Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the additional time he took out here to ensure that all those who would like to make a statement about the contributions of the history, the development, the involvement of African-Americans in our society, in our country, in our Nation, would have that opportunity to do so. I would additionally like to thank Congressman Stokes, because we do this today because he engineered this tradition for us in this House. Today he was able to sit here and advise us, and to instruct us and to help us learn protocol and to do all those things that we must learn to do to make these kinds of presentations. I am grateful to him for his assistance, for his leadership, but I am eternally grateful to him for the role that he played in the founding and the development of the Congressional Black Caucus. It is because of his work that we understand our power. It is because of his work that we understand what it means to be unified. It is because of his leadership and the others that had the vision about where we could go and what we can be that we stand here today and share with the world who we are, what our aspirations are and what our vision is for the future.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district on Saturday, September 28, 1996, conducting pressing business. Had I been present for votes that day, I would have voted as follows: rollcall 451--``yes''; rollcall 452--``no''; rollcall 453--``yes''; rollcall 454--``no''; rollcall 455--``yes''.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the State of California is in the middle of a crucial debate on the future of affirmative action. The so-called California civil rights initiative will be voted on this November 5. I call to my colleagues' attention the following testimony of Professor David Oppenheimer of Golden Gate University. He prepared this statement on behalf of several California branches of the American Civil Liberties Union. I think it greatly enhances the discussion on this most important public policy issue. Statement of David B. Oppenheimer introduction Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the three ACLU affiliates from California. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has had as its primary concern the protection of those civil liberties provided by the United States Constitution, and particularly the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights and the Post-Civil War Amendments. The right to be free of government sponsored race and sex discrimination is central to the opportunity of all Americans to fully participate in our system of democratic self-governance. It is because these rights are imperilled by the CCRI that we wish to address this Committee. It is no secret that our country has a long and shameful history of discrimination against women and racial, religious and ethnic minority groups. Our very foundation as a nation was dependent on the right of our citizens to own human beings of African descent. Our Constitution required amendment in the wake of the Civil War to establish for the first time under our laws that African Americans were entitled to the same rights as white citizens. It was only in this century that women were first enfranchised, and only late in this century, with the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, that we began to enfranchise African Americans in a meaningful way. Despite the aspirations of most people, our legacy of discrimination is being felt today. Many believe the reason for continuing discrimination is no longer the virulent diseases of race-hatred and misogyny, but the far more well- hidden problems of unconscious discrimination and sterotyping. Whatever the sources, the effects are plain to see. Highly disproportionate numbers of women and minority group members are poor, hungry and ill-housed. Women and minority group members earn substantially less, and own substantially less, than similarly educated, similarly qualified, white men. Over forty years after Brown v. Board of Education most black children attend segregated schools that are far inferior to the national or local standard. Even among those African Americans fortunate enough to become successful members of the American middle class, discrimination is a constant companion. Dr. Martin Luther King told us in his last sermon that he had been to the mountaintop and seen the promised land. We have not yet arrived in that promised land. affirmative action today Because of the glaring inequities caused by contemporary discrimination, many state and local governments have made the policy decision to act affirmatively to counteract discrimination and create true equality of opportunity. Some have done so because their leaders believe it is the right thing to do. Some have done so to avoid litigation. Some have done so as a condition of receiving federal funds. Whatever their motivation, if they have met the strict limits placed on affirmative action programs by the Supreme Court, they are fully within the laws and Constitution of this country. ``Affirmative action'' is a term much used, yet much disputed as to its meaning. In discussing affirmative action, I find it useful to distinguish the four kinds of voluntary affirmative action programs currently used by state and local government. They are: (1) anti-discrimination programs, such as anti-harassment training, sensitivity training, or diversity training; (2) outreach, recruitment and counseling programs, directed at increasing the number of women or minority group members applying for jobs, promotions, contracts, or school admissions; (3) self-study programs, in which employers or schools study their applicant flow data, admissions decisions, and retention statistics, in order to determine whether they are engaging in discrimination, and sometimes adopt goals and timetables to measure progress in eliminating discrimination; and, (4) preference programs, which range from set-asides to tie-breakers to ``one factor in many'' programs. There is a fifth form of affirmative action program, quotas, which, in the affirmative action context, operate as participation floors for women or minority group members. Quotas are not permitted in voluntary affirmative action programs. They are only permitted when approved or ordered by a court as a remedy in a discrimination lawsuit. Voluntary preference programs, including set-asides, are rarely permitted; they are allowed only as a remedy to discrimination, and only in unusual circumstances as a matter of Constitutional law. Our Constitution puts strict limits on the authority of any unit of government to consider race or sex in its decision making. It is only within these strictly defined limits that sex-based or race-based decision making is permitted, but when these limits are adhered to, the Supreme Court has made it clear that such decision making is Constitutionally proper. In the Croson case, and again in the Adarand case, the Court held that governmental affirmative action plans that permit race-based or sex-based selections are only permissible if: There is strong evidence that the government adopting the affirmative action program has itself discriminated against the group now being assisted, and that the discrimination has resulted in that group being currently underrepresented in the area addressed by the affirmative action program; the affirmative action program reaches no further than the discrimination it is intended to counteract; the program is limited to the selection of persons or firms fully qualified for selection; the program operates with goals or aspirations, not quotas; the program is limited in time so that it will expire once its goals have been met; and the program does not require the lay-off or termination of existing employees, or the recision of current contracts. Under the authority of the Croson decision, the City and County of San Francisco held hearings in 1988 to determine why so few of its contracts were with firms owned by women or minority group members. At that time approximately 95% of the dollar value of the City's contracts were with white male- owned firms. The hearings uncovered systemic discrimination in the contract bidding process, leading to a comprehensive affirmative action program. Eight years later, approximately 15% of the City's contract dollars go to firms owned by women or minority group members, while 85% continue to go to white male-owned firms. The San Francisco plan has received provisional approval from the United States Court of Appeals. Similarly, the County of Santa Clara, whose largest city is San Jose, has adopted a voluntary affirmative action program to increase its hiring of women and minority group members which has been approved by the United States Supreme Court. Despite the fact that these plans have been approved by the federal courts, they will become illegal if CCRI is passed. affirmative action and the ccri CCRI has two substantive clauses. Clause (a) prohibits certain conduct by state and local government. Clause (c) permits certain forms of sex discrimination. Clause (a) provides: ``The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.'' Clause (c) provides: ``Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.'' In addition, CCRI provides at Clause (e) that ``Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.'' source of clause A The initiative's authors have stated that their language is based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 703(a) of Title VII, the analogous section of the 1964 Act, provides: ``It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer [or other covered entity] to * * * discriminate against any individual with respect to his * * * employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' There are a number of significant differences between Clause (a) of CCRI and Section 703(a) of the 1964 Act. The most important is CCRI's prohibition of ``preferential treatment.'' Also significant is CCRI's applicability to ``groups'' as well as individuals, and CCRI's substitution of ``ethnicity'' for ``religion.'' ccri and the prohibition of ``preferential treatment'' The full meaning of the prohibition of ``preferential treatment'' must await analysis by the courts. The phrase is one without preexisting legal meaning; it is not a term of art used in civil rights law. In interpreting it, courts will be primarily guided by two principles. First, since it is assumed that all phrases do have meaning, and since it is used in conjunction with a prohibition of ``discrimination,'' it must mean something different from discrimination. Second, since it is not a legal term of art, is should be given its ``plain meaning.'' On a first read, one might expect that if CCRI passes, its broadest impact will be on preference programs such as the Santa Clara and San Francisco programs. This may not prove to be true. Pursuant to clause (e), CCRI will prohibit such voluntary programs only if their elimination will not affect eligibility for federal funds. If CCRI passes, some communities may successfully argue that their programs are necessary to remain in compliance with federal regulations requiring federal funds recipients to refrain from discrimination. This is a particularly potent argument for those communities that have complied with Croson by studying their own behavior, if they have concluded that their own discrimination is the cause of a current underrepresentation. It other communities, affirmative action plans are likely to be abandoned. But here again, if they have done Croson studies, we should expect that federal lawsuits will be filed using the data collected in the study to prove that the government has engaged in intentional discrimination. CCRI cannot limit the remedies available under federal law for a violation of the federal civil rights laws. Thus, where the evidence justifying the plan is sufficient to sustain a judgment, the federal courts will require the plans to continue. The net effect is that in many communities the existence of affirmative action plans will be unchanged, but the authority to govern the plans will pass from elected officials and civil servants to federal judges. impact on self-studies/goals & timetables In the area of self-studies, and the related area of goals and timetables, CCRI will again have less impact than one might expect. Most self-studies conducted by state and local government are required by federal law. Executive Order 11246 requires employers receiving federal funds to conduct self-studies as a condition of their funding. When such studies reveal an underutilization of women or minority employees compared to the available pool of qualified applicants, the employers are required to adopt goals and timetables designed to increase the number of women and minority employees until they mirror the available selection pool. As a result, state and local governments must utilize self-studies and must adopt employment goals and timetables for women and minorities in order to receive federal funding. Since most publicly funded self-studies and goals and timetables are required as a condition of federal funding, they too are protected by clause (e), and CCRI is unlikely to have a substantial impact on self-studies or goals and timetables.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been involved in trying to move the investigations that finally have been agreed to in order to get to the root of the facts and allegations that have been unveiled in the San Jose Mercury News under the heading ``Dark Alliance,'' written by investigative reporter Gary Webb. It has been an interesting journey over the past two weeks. Over the past 2 weeks, not only have we begun to ask questions about these revelations; we are bombarded with requests to send more information to individuals all around this Nation. I held a community meeting down in South-Central Los Angeles and reached out to about 75 community leaders. About 250 showed up. During the Congressional Black Caucus weekend here in Washington, I had a workshop. Over 3,000 people showed up at the workshop. This morning, I was up in Baltimore for the Human Rights Commission that was meeting there. Seven hundred people were there. This afternoon the Howard students rallied down near the Reflecting Pool. They had a good turnout. The major press has now gotten involved. Just this evening Tom Brokaw on NBC did quite an extensive piece. Included in that piece was John Kerry and information about his investigation. I have continued to reach out. People are calling me with all kinds of information. I began to look in the archieves, just to see what is there, and discovered some very interesting things. I decided to look in the diary that is in the archives of Oliver North. I discovered that there was a notebook entry, for example, on a conversation with Robert Owen, who was his liaison with the Contras, dated August 9, 1985. The discussion covers a plane being used by Mario Calero, brother of the head of the FDN Adolpho Calero, based in New Orleans, to ferry supplies to the Contras in Honduras. This is what the notation said: ``Honduran DC-6 which is being used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug runs into the United States.'' These are his diary notations that are in the archives. There are many more. It seems as it we are going to spend many, many hours on this.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are going to find out exactly where they went. What is interesting about one of the introductions to the John Kerry committee report was, everybody knew that there were drug runs. Several agencies of the Federal Government had distinct knowledge that drugs were being flown into the United States, and the proceeds were being used to fund the Contras. My point is this: Whether the CIA or the DEA or the Justice Department or anybody knew and did nothing, turned their heads, allowed it to go on, or directly participated in it, they are guilty of undermining the citizens of this country. They are guilty of creating the devastation of many of the communities in this country. We are going to proceed with these investigations. I am going to spend considerable time looking in the archives, going through Oliver North's diaries, looking at information that surfaced in newspapers during the period of time this was going on. We are going to get to the bottom of this. I am pleased about the involvement now of many of our churches, schools that are coming on line, universities that are getting interested, community groups that are calling from all over. People are calling from the so-called right and the left. We have citizens who say, ``Ms. Waters, I do not agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree with you on this. We want you to stick with it, to stay with it. We are outraged at the idea that our government could have known, could have been involved with this, could have been a part of a plot.'' Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. I will be with you often as we unveil this information about CIA, DEA, involvement in drug trafficking in America.

Ms. WATERS. When I checked with the DEA, who he was supposed to give the information to, nobody has a record.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. And that you may choose to use those subpoena powers at any point in your investigation and your hearings?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to caution the gentleman, before he takes such a tough stand in defense of the CIA, that there has been testimony under oath in Federal court in northern California by Mr. Blandon that he indeed under oath said he worked for the CIA, and it is also recorded and documented that he was a known drug dealer. So I want to caution the gentleman that there is testimony under oath in Federal court by one of the CIA operatives, and the gentleman from Florida needs to know that.

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

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman very much. I just wanted to put that on the Record, because the question has been asked of me by people calling in.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, as chairman of the committee, you automatically have subpoena powers; is that correct?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the cooperation that they have shown thus far in moving toward this investigation. It has been mentioned on any number of occasions that we have had these kinds of investigations, but this one, I think, is very special and different. While in the past there has been some mention of drugs, there has not been an investigation that tried to determine whether, in fact, there was an introduction of large amounts of cocaine into south central Los Angeles and spread out among the gangs in south central Los Angeles and further to other gangs in other cities, and the proceeds from this drug activity being given to the Contras to fund the FDN. So it takes a little bit of a different turn here when we look at whether or not CIA operatives were involved in this drug trafficking into inner-city areas. And of course my interest is well known. Part of my district is south central Los Angeles, where that is identified in the San Jose Mercury News report, and part of that district that I represent is plagued with crack cocaine addiction, crack-born babies, violence, gang warfare, turf warfare. So if I seem a little bit overzealous on this issue, I beg your understanding. It is something that is near and dear to me and an issue that I really do feel we need to get at in this Congress. We have had the so-called war on drugs, but as I read through the records and I see where there was a lot of drug activity around this Contra funding and where we have had operatives involved with drugs who ended up getting off with no time, little time, and all the conversations and the notations in some of the diaries of leading figures in this activity, I want you to know that it leaves me no choice but to be overzealous and to be very, very persistent and to work cooperatively with all of you to try and keep people focused on this new link, this direct link, of drugs into the inner cities. And maybe it will help us to create a real war on drugs, not just rhetoric, not just public relations efforts, but a real effort by the Congress of the United States to rid our communities of drugs and crack cocaine, one of the most awful drugs that any human being could have ever introduced.

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

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss an important intelligence matter that is not contained in this conference report and, hopefully, I can establish a colloquy with the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Dicks, on this matter. I am speaking about recent reports that hired CIA operatives sold drugs in the United States to fund the Nicaraguan contra operations in the early 1980's. The crack cocaine operation started by those that were involved in this particular project caused the introduction of the substance to south central Los Angeles and to other inner-city communities. Now, news of this scandal has spread across America like wildfire, and there has been a flurry of activities around these reports. Today, I would first like to commend Congressman Dicks, along with the gentleman from California, Congressman Dixon, and the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Combest, for their response to the request to open investigations around this issue. I would like to ask Congressman Dicks, who is here with us today, whether or not he feels it is possible for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to provide the kind of investigation that can satisfy the citizens of this country, one way or the other, that our Government, the CIA, DEA, was or was not involved in this kind of activity. The reason I ask the gentleman this is because of his seniority on the committee. He knows the quality of the work there. There is a lot of suspicion from the calls that I receive that there will not be the kind of investigation that will reap the kind of information that we need to put this issue to rest. I would like to ask the gentleman whether or not he thinks this committee is up to the chore, up to the job. What can we expect?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time and for providing some leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of discussion about drugs of late. It is in the campaign now, with candidate Dole accusing President Clinton of not paying attention, somehow blaming on him the fact that there appears to be an increase in the use of drugs by teenagers. We watch this political debate and we begin to watch legislating and legislation come forward at this time that really does not do justice to this issue. It should not be about politicking. It should not be about trying to make the public believe that something important is really happening as we look at the drug problem. The fact of the matter is there has not been a war on drugs, and there will never be a war on drugs as long as we do this kind of legislating. We debated for hours about the disparity in crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentening. We have mandatory sentencing, and the prisons are filling up with young black and Latino males, for the most part, got with one rock cocaine, small amounts of cocaine, thrown into the Federal system in prison, prisons just running over. Where are the big drug dealers? Where are the people who bring in the huge amounts of cocaine? Where are the big time manufacturers of crack? They are not really talked about. We do not really understand, or do we not care perhaps, where and how this gets into the communities in the first place. If we really want to do something about drugs, we will stop this penny ante legislating and we will do some real studying. We will get to the bottom of where the precursors are, how do they get involved in the manufacture of crack. We will get down to who the big guys are, so we can really take it off the street. This does not do this that. This is simply on of these little piecemeal bills at election time, trying to make the public believe we are doing something about drugs, and we are not. I think we are better legislators than this. I think we are better public policy makers than this. I think we should stop, we should focus, take this out of the political arena, come back here in January, and get together and really develop some public policy that is going to help the children and the young people of this Nation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. That is right, that is exactly what is going on. When we first heard a response from Janet Reno of the Justice Department, she indicated that she could not comment because of an open case. Now what we are hearing is, oh, since the CIA has decided that indeed it would hold an investigation by way of the Inspector General, she is now saying that she supports that investigation and would await the results, the results of which we are supposed to get in 60 days. Why an investigation, why must we insist on this? People say but you have done this before, you had investigations before. Let us take a look for a moment at what happened. In 1988 one 1988 investigation by a U.S. Senate subcommittee ran into a wall of official secrecy at the Justice Department. In that case congressional records show Senate investigators were trying to determine why the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, Joseph Rosanello, had given $36,000 back to a Nicaragua cocaine dealer arrested by the FBI. The money was returned, court records show, after two Contra leaders-- unbelievable--two Contra leaders sent letters to the court swearing that the drug dealer had given the cash to buy weapons for guerrillas, had been given the cash to buy weapons for guerrillas. Rosanello said it was cheaper to give the money back than to disprove that claim. The Justice Department flipped out to prevent us from getting access to people, records, finding out anything about it, recalled Jack Blum, former chief counsel to the Senate subcommittee that investigated allegations of cocaine Contra trafficking. ``It was one of the most frustrating exercises that I could ever recall,'' said Jack Blum. Now, Jack Blum was the former chief counsel to the Senate subcommittee that investigated these allegations of Contra cocaine trafficking. Again let me repeat. He said, ``It was one of the most frustrating exercises that I can ever recall.'' It was not until 1989, a few months after the Contra Sandinista war ended and 5 years after Meneses, the big drug dealer, moved from the peninsula to a ranch in Costa Rica that the U.S. Government decided, oh, it is time to take some action, sort of, with a wink. Federal prosecutors in San Francisco finally charged Mr. Meneses with conspiracy to distribute, they said, 1 kilo of cocaine in 1984, a year in which he was working publicly with FDA. So, when we talk about investigation, we know what we are going to run into, walls of secrecy, Justice Department shutdown. So we do not trust anybody. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. WATERS. Well, I think we have to be in this for the long haul. This is not something that is going to reap us any substantial answers in the short period of time. We are going to run into walls of secrecy; I just anticipate that. I anticipate that we are not going to be satisfied. However, we have gotten representations of cooperation from the CIA Director. Everybody wants to cooperate, they say. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think we have to be prepared to move at the right time to do whatever we have to do I order to continue, in order to approach it from a different direction, and so this is a beginning. We start with this possibility of investigation by the CIA, or rather by the Inspector General. We have gotten word from Newt Gingrich, who responded to me and wrote me a letter indicating that he indeed was going to proceed with the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Combest, in opening an investigation. I am very pleased, and I would like to thank Mr. Newt Gingrich, and I would like to read that letter into the Record. He says: Dear Maxine: Thank you for your letter regarding a recent series of articles that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News that alleged CIA involvement in the introduction, financing and distribution of crack cocaine in Los Angeles. I have asked House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chairman, Larry Combest, to investigate the allegations contained in these articles, and I understand he has already begun to do so. In addition, I understand the Director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch, has asked the CIA Inspector General to investigate this matter despite his own rejection of the substance of the allegations. Assuming the Clinton administration will cooperate with our efforts, I am hopeful that the chairman Combest investigation as well as the CIA IG inquiry, will reveal whether or not the allegations contained in the Mercury News articles are true or false. Thank you again for your interest in this matter. Sincerely, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House. Let me just say to the gentleman from New York that, because of our persistence, things are beginning to happen. As you know, the drug czar came out and called for an investigation. As you know, not only do we have this letter and this movement by the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, and the movement by the CIA. Civil rights organizations, the NAACP, Mr. Kweisi Mfume; mayors, Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Mayor Wellington Webb; many groups up in Pennsylvania. In Los Angeles, the county board of supervisors just passed a resolution calling on the President to get involved in an investigation. So because of our persistence, even though the major media tried to ignore us, would not carry the stories, when we held the Congressional Black Caucus weekend, 3,000 people showed up to our workshop demanding hearings, demanding investigations. My own paper, the Los Angeles Times, did not even carry that meeting, even though a Member from Los Angeles was in the forefront of the effort. Mr. Speaker, we finally are getting a little bit of network attention, but so far most people are not able to read about this in their local newspapers. It has not been reproduced. It has not been paid attention to. But because of our persistence, we are finally making something happen. Again, we are going to have to be in this for the long haul. We are going to have to organize in our communities. We are going to have to get our labor organizations, our community groups, our church groups, to reproduce this and pass it out, reproduce. We have already printed thousands of copies. People are clamoring for them. Their local newspapers will not carry the story. Their local television stations will not carry the story. But we are getting it out, and I would like the Congressional Black Caucus to continue to develop this network, working through the churches, working through private organizations, to spread the word, to get the information out. I would like to ask the gentleman, in a colloquy here, the gentleman from New York, to describe, if he will, even though he alluded to it and spoke to the devastation in our communities, and I have alluded to it or talked about it, and I will continue to talk about it. I do not know if people really understand what is going on in many of these cities, perhaps in parts of your own district, with crack cocaine addiction. How bad is it? I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens].

Ms. WATERS. The first response we received from the Justice Department was their preliminary inquiry did not reveal any of the facts of this article. However, they were going to start an investigation with the Inspector General, and of course when we met with the CIA Director last evening, he confirmed that that investigation had started. We talked to him about our concerns about that investigation. We said that nobody believes that the CIA, first of all, will investigate itself, and he assured us that the Inspector General was independent. We also said to him that attempts in the past had only gotten the kind of response that said we cannot respond because of national security, and we did not want an investigation that would come back telling us that we cannot get information because of national security interests. Third, we said to him we do not want an investigation where you come back with the report under national security interests you can only share with us and not with the public. It is important for it to be shared with the public. We discovered that the CIA Director has the authority to make that public. He also has the authority not to make it public, and this is one thing we are going to have to insist on.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for reminding us of the kind of work and the kind of time we are going to have to put in on this issue. Let me just say this, are your warnings about the stonewalling joined with warnings that I am getting all over about the danger of being involved in this kind of issue? People are wondering about my security and whether or not I am afraid that something may not happen. Let me just say this from the floor of Congress: I do not fear anybody. I am aware, as we look through the records, that people have died mysteriously who are involved in investigations. But I want to put everybody on record, as we move through these investigations, that I had better not see any attempts, any attempts to violate me or anybody else involved in this work. We are not going to move with fear, we are not going to stop doing our work, because of anybody who tries to intimidate us. I just want to put anybody on record who thinks they may be able to stop us with intimidation that I have no fear.

Ms. WATERS. That is absolutely correct. Let me also just say that, while Mr. Dole is making a part of his campaign, the priority part of his campaign, a discussion on drugs, I do not understand how he can talk about drugs and not even mention this revelation that came out August 18, 19, and 20. If you want to talk about drugs, you cannot dismiss this revelation, this series entitled ``The Dark Alliance.'' It names names, dates, and places. Mr. Speaker, I know what is going on. Mr. Dole is using this as a campaign issue, and they are playing with us one more time, the ``just say no'' kind of attitude. It is time to find another political issue to whip people up about. I do not want Mr. Dole or anybody else playing with my community on this issue. We have been harmed enough. We have been harmed by a lack of a war, we have been harmed by the Reagan policies, we have been harmed by the Bush policies, we have been harmed by a policy that allowed the funding of a war, the FDN, the Contras, on the backs of my children, on the backs of the young people of the inner cities. I do not want anybody playing with me on this issue. Let me just send a warning to Mr. Dole: If you stay out on that campaign trail, you ignore this issue, I am going to find you, Mr. Dole, and I am going to ask you publicly, why, then, are you not talking about the genesis of crack cocaine? Why are you not talking about the spread of cocaine in the inner city by CIA operatives under Reagan and under Bush? Why do you ignore the fact that we now have something that we can investigate? If you are serious about why young people have increased their use of drugs, if you are serious about getting at the bottom of this, you will take up this issue. Not only will you join us in the investigation, you will tell the Republicans further, who are in charge, not only investigate it in the Select Committee on Intelligence but all the committees that have any kind of oversight, any kind of jurisdiction. I challenge you today, Mr. Dole, to not just play with this issue, but to do the right thing and help us get to the bottom, and help us to understand how we are going to repair the harm, how we are going to deal with the devastation, how we are going to deal with the crack-addicted babies, how we are going to deal with the guns that you support being used in this country, coming into our communities.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I yield.