Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration is sadly mistaken if they are assuming that either the Congressional Black Caucus, or the American people will be satisfied with a trip to Africa that lacks substance or results.

In the words of Congressman Payne, ``Engagement with Africa is a vital U.S. interest. From the war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa is a key global player. We ignore the continent at our own peril.''

Africa is the key to global peace and understanding, but we must deal with a number of issues that affect Africans in their day-to-day lives. Issues like, democracy and governance, lack of health infrastructure, education, and hunger and food security. We must address these social, political, and economic needs, which if handled properly, will allow Africa to grow, flourish, and succeed.

The need to succeed in the fight against hunger is critical for Africa. As we all know,

food production in Africa has fallen behind population growth over the past 30 years.

This slow down in production has left Africa, an agriculturally rich continent, as a net importer of food. It has put Africa in a position where, they must rely on the international community to import products that could be produced in Africa given the right technical and development resources.

Although the United States remains the largest single contributor to the World Food Program--the last three years have actually seen the United States contribution drop by at least a third from 15 million to 10 million metric tons of food.

This is yet another example of Bush rhetoric, while food aid goes down, the President increases the budget for nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do believe that we must help rebuild countries that we have bombed, but we must also keep millions of people from starving on the African continent.

The United Nations estimates that over 222 million people in Africa are suffering from hunger. The reality is: emergency food aid needs are up and food aid assistance is down. Millions of Africans live and die below the hunger and poverty lines, of which a vast majority Africans are in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture to sustain and improve their livelihoods. If we could increase agricultural productivity by just one percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, we could raise 6 million people out of poverty and hunger.

We must listen to Africans and pay attention to what the social and economic challenges are in each country, challenges exacerbated by the food crisis.

One of the gravest crises relating to famine from my perspective is the devastating spread of HIV/AIDS throughout the continent. In some of the countries most affected by hunger, rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence are as high as 38 percent of the population, with ripple effects extending out to the health sector, education, and overall productivity throughout each country. AIDS and hunger together are strangling the African economy.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been fighting a war against the global HIV/AIDS pandemic for years. Finally, we have the Administration's support for this charge, but a real reluctance to request and appropriate the funding necessary. We must first ensure that our colleagues across the aisle join us in funding every penny of the President's $3 billion initiative.

In my opinion, one of the greatest challenges in Africa to stopping the AIDS pandemic is coordinating HIV/AIDS treatment and famine relief. That is why, while drafting the AIDS bill, I fought for a major provision that would integrate food/nutrition and HIV/AIDS drugs.

Let me explain why HIV/AIDS and famine go hand-in-hand. When we take an aspirin for an ailment, we are instructed to take that aspirin with water and food.

Imagine taking drugs for the AIDS virus, a disease that has killed millions, on an empty stomach. The toxicity alone is harmful, but these anti-retroviral drugs on an empty stomach are perilous. This is one of the reasons why battling the food crisis is critical to the campaign to stop the Global HIV/AIDS pandemic.

More broadly, hunger and HIV/AIDS stifle productivity, undermine efforts to build infrastructure, and detract from government investitures for education, farming, and development in their people.

No one should be hungry. I understand, that if you teach a man to fish, he will eat everyday, but at this critical time in Africa-the United States has the resources and the technologies to not only teach people, but also satisfy their hunger today. Furthermore, there have to be fish in the pond, and with drought and desert expanding everyday, we must work toward both short term aid and long term solutions.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the words of Secretary Powell during his trip to North Korea, ``. . . But to go back on our solid policy is that we don't use food as a politica weapon. You go through all the politics; there are kids out there that are starving. If we can help them, we will.''

I agree with Secretary Powell, food is our weapon to combat the rising hunger in Africa--and we must address this issue now.

Let's re-visist the Bush Adminsitration's under funded Africa budget which cuts peace and democracy, agriculture development, and corruption and good governance programs. Let's really look at the needs of people. Africa needs our help and we must deliver.

Thank you Chairman Cummings, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this week the President is in Africa visiting five countries and describing his personal commitment to combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, among other things. This is a good thing.

Just 6 weeks ago the President signed into law H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003, to provide $15 billion over 5 years to 12 African countries and Haiti and Guyana in the Caribbean. Throughout the debate on this bill, which Uganda's approach to its own AIDS epidemic was highlighted very prominently as a model for the bold initiative that we were proposing and for our heavy reliance on the ABC model of prevention. That is, abstain, be faithful, or use a condom.

People on the ground in Uganda were telling us that while the message of the ABC model was important in helping to drive down infection rates and raise awareness of this disease, it was equally important that Uganda's President Museveni exerted strong political leadership in combating the disease and for the country to engage in a frank and open dialogue about sex and how the disease is transmitted.

But when we were debating this bill, the administration and social conservatives in this body put their own spin on Uganda's AIDS efforts by claiming that it was primarily the practice of abstinence that had reduced Uganda's rates from 15 percent to 5 percent in over 10 years despite evidence to the contrary.

In debate during the committee markup of H.R. 1298, we successfully placed abstinence, fidelity and the use of condoms on equal footing by successfully passing an amendment which I offered. The majority of members on the committee understood the danger of attempting to steer our prevention funding from Washington instead of allowing each individual country to determine how best to spend its prevention resources. Even the Washington Times indicated in an editorial on May 1, 2003, that it would be better to leave such decisions to experts in the field.

Unfortunately, the social conservatives in this body did not heed this very practical advice and persisted in promoting a misguided amendment that directs 33 percent of all prevention money in the bill towards abstinence-only programs. Now 6 weeks after the President signed the bill that we passed into law, he is visiting Africa to tout his commitment to fighting AIDS in Africa. Everywhere Africans are wondering what the true depth of the President's commitment is to fighting AIDS in Africa, and whether or not he will provide the full $3 billion per year authorized in our legislation.

There is also a considerable amount of concern in Africa that the President's focus on abstinence as the most important method of prevention will sidetrack the initiative based on an unrealistic understanding of the situation on the ground.

I want to be clear here. I agree that abstinence is an important method of prevention, but it must be balanced by a comprehensive prevention policy that includes the use of condoms, otherwise it cannot be effective in stopping the spread of the virus. It is important for programs like the AIDS Support Organization of Uganda, which runs the clinic in Entebbe that the President will visit tomorrow, to provide this kind of comprehensive education so that young adults who are just becoming sexually active know what to do to protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we are right in the thick of the appropriations process that provides the funding that will carry out this initiative. Unfortunately, we are about $1 billion short of the $3 billion authorized in our global AIDS legislation, mostly because the President does not believe we should provide more than $2 billion this year.

I am hopeful that by visiting the TASO clinic tomorrow, the President will understand the true gravity of the situation and will push for the full $3 billion in funding. The lives of thousands of Africans can still be saved if this money is provided now. That is why over 100 Members of this body wrote President Bush asking him to provide an emergency appropriation of $1 billion in funding if we are unable to get $3 billion through the regular appropriations process.

So it is not too late, and I am asking this Congress, I am letting the rest of our country know that the President is visiting Uganda tomorrow and that we want people in Africa to understand that we are committed in terms of delivering on the promises which we made in terms of making sure that the full $3 billion that we authorized becomes real.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and just say tonight that I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and all of our colleagues in remembering and celebrating the life of a great human being, a giant, a constituent, my friend, Richard Iglehart.

While serving as a member of the Assembly Public Safety Committee in the California legislature, I had the real privilege of working very closely with Dick when he was chief counsel to the committee. And I came to rely on his thoughtfulness, his fairness and his wisdom. When working with Dick, I was always deeply impressed with his ability to do simple things simple and he always did what he said he would do.

Dick's passionate and unshakable belief in our system of justice provided the foundation for everything that he accomplished in his legal career. His vast knowledge of the law and our government earned him the respect of defenders and prosecutors, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Dick met people where they were and brought them along. He took the time to help them see things from a different perspective or to shed light on a complicated subject. He was a true mentor, and it was my great and very good fortune to have been really one of his students. I will miss his kind words of encouragement and support.

One could not know Dick without knowing of his love and his devotion to his wife, Judy, and his family. He was a good friend to so many of us. Words cannot express my sympathy and sorrow at his untimely death. Let us

honor and celebrate Dick's legacy by rededicating ourselves to the ideals and the values that he championed. My thoughts and prayers are with the Iglehart family this evening as the memorial service is taking place at this very moment.

He will always hold a special place in my heart and in the heart of many.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a good thing when the President visits a neglected continent, and so I am very glad that President Bush finally got to Africa; but we must recognize and understand the history of the United States policy and the United States involvement with Africa in order to use this moment to develop a positive, forward- moving agenda that is mutually beneficial.

First of all, the United States has significantly in the past contributed to the underdevelopment of Africa and has been benefited from the geopolitical manipulation of Africa and its leaders, and that is a fact. In the past, the United States has endorsed and funded the regimes of dictators. It has secured and disbursed loans that have left Africa Nations to this day struggling with debt; and it has created a cycle of dependence that has left Africa importing resources, aid, and military support from others. That is a fact.

This cycle of dependency, however, can be broken if the United States would work with Africans instead of against them. Peace, however, is a prerequisite for development. There can be no nation-building without peace. Strengthening Africa's peacekeeping capacity is the only solution to limiting outbreaks of civil conflict and preventing them from spreading to other parts of the region.

In turn, our investment in peace would not only protect our foreign aid investment but would also strengthen and secure an environment for African democracy.

Today, Africans are getting poorer and hungrier, and conflict and HIV and AIDS really threaten the survival of entire nations that the breakdown of African communities is causing and the breakdown of state and regional governance. This breakdown really has created an opportunity for opportunistic individuals, companies and nations, including the United States, to exploit the absence of state authority and governing institutions and the natural resources vital to the economic and development and growth of a nation.

According to World Bank reports, poverty in Africa remains rampant. During the 1990s, the numbers of poor people on the continent living on less than $1 per day, $1 mind you per day, rose from 241 million to 315 million in 1999. The World Bank now estimates that by 2015 this number will be approximately 404 million. Why are the numbers of poor and impoverished Africans going up? We have to ask the question of our own government, is the United States really committed to ending global poverty and promoting democracy?

I am pleased again, as I said earlier, that President Bush is visiting the African continent, but I just wonder why he is not visiting a hunger-stricken country like Ethiopia or Zambia.

Development assistance continues to be underfunded in our budget. Budgets of international programs, especially for Africa, have been moved into budgets for rebuilding Iraq. I believe that the United States should rebuild countries that it bombs, but it should not rob Peter to pay Paul. For this one country, the United States will invest over half a billion dollars for a little over 24 million people in Iraq, while the entire foreign assistance budget for 54 African countries, with over 858 million Africans, will be a measly $2 billion. That is an embarrassment and a real dismal dismissal of our history, heritage, and international significance for Africans and African Americans worldwide.

As I said earlier, I believe that the United States should help rebuild countries that we bomb and destroy, but we should find new money to do this. Otherwise, rebuilding a nation such as Iraq comes at a price.

The Bush administration has proposed decreases in several critical accounts in the 2004 Africa budget which will negatively impact Africa's long-term economic and political development efforts. So it appears that rebuilding Iraq, of course, is much more vital to the international community than the lowered nutritional status of Africans and the higher incidence of preventable illnesses like HIV and AIDS.

I urge our appropriators here to minimally step up to the plate and fully fund the $3 billion in HIV and AIDS money that we authorize tomorrow while the President is in Africa so that he can at least deliver on his promise to attack the HIV/AIDS pandemic in a real way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of Dr. Michael Reynolds, PhD, to the advancement of science education, to the creation and development of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, California, and to the science education of young students in Oakland, the East Bay and Northern California.

Dr. Reynolds was hired as Executive Director of the historic Chabot Observatory and Science Center in 1991, after being named Florida Science Educator of the Year and being a finalist in the NASA Teacher in Space Program.

Dr. Reynolds led the team, which conceived, financed and built the new Chabot Space and Science Center, with energy, enthusiasm and skill. The center is a jewel of Northern California.

Dr. Reynolds has built programs with the United States Air Force, NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Education to further Science Education and the public understanding of the frontiers of space science.

Under Dr. Reynolds leadership, the new Chabot Space and Science Center has become internationally renown for its science education programs.

Dr. Reynolds has secured, with NSF funding, a major new traveling exhibit from the People's Republic of China, consisting of artifacts and instruments used in ancient Chinese astronomy, that will tour the United States under the title of ``Dragon Skies''.

On behalf of the children, parents, educators of Oakland, of California and of the nation, I want to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Michael Reynolds, PhD, to the advancement of science education and understanding, and for the building of the new Chabot Space and Science Center, which will serve as a place of inspiration and learning for generations to come.

On behalf of my constituents and myself I wish to recognize the accomplishments of an educator, scientist, astronomer, dreamer, and an eternal optimist whose watchword is ``Keep Looking Up.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. National defense is important to all of us. This bill, however, will neither ensure our defense nor promote the general welfare, two of the central obligations of this government.

At over $368 billion, this bill expends scarce resources in Cold War era weapons systems. It spends another $9 billion on missile defense, a 17-percent increase over last year. This represents another heavy installment on what may be a bottomless pit of spending.

This spending comes at real costs. To put this in perspective, last year, according to the National Priorities Project, the people of California paid $859 million in tax dollars that were spent on missile defense.

That money could have paid to allow another 106,000 children to enroll in Head Start. It could have extended healthcare coverage to nearly half a million children. It could have created over 12,000 new units of affordable housing. Or it could have hired nearly 15,000 elementary school teachers.

And this year we are spending 17 percent more. That's a misplaced priority. And it is not the ticket to national security.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and commend him for his consistent leadership, his vision and his real purpose as a Member of Congress in terms of really making sure that this Congress understands the connection between our United States foreign and domestic policy, especially as it relates to Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing Africa this evening, I am reminded now of the first day that the President has had in Africa. Now, let me just say, I believe it is always helpful when the President of the United States really visits neglected parts of the world, especially Africa. So I am glad that he finally made it.

Now, one of his first stops on this trip today was Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. It is important, I believe, that the President saw firsthand this real jumping-off point to the murderous Middle Passage. For centuries, millions of Africans were placed in chains and shipped off to generations of enslavement in the United States and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, and I am certain the President understands that now. Many of them passed through Goree Island on that very terrible journey. Millions upon millions died along the way. Families were destroyed. Men, women, and children were locked in chains, forced into the cargo holds of ships, and transported thousands of miles to a life of slavery. They were kidnapped, raped, murdered, and sold into bondage in an enormous crime against humanity. The bodies of those who died were tossed overboard as lost cargo.

But these were human beings. On Goree Island, President Bush stood in their footsteps, peered into their cells, and glimpsed the horror that was slavery.

This morning the President denounced slavery as one of the greatest crimes of history and called it a sin, which it was, but he failed to offer an apology on behalf of the Government of the United States that engaged in this deplorable, despicable institution for hundreds of years.

It is extremely important that the President understand the history of slavery. It is also extremely important because the vestiges of slavery are still with us in the United States. On Goree Island, President Bush stated that history moves in the direction of justice. But then I had to ask myself, why does he oppose affirmative action?

So let us just look at the facts for a minute. African Americans' income is lower than that of whites. Black Americans have fewer assets and experience far higher unemployment. Economic injustices have persisted long after emancipation. African Americans, on average, make 95 cents for every dollar earned by whites doing exactly the same jobs.

These disparities in the workplace and on the unemployment line are echoed in the health care system. African Americans are less likely to have health insurance and receive poor health care when they do finally see doctors. As a result, of course, our lives are shorter.

In this country, life expectancy projections are profoundly shaped by race. Racial disparities literally follow a cradle-to-grave cycle, beginning with infant mortality, continuing with workplace hazards and increased exposure to toxins, and ending with disparate access to health care, diagnosis, and medical treatment.

Asthma, one of our latest epidemics, is one more example of racial disparities in health care. Death rates from asthma and a host of other treatable diseases are significantly higher among African Americans than any other ethnic group. African American children are also more likely to suffer from lead poisoning, which can have devastating effects on mental development. More than one out of every four low- income African American children suffers from lead poisoning.

Now, some of these realities are realities that I hope the President really understands while he is in Africa. These are still realities of American life in the 21st century, and these are legacies of past oppression and continuing injustice.

In presenting the Bush administration's arguments to the Supreme Court opposing affirmative action on behalf of the President, Solicitor General Ted Olson called for race-neutral admissions policies. That is because the administration apparently believes we live in a race- neutral society, but that is a dangerous fantasy. It means that the administration is blind to the legacy of slavery in our own country and does not really get what the current ramifications are.

So maybe this visit to Goree Island will help the President better understand the legacies of slavery and racism, both in Africa and here at home. It is my hope that this African trip, short though it may be, will also drive home to the President the importance of following through on his welcomed rhetoric with real dollars. We need him to exert the power of his office to ensure that the HIV/AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account, and other promises for foreign assistance and development aid will be fully funded. He must support our request for a supplemental appropriation to meet the meager, which is really meager, $3 billion authorization with regard to the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Goree Island was the start of a terrible journey for our African ancestors. Hopefully, it will be the start of a journey of enlightenment for this American President.

There is an Akan word called ``Sankofa.'' This means that we must go back and reclaim our past so, of course, that we can move forward, so we can understand why and how we came to be who we are today. When African men, women, and children were dragged into the Slave House at Goree Island where the President was today, they went through the door of no return. As the word ``Sankofa'' evokes, we have to understand that journey.

This President must understand that journey, and he has to understand what destination we have reached in the United States and in Africa, and how far we still have to go.

I close by thanking all of the Congressional Black Caucus members who have come before all of us in this Congress, who help strengthen the bond between Africans and African Americans, who represented the voice of Africans who were left out of the democratic process here in our own country in terms of foreign policymaking. Especially I would just like to thank the great gentleman from the State of Michigan, Congressman Charles Diggs, who not only chaired the Subcommittee on Africa as the first African American Member, but really did provide an opportunity and an avenue for other African American staff and Members to get involved with international relations issues, especially relating to the continent of Africa.

I also want to thank Congressman Ron Dellums and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who took risks and fought against racist regimes in South Africa and Namibia and Zimbabwe, even when our own government supported those policies. We must not forget that, because the Congressional Black Caucus has to move forward, and the President must understand that we will not rest until Africa flourishes, and those who came before us really charted the course. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, if it had not been for them, there would be no foreign policy as it relates to Africa.

So I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) again for continuing with that legacy and for continuing to ensure that our Black Caucus and the entire Congress understands and really begins to come to grips with the fact that Africa matters

in terms of our policies and our funding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our CBC Chairman, Elijah Cummings, for holding this special order. I wish to contribute this evening by inserting into the Record the following speech which I delivered on Monday June 23, 2003 at the Rainbow Push Coalition and the Citizen Education Fund's Women's Luncheon in Chicago.

Thank you very much for that kind introduction and thank

you for inviting me here today. I want to acknowledge and

thank Reverend Jesse Jackson for staying the course, for

continuing to speak truth to power and for your friendship

and support throughout the years. I want to thank you for the

act of courage Award presented to me last year in Los

Angeles. Believe me, the inspiration and encouragement that I

have received from you during very difficult and challenging

times has given me strength.

Reverend Barrons, your guidance spirit and commitment has

touched my life. To Mrs. Jacqueline Jackson, thank you for

your leadership and for being an exemplary role model for

women. You are our first lady and we are so proud.

To the entire Rainbow PUSH family, your commitment to work

for justice and peace has shown the world ``a better way.''

You continue to fight to make the American dream a reality,

not just for the select few but for ``all God's children.''

I also want to acknowledge the many elected officials,

members of the clergy, and community leaders, and phenomenal

women here today and to acknowledge everyone who is part of

the struggle to compel our nation to live up to its own

promises of liberty and justice for all. And in the memory of

our fallen hero Mayor Maynard Jackson, let us rededicate

ourselves to our work for political, social and economic

justice.

Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision on a monumental

affirmative action case. This morning the Supreme Court

rejected the Bush Administration's efforts to eliminate

affirmative action as we know it.

I say monumental because this judgment will echo far beyond

the boundaries of the University of Michigan and far beyond

the realm of higher education.

We are still studying the Court's ruling to understand its

ramifications; however, the Supreme Court did uphold

affirmative action and that is a clear defeat for the Bush

Administration. This decision is a testament to the broad

mobilization to defend civil rights, it validates the ``power

of the people'' and the legality of affirmative action and

requires us to be vigilant as we move forward.

Many of you, including myself, are proud products of

affirmative action. We are duty-bound to protect it.

This is one of the most important civil rights cases in the

last quarter century. Affirmative action is still necessary,

not just in the interests of people of color, but in the

interests of women and country as a whole.

What was at stake here is the University of Michigan's

attempts to create a classroom that reflects the diversity of

this country as well as its persistent economic inequalities.

What is also on trial here is the principle of affirmative

action, and in this case the Bush Administration weighed in

on the side of reversing progress rather than pursuing

justice.

Along with Reverend Jackson, and many others, I was at the

Supreme Court the day when this case was heard. I was very

proud to speak to the thousands and thousands of young people

led by the Michigan students and BAM who had come to

Washington from all over the country to protest the effort to

eliminate affirmative action.

Believe me, I see a new sense of energy and involvement by

our young people, and as adults we must support their

organization efforts. Thank God, they are preparing

themselves to take over the world. This victory speaks

volumes to their efforts.

I was sitting in the audience when Solicitor General Ted

Olson, the Administration's attorney, passionately argued

against affirmative action, declaring that the University of

Michigan--and by implication all other universities and

institutions--should use race-neutral means for its

admissions.

I thought how sad it was to witness our own government

arguing against the interests of so many of its own people.

I would suggest race-neutral admissions would be fine--just

as soon as this becomes a race-neutral country. And not a day

sooner.

In upholding the University of Michigan law school's

affirmative action program, race will continue to be a

critical component in achieving parity and equal opportunity

for all. We must be the active watchdogs over this decision

and how it is implemented.

I was there when Justice Scalia told the University of

Michigan that it had a choice: it could either be an elite,

first-rate school or it could lower its standards and pursue

racial diversity.

How sinister--and wrong--can you get?

Justice Scalia was, in fact, offering a false dichotomy: in

reality, you cannot be a top-flight university without

diversity.

While that fact eludes the Bush Administration, it does not

escape corporate America, the military, or many members of

Congress, all of whom voiced their support for the University

of Michigan and the principle of affirmative action.

Sixty-five major businesses, all Fortune 500 companies,

submitted a brief as a friend to the court on this case.

These global businesses have annual revenues of over a

trillion dollars.

As employers, they are deeply interested in this case

because they recognize, and I quote here from their brief,

``the existence of racial and ethnic diversity in

institutions of higher education is vital to [our] efforts to

hire and maintain a diverse workforce, and to employ

individuals who have been educated and trained in a diverse

environment.''

Affirmative action, these corporate giants explained, does

not only benefit minorities or the economically

disadvantaged: affirmative action benefits everyone by

offering cross-cultural experience and understanding.

Without that interaction, they argued, we all suffer, and

without such a workforce, these companies will be hard-

pressed to compete in the global business environment.

Those same views were echoed by many of the highest ranking

retired military officers in this country, including former

Chiefs of Staff, former Secretaries of Defense, General

Norman Schwarzkopf, and other decorated veterans representing

all four service branches.

They wrote the court, ``Based on decades of experience,

[we] have concluded that a highly qualified, racially diverse

officer corps'' is ``essential to the military's ability to

fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.''

``Limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions

policies'' at universities such as Michigan, they continued,

is critical to both meeting the security needs of this

country and to following through on Harry Truman's fifty-year

old executive directive to end segregation in the military.

Again, these retired military officers, like their business

counterparts, stressed that affirmative action is essential

to the success of their mission.

Diversity is a critical component of our democracy as well.

That is why I joined my congressional colleagues, led by

Michigan Congressman John Conyers, ranking member of the

Judiciary Committee and long a warrior in the fight for civil

rights, in submitting our own amicus brief to the Court.

We asked the Court to recognize the educational and

political benefits of diversity; to uphold the use of race as

one factor among others that can be considered in government

decision-making; and to reaffirm that the role of race in

this decision making is not limited to remedying specific

instances of identified discrimination.

The fact is we don't have a level playing field in this

country.

People of color and women earn less money, own fewer

assets, and enjoy less access to the nation's elite

institutions. African American unemployment is twice as high

as that of whites.

Affirmative action is still necessary, not just in the

interests of minorities but in the interests of the country

as a whole.

This decision upholds justice, access, and fair play. Let

me tell you what has happened in my home state of California.

In California, we have seen the devastating effects of the

assault on affirmative action. When I was in the state

legislature, I fought tooth and nail against efforts to end

affirmative action.

Reverend Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition not only stood

with us, they actively opposed Prop 209 by marching, engaging

in peaceful protests, and organizing.

All the ``street heat'' that could be brought to bear,

Reverend Jackson helped bring it.

During those years, I was chair of the California

Legislature Black Caucus, and we defeated each and every

anti-affirmative action legislative measure that then

Governor Pete Wilson wanted to sign into law.

But a member of the University of California Board of

Regents, and African American, yes, a brother, well, I should

say, a black man, Ward Connely, led the ballot initiative to

end Affirmative Action.

These efforts resulted in a state constitutional amendment

and action by the Board of Regents to end affirmative action

on all campuses.

So, while we won in the legislature, misinformation and

prejudice helped carry the day at the polls when California

voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996.

That initiative eliminated affirmative action programs for

women and people of color run by state or local governments

in the areas of public employment, contracting, and

education.

California and some other states have tried to create

alternatives to affirmative action, but these alternatives

depend on and reinforce residential segregation and fall

short in other ways. They just don't work. Now, very few

minority and women owned businesses have state contracts, and

very few are employed in key positions.

Alumni legacies--such as those President Bush undoubtedly

benefited from when he was admitted to Yale with an

exceedingly mediocre academic record, to say the least--

combined with emphasis on test scores that favor both white

applicants and the economically advantaged are creating

campuses that are increasingly segregated.

In California, we are undergoing the re-segregation of our

colleges and universities. At many of the top schools in the

state, minority enrollment has been cut in half since

Prop 209 passed. Thank God for our historically Black

Colleges. Our African American students are now going south

benefiting from their excellent education. But what we have

learned is that 70 percent of these students do not return to

California. What a brain drain we have in California.

Shame on California.

One observer described the process of eliminating

affirmative action, at Boalt Hall, the University of

California's premiere law school, as ``watching justice

die.''

In looking at the Administration's position on affirmative

action, we have to place that particular choice within the

larger context of the Bush Administration's class war on

America's working families and their policies of rewarding

the rich.

This Administration and its allies in Congress are rolling

back advances in racial equality, economic opportunity, and

gender equity.

First Trent Lott lamented the defeat of Strom Thurmond's

white supremacist Dixiecrat Party in 1948.

The Administration may have rushed to disown itself from

those remarks, but its policies are taking us back to those

days nonetheless.

The Administration is creating massive tax cuts for the

rich, but twelve million children of America's working

families were left off their master plan for the child tax

credit. They did this deliberately. It was not a mistake.

So were single mothers who apparently don't deserve tax

credits in the world of George Bush. They also left out over

200,000 military families. What a disgrace.

We have an Administration that preaches leave no child

behind, but then wants to gut Head Start and leaves tens of

thousands of children on waiting lists instead of in pre-

school. They want to block grant head start, remove it from

the Department of Health and Human Services, put it in the

Department of Education and require four year olds to take a

literacy test. Their proposal would end head start as we know

it.

We have an Administration that would like to privatize both

Social Security and Medicare, leaving our parents and

grandparents with neither financial security nor real

prescription drug coverage.

We have an Administration that is trying to block grant

Section 8 housing programs, dismantling Section 8 as we know

it.

And we have an Administration that is stripping away our

civil liberties, one by one. We must stop Patriot Act II from

getting through Congress.

It's an Administration that is wiping out decades of

progress on Clean Air and Clean Water, even though asthma,

childhood cancer rates, and scores of other health problems

associated with pollution are on the rise, especially among

people of color. It's an administration that puts our tax

dollars into a $400 billion dollar defense budget to build

more missiles, yet cuts after school programs and won't fully

fund education.

This is an administration that is launching a similar

assault on women's rights.

Look at its attack on Title IX, for example, a program that

is featured in this conference. Title IX has opened up

opportunities for girls and women on the sports field that

have also opened up opportunities in life.

Our beloved, recently deceased Congresswoman Patsy Mink of

Hawaii, sponsored Title IX. In honor of her memory and

legacy, we must not let this Administration turn back the

clock.

Title IX is about banning sex discrimination, pure and

simple. And the Bush Administration is trying to wipe out

those protections, just like it's trying to wipe out

affirmative action and the Clean Air Act.

This is an administration that wages war abroad while also

waging war at home, on the nation's poor, on people of color,

on women, on the environment, on seniors, and on working

families.

What can we do in the face of these assaults? Fight back!

Believe me, we must be vigilant to stop any legislation--

illegal legislation that the Republican House and Senate will

put forward.

We must take back the House, take back the Senate, and take

back the White House in 2004.

To do that, we must educate, organize, mobilize, and vote!

We must register our folks to vote, we must vote and we

must demand that our votes be counted. No more stealing

elections. Democracy is at a crossroads. We must make

democracy real.

Rainbow PUSH represents the very diversity that is under

attack. And diversity is a tremendous strength. Use it!

If people tell you their vote doesn't matter, remind them

about Florida.

Each and every vote the Supreme Court chooses to count

matters. We must demand that they all be counted!

This is a critical moment in history and you have to make

it our moment.

I am reminded of the Book of Esther and the conversation

between Mordecai and Esther when she faced her moment of

truth.

Mordecai turned to Esther as she paused in the face of what

looked to be an insurmountable obstacle, and he said to her,

``Who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such

a time as this?''

Let me pose a similar question to you here, today. Who

knows whether or not you have come for such a time as this?

Queen Esther and her forces were victorious. This too is a

battle we can win. We, too, will be victorious. And, again,

women will help lead the way.

Thank you for all that you do. Let us take from this moment

the determination to follow in the footsteps of our heroes--

Dr. King, Justice Marshall, Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Till, Ida B.

Wells, Sojourner Truth, Maynard Jackson, and Reverend Jesse

Jackson--and, like Esther, seize our moment.

I say again, Rainbow Push, you have come for a time such as

this.

Thank you and God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, this bogus Republican prescription drug bill will effectively dismantle and kill Medicare and leave millions of seniors, especially our women, our mothers, our grandmothers behind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of security for Israel and in utter condemnation of terrorism. I cannot, however, vote for a resolution that I believe fails to advance the Middle East peace process, and it undermines hope for the Roadmap.

On May 8, 2003, I wrote President Bush commending him for his efforts to help the parties find a way out of their ongoing tragedy. This letter read in part: ``I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud your efforts to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The

`Roadmap to Peace,' presented by the Quartet to the Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority, represents a welcome and desperately needed opportunity to work toward a lasting two-state solution that offers the prospect for an ordinary peace between current adversaries and with that peace, the promise of stability for the region. Such a solution is very much in our own national interest as well.''

I believe the principles laid out in the Roadmap, including its emphasis on reciprocity, must continue to guide us. Ending terror is imperative, and I absolutely agree with the sentiments in this resolution decrying terror and expressing sympathy for the loss of so many lives, Israeli and Palestinian, in this conflict. However, at this critical juncture, the resolution I wish that we were voting on was one that expressed those principles while at the same time voicing solidarity toward Israel by endorsing the Roadmap as our best chance to reach the much desired destination of peace and security. This resolution fails to reflect the reciprocity that is the hallmark of the Roadmap.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the Kucinich amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her support and her leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill. Also to my staff, Julie Little and Shannon Smith, I want to thank them for their very diligent work.

This is a commonsense amendment seeking an answer to a question that the American people have a right to know: How was our intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction handled in the months before the war? Specifically, this amendment seeks a GAO study to determine the extent and timeliness with which the Intelligence Community shared information about suspected weapons in Iraq with the United Nations inspectors on the ground searching for those weapons.

There are growing questions being raised about the use or possible misuse of intelligence in the months leading up to the war against Iraq. If intelligence was distorted, that raises serious doubts around the world about United States credibility. Our President told the American people, the Congress and the world that inspections had failed, that Iraq unquestionably possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that these weapons posed such a dire, imminent threat to the United States that we had no choice but to go to war. All other options, he said, had been exhausted. But the question we must continue to ask is, were those options truly exhausted? Were they, in fact, fully pursued? Did the United States Intelligence Community share information with the United Nations inspectors about suspected weapons sites? Did it happen in a timely and sufficient manner?

President Bush went before the United Nations General Assembly and stated, ``My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge.'' He and Secretary Powell pledged to work with the United Nations to pursue inspections to seek out and destroy weapons of mass destruction. What we have before us is a question of both policy and credibility. If we failed to fully share intelligence with United Nations inspectors, we may have undermined their effectiveness. If we relied on intelligence that was distorted or less complete than implied, if we failed to share crucial information with our allies, then we have undermined our own national credibility.

This Nation launched a preemptive war based on what it claimed was indisputable evidence. If that evidence was not so solid and especially if it was distorted, then we severely undercut our ability to convince the world about future dangers from weapons of mass destruction in other countries. The doctrine of preemption, which I happen incidentally to strongly oppose, totally collapses without credibility.

For these reasons, we need to find the answer to these questions. The American people have a right to know. A respected and esteemed member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said that he has been working for the last 6 months to try to force disclosure of important facts relevant to the sharing of intelligence information on suspect weapons of mass destruction sites by the CIA with the United Nations arms inspectors.

He continued, and I quote, ``If it had been public knowledge in February or March of this year that the CIA had not shared information on all of the top Iraqi WMD suspect sites with the United Nations inspectors, it could have worked against the administration's timetable for initiating military

action against Iraq. There could have been questions as to why; it could have made the administration's decision to cut short the U.N. inspection process and to institute military action less compelling; and there could have been greater demand that we share all such information with the United Nations before abandoning the inspection process.''

I share his concerns and I echo his call for a bipartisan investigation. These are not partisan issues, they are fundamental questions about credibility and they need to be answered. This amendment calls for a GAO study into the sharing of United States intelligence with the U.N. inspections teams. It calls for a report to Congress with a classified annex if necessary for security reasons. We are all aware that to date the United States military has not found weapons of mass destruction in its searches since the end of the war. We also know that that does not prove the weapons are not there. They may well be. And I believe we should bring in more IAEA and United Nations inspectors to help seek out, secure and destroy them if they are hidden in Iraq.

Given the Administration's confident and unequivocal statements that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and given the President's assurances that he wanted to work with the United Nations to seek non- military solutions through a renewed inspections process, it is important that we learn to answer to the question of whether or not intelligence was shared in a timely and sufficient manner with the UN inspections teams.

I urge you to support this amendment.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the gentleman very much for his response and for this debate, but I want to reiterate the purpose of this amendment, really, and it has nothing to do with whether one supports or opposes the United Nations. Basically, this amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study, a report, that would be submitted in an unclassified form but may contain a classified annex with regard to the sharing of information between our intelligence agencies and the

United Nations leading up to the war against Iraq. I believe the American people have a right to know this and this is what this sentiment of this amendment is, and I would urge the gentleman to reconsider.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again for that response; but, again, this amendment allows the American people to know what that information was in a declassified form. This amendment allows for a classified index, and I believe in terms of the fact that U.S. tax dollars were of course used in this war that people, the American people, just have a right to ask these questions and have the right to know. This has nothing to do with whether one supports or opposes the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask Congress to pass a prescription drug bill for our senior citizens, not for the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. The Bush administration continues to sell our Federal domestic programs to corporations and to industry donors.

Today, hundreds of seniors stood against the Republican prescription privatization plan. They blew the whistle on this. They blew the whistle on this deceptive legislation; and tonight, we too are blowing the whistle. Their bill will dismantle Medicare as we know it.

This prescription drug bill does not provide affordable drugs under Medicare. Instead, it leaves seniors, particularly women, to pay the price for pharmaceutical advertising and insurance industry lobbyists. Democrats have been fighting against these industry economics for years, and we know what a good Medicare prescription drug benefit looks like. It is affordable and available to all. It is inclusive and provides drug coverage for all communities, rural and urban. It includes all seniors and all walks of life without establishing a means tests or a voucher system.

Last week, the House Republicans under the leadership of really the Bush administration released their prescription drug benefit. The Republicans contend that seniors should be forced to use private insurance companies for drug coverage rather than Medicare in order to force competition. But the bottom line is the Republicans are really providing a benefit to the insurance industry and to the pharmaceutical industry.

The industry would have the ability to design their own prescription drug plan. The industry would decide what to charge and which drugs seniors can get. The Republican plan exploits seniors and the disabled by requiring private insurance plans to stay in the program for only 1 year. This could leave seniors vulnerable to unavailable plans, rotating doctors and shifting prescriptions. Just thinking about all of these threats to our seniors really does make me sick.

Tonight I want to focus on women and remind the Republicans of the voters really that they are ignoring. Women in this country will suffer first hand if the Republican prescription privatization bill passes, not only because we live longer, but because we pay into the Medicare system longer. Almost eight out of 10 women on Medicare use prescription drugs regularly, though most pay for these medications out of pocket. Women on Medicare spend 20 percent more on prescription drugs than men. And in 1999 alone, women on Medicare spent $430 more a year on medications than men. The Republican bill puts women, it puts our seniors, our disabled really on the industry's chopping block. It should make you really cringe to witness the corporate welfare that the Republicans are creating for the insurance and pharmaceutical industry in their bill.

Since 1980, drug prices have increased by over 256 percent, while the consumer price index on which Social Security's cost-of-living adjustments are based rose just 98 percent. And in their bill they will not even allow our Secretary of Health and Human Services to discuss and negotiate lower prices for their medications. How shameful that is.

In the Bay Area, specifically in my home town of Oakland, California, my elderly and disabled constituents are paying up to $2000 more a year for basic drugs than in Canada, Europe and Japan. These disparities may seem bad now; but under the Republican plan before us, they will only get worse. I could go on and on, but the point is that seniors and the disabled are paying on average 89 percent more than our international counterparts. This is just dangerous and downright unfair. It is bad public policy.

Our senior women are having to make hard decisions about which drugs they can afford and if they should really buy drugs or pay for food. There is a better way.

Democrats have a low-cost prescription drug plan that does not pit seniors against one another, but makes access to prescription drugs a reality for all. The plan has incorporated many of the components of another plan called the Meds Plan, which many of us are supporting.

Under this plan, we ensure that seniors and people with disabilities have affordable, comprehensive and guaranteed access to prescription drug coverage. The proof is in the details. A $25 a month premium, a $100 a year deductible, an 80/20 cost-sharing between Medicare beneficiaries, a $2,000 minimum for Medicare beneficiaries, and a sliding scale for low-income individuals for up to 150 percent of the median.

Under the Republican plan, let me state that the bill that the Republicans have put forward will really punish people for getting sick. The Democrats will not punish our seniors for getting sick. The Republican plan gives authority to insurance companies and HMOs to really prey on Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. The Democratic plan reduces the costs of drugs. The Republican plan does not. The Democratic plan does not end Medicare. The Republican plan does.

The Democratic plan does not end Medicare. The Republican plan does.

The Democratic plan reduces the costs of drugs. The Republican plan does not.

In short, the Democratic plan brings our country one step closer to insuring access to all people for much needed care, while the Republican Prescription Privatization plan is a divisive tool that will enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industry.

The Republican plan gives authority to insurance companies and HMOs to prey on Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

Unlike the Republican bill, the Democrats won't punish you for getting sick.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican Prescription Privatization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this resolution to honor the vice mayor of the city of Berkeley, a great leader for human and civil rights, for peace and disarmament, council member Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek.

Today, is Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek's 92nd birthday, 92nd; and in honor of her tremendous legacy, I am extremely proud to introduce the Maudelle Shirek Post Office resolution. While fighting for social justice is no rarity in Berkeley, Maudelle's name always stands above the rest because of her uncompromising fidelity to her ideals and compassion for people.

As one of my political heroes, Maudelle continues to fight for equality and social justice for all. She is truly a role model for women, especially for young African American women.

She not only inspired me to get involved in politics but also my predecessor, the honorable Ronald V. Dellums. Her commitments to investing in people have won the solid support for many years of voters in her district. She is recognized throughout the world as a distinguished leader.

One of my most memorable Maudelle stories was when she was arrested with about 109 others in an anti-apartheid protest at the University of California at Berkeley. Many of the protestors were many years younger, including myself. She knew very well the awesome power of standing for what is right, regardless of the consequences.

A granddaughter of slaves, Maudelle left rural Arkansas which, of course, was her home; and she came to California in the middle of World War II. Before long, she was campaigning for fair housing and for many, many civil rights issues for African Americans and others who had been left out and disenfranchised. She became a union organizer and an office manager of the Co-Op Credit Union. She has helped many, many families in terms of their financial stability in the 9th Congressional District, especially in the city of Berkeley. She has demonstrated throughout her life the need for coalition politics for the betterment of humankind.

Vice Mayor Shirek's community commitment really knows no limits. She helped found two Berkeley senior centers, one of which she really still actively oversees; and at 92 years of age, she still delivers meals to shut-in seniors or, if it is a Tuesday, she does all of the shopping for lunches at the New Light Senior Center, which she founded 28 years ago. She taught many, including myself, the value of eating nutritious foods in order to live a healthy life.

Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek continues to speak for the voiceless and to defend our basic civil rights and civil liberties. Please join me in honoring Ms. Maudelle Shirek, our Vice Mayor of the city of Berkeley, who is a fierce and inspirational woman who tirelessly continues to fight to make this world fair and just, a world of peace for our children's future.

The Maudelle Shirek Post Office will be a testament to the enormous contributions of this great woman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for the gentleman's leadership and for once again holding this Special Order to attempt to wake up America.

Tonight, of course, under the gentleman's leadership, we are once again talking about children and our senior citizens. Once again we are talking about the Bush administration's dismantling, total dismantling, of social programs. The Bush administration has really waged war on children and our senior citizens. They continue to dismantle, privatize, and create unfunded mandates that truly compound our State budget crisis and leave our children and our senior citizens behind. I have yet to see the compassionate conservatism which was promised over 2 years ago. Actually on my report card, the Bush administration gets first an F for attempting to block grant the section 8 program, which helps kids live in mixed income areas and have the chance to go to mixed and integrated schools, and for eliminating the drug elimination program which provides violence prevention efforts in public housing to increase their safety at home.

The Bush administration gets another F for attempting to block grant Medicare and Medicaid to the States and removing the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide health insurance to millions of children and to families by trying to give this to the States which are really suffering from fiscal shortfalls and extreme budget crises.

They also get an F for failing to include the 12 million children, 12 million, mind you, in their tax cut proposal. They also, based on my report card, get an F for attempting to privatize not only Social Security but the current Republican prescription drug benefit which will leave millions of seniors without coverage. They want to give really the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies another way to make more profits. In fact, according to Consumers Union, more seniors would pay more for medicines than they now do under their proposal. That is why they get an F for their prescription drug benefit plan.

They also get an F on the economy, because the Bush administration and this Congress has not provided a secure economy where families can provide for their children because they have jobs and a sense of stability and economic security, not because they have an alleged tax cut. They also get another F for their current Head Start attempts and for continuing to dismantle Head Start really, and that is what they are doing by block granting it and by reducing the effectiveness of Congress, State governments, and our communities.

Tonight, many of us are talking specifically about Head Start and why we cannot stand by and allow our Republican colleagues and the administration to move forward with their plan to test kids, mind you, at age 4, I believe, literacy testing. How cynical. Age 4. Their plan would require care givers as well as teachers to have college degrees instead of concern and sincere interest in their students and would reduce, instead of expand, the success of the current Head Start program. That is why they get an F on my report card for block granting Head Start.

Over the last 4 decades, Head Start nationwide has reached an unbelievable number of students. Since 1965, over 20 million children across the country have participated in Head Start. Last year alone, Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 children; that is 900,000 in over 2,500 local programs. In my own hometown of Oakland, California, 1,600 children are part of our area Head Start

program. But we are still not reaching enough kids. On any particular day, 300 to 400 young people are on a waiting list for the Oakland Head Start centers. In fact, all 30 centers have children on a waiting list, meaning that all areas are being affected; 300 to 400 children are far too many to have to begin school already behind. In fact, one child on a waiting list is one too many who do not have access to early participation. Just a couple of months ago, over 300 to 400 families, children, men and women, came to a rally and participated. In no uncertain terms they said very clearly to me, do not tamper with Head Start. If it ain't broke, do not fix it. Leave it alone. Let us put more money in Head Start. Do not subject us to the whims of the State budget crisis.

We cannot stand by and allow this administration and this Republican Congress to dismantle good programs like Head Start. We cannot allow them to succeed in the ongoing elimination, and that is what is going on. It is the systematic elimination of proven programs that benefit and lift up all people in our country. We cannot allow the President and the Republican Congress to dilute what has been one of our most successful programs over the last 4 decades. We must stop this assault on Head Start, we must stop this assault on our children, we must stop this assault on our senior citizens, we must stop this assault in terms of the bogus prescription drug benefit program that the Republicans are pushing, we must stop the assault on section 8, we must stop the assault on Social Security and in terms of our overall domestic economic agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, all of us, to join with our Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus to once again this evening try in another instance to wake up America in terms of what type of dismal, very backwards policies that this Republican Congress and this administration are shoving down the American people's throats.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland hit it. That is exactly why moving Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services into the Department of Education is not the right move because currently, our young people who are in Head Start, our children, receive comprehensive services. Their families receive the support. They receive not only a quality early childhood education, but they also receive those basic kinds of support services that they need to move on to lead a quality healthy life. Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds do not have the resources for healthcare. We know how much healthcare is costing now. Their parents do not have insurance coverage. They do not have access to dental clinics.

So Head Start provides for immunizations and all of those kinds of healthcare needs in a total package for young people who, by no fault of their own, just do not have any money to receive those types of basic services, and that is why moving it to the Department of Education is wrong and we have got to defeat this proposal.

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

As I read this resolution, I really did think I was reading the fundamental arguments for the establishment of a national affordable housing trust fund which has been sponsored by over 200 members of this body. So I would like to read just a couple of whereas clauses which explain why I think this resolution sounds like the provisions of the National Housing Trust Fund.

Whereas establishing a housing infrastructure strengthens neighborhoods and local economies and nurtures the families who reside in them; whereas homeownership is a cornerstone of the national economy because it spurs the production and sale of goods and services, generates new jobs, encourages savings and investment, promotes economic and civic responsibility and enhances the financial security of all people in the United States.

That is some of what this resolution says. I fully support and appreciate the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and really agree that they should be applauded and supported. However, this resolution is just another vehicle for Republicans to talk about their nonexistent housing agenda. This Congress must allow us to debate and vote on significant housing legislation.

My frustration with my Republican colleagues for failing to bring significant housing legislation to the floor and for ignoring the dismal housing and economic outlook in this country is really only compounded by the Republican attempts to clock weak homeowner initiatives by pretending to support the American dream of homeownership.

While the nationwide homeownership rate is approaching 70 percent, the African American and Latino homeownership rate pale in comparison, to about 46 percent; and in the administration's Homeownership Downpayment Assistance Program, they would not even support foreclosure assistance to help these homeowners keep their homes and protect taxpayer investment.

Of the 3.9 million low-income households to be considered working poor, over two-thirds pay 30 percent or more of their income for housing costs, with one-quarter paying over half their incomes. In 39 States, 40 percent or more of renters cannot afford fair market for a 2-bedroom unit, and that is why creating more affordable housing and homeownership should be our focus.

Consistently since the Bush administration has drafted budgets, they seem to negate the promise of homeownership, community investment, and fair, quality housing. This administration continues to cut the HUD budget and fight successful programs such as HOPE VI, section 8, the public housing drug elimination program and the creation of a national affordable housing production program.

I will vote for this resolution, I support it; but I encourage the other side to bring some real housing bills to the floor very soon.