Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I congratulate the Iraqis for their election. It is time to bring our troops home with no permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report and thank Mr. Obey, Ranking Member of Approps Committee, for the time.

This morning I greeted hundreds of faith leaders on the steps of the Cannon building. They gathered from across the country to march together and pray together and to deliver a message to Congress. Their message was simple: the budget is a moral document and we have a moral obligation to ensure its priorities reflect our values.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why aren't we listening to them?

Who better than faith leaders, who serve on the front lines, who feed the hungry, who clothe the naked, who house the homeless, to tell Congress about the impact of this immoral budget on our families and our communities?

They recognize that the priorities reflected in our budget are not a partisan issue, but an issue of who we are as a Nation, and what our values are.

We know that the Republican budget cuts and this conference report, which is a critical part of their budget, is nothing more than an assault on the least among us--and it does not reflect our values.

That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote with their values and let's defeat this bill just like we did a month ago.

Don't tell me we can't do better.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his leadership and for making sure that we in this entire country understand what this so-called immigration reform bill is really about.

I rise in strong opposition to this bill. At best, this legislation is unbalanced; it is harsh, and it is unfair. Quite frankly, I think it is very un-American.

It criminalizes millions of hardworking people simply for being undocumented. It would turn local law enforcement into deputies of the border patrol, and innocent people will be needlessly scrutinized and jailed. I can only imagine how this irresponsible provision will affect racial profiling of Hispanics and other minorities.

This bill also ignores due process and would expand the government's ability to keep noncitizens locked up behind bars if they cannot be deported to their native countries. Jailed immigrants will lose the ability to appeal a deportation order.

Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the reasons why this bill really makes no sense for our great country. Let us address the real issues of immigration reform that include a clear path to citizenship and commonsense protections for our borders. We need full immigration initiatives that make sense, not these very punitive and very un- American provisions that are included in this bill.

We cannot, and we must not, forget the undeniable history, our history, American history, that we have as a nation of immigrants and the contribution that immigrants have had on our economy, on our diversity and our way of life. This bill, quite frankly, just flies in the face of that history, and it should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in total opposition to this rule and to the reauthorization of this unpatriotic act. We should be repealing these undemocratic provisions, not expanding government's reach into the private lives of the American people.

Since 2001, the PATRIOT Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search private homes, and nearly 90 percent of those cases had nothing to do with terrorism.

Americans have rejected provisions in this legislation like sneak- and-peek searches, national security letters, and roving John Doe wiretaps.

Under this renewal, we will see more of the same. Private residences, libraries, businesses, medical records, not even your DNA, are safe from the PATRIOT Act.

I now understand why many have called this bill yet another Big Brother attack.

Requiring an A on the 9/11 Commission recommendations instead of Ds and Fs is how we protect the American people from terrorist attacks, not taking away our civil liberties, which this unpatriotic bill does.

Preserving medical privacy, the right to read and congressional oversight should not be partisan issues, Madam Speaker. Our constituents deserve better. I hope that we all vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on this very unpatriotic PATRIOT Act as they call it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report and thank Mr. Obey, Ranking Member of Approps Committee, for the time.

This morning I greeted hundreds of faith leaders on the steps of the Cannon building. They gathered from across the country to march together and pray together and to deliver a message to Congress. Their message was simple: The budget is a moral document and we have a moral obligation to ensure its priorities reflect our values.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why aren't we listening to them?

Who better than faith leaders, who serve on the front lines, who feed the hungry, who clothe the naked, who house the homeless, to tell Congress about the impact of this immoral budget on our families and our communities?

They recognize that the priorities reflected in our budget are not a partisan issue, but an issue of who we are as a Nation, and what our values are.

We know that the Republican budget cuts and this conference report, which is a critical part of their budget, is nothing more than an assault on the least among us--and it does not reflect our values.

That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote with their values and let's defeat this bill just like we did a month ago.

Don't tell me we can't do better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add for the record the support of the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop of H. Res. 196.

I submit the opening statements from the Congressional Globe 1865 House debate on floor consideration of S.J. Res. 16, the proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States by abolishing slavery.

And I also include the House vote on final passage of what would become the 13th Amendment to our Constitution.

Abolition of Slavery

The SPEAKER stated the question in order to be the

consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which

the House, on the 14th of last June, rejected Senate joint

resolution No. 16, submitting to the Legislatures of the

several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the

United States; and that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley]

was entitled to the floor.

Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

McAllister] to have read a brief statement.

Mr. McALLISTER sent to the Clerk's desk and had read the

following: ``When this subject was before this House on a

former occasion I voted against the measure. I have been in

favor of exhausting all means of conciliation to restore the

Union as our fathers made it. I am for the whole Union, and

utterly opposed to secession or dissolution in any shape. The

result of all the peace missions, and especially that of Mr.

Blair has satisfied me that nothing short of the recognition

of their independence will satisfy the southern confederacy.

It must therefore be destroyed; and in voting for the present

measure I cast my vote against the corner-stone of the

southern confederacy, and declare eternal war against the

enemies of my country.''

[Applause from the Republican side of the House.]

Mr. ASHLEY. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania,

[Mr. Coffroth].

Mr. COFFROTH. Mr. Speaker, I speak not today for or against

slavery. I am content that this much-agitated question shall

be adjudicated at the proper time by the people. It is my

purpose to state in all candor the reasons which prompt me to

give the vote I shall soon record.

The amending of our Constitution is fraught with so much

importance to the American people that before it is

accomplished the amendments proposed should be scrutinized

with the strictest criticism. No frivolous, vague, or

uncertain experiment should be for a moment tolerated. The

life and existence of this nation is centered in the

observance and faithful execution of the powers conferred by

the Constitution upon the servants of the people.

The joint resolution before us proposes: ``That the

following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the

several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the

United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said

Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as

a part of the said Constitution, namely:

``Art. XIII, Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary

servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the

party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the

United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article

by appropriate legislation.''

The first inquiry is, has Congress this power? I turn to

the Constitution, and find article fifth provides--``The

Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it

necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or,

on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the

several States, shall call a convention for proposing

amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all

intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when

ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several

States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the

one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the

Congress.''

It is not claimed that Congress itself can engraft this

amendment into the Constitution without being ratified by

three fourths of the States. Then, sir, under the

Constitution, Congress has no power beyond discriminating

what shall or ought to be submitted to the people. The

members of this House assume no responsibility, they enact no

amendment, but as faithful Representatives they submit to the

people, the source from whence their power comes, the

proposed amendment. ``Governments are instituted among men,

deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.''

All political power is invested in the people. At their will

constitutions can be remodeled and laws repealed.

The amending of our Constitution is no new experiment.

Already at three different times amendments have been

submitted to the Legislatures, and by them adopted. The first

amendment was ratified in 1791, the second in 1798, and the

third in 1804. It never was intended by the wise men who

adopted the Constitution that it should remain unchanged. The

growth of the nation, its progress and its advancement, will,

as time passes, demand new articles and additional

provisions. The people are the guardians of the Constitution,

and I am not convinced that any danger is to be anticipated,

as presented in the following illustrations of the gentleman

from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] put with such admirable

compactness and scholastic force:

1. ``I assert that there is another limitation, stronger

even than the letter of the Constitution, and that is to be

found in its intent and spirit and its foundation idea. I put

the question which has been put before in this debate, can

three fourths of the States constitutionally change this

Government, and make it an autocracy? It is not prohibited by

the Constitution.''

2. ``Can three fourths of the States make an amendment to

the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit

the State of Ohio from having two Houses in its Legislative

Assembly? It is not prohibited in the Constitution.''

3. ``Sir, can three fourths of the States provide an

amendment to the Constitution by which one fourth should bear

all the taxes of this Government? It is not prohibited.''

4. ``Can three fourths of the States, by an amendment to

the Constitution, subvert the State governments of one fourth

and divide their territory among the rest? It is not

forbidden.''

5. ``Can three fourths of the States so amend the

Constitution of the States as to make the northern States of

this Union slaveholding States?''

I do not think there is any power in the Constitution which

would permit three fourths of the States to change the form

of government. The Constitution provides for a republican

form of government, and to establish an autocracy would not

be amending the Constitution, but utterly destroying it, and

establishing upon its ruins a new form of government of self-

derived power.

I would not give one of the new copper two-cent piece for

the insertion into the Constitution of explicit prohibitions

against every other supposition brought forward by the

gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton:]

``Long before three fourths of the States can become so

debauched and demoralized that they would practice such

monstrous injustice, they must have lost the sense of honor

that would be bound by a compact, and the fear of God that

would keep an oath. When these virtues have died out, no

matter what safeguards a written constitution might contain,

they would be of no more value than so much waste paper.

There are certain things which can never be attempted so long

as there is public virtue enough not to evade, explain away,

or openly violate the Constitution. It is for this reason so

little limitation was put upon the amending power.

``The actual limitations on that power operated against

natural equity, and hence the necessity for their insertion.

One of them restrained Congress from putting an end to the

slave trade prior to 1808, and the practical effect of the

other is to give New England,

which has a smaller population than New York and only a

fraction more than Pennsylvania, twelve Senators, while New

York and Pennsylvania have each only two. The Constitution

presumes that the majority of the people in three fourths of

the States cannot be corrupted; or that, if they should; they

would not afterward respect paper restraints on their

passions. A constitution is no stronger than the sense of the

moral obligation of the parties bound by it. It is futile to

take men's engagements against crimes more heinous than

breaking an engagement. You might as well swear a man not to

commit highway robbery. If he has conscience enough to

respect an oath, it would be needless, and if he has not, an

idle precaution.''

Again, it is argued that this amendment is

unconstitutional; that the Congress of the United States has

no legal authority to propose this amendment, not have the

States in ratifying it the constitutional power to destroy or

interfere with the right of property. Learned gentlemen of

this House differ on this subject. The Constitution itself

provides the remedy by which all these differences of opinion

can be legally adjudicated. Section two of article three

provides:

``The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and

equity arising under this Constitution.''

In my opinion, if any person is injured by this amendment,

he has a judicial remedy before the highest court of the

country.

If the States of the South desire to retain slavery, they

can do so by refusing to ratify this amendment. There are

thirty-five States. In order to adopt this amendment twenty-

seven States must ratify it. Eleven States have seceded from

the Union. This is more than is required to defeat the

amendment. Certainly no one will pretend to argue that this

amendment can be adopted without being submitted to the

eleven seceded States. If it was, these States would not be

considered a part of the Union. In fact it would be, to all

intent and purpose, recognizing them as independent States,

and not being under the control of the Federal Constitution.

If this view is taken, then this amendment can do no harm

to the people of the States in the Union. In June last, my

objection to this amendment was that it was taking away the

property of the people of the States that remained true to

the Union; that the Constitution was made the means to

oppress rather than protect the people. Since that time

Missouri and Maryland have abolished slavery by their own

action, and the Governor of Kentucky in his message

recommends to the Legislature of that State gradual

emancipation. The same objection which was then urged against

this amendment cannot now be urged.

It is argued that new State governments will be formed in

the seceding States under the control of military governors,

and this amendment ratified by them. Whether this amendment

would be binding upon the people of the seceded States thus

ratified will depend entirely upon the results of this war.

If after a long struggle, and each of the contending armies

or Powers will conclude to adopt the wise and humane policy

of a peaceful solution of the difficulties now existing, all

of the acts of the State governments formed by military power

will be invalid, and the old organization of these States

recognized. In this event the ratifications by the new-made

State governments will not be worth the paper upon which they

are written. If the South achieve her independence, then this

amendment will only apply to that which does not exist. If

the people of the South are subjugated and their State lines

obliterated, and they are ever admitted into this Union under

new constitutions, each and every one of the constitutions

will have to come free from slavery before the State will be

admitted.

The South would not remain in the Union under the

Constitution as it now is; they demanded stronger guarantees

for their institution of slavery. Can any intelligent person

believe that after fighting as they have for nearly four

years they will accept that which they rejected before the

war? If they will not come back under the Constitution, why

not abolish slavery; strike from our statute-books every

enactment which protects it; make our Constitution and our

laws free from the subject of slavery? And then, when this

unfortunate, inhuman, barbarous, and bloody war has been

prolonged until every heart shall turn sick with its carnage

and the reports of its wrongs and outrages, and the people

demand a cessation of hostilities until it be ascertained if

glorious peace cannot be accomplished by compromise and

concession, there will be no obstacles in the Constitution to

defeat the accomplishing of a much desired result. We will be

free to give new guarantees or new amendments to protect the

rights and property of every person who shelters himself

under the American Constitution.

Again, I have voted for every peace resolution offered in

this House. My heart yearns for peace. The gentleman on the

other side of this Chamber refused to appoint peace

commissioners, but they tell us this amendment will do more

to secure peace than any resolution proposed in this House.

Although they would not try the remedy we presented, I am

willing to try the one they present; and if by my vote this

amendment is submitted to the States, and it brings this war

to a close, I will ever rejoice at the vote I have given; but

if I am mistaken, I will remember it is not the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I desire above all things that the Democratic

party be again placed in power. The condition of the country

needs the wise counsel of the Democracy. The peace and

prosperity of this once powerful and happy nation require it

to be placed under Democratic rule. The history of the past

demonstrates this. The question of slavery has been a

fruitful theme for the opponents of the Democracy. It has

breathed into existence fanaticism, and feeds it with such

meat as to make it ponderous in growth. It must soon be

strangled or the nation is lost. I propose to do this by

removing from the political arena that which has given it

life and strength. As soon as this is done fanaticism

``Writhes with pain, And dies among its worshipers.''

Then the rays of truth will be unshaded, and once more our

people rejoice in the salvation of their country, and of the

reinstating in power that party which made this country

great, and which has done so much to secure to man civil and

religious liberty.

Many of the honorable gentlemen of this House with whom I

am politically associated may condemn me for my action today.

I assure them I do that only which my conscience sanctions

and my sense of duty to my country demands. I have been a

Democrat all the days of my life. I learned my Democracy from

that being who gave me birth; it was pure; it came from one

who never told me an untruth. All my political life has been

spent in defending and supporting the measures which I

thought were for the good of the party and the country. My

energy, my means, and my time were all given for the success

of the Democratic cause. I am no Democrat by mere profession,

but I have always been a working one. If by my action today I

dig my political grave, I will descend into it without a

murmur, knowing that I am justified in my action by a

conscientious belief I am doing what will ultimately prove to

be a service to my country, and knowing there is one dear,

devoted, and loved being in this wide world who will not

bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew it

with beautiful flowers, for it returns me to that domestic

circle from whence I have been taken for the greater part of

the last two years.

Knowing my duty, I intend to perform it, relying upon the

intelligence and honesty of the people I represent to do me

justice. If this action shall be condemned by my people, I

will go back with pleasure to the enjoyment of private life,

free from the exciting political arena; but no power on earth

will prevent me from quietly depositing my ballot in behalf

of the candidates of the Democratic Party. I hope I will be

granted the pleasure of reading the eloquent speeches made by

my Democratic associates, and admire their rise and onward

march to distinction. This boon I pray you not to take from

me.

If, on the other hand, the course of the Democrats who will

vote for amendment will meet the approbation of the people,

and we are greeted with the plaudit of ``Well done, good and

faithful servants,'' it will be the desire of our hearts to

open our arms for your reception and shelter you as the hen

shelters her brood, satisfied you were honest in your belief

but mistaken in your opinions.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question

ordered; which was on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. DAWSON called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his leadership, for his support in recognizing this important date in our Nation's history, and also for ensuring that this resolution comes to the floor in a bipartisanship way, and for your support and for really reminding the entire country now of this important date.

Let me also take a moment to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our minority leader, who worked very hard with the gentleman from Wisconsin to bring this resolution today.

The gentleman continues to lead Congress in the civil rights tradition that actually began 140 years ago. From renewing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to protecting the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he is a tireless advocate for civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans.

Let me also take a moment to thank our staff on both sides for their diligence and very competent work in bringing this resolution, especially Kanya Bennett, Perry Applebaum, David Lachmann of the House Judiciary Committee and Jamila Thompson of my staff, who have worked together for over a year now on this very, very important effort.

Let me also express my appreciation to the 13th Amendment Foundation, located actually in my district. They have worked diligently to honor and to recognize this momentous occasion. And as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, it is very important that our young people, especially, are reminded of the importance of this 13th amendment and read and understand why what happened 140 years ago is very, very important to today in 2005.

I hope that everyone will support this effort to honor the 140th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th amendment.

On December 6, 1865, slavery ended and the deep roots of the modem civil rights movement were planted. The 13th amendment was a response to the Dred Scott decision of 1856, a ruling that actually declared that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in our country. If the Dred Scott ruling were still in effect today, Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing here, quite frankly, as a Member of Congress, nor would the 43 great Congressional Black Caucus Members.

As someone of African descent, whether free or enslaved, I would be considered only three-fifths of a person. I would never qualify as a citizen of this country. As the descendant of people who survived the Middle Passage, who survived the cruelty of slavery, who survived reconstruction, who survived Jim Crow, I know that my life, like the lives of millions of African Americans, our lives have been inextricably linked to the 13th amendment.

As we return from celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which launched the modern civil rights movements, we really are obliged to remember this 140-year history.

In the 1860s, Representative James Ashley of Ohio, Representative James Wilson of Iowa, and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, all Republicans, led the congressional fight to abolish slavery.

This debate is a very important debate. And again, let me just talk about the vote. It was a vote of 119-56 right here on this floor. Our predecessors voted to add the following words to our Constitution:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have

been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or

any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this

article by appropriate legislation.

Although the abolition of slavery did not necessarily mean equality for all Americans, the process actually began. According to historical accounts, on the day of the House vote on January 31, 1865, the gallery, which had just been opened, mind you, to African Americans, the gallery erupted into cheers and Representatives on the House floor were visibly moved, crying and hugging each other. Twelve months later, the requisite three-fourths of the States in the Union ratified the 13th amendment and more than 100 years later another 8 States followed suit.

Although not necessary, President Lincoln signed the 13th amendment to show a united front to abolish slavery in the United States. A treacherous and divisive burden was finally removed and our Nation was allowed to unite and truly begin to commit to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for all. In fact, the 13th amendment was the foundation for future equal rights and legislative actions, like the 14th amendment, which ensured Federal and State rights to all individuals; the 15th amendment, which granted African American men the right to vote; and the 19th amendment, which expanded suffrage to all women, also the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Protecting civil and human rights is not something that really should be taken lightly, quite frankly. It requires constant vigilance and review. As we honor this great act of our predecessors, we pay tribute to the visionaries who sacrificed and fought for our civil rights and liberty.

In 140 years, our country has fought and continues to fight to be a united country seeking liberty and justice for all. But it has been a long, hard journey; and countless individuals dedicated and continue to dedicate their entire lives towards this end. We must all pay tribute to the abolitionist movement leaders like Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd Garrison, Nat Turner, and John Brown.

And we have all reaped the benefits of the bravery and sacrifices of civil rights trail blazers like Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, Linda Brown, Ruby Bridges, Rosa Parks, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are many more individuals whose names will never ever be mentioned in the history books; but they worked hard, they fought, they sacrificed for the freedom that we all appreciate today. Collectively, we must pay homage to their legacy.

It is important that we not only honor this great day in history but make sure that our children and our grandchildren understand its importance, not just to African Americans, but to all Americans and to the world.

This year, with all overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress passed resolutions that recognized the hemispheric survivors of the transatlantic slave trade and great historical trailblazers like the great Honorable Shirley Chisholm and Judge Constance Baker Motley.

These resolutions actually show how far we have come since the 19th century, but we also have a long, long way to go. One hundred forty years after slavery was abolished, African Americans and other minorities continue to experience social and economic injustices, as the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster magnified.

Within our own borders and throughout the world, human trafficking is rampant. It is a modern version, quite frankly, of slavery; and it must be abolished. And, of course, we witness every day discrimination against those who have no voice. Our work in Congress should be straightforward. It is our duty to reaffirm this tradition of justice, equality, and liberty for all.

We have an obligation to ensure that everyone has equal access to health care, education, livable wages, housing, and of course economic opportunities. Clearly, we still have much work to do. We have much work to do to ensure that discrimination is eliminated, and I mean totally eliminated, and that all people are considered equal in the eyes of our laws.

The movement that began with the ratification of the 13th amendment must continue. This has not ended. We owe it not only to those who suffered and who sacrificed in the past, but more importantly we owe it to future generations. The 13th amendment liberated African Americans from the yoke of slavery. It liberated America, and we must not forget that.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) again for ensuring this resolution is bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his leadership, for his support in recognizing this important date in our Nation's history, and also for ensuring that this resolution comes to the floor in a bipartisanship way, and for your support and for really reminding the entire country now of this important date.

Let me also take a moment to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our minority leader, who worked very hard with the gentleman from Wisconsin to bring this resolution today.

The gentleman continues to lead Congress in the civil rights tradition that actually began 140 years ago. From renewing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to protecting the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he is a tireless advocate for civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans.

Let me also take a moment to thank our staff on both sides for their diligence and very competent work in bringing this resolution, especially Kanya Bennett, Penny Applebaum, David Lockman and Jamila Thompson of my staff, who have worked together for over a year now on this very, very important effort.

Let me also express my appreciation to the 13th Amendment Foundation, located actually in my district. They have worked diligently to honor and to recognize this momentous occasion. And as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, it is very important that our young people, especially, are reminded of the importance of this 13th amendment and read and understand why what happened 140 years ago is very, very important to today in 2005.

I hope that everyone will support this effort to honor the 140th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th amendment.

On December 6, 1865, slavery ended and the deep roots of the modern civil rights movement were planted. The 13th amendment was a response to the Dred Scott decision of 1856, a ruling that actually declared that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in our country. If the Dred Scott ruling were still in effect today, Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing here, quite frankly, as a Member of Congress, nor would the 43 great Congressional Black Caucus Members.

As someone of African descent, whether free or enslaved, I would be considered only three-fifths of a person. I would never qualify as a citizen of this country. As the descendant of people who survived the Middle Passage, who survived the cruelty of slavery, who survived reconstruction, who survived Jim Crow, I know that my life, like the lives of millions of African Americans, our lives have been inextricably linked to the 13th amendment.

As we return from celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which launched the modern civil rights movements, we really are obliged to remember this 140-year history.

In the 1860s, Representative James Ashley of Ohio, Representative James Wilson of Iowa, and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, all Republicans, led the congressional fight to abolish slavery.

This debate is a very important debate. And again, let me just talk about the vote. It was a vote of 119-56 right here on this floor. Our predecessors voted to add the following words to our Constitution:

``Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Although the abolition of slavery did not necessarily mean equality for all Americans, the process actually began. According to historical accounts, on the day of the House vote on January 31, 1865, the gallery, which had just been opened, mind you, to African Americans, the gallery erupted into cheers and Representatives on the House floor were visibly moved, crying and hugging each other. Twelve months later, the requisite three-fourths of the States in the Union ratified the 13th amendment and more than 100 years later another eight States followed suit.

Although not necessary, President Lincoln signed the 13th amendment to show a united front to abolish slavery in the United States. A treacherous and divisive burden was finally removed and our Nation was allowed to unite and truly begin to commit to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for all. In fact, the 13th amendment was the foundation for future equal rights and legislative actions, like the 14th amendment, which ensured Federal and State rights to all individuals; the 15th amendment, which granted African American men the right to vote; and the 19th amendment, which expanded suffrage to all women, also the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Protecting civil and human rights is not something that really should be taken lightly, quite frankly. It requires constant vigilance and review. As we honor this great act of our predecessors, we pay tribute to the visionaries who sacrificed and fought for our civil rights and liberty.

In 140 years, our country has fought and continues to fight to be a united country seeking liberty and justice for all. But it has been a long, hard journey; and countless individuals dedicated and continue to dedicate their entire lives towards this end. We must all pay tribute to the abolitionist movement leaders like Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd Garrison, Nat Turner, and John Brown.

And we have all reaped the benefits of the bravery and sacrifices of civil rights trail blazers like Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, Linda Brown, Ruby Bridges, Rosa Parks, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

There are many more individuals whose names will never ever be mentioned in the history books; but they worked hard, they fought, they sacrificed for the freedom that we all appreciate today. Collectively, we must pay homage to their legacy.

It is important that we not only honor this great day in history but

make sure that our children and our grandchildren understand its importance, not just to African Americans, but to all Americans and to the world.

This year, with all overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress passed resolutions that recognized the hemispheric survivors of the transatlantic slave trade and great historical trailblazers like the great Honorable Shirley Chisholm and Judge Constance Baker Motley.

These resolutions actually show how far we have come since the 19th century, but we also have a long, long way to go. One hundred forty years after slavery was abolished, African Americans and other minorities continue to experience social and economic injustices, as the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster magnified.

Within our own borders and throughout the world, human trafficking is rampant. It is a modern version, quite frankly, of slavery; and it must be abolished. And, of course, we witness every day discrimination against those who have no voice. Our work in Congress should be straightforward. It is our duty to reaffirm this tradition of justice, equality, and liberty for all.

We have an obligation to ensure that everyone has equal access to health care, education, liveable wages, housing, and of course economic opportunities. Clearly, we still have much work to do. We have much work to do to ensure that discrimination is eliminated, and I mean totally eliminated, and that all people are considered equal in the eyes of our laws.

The movement that began with the ratification of the 13th amendment must continue. This has not ended. We owe it not only to those who suffered and who sacrificed in the past, but more importantly we owe it to future generations. The 13th amendment liberated African Americans from the yoke of slavery. It liberated America, and we must not forget that.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) again for ensuring this resolution is bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and achievements of David P. Kramer of Oakland, California.

Serving the working people of California for 34 years, David Kramer has been known throughout his career for his dedication to civil rights as well as his unwavering commitment to the labor movement. Today our community comes together to celebrate his career and achievements on the occasion of his retirement from SEIU Local 535 in Berkeley, California.

David Kramer was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1941. After graduating from Scott High School in North Braddock, Pennsylvania in 1959, he attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology, now known as Carnegie Mellon University. Following his studies there, he was hired by the Ford Motor Company, where he worked toward honing the skills he had acquired in school. However, in 1964 he quit his job and immersed himself in the burgeoning civil rights movement that was gaining strength throughout the United States.

As part of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), David was involved in countless picketing and protest efforts that were aimed at achieving integration and equal employment. He was part of a crew of 60 involved in testing and enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the integration of public facilities and voter registration procedures in Monroe, West Monroe, New Rhodes, and Baton Rouge, among other places in Louisiana. When he returned to Detroit in the spring of 1965, he became the first community organizer to work for the West Central Organization, which rallied members of the African American and rural Appalachian communities, together with neighborhood churches, union halls, block clubs, and social organizations. This coalition organized around issues such as school and police community relations, tenant rights, and urban renewal.

In 1967, David enrolled in the University of Michigan Graduate School of Social Work, where he graduated with a Masters of Social Work degree in Community Organizing in 1968. As part of his studies, he served in the Wayne County Office of Equal Opportunity and Detroit People Against Racism (PAR), an organization of which he eventually served as the executive director. During this time he also became deeply involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement, participating in demonstrations across the country, including at the Democratic Convention in 1968.

In 1969 he worked as a ``lumper'' on the night shift in a warehouse in Detroit, where he began to get more involved with the labor movement as a member of Teamsters Local 299 and from which he still holds his honorable withdraw card. In 1971, David was appointed as a field representative of SEIU Local 535. His was first assigned to represent the Santa Clara County social workers and to organize county eligibility workers for Local 535, and was instrumental in securing representation rights for the workers. From 1971 to 1976, David worked with the Santa Clara County, Sacramento County, Stanislaus County, Berkeley, St. Vincent's School, Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, Sunny Hills, and Alameda County chapters of SEIU, and was elected to the Executive Committee of the Central Labor Council of Alameda in 1975. In the following year, David underwent an intense and unforgettable experience in which a 49-day strike involving 5,000 members took place, the longest county-wide strike in California history. In October 1976, he became the Executive Director of SEIU Local 616, where he served until May of 1980. He ultimately resigned from 616 in order to pursue a career as a self-employed carpenter.

In 1982, David returned to the labor movement and joined the Alameda County Tri-Local agency shop campaign to serve as an organizer, and in 1983 he once again became an organizer for Local 535, albeit for only a short period of time. During this time, he aided in the largest union security election in the history of the labor movement to date, involving more than 80,000 State workers and four bargaining units, of which 3 were won.

When David permanently returned to Local 535, he succeeded in organizing the North Bay Regional Center. He also made negotiations for the first contract for the Clinica de la Raza, and served the San Francisco chapter of Local 535 for 2 years. In November 1988, he became the northern regional director of Local 535, where he supervised 14 field staffs in 535's Sacramento, Oakland, Santa Clara, and Fresno offices. David Kramer was eventually named Executive Director of Local 535 in the fall of 1996. Less than a year later in June of 1997, he was elected to serve on the SEIU's International Executive Board, a position he will continue to hold until February 2006.

David also serves our community on the Oakland Board of Port Commissioners, a post to which he was nominated by former Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris. He has been reappointed three times since, making his record fourth appointment a first in the history of the Port of Oakland, and making David the Port's longest serving commissioner.

Today David Kramer's family, friends and colleagues come together to celebrate the impact of his life and work not only on the innumerable lives, particularly the lives of working people, he has touched here in Alameda County, but the lasting effects his dedication and leadership have had and will continue to have on our community. On behalf of the 9th Congressional District of California, I salute and thank David Kramer for his invaluable contributions to the people of Alameda County, the 9th Congressional District, the State of California and our entire country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and achievements of World War II veteran Suey W. Gee of Oakland, CA. This weekend Mr. Gee celebrates his 79th birthday, his 80th birthday according to the Chinese lunar calendar. On this special occasion his friends and family will gather to honor him for the immeasurable contributions he has made not only to their lives, but also to our country.

Suey W. Gee was born in Canton, China on November 19, 1926. As a youth, he emigrated to the United States with his father to find work and help support his family back in China. In March 1945, at the age of 19, he enlisted into the U.S. Army to aid his newly adopted country during World War II. He served in the 128th infantry and trained as an anti-aircraft gunner. His unit was ultimately deployed to Hiroshima, Nakasaki and Okinawa following the atomic bombings that destroyed those cities, where he served as part of the occupation army and helped to facilitate the disarmament of Japan.

Mr. Gee was honorably discharged from military service on November 22, 1946. Though Mr. Gee was awarded the World War II Victory Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, due to the metal shortage during the war era, in addition to the fact that he moved around frequently in search of work, he did not receive his medals at that time.

In 1948, Mr. Gee traveled back to China where he married Sue King Gee, and they subsequently returned to the U.S. together. Mr. Gee became a proud citizen of the United States of America on September 18, 1957, and Mrs. Gee became a citizen soon after.

Like many immigrant families who come to America, Mr. and Mrs. Gee faced many obstacles, overcoming poverty, hardship and discrimination as they persevered toward achieving their dreams. They worked in the food service, cannery and sewing industry for over 55 years, remaining steadfastly committed to providing greater opportunities for their children than what they had themselves. Married for over 58 years, Mr. and Mrs. Gee have three daughters and one son, all of whom are currently living or working in the city of Oakland as active and productive members of our community.

Mr. Gee is retired now and spends his time keeping up with local and national politics. At almost 80 years old, he still votes regularly and remains civically engaged in the country that he served in the U.S. Army more than 60 years ago.

On this very special occasion, Mr. Gee's friends and family will come together not only to celebrate his birthday, but to present him with his hard-earned and well-deserved military service medals over six decades after his honorable discharge. On behalf of California's Ninth Congressional District, I would like to take this opportunity to salute and thank Mr. Suey W. Gee for his brave service to our country, and for his invaluable contributions to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by the course of events today. As the daughter of a veteran of two wars I am offended and outraged by this personal assault on decorated war veteran Congressman John Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has lost any sense of decorum or decency. Their abuse of power is obscene. There will be a reckoning though. Because the American people want accountability, not more Republican cover-ups. The American people want honesty, not more misleading and manipulation. They want to end this unnecessary and senseless war, not a policy of `stay the course' that has no goals, no benchmarks, no plans, and no end.

The Republican majority's effort in distorting and politicizing the resolution offered by a decorated war veteran is nothing short of despicable. The reality is that these are desperate actions by a desperate majority and a desperate administration. This last minute effort isn't about a debate on the issues the Murtha resolution raises. It isn't about how intelligence was misused by the administration. But it should be. It isn't about how we are going to bring our troops home. But it should be. This resolution is just about politics.

I support the Murtha resolution and this is not the Murtha resolution. Reject this cynical and disgraceful stunt from a party devoid of ideas on ending the war in Iraq and how to safely bring our troops home. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and work of Madeline Duckles of Berkeley, California. A longtime peace activist and community leader, Ms. Duckles will soon celebrate her 90th birthday, an occasion which will coincide with the 90th Anniversary of a group in which she has been active for several decades, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).

Born in Loomis, California, Ms. Duckles was the youngest of five children. After her older siblings left for school, Madeline went to live with her school music teacher in a household filled with opportunities to read books, learn music, and explore the outdoors. In this household she was encouraged to attend a university despite the opposition of her father, who felt that sending a girl to college was a waste of money. Ms. Duckles nonetheless went on to attend college, graduating in 1937.

At that time Ms. Duckles also became involved at the local YWCA, which at that time was the only place where she was able to discuss social issues. She received much of her early political education through the time she spent there, which coincided with the Spanish Civil War and a high incidence of labor strikes on the domestic front.

Upon her graduation, Ms. Duckles left California for New York City, where she married Vincent Duckles, who was doing graduate work at Columbia. Over the next several years they moved around to several different states while Vincent completed his studies and they both worked a number of jobs, working at different times as teachers, in retail service and other industries.

Eventually they returned to Berkeley, California, which is where Ms. Duckles became active in WILPF. Still outraged at the Japanese internment and the use of atomic weapons against Japan in World War II, she was part of a group of women who in 1961 went on strike across the country to protest atmospheric nuclear tests. Another issue of growing concern among these women was the increasing involvement of the United States in Vietnam, an issue regarding which Ms. Duckles would become progressively more active in years to come.

Even with five children to care for, Ms. Duckles devoted immeasurable amounts of time and energy into the movement for peace and justice in the years that followed. She attended meetings with the World Council of Peace in Europe and Asia, and even went on a speaking tour through Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. Even following the Vietnam War, Ms. Duckles has remained an outspoken advocate for peace and justice for all people throughout the world, continuing to travel and host international delegations of visitors to the United States as well.

This week Ms. Duckles' friends and family come together to celebrate her many years of activism, and the immeasurable impact she has had on our community. On behalf of the California's 9th U.S. Congressional District, I salute and thank Madeline Duckles for her many years of work toward creating a peaceful world for all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.

I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their work in putting together the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, and in negotiating with the Senate on this conference report.

I also want to thank both of them for including $48 million in the conference report to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project in my district in California, and for including $5,585,000 for Operations and Maintenance.

As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to Asia and the Pacific.

The 50-foot dredging project will underpin an $800 million expansion project funded by the Port that will improve infrastructure, expand capacity and increase efficiencies throughout the distribution chain.

Once this project is finished, the Port projects that an additional 8,800 jobs will be added, business revenue will increase by $1.9 billion, and local tax revenues will go up by $55.5 million. Best of all, 100 percent of the dredged materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, habitat enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area.

I appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this project and I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member to complete it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize and honor and pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Congressman Edward R. Roybal. Throughout his career, including 30 years in the United States Congress, Congressman Roybal championed the rights of the underprivileged and broke down barriers for social justice.

I would like to express my deepest sympathy to his family and his friends, especially to his devoted daughter, my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, and say with the passing of her father, we lost a great man, a man who stood up for his convictions, a man who stood up for what he believed, and one who stood up for those who needed a voice who did not have a voice in our country. He will be deeply missed.

Like many, I feel very blessed to have known Congressman Roybal personally. He lived his life and I always noticed how he did this: by his actions and by his words. He had principles. He had principles that guided each and every one of his actions, and I think all of us should really understand that those principles are absolutely necessary for us to fight for the rights and the well-being of all human beings, especially those who have been shut out of the American Dream.

His life was not only extraordinary; it was an example to follow for generations to come. Each one of us, I believe, has a duty to carry on the legacy of this great man. Our young people must get to know Congressman Roybal, for he made history taking on tough issues when they were not popular. What a role model he was.

Congressman Roybal not only cared about his own congressional district, which he did very deeply, but he also worked very hard to help communities throughout our country. As a member of my predecessor's, Ronald Dellums, staff, I vividly remember Congressman Roybal's unbelievable efforts to help bring a Federal building to downtown Oakland. Congressman Roybal and Congressman Dellums had a deep friendship and mutual respect for each other. As a result of their partnership, we have a beautiful Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building where my congressional office is presently located.

And in the Federal Building, we also have an Edward R. Roybal Auditorium. And each time I walk into this beautiful building, I am reminded of this great man and his magnificent spirit and his love for his country and for our district.

The 9th Congressional District of California, we owe Congressman Roybal a debt of gratitude; and we thank you and his family for really sharing this giant of a human being with us.

I have several personal and professional affiliations with Congressman Roybal. His son, Eddie, headed up a successful legal services center called Centro Legal De La Raza in Oakland, California. This center provides badly needed legal services to families otherwise unable to afford them.

Many years ago after leaving Ron's staff, Congressman Roybal called me and he said, Barbara, please, you have to do this for me. I really want you to help us raise money for Centro Legal De La Raza.

Of course I was honored to receive this call from Congressman Roybal, and how could I say no. It was such a great honor to be able to work with him and his family to make sure that we raised the money for many years to provide these badly needed services.

His commitment to justice was unparalleled. His ability to use his clout for those without access to the halls of power, not for himself personally, but for all of those shut out, his love for human kind, his great spirit will be with me forever. He was such a gentleman, a kind human spirit. He was a respectful man, and many of us loved him so much.

So tonight, on behalf of the 9th Congressional District of California, we salute a great warrior; we thank him for a job well done. We also thank Congressman Roybal for a life well lived. In his memory, I think we should all rededicated ourselves to Congressman Edward R. Roybal's ideals and his vision for a better world.

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family, Lucille. May God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, on November 7, 2005, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 570-572. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 260, a resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council's promulgation of Noestra Aetate; ``aye'' on H.R. 1973, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005; and ``aye'' on H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education.