Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment. I think it is a worthwhile amendment, and it is a consistent amendment with what the chairman said about his desire to put public housing into the hands of the tenants or the residents. As a matter of fact, I have heard that statement made several times this evening, that it is the chairman's desire, it is the desire of the Republican Party, it is the desire of the leadership, to put public housing in the hand of the residents, to give them more power to make decisions about their lives and about their living. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the way to do it. I understand very well how it works now. As a matter of fact, many cities across this Nation simply appoint people who are well connected. You know the mayor in some cities and the mayor is making the appointment. If you have been involved in the campaign, if you know a contributor, what have you, you get an appointment. The same thing is true with the members of the city council. They appoint their friends and cronies and those politically connected. That is okay. I guess there should be some payoff for those who are supportive. But the fact of the matter is, residents have been excluded from decisions about their daily living. We have these resident councils in each of the housing authorities or the projects. However, oftentimes they are kind of left to try and be involved in ways that they do not really know how to be involved. We have the residents who are supposed to be organized at each site. Oftentimes they are not getting any training. They do not even know when a board meeting takes place. They do not receive the notices, they are not encouraged to be at the board meetings. The agendas are developed without their input. It is time for us to make sure that we mean what we say. If in fact we have the resident councils at each site and we then have the area councils, and somehow they are supposed to be involved in decision making, then we must make sure that they have the ultimate involvement, the ultimate involvement, which is that they work their way up to the board. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is saying in his amendment that at each of these local housing projects they would have an opportunity to vote. They would have an opportunity to recommend to those who do the appointing, those that they think will serve them well at the board. You talk about residents in public housing projects who somehow do not seem to understand what happens and the kinds of decisions the management must make. Well, if you want people to understand the budget and how it works and whether or not they can have revitalized apartments, whether or not they can get new screens on the doors, whether or not they can change the heating systems, they have to understand how much money is available. If they do not understand the money, then they do not understand what you claim are management problems or how to help make decisions about how best to use the money. I think residents have a lot of input that they need to be able to give. They know more about these buildings, about these grounds, and about the communities they live in than most of the political appointees, who never go to these housing projects, will ever know, and I think they deserve to be at the board meetings helping to formulate those agendas and giving input that is going to make good sense. I think they will have some cost effective suggestions about how best to manage. I think they will know how to save money. I think they could tell the board about the personnel and the workers who are getting paid and about what they are doing and that they are not doing. The board members do not know that now. They are not out in these housing projects. But I can tell you, the people who live there can tell you what the maintenance crew is doing and what they are not doing, if they can ever get to a board meeting. They are not encouraged to be at the board meetings, they are not wanted at those board meetings, their opinions are not respected. That is why you see some resistance to having them on boards. It really does not make good sense to say it is all right to have them, maybe one, if there is a big housing authority, and maybe none if there is a small housing authority. That does not have anything to do with big or small. If you have got five members on a small housing authority board and five members on a large housing authority board, they both deserve representation, and it makes no difference what their size is. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This is true empowerment. This is true respect for residents. I ask support for the Fields amendment.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman makes a good point that we certainly could have situations, as we know, in this United States where people lose their homes because there are acts of nature, and we certainly do not want to send the message that we do not somehow want to assume some responsibility in insuring that there is replacement housing. But beyond that, my colleagues in this House, even with the goals that we have articulated in the preamble to housing legislation in the past, we still have millions of people who are without decent, safe housing in America. We need that goal throughout, not simply the inner cities of America. I am not talking about St. Louis and Philadelphia, and I am not simply talking about Harlem or other cities that people would immediately want to think about. I am talking about rural America also, where people are living in shacks, where people still do not have running water in America. I am talking about down in the delta in Mississippi, where we have people not only without running water, but people who have rags stuffed in the openings in the side of their homes and coverings put on roofs of plastic and other materials in order to keep the rain out. So I am sure that those who thought about taking out this goal, this wonderful goal that speaks to family values, this goal that talks about insuring that children have a safe and decent place to live. I am sure they did not know what they were saying.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Members, I am pleased that I happen to come to the floor at a time where there appears that we can have some agreement about how we can get language back into this legislation that will place us squarely on the frontlines in ensuring that this Nation places priorities where they should be. As a matter of fact, I am very pleased that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has offered to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] an opportunity to put this language back in that will ensure that this is a goal that we have in this country, that we have a goal of trying to make sure that there is safe and decent housing for all Americans. This does not mean, however, that we have to pay for housing for everybody. This does not mean that we have to appropriate money in order to build housing. This simply means that we think it is good, it is right, and it is meaningful to have decent housing for everybody, and I think it would be a wonderful thing for the Congress of the United States, the House of Representatives this evening, to say to America we believe that everybody should have what we have. Mr. Chairman, everybody in this Congress goes home at night to a wonderful place to sleep. As a matter of fact, most people in this Congress have two or three places to sleep. We have a place here in Washington, we have a place in our district. Some of the more fortunate have summer homes. Some have two or three homes. And I am sure that we would not want to send the message that while we enjoy the comforts of two and three and four homes, that somehow we cannot go on record as saying we think every American deserves a decent, safe, and secure place to live.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for all of the work that he is doing in this Nation on behalf of poor people and working people, particularly paying attention to their housing needs. Really I thank the gentleman from new York, Mr. Lazio, for the job he is doing, and I agree with my friend, Mr. Kennedy, we could clean up this legislation and, with the Kennedy-Gutierrez amendment, perhaps we could all support this bill. Mr. Chairman, for now I must rise in strong opposition to this bill. H.R. 2406 completely restructures public and tenant-based housing in ways that will have detrimental consequences for the very families they are intended to serve. We all recognize there is a need for reform, but this bill, H.R. 2406, goes too far. This bill will put poor families in jeopardy of losing their housing because they will be unable to pay higher rents. Applicants who have been on waiting lists for years, may never get housing assistance under this bill because they are not in the desired income range. I am most concerned with the provisions in this bill that give housing authorities broad authority to set minimum and maximum rent without the protection of the Brooke amendment. Under H.R. 2406, residents, regardless of their income or circumstances, can be charged whatever rent housing authorities set. At a minimum, all residents will pay $25 to $50 in rent. This will apply to residents with income as well as those with no income at all. For many families, this will mean choosing between shelter and food or clothing or medicine. About two-thirds of those affected will be families with children. These are families with the worst-case housing needs. These are families with very little income, and in many cases no income at all. These are the families that programs like public and assisted housing are designed to help. How can we bring this bill to the floor when we know that worst-case housing needs reached an all-time high of 5.3 million in 1993, and that number has remained high? Almost 2 million of those with worst-case needs are working households, including many working-poor families with children. Are we going to just turn our backs on these families? That is exactly what this bill does, and this is exactly why I cannot support it, unless we have these amendments. Mr. Chairman, I am not just here because I want to preserve something that does not work. I am here because I know first hand about the needs of poor people. I am here because I know first hand about the families that live in these housing authorities. I did not visit them just 1 day. Every time I go home I make sure I spend time in public housing authorities. Certainly we have problems, but these problems are not created by the people who need this housing. The problems sometimes are in management. We do not need to kick them out of housing by charging them higher rents. We need to support the ability for them to have a decent and safe place to live.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Once again, this rule gives a clear demonstration of the priorities of Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership. Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership are stopping the minimum wage legislation from coming to the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker and Members, the gentleman from Colorado keeps asking why did the Democrats not do this in the past, why did the President not say he supported it in the past. It does not matter. It should be done now. Then is then and now is now. It is time for us to step up to the plate for the workers of this country. Besides, I think the gentleman from Colorado is off the point. Why will Newt Gingrich not come to this floor and tell the American people why he is standing in the way of a debate that would give a simple 90 cents per hour increase to those who make the least amount of money in this country? It is important for the American people to understand. This is simply about whether or not we recognize that American workers are hurting, whether or not we recognize that CEO's and others are getting richer and richer while the least of these is getting worse and worse in this country. It is not about what was not done yesterday. It was not about the fact that people were afraid of the business community months ago. It is about whether or not, given he has the power, Newt Gingrich has the power to bring it to the floor, whether or not he is going to do it on behalf of the workers.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. It simply says in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. That is the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, the tragic bombing is not a reason to repeal the sixth amendment to the Constitution. The habeas corpus reform provisions in this bill which require Federal courts to ignore unconstitutional court convictions and sentences unless the State court decision, though wrong as a constitutional matter, was unreasonably wrong, innocent persons will be held in prison or executed in violation of the Constitution. The bill would impose unreasonable short time limits for filing a claim for habeas corpus relief, limit petitioners to only one round of Federal review, and mandates the petitioner meet an unreasonably high clear and convincing burden of proof in order to secure relief. This business of the conviction or sentence may be a little bit unconstitutional, if so, that is OK, as opposed to unreasonably wrong or unconstitutional, is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, that is like saying one can be a little bit pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not. The sentence or conviction either meet the constitutional muster or they do not. We cannot and must not shred and defy our Constitution little by little, bit by bit. We American public policymakers are better than that. We love and respect the Constitution more than that. We cannot in the name of expedient politics disrespect the world's greatest document, the Constitution of the United States. Terrorism is wrong. My sympathy is with the victims, but we must maintain our integrity and support the Constitution of the United Sates. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this measure.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strenuous opposition to this conference report. Remember the famous Pinto automobile recall, the exploding gas tanks. Remember the fact that the manufacturer knew the gas tank in the back of the car would explode if hit in an accident. Remember the in-house memo that the manufacturer sent that admitted they knew the gas tank would explode, but made the cold-blooded decision it would not be cost- effective to recall the car? They said it would cost them too much money. Lives were lost. People were harmed. How dare anybody suggest we dismantle our current product liability laws? Greedy corporations will increase their profits at the expense of the American people if we, as public policymakers, do not have enough backbone to stand up for the protections for our citizens. We do not deserve to be here if we cannot protect them. As many as 6,000 American lives were saved each year due to the current deterrent of product liability laws. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham. It must be defeated.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for bringing us together to discuss the vital issue of women and wages in our country. While women have made some economic strides in the past few decades, we still have a long way to go. This session of Congress, under our new Republican leadership, was especially brutal for women--it was, and continues to be, antiwoman, antichoice, and antiworking family. Today, most women work and spend less time with their children and families. Many cannot afford health insurance for their families and worry about their economic security in old age. This Republican-led Congress has passed many bills to weaken and threaten women's rights, health, freedom, opportunities, economic equity, and economic security. They have cut student loans, Social Security, family planning services, and child care. They have tried to take away our constitutional right to choose. They have attempted to slash funding for school nutrition programs, and have abolished important job training programs that train women for higher paying, nontraditional jobs. They have attacked affirmative action. Let's talk about affirmative action, and how we need it to help level the playing field with men. Today women are still paid less for the same work. Women taxpayers are not getting their money's worth. Even with affirmative action, we make only 72 cents to a man's dollar. This is a disgrace. In 1993, female managers earned 33 percent less than male managers, female college professors earned 23 percent less than male professors, and female elementary school teachers earned 22 percent less than male elementary school teachers, Let's not dismantle affirmative action until these discrepancies in wages are entirely erased. The old boy network is alive and strong. Sexism and racism still exist and must be remedied. That's what affirmative action is all about. We must encourage and train women to seek higher paying jobs in order for them to successfully provide for their families. Did you know that women who choose nontraditional female careers, such as fire-fighters or engineers, can expect to have lifetime earnings that are 150 percent of women who choose traditional careers like clerical workers or beauticians? We will not crack the ``glass ceiling'' until we break out of the ``pink collar ghetto.'' At this time of corporate downsizing and Government budget cutting, women must work even harder to secure a place in a changing economy. This is no easy task, especially when important programs for women have been slashed, such as the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. This program, reduced by 22 percent this year, particularly affects female students who need exposure to high-skill, high-wage career options that are not traditional for girls. Cuts in job training programs, and the elimination of the Women's Educational Equity Act further hurt women's prospects for achieving pay equity with men in the near future. There is some hope, however. We must start to teach our daughters-- the next generation of women workers--to become independent thinkers and problem-solvers, so that they may increase their self-confidence and attain high-paying jobs as adults. We can praise them for taking risks, and for their ideas rather than their appearance. We can encourage them to master computers and take leadership positions. We can enroll them in sports and begin to discuss career options now. We can serve as mentors and role models. A few women have made it to the top of the corporate ladder. Two women sit on the Supreme Court, two head the Justice Department, and a record 31 percent of President Clinton's appointments to the Federal bench were women. My State, California, is the only State headed by two female Senators. President Clinton, in this 1997 budget, has preserved funding for many programs important to women and families, including child care, child support, and job training. The Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, under the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey and Congresswoman Connie Morella, has been very active in assuring that women's concerns are not forgotten, even when we represent only 10 percent of the House of Representatives. Later on this year, we will continue the tradition of introducing the Women's Economic Equity Act. This package of bills will help women continue to succeed in the workplace. Thank you, again, Congresswoman Norton, for your commitment to women and economic equality, and for this opportunity to discuss women in the workplace.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in supporting the substitute. It is time to stop just talk about health care reform, and accomplish some real health care reform. This substitute represents a sensible approach to health care reform, and it may be the only chance we have to enact affordable health care for the American people. This bill would prohibit many of the current unfair insurance practices which deny and exclude individuals and families with significant health problems. Insurers often deny health coverage for preexisting conditions, the very illnesses most likely to require quality medical care. Approximately 81 million Americans have medical conditions which could result in the denial of coverage. We know from recent studies that African-American women are dying at a faster rate from heart disease and stroke. Minority children are dying and experiencing more complications from asthma and other preventable respiratory diseases. We are seeing an increase in the infection rate for HIV and AIDS among young African-American males. We know that low-income persons are dying because they simply cannot purchase the ability to live. Many of those who are fortunate enough to have insurance give up opportunities for new jobs because they are afraid of losing what little coverage they have. We must have portability. This substitute, while it does not address all health care concerns, does move in the right direction.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for the floor debate on immigration reform due to business in my district. However, I would like to submit my views on H.R. 2202 for the Record. As a Californian, I am well aware of many of the problems and economic strains associated with illegal immigration. However, we must not deter people, many who come here seeking freedom and opportunity, and many who have become productive citizens, from legally entering the United States. Many legal immigrants come to this country with a desire to work. Our challenge is to manage that flow rationally. H.R. 2202 is an extreme measure that not only attempts to stop illegals from crossing our borders--often in unworkable and repressive ways--but also limits many of our family members such as sisters, brothers, parents, and adult children from joining us in America. This bill actually punishes legal residents and citizens by unreasonably restricting family reunification visas. It denies adult children and siblings of citizens and legal residents--many who have waited years to enter the United States--the chance to reunite with their families in America. This change in law would unfairly punish families that depend on their loved ones, not the Government, for support. This bill also imposes annual refugee caps, limiting the number of eligible refugee applications to 50,000 per year--that's almost half of the current number. These people may be terrorized by their government, and have no other recourse than to flee their nation. Under this legislation, refugees could be turned away if the immigration quota of 50,000 for that year has been filled. This is a disgrace for a nation with a solid tradition of immigration, and a history of being a refuge for those who flee terror and deprivation. I am disillusioned that some of my colleagues seek to make this bad bill worse by amending it to deny children an education, simply because they happen to be born to undocumented parents. Such a move would only further hurt an already disadvantaged child. It is absolutely cruel to punish innocent children for their parents' decisions. This provision would also take a financial toll. In Los Angeles County alone--my home, and the home to nearly 30 percent of California's public school population of almost 1.5 million--the administrative costs for verification could total as much as $97 million over a 7-year period, at $37 per student plus startup costs. It makes more sense to educate our children, rather than waste our resources verifying their citizenship, while risking discriminating against our own citizens in the process. Other provisions, such as those which would force public hospitals to identify illegals before being reimbursed, are equally immoral. This could threaten public health and possibly increase harassment and discrimination in our hospitals. It is my hope that we may vote to divide this bill into two parts, one which deals with legal immigration and the other with illegal immigration. I support securing our borders with more agents, better equipment, and sturdy barriers. I applaud the deportation of criminals and increased penalties for people who fraudulently reproduce U.S. documents. However, I do not back the provision to enhance the power of Federal law enforcement, including increasing wiretap authority. This is a complex bill with more weaknesses than strengths, at this point. Splitting the bill could allow us to focus on the real problem, which is stopping illegal, not legal, immigration. Let us decrease the flow of illegal immigrants to our Nation, while proceeding to advance legal immigration. Our country continues to obtain its ultimate strength from diversity. Our tradition as a nation of immigrants obligates us to find a fair and just way to handle that responsibility. Specifically, on the amendments, had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Amendment No. 3, offered by Representative Beilenson--``yes''; Amendment No. 4, offered by Representative McCollum--``yes''; Amendment No. 7, offered by Representative Bryant (TN)--``no''; Amendment No. 9, offered by Representative Velazquez--``yes''; Amendment No. 10, offered by Representative Gallegly--``no''; Amendment No. 12, offered by Representative Chabot--``no''; Amendment No. 16, offered by Representative Canady--``no''; Amendment No. 18, offered by Representative Dreier--``no''; Amendment No. 19, offered by Representative Chrysler--``yes''; Amendment No. 22, offered by Representative Pombo--``no''; Amendment No. 24, offered by Representative Goodlatte--``no''; Amendment No. 28, offered by Representative Burr--``no''; Bryant motion to recommit--``yes''. Final passage--``no''. In addition, on Thursday, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 80, ``no'' on rollcall vote 81, ``yes'' on rollcall vote 82, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 83. And, on the motion to go to conference on the omnibus continuing appropriations bill, I would have voted ``yes''. Finally, on Friday, I would have voted ``no'' on both the rule and final passage of H.R. 125, to repeal the assault weapon ban.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Congresswoman Roybal- Allard and Congresswoman DeLauro for providing this opportunity for us to highlight women who have had an impact on our lives and on the lives of others in our communities and in our Nation. Today we are here to honor a Woman of the Year, someone who we know to be an exceptional person from our district, who we seek to recognize for her leadership in a particular issue or field. I am so proud and delighted to honor Ms. Kai Parker from Gardena, CA, in my district. Ms. Parker is an advocate for children, an activist in the community, a member of several boards and commissions, and a political appointee--serving as the Gardena Human Resources Commissioner. Kai Parker has devoted her life to helping people reach their highest potential, from young children to seniors. In her current position as executive office coordinator of the Special Projects Bureau of Operations within the Department of Children Services in the County of Los Angeles, she has worked tirelessly to serve the children of Gardena, specifically children who come from foster homes. She has developed numerous, highly successful programs to develop skills and instill pride in people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Kai, herself, was raised in public housing, overcoming many obstacles along the way to her success. So she knows how self-respect can empower people to work hard and take them as far as they can go. I had the opportunity to visit one of Kai's programs in Gardena called the African-Centered Saturday School. This program aims to provide a safe, nurturing environment for children who have been directed into the child custody system. Many of these children have been placed in protective custody, in a foster home, or with relatives, to distance them from parents who harmed them or who could not properly care for them. These are not bad kids, they are just unsafe. Many have experienced severe physical and emotional abuse, neglect, abandonment, poverty, substance abuse, developmental disabilities, educational handicaps, and many other serious social disorders. Yet, oftentimes, they still love their parents and do not understand what is happening to them. Kai has worked to decrease their trauma by loving them and empowering them to help themselves and turn their lives around. Let me tell you about this program which serves 35 children between the ages of 6 months and 13 years. Those who attend Saturday School every Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. receive academic instruction and tutoring, nutritious meals, and health care. They participate in field trips, special community events, recreation, and cultural activities. And this program is almost totally privately funded (after a jump-start from the city of Gardena). One of the most important features of Saturday School is that the children are exposed to and encouraged to learn more about the African culture. They are taught about their African ancestors and their traditions and food, they learn Swahili, and through that they develop a sense of nobility, which in turn highlights their self-esteem. This program enriches their knowledge of their culture and of themselves. It seeks to instill pride in them so that, throughout their lives, the children will have a strong sense of who they are, as well as a vision of where they may want to go in their future. Kai Parker's program, in only 2 years, has visibly developed and empowered the inner-city children it is designed to assist, as well as the community. It has brought together the whole Los Angeles community, or village, to help create whole citizens of these wonderful kids. From the donated church space to the tutoring offered by members of the Los Angeles Board of Education, community members from all walks of life volunteer to protect children. Thank you so much, Kai Parker, for creating this exemplary, highly successful program, and for all your inspirational work on behalf of our community. One more thing. I am proud to say that Kai and I both work together as members of the Black Women's Forum. She has too many credentials and awards to list, but I must say that her efforts in helping welfare children and troubled youth through her many successful programs, from Saturday School to Summer Youth Institute Camps, have changed many lives. I commend her efforts to improve people's lives and am honored to name her my ``Woman of the Year'' from the 35th district of California.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, during votes on Tuesday, March 19, I was unavoidably detained in my congressional district attending to pressing business. Had I been present for those votes, I would have voted ``no'' on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 384, ``yes'' on H.R. 2937, and ``yes'' on House Concurrent Resolution 148.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. It is, and we are very pleased because we really are hopeful. We are very, very optimistic about the possibilities for stemming the tide of teenage pregnancies. We believe that you can create real prevention. It does cost money, and some of the work that is being done that has helped in this area under the title XX is now threatened, and we believe that it is important for us to say to everybody that, if you really care about this issue, if you want to do something to stop babies from having babies, if you really want to get a hold of poverty in America, then we will invest some dollars to create opportunities for these young people and recognize that many of them are from so-called dysfunctional families, families where they, they come from one-parent families, where fathers are missing, and the cycle, this vicious cycle, continues because we have done nothing really to break the cycle. We know everything we need to know about poverty, and one thing we know for sure is that when poor children bear children, that those children are going to be poor, and most likely those children are going to be the school dropouts. These are going to be the children with health problems. These will be the children who will be caught up in poverty and will not be successful. They will drop out of school because they are being born into the same conditions that their parents were born into when we do not break this cycle. And so, Eva, I thank you for creating this opportunity for more discussion on this issue. I think we must urge our colleagues to get involved in this in a real way. This cannot be just a political issue used during the campaign. We have got to commit ourselves to embracing our young people, to providing for them opportunities that have not been available, to provide resources to get them out of these situations. And if we do this, I think we can do something about this problem.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Eva Clayton, for your leadership on this issue. I join with you and others in congratulating the President for placing this very, very important issue high on his agenda. I think whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you cannot help but be concerned about the rate of teenage pregnancy. I understand over 1 million teenagers are getting pregnant each year here in this country and that this rate of teenage pregnancy far outdistances what is happening in other advanced nations in this world. Mr. Speaker, I have tried to pay some attention to this issue, and when I came to Congress a few years ago, I called Health and Human Services and asked them what could they do, using some discretionary money, to come into an area in my district where this is a problem and help us to create a program to deal with teenage pregnancy, at least find out what is going on. And so Health and Human Services, along with Family Planning, did come into one of the housing projects in my district known as Avalon Gardens Housing Project, and we were very fortunate that we were able to hire a young woman who is greatly interested in working with teen mothers, a young woman who has a background in working with troubled youngsters, and she has been doing an interesting job. We worked with males and females between the ages of 12 and 25 years old, and in the first year, after the first year, we are very pleased to report that no pregnancies or repeat pregnancies have occurred. Some of the young ladies that we worked with had already borne a child, others had not, and we hoped to prevent them from doing so. And in the first year we have had no pregnancies or repeat pregnancies. But it is very, very work-intensive. We find that the young people in the program, both male and female, are looking for attention. Many have very low self-esteem. Many or all of them are poor. They have very few activities. They travel not far from their home in the housing project. They do not interact in programs and projects outside of the immediate community. They have very little information available to them. When we started to work with them, we found that very few knew much of anything about contraception. And so the 15 to 20 people per day that she is working with are now involved in various kinds of activities. Some are athletic activities. We have formed a men's club, and we have been able to create opportunities to take them out of the community on some trips. I am pleased to say that some of them were with us last week when we took a group of boys and girls, young men and women, from Los Angeles, so- called south central Los Angeles, to Selma, AL, the commemorate the march from Selma to Montgomery. We did that because we found that most of them did not know very much about their history, surprisingly, not a lot about Martin Luther King, nothing about the marchers, the work that had been done. And in building this self-esteem, we think that that is very important, that they understand who they are, the kinds of sacrifices that have been made for them so that they could be successful in a democratic society, and we think unless there is self- esteem, people do not take responsibility, they do not feel comfortable, they do not have the confidence, and therefore many of their actions are irresponsible until you are able to build self- esteem. So we are working very hard. This is but a drop in the bucket to what is needed in this Nation to deal with this problem.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, to force a woman who has been raped, violated, brutalized, to carry a pregnancy to term is unconscionable. This amendment is consistent with Hyde. To punish a poor woman simply because she is poor is absolutely the kind of public policy that we do not want to support. I would urge my colleagues in the name of fairness to support this amendment. It is only fair that we say to the States, do not make a woman suffer more, do not make a woman who has been violated in the worst way suffer more by carrying a pregnancy to term. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote No. 48, to temporarily extend the debt ceiling. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to thank you for providing leadership for all of us as we join together to recognize International Women's Day, which is Friday, March 8. I thank you for providing leadership for us of focus and give some attention to who we are, what we are doing, what we are accomplishing and what we must do to further the cause of women, not only in this country, but in this Nation. We have held a powerful and highly successful World Conference on Women in Beijing, and I suppose we discovered something maybe others knew, but not all of us. We discovered that women all over the world are struggling for freedom, struggling for justice and equality, and while we have made some serious and profound advancements, we still have a long way to go. Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go because there are those in this Nation, some in very high places, who simply refuse to see us as equals, who will deny us the opportunity to serve in the many diverse ways that men serve in this Nation and in this world, and because we have those who would deny us opportunity, those who will fight very hard to ensure that we do not get a chance to realize our full potential, we must continue to struggle. We do not like the idea that we have to be here this evening even, talking about the struggle that women are still involved with in this world to ensure justice, equality, and freedom, but we must do that. One of the things that we all recognize, most women, and most women who are elected to the House of Representatives recognize, that until and unless we are free to determine what happens with our bodies, we are not free. It is the most basic of those freedoms that we are able to say what we want in relationship to our health concerns. We must be able to say without equivocation, without fear, without concern for what anybody else thinks, we must be able to say and make decisions about our bodies. We have been in this struggle for a long time. It has been a long time since Roe versus Wade. But we find ourselves having to defend our right to make decisions about our own bodies right here in this House because there are those, men for the most part, who will take every opportunity to try and take back the rights that we have garnered through the courts in this country. And so we struggle month in and month out, year in and year out, and we are still confronted with those obstacles that are created by some of the men in this House, even as we look toward our work over the next few months, and so I say to all of those who are listening that this is a struggle that we may have to be in for some time to come. But I think that if women really do believe and they really do understand that this is the most basic of all freedoms, the right to determine what happens to your body, then we will rise to the level that we must rise to in order to ensure that we have such a freedom. This evening I would like, in addition to talking about the freedom of choice, to talk about an issue that really concerns me, and that is women's economic empowerment. Women throughout the world continue to struggle to raise and provide for their families. We have fought hard for the right to work, the opportunity to participate in government, the ability to access capital, to start our own businesses, and the right to attain a higher education and reliable child care. All of our strides toward affirmative advancement are halted when our own leaders talk about dismantling programs under affirmative action that help women establish a level playing field with men. I come from a State where we must be involved in the struggle to try and save opportunities for women because there has been advanced something called the California Civil Rights Initiative, that would eliminate affirmative action programs in public employment, education, and public contracting. Women have only begun to climb the corporate ladder and to shake up the glass ceiling. While women account for 52 percent of all Americans, yet we still comprise only 3 to 5 percent of senior level positions in major companies. We represent only 11.8 percent of college presidents, 10 percent of the House of Representatives, and only 8 percent of the U.S. Senate. Even with affirmative action, women are still paid less for the same work. Women make only 72 cents to a man's dollar. In 1993, female managers earned 33 percent less than male managers. Female college professors earned 23 percent less than male professors, and female elementary school teachers earned 22 percent less than male elementary teachers. I cannot continue to give you all of the dismal statistics. All I can say is, as we focus this evening, let us recognize that we are not near the equality that this country and this Nation and this world deserves.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained, due to pressing personal business during both votes on Thursday, January 25, 1996. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on House Resolution 342, ``yes'' on the motion to recommit on H.R. 2880, the short-term continuing resolution, and ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 2880.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, due to pressing personal business, I was unable to vote on the conference report on S. 1124, the Department of Defense Authorization bill. Although this conference report did make important changes from the version which was vetoed by President Clinton, there remain serious policy issues such as the proposed restrictions of overseas abortion and the language requiring the discharge of HIV-positive personnel, about which I continue to have serious concerns. As such, had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, and Members, I cannot believe what I am hearing. My mother would say to the Republicans this morning, ``You have the nerves of the brass monkey.'' How dare you come here at a time when we are in a crisis, when Federal workers have been furloughed for 21 days, when Americans are being denied services, they cannot get passports, when the parks are closed down, when small business contractors cannot get paid, when FHA loans cannot be expedited? How dare you come before the American public and say give Newt Gingrich the authority to recess us, to simply let us go home, to let us go about our business, to let us go on vacation, for some of you to be able to go on foreign trips, just stop the work of Congress because you find that it is in your best interests to let this crisis drag on? Well, I ask my colleagues not to support this. We need a clean, clear continuing resolution, the vehicle by which we continue to fund Government while we are in the process of debating which way Government. This is not about a little dispute. This is about fundamental change. This is about which way American Government. This is about whether or not there is going to be a safety net for the average American worker out there. This is about whether or not we are going to give substantial tax breaks to the rich. This is no child's play. We cannot make mockery of this process by simply coming here and asking for an expedited procedure to recess. No, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], we will not support you. No, we will not take your argument that says let us just do this little thing, go on home and leave it to us. We are not going to ``leave it to us.'' You have shown that you are not responsible. You have shown that you are willing to be led by the newest Republican Members in this House, who know nothing, who have no experience, and who do not care what happens to Government. It is absolutely unconscionable that you should come here and ask us to simply go on recess, to simply forget about those who are hurting out there, to simply not understand the fright and the pain that Americans are experiencing. No, we will not go home. No, we are not going to give you this vote. No, we are not going to join in any little conspiracy with you to do in the American people at a time when they need our support and our understanding more than ever. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote it down, not in a little way but in a big way, in a huge way. Let them know we are not playing this silly game.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] has offered a motion to discharge from committee the Interior appropriations bill that has been vetoed by the President. Normally the committee would go to work, take into consideration the reasons the President gave for his veto, reasonable policymakers would make the necessary adjustments, and pass the appropriation. Now the Republicans are trying to find a way to look better. They have simply created a mess, not only on this bill but on the budget in general. The Republican caucus has been led by the freshman class, that group which has the least experience in the management of government. The Republicans have gone too far. The Republicans have stepped way over the line. They have jeopardized not only the National Park Service in this bill, they have jeopardized Federal employees and veterans' services, prison security, passport services, and Social Security services. Time and time again we heard that they were willing to shut this Government down, that they would do this, and this is what they are doing. Just yesterday they voted in the Committee on Rules to allow the Speaker to recess in 3-day intervals. They are planning to go home. In that Committee on Rules, Gerald Solomon, James Quillen, David Dreier, Porter Goss, John Linder, Deborah Pryce, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Scott McInnis, and Enid Waldholtz all voted to give the Speaker the power to call a recess. I urge my colleagues to sustain the President's veto. This is not about good policymaking. This is about the continued efforts to force all of us to do what that freshman class wants done. We cannot allow that to happen. I think we are more responsible than that. And if they decide to recess, let them go home. But the people on this side of the aisle, my colleagues in the Democratic Party, I believe, will stay here. We will stay here and do the work of the people rather than use those kinds of tactics.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor this afternoon to express my very, very deep concerns about what is happening here in Washington, DC. It is absolutely amazing. This is the most extraordinary occurrence that I or anybody else could possibly witness at this time. We have right here in the Congress of the United States a group of Members, elected by the people, being led by the newest Members of Congress, the freshmen; being led by the newest group with the least experience, who have decided to shut down Government. They have decided they do not care whether or not children are hurt, families are hurt; they do not care whether or not Social Security claims can be processed; whether or not our prisons are secured with employees who are working there who should be paid. They do not care about any of that. They have come here not understanding the seriousness of their actions, and they have decided to try and hold this Congress hostage to their demands. It is a kind of immature action; nobody expects policymakers to respond in this manner. One could ask, well, what has happened in the past? What happens when there are disagreements? What happens when you get to the point where the Government has run out of money and you have not resolved your differences? Well, I want you to know, until this Congress, it has always been worked out. Even under Ronald Reagan, when there were serious differences between Republicans and Democrats, they had to hammer it out. They had to work it out. Nobody took their tent and closed it up and ran home and said, I do not care what happens. I do not care whether the services of Government are carried out or not. I do not want to play anymore. Well, I want to tell you, I am utterly stunned and surprised that we have this group of new Members leading some of the more seasoned Members with this kind of catastrophe. It is unheard of. What are the people thinking out there, aside from those who are not getting paid, where the services are not getting delivered? You must understand that the people are paying taxes. Nobody has stopped the people's taxes while this madness is going on. But what are they paying for? Many of them are not getting the services that the taxes should be buying them. I wonder about my Republican friends who claim they are concerned about the best use of the taxpayers' money. I am concerned that they are doing two things, maybe more: No. 1, they are having people work, they are having people work, some of whom I suppose will get paid sometime later on. We do not know. But many of them are being asked to work without knowing whether or not they are going to get paid. Some of them have been disadvantaged already. They have gotten partial paychecks. I am concerned about that. I am also concerned about the attitudes, this extremism. Do you know what Pete Wilson said the other day when he was asked for some help? Pete Wilson, the Governor up in California, up in this county called Mariposa, where they depend on the tourism trade because of Yosemite, they said they had a state of emergency because their economy has fallen apart because of what these young Republican Members are doing; and so they asked Pete Wilson for some help. Pete Wilson turned them down, said the State of California could not help them; but then he had some advice for them. The Governor of the State of California, Pete Wilson, said, go break the locks on the gates. Let them in, he said. Defy the law. Commit a criminal act, he said. Irresponsible leadership, but of course, Newt Gingrich and others have said, they do not care if they close Government down. All of this irrational leadership. Mr. Mica was just on the floor and he talked about Head Start, and it was obvious he knew very little about Head Start and how it really works. I know a lot about Head Start, and I know why it is important. Let me just wrap up by saying that the leadership and what is going on on the Republican side of the aisle is absolutely unconscionable. They are devastating lives. I think the people understand what is going on.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this has been a strange day, and these are strange times. We have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, who claim they have kept us here because they want to negotiate. They have literally caused people to change their plans, change their lives, caused so much uncertainty with the families they claim to care about. Do not forget, these are the family values people. These are the folks who say they know more about family values than most of us. But yet when they had an opportunity to be sensible, to be credible, to make sure that we operate in a way that respects our families, they have done some strange things. After all of this, when they had an opportunity to negotiate, the President called them up, met with them, and their leader, Newt Gingrich, went back to them and said, ``We have an agreement. We can get a continuing resolution to keep Government open.'' Mind you, Government is not really operating. We do not have the authority. We have a lot of Federal employees that have been told to go home. This is Christmastime. They do not know what is happening. They do not know when they are going to be returned. We have parks that are closed down. We have people who cannot get passports. Then my friends on the other side of the aisle got cute and they decided, ``Oh, let's strike a blow for veterans. That's a great constituency. They vote. When we say we're doing something for veterans, we really look good. These are the person who have defended our country, so if we go on the floor and we make sure we said they should get paid, it's going to make us look good with the American public.'' And so we did that. In all of this, we failed to negotiate, we don't have a continuing resolution for everybody, but we struck this little blow for veterans. And after Newt Gingrich went to them and said they could have a deal with the President to have a continuing resolution, they said, ``No, we don't want to do it. We don't care what you say, Newt Gingrich.'' The new Members, the freshmen, said, ``No, we don't want a deal.'' After not having a deal, they said the reason they did not want to do it is because the President had not committed to a 7-year balanced budget, nor did he want to accept the Congressional Budget Office projections and their understanding of how the economy would be working over the next 7 years. That is what they said. Well, that has been cleared up, so you would think they would have negotiated today. But no, they have not done that. They took a vote, led by the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, to just go home. Just go home. Go home to their families, to our families. And, yes, most of us would like to do that. But what about the Federal employees and the others that do not know what is going to happen to them? We could have passed a continuing resolution. They did something strange called a recess, an adjournment that is called a recess, and they kind of said, ``and we have the opportunity to call you back at some given point in time.'' And so this adjournment fashioned as a recess has taken place. But before they left, a lot of damage was done. A lot of damage was done because we passed out a conference report on welfare. This conference report on welfare basically cuts about $60 billion out of welfare and, oh, that is easy to do, because welfare has become kind of the political football of politics. If you get up and rant and rave against worthless people who are getting the taxpayers' dollars, oh, you can get some votes. You can get some votes, and you can have people believe that somehow you are protecting the taxpayers. It is easy to beat up on children. It is easy to beat up on poor people. ``They don't have any power. They can't do anything. And I can get get some votes.'' Well, they struck a blow against the children, $60 billion in cuts. Oh, they took the safety net from under the children. You should see the havoc that was wreaked upon these children and their families, because protective services will be hurt. A lot of things will be done to children that I do not think any of us can be proud of. So I stand here this evening to say, it is shameful what has taken place over the last few days. None of us should be proud of it. None of us should want to go home and face our constituents or our families because it is not honorable what we have done here.