Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act.

I am outraged that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would give serious consideration to this legislation that infringes on the First Amendment, and blurs the Separation of Powers.

This bill is just another misguided election year ploy designed to score political points.

H.R. 2028 threatens a fundamental aspect of our constitutional structure and would set a dangerous precedent by stripping federal courts of judicial independence and pave the way to preventing federal judges from ruling on other controversial social issues.

It is unacceptable and unconstitutional to propose stripping powers from the judicial branch every time we disagree with a decision they make.

Regardless of race or creed, we should all have the right to access the federal courts to challenge a particular policy or piece of legislation. By denying this right, this bill is both bigoted and backwards.

By bringing this legislation to the Floor, the Republican Leadership has demonstrated again that they are more concerned with making political headlines than making headway on substantial legislation-- like the VA-HUD appropriations bill or the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

My constituents who have serious needs--like housing, jobs, education, and affordable heath care. How can I explain the Republican's misplaced priorities?

And I must explain how the Leadership of this body decided to waste another legislative day on political legislation like this bill.

We need to get back to the people's business and deal with some of the real pressing issues that face our country.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary legislation and vote against H.R. 2028.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk tonight about the Lee- Capuano-Sanders discharge petition which is H.J. Res. 748. This resolution requests immediate consideration of H.R. 1102, which is the National Affordable Housing Construction Program, a trust fund, which targets funding and resources to States and localities to assist people in the most desperate need for affordable housing.

Mr. Speaker, today, many of us recognize that we do live in two Americas, one for the wealthy and one for those who are struggling to just make ends meet. We have families living in dilapidated rental units, clutching to potentially meaningless section 8 vouchers, facing the harsh realities of high-cost housing or homelessness; but we have an opportunity here to make a real difference in the lives of people who need just a bit of our help, people, families, children, men and women.

We have an opportunity to help support families in their desire to build intergenerational wealth for the future. At a time of State budget crunches and shortfalls, we have an opportunity here to support our States who want to build safer, more affordable quality communities for our most vulnerable constituents.

Discharging H.R. 1102 under an open rule to the House floor would at least allow us to debate the need for more affordable housing and show where our national priorities really are. I know that our constituents want us to authorize a national affordable housing trust fund because it would construct 1.5 million affordable housing units over the next decades.

The Center For Community Change estimates that a national affordable housing trust fund would create 1.8 million, that is 1.8 million, new jobs. That is nearly $50 billion in wages, good-paying jobs; and with our economy the way it is right now, with people on the brink, with so many layoffs, you cannot tell me that 1.8 million new jobs will not make a difference in the lives of millions of people.

Mr. Speaker, just think of it, if this Congress invested a mere 5, $5.1 billion, that is $5 billion, that is peanuts really, $5 billion into affordable housing, of course instead of this never-ending war in Iraq, if we did this, I mean, the war in Iraq now is upwards of $200 billion. If we just invested $5 billion into this trust fund, we could commit at least $37 to $40 million to each State for housing, $200 billion again, Mr. Speaker, for Iraq. We should not even worry about $5 billion. We should be supporting this bill. We should move it forward in this House. $5 billion, again as compared to $200 billion, that is very minimal in terms of resources.

So this does not make any sense to me, why this bill has not come to the floor for a debate, why we do not have a national housing trust fund. Signing this discharge petition will help this tripartisan bill. We have over 215 Members with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Capuano), and many, many cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), tripartisan.

If, in fact, we discharge this petition, we would really overcome whatever political obstacles there are that have prevented this realistic, sensible and targeted, affordable housing legislation from coming before this Chamber.

It is my understanding that former Secretary Mel Martinez just said he did not want it to come to this body, and that is what has happened. 214 cosponsors, I do not think it makes sense for us to allow a former Secretary of HUD to dictate the legislation that comes to the body of this House. This program can and will make a considerable difference in the lives of our constituents.

Let me just tell my colleagues, over 5,000 organizations, unions, working men and women, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, individuals have endorsed this bill and are organizing grass-roots support to really call their Members and ask them for their support and why they are not supporting it, if they are not.

We recognize the cost and the hesitation that many Members had in regard to using the FHA surplus, which was the way the bill was initially written. So that is why, in order to garner additional bipartisan support, we have revised the funding mechanism and asked that the capable appropriators find the necessary $5 billion wherever they deem appropriate. We have negotiated in good faith on this bill, and it makes no sense for us now to be here pushing this discharge petition as we are because of the fact that it has gone through committee and that it should be debated on this floor.

It should be authorized because it will provide housing to all, which many of us feel, I know some may not believe this, but I believe that housing should be a basic human right, and because of that, it outweighs all of its cost.

So I encourage all Members to sign their names to the Lee-Sanders- Capuano discharge petition, because together, we can build affordable futures for families and thousands of children across this country. If we work together for passage of this bill, we can prevent thousands of our elderly and low-income families from choosing between food and shelter. And in many instances, that is what is going on. If we work together for passage of this bill, we can build safe havens through affordable supportive housing instead of homeless shelters for women fleeing domestic violence. If we work together for passage of this bill, we can build more opportunities for home ownership and mixed- income communities in rural and urban America.

Investing in H.J. Res. 748 means investing in a national affordable housing trust fund and providing a greater

chance to realize the American Dream for all Americans. Together, we can bridge those two Americas into one prosperous land for all.

So I ask my colleagues, I plead with my colleagues, because we only have about a week left here, to come to the House floor and sign this petition. I am asking all of them to make a decision that reflects the need for more affordable housing opportunities, for more jobs, and for more State and local choices for housing and community development.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who is a consistent fighter for children and families and who also believes basic housing should be a human right for all.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas for that very powerful, eloquent, and comprehensive statement, and also for reminding us of the types of cuts and what is on the chopping block this year as we try to push forward a bill to create 1.5 million affordable housing units.

The gentlewoman reminds us of what we are faced with and what we are fighting just to protect. Let me give some numbers here, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, by HUD's own admission, this year's budget cuts $1.63 billion out of Section 8. That is outrageous. Public housing funding is being cut by $180 million. The gentlewoman talked about public housing in her district. What are people going to do? What are people going to do? We zeroed out $149 million for last year's HOPE VI. Outrageous. Outrageous.

For Community Development Block Grants, the funding is what we call flat, which means really that it has fallen by about 9 percent. The budget actually eliminates brownfields, it eliminates rural housing and economic development, it eliminates empowerment zones and Community Development Block Grants. It rescinds about $675 million of contract amendments for our section 236 projects, which provide prepayments for assisted housing projects.

The request of $139 million represents a cut of $35 million for lead paint grants. I could go on and on. Serving as a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, we have fought these battles this year and will continue to fight against these cuts.

As we attempt to get a debate on the National Housing Trust Fund, what we

see are efforts to cut what is left. We need to not only restore these cuts that are in the existing budget, but we need to fight for more funding for section 8, more funding for community block grants and more funding to get rid of lead in our children's homes. We need more money, not cuts. This affordable housing trust fund at least puts us stepping in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to comment on these cuts as they relate to her district. I know the gentlewoman's district is similar to my district in terms of the struggles that people mount every day. This is an important issue that needs to be made a national priority.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentlewoman brought to our attention the visit of the Secretary of HUD. I was quite disappointed when he came to our subcommittee when we were talking about housing. He indicated that poverty was a state of mind and had nothing much to do with the economics or discrimination or the environment or the state of condition in terms of one's circumstances. Perhaps he was sensitized by this visit. Let us hope so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), a great leader, who is fighting on many fronts.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the homeless, I failed to mention the budget numbers with regard to programs for the homeless, a $50 million cut.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for laying it out there and telling it like it is.

Initially, when we introduced this legislation a couple of years ago, the funding would come from the FHA reserves. There is enough money in the FHA reserve account to fund this $5 billion and keep our reserve account solvent.

However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, tripartisanship with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we agreed that we would amend out the specific designation of the FHA reserve fund as the $5 billion contributor to the trust fund and indicated we would provide the opportunity for our very capable appropriators to determine where this $5 billion could come from.

Mr. Speaker, there are many accounts which this $5 billion could come from where it would not even be missed. Here, we could create 1.6 million new jobs, $50 billion in wages. Our economy could get going again. We would have good-paying jobs in the construction industry, and we would provide affordable housing for millions of people.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier when the gentlewoman from Texas indicated that the Secretary had visited her district and visited an individual who was living in a dilapidated house, and I said I hoped he had become a little more sensitive to what we were talking about because in the subcommittee hearing, he talked about poverty in terms of it being a state of mind, not a state of condition, not a function of circumstances or unemployment or living in substandard housing in communities which had very little resources. I am not sure if he became more sensitized about the issues of poverty. I am shocked that he continued with that argument on television.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say I am glad the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) highlighted what the real issues are right now in this country. Talking about jobs and unemployment, for example, in my district the average cost of a house, a two-bedroom house, it is about $450,000, and the unemployment rate in the African American community and the Latino community is double digit. Also, the average income is 45, 35, $50,000. How in the world can a family of four afford a two-bedroom $450,000 house on an income of 45 to $50,000, if that? The American Dream is a nightmare. It is a nightmare for many Americans.

This affordable housing trust fund would help bring us back home. It would help allow for the American Dream to be realized even by those who have not had those opportunities that some of us have had, and that is what this is about.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say I am glad the gentlewoman called to the public's attention the special interest political nature of housing. And she is right. The homeless do not have lots of money to put a lobbyist here in Washington, D.C. to pound the pavement all the time. But we are really very fortunate that 5,000 organizations have come on board for the National Housing Trust Fund Campaign led by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition. So I am just very proud of them that they have stepped up to the plate and have filled that void, and that is why it is unbelievable that after we passed the bill out of committee, we cannot even get it to the floor to debate.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this is a good example of how the democratic process over and over and over has been thwarted in this House. Here we have 5,000 organizations, we have sponsored a bill that is tripartisan, the bill passed out of the committee, so regular order has prevailed. And where is the bill? We cannot even have a debate, and that is all this discharge petition requires is a debate. We have 214 cosponsors. That is a lot of people. That represents millions of Americans, those 214. How in the world their voices are allowed to be stifled in a debate as important as this one is beyond me. I thought democracy was real in America, but this is another example, and in this instance it is my understanding the former Secretary of HUD just called to say, We do not want it to come to the floor. I do not know what his reasons are. He is now running for the senate out in the gentlewoman's State, Mel Martinez, but he did not want it to come; so it is not here.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, during the Congressional Black Caucus weekend, we provide breakfast for the homeless. And I have the privilege, it is a real honor, to be able to just be there with the homeless and serve breakfast 1 day in Washington, D.C. Each and every year in the last 3 years, that line has grown and grown and grown. And I am appalled at the number of homeless veterans who come out for a meal on that morning.

So when I come back here to Congress on the subcommittee and fight for the $50 million, to restore those cuts, fight for additional funding for the homeless and for Hope VI, I cannot help but wonder who is out of touch with reality in this administration and in this Congress and why in the world that would just cost $5 billion would not be allowed to get to the floor to be discussed. Is there a problem there?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it does not, again, make any sense from a financial institution standpoint to not allow this bill to come forward for discussion because financial institutions will benefit from this economic stimulus initiative. Some of the organizations that have supported the trust fund, let me just share this with the gentlewoman: the National Cooperative Bank Community Development Corporation, the Congress for Community and Economic Development, National Neighborhood Coalition, the National Credit Union Foundation, the National Community Building Network. I could go on and on about the financial institutions that have supported this.

Mr. Speaker, the financing that the financial institutions, which private lenders would do, would be matched by the trust fund two to one.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. And we are talking, again, about a public/private partnership. We are not talking about a handout. We are not talking about a subsidy that is going to rip off the Federal Treasury.

It could be leveraged up to 20, $30 billion. And that is the problem. I would just say it is a drop in the bucket in terms of what is possible under this type of arrangement with regard to a trust fund. Several States have trust funds that have funds that have been established. This would put 35 to 40 million in each State into a trust fund. That would actually help trust funds that have been established or start new trust funds, and the Federal Government would be a major player in that and should be proud of what it would do for its people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing that to our attention.

That was a $15 billion, 5-year initiative. It should have been $3 billion for each year. We still have not gotten to the $3 billion for the first year yet. We are fighting very hard to increase the appropriations. The trust fund was supposed to be up to $1 billion a year. So far the administration has put up maybe $200 million a year. We bumped it up a little bit on this side and are hoping the Senate will bump it up, but we still have not gotten to $1 billion a year for the trust fund.

I share that because the trust fund again has the ability to leverage $8 billion to $9 billion worldwide for people living with HIV and AIDS, for prevention, for care and treatment, for orphans, for young men and women, for families, and we still cannot get the type of funding that is required for the whole HIV-AIDS initiative. It is shameful.

I want to thank the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman for joining us this evening and for her steady hard work and leadership on housing and so many issues, especially with regard to our veterans, our children, senior citizens and all of those that she so forcefully and eloquently speak on behalf of. Hopefully, after tonight, maybe the bell will alarm, maybe the drum has been beat a bit louder because of her very powerful statement tonight.

Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying how important this discussion is and how many of us feel that housing is a basic human right, and until we realize that and establish policies that indicate that, the American dream will continue to be a nightmare for millions of Americans.

Our country does not have a housing policy. We need a national housing policy. We need a national housing agenda that speaks to the housing needs of the low income, the poor, the working poor, the middle income, the upper income, all of those who care about housing and the homeless.

Until we provide those basics, such as food and shelter, for the least of these, I do not believe we are living up to our commitment in terms of our faith, in terms of those who we care about, in terms of making sure that liberty and justice for all is the order of the day.

I just urge all Members of this House to please help us move our housing initiative forward by signing the Lee-Sanders-Capuano discharge commitment. Please sign it next week before we leave, because the people of America need to know that housing and the economic security of families and children is not a partisan issue; that Democrats, Republicans, independents, all care about it, and we want this American dream to be real for each and every American.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity today to pay tribute to the Children's Hospital & Research Center at Oakland for its outstanding research in the area of childhood obesity--a growing epidemic among children--as well as for the superior care it provides its young hospital patients.

A biomedical center of international renown, the Children's Hospital & Research Center at Oakland is Northern California's premier resource for children's health and has been a center of excellence in pediatric healthcare, research, child advocacy, and medical training since 1912.

The Children's Hospital houses the Bay area's only pediatric Emergency Unit--treating over 54,000 young patients a year, Northern California's only Pediatric Trauma Center--treating more than 6,000 critically injured children a year, as well as California's busiest pediatric Intensive Care Unit. In its dedication to address the epidemic of childhood obesity, the Children's Hospital offers weight and nutritional programs for children and their families

to help promote healthy habits. The Hospital's new ``Healthy Eating, Active Living'' Clinic provides nutritional and physical training as well as counseling services for overweight children.

Researchers at the Hospital and Research Center have pioneered advances in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of childhood obesity. In the Research Center, over 300 basic and clinical investigators come together in an environment that fosters collaboration and an exchange of ideas for saving and improving lives.

I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives/Senate to join me in paying tribute to the Children's Hospital & Research Center at Oakland for the excellent care it provides its young patients as well as for the outstanding strides it has made in the research of childhood obesity.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds in this bill from being used to enforce new regulations promulgated on June 30 that severely restrict and in many cases eliminate opportunities for United States students to study abroad in Cuba.

These new election year regulations take our policy toward Cuba in the exact wrong direction. Many of these regulations are just plain undemocratic and punitive, and simply do not make sense for Americans.

Regulations that have already and will continue to deny many American college students the basic opportunity to gain experience, knowledge and insight through study abroad in Cuba should not be funded. In fact, not only were many study-abroad programs to

Cuba effectively eliminated by these new regulations, most of the schools received little advance notice of the restrictions. Sadly, it is the students who suffered from this short notice. By the time the students were finally informed of the program cancellations, it was simply too late for them to make new study-abroad arrangements.

Goucher College, Johns Hopkins University, Howard University, Siena College, Butler University, the College of Charleston and Tulane University, just to name a few, were affected by these regulations. In my home State, the University of California coordinates study-abroad programs to Cuba and will be forced to cancel its popular programs next year.

This is an issue of freedom for our students to travel and gain invaluable experience and educational opportunity that only international study-abroad programs can provide. Our students can travel and study abroad in Communist countries such as China and Vietnam.

Make no mistake, isolating Cuba and preventing these important contacts between Cuba and students will not change the government in Cuba. We should allow these students to exchange ideas, values and share experiences. These types of exchanges are what will truly bring change to Cuba.

This amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and should not be controversial. We are talking about mainstream family values: education, freedom to travel, freedom to learn and the freedom to export our American values.

The State Department and the 9/11 Commission have both stated that our youth are key to spreading American values. Patricia Harrison, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, stated before the Committee on International Relations on which I serve that ``one of our greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American people themselves. Programs that bring Americans and foreign citizens in direct contact can and do have tremendous positive impact.''

The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report state that we must ``rebuild the scholarship, exchange and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them knowledge and hope.''

I cannot agree more. It is in our best interests to allow our youth to spread our message of American values and hope so that people can see for themselves who America is and what we stand for.

So today I stand against squandering our resources to enforce these ineffective, outdated policies as they relate to education, and I ask Members to support the ranks of American students to be educated, to travel abroad, to gain experience and to make judgments for themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lee-Tubbs-Jones amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just respond to my colleague and say, first of all, this amendment is specifically about United States students, American students who want to visit under their educational programs to study abroad. As I said earlier, students are afforded study-abroad opportunities in a variety of countries. They should not be denied the right to pursue their educational opportunities in countries in which they desire to participate.

Secondly, students are our best ambassadors. They are young people who are very patriotic. They care about America. They want to engage in dialogue with students throughout the world, especially in Cuba. And denying them that right really is a terrible thing, first of all, for our students, but it sets back our foreign policy.

We are talking about creating a global environment of peace and security. How in the world are our future leaders of the world going to be able to understand and relate to countries abroad if they do not have the opportunity to study there? It is a very important initiative, and we should not be using taxpayer dollars to deny United States, American students to travel to Cuba to study.

Under the old regulations, of course, they could go to study. Now they have to stay more than 10 weeks under these regulations. It is ridiculous. It is going to hurt our students. It is going to hurt education. It is bad for family values. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month we celebrated the 40th Anniversary of an historic piece of legislation, the Wilderness Act, which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 3, 1964. Since the Act's inception, over 105 million acres of our collective natural heritage has been protected under the wilderness designation.

This week, as we take time to recognize the accomplishments of the Wilderness Act, we must also recognize the work that has yet to be done. Throughout the nation, there are many more wilderness areas that have yet to fall under the full protection of the Wilderness Act-- places like the Arctic Coastal Plain, Utah's Redrocks wilderness, and the Northern California Coastal wilderness.

We must continue our efforts to safeguard these existing natural habitats from human exploitation and development in order to protect threatened and endangered species and to ensure the long-term health and vitality of the entire ecosystem.

And I believe that as a global community, we must quickly recognize the dramatic impact that human development has made on our natural environment and work to reduce the human footprint that we leave behind on the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career of Lawrence ``Larry'' Martin of San Francisco, California on the occasion of his retirement from 38 years of outstanding civic leadership and public service.

Upon completion of his service time on active duty in the U.S. Army, Larry began his civilian career in San Francisco in 1966. Upon joining the ranks of the platform employees of the San Francisco Municipal Railway System, he became an active member of the Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO Local 250-A. Committed to pursuing his educational interest in the labor movement, Larry attended the Labor and Management School at the University of San Francisco, took classes in Labor and Urban Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, and was later awarded his A.A. degree in Labor and Urban Studies at Merritt College in Oakland, California.

In the decades that followed, Larry would draw on these experiences to become increasingly active in the areas of labor studies and civic leadership. While serving as President of TWU Local 250-A and later as a member of the Labor Advisory Boards of the Labor Studies departments at U.C. Berkeley, San Francisco State University, the University of San Francisco, and the Community College District of San Francisco, he was also instrumental in steering various city boards and commissions. Not only did Larry serve for over 12 years on the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, but also served for over 8 years on the Planning Commission. In addition, Larry has played a vital role for several years as an Executive Board Member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, on the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Commission since 2000, as an Executive Board Member of the San Francisco Labor Council, and as the Director of the TWU California State Conference.

On September 17 and 18, 2004, Larry will be honored in San Francisco, California on the occasion of his retirement. I would like to take this opportunity to commend his exceptional achievements not only in the areas of education and labor, but also for his role as a leader in the areas of civic planning and local government. By demonstrating his commitment to the improvement of workplace standards and quality of life for all, Larry has contributed immeasurably to the community of the Bay Area, and the 9th Congressional District salutes and congratulates him for 38 remarkable years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Asian Community Mental Health Services of Oakland, California for 30 years of invaluable service to the community.

Asian Community Mental Health Services (ACMHS) was founded in 1974 with the objective of providing community based mental health services to the East Bay's Asian Pacific Islander Community. The services provided by ACMHS are unique in that they are designed not only to provide care that is comprehensive, but that is structured in accordance with the cultural background of the patients it serves. ACMHS services are available in twelve languages and dialects, and aim to serve Oakland's Asian Pacific children, adolescents, adults, and their families.

The role played by ACMHS in Oakland's Asian Pacific Islander community is truly vital due not only to the caliber of health service it provides, but also because of its continuous involvement in community life through the working relationships it has cultivated with virtually every major social service provider in the East Bay. ACMHS is able to maintain and broaden the scope of its services not only by coordinating with these organizations in order to deliver high quality health care to its patients, but also by sponsoring and participating in a variety of community-building programs and events such as the ACMHS Annual Multi-Ethnic Conference, and the recent establishment of the ACMHS Neighborhood Learning Center in Oakland.

On October 7, 2004, Asian Community Mental Health Services will be celebrating its 30th anniversary in Oakland, California. I would like to mark this occasion by commending this organization for the exceptional service it has provided to the community not only in its capacity as a health service provider, but also as a leader in working to strengthen cultural and community ties among the people of Oakland. By remaining committed to the areas of health and multicultural awareness throughout its thirty years of service, ACMHS has contributed enormously not only to the East Bay's Asian Pacific Islander community, but also to the 9th Congressional District as a whole. I salute and congratulate Asian Community Mental Health Services for 30 remarkable years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and achievements of an extraordinary man, David Creque of Oakland, California. David was an instrumental figure in East Bay politics and government for over three decades, and will be missed greatly by those who knew him, as well as by those whose lives have been touched by his work. David passed away on July 15, 2004, and is survived by his wife Sandy and their two children, as well as six grandchildren and several nieces and nephews.

David was born in Hayward, California on September 20, 1932. After growing up and attending school in Oakland, he went on to serve in the Korean War and obtain his Masters Degree from the University of Oregon. Upon the completion of his education, David returned to Oakland and began teaching high school biology. Active in local government affairs, David would not only become the longest serving member of the Alameda Civil Service Commission, serving from 1977 until 2003, but would also serve extensively as foreman of the Alameda County Grand Jury during the late 1970s, and on the Oakland Port Commission from 1979 until 1983.

In addition, David was an active and dedicated member of the local labor movement for several decades. As a teacher, he was a member of his local union, and was later elected president of AFT Local 771. He would go on to become a member of the Executive Committee of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County, where he served with dedication until 1999, after which he remained a Council Delegate.

On September 11, 2004, David's friends and family will gather to honor his extraordinary life, and the impact that his tireless efforts to better the Oakland and East Bay communities had on the lives of those around him. David was a unique and distinguished individual not only because of his outstanding accomplishments, but also because of his generous spirit and commitment to helping others. He will be greatly missed by his family, his friends, and the people of the 9th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on the Committee on International Relations in working on so many issues in a bipartisan fashion. I just want to also say thank you to our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, and rise today to respectfully disagree with this resolution in terms of the content of it and talk a little bit about for a minute the intent.

First, I think we should during this period remember the victims and the families and all of those who died during the horrific attack of 9/ 11. We express our sorrow for these families, for New York, for Virginia, for those on Flight 93. My former chief of staff, his cousin was on Flight 93. These individuals were heroes, and they saved many lives. So today we must remember them, and we must talk also and remember the fact that we need to fully fund our first responders and those who came to the rescue of so many. We need to provide the funding for homeland security, and we need to move forward to address a real war on terror.

I might remind this body that the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan Commission, the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. This resolution really puts all that together and forces a vote for Members of Congress who believe in the 9/11 Commission that there was no connection. This resolution says that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There was no connection, as the 9/11 Commission mentioned, between al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Again, why are we putting forth a resolution that convolutes the issue? We know that the war on terror has been botched. We know that in Iraq over 1,000 of our young men and women have died, and we know that al Qaeda is still strong, and we know that America is not any safer.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I think today we need to be honest with the American people, and we need to remember those who gave their lives, who were so viciously killed, in a resolution that does just that. This resolution does not do that. This resolution promotes a policy of connecting the war on terror with the war against Iraq, a perspective and a distortion of fact that the 9/11 Commission indicated was not real, and I think we do a real disservice to the people of our country and to the world community by not being truthful during this very somber moment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the victims and remember the families of those who were killed in the horrible tragedy that occurred 3 years ago this coming Saturday, September 11th. We will always mourn the tragic loss of life and never forget the sacrifices made that day. Likewise, we will always support our troops and their well being.

Unfortunately, the resolution before us today goes far beyond paying tribute to the victims of 9/11. The resolution falsely reaffirms a connection between the attacks of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. These connections simply never existed and repeating this falsehood again and again will never make it true. The President's own 9/11 bipartisan commission has reported that there was no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. This resolution does a disservice to the American people.

The administration's preemptive, virtually unilateral war in Iraq has made us and indeed the world a less secure place. I cannot ignore the fact that over 1,000 American lives have been lost. Nor, can I disregard the significance of the 7,000 members of our Armed Forces that have been wounded including the untold thousands of Iraqi lives and the lives of other international non-combatants.

For these reasons, I am unable to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Parks Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church of Oakland, California for 85 years of ministry and invaluable service to the community.

Parks Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in September 1919 as a mission in West Oakland by the late Reverend J.M. Brown. The church was named in honor of the late Bishop H.B. Parks of Oakland, and was granted a charter in May of 1920. The Congregation's membership has grown steadily over the years, leading it to relocate to larger worship sites twice before settling at its current location on Thirty-Fourth Street in Oakland under the spirited and inspired leadership of Reverend Donna E. Allen.

Since that time, the Parks Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church has played an active role in initiating and expanding a wide range of charitable and community-building activities. In addition to ministering and counseling countless members of the ministry, the church regularly hosts a variety of community gospel events. Furthermore, Parks Chapel sponsors numerous outreach activities that serve to facilitate endeavors such as the education and development of local youth, and the social reintegration of former prison inmates.

On September 5, 2004, the Parks Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church will be celebrating its eighty-five-year anniversary in Oakland, California. I would like to mark this occasion by commending the church for the exceptional service it has provided to the community not only in its capacity as an institution of faith and worship, but also as a leader in working to provide invaluable social and charitable services to the people of Oakland. By remaining committed to the areas of leadership and service throughout its eighty-five years of ministry, the Parks Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church has contributed enormously not only to the Oakland community, but also to our shared goal of world peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a deep sense of pride to honor the outstanding achievements of Olympic boxer Andre Ward of Oakland, California. Andre won the gold medal in the light heavyweight boxing final in the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, making him Oakland's first Olympic gold medalist since 1968.

Andre began boxing at the age of 9. After learning the basics of boxing from his father, Andre began training with his godfather and current coach, Virgil Hunter. Within one year, Andre won his first tournament, and at age 14 began a winning streak that spanned 6 years and roughly 90 fights. During

that time, Andre would go on to win two U.S. national championships along with several other major national tournaments.

The residents of the Ninth Congressional District of California, the entire State of California, and our Nation commend Andre Ward, not only for these extraordinary achievements, but also for the dedication and the perseverance he has demonstrated in working towards his goals. His commitment and determination have made it possible for him to realize this dream of winning an Olympic gold medal, and his success is truly an inspiration to all of us. We salute this phenomenal young man.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership.

This is really a sad day. By stripping away the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and the Supreme Court to hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, this bill opens the door to further court-stripping of additional rights. What is next, the right to vote, the right to assemble, the right to a trial, the right to privacy? Congress would undo over 200 years of history and could potentially rewrite the Bill of Rights, gutting Federal protections against discrimination that are enshrined within the 14th amendment. Where would we be today without a way to redress our grievances against ill-conceived or discriminatory legislation passed by earlier Congresses?

Would interstate travel still be segregated? Would the separate but equal doctrine still exist? Where would we have been without Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, or other sufficient landmark court decisions?

From now on will we seek to limit the ability of the Federal courts to hear challenges to any law just because one side or the other opposed it? What does an approach like this bode for the future of our democracy? So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this? I think we are undermining our Constitution today, quite frankly, about trying to get more votes in November. That is why we are doing this. Vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Good Samaritan Christian Fellowship Church of Oakland, California for 50 years of ministry and invaluable service to the community.

The Good Samaritan Christian Fellowship Church was founded in 1954 as the Good Samaritan Baptist Church by the late Dr. & Mrs. R.D. Garrison, Sr., who led the ministry for over 30 years. In 1982, Dr. Garrison, Sr. placed his son Apostle and Mrs. R.D. Garrison, Jr. at the head of the church, and the ministry was subsequently established as the Good Samaritan Christian Fellowship Church.

Since that time, the Good Samaritan Christian Fellowship Church has played an active role in initiating and expanding a wide range of charitable and community building activities. In addition to ministering and counseling countless members of the community, the church has played a vital role in local youth mentoring and development. The church is responsible not only for organizing local Boy Scout and Girl Scout programs, but also for the creation of initiatives such as the After School Tutoring Program, which focuses on reading, writing, and math for children of all ages. Furthermore, the church has made extensive efforts in the areas of emergency meals and housing by working to provide food for the homeless, as well as shelter for countless families in distress.

From August 8th-15th, 2004, the Good Samaritan Christian Fellowship Church will be celebrating its 50-year anniversary in Oakland, California. I would like to mark this occasion by commending the church for the exceptional service it has provided to the community, not only in its capacity as an institution of faith and worship, but also as a leader in working to provide invaluable social and charitable services to the people of Oakland. By remaining committed to the areas of leadership and service throughout its fifty years of ministry, the Good Samaritan Christian Fellowship Church has contributed enormously not only to the Oakland community, but also to our shared goal of world peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because, as we speak, genocide is occurring in Darfur in the western Sudan.

And let me just thank our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his sense of outrage and morality on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his consistent work to expose the atrocities as genocide.

Also, let me just recognize and thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his efforts as our ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa for always keeping African issues at the front of our congressional legislative agenda. For so many years he has been sounding the alarm, and finally tonight we are here. So I just want to thank him for his constant sounding of the alarm for this and for the people of the Sudan.

The murders, the rape, and the scorched-earth campaign in Darfur is genocide. We call it what it is by supporting this resolution.

As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa, there has been no evidence presented to indicate that this is not genocide. It is. It has been 10 years, Mr. Speaker, and the international community, particularly the United States, must learn from the Rwandan tragedy. Like Rwanda, the warning signs in Darfur were obvious. But we did nothing, and now the international community is watching once again as millions of Black Africans are wiped out of western Sudan.

The Bush administration has raised concerns and the United Nations has denounced the ``ethnic cleansing'' executed by militias supported by the Khartoum government, but this is beyond ethnic cleansing. This is systematic and calculated genocide. Hundreds of thousands are fleeing Darfur, fearing that they will become yet another statistic in a malicious plan to rape, torture, and ultimately wipe out all Blacks in the southwest region of Sudan.

As in other conflicts designed deliberately to humiliate and eliminate people because of their identity, we have seen women and girls targeted for rape in Darfur. How can we allow this travesty to continue and not be outraged?

The inaction of this administration I think is unconscionable, especially when we consider that one word, one word, ``genocide,'' can make the difference between humanitarian assistance and international justice for Darfurians.

Let us pass this resolution.

Why would the Bush Administration argue over the definition of genocide, while murderers, rapists, the janjaweed, and the Khartoum government have the blood of the Darfur people on their hands?

The government of Sudan is not our partner in peace.

Our sense of morality requires us to do everything possible to stop this carnage. This bipartisan resolution will help save hundreds of thousands of lives.