Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, last week when I heard about the Goss amendment I went to him to discuss with him that amendment and to try and determine what he was trying to do. I am surprised today when I hear the gentleman, because my discussion with him last week, well, he sounded a lot different. The gentleman said to me, ``Let me assure you, I do not want to do anything to harm Haiti. I would like to encourage them. I am with you all the way.'' He said, ``I was there, and I think they did a pretty good job.'' He said, ``I think there were a few problems.'' So, having had that conversation with him one-on-one, I am surprised when I hear him on the floor today, because he sounds like a different person. He even said to me, ``I want to amend my amendment to put in substantial compliance, because I in no way believe that we should hold them to the strict standard of the 1987 Constitution.'' Because, he implied, ``I know what had to be done for the election. With Aristide only returning in October, to say that they had to put everything in place to comply with the Constitution was literally impossible, and we wanted these elections to be held. And yes, Ms. Waters, I agree, that ever since everybody, but everybody, signed off on the way that they should proceed. And recognizing that everything demanded by the Constitution could not be put in place, I think it has worked out well.'' Well, you know, maybe I need to ask the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] to revisit this conversation, because when he gets on the floor today, then he starts to go back and say some things that really do surprise me. Let me just say, this amendment should not be about refighting and getting involved in a struggle where there were some who did not believe we had any place in Haiti, that did not want us to assist Haiti, who made statements that pained us all, ``We are not going to and we do not wish to lose one good American soldier on their soil.'' We do not want to go back to talk about that. Let us put that behind us. Let us at least conclude, as reasonable people can do, that we have helped Haiti, and they are grateful. Do they say to us over and over again how grateful they are? We must have had 200 CODELs to Haiti. Everybody has been to Haiti. Everybody from both sides of the aisle that has wanted to go. Those who did not want to go have been to Haiti. They have been received with warmth. They have been embraced. The president has thanked us profusely, and we know that they are grateful for what we have done. Having done all of that, the President has said over and over again, What else do you want me to do? How else can I make you believe that all that I want for my beloved country is freedom and democracy for its people? Everything that we have asked him to do he has done. I am pleased and proud, as I look at what took place with these elections. Now, if you recall what happened in South Africa, people stood in lines for hours. If you will recall, it took them a long time to count the ballots. If you will recall, there were some skirmishes. It will happen. Let us not talk about what happens in America but certainly in a third world country, where they do not have the computerization, they do not have the electricity and other things, certainly you expect there are going to be some problems. But why are you putting on them the kind of restrictions to box them in to say that if you do not comply with the 1987 Constitution for the 1995 elections coming up and somebody, God knows who, tells the president that they have not done it, then we are to withhold money. I do not think you mean that. Mr. Goss, I say to you now, I think that you are the man that I talked to last Thursday. I really do not think whatever has influenced you today is the real you. I want you to do what you told me you wanted to do. I want you to join with me in helping Haiti. Let me tell you how you can do it. We do not mind working with you to structure something that would encourage them, but, Mr. Goss, you need to pull this amendment back from the floor. You should not disrespect your colleagues from Florida. You work pretty well with them from time to time. Carrie Meek is here. She is pained by what you are doing. Mr. Hastings is also.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1854. This bill's treatment of employees, the lowest paid employees, in the folding room, the recording studio, and the photographic studio, is an outrage. Just as this House's employees were to come under private sector laws, 270 of them will be let go in the most capricious way. For the rest of the country, we have a Job Training Partnership Act, JTPA, as it is known, and that law has a specific title, title III, for dislocated workers. This is a program that assists in communities, States and local governments, and private sector employees who lose their jobs. Many businesses have their own training and placement programs in addition to those run by the government, and in the case of some industries, such as aerospace, there are additional JTPA programs designed to meet the specific job training needs of the dislocated population. Yet this bill makes no serious attempt to assist our own employees who [[Page H 6177]] are slated for termination. Let me be clear about who we are talking about. Folding room employees, for example, are among the lowest paid workers in the House. Many of them have 15 and 20 years of service. They have never been promoted to anything. After all of these years, many of them have never received a salary increase, maybe one salary increase, and this under both Republicans and Democrats. We are talking about people who have endured the most difficult working conditions of any House employees. If you have ever been down in the folding room, you know what I mean. I think it has been a health hazard. I think not only have they been working in unsafe conditions, I think there have been problems of discrimination, on and on and on, and I really think they should pursue a lawsuit. Let us defeat this bill and do it right. We need to do something about our employees. I was attempting to describe a situation that we should all be embarrassed about. We have low-entry-level employees working in these various places, and the folding room is a prime example of where they have been working for years, many of them 20-25 years, that have received no upper mobility opportunities, very little in pay increases, working in unsafe conditions, and we are literally kicking them out. And do not tell me that the measly amount of money that was put in in the Committee on Appropriations is designed to do anything real. These people need an opportunity to be retrained. They need job training. If we can do it for the private sector and others, if we have money in the Federal Government, why are we treating our own employees this way? I am sorry that I and others who care so much about this issue have not had an opportunity, because we do not serve on the Committee on Appropriations, but you are about to do the same thing, I understand, with our elevator operators and with others. They deserve better than the way that they are being treated. I believe that this business to rush to privatization, to give out contracts, I am told, that do not even go up to bid without making any requirements that these people be hired by the people that we are giving these contracts to is absolutely unconscionable. I would urge this body to show that it cares about the least of these, to show that we are not just concerned about ourselves and our generous salaries and our perks, whatever they may be, but that we care about little people. Do you know that many of these people may never work again? Many of them have little children. It is tough out there, with no job training. We can do better than this. Let us send this bill back. Let us do it right. This is enough for Democrats and Republicans alike to come together on. It is not too much to ask.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct conferees on this year's budget resolution. I take the floor not to oppose deficit reduction or even a balanced budget, but to debate budget priorities. Government can be reduced. Spending can spending reductions in a manner that is fair, strategic, and economically wise. The House Republican budget proposal fails miserably on these counts. First, the tax policy contained in the Republican budget is backwards. This budget reduces taxes by $350 billion over 7 years. At least one- half of the benefits of these tax breaks will go to families earning over $100,000. This is, indeed, class warfare. Families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will receive a tax cut of almost $2,500 per year under this budget. Those families earning over $200,000 would do better yet. They would receive $11,266 in yearly tax relief under the House budget plan. This is, indeed, class warfare. Amazingly, at the same time the same budget increases taxes on millions of working poor people. It does this by reducing the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit makes work pay. The earned income tax credit only goes to working families. The earned income tax credit increases people's economic incentive to leave welfare. I cannot imagine the rationale for lowering taxes on Americans who are doing well, who are doing the best, while at the same time raising taxes on Americans who are struggling. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about welfare reform in this Chamber. The earned income tax credit is among the best work programs for low income Americans there is. It is an outrage that the Republican budget would cut that program back. This is, indeed, class warfare. On the spending side, the Republicans have made seniors, the disabled, the sick, students, and the poor the sacrificial lambs in their campaign to reach a balanced budget. The simple fact is this, Medicare is being reduced. It is being reduced to pay for a tax cut which would benefit mostly rich Americans. Nearly $500 billion will be cut from Medicaid and Medicare over 7 years. Seniors and the poor must not and should not be punished by this Congress. We must cut wisely, not indiscriminately. A budget reflects our national priorities. Unfortunately, I am afraid this budget establishes a set of priorities that are mean spirited, shortsighted and economically foolish. Support the motion to instruct the conferees. Bring families and proper priorities to this budget. Stop the class warfare. Discontinue this budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 366, I was unavoidably detained have voted ``no.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment authored by the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney]. This amendment is about the new world order. The United States has emerged as the undisputed political, economic, and military leader of the world. With the end of the cold war, the old ways of doing international business--especially military business--are no longer adequate. This is a time to re-evaluate. It is a time for America to live up to the promise of its creed--across our borders as well as within them. This Nation must not support dictators. It must stand strongly against human rights abuses. We have the capacity--through diplomatic pressure, business opportunity, and military arms relationships--to make the world safer for its citizens. The United States should exercise that power. This, Mr. Chairman, is what the McKinney amendment is all about. We only need to look at the recent past to find examples of good intentions gone bad in the U.S. arms sales. Many people have heard about the recent, gross violations of human rights in Turkey. Turkey happens to be one of the largest recipients of United States military aid. Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb testified yesterday that Turkey's rulers helicopters and M-60 tanks against its own Kurdish population. The United States also militarily supplies human rights abusers in Indonesia and Malaysia. Unfortunately, we are considering more aid to the Government of Indonesia--despite widely reported human rights abuses by the Indonesian military against East Timor. In the not quite so recent past, this country felt forced to stop a military exercise by Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. We had a major war-- risking the lives of thousands of soldiers--against Iraq, a country which had always been a human rights abuser, and which had been the recipient of U.S. aid, including military aid. Too many times in this country's history, we have been short-sighted policy in our arms export policy. Too many times, short-term military alliances have led to long-term human rights disasters, or worse. The McKinney amendment does not preclude military assistance to any country. If the President and Congress agree that an arms sale is in the national security interest, that sale would be allowed. However, the McKinney amendment would establish basic, humane, and appropriate standards for the conduct of U.S. military export policy. These standards are common sense standards such as requiring our military exports to go to countries which hold free and fair elections; such as being sure our sales go to countries which do not engage in gross violations of human rights, and making sure that our arms exports do not go to countries which engage in illegal acts of armed aggression. If there was ever a time when this country could justify working with human rights abusers to further some longer-term strategic objective, that time is surely past. This country, without any serious military threat to our security, now must face its responsibility, and act as the world's moral leader. The McKinney amendment would apply a moral test to U.S. foreign policy. Let us assert our role as a moral leader in the world. Support the McKinney amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this CBC budget alternatives. This budget is about jobs. It is about job training, job security, and job creation. There is a lot of discussion about homelessness. If you want to get the homeless off the street and the dole, we need to provide them with jobs and job training. This budget funds job training for the homeless. We can get rid of crime and youth violence with jobs and job training. This budget funds a variety of programs to train young people. The young people of this Nation truly need these jobs this summer. We fund the Youth Fair Chance Program, a program that will get troubled young people back into the mainstream with education and jobs. We have the best welfare reform in this budget for welfare recipients. Welfare recipients need jobs and job training. This budget does that. It also funds rent reform so that public housing recipients can go to work and get off welfare. Many formerly middle-class workers now work in entry-level jobs because they have not learned new skills. This budget would invest in retraining and economic conversion so laid-off workers can learn a skill and return to jobs which provide a decent standard of living. If you believe the private sector must lead the way in economic development, this budget would restore and expand funds for community development banks. Community development banks create small businesses. Small businesses create jobs. The best social program in the world is a job. Finally, the Republican budget is the budget that protects the big corporate welfare interests, the Wall Street robber barons and the big corporate tax manipulators. The CBC budget is a budget of working people, the middle class, of children and the poor. Let's bring hope, not despair, to America. Support the CBC budget.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the senior citizens in my district are in fundamental opposition to the Republican budget, and I rise to support them. All is not well in America today. The wages of working people are stagnant. Corporations downsize or flee our shores altogether in search of cheap labor. Fewer workers have pensions to look forward to in old age and employers seek to squeeze employee health benefits. Tragically, this budget does not address those fundamental problems. Instead, it would cut taxes for the rich, and--amazingly--it would pay for those tax cuts by cutting Medicare. This Republican budget is an assault on the Medicare Program. We have a compact with our senior citizens. Between Social Security and Medicare, this country has reduced elderly poverty, tended to the sick, and assisted in long-term care for our mothers, our fathers, and our grandparents. With this budget, Mr. Chairman, all this could come to an end. To our shock, this Republican budget would destroy years of trust between the Federal Government and seniors. The $283 billion in Medicare cuts would have several different consequences. Many costs that are currently paid by the Medicare Program would probably be shifted to Medicare beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums, deductions, and coinsurance payments, such as the proposed 20 percent home health coinsurance. Let me share the story of my friend and constituent, Mrs. Pat Eastman. Mrs. Eastman is a World War II veteran. She is 82 years old and lives alone. Mrs. Eastman has numerous medical problems. While she is a veteran, she does not qualify for medical service through the VA because she is not 50 percent service-connected disabled. Mrs. Eastman has to pay someone to transport her back and forth to the VA for outpatient care. She has to pay a copayment for her medications. Recently, Mrs. Eastman was hospitalized for severe infections from Ecoli bacteria. [[Page H5139]] Since her discharge from the hospital, Mrs. Eastman has had to rely on the services of a visiting home nurse who comes to her home three times a week. Without these home health services, paid for by Medicare, Mrs. Eastman would have had to remain in the hospital or be transferred to a skilled nursing facility. Mrs. Eastman has a long history of service to the Los Angeles community as well. She was a vote registrar. She sat on street corners and helped register people to vote. She continues to be a member of our California senior legislature. Pat Eastman has devoted her life to making her community and her country better. It is estimated that approximately 3.8 million Medicare beneficiaries will use home health services, in 1996. Under current law, these services are covered by Medicare. If Republicans have their way, Mrs. Eastman and the other Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay an additional $900 out-of-pocket for home health services; this amount will rise to $1,200 in 2002. This 20-percent coinsurance will not save money or reduce Medicare costs. It will simply drive many Medicare beneficiaries into nursing homes because they will not be able to afford the home health services that would enable them to remain at home. At age 82, after all the hoopla surrounding the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, this heroic World War II veteran should not be abandoned.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 16, during consideration of final passage of the Clean Water Act Reform Act, H.R. 961, I was outside the building and inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay.'' A EULOGY TO MAX McCARTHY

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my most profound sympathy for the victims of the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City during the congressional work period. I can think of no more hateful, cowardly act than to ruthlessly bomb a Federal building while hundreds of hard-working Americans are doing their jobs. I cannot imagine the grief, or express in words, how difficult a period this must be for those who knew and loved the victims of this terrible attack. Losing a loved one is hard no matter what the circumstances. The evil which led to the loss of life in Oklahoma would only make the grieving process more difficult. I am hopeful that the Federal Government will continue its swift, aggressive action to locate the suspects in this horrifying case. I join with the millions of Americans who are encouraged by the Justice Department's urgent efforts to see justice served. We can only hope that the case is solved and those who are responsible for this heinous crime are severely punished. The most important issue facing America today is the need to stop the violence which is tearing society apart. Violence begets violence. The thought that an American citizen would kill other American citizens defies reason and sanity. But the thought that the State, in response, would kill the perpetrator of this crime troubles me deeply as well. My thoughts are with all of those whose lives have been touched by this terrible tragedy.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, do the rules provide for a 3-day notice on a conference report?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. WATERS. The question is raised, Mr. Speaker, because if there was a waiver, then I wonder how does that impact the ruling of the Speaker?

Ms. WATERS. I thank the chair. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the argument that basically concludes that indeed the tax measure giving the tax benefit to Mr. Rupert Murdoch did not originate in this House. It is no question. One may raise a question about the kind of debate that we attempted to have yesterday where we were denied the opportunity to really explain what had taken place on this. And I think that having heard Mr. Deutsch's explanation today, no one in this House can disagree that indeed the measure did originate on the other body's side.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not the answer to the real problems of America. We all know that middle-class America is worried. We all know that poor Americans continue to struggle. It is no mystery why this is so. Since the mid-1970's wages have overseas for cheap labor. As trade unions have been beaten back, hard- earned benefits like health coverage, pensions, and family leave have eroded. Mr. Chairman, in the 1980's, taxes increased on working class Americans. So the squeeze is on and politicians are feeling the heat. We could go right at the problem, but the Republicans have resorted to cheap politics. They have gone back to old-fashioned, trickle-down economic theory: reward the rich and pray. Mr. Chairman, the capital gains tax cut contained in this bill would yield over 75 percent of its benefits to those earning over $100,000 a year. Low-and middle-income families may need tax relief, but the Republican plan goes to families earning up to $200,000. To make matters worse, last week the Republicans deleted a Senate proposal to get tough on billionaires who renounce their American citizenship to avoid paying capital gains taxes. The Republican leadership placed in a provision protecting a $63 million business deal for the Speaker's friend, Rupert Murdoch. This is not a strategy for economic opportunity. It is indeed class warfare of the rich against poor and working-class and middle-class Americans. This Congress needs to reject Wall Street's solutions to Main Street problems. Cheesy tax cut promises only make Americans cynical about Government and politicians. Until we begin to address basic American concerns, this institution will continue to suffer in the public's eye. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't play with the fears of anxious Americans. Let's get serious about our economic problems. Let's reject this Republican charade. Let's vote this turkey down.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, if it is not a rule and you cannot cite a rule, and you are saying it is a prerogative of the Speaker, is it documented anywhere that the Speaker intended to handle his power in this way? You may not be aware that the Speaker said that he is adamantly opposed to this tax giveaway to Mr. Murdoch, and that he wishes to do something about it. I do not think you should shut down that opportunity.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, shame, shame, shame. Remember the debate about the FCC rule that allowed major broadcasting first to sell their firms to minorities and women in exchange for tax credits in an effort to create diversity in the media? Remember our Republican friends who screamed no to that kind of affirmative action? They claimed they were against any preferences? Well, it is business as usual. They went into the back room and they slipped a dirty little deal in the conference report. They allowed one token minority deal, and guess who surfaces again? Newt Gingrich's friend, Rupert Murdock, is going to get $63 million in tax breaks. You know, the same Murdock of the $4.5 million book deal with Speaker Gingrich? The President must veto this dirty little deal. Let us take a clean bill to the floor to provide health insurance to the self-employed and small business persons, without giving more tax breaks to the rich. For the Republicans it is business-as-usual, cut children, babies, seniors, students, working people, but they are taking care of Newt Gingrich's rich friends.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. But then, Mr. Speaker, you are exercising the discretion of the Speaker, as I understand it, sir, but you do not have the power to exercise that discretion fully? There appears to be a contradiction here.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, if you do not have the power by which to grant unanimous consent, acting on the Speaker's behalf, how, then, do you have the power to grant the opportunity for this to be put in the Record and to be dealt with tomorrow?

Ms. WATERS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Inglis substitute. Mr. Chairman, I have tried hard to understand the position of those who support a constitutional amendment to impose congressional terms limits. I must admit, I am somewhat mystified by the implications of constitutionally imposed terms limits. Here is a sample of slogans for terms limit supporters: stop me before I win again; vote for--that way someone else can serve. Vote for term limits, that way I won't have to retire; support term limits--I just can't stop running. Voters of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your power. It's funny, we have heard a lot from the Republicans these past few months about the message voters sent last November. At the very least, Mr. Chairman, the voters said they wanted their elected representatives to be the people they voted for. If the voters said anything, it was that they want the people they voted for to serve in Congress. But this constitutional amendment undermines that choice. If politicians want politicians to serve shorter terms, they should just serve fewer years. Do not restrict voters ability to elect who they want. To those who support term limits, give yourself a break, the voters like you. Do your duty, serve them. Don't beat yourself up. This bill is a gimmick designed to fool people. Every term limit supporter in this House can personally enforce term limits. I'm afraid the real slogan for the term limit Members of Congress should be do as I say, not as I do.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink proposal. I support it because I know something about this subject matter. As a little girl growing up in St. Louis in a welfare family, I know what it means to be hungry, to be cold, to be without health care, to have to put cotton in a cavity because there is no preventive care. I know what it means to be a frightened little child, thinking everybody hates you. I often said that if I ever had the opportunity to support children, to be an advocate, to talk about what you could do to get families off welfare, I would do that. This proposal gives me that opportunity. It provides child care. That is what my mother needed. She needed some training, she needed to be educated. This proposal would allow that. She needed a transition period in which to wind off welfare. This proposal provides that. Do not be mean, do not be cruel, do not knock children on disability off welfare. Do not make the children victims. I know what it takes and I would ask Members to listen to me. Let us have a fair proposal in the form of the Patsy Mink proposal that really speaks for the needs of welfare families. If you want to make families independent, let a welfare child tell you how to do it. It can happen. And let me reiterate, whatever penny, whatever dollar, whatever dime was invested in this welfare child, it has paid off for America and for our people.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this morning a Republican Member of this body, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Clay Shaw, was shown on national TV making a most irresponsible and outrageous statement disparaging welfare mothers by saying, and I quote, ``You wouldn't leave your cat with them on the weekend.'' apology. How dare him single out welfare mothers and refer to them in such negative terms. There are responsible people in all segments of our society and there are irresponsible people. Some politicians are responsible and some are irresponsible. Mr. Clay Shaw falls in the category of the irresponsible. There are many solid responsible welfare recipients who love and care for their children, who attend church on Sunday, who work part-time jobs, who search for jobs, who attend schools in an effort to better themselves. Welfare mothers and fathers, it is time to speak up. Call Newt Gingrich at 202-225-0600 and tell him to help you with a job.