Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not welfare reform. I support real welfare reform. I support transitioning recipients from dependency to work, to real jobs. This is simply slash and burn, causing 1.5 million more children to fall into poverty. If this is supposed to be welfare reform, why can we not assist these mothers in getting job training and getting education and transitioning into the job market? No, we do not do this. This bill cuts job training. It simply block grants it, throws it to the States and says you train them. It is a mandate on local government and we do not fund it. If this is supposed to be welfare reform, why on heaven's earth do we cut child care? It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if mothers are to go to work, they must have child care. To add insult to injury, this bill takes the safety net from child care protective services. As a matter of fact, I am shocked and surprised. Every time a child is murdered, like little Alicia up in New York, little Lisa 2 years ago in New York, we cry and bemoan the fact another child has been killed, yet we cut child care protective services. This bill is a sham. This is not real welfare reform. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members, because we block grant, we take away the possibility that when the middle-class clients and citizens lose their jobs or they are laid off and they want a little temporary help, if their State is in a recession, they are not going to be able to get it because with this block granting we say when the money runs out, it runs out. There is no guarantee. There is no safety net, and so middle-class families who find themselves in a little difficulty will not have any support from welfare because we are taking away the safety net from them.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment, and Housing of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am ashamed to hear the staging and profiling by too many of my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle proclaiming their love for our veterans. Where were they when the President needed them for resources for hospitals and medical care? He had to veto the VA-HUD bill and in his message he told them why he was doing it. They refused to support him for hospital resources for veterans. Besides that, where were they when the Republican-appointed Clerk just fired a veteran of 23 years who helped to install the electronic voting system for this House? A veteran who served in Vietnam, who was fired without cause, they just kicked him out before Christmas without cause. They just let go a veteran who served in Vietnam and told him they did not care about him or his family. With friends like you, the veterans do not need any enemies.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, and Members, we just heard from the minority leader that the negotiations have broken down, that the talks, rather, that were going on to try and get this Government going have broken down. I was hopeful, but I guess I am not surprised. I am not surprised because I have kept up and watched very carefully what has been going on, and I suppose, as I thought about this, I was reminded that Speaker Newt Gingrich said he is a revolutionary and this is a revolution, and I suppose Speaker Gingrich is leading a revolution, and in order to do that you must disrupt, you must block, you must impede, you must deny, you must do whatever is necessary--I guess by any means necessary--you must even take extreme means to keep anything from happening. I guess that is what revolution is all about. It is unfortunate that the Speaker has decided to lead this revolution against the American people. Government, for all intents and purposes, has stopped. It is closed down. We cannot get a continuing resolution because the revolutionary has stopped everything. Now I was led to believe that there were some agreements. Now, if you will recall, we got a continuing resolution that carried us up until December 15. How did they get that? They got that because there were some agreements. They got together, and the revolutionary said, ``Mr. President, if you will agree to a 7-year balanced budget and CBO numbers, then we can talk,'' and the President, in order to get a continuing resolution so that we could keep going, we could keep Government open and get on with the negotiations, essentially agreed to that. So that is off the table, that is already agreed to, a 7-year balanced budget and CBO numbers. So what is stopping the negotiations? The revolutionary Gingrich also agreed that he would recognize and respect our priorities. The President said to him, ``I cannot allow you to dismantle Medicare, I cannot allow you to gut Medicaid, I cannot allow you to do away with education in this country, and we must, we must, protect the environment.'' And the revolutionary, Newt Gingrich, said, ``All right, we will respect that.'' So, Mr. Speaker, they came together and agreed on those basic principles in order to get to the negotiation table. Now revolutionary Newt Gingrich is saying, ``Unless you agree to gut Medicare and Medicaid, I don't want to play, I don't want to negotiate,'' and so we are past December 15 now, the Government is closed down, we cannot get a continuing resolution, and the revolutionary will not go back to the negotiating table. That is where we are, my colleagues. That is what it is all about. I am convinced that this really is a revolution; I just did not think it would be so extreme. I never dreamed, not in my wildest imagination did I dream, that revolutionary Newt Gingrich would be willing to stop this country dead in its tracks in order to prove that he is a revolutionary. So I suppose, when the veterans do not get their paychecks, when people cannot use their public parks, I suppose when people cannot get passports, when all of this is taking place, that revolutionary Newt Gingrich is willing to sit here and say, ``That's all right, I want my way.'' We have seen some of the actions of the revolutionary in the past, and we know that the revolutionary gets very upset when he does not have his way. If you can recall what happened just a few weeks ago when there was a plane that went to a most important funeral in Israel, and the revolutionary could not have his way, he came back, he pouted, he made statements, he went on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, I hope the revolutionary will stop this revolution on the people and allow Government to work.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are on the floor with another meaningless bill. They had one yesterday when they tried to make the people believe that the President had not already agreed to the CBO numbers and a 7-year balanced budget. He had already done that, so that was meaningless. Today they are back again. Nobody knows what is in this bill. They do not know, we do not know. It has not been scored. It has not been analyzed. The real negotiations start at 3 o'clock. The President has a meeting with Senator Dole and with Newt Gingrich. They know it. They know that they are not accomplishing anything by being there. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the President has been to the table. He has told you he is not going to let you devastate old people. You cannot get any more money out of Medicare and Medicaid. You cannot do away with our priorities of education and environment that you agreed to. The real problem is you cannot count. You cannot save money and give away money at the same time. You have got to learn. If you want to save, you cannot have a tax cut of $245 billion.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the American public is tired of all of us precisely because of what is going on, on the floor right now. This resolution is meaningless. Basically, the 7 years have been agreed upon and the CBO numbers are agreed upon in general. Both sides of the aisle have some smoke and mirrors in some places as we talk about CBO numbers. That needs to be cleared up. Instead of this meaningless resolution, where basically people have agreed, we need to be talking about a continuing resolution. The Republicans will not agree to a continuing resolution to keep the Government going, to keep it operating, because essentially they are trying to do their negotiation through the resolution. They need to stop this crap and get on with the business of negotiating.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand and join with my colleagues in welcoming the newest Member to this House, Jesse Jackson, Jr. I feel as if he, too, is my child. I feel as if he is my son. I feel that way because I guess I have known him, I have watched him grow up. I have worked very closely with his father and his mother. They are my friends. When he first indicated that he would be running for this seat, I did everything that I could to encourage him, and I would like to thank all of my colleagues in this House who joined with us in a tremendous effort to raise money and to work in the district to ensure that Jesse Jackson, Jr., could be with us being sworn in today. I am so proud of him, because he represents everything that we want our children to be. I am so proud of him, because oftentime there are these negative images of young African-American men portrayed in the media. However, there are many young Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s out there. A lot of people do not know about them. They do not understand that there are children who have come from nurturing families, with the kind of support that could lead them here to this House and to other things if but given the opportunity and the chance to do that. And so Jesse Jackson, Jr., stands here today as a symbol to all of those young people out there who believe that they can do it, that there can be support for them realizing their dreams. I am proud that he is here. I look forward to the leadership that he is going to provide, not only in this House but throughout this Nation. Let me just say this to my colleagues. Jesse Jackson, Jr., will usher in a new generation of leadership in this country to deal with the problems that confront us all. So I want you to look at him today and look at him in a new and different way. I want you to understand what he symbolizes and what he is going to mean, not only to this House but to all of America. I welcome you, Jesse Jackson, Jr. I look forward to working with you, and let the message go forward to the young people out there, that they have got someone now who is going to reach out to them, bring them into these new possibilities and show America the way in which it should be going.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for all of his work and support on this and all of the legislation on behalf of veterans in the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong support of H.R. 2289. Title I of this measure will greatly enhance the ability of veterans to purchase the home of their choice. I am, however, disappointed that we were forced to drop the section which would have extended the VA Adjustable Rate Mortgage [ARM] program. Unfortunately, CBO changed their cost estimate and, two days after the full committee markup, told us we have to come up with over $30 million to fund the ARM. We simply do not have those funds. I fully intend to work with the subcommittee chairman on this matter, however, and expect we will revisit this issue in the future. The provisions of title II will improve the implementation and administration of veterans' employment programs. I am particularly pleased the bill includes an amendment I offered which would authorize the Secretary of Labor to conduct a pilot program under which the responsibilities of Local Veterans' Employment Representatives [LVER's] would be redirected to focus on case management and direct service to veterans. Last year, the committee extensively revised chapter 43 of title 38, which provides employment and reemployment rights for members of the uniformed services. Public Law 103-353, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, was signed into law on October 13, 1994. Because of the complex and technical nature of this measure, the committee anticipated that technical and clarifying amendments would be necessary. Title II of H.R. 2289 responds to the issues and concerns that have thus far been brought to the attention of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my colleague, Steve Buyer, for the cooperative, bipartisan spirit with which he has conducted the business of the subcommittee. We have had a good year, and the veterans of our Nation will benefit from our joint efforts. H.R. 2289 is an excellent bill. I am proud of the work we have done on this measure, and I hope our colleagues will support H.R. 2289.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, no, we have not forgotten. We thought you had. But finally after the filing of many complaints against Speaker Newt Gingrich and 14 months later, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct found the Speaker guilty, guilty, guilty on one, two, three counts of violating House rules by misusing official resources and the committee appointed a special outside counsel to investigate another serious charge about the Speaker's political GOPAC operation. Well, it is about time. Believe me, the American public does not appreciate double standards. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No one should be so big, so important, so powerful they can violate the rules of this House and the laws of this country without suffering the consequences. Newt may be Speaker, however, he, too, must account for any and all wrongdoing. It is about time. Let us get on with the business of finding out who Newt Gingrich really is.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a disaster. This conference report hits veterans where it hurts most. It cuts funding for new construction of veterans outpatient medical facilities. Many aged and ill veterans are forced to try to travel miles to get to a VA facility and this would decrease transportation assistance. Many are simply doing without desperately needed health care. If that is not enough, this bill hurts another vulnerable population, families and children, who simply need a place to live. Decent housing, shelter, a roof over their heads. This bill cuts housing by 21 percent. What an indictment on our values. We wave the flag and proclaim our love for veterans, yet when their backs are turned, we stab them in the back by ignoring their health care needs. And where are our so-called family values? These are real lives, real people, real children, real families we are hurting. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. It does not even deserve the dignity of a debate.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this Republican reconciliation conference is a complete abdication of our responsibility to the majority of citizens of this Nation. The underlying legislation represents the most fundamental shift of priorities from poor and working Americans in two generations. Mr. Speaker, today at Howard University there is an African-American leadership summit, where African-American leaders are gathered to talk about how they can turn their communities around, how they can get young people working, how they can get them in school, how they can grow their communities and create businesses. But guess what? This budget goes in the opposite direction. It thumbs its nose at those who are trying to do something about poverty and children. It thumbs its nose at senior citizens and those who want to do something about medical care in this country. Mr. Speaker, this budget needs to be rejected. It probably will not, because the Republicans are on this mission to cut no matter what the consequences are. I ask the Members of this House to reject this conference report.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Gene Green] for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, let me just try and follow up on the request of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] about delaying or pulling out this provision. This is very, very sensitive. As a matter of fact, the work of many, many civil rights organizations went into the development of the Voting Rights Act, and that which covers all of the States. All of those States that are covered under the Voting Rights Act are covered for very specific reasons. So we have to be very careful about doing anything that would alleviate the responsibility for data and information and voting patterns and voter registration without knowing what we are doing. This kind of request for repeal, in my estimation, would have to be circulated among those organizations, including the NAACP and SCLC, NACLU, and all of the organizations who put so much time and effort into developing legislation that would give us a measure of protection and help to shine the light on those practices that would eliminate participation in the process in ways that we have solved historically. So, Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] really does make a serious request, and it is not understood by those of us who try and watch this kind of thing why, in fact, you would be repealing something that you want to request the Census Bureau to do. If it is the same thing, why not leave it intact and not mess with it? As a matter of fact, it may even look innocent, but I submit to you that it may not be that innocent.

Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I never thought I would see the day that Republicans would endanger the well-being of veterans. We have come to a point in time where veterans stand to be denied the ability to have their claims processed because of what we are going through here today. Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I watched many Members from the other side of the aisle wave the flag, and talk about being in the parades, and how much they love veterans. Well, we need to be here today telling the real story; on this side of the aisle I think we are doing that. [[Page H 12102]] Mr. Speaker, what we are saying today is, ``Republicans, who are willing to threaten the well-being of veterans with this brinksmanship, we need to stop this foolishness. We need not go home. We need not go home, and march in those parades, and tell the veterans how much we love them when, in fact, we are hurting them in this process.'' But the Republicans budget would keep them at spending levels for 1995, Mr. Speaker, which means that over 125,000 veterans would be denied health care services. This charade needs to stop. Let us remain here until we can get it right. Let us take the machoism out of this fight. Let us do what is necessary to fund the services and programs of this Nation. Let us not use veterans and the people of this country as tools in this bickering. It is time for us to do the right thing. Veterans, get on the telephone. Call into this House. Let the Republicans know that they need to stop this. If they want to honor our veterans on Veterans Day, tell them to stop the brinksmanship. Do not put something on the President's desk that they know he is going to veto and cause our veterans to be at risk.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the gentleman for addressing his concerns by way of an amendment relative to Haiti. The gentleman has been concerned that they carry out the commitments to hold the election, if those elections would be done in a timely way. The gentleman has made that known to everyone. I was concerned at the time that the gentleman brought the amendment before the House that he did not do anything that would tie their hands so that, if they were working hard to be in compliance, somehow they would be penalized. He would cause them to be penalized if in fact they did not meet the letter of the law. I think the gentleman has done exactly what he said he would do, and he has spoken to substantial compliance. As you know, from the Senate side, the other house, funds were held up that would have been funds to support moving forward with those elections. So we are concerned that, if those elections do not take place at the exact appointed time and perhaps they are off a few weeks or even a few months or so, that somehow this would not trigger the discontinuance of all foreign aid to Haiti. So would the gentleman please, again, reiterate what he means by substantial compliance. Does he understand the limited difficulty they may be placed with in trying to move forward given that the funds have been held up?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the gentleman. I think that takes care of my concern.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is time to break the silence. Four million American women were beaten by their husbands or boyfriends last year. At least 600 of them were killed. Domestic violence is a crime. It is the single greatest cause of injury to American women--more than burglaries, muggings, or other physical crimes combined. Forty-two percent of murdered women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends. This must stop. This crime crosses racial, social, and economic lines. It affects poor, rich, and minority women alike. Last year alone, Los Angeles County Law Enforcement received close to 73,000 domestic violence calls for assistance. We must recognize that this problem plagues our society, often in secret. Many women--struggling to come to grips with the horror they are living--blame themselves for their abuse. Society and law enforcement officials can also make them feel at fault by not believing them or supporting them at the scene of the crime, by not prosecuting their abusers, or by blaming them for their life choices. Battered women need help to escape a violent husband or boyfriend. Some women may be too afraid, or too ashamed to seek assistance. Battered mothers may not be able to support their children on their own. They may not know where to turn. Even those who do manage to leave abusive relationships are not guaranteed safety. While separated and divorced women represent 7 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 75 percent of all battered women, and report being battered 14 times as often as women still living with their parents. In Los Angeles County, where my district is located, there are 18 shelter facilities for battered women and their children. These places offer a temporary safe shelter for abused women and their families. In my county, 65 percent of the shelters' residents are the children of battered women. Even so, four out of every five families requesting shelter have to be turned away due to lack of resources. Violence which begins in the home breeds violence elsewhere. Children who grow up in a violent household are at high risk for alcohol and drug use, depression, low self-esteem, poor impulse control, and sexual acting out. We must work to prevent this cycle of violence. Let us open our eyes in our families and communities, and take action to combat this heinous crime.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, that I believe that he is sincere, but I want him to know that the gentleman does not love my community more than I do. The gentleman does not care about it more than I do. Mr. Speaker, I care about those who are hungry. I care about the young people who are not going to be able to work because of the policies of the other sides of the aisle. I care about the babies. I care about the welfare mothers, and I want real welfare reform. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the gentleman to ever believe that he cares more about my community than I do. I do not want the gentleman to think that somehow his policies and his beliefs are right for my community. I would like the gentleman to ask me sometime, and ask us sometimes, those who work in those communities. Mr. Speaker, I tell the gentleman, no black leader has said to him: Lock up our kids and have this disparity in law. Nobody said that to the gentleman.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution of disapproval. The Congress has no business overriding the expertise of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Crack cocaine mandatory minimums make a mockery of justice. Yes, this is a fairness issue and, yes, whether we like it or not, it is a race issue. The U.S. Sentencing Commission was designed to take the politics out of criminal sentencing, to be bipartisan. Yet its judgment, based on years of experience and a responsibility to justice, is being summarily rejected in this bill. Mr. Speaker, Federal sentences for crack are 100 times greater, 100 times greater, than those for powder cocaine. The implications of this disparity are severe. Yes, this is a fairness issue and, whether my colleagues like it or not, it is a race issue. Young white males are not filling up those jails. Let me tell my colleagues, that statistic that was given of young black males between the ages of 20 and 29, one of three in our communities are in the criminal justice system. We do not like drugs. We do not want drugs. We want to prosecute people who traffic, but we do not want to take a silly young man who happens to get a crack or two pieces of crack and put him in jail. They could get 10 years mandatory minimums under this law that we are operating under now. Members know it is wrong. The Sentencing Commission knows that it is wrong. They want to correct it. What are we doing? Why do we not let their work go into effect? It does not make good sense. Further, let me tell my colleagues what is happening. Minorities represented an average of 96 percent of those prosecuted for crack cocaine nationally in Federal courts from 1992 to 1994. This is a fairness issue, sir, and it is a race issue. I do not know why we have taken the time of this House to try to overrule the Sentencing Commission, who spends hours, who have all of the data, all of the statistics. Mr. Speaker, we had a march out there just the other day. We had a march with 1 million black men who came to this city, and they said, We are going to take responsibility but we want a little fairness in the system. We want you to know that we cannot continue to live, we cannot continue to live in a system that disregards us, that marginalizes us, a system that is not fair, that is not equal. Did Members not hear them? Did Members not see them? Why do Members persist in this kind of unfairness? I am telling my colleagues, we need do nothing but let the Sentencing Commission's recommendations go into effect. I want to tell my colleagues those young men said, ``We are going to take [[Page H 10262]] responsibility, we are going to help clean up our communities, but we need you to give us some help.'' Let us be fair. Let us stop sending young black and Latino males off to jail at 18 and 19 years old to give 5 and 10 years of their lives and never be rehabilitated.

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, let me give the gentleman a fact, and tell me whether or not this is racist. In Los Angeles, the U.S. district court prosecuted no whites, none, for crack offenses between 1988 and 1994. This is despite the fact that two-thirds of those who have tried crack are white, and over one-half of crack's regular users are white. I will give you that fact again. None. Not one white in the U.S. district court in Los Angeles was prosecuted for crack offenses between 1988 and 1994. Check it out.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we have been before this body this evening pointing out the disparity, pointing out the inequality, pointing out the injustice of the system as it operates now. I am surprised at much of the rhetoric and all of these so-called conversations that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been having in minority communities. I am glad to know that my colleagues are going there. I am glad to know that they are communicating. But let me tell my colleagues what the mothers in my community say where I live. They say: Ms. Waters, why do they not get the big drug dealers? What is this business under Bush that stopped resources going to interdiction? Why is it large amounts of drugs keep flowing into inner cities? Where do they come from and why do not they get the real criminals, Ms. Waters, why is it 19-year-olds, who are just stupid? They are not drug dealers; 19-year-olds who wander out into the community and get a few rock crack cocaine. Why is it they end up in the Federal system? Why is it they end up with these 5-year minimum mandatory, up to 10 years mandatory sentences? Why can you not get the big guys? They say: We believe there is a conspiracy. This is what mothers in these communities say. We believe there is a conspiracy against our children and against our communities. They do not understand it when policymakers get up and say, Oh, it is not interdiction that we should be concerned about. As long as there is a desire for drugs, they are going to continue to flow and what we have got to do is just concentrate on telling them, Just say no. They say: Ms. Waters, we do not understand that and we do not know why a first-time offender, who happens to be black or Latino, ends up with a 5-year sentence. And why is the Federal Government targeting our communities? They are targeting our communities and they are not targeting white communities who are the major drug abusers. They are targeting our communities from the Federal level. Thus, our kids go into the Federal system and the whites, who are drug abusers and traffickers, go into the State systems. They get off with their fancy lawyers with probation, with 1 year, with no time, and our kids are locked up. Mr. Chairman, for those of my colleagues who say, Well, we know it is unfair, but just keep letting it go on for a while and we will take a look at it, are they out of their minds? How can they stand on the floor of Congress pretending to support a Constitution and a democracy and say, ``We know it is not fair, but just let it continue and we may take another look at it''? When I give them the facts and they know them to be true, and I will say it again. In Los Angeles, the U.S. District Court prosecuted no whites, none, for crack offenses between 1988 and 1994. And my colleagues tell me that they think it may be applied unequally? This is despite the fact that two-thirds of those who have tried crack are white and over one-half of crack regular users are white. This is a fairness issue and it is a race issue. Mr. Chairman, I do not care how they try and paint it. I do not care what they say. This is patently unfair. It is blatant and my colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is racist, because their little white sons are not getting caught up in the system. They are not targeted. Our children are. Mr. Chairman, they are going into the Federal system with mandatory sentences and it is a race issue. It is a racist policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sawyer substitute amendment, and in strenuous opposition to the so-called TEAM Act. This bill is a power grab. It is an attempt by the Republican majority--on behalf of their company benefactors--to further tilt the power balance in favor of employers over employees. [[Page H 9544]] Labor relations in this country are predicted on a balance of power between workers and owners. That balance has been severely undercut in recent years. The legislation before us would exacerbate that situation. This bill is designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The bill's sponsors say employer-employee teams are threatened under current law. However, the law clearly permits suggestion box procedures, staff meetings about issues of quality or customer care, the delegation of managerial responsibilities to employee work teams, and direct contact concerning all terms and conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Act does prohibit employer-controlled units from representing workers in discussions of the terms and conditions of their employment. This is a fundamental right of all American workers. This bill would take that away. Despite the success thousands of U.S. employers have had destroying unions, intimidating workers, and exporting U.S. jobs to Third World countries for cheap labor--they want more. This bill will take away one more basic worker right. The Sawyer substitute would clarify some of the law in this area. It would allow companies to engage in certain types, with their workers, of activities that can improve productivity. This amendment is necessary to address erroneous claims of the bill's supporters that legitimate activities are currently threatened. Of course workers should help management improve production techniques. Of course workers have a lot to offer their companies to make the workplace more efficient. However, what must not happen, is to allow companies to undermine fundamental labor law to make it easier to establish company unions. Collective bargaining, the right for workers to freely elect their representatives is a basic American right. Just because one political party--one which represents the most conservative, antiunion businesses--comes to power in one election, is no reason to throw out 60 years of labor law. If anything, this Congress should be considering legislation to enhance workers' ability to represent themselves. Workers rights have deteriorated badly. This bill would only make matters worse. Let's not turn our back on America's workers. Let's defeat this mean- spirited power grab by corporate special interests. Support the Sawyer substitute. And while I am standing here, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I do not know if those on the other side of the aisle have any real credibility in talking about the rights of workers. I am sick and tired of workers right here in this Congress of the United States coming to Members to try and get someone to act on their behalf because they are being treated badly. We have wiped out the lowest paid workers down in the folding room. Now I am told that, and I am absolutely disturbed by it, our own clerks and people who work here for us hours into the night, for long hours, are being told they cannot use their compensatory time. Too bad if they have to work overtime until the end of the year, they cannot use it. That is wrong. Our employees right here need protection. And let me tell Members, this gentlewoman will continue to force the other side of the aisle to deal with what they are doing to their own employees. We know that we are not covered by the labor laws until January. So they can wipe people out now before January comes. They can take away their compensatory time. They can treat them badly. They can fire them. They will not be able to bargain or negotiate. But let me say, if they want credibility in talking about worker rights and what should happen, treat their own employees right first, and then perhaps someone will believe them.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment to help women and girls attain equal opportunities in education and employment. Today, most women must work to earn a living. Yet women still earn 25 percent less than men. They are often tracked into traditionally female occupations which pay considerably less than the careers of their male counterparts. This is why it is essential that we continue to encourage and train women to seek jobs which pay higher wages. This amendment would do just that. It would require States to maintain programs which encourage the elimination of sexual bias in job training and vocational education. In this way, women could substantially increase their incomes by training for nontraditional occupations which pay 20-30 percent more than traditional, predominantly female ones. This amendment would also require States to continue to provide specialized services to meet the needs of displaced-homemakers and single parents. These programs, supported by both Democrats and Republicans for the past 11 years, have been tremendously successful in decreasing dependency on public assistance, and in increasing the employment and wage rates of participants. In one State, 71 percent of the people who participated in the displaced homemakers/single parent and sex equity programs doubled their incomes after completing their training programs. Let us be realistic. States will not continue to serve the needs of these important groups unless they are required to. Without establishing specific set-asides, this amendment would require each State to continue providing equitable job training and vocational education for women, to give them the tools to become economically self sufficient. For the past 11 years, Congress has supported the effort to eliminate sex bias and stereotyping in employment. Let us continue to support women, as well as single parents and displaced homemakers, to learn new skills and increase their earning potential and productivity. Let us help them learn to permanently provide for themselves and for their families. Support the Mink amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Collins-Meyers amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to listen to this debate as I was listening to it a few minutes ago from my office. I had to ask myself if this is 1995. Have we forgotten what it used to be like? Have we forgotten the fact that there was a time when only a few could really compete and be successful with government procurement, not only in Federal Government, but in State government. We had situations where they did not even make public procurement opportunities. We have had people fighting now for years so that we can shine some light on the opportunities that are available, and put in publications and made public. We have had to take away the opportunity for just a few to participate because there were bureaucrats who could literally hand it out to those they thought should get it. It was a little old comfortable network of folks who could be successful, and my colleagues know this procurement game. Yes, we could set up a situation that I hear people talking about on the floor today where we could have bureaucrats say, ``Oh, I don't think this person, or that person, or this business is big enough, or smart enough, or the proposal doesn't look good enough, or it comes from a strange part of the country.'' We did not know that they had these kinds of operations there. They could do all of those things and exclude people from bidding, from participating. They could cut a lot of small businesses out that could be successful if they only had a decent chance to compete. But we do not want to go back to those days. We do not want to allow any one, or two, or three individuals to decide that they know best without people having a real opportunity to be evaluated. We talk about merit day in and day out. Well, I want my colleagues to know that is what this discussion is about, that is what this debate is about. It is about whether or not the Federal Government is going to open up opportunity for everybody. I hear a lot about suspect for small businesses, but this is the real test. This is the test of whether or not we are going to let small businesses, some of whom have not been successful in the past, but they are willing to continue to spend their money, they are willing to continue to knock on these doors, they are willing to continue to work hard to get a piece of this government business. Do not close the door not, and, please, do not make the argument about it is inconvenient. Mr. Chairman, I do not care about anybody's proposal for streamlining government. Of course we want to streamline government. But we do not ever want to conclude that it is too inconvenient for us to allow small businesses to compete, to allow those who have not had opportunities in the past. This is a test of whether or not those who stand up time and time again talking about how America is made up of small businesses and how they need, but have the opportunity, to participate, to see where they really stand for the opportunity for small business to participate. We are talking about opening it up, fair competition. We are talking about evaluating. We are talking about merit. This is a time to use to open the doors, not close them, not exclude, not keep out small businesses and women and others who have not been successful in this process in the past, because we have had those bureaucrats who can make decisions and not really evaluate people on their ability to perform.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution of disapproval. The 1995 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommendations have missed the mark. This year's report uses that I believe to be faulty methodology, underestimated costs, and optimistic savings assumptions. As I have stated previously in writing to President Clinton, in light of the problems associated with this report, we should declare a moratorium on all base closures, pending a reexamination of the true savings associated with closing the specified bases. Obviously, my primary frame of reference for this issue is in the State of California. California has already lost 22 bases--more than any other State. If the current closings go into effect, the cumulative loss for California would total 200,000 jobs and $7 billion in economic activity. Closing the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, in Long Beach, CA, as this report would do, is unnecessary, militarily risky, and it would exacerbate the deteriorating industrial base of our region of the country. Without question, these recommendations are bad for California, but they are bad for the military as well. Many of the savings envisioned from this report are illusory. There is no guarantee we can save money and no real assurances that jobs lost can be replaced. Previous attempts to contract for lost jobs have been less than successful. In conclusion, let's start this process over and do it right. Let's support this resolution, and disapprove the Base Closing Commission report.