Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman for joining us in the sharing of information in this particular hour, and I appreciate the cooperation from all of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and particularly from those of you who would take time from your schedules to make sure we share this information with the people of the United States. Let me just continue here sharing the information of the series because it is so important to understand why we must ask for an investigation. We have not just asked for an investigation because we do not know what we are able to get from whom. We have asked the Justice Department for an investigation, we have asked the CIA for an investigation, we asked the Speaker of this House to get an investigation going with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We have asked other committee chairs who we believe have some oversight to join in the investigation. We also have a resolution, or resolutions, asking for a select committee, which we may have to have at some point if we find that we run into roadblocks. It is important for us to go in all of these directions so that we can reap information and get to the bottom of what is going on. Let me tell you----

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I come today to continue my discussion on the matter of the San Jose Mercury News article that revealed the dumping of cocaine into south-central Los Angeles by CIA operatives, cocaine that was spread among the Cripps and Bloods gang members and eventually in cities throughout this Nation. I am spending a lot of time on this issue because I believe it is important for the citizens of this country to know and understand how this country finds itself with crack addiction, crime, crack-born babies, hospitals overloaded with overdoses of crack cocaine, turf wars, all of this devastation. Where did it come from? Who caused it? This article, or these series of articles that were done by the San Jose Mercury News must be focused on. Mr. Gary Webb, the author of the series, is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. This is not a fly-by-night journalist. This is not someone who just thought this up and decided they would write something. He spent over a year investigating the leads that came to him. And what did he uncover? It is absolutely startling. Mr. Gary Webb discovered that in the late 1970's, 1979, early 1980's, two CIA operatives, Mr. Danilo Blandon and one other gentlemen found their way into south-central Los Angeles. They connected up with a gentleman, a young man named Ricky ``Freeway'' Ross. They began to supply him with tons of cocaine. That cocaine was cooked into crack. Those are the rocks that plague our communities today. Prior to the introduction of cocaine by Mr. Blandon and Mr. Meneses, cocaine was not a factor in minority neighborhoods, in the inner cities. Cocaine was the drug of the elite, of the more well-to-do, of kind of the rich and the famous. It was expensive. It could not be afforded by poor people, and it was really not a factor in poor communities. It was only when the CIA operatives, working with Ricky Ross, discovered that you could cook it and you could put it into crack form, that it could be sold cheaply because you could spread it around. You could get more out of it. And so they began to cook up the crack. They put it out into the communities on consignment. What does that mean? Prior to this time, you had to have money to get into the drug business. If you wanted to be a drug dealer, you had to go and buy cocaine. You bought it by the kilos oftentimes. But when these CIA operatives started to work with Ricky Ross, they eliminated the need to have money to invest to become a drug dealer. They put it out on consignment. When you understand this consignment spread of cocaine and crack, then you understand why they also brought the guns in with them. We wondered in south central Los Angeles, where are these guns coming from? They were not simply handguns, they are Uzis and AK-47's, sophisticated weapons brought in by the same CIA operatives because they had to enforce bringing the profits back in. About this time when you saw more and more guns coming into the community, you also saw more and more killings, more and more violence. Now we know what was going on. The drugs out in our communities on consignment were being put out to the gangs and others; if they did not bring the profits back, the guns were brought in so that they could enforce the control. You got killed. People were sent out to kill others. The killings just mounted in south central Los Angeles, and people said what are they fighting about? What are these drive-by shootings about? What is this gang warfare about? And people said oh, it is about the colors; some like red, some like blue, well, you know it was about drugs. It was about crack cocaine introduced into our communities by people who brought it in with a purpose. Why did they do this? According to Mr. Blandon, he is on record under oath testifying at a trial that, yes, he was a CIA operative but he was also engaged in funding the war in Nicaragua. He was one of those that helped form the army of the Contras, the FDN. He came from Nicaragua. He was the son of a very rich Nicaraguan. They were involved with Somoza and part of the Somoza government. When they were overthrown by the Sandinistas, they went out and formed their own army working with our Government. They formed their own army and then they had to supply them. They had to get the guns to them; they had to feed the soldiers; they had to clothe the soldiers. They had to put together an Army. And, yes, they had a lot of support from the right wing, from conservatives right here in the Congress of the United States who set out to get the citizens of this Nation to use their hard-earned dollars to help fund that war. That effort was resisted by many in this House, but they persisted. But long before they got any dollars, there was money flowing to the FDN and to the so-called resistance armies. Where did that money come from? We know now that that money was coming from the sale of drugs to the citizens of America, the profits of which went back down to fund the FDN, working with Nicaraguans connected with Somoza, Nicaraguans that were embraced by the right wing of America. America's children, American citizens exposed, crack cocaine fed into the neighborhoods in order to get money to fund the FDN and the other armies resisting, fighting against the Sandinistas. It is an outrageous plot. It is an unconscionable plot. How would anybody ever dream up this kind of madness? Mr. Maneses, directly connected to the Cali drug cartel, got into this country and was given citizenship, even though people in our Government knew he was a murderer. Since when do we let murderers and criminals into this Nation? I guess we let them in when they are going to do the bidding of those who have decided they can get support by allowing criminals and crooks to come in to sell drugs to fund the Army that they want to fund. Everybody needs to read the San Jose Mercury news series under the banner of ``The Dark Alliance.'' This is not simply a story about allegations; these are facts, names, places, dates. I decided once I had read it that I was going to find out more. I have developed a communication with Gary Webb who wrote the story. I am in touch with him almost daily, asking questions. Following the Democratic Convention, after I read the information, I flew back to Los Angeles and I went to San Diego and I visited Ricky ``Freeway'' Ross, one of the young men who is a principal in this story, an African-American young male who sold drugs, who got his drugs from Blandon and Maneses, a young man who had a 10-year relationship with Blandon, a young man who had been to Blandon's homes both in Rialto, CA, and in Florida, a young man who knew Blandon's wife, who had done business with both of them. The young man who had a long-term relationship because he was the recipient of the many kilos and the tons of cocaine that had been brought into south central Los Angeles. I went to San Diego. I went to the San Diego metropolitan detention facility, a Federal facility where Mr. Rick ``Freeway'' Ross is now incarcerated. I spent time with him and I asked him about the article. I asked him about details in the article. He confirmed that and more. He described to me the first time he had ever seen an Uzi and how it was given to him and his friends. And then he described how they continued to bring in the arms, and they had an extensive arsenal. It went so far until Mr. Blandon and his friends even tried to give them a grenade launcher. Ricky Ross said, ``My God, what do we need with a grenade launcher?'' They had everything they needed. They had scramblers so that when they talked on the telephone they could not be eavesdropped on. They had money counters. They counted money 24 hours a day. At one point in this 10-year period, they made $54 million in 1 year. They were making $2 million a day oftentimes, $1 to $2 million a day just with Blandon and this gentleman who was selling drugs. And the story goes on and on and on naming individuals, identifying situations. Ricky Ross is in prison not because he was apprehended during the time he was selling all of these drugs. He is in prison now because he was set up by the man who was selling him the drugs. Ricky Ross was contacted by Mr. Blandon years later, just a couple of years ago, asking him to get back into the trade. Ricky Ross said to me that he told him, ``I do not want to get back in the trade.'' He was called any number of times by Mr. Blandon, who told him how easy it would be. Ricky Ross told me, he said to him, ``I am trying to go straight. I am trying to build a studio. I am trying to have a cultural program. I am trying to find dollars to bring the young people in and work with them and get some programs and activities going for the many young man who are very vulnerable, young men who could be approached by drug dealers who would take a chance.'' Mr. Blandon continued until Ricky Ross and two of his friends decided they were going to take another chance, and they went down to San Diego to pick up a truck loaded with 100 kilos of drugs supplied to them again by Mr. Blandon. When they got to the appointed spot, Mr. Blandon handed him the keys, they opened the truck, stepped in, and the DEA agents and others swooped down upon them, arresting him. He has been convicted and he is awaiting his sentence. Ricky Ross should have known better. You do not get to go off without punishment when you perform these kinds of criminal acts. He should not have been involved in the trafficking of drugs. And he is going to have to do time, and so be it. But what about Blandon? He has been selling, he is in the records if you check them. They have known about him since 1974. He is now on the payroll of the DEA. He is an informant now for the DEA. Oh, they paid him $166,000 in the past year. Mr. Blandon, the drug dealer who introduced cocaine in large amounts into the black community into south central Los Angeles, that spread across this Nation, now in many cities whether we are talking about Harlem or the Bronx, St. Louis, Philadelphia, in southern cities, Mr. Blandon connected to Mr. Maneses and the Cali Cartel who flew drugs from Colombia, airplanes that land in Texas, in Arkansas, right in our own country, is free. He is under the protection of the DEA. He is one of their people. He is hired by them. He is an informant. And so I guess Mr. Blandon goes free because he can go and encourage, solicit, and get another young black male involved in selling drugs, point the DEA to them, get a bust as if he has done something, while he remains free to do what he wants to do. It is outrageous. We have got to do something about it. The Congressional Black Caucus has decided to appoint me chair of a special task force, and we are going to move to get investigations. We have got some updating that we are going to do, and we are going to come to this floor on a regular basis and we are going to give those updates. At this time, before continuing, however, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York, another one that is engaged in this battle, Congressman Major Owens.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the President's veto of a misguided bill, H.R. 1833. This bill would instruct doctors on medical procedures that politicians know little about. It would put women at risk who deserve the safest, most effective treatment available under any circumstance. Let me share with you the words of Erica Fox from Los Angeles, a woman who was told that there was something ``seriously wrong'' with her fetus during her sixth month of pregnancy. The outcome at best was very, very poor. When she got the news, she explains, ``I had my whole family with me, and at least 5 of them are M.D.'s. They had discussed everything with the doctors and they, too, felt there was no other option * * *.'' Her father, Dr. Walter E. Fox, shared these words. As a doctor, I must say that it worries me greatly that those that represent me in Washington would think to take away my ability to care for my patients and their health to the best of my ability. And, as I see it, H.R. 1833 does just that. He continues, You are not doctors and most of you have not had a daughter or a sister or a wife or a patient who has been in this situation. But for those of us who find ourselves there, we need to have every medical advancement working for us, and the choice to use it. ``I feel that [my doctor] saved my life,'' said Erika Fox. ``And that my fetus was spared any pain * * *. She continues, My husband and I are now trying again. . . . There is hope that we will have a healthy baby sometime in the not to distant future. Hope is all you have left when your dreams are dashed the way ours were last October. Don't override Clinton's veto of 1833, She says: Don't let the government take away our hope. . . . I think Mrs. and Dr. Fox's words best explain why Congress must not outlaw a medical procedure. If this woman were your daughter, wife, sister--you would want as many medical options as possible, you would want the best doctor, and you would want her to be able to have children in the future. This bill would take away these options. Let us leave this issue to people who know the facts. Let us support women, their safety, and their families. Doctors, women, and their families--not politicians--must make these decisions. Oppose the veto override of H.R. 1833.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand that this House investigate recent reports of CIA-organized military efforts which led to the introduction of crack cocaine into south central Los Angeles and other inner city areas. The San Jose Mercury News, in a recent series of newspaper articles, has documented the involvement of CIA operatives in the earliest trafficking of crack cocaine into this country. Crack cocaine has ravaged our communities with despair, violence, addiction, and death. In what appears to be an overzealous attempt to raise money for the Nicaraguan Contras in the early 1980's, it is alleged that the CIA-run Contras used profits, profits made from selling drugs in the United States, to fund their movement. Mr. Speaker, these charges are so severe that they require immediate congressional action. Today, I call on this House to pass legislation I have introduced enabling an Iran-Contra-type select committee to get to the bottom of the allegations that have been made. We cannot wait to consider this matter, Mr. Speaker. Too much time has been lost already.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I come today to try and create a real discussion about drugs. In this election year, we have begun to hear a discussion, a discussion of blame. Obviously President Dole has decided he is going to make drugs an issue, and we kind of hear them talking about who funded what and who did not fund what. While this discussion is going on, there is a startling revelation about something that took place in America that will outrage the average citizen. The San Jose Mercury News published a series of articles starting August 18, 19, and 20. These articles were done by an award-winning journalist named Gary Webb. After over a year of investigation, what did he find out? I think it is all reported, maybe in the first paragraph of the article that you see displayed here. It says, For the better part of a decade a Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Cripps and Blood street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions of drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, a Mercury News investigation has found. Now Gary Webb is indeed an award-winning journalist who developed these articles, and they are extraordinary because it describes starting back as far as 1979 how CIA operatives came into south central Los Angeles, part of the district that I represent, connected with a young man named Ricky ``Freeway'' Ross. One of the operatives was Mr. Danilo Blandon, the other was a Mr. Meneses. They connected with this man in south central Los Angeles, supplied him with tons of cocaine which was cooked into rock cocaine, spread out among street gangs and others who began to sell this drug at a very cheap price. Before they came into south central Los Angeles, cocaine was not known there. Cocaine was the drug of kind of the elite, the rich, and the famous. It could not be afforded in poor neighborhoods. But when they learned to cook it up and put it into rock cocaine, they could sell it for very small amounts of money. But not only did they bring the drugs in, they brought the guns along with them. I went a week ago to the San Diego Federal Detention Center, the metropolitan center in San Diego, and met with Mr. Ricky Ross to find out whether or not he could confirm what is displayed in the series of articles. Not only did he take me back to 1979, when he was 19 years old and started selling these drugs, he said: ``Ms. Waters, they brought the guns in. I didn't know what an uzi was. They brought us so many weapons, we had a huge arsenal,'' and he went on to verify that they even brought in a grenade launcher. But of course they were putting drugs out on the street on consignment, which simply means you can pass them around, people do not have to have money to become drug dealers, you pass them around, but they better bring the profits back, and the guns were there to ensure. Back in the 1980's we saw this terrific activity. Something was happening in south central Los Angeles. We began to see the drug addiction, the crime, the gang warfares, the violence. None of us in our wildest imagination would have thought that our own Government may have been involved. To have this revealed to us helps us to understand the devastation, not only in Los Angeles, but all across America as the gangs spread out, as the drug dealers spread out to sell crack cocaine. As a result of this we have crack addicted babies, we have women walking the streets of America cracked out, we have homelessness. Much of the homelessness, whether it is in New York, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, are crack addicts. The cost of health care in our emergency rooms has gone up. Mr. Speaker, this is just a beginning. I am going to talk about it every day. We are going to get to the bottom of it. We are calling for investigations. We are going to find out who is behind all of this. We are going to do something about it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misleading English-only bill. Everyone knows English is indeed our official language. According to the 1990 census, 97 percent of all people in this country speak English well. Immigrants do not resist learning English. Most immigrants are proud to learn English and proud to speak English. This bill is but another divisive, mean-spirited initiative that does nothing to improve the ability of all of us in this diverse society to live and work together. How dare any law deny an elected official the right to communicate with their constituents in any language other than English? How can a country that reaches out to cities in other countries all over the world in the great sister city movement of this country look its sister cities from countries like Mexico, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, and Africa, and many more, and say, ``We love you like a sister, we respect your culture, we appreciate your diversity, and we invite you to come to the United States.'' And yet say to them, ``But when you come to America, don't bring your language with you.'' Forty-three percent of my constituents are Latino. We respond to all of our constituents. We respond to them however we need to respond to them, orally or in writing, and we do it in Spanish. We do that, and guess what? I do not intend to ever stop doing that. I do not care what law is passed. The supporters of this bill claim to want everyone to learn to speak English. Yet they support the defunding of bilingual education while millions of immigrants are on waiting lists to learn Spanish. This bill deserves to be defeated in every language. I ask my colleagues for a ``no'' vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, someday more politicians will approach tough decisions such as welfare reform with more care and integrity. This is not that day. Someday politicians will place children above politics. This is not that day. Someday politicians will place truth above personal gain. This is not that day. Too many Democrats and Republicans will run for reelection on this so-called welfare reform legislation. The truth is this bill does nothing to train mothers for work, to develop jobs, to help recipients become independent. This bill is welfare fraud, not welfare reform. This bill penalizes poor working families and will drive more children into poverty. Only time will reveal the shame of what happened this day, and only history will record the blatant lack of courage to simply do the right thing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct the conferees. First, let me make one attempt, one final attempt, to interject some sanity into this debate about the future of mothers and their children. We can accomplish welfare reform without abandoning poor children. If this government cannot agree to that, it will agree to nothing. Both the House and Senate versions of this bill would decimate the food stamps program; both would unduly restrict benefits for legal immigrants. The proponents of this legislation are clearly driven by two impulses, neither of which is reforming welfare. First, they are eager to balance the budget on the backs of poor children rather than tackle corporate welfare. And second, they are attempting to create a wage issue, which they know divides Americans, and inject their divisive spirit into this political season. This is not how we make sound public policy, Mr. Speaker. The last bill that was sent to the President's desk would have thrown at least 1.2 million children into poverty. While we do not have a comparable study on the impact of this bill, I would ask my colleagues, how many children will this Congress feel comfortable making poor? One million, 2 million, a half million? Where is the job creation? Where are the incentives to business to stop exporting our jobs to Third World countries for cheap labor so that we can provide jobs for jobless Americans here at home? Mr. Speaker, many welfare recipients want desperately to change their lives. They want to correct the mistakes in their lives. They want help, not more pain. They want jobs. Let us train them, not starve them. Mr. Speaker, we should support this motion to instruct the conferees to keep children out of poverty, preserve Medicaid, maximize food stamps, provide job training and work opportunities. This is not fun and games. This issue is about human lives.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about putting the money where our mouths have been. If we ask any Member of Congress whether or not they are opposed to sexism, racism, ageism, and discrimination against the disabled, they will all say yes. But rhetoric is one thing. If in fact Members are against all of these things, they must ensure that we have the kind of agency that can investigate the complaint, that can take this cases. We have heard the gentlewoman from Colorado say as of 1995 there are 96,000 cases backlogged. The only way we are going to reduce that caseload is by providing the necessary resources to do the work. The offset makes good sense. The prisons are opening later than anticipated, so they will not need as much money to staff the new prisons as quickly as was believed in the past. So if the money is not needed, why put money over there when it will not be utilized, it will not be used? Put the money into EEOC. Make sure that we address the problems of racism, sexism, ageism, and take care of the disabled.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, both of these welfare reform bills before us are little more than poll-driven political responses to a real problem. This is not true welfare reform. Instead we are placing a foot on the necks of poor children and families and calling it reform. Every Member of Congress understands the difference between an AFDC entitlement and not having one. We all understand the difference between block grants and Federal involvement in this problem. In desperation, I appeal to each Member's spiritual sense. I challenge those who claim moral values. To the Christian Coalition supporters, I challenge you today, the Bible is replete with examples of how we are obligated to treat the poor. Witness Proverbs 14:31: He who oppresses a poor man insults his maker, but he who is kind to the needy honors him. Proverbs 29:7: A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge. Ecclesiastes 4:1: Defraud not the poor of his living, and make not the needy eyes to wait long. Ecclesiastes 4:4: Reject not the supplication of the afflicted; neither turn away thy face from a poor man. Proverbs 21:13: Who so stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard. And Deuteronomy 15:7-8: Thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother; but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I think it is very important that we put the facts on the floor and that we not get so carried away with our rhetoric that we mischaracterize what has taken place here. Every Democrat has voted for a welfare bill. Remember the Deal bill? I am sure the gentleman is familiar with that. It had tougher work requirements in it. If the gentleman would like to correct the record, I know the gentleman does not want to go on the record misquoted or misunderstood. The gentleman just said we had never voted for welfare reform. I think the gentleman needs to correct that.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, this is not welfare reform, this is welfare bashing. Welfare reform has become the political football in this election year. Children and families are going to be hurt if this bill is signed into law. Poor children in families will be hungrier and they will be poorer. Yes, some politicians will use this bill to get reelected, rather than spend their time to produce credible, sensible, welfare reform. Madam Chairman, I believe in welfare reform and I believe we can do a better job. This bill gets rid of all the entitlements. That means you can have a family who has worked hard, mother and father worked hard for the last 20 years and all of a sudden they are downsized on the job, they lose their job, the job exported somewhere to a Third World country for cheap labor. They could go in for welfare benefits and, because there is no entitlement, they can say I am sorry, I cannot give it to you. Money has run out. Sorry, there is none left for you. That does not make good sense. It puts a 5-year limit on the time that you can receive benefits. That does not make good sense. There are some people who could get off welfare in 6 months or a year, and some who may have college education and all they need to do is just get back into the workplace with a little assistance, a little experience. There are others who dropped out of school a long time ago, who may be illiterate. It is going to take them a longer time. They need to be job trained, they need to have their GEDs, they need to get some experience, they need to be helped to get back into the workplace. It does not make good sense, Madam Chairman, to treat everybody the same. We must assess each individual and determine where their strengths are, where their weaknesses are. Most welfare recipients want to be independent. They do not like being on welfare. We need to have credible child care, we need to have credible job training programs. They will get off. If politicians would simply use their time and their talent to create credible welfare reform for this country we could get people off welfare, but this is welfare bashing. This no entitlements, everybody off at the same time, this does nothing to deal with real welfare reform. Members are going to starve some children, they are going to take food stamps from a family of three that only makes about $6,200 a year, they are going to take food out of the mouths of hungry children in this election year, having people believing that they are protecting their taxpayer dollars. I want to tell the Members, nobody is going to be protected. What we are going to have is more desperate families out there, more desperate mothers and fathers who will say, ``I am not going to allow these children to be hungry, I am not going to allow them to be treated this way. I have done everything that I could. I worked hard every day. ``When I went to the welfare office after having worked 20 years, you told me there are no more entitlements. I cannot get any help.'' Is that fair? No. I will tell the Members what is fair. It is fair to have entitlements and equal application of the law. I ask my colleagues in the House to reject this non-credible nonsensical welfare bill.

Ms. WATERS. The gentleman needs to correct the record.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the so- called Defense of Marriage Act. As I listen to the dire predictions, the ``sky is falling'' rhetoric and hateful pronouncements, I am reminded of one of the greatest declarations in our Nation's history: We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We have nothing to fear, Mr. Chairman. Same-sex marriage is legal in no jurisdiction in the United States. We have nothing to fear. The Hawaii case, Bare versus Lewin decided 3 years ago and making its way through the appeals process, will not be finally resolved for some time. There is no crisis. We have nothing to fear. Eleven States have already invoked their unquestioned power and enacted laws, objected to same-sex marriage. There is no need for new laws. We really have nothing to fear. Loving, long-term relationships between men and women or between same-sex couples do not threaten our children, our families or our communities. On the contrary, stable relationships enhance society's ability to raise healthy, engaged, and productive citizens. There is no problem. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Many Members of this Chamber are simply afraid to face the changes that are taking place in our society. We cannot run away from change, Mr. Chairman. We cannot embrace fear and scare tactics as society advances and evolves. We have a responsibility to represent all Americans, as Members of the House of Representatives. Let us not be guided by prejudice, ignorance, and fear. Let us not use a segment of our population to employ a political strategy for this election year. Let us act with compassion, strengthen vision. We have nothing to fear but fear, Mr. Chairman. Oppose this bill.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WATERS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I think if we can work together to ensure the research, management, and support account for education programs of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, that we will eliminate the slippage that we see in funding levels. The chairman is aware that that account has been as high as $6 million, but it could fall to as low as $3 million this year. We know that education can work. Education is the first line of preventing these diseases, and it is particularly important for women's heart disease. If we can work together through this process, we can ensure that the education budget shares in the increase provided to NHBLI. Mr. Chairman, I hate to push this issue. I know that with all the work the gentleman is doing and all the attempts the gentleman is making, he is trying to focus attention on so many things, but I have gotten focused now on cardiovascular diseases of women, and I am very moved by the fact that many of my friends now who are my age are literally dying, women in their fifties who are dying from cardiovascular diseases. I think we need not wait much longer until we have a higher number of women dying. We can in fact, with a little attention, focus some education so we can eliminate this as a major problem in our society.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman for his leadership in increasing NIH by over $800 million and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute by some $83 million. I rise to have this colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee because I am very concerned about problems of women as it relates to cardiovascular diseases. It is not well understood or known, but heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women. However, women are not represented in research. For many years women and minorities were either absent or underrepresented in clinical trials. Most of the treatment and equipment are based on studies that have been limited basically to men. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, many of the doctors in this country remain unaware of women's more subtle symptoms, such as shortness of breath, dizziness, and arm pain. They do not recognize these as symptoms of cardiovascular disease, and oftentimes when women go in complaining of these symptoms they are mistreated, misdiagnosed, or not treated at all. Of the women who die suddenly from heart attack, 63 percent of them had no evidence of previous heart disease. They did not know, there had been no other signs. But the fact of the matter is they have these symptoms that are unrecognized by doctors. Four out of 5 women are not aware that heart disease is the leading killer of women in this country. I know that oftentimes we hear a lot about cancer, we hear a lot about other diseases. Most people think that cancer may be the No. 1 killer of women, but Mr. Chairman, I want Members to know that heart disease is the leading killer of women in this country. One in 5 females has some form of cardiovascular disease. Half a million females die from cardiovascular diseases each year. This is almost double the number of deaths of all cancers combined. Mr. Chairman, appreciating the work of the chairman of the subcommittee with NIH and the way that he has worked to fund them, and I know he understands these problems, as we continue with this year's appropriations process, I would like to know if we can work together to ensure that NIH, in particular the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, focus a fair portion of their increased budget resources on research, prevention, and education programs for women, and at-risk women, including African-American women.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during votes on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, as I was attending my grandson's high school graduation ceremony. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on H.R. 3525, the Church Arson Prevention Act.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 232, the Kennedy of Massachusetts amendment to H.R. 3603, the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' amendment offered by mr. bono

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, If I thought this was a serious attempt by Speaker Newt Gingrich to improve the welfare reform debate, I would seriously try to deal with the waiver issues. However, consideration of a waiver for this Wisconsin welfare plan today is but a cynical political ploy to do a one-upsmanship on the President. I am sick and tired of some Democrats, and some Republicans alike, using welfare children and families as pawns in a political squabble to try to make voters believe they are reforming welfare. This plan may be credible, but who knows. We have had no hearings, and the floor jockeys on the bill do not have the faintest notion of what is in this plan. We all need to stop the posturing, the game playing and the deceit. This bill does not deserve the vote of one serious Member of this body. Welfare certainly can be reformed, but this is not the way to deal with this issue. Neither Speaker Gingrich or Bill Clinton should drive us to do political gymnastics on this issue. I am told under the Wisconsin plan that families would only get help when parents are participating in work activities. But there is no assurance that sufficient placements will be available for parents. This plan does not give any details as to what happens when that family cannot find work within a specified period of time. It appears the whole family, including the children, could lose all cash aid. Despite their best efforts to find work, children of poor families will be even poorer under this bill. All guarantees of health coverage for children and families under the Wisconsin plan would be repealed. The Wisconsin State statute states that the new program is in lieu of Medicaid. Notwithstanding fulfillment of the eligibility requirements for any component of the Wisconsin Works, including Medicaid, an individual is not entitled to services or benefits under Wisconsin Works. Let us all try to get real. Poor children and families deserve a lot better. Allow the 88 waivers to be reviewed and considered and not put on a political fast track. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of this body to be more serious, to give more consideration, to treat families better, and stop playing this political game. It does not make any sense that the response to a remark by the President about this plan would drive us to overthrow the entire review process and come to this floor, without any hearings, without any knowledge of what is in the bill, trying to make people believe we are doing something to reform welfare and drive it through this legislature because Members think those who are running for office will be too afraid not to vote against it. I am sick and tired of it, the American public is tired of the political games being played on serious issues. I ask that this bill be voted down.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that is to be considered under the unanimous-consent request, amendment No. 74.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that it is not authorized in this legislation. However, the other banks are not authorized either, but they got a waiver in the rule. So what we have here is a construction that recognized that the other banks were not authorized, they waived the rule so they could fund them, but they excluded the African- American Bank, and the chairman of the committee knows that took place. So it is not a matter of simply not having an authorization. The others do not have one either.