in other areas of the budget, all the while staying within the budget caps imposed by law and assumed in the budget deal. Our budget invests in programs which empower individuals, enhance community development, and expand economic growth. Mr. Chairman, our budget works within every budget guideline that exists. It balances the budget on a true glidepath. It achieves balance by 2001, a full year earlier than the budget deal. Through our savings, we invest an additional $99.7 billion in programs for people. We pay for our spending increases, and we prioritize. This budget is fair, responsible, and balanced. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would delete in H.R. 3 the provision that requires the prosecution as adults of juveniles who are charged with conspiracy to commit drug crimes under the Controlled Substance Act and the Controlled Substance Import and Export Act. H.R. 3 would for the first time allow juveniles to be prosecuted for conspiracy and result in another attempt to ensnare our youth into the criminal justice system. For those who consider ourselves pro-youth or supportive of families, this huge new prosecutorial device should cause great alarm. Young people often do not have the ability to protect themselves from those situations which lead to conspiracies in criminal activity. Juveniles are not wise enough to pick up and understand that they may be used. The application of conspiracy laws to young people who may not have the common sense, experience, or awareness to know that they are in danger is a terrible idea. Sophisticated criminals are experts in manipulating inexperienced and naive people in general and youth in particular. Our goal should be to protect our young people from these older and sophisticated criminals, not punish them for finding themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact is that many of our young people live in communities where drugs and gangs are indeed prevalent. Conspiracy as defined in this legislation would put many young people at risk for prosecution by simply visiting their next-door neighbor in a particular apartment building or housing project or by visiting a popular hangout that may be frequented by people who are doing wrong. College students living in a dormitory would be subject to conspiracy charges defined in this bill. Many of our youth live in surroundings that put them at risk every day. Instead of creating more elaborate ways to prosecute these young people, we should be exploring ways to give them the resources and the skills to create better opportunities for their lives. This bill would expand the concept of guilt by association of many of our youth. I urge Members' support for this most important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree first of all that this is not limited to drugs, this is limited to all of the crimes that is identified trying juveniles as adults? And would the gentleman agree that, if a 14-year-old sits around a table with five or six other people and talks about----

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did state correctly that not included in the grievance procedure at this time are those criminal acts and drug offenses. So we make sure that the most egregious offenses are not in the grievance procedure. Would the gentleman agree that an offense such as not putting the trash in the bin or children playing on the grass should have to go to court rather than appearing before a grievance procedure that could be resolved?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, given the commitment of the chairman to work this out and bring it back to the floor, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw it for the time being, to be taken up before we finish the debate on the bill.

Ms. WATERS. I am withdrawing it with the right to reoffer it, yes.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am so pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] had the vision and gave this the thought that finally bring us to some point where we can correct the mistake that we have made in this bill. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] for his persistence, working with the gentleman from North Carolina and others, in not allowing us to do something we will be ashamed of later on. I think the gentleman from Illinois, in raising the questions that he raised of the chairman, really did help to point out how outrageously ridiculous this really is. When the chairman was not able to respond in any way to describe any other instance, any other policy of government that would cause people to work without pay, I really do think that answers the question in a very stark way. I rise to support this amendment because I know an awful lot about public housing projects. I have spent a great deal of my life working with and trying to provide opportunities in public housing projects. Let me say this: If this was a real work-for-benefit program, we may not object if the people work and we would reduce their rents for the time that they would put in. That would be, at least, paying them in some way. That is a work-for-benefit program. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] outlined, they are paying their rent. If we want to do a program that is work-for-benefit, then say if one works for x number of hours, we will reduce one's rent, because we will give one an hourly wage. That is what this does, in a way. This amendment says if one works, one will, at least, get minimum wage. Let me tell my colleagues what is important about this. I have been in the public housing projects when the housing authorities have contracted for work with outside entities, people who have come from long distances in southern California to do things like put up screen doors, do other kinds of work in public housing projects. I stood and I watched tenants saying, why can we not do that? Why can we not have those jobs? People lined up begging to do the work. I got involved in negotiating with the public housing authority ways by which they could include the tenants when they do contracts for jobs in public housing, because nobody had the wherewithal or the sensitivity to understand that it is immoral to ask people to watch other people come into the housing project, contractors who do not live anywhere near the community, do the work, make the money, take it on out someplace else to spend, while people there are desperate lining up for jobs. When there was an opportunity for the telephone company to lay cable, I went out and negotiated myself with the telephone company, and the people that they gave the jobs to loved every minute of it. Young people lined up as they were digging, doing hard work, to try and get a job. This business about people in public housing projects not wanting to work is not correct. We should not treat poor people this way. They do want to work. My colleagues saw what happened up in New York when they had minimum-wage jobs, just poor people lined up around the block. This business that somehow we, as public policymakers, know better than the people who live there about what their motivations are and what they will do and what they will not do must stop. Mr. Chairman, I will walk with my colleagues to any public housing project in America, and if we have jobs to offer, people will line up around the block. In addition to having negotiated for people to work who wanted jobs instead of letting the contractors come in and work without offering the jobs, I created some training programs inside public housing projects, and people lined up around the block to get in those training programs. What did we find? We found that JPTA that replaced CETA does not work. We called them in to give the training, the people wanted the training, they wanted to be connected with the jobs. Many of them who are on welfare want to get rid of that welfare check. They want to go to work every day. Mr. Chairman, I would not like my colleagues to use our power this way. I would not like my colleagues to put their foot on the necks of poor people rather than give them opportunity. This amendment is correct. Pay them for work, and they will do the jobs. Pay them for cleaning and doing other kinds of things above and beyond their rent. They will do the work.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] to retain current law relating to the administrative grievance procedure used in public housing agencies throughout the country. Specifically, we propose that evictions, excepting those for criminal or drug-related activities, remain under the purview of the grievance procedure. The grievance procedure, in place since 1971 and amended in 1990 and 1994, has proven to be an efficient, low-cost procedure for resolving disputes. H.R. 2 repeals current law by mandating that public housing agencies exclude all evictions from the grievance procedure, not merely drug or criminal related activity. This mandate is bad public policy, inefficient and unfair and causes undue Federal interference. Any concerns that the grievance procedure might not be appropriate in certain circumstances were addressed in 1990, when the law was changed to allow housing authorities to exclude evictions involving drug- related and criminal activity from the grievance procedure. The negative effects of soaring litigation costs and an increasingly adversarial justice system are other reasons to encourage the use of the grievance process. To force the tenant who faces an eviction into a civil proceeding is to deny most tenants any opportunity for a just and mutually beneficial resolution to the problem. Study after study shows that tenants not represented by attorneys are at a tremendous disadvantage in civil proceedings. Finally, the fact that this exclusion is mandated by the Federal Government on local public housing authorities flies in the face of local control that has informed much of this debate. There is plenty that needs changing in public housing. The grievance procedure is not one of them.