Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for yielding me time.

Let me begin by thanking my good friend, the gentleman from the State of Alabama (Mr. Rogers). We are both Alabama native sons. What a testament to the Tuskegee Airmen that today a white Alabamian and a black Alabamian stand here to pay tribute to their remarkable work.

So much has been said about their remarkable accomplishments, and I will not repeat any of that, but something needs to be said about the origins of these men.

When they were born every single one of them was born in a segregated society that was dedicated to the proposition that men and women are unequal and created unequally. When every single one of these men was born, they lived in a world that doubted their value, that doubted their worth, that doubted their potential to contribute to this country, and yet they rose above it. They worked and practiced in an Army, for that matter, that was segregated. Yet they somehow rose above it.

There are young men and women who are listening to us right now, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that they will take this lesson from our standing here and saluting these airmen today: That even if you are born in a condition and climate that holds you back, even if you are born in conditions of the inner city and rural parts of the South that would seem to tell you what you cannot do, look up to the Tuskegee Airmen, because they are an example of human beings rising to their highest potential against all kinds of odds.

I close, Mr. Speaker, simply by saying again, as a son of Alabama, that this is the progress that our State has made. When the history of the last century is finally written and the history of human progress is written, let it be said that these brave men came to my State of Alabama to learn about serving their country and that they learned a talent that helped keep our country free. May we draw some inspiration from that.

I thank all of the outstanding Members who have spoken on this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, as we convene for the beginning of the 109th Congress, one of our first acts is the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. We remember the heroic forces that brought an end to the brutal atrocities against mankind, and we necessarily remember the death camp itself, the immoral center of last century's greatest genocide.

We understand better today than we did then that the purpose of genocide, racism, of anti-Semitism, is the degradation of the spirit of the victims and their kind. It is the malice of group hatred that reigned at Auschwitz. Consequently, our moral necessity today is to leave bigotry without any safe ground to stand upon. A false understanding of our liberal values sometimes leads us to refrain from attacks on intolerance--the harder truth is that we should put our liberal values in fierce competition with religious and ethnic hatred, and deploy those values to counter the demonizing of race and sects that still goes on.

Freedom is a worldwide value worth defending and expanding. To be won, that struggle too must be informed by remembrance: Freedom fares very well in the tolerant places in the human condition and never lasts long in the bigoted, hateful, mean spirited places.

Mr. Speaker that is one reason we pass this resolution today--to link our current struggles to our past ones.

Never Again, Never Forget

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me time, and let me begin, as is customary, by certainly

thanking the Chair of this committee and the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I am well aware that in these last several days of the session there are a lot of bills competing to make their way onto this floor. There is a lot of potential legislation that could have been offered and put before this body, and I want to certainly thank them for allowing this bill to move forward.

Let me thank my good friend and my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), from Alabama's 6th District, for making this commemoration a bipartisan cause.

Finally, let me thank my colleagues from the Senate side, Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions, who have agreed to do everything in their power to move this resolution promptly through the Senate.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by talking for a moment about that day, because it seems so distant and so far away as we stand here in this civilized capitol. It is hard to imagine, as people watch this on the television screens or in the gallery, that we were once a country where four little girls got up one Sunday morning, went to Sunday school wearing their Sunday best and never had a chance to make it home. It is hard to imagine, standing in this civilized place, that we were once a country that was so raw and so full of hate that this kind of crime could happen and that years and years would go by without it being prosecuted.

September 15, 1963, was a very different place. America was a very different land. And it is fitting that we come here today to call attention to these four little girls. Their names, Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley, echo across these last decades, and the violence that was inflicted on my city of Birmingham, Alabama, rings across those decades as well.

After I speak today, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), will stand here, and I am reminded every time I see him of the journey we have made in America in the last 41 years. We have gone from a place where four little girls could not find safety in the sanctuary of a church to the House of Representatives where 40 of us who proudly sit here are African-Americans, and to a U.S. Senate that will soon host another African-American.

We have come a long way from a time where four little girls could not find sanctuary in a church to a place where a native of Birmingham, Alabama, an African-American, is now our National Security Advisor, and another person with Birmingham ties, an African-American, is now our Secretary of State.

But it is still fitting that, as far as we have come, that we take the time to think about the tragedy. And I am pleased that my colleagues will have an opportunity to pass this resolution that writes this violent act in stone so that all future generations can see it.

Another important part of this resolution is that it honors the law enforcement personnel. The reality is, it took 14 years for the Alabama Attorney General William Baxley to bring the first of the killers to justice. It took 31 years, to 1994, for the Federal Government to reopen its investigation, and it took until the spring of 2001 for the final killer who still lives to be brought to justice.

Without the work of the former United States Attorney Doug Jones and the former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, this justice would not have been achieved and the indictment and prosecution of these killers would not have occurred. Honoring them is an important part of this resolution.

Let me end with just these two observations. Whenever we think of this kind of sadness in America, we should also still look to the promise in our country. Whenever I hear the eloquence of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), as this chamber will in a few moments, it ought to remind us of the promise that exists.

It so happens that this September 15, 2004, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and I were at this church at a commemorative event. He was there as the keynote Speaker. I was there to introduce him. And during the course of that service something enormously profound happened. We looked up in the balcony, and there was a choir of little black girls from Sixth Avenue Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and they were standing there singing America the Beautiful, and they were waving American flags as they did it.

I looked over at my colleague and my friend from Georgia, and he had a tear in his eye, as did many people who were in that church. And I have to say to my colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, that to stand in that place, 41 years after four little girls could not even manage to leave there alive, and to see those little black girls singing about the beauty of their country and waving the flag that we so proudly salute, if that does not make you feel proud to be an American, then I do not know what will.

So I conclude today simply by saying that memory is enormously important. Commemoration is enormously important. But the real power of this institution is to take those memories and translate them into contemporary good works; to take the power of those memories and to translate them into an enduring commitment to make this country as just as possible. So in their spirit, I offer this resolution and, in advance, thank this House for passing it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4600, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004. This Bill codifies the reinstatement of an established business relationship exception permitting businesses, associations and charities to send commercial faxes without receiving written permission from the recipient. Additionally, H.R. 4600 crafts reporting requirements granting Congress the authority to regulate the FCC's enforcement activities, and includes an ``opt-out provision''

that gives the recipient the opportunity to avoid further faxes.

In 1991, Congress passed the Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which protected consumers from unsolicited commercial faxes and permitted legitimate businesses and organizations to fax fundraising requests, advertisements, dues renewal notices, and other pertinent information to individuals with an established business relationship. For the past ten years the Commission has continued to follow its 1991 interpretation deeming such publications invited or permitted devoid of any discernable measure of complaints from the general public.

In 2003, the FCC revisited the issue of unsolicited commercial faxes and determined that an ``express invitation or permission'' must be in writing and include the recipient's signature. Compliance with the FCC's 2003 decision requires every business, association, and charity to obtain written permission from anyone receiving commercial faxes.

Starting on January 1, 2005 the FCC's ruling goes into effect. A majority of the businesses and organizations would be forced to shoulder considerable financial and logistical burdens. Consequently, the Commission's 2003 decision would require everyday customers, requesting specific information such as vacation packages from travel agents or menus from local restaurants, to submit a written, signed statement consenting to the receipt of such publications. Obviously, many small businesses, charities, and associations are concerned with the FCC's recent interpretation and its impact on their lives.

In practice the FCC's 2003 decision would be devastating to a myriad of small businesses that rely heavily on fax publications and advertisements. It has been estimated that two-thirds of small business owners will be required to obtain consent forms from greater than 100 separate fax numbers in the first year alone. Research indicates that if enacted, the ``FCC's new rules would cost small business owners at least $5,000 in the first year and $3,000 per year in compliance. In addition, the FCC's decision would require greater than 27 staff hours in order to obtain customers' initial consent and 20 hours each year thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4600 seeks to reverse the FCC's overly burdensome, expensive and unnecessary interpretation. The current measure is necessary to strike a proper balance between an individual's right to protection and privacy from unsolicited and invasive faxes with a business's need for communication and right to free enterprise. I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, if I can purport to get into the heads of the majority and answer that question for myself for a minute, I think it is fairly basic. I would guess, Mr. Chairman, the reason is about 5, 6 years ago there was an overwhelming consensus in this body that we apply PAYGO to both tax and spending for a very simple reason. It is good common sense. It is only basic fairness.

If I can, Mr. Chairman, let me make this point. This sounds like a very esoteric debate to a lot of people who are listening right now. Do we apply PAYGO to revenues? Do we apply PAYGO to spending? And there is a certain technical-sounding aspect to it.

There is a way to cut to the chase and make this a whole lot simpler. Who do we make bear the brunt of discipline and sacrifice in this country? It is very clear after listening to a lot of the very able adversaries on the other side of the aisle that they are not terribly interested in asking but a few people to sacrifice in this country. They are only interested in seeking to impose discipline on but a few of us, and they in the name of tax cuts would seal off a whole portion of our population, namely people who are receiving huge tax cuts because of their income, from the brunt and burden of sacrifice.

This is what we ought to understand today. We may argue about all kinds of aspects of the Clinton years, but they were enormously successful in bringing this economy back, creating jobs and leading us into surplus.

These facts are indisputable. When William Jefferson Clinton left the White House, we had a surplus of $122 billion. Today as George W. Bush submits himself to the country for re-election, we have a deficit of around $500 billion. If any CEO in America had gone from having that kind of surplus to that kind of a deficit in 4 years, his contract would absolutely not be renewed. This is a fundamental question of how fair we are as a people. Are we fairer now than we were four years ago?

And I would submit that it is fundamentally wrong and fiscally irresponsible to only ask people who do not have certain influence, who do not have a certain voice in this society to bear the brunt.

So the reality is if we decide, we are going to apply these PAYGO rules, there ought to be a very simple test, Mr. Chairman, number one, what would bring us closer to fiscal soundness and, number two, what provides for fairness. It is only fair and only reasonable that we do what an overwhelming majority of the Republicans wanted to do 5 years ago. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we can somehow make these rules work, then we will be back on the way to fiscal stability in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for his commitment and the power of his example on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want this debate to end without adding my voice to it and my strong endorsement of this resolution. It follows a very long, very enduring bipartisan tradition, one that says that we are two lonely defenders of freedom, the United States and Israel. We are two lonely defenders in a very difficult neighborhood in this world and we do have a common obligation.

And that is something else that should be said from this side of the aisle, and our leader alluded to it very well. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have profound disagreements with the administration over policy in Iraq. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have profound disagreements with this administration over the skill with which

it has gone about building a new course for Iraq and whether we should have gone in the first place. But none of that should obscure that the value behind that policy, if it is one of promoting democracy, if it is one of expanding the frontier of freedom, that is a value that we all share.

And when we think of Abu Ghraib and we think of all the mistakes that have been made in the last year and a half, the fact that those values may not have been defended so well does not diminish the power of those values.

And I would simply close on this observation: Whenever we think of our friends in Israel, their lonely struggle, we should recall the words of an old union general who came back to Gettysburg, an old Union soldier who came back to Gettysburg on the 50th anniversary of that fight, he reminded his daughter in a letter that when we talk about the cause of the Civil War, he said, ``The men who won that day will always be right; the men who lost that day will always be wrong.''

So it is when it comes to freedom. Those of us who believe in it, those of us who promote the frontier of democracy shall always be right and those who stand for oppression, authoritarianism, and who do not respect the dignity of men and women shall always be wrong. I am proud to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the great State of Virginia for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, there are three of us who are African American who were not even born when this act was passed: the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), and me. I should begin by saying that those of us who were born in the late 1960s, we are not only the legatees of what was done here 40 years ago; we are very much the hope of what was done here 40 years ago. It was somehow imagined by the people who sat in this Chamber 40 years ago close to this very day that if they made this change in our laws that they would somehow open up the talent base in this country, that they would somehow build an America that had never been; and the fact that we commend this day shows us the continuing power of law.

It is sometimes fashionable to say that you cannot legislate morality in this country, and all of us have said that on our favorite issue or another; but this is the reality: law can be used to shape our moral character; law can be used to set the boundaries of what we will tolerate and what we will not accept and that is exactly what we did 40 years ago. We used the power of law to shape the American dream and to talk about its outer aspirations.

It is ironic as I stand here, one of the reasons that more Members are not in this Chamber right now is because at this very moment an African American Secretary of State is briefing the Congress. Another reason more Members are not here is because at this very moment a young, dynamic black Democrat named Barak Obama is in this building receiving members of the Congressional Black Caucus. A black Secretary of State; a black U.S. Senator about-to-be, born in Illinois; a black national security adviser. Whatever we disagree on, that is an America that no one would have contemplated 40 years ago.

I end just on this note. By thinking about frankly a lot of people who never had the chance to serve in this Chamber, all of the brilliant African Americans who were born too early to be in Congress, who were born too early to shape this country's agenda, they could have been here if America had been a little bit fairer and if our dream had been a little bit more secure in this country.

They are really the people we ought to be thinking about today in some sense because when that Congress passed the civil rights law and Lyndon Johnson signed it into law, this is what it did: it created an America where talent is the outer limit of what you can be. And yes, as my friend from Texas said, we routinely fall short of that goal, but at least we have it as a value, at least we have it as a goal; and it somehow defines what we can be and what we can still dream.

So as one young African American Member of this institution, I simply say this. We are so much freer than we used to be as a country. We are also so much more American.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably somewhat appropriate that I follow my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) because, like some other Members in this body, I passed from being a child to being a grown man under the Reagan Presidency during those 8 years. And it is appropriate and I am honored to stand here today as part of the great bipartisan tradition in this country to express my condolences to the Reagan family.

This is not a moment for party. It is a moment for solemn reflection about America and about someone who cared very deeply about America. Make no mistake, there are some on my side of the aisle who, including myself, have profound disagreements with the direction of what has been called the Reagan Revolution.

All of us in this Chamber do not share the same vision or the same viewpoints on a number of the President's policies during the 1980s, but this is a time to give him his due, and this is a time to remember what the best tradition of Ronald Reagan's conservatism meant.

One of my strongest memories of Ronald Reagan was one of his last great speeches when he went to the Berlin Wall about 24 years after John F. Kennedy went there, and he said symbolically to Mikhail Gorbachev, then the leader of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev, if you are serious about reform, if you are serious about freedom, come to this place, open this gate, and tear down this wall. And somehow 15 months later the wall was gone.

Ronald Reagan was fortunate that he lived to see successes on his own terms, he lived to see the wall come down in Berlin. And I have to believe this: We can debate as historians what caused the Soviet empire to fall without a shot being fired. We can debate as people who follow history what caused the Soviet Union to implode. But we ought to be generous enough this week to say that Ronald Reagan's courage was a part of that. His willingness to stand up to the Iron Curtain was no small part in the dismantling.

How do we honor Ronald Reagan? There are different opinions in this Chamber about how we do that. Let me close my time today by giving just one Member's opinion. President Reagan spoke very eloquently of a shining city on a hill. If we are to ever build a shining city on a hill that is America, we have to recognize that a shining city has no hollows, a shining city has no walls, and a shining city is one where all of our people somehow have a foundation and a chance for growth.

Ronald Reagan's conservatism, properly understood, oriented to the needs of our times, ought to mean at least this: It ought to mean that we believe in one community in America. It ought to mean that we believe in a community that is strong enough to raise up all of our people and strong enough to reconcile all of our differences.

So I end today by saying that whatever our differences with our friends on the other side of the aisle, whatever our differences with the direction of the 1980s, we ought to be secure in the sense that we are all Americans, and we ought to be secure in the sense of freedom that Ronald Reagan spoke about that day in Berlin, because there are all kinds of walls that still need to come down, and to truly salute this man's legacy, that ought to be our business today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I am always glad to see my friends from Florida and Ohio with all the promise that you all represent for this institution.

Let me just share an anecdote with you and then talk about that for a moment. I was in rural Alabama, in my home district, about close to exactly a year ago now. It was mid-June of 2003. And I had the honor of being the commencement Speaker at Judson College in Perry County, Alabama.

I remember a woman walked up to me after I had done the commencement speech, and she had tears in her eyes. I made the reasonable assumption that she was tearful because her child had graduated that day and they were tears of happiness. She walked up to me and said something that has stuck in my mind for the last year.

She said, ``Mr. Davis, I have a husband who is in Iraq right now as a member of the Alabama National Guard, and our daughter did graduate today. My husband, her father, could not be here because he is serving our country.'' And then she went on to say, and she said it brokenly, in the midst of her tears, she went on to say, ``Every morning I get up and I turn my television on CNN and I see the little crawler at the bottom of the screen, two Americans killed, three Americans killed.'' And she said, ``Every morning, when I see that, something just jumps up from my stomach to my throat, and I remember that they always notify the next of kin before they make a release of the names. And that gives me relief for a moment. But until I see those names, I always have the lingering sense of dread.''

That is what she said to me. Mind you, that was a year ago. That was before what has happened in April, it was before what has happened in May of this year, it was before Fallujah, it was before another 300 some Americans had lost their lives. That woman still gets up every morning, and I suspect if I ran into her tomorrow it would be the same conversation.

When you talk about Alabama, when you talk about one of the conservative States in this country, there is a myth in this city that people have made up their minds about the war. There is a myth in this city that people who live in the Alabamas of the world have made up their minds. Let me tell you, people in my State and I think people all around the south are searching for some wisdom. They are searching for some guidance. They want enough humility from this city and from the institutions of power in this city to recognize that we are struggling and we are trying to find our way.

These are not easy questions by any stretch of the imagination. We know the basics. We know that we have a significant investment of forces in a faraway land and that we are losing our men and women. We know that we have made a commitment, and we know that we are not a country that shirks from commitments once we make them. At the same time, we know that there are so many uncertainties. On June 30, there will be a transfer of power. We do not know what that transfer of power will beget.

As I have told so many people who live in my district, there should be no expectation on July 1 that soldiers will be drawn down, that large numbers of soldiers will leave. We do not know what will happen if this new government of 33 people is attacked or falls under siege in the next 6 months. We do not know what will happen if Iraq has elections and they elect a government that is hostile to the United States and we are invited to leave. What would we do at that point? What are our interests at this point in Iraq? Or to put it more basically, under what circumstances will we stay and under what circumstances will we begin to think about going?

Those are the questions that the people that you represent in south Florida and the people you represent in central Ohio and the people I represent in west and central Alabama are wondering about today. They are searching for a little bit of humility and a little bit of guidance.

There are two labels that get tossed around in this town a lot, pro- war and anti-war; and it strikes me that this, of all conflicts, this, of all foreign policy crises, may be a little too subtle for those simple terms.

Like you two gentlemen, and almost all of our colleagues, I spent Monday attending Memorial Day events. And on Monday morning in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, I had a chance to stand as close as I am to you right now in proximity to the widow of a gentleman who died in Iraq. His whole family was there. And something occurred to me. What do you say to a woman in that circumstance?

She really did not want to hear from me about politics. She really did not want to hear about Bush or Rumsfeld or Tenet. I do not know if she wanted to hear anything about policy or matters of state at all. But I do know that she wanted a little bit of comfort, a little bit of solace, a little bit of understanding.

There are so many families like that. That is what they want from us. They want some sense that we empathize with their pain.

And we do. There is not a one of us who sits in this institution who does not 100 percent support the men and women who are fighting there. Because at this point they are not fighting for a policy. They are fighting for survival. They do not pick up The New York Times to see if Bush is up or Kerry is up. They are simply trying to stay alive for a few more hours. And a lot of them, by the way, are younger than we are. We are three of the youngest people in this institution. A lot of these people are far younger than we are.

So the terms pro-war and anti-war, what do they mean? We have questions in this country, and what we need right now is a little bit of candor, and what we need is a little bit of direction. We have to get past this obsessive focus on personalities.

I, like most of you this afternoon, watched the news reports on George Tenet. I do not know the outgoing CIA Director. I do not know if you all do or not, but I do not know him. This does not seem to me to be about George Tenet. It did not seem to me to be about Condoleeza Rice when my fellow Alabaman testified before the 9/11 Commission. It did not seem to me to be about even Don Rumsfeld when we saw the excesses that happened at those prison camps. It is about something larger: What kind of country are we? What kind of values do we have? And how do we operate our institutions to reflect those values? Those are questions that are deeper and more abiding than anything that we are debating from day to day in the halls of public opinion and in the halls of this Congress.

So I would just say that what the people need from the President of the United States is enough humility to acknowledge that even the President does not know all the answers.

We are close to the 60th anniversary of Normandy, and I do not know how many of my colleagues know the story of the letter General Eisenhower wrote. General Eisenhower, as he was contemplating sending thousands of young men to their fate, wrote a letter that was meant to address a failure, a failure that he personally might not have survived. And the letter said something to the effect that this is my responsibility alone. If there is an error that has been made, it is my error.

That seems like more than 60 years ago. It seems like light years ago, sometimes, in this town. Because as you two know very well, sometimes we occupy a town where ``I am sorry'' is the last thing people will say. ``I am responsible'' is the last thing people will say. Or, at best, ``I take responsibility'' is what you say and not what you do.

So I think as we move deeper into this election year, as we contemplate the loss of life in Iraq, we all need to find some way to appeal to the better angels in our nature and some way to be true to our spirit and our values. And if we do that, we will find our way home, literally and figuratively. We will find our way to a policy that works for our country, a policy that is oriented in the best of our instincts.

And the difference is, if the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that in the 1930s and the 1940s the leaders of the world had a fair amount of confidence in the people that they served. Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt had a certain belief that the people they served were capable of rising to the occasion and that they would respond to candor and common sense.

Sometimes in this television sound-bite era that we live in, we do not have enough confidence in the people of our country. We have a mind-set that we cannot tell the people in our country full information, and that we cannot let them know a commitment may be a

long one because they may not have faith. We cannot let them know the money is going to be three times what we say it is because they may not have faith. We cannot let them know all of these uncertainties because we fear they may not have faith.

I have spent a fair amount of time in my life trying cases before juries, and I have won them and I have lost them; but I can confidently tell Members that every jury that I have ever appeared in front of I felt did the right thing in terms of what the facts were, whether it was what I advocated or not. I have that same kind of faith in the American people, that if we tell the American people the facts, I have confidence in our ability to apply those facts to policy and to apply our values to those policies; and maybe we need more of a sense of confidence. Maybe if the administration had had more confidence in the quality of our people, we would have had a clearer, more accurate path painted on where we are going in Iraq.

We all know from the work both of you do, we know there is a reason why certain facts were not emphasized. What was the old saying from the movie, you cannot handle the truth, a movie back in the 1990s, there was a feeling and fear that maybe the people just could not handle the truth. I do not know about other Members, but I think they can.

Mr. Speaker, that sparks another thought I had which I think is worth noting. There was another principle that those leaders had, and it was the principle of sacrifice. They had the moral authority and the willingness to say to this country this cause is so mighty, we have to sacrifice.

Contrast that with about a year ago. We were here when all three of us very strongly felt if we were going to continue to have to pay the cost of the war in Iraq and have to bear that burden, maybe it was time to suspend the tax cut for just the top 1 percent of Americans, or maybe just for people earning more than $1 million, and pay for the war and occupation with that money. Now that is sacrifice. It is proportionate sacrifice. It is going to those most able to bear it instead of those least able to bear it, and you are saying that our cause is so strong and righteous we are going to come to the American people and ask them to forgo something. It would have meant something a year ago if the President had done that. If the President had come to the body and said, I care so deeply about this cause, I am willing to abandon one of my own programs, I am willing to walk away from this tax cut for people earning a million dollars a year or more, not because I want to, but because this is a time of sacrifice.

That kind of inspiration I think would have moved this country and would have produced an overwhelming response from people on both sides of the aisle. But somehow we have entered a zone where we talk the language of sacrifice at Memorial Day events and events around the country, and we will talk the language again on the Normandy anniversary on June 6; we talk the language of sacrifice, but we run from the substance of sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, there is another historical point worth making. None of us were here, we were all too young, but we have all read about the Bay of Pigs in 1961 in Cuba. For some of the younger people listening that do not know what the Bay of Pigs was, it was a failed effort to invade Cuba back in 1961. Lives were lost, and it was seen as a dismal policy mistake. John Kennedy had every reason politically to say this was a plan conceived by the previous President. He had every reason to say that this was something my CIA director foisted on me, this was something I did not want to do, and the military pushed it down my throat. He could have fired a number of people.

President Kennedy said something that is worth repeating. He said, ``I am the responsible officer of the government. Defeat is an orphan, victory has a thousand fathers.'' That rings across the last 43 years. Defeat is always an orphan. It is something that happened. I did not do it; it happened. It is always something that no one wants to claim. Whereas victory, everyone wants to share in that and say, I did my part, you did your part.

We come back again to the same place. What I think so many of our people want is enough humility from up high, enough humility from the throne that we can conceive the possibility of error.

World War II is a wonderful analogy. We got some things wrong in World War II. The greatest President of all time, in my opinion, Franklin Roosevelt, signed the order that led to the internment of Japanese Americans. A Supreme Court that consisted of some of the finest jurists we have ever had approved that internment of Japanese Americans. We all know that was perfectly wrong now.

If men as great as Franklin Roosevelt and Robert Jackson and Hugo Black could be that wrong, maybe it should occur to us today that some of the individuals who sit in circles in power today could be wrong. Again, there is a lesson about humility to be learned there.

I thank the gentlewoman, and let me certainly thank my colleagues from Ohio and Florida for their vision in putting this hour together and for making it a regular part of the congressional calendar and the congressional schedule. As I listened to the three of you before I had a chance to participate in this dialogue, something struck me. I am normally one who tends to be resistant to too many political analyses that rest on generation. I am one of these people who thinks that people try to load a whole lot of analytical content into that term when it should not always be there, but this is something that occurs to me from listening to all three of you. Maybe because we are new to this body, maybe because all four of us are relatively new to public life, maybe because all four of us are still young people, we still have a sense of the possible. We still have a sense of how the power in this institution and the power in this government can still be used to make better the lives of some of our people.

Sometimes when I listen to our friends and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I honestly think one of the most fundamental differences is that they do not have a very strong sense of the possible. They pretty much want to take this country as we found it. They want to take the divisions in this country as we found them, and they are pretty much happy to get by with that. Maybe what separates us as younger Democrats and as Democrats is that we have a profound sense of what is possible.

As I listened to the gentlewoman from California and I think about health care in this country, we do have an enormous amount still to do. One day some historian is going to look back at the fact that 4 years ago, we had a $122 billion surplus, and we somehow did not manage to spend a dime of it on providing health insurance for working Americans who need it, who are playing by the rules, who are doing everything that the system demands of them, and yet they somehow do not have health insurance. We had a $122 billion surplus and could not spend any of that largesse on addressing the problem of the uninsured. Here we are 3 years later, we have a $521 billion, and climbing, deficit. We are spending all of that money, and we are still not spending a dime of it on addressing the problem of the working uninsured. That is something that a lot of the young people who I hope are listening in their college classroom and in their college dorms tonight will hold us accountable for. That we have had an opportunity to spend an enormous amount of the Treasury in this country, and we have never touched this problem.

Understand something very basic about the problem of the uninsured. Sometimes when we listen to the debate, we almost think that the uninsured are all poor people. This is the reality. A significant number of people who are uninsured are people who are working and people who are earning between $50,000 and $75,000. Not poor by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of these are people who are working as young lawyers. They are people who are working as young legal assistants. They are people who by no means are what we think of as being on the margins of society.

So I would simply make this point tonight when we talk about the obligation that we have as young leaders, one of the most fundamental obligations that we have is to maybe finish some of the business that some other people have left for us, to maybe find some way to deal with some of these problems that have been sitting and festering. Forty-two million Americans are uninsured. That means 42 million Americans are essentially one health crisis away from seeing their financial security wiped out.

Again, my sense of the possible leads me to think that we can do something about that, and my sense of the possible leads me to believe that if we do not address this problem and we simply let it fester, that we are going to wake up one day in America, in this wonderful land of opportunity and we are going to see that we can split in two and become two Americas. We become one America for people who are well endowed and people who are wealthy. We become one America for those who are without.

And I will close on this point. A lot of us are institutional lawyers. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) I know is an attorney who practiced very ably in California. Unfortunately, in our profession as lawyers, we kind of accept the fact that the more money one has, the better legal service they can get. It is just something that we accept.

When it comes to accounting, as we are just finishing the tax season, the quality of one's bank account determines the quality of the accountants that they get. I hope that we never let ourselves lapse into a world where the quality of one's health and their capacity to fight the ravages of disease is a function of how much money they have got, because if we ever enter that kind of a world, we have entered a world that is fundamentally less fair than what we have had and we have entered a world that is less generous than what we need it to be.

And I would just in conclusion say this: I know that all four of us are fans of Robert F. Kennedy and the vision that he had for America. He was fond of saying, when he concluded a lot of his speeches, ``Some men see things as they are and say why? I see things that never were and say why not?'' And I think that is our challenge as young Democrats, not just to see the things in this country that trouble us and raise our hands and say why, but to see a better and fairer world and to say why not?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising the issue. One of the interesting things that we often hear in this town and we hear it from the other side of the aisle is we cannot justify their commitment, we are told, by the amount of money that we are spending. A lot of our colleagues and friends on the Republican side of the aisle say we care very deeply about health care, we care very deeply about education, we are just not spending a lot of money on those things and one cannot judge our commitment by that.

Most American families, I think, realize that people spend money on the things they value. They do that in their homes and they do that in the United States Congress. We are steadily walking away from commitments that are decades-long commitments to improving the quality of our educational system, improving the quality of health care. We made a commitment, or our predecessors did, because none of us were here. Not a single one of us voted on Leave No Child Behind. But before we got here in this institution, this House passed a bill called Leave No Child Behind and made a commitment to improve education in this country. That commitment has never been funded adequately. It has never been funded to set the original vision that was laid out.

And on health care, the prescription drug bill that all four of us voted against, incidentally, last November, this is a bill which has an enormous price tag. It is a bill that will leave large numbers of seniors still without prescription drug coverage. And in so many areas, and this is what is striking I think to a lot of our constituents, they hear about the obligations we are undertaking abroad. They hear about the commitment that we are making to improve the lives of people around the world. What they do not see is a commensurate commitment here at home.

And I think we have to recognize that if we want our country to move forward, if we want to fix a firmer and better foundation for our people, that is a matter of resources. It is incredible that we have run up a $521 billion deficit and we have left so many national problems untouched. Now we know why. It is because we have made it a priority to cut taxes by $3 trillion over the last 3 years. We know why, because we have made a commitment to engage in so many crises around the world when there are festering crises here at home. We know why. It is because we frankly have not had our priorities straight in this institution.

I strongly believe that we have to identify the unfinished business of America, and as we move into this congressional and Presidential election, maybe there is one very clear and simple challenge we ought to issue to our colleagues and ideological opponents on the other side of the aisle.

A very simple question: They are fixated on fixing the world and remaking the world. We have to be fixated on remaking America. Because what are we fighting for abroad? If we are fighting for anything, it is for a vision of the promise of democracy. Well, if we believe in that promise of democracy and we believe that the promise of democracy means expanded opportunity, then surely we have to fight for that here at home.

All of us, I know, have a great deal of admiration for John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy was a great Democratic President who believed that we can be bold in asserting our interests around the world, but that we can be equally bold in asserting our vision here at home.

You would almost think you could not have it both ways. You would almost think you could not do both of those things, if you listened to some people in this town. We have to have enough confidence and enough belief in the better powers of our government and the better angels of our nature to try to transform America.

I will make this last point. There is a reason, I believe, why so many of our people are disengaged and not voting;

why so many young people, why so many Americans who are struggling economically do not even want to participate. It is because they often do not hear this institution speaking to their values. They often do not hear their needs and their concerns being addressed.

They turn on the TV at 10 o'clock at night and hear us talking about a fair tax that is never going to be, some kind of a complicated esoteric tax thing that is never going to happen. They turn on the television in the middle of the day and they hear us talking about renaming bridges and post offices. They turn on the TV late at night and they hear us talking about cutting veterans benefits, the day we went to war in Iraq. So much of what they hear us say in this institution does not resonate, it does not seem a part of their lives.

I think if we want to get people to vote, if we want to get people engaged, then they need to hear something of themselves in this place. They need to hear something of the echoes that are going all around American living rooms echoing in this chamber.

It is a very real question of relevance, making the things that our people care about a part of our priorities in setting government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the nation of Israel, the lone beacon of democracy in a region roiling with tyranny and oppression. In the ongoing war on terrorism, we have no firmer friend than the nation of Israel, and as we seek a lasting peace in the Middle East, we can have no stronger ally.

Today we celebrate Israel's Day of Independence in 1948. For more than 50 years our two great nations have forged a bond built on a shared vision of democracy. Our similar ideals and like minded determination protect the freedoms of our citizens and ensure the fundamental principles of equality and pluralism.

It is a fact that Israel has had to live in the shadow of danger because it has too often been surrounded by enemies. That insecure existence has demanded the sacrifice of numerous Israeli soldiers, who have fought to keep Israel independent and free in the face of war and terrorism.

Today we also call to mind the victims of the attacks Israel has weathered since its' inception. The dead and the wounded remind us of Israel's valor and her willingness to protect the basic aspirations of democracy: human dignity, individual rights, and religious freedom.

Today, Mr. Speaker, is the day we celebrate Israel's Day of Independence, and pronounce our steadfastness to her survival and prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of us on the Congressional Black Caucus and a lot of us who sit on this side of the aisle are used to being called ``tax and spend liberals.'' It is a mantra that our friends on the other side throw around a lot. I do not know about the gentleman from Maryland, but if it makes you a liberal to stand for full funding for No Child Left Behind, and if it makes you a liberal to stand up for a revitalized Federal commitment to Medicaid, if it makes you a liberal to care about the plight of some of our children and some people who are living in public housing, I know some of us who are willing to wear that tag.

We hear a lot of talk during this debate about the tough choices that the Republican majority want to make. I have heard a lot of speakers come to the well of this House and say, we have

to be courageous, we have to make these tough spending cuts.

I do not think it is courageous, I say to the gentleman, to cut $5 billion over the next 5 years in income subsistence programs at a time when so many children are falling back into poverty. I do not think it is courageous to cut $1 billion from Medicaid when States like my State and the gentleman's State are struggling to draw down the limited Federal dollars that are available. I do not think it is courageous to pare back benefits for veterans. I am so tired, as I know the gentleman from Maryland is, of what is cold blooded being passed off as courageous on the floor of this House.

We do need a different set of priorities for America. And all of the Democratic budgets today, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, the Blue Dog budget, and the Democratic Caucus budget, have one thing in common: we make tough fiscal choices. We try to get a handle on this deficit, and we do it on the firmest foundations of our American values.

It may very well be that we are vulnerable to the allegation that we are walking away from tax cuts for some; but some of us on this side of the aisle are willing to walk away from tax cuts for millionaires, because I close on this reality: the middle-income Americans in this country are getting about $217 a year out of this tax cut. The average person in my district is getting between $25 and $40 a month. This tax cut that our friends and our adversaries embrace so wholeheartedly disproportionately favors those who are already powerful.

In conclusion, their budget does not speak to the best of our values. Our budget does, and I encourage all of our Democrats today to support all three of these budgets.

Mr. Chairman, let me say this to the esteemed chair of the committee: 36 percent of small business owners in this country will get virtually no tax relief under this bill. The overwhelming majority of sole proprietors will only get very small relief under this bill. We can talk all we want to about the tax cuts. The reality is that for small business owners, it will have very little impact.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes I know a lot of the people listening to these debates hear us talking about a lot of sound and fury, and you would almost have the impression, when we hear the words ``tax cuts'' over and over again, you would almost have the impression that we are talking about real money for some people.

The reality is that for 53 percent of the families who are listening right now around this country, the tax cut they will receive is $100 or less a year, not $100 or less a paycheck but $100 or less a year.

The middle-income Americans in this country will receive a tax cut on average of $217 a year, which by my math is around $20-some a month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor and tribute to an outstanding member of our community. Mrs. Debra Glenn has been a driving force and an inspiration for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program (``EFNP'') in Alabama for the past 3 decades. Through Mrs. Glenn's tireless efforts, EFNP has been a mainstay in providing self-sufficiency and empowerment tools for individuals actively seeking to break the chains of poverty. Mrs. Glenn, who was inspired herself while attending the program growing up in Birmingham's Housing Projects, recalls, ``Every week, I learned simple, affordable recipes that I'd take home and prepare for my mother and brothers.'' Mrs. Glenn goes on to say, ``Those classes opened the door to a lifetime of self- sufficiency and empowerment.'' Empowered to succeed, Mrs. Glenn earned her degree in elementary education from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Armed with her degree, she became an administrator with the Birmingham VA Medical Center's Health Care System.

A stalwart in the community, Mrs. Glenn is actively involved in many community programs, including but not limited to Children's Hospital Volunteer Program, Chaplain of Heart Matters, Inc., Prison Fellowship Ministries, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Mrs. Glenn's fervent commitment to championing causes of those less fortunate than her clearly demonstrates the qualities that have made this country strong and continues to make her community proud. While sharing her story during a listening session at the National Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (``NAFCS'') in Kansas City, Kansas (October 2002), community leaders from across the country were moved by her (Mrs. Jones) unwavering resolve to provide a better life for those populations that have been underserved.

Mrs. Glenn recalls having a strong community driven mentor as she was growing up. ``Mrs. Helen Tibbs-Wilson, retired Extension Agent from Alabama, gave me inspiration and educational instruction I needed to be successful in life. She (Mrs. Wilson) was one of the catalysts God provided to inspire me.'' Accordingly, Mrs. Glenn continues to give back in the same way. Mrs. Glenn has been an indispensable resource for the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and she will be truly missed. Her commitment, energy and efforts will not soon be replaced.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today representing all those whose lives are richer for having known Mrs. Glenn, and to recognize her efforts and dedication to the community she loves on this second day of March, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Jerome ``Buddy'' Cooper, a man who articulated, pioneered, and embodied a progressive vision for the working people of Alabama. On Tuesday, October 14, Buddy passed away after 90 years of a remarkable life. Those countless Alabamians who live better lives due to his efforts will mourn him dearly.

An Eagle Scout and graduate of Harvard University, Buddy has continually served his family, his nation, and his community. In 1937, Buddy became the first law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black of Alabama. He remained at the right hand of this legendary Justice for three years until he decided to answer another call. Joining the U.S. Navy in 1940, Buddy served his country for 44 months and during some of the bloodiest naval battles of the Second World War.

Following his courageous war service, Buddy returned to Birmingham to begin a long legal career fighting the good fight for the unfortunate, the poor, the disposed, all those

whom the Scriptures name ``the least of these'' and was a constant thorn in the side of those who wished to take advantage of them. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy recognized Buddy's work for social justice and racial reconciliation by inviting him to a meeting of 240 attorneys that later became the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under Law--the group credited with providing official legal support to those civil rights activists and organizations challenging segregation and racial discrimination across the country. In 1996, Buddy was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for his decades-long participation with this select group.

Buddy demonstrated the same tenacity and loyalty towards his family that he exhibited in every other aspect of his life. Married to his wife Lois for over 50 years, Buddy exemplified an honest and loving husband, caring for his wife throughout the years of her illness. Their children, Ellen and Carol, were blessed to have a father who wanted nothing more than to love them and watch them grow up in an Alabama that was better than the one in which he grew up.

I am proud, Mr. Speaker, today to honor Jerome ``Buddy'' Cooper for his tremendous accomplishments. But, Mr. Speaker, I do so with the bittersweet knowledge that Alabama will be lesser tomorrow for his passing.