Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Thursday, July 14, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6 offered by Mrs. Capps (rollcall No. 373); ``yea'' on H.R. 3100, the East Asia Security Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 374); ``yea'' on H. Res. 356, a resolution condemning the terrorist attacks in London (rollcall No. 375); ``aye'' on the Rohrabacher Amendment to H.R. 2864 (rollcall No. 376); ``aye'' on the amendment offered by Messrs. Blumenauer and Flake to H.R. 2864 (rollcall No. 377); ``yea'' on approving H.R. 2864 (rollcall No. 378); and ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 191, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the war in the Pacific and honoring veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War (rollcall No. 379).

Madam Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, July 11, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 168, a resolution condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights (rollcall No. 363); and ``yea'' on H. Res. 333, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a ``National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan'' (rollcall No. 364).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to prohibit the sale of an American oil company to the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, recommending in this bill that Treasury not be allowed to make a favorable recommendation that our ninth largest oil company should be sold to the Chinese.

Some people say, why is the gentlewoman from Michigan interested in this amendment? We are interested because we believe that Americans ought to be able to have and hold and own American companies. Did my colleagues know that 53 percent of the privately held debt of this country is held by private investors, private countries? Japan being first, China being second. This is not the time to now sell our ninth largest oil refinery to a Chinese company.

Our trade deficit with China is $160 billion. We buy $160 billion more from China that they buy from the United States. This is not the time, if there ever is. Our national security, which is what the CFIUS committee will look at, that is the Committee on Federal Investments in the United States chaired by Secretary of the Treasury Snow, also on that panel is the Defense Secretary as well as the Secretary of State; we believe that this is not right for our country, it is not right for our economic security.

We must also look at, and CFIUS right now only looks at national security, and probably that ought to be amended. CFIUS was established in 1988, a 12-member committee. They should probably also look at economic security, and we are looking at offering an amendment to amend that legislation as well.

China is an economic and military power. They are one of our largest competitors. In my own district, General Motors put $2 billion into China last year and just 2 months ago said that they closed 30 plants, they closed 30 General Motors plants in America and laid off thousands of workers.

Should we work with China? Yes, we should. Should we turn over our government business to China? No, we should not. This amendment that I am offering would not allow the Treasury Department to issue a favorable recommendation to the President of a China company, Chinese National Offshore Oil, to sell our own, very own Unocal company.

So I am hoping that as we go through this debate and as we come to talk about this issue, we take care of Americans first.

I was just in a meeting this morning where we talked about the loss of our American jobs. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we have this debate, we will continue and make sure that we maintain American ownership of American corporations. Fifty-three percent of the privately held debt in America today, the bulk of it is held by Japan first, as I mentioned, and also then China. Intellectual property rights, the Chinese have no respect for our intellectual property rights. In the auto industry right now, China also abuses our parts and uses our technology.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking that this amendment be accepted by our entire body, that we make sure that American companies stay in America, and that we continue to employ, that we continue to train and educate our children so that your grandchildren and mine will have an America that is strong.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

I rise in support of the resolution. The House went on record earlier today in a strong, bipartisan way, to support that we would, first of all, make sure that CFIUS, which is the Committee on Investments in the United States chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury Snow, that we go on record making sure that we not spend money at this time for a Chinese company that is Communist-owned by the Communist government to take over our ninth largest oil company. The Congress has spoken, and we are happy that we did so in a loud, strong voice.

The sense of the Congress resolution before us is one that we also support. General Motors is losing technology to China, and it is costing the company $12 billion a year. Intellectual property rights are not being protected, and China has been abusing those rights.

We must protect American business, and we must do what is necessary. So, I am proud of the Congress and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for introducing this resolution that we also further state our strong support for not allowing the sale to go through.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

(Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing us to have this debate. I believe it has been a good debate and we do support the amendment, many of us on this side of the aisle, although a couple who spoke do not support it.

It is important as we talked about it earlier today that we remembered that 53 percent of America's private debt is held by foreign countries, 53 percent. That means many of our debt and the two owners of those debts are Japan first, and China second. 53 percent of our private debt is owned by foreign countries. I think that is not good for our country, for our grandchildren. We have got to strengthen America, calling those debts when we are able to pay them off, and give America back to Americans.

Should we have work with China? And I said this earlier, yes, we should, and other foreign markets. This is an international, global community that we live in. But we should always put America first, and I think the debate that we have had today, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for some of his remarks and for the resolution, the sense of the Congress, again, will reinforce what we have done earlier today.

We have got to make sure that American companies stay strong so that Americans can continue to work, so they can take care of their families, pay taxes, help cities, towns and villages maintain themselves with the revenue that it gets from them.

So trade, yes, and this is free trade. Somebody said free trade. This is not that deal. This is something less than that. As the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) spoke, it is getting the corner of the market because you can pay $18.5 billion in cash at a time when our country has $160 billion trade deficit and then you turn some of that money back and want to buy our company. It is not a good deal.

We call on CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, Secretary Snowe and his 12-member committee to look closely at what is before them, to do the proper investigation and then not to recommend to the President that we go forward with this sale.

It is not the right time for America. It will weaken our economy. And our national security interests as well as our economic interests, as well as our energy interests are at stake.

So, Mr. Speaker, let us not do this sale. Let us continue to build America and keep America strong.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for working with us, and I understand the point of order. It is something we need to bring to the attention of the Committee on Appropriations.

There has been much discussion already today about the section 8 program and the need of millions of Americans who are now in the section 8 program and millions more who are waiting for affordable, safe, clean housing. This amendment would talk about the distribution of the dollars, once we restore the section 8, and as we are in the section 8 program today.

In 1993, this Congress passed an act that would limit the distribution of those dollars and use a 3-month window to decide how those dollars would be distributed. First, the dollars are not enough, then they use a 3-month window rather than 12 months of the fluctuating cost of public housing authorities to decide how much each public housing authority will get in the section 8 housing choice voucher program.

I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for providing an appropriation in this bill to address some of that need in the 2006 budget. As of right now, as this bill was debated and as it passed the Congress in 2003, in 2004, my district and districts all over America lost hundreds of thousands of vouchers. And for my district, in the 13th Congressional District, that was 1,500 vouchers people had in 2004 that they do not have in 2005, and there is some help in this budget to rectify some of that.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the ranking member; and I hope to get it in an authorizing bill as well as to rectify it permanently.

We suggest that the formula would be better distributed on a fairer basis if it would use the 12-month rather than the 3-month window, so that the housing authorities can get the dollars they so sorely need and deserve.

I have a list here of several organizations who support this fairer funding amendment and will be working with the ranking member and the chairman of the authorizing committee to make sure that as we save the section 8 program that it is funded properly and that the money is then distributed properly.

Organizations such as the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities support the fairer distribution; organizations such as the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials support the distribution using the 12-month window rather than the 3-month. The National Association of State Housing Agencies supports using the 12- month need and flexibility rather than the 3-month window, which has an unfair distribution of those dollars. Also, the National Leased Housing Association also believes that we ought to consider distributing those dollars on a 12-month average rather than a 3-month average. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition also believes we should do that as well.

It is important that as we look at the section 8 program, and as was mentioned earlier, and I will not go back over all of that again, that we not only know the need and how important it is but that public housing authorities must be able to meet those needs in a better and fairer way. We have to be able to do what is necessary so that the program is saved.

The portability of those vouchers is something we want to maintain so that individuals, families, and children are able to create and have safe, clean, decent housing. The disparity that exists

when you use the 3-month window is really appalling and not equal and not fair. This prevents the displacement and the air that adds to the displacement of our elderly and disabled and other tenants who are sometimes in private development. They need these protections, and they need to make sure the distribution of the funding is fairer.

I know Chairman Knollenberg has raised a point of order. Would my good Michigan colleague and chairman of the committee join me in a dialogue?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague. I understand the gentleman's point of order, and I respect it highly as our chairman, but I wanted to ask if the gentleman would work with us to make a fairer distribution of the section 8 dollars as we go forward into next year.

I commend the chairman for putting in the extra dollars in this 2006 budget so that we can rectify some of that across the country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and appreciate his time and energy on that; and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that we will work to strengthen the section 8 program in general and certainly the distribution of the funding. I hope that we will also work together to make permanent a 12-month distribution of those funds and not use the 3-month window, which will better serve the public housing authorities in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment addressing the growing concern I have with the unfair distribution of renewal funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

The trend of the past few years for providing allocations to state and local housing agencies for voucher renewal funding has been to base budget allocations on a 3-month ``snap-shot,'' from May through July in 2005.

The justification for selecting those 3 months is only because that was the most recent fiscal quarter for which data was available. There was no consideration of local market condition changes throughout the year in different areas of the country.

While I greatly appreciate Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for recognizing this disparity, and including a set-aside of $45 million to adjust the allocations of the housing agencies whose snap- shot did not accurately reflect leasing levels and costs for 2004, this ``fix'' still does not address the fundamental problem.

The essential problem is that we are basing yearly budgets on just 3 months of costs. That leaves 9 months of fluctuating market conditions unaccounted for.

At a time when rising energy costs are driving utility costs up, and job markets are fluctuating, particularly in areas like Michigan with its manufacturing base, we cannot ignore the impact of these market changes on subsidy needs.

Similarly, housing agencies are required to pay portability costs for families who are relocating, though agencies have control over rent subsidies for those areas. They must simply compensate by reducing or denying assistance for someone else.

This arbitrary snap-shot creates a disparity where some housing agencies wind up with more money than they need to meet their commitments, and others will have to turn families out into the cold because their under-estimated budgets could no longer support the same number of vouchers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would implement a formula for allocating renewal funding to state and local housing agencies that better captures the effects of fluctuating local conditions, while adding a cost containment incentive and retaining congressional control over total spending.

It would preserve a key feature of funding policy created last year in fiscal 2005 appropriations by continuing to base budgets on leasing and costs in the prior year, but to avoid unfair impacts of using a 3- month ``snapshot,'' the most recent data available for a 12-month period would be used.

My amendment would help prevent the displacement of the elderly, the disabled, and the other tenants of privately owned developments by guaranteeing stable funding for tenant protection vouchers by exempting those un-negotiable costs from proration.

If total funding allocations are below the sum of the calculated budgets, the distribution of funds would be prorated so each housing agency would receive the same percentage of funds they should have if fully funded. Thus in times of constrained resources, there would be a shared sacrifice; each agency would still receive the same proportional amount.

Agencies currently manage their program over a 12-month period, with fluctuation in costs and leasing from month-to-month. A 12-month snapshot would provide a smoother and more accurate reflection of an agency's program reality than a 3-month snapshot, which could represent a hill or a valley in its budget year.

I know some may worry that agencies reimbursed for their actual costs, have no incentive to keep costs down, but all agencies will be constrained by the amount Congress provides regardless, and they know that, which in and of itself is a reason to constrain costs. This formula is simply a more fair way of distributing limited resources.

Mr. Chairman, if Congress wants to legitimately help American families have access to safe, affordable housing we must work toward a fair, balanced policy and seriously consider real market factors that families must face in their communities.

Endorsers of the Proposed Hybrid Voucher Funding Policy

1. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

2. Jody Geese, Executive Director, Belmont Metropolitan

Housing Authority (Martins Ferry, OH).

3. Neal Molloy, Executive Director, Housing Authority of

St. Louis County, Missouri.

4. National Association of Housing and Redevelopment

Officials (detailed proposal only, excluding item 4(a)(i)).

5. National Council of State Housing Agencies.

6. National Leased Housing Association.

7. National Low Income Housing Coalition.

8. Ohio Housing Authorities Conference.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for yielding me this time and wish a happy birthday to our chairman and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership as we work for the world right here in this Chamber.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for helping us to fashion a bill that is fair. Yes, we could use more money. Our 302(b) allocations limit what we can do, but I think it is a perfect start. The Senate has $1.5 billion more to spend than we have in our bill, and I believe in conference we will see a better bill.

I want to highlight a few things about why I strongly support this bill. Everyone says it is not enough. It is never enough. HIV/AIDS is funded at the highest level it has been. I want to commend the leadership of the subcommittee. We are over a billion dollars more than the President requested for HIV and AIDS.

The Sudan and peacekeeping operations there, we are going in the right direction. We believe with this money to help Sudan we will be able to see some stability in that region soon.

I want to speak about the Middle East. I am a strong proponent of peace in the Middle East. We must have that, and our partners there are working for that.

I recently visited Egypt on my second visit there, and found that Egypt, which I already knew, some 70-plus million people, is our strongest military ally in the region. Egypt purchases our weapons and does our training and also stabilizes the other countries: Israel, with 3 to 4 million people; Jordan with 7 or 8 million people; Lebanon, Syria. The government of Egypt and President Mubarak are the peacekeepers and have been very instrumental in the Abbas-Sharon talks, as well as the Lebanon and Syria talks. So I would hope we continue to fund Egypt to work with Egypt to make sure that they keep their commitments to the Middle East as well as to this government. I am very confident that as we work together with Egypt and with the Middle East, we will hope to see peace as we work there.

This bill also provides educational opportunities for thousands of young people all over the world who are unable to fund their own education. We know education is the difference between success and failure in young people's lives; and the better the education, the more options young people have.

Mr. Chairman, let us continue to work to build a better, stronger world. The U.S. is the largest country, the strongest country in the world. I would not want to be anywhere else. We have a responsibility to build, to grow, and to be good foreign partners. I believe this foreign ops bill for 2006 continues that effort. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the foreign operations bill. It is not perfect, but it is certainly a good piece of legislation as it moves through Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3057, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 2006. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, subcommittee on foreign operations, I want to commend subcommittee Chairman Jim Kolbe and Ranking Member Nita Lowey, Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis and Ranking Member David Obey for fashioning a bill that reflects consensus and a commitment to supporting the needs of the global community.

Our work on this bill was difficult given the limited 302(b) allocation that was imposed on the subcommittee. Despite the allocation constraints, the subcommittee members developed a bill that was roughly $2.5 billion below the president's request of $22.8 billion. Our bill recommends a funding level of $20.3 billion and includes a number of strong provisions.

Our bill provides substantial funding for HIV/AIDS, including a plus up of $131 million above the president's request. The Global Fund is funded at $400 million, and is an increase of $200 million above the president's request. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is funded at $1.72 billion which is $150 million less than the president's request, and HIV/AIDS in the Child, Survival and Health (CSH) account is funded at $350 million, including $20 million in bilateral assistance to non-focus countries. Other HIV/AIDS funding totals $55 million. The level of funding in the bill reflects an awareness of the dimensions of the global pandemic and the necessity to commit resources to global communities that are being ravaged by the disease.

I am also pleased that my colleagues recognized the importance of funding peacekeeping operations (PKO) in Sudan. The conflicts in the north/south and Darfur necessitate a financial and peacekeeping commitment to mitigate the proliferating violence, despair and disease that is rampant in Sudan.

Given the prevailing tensions in the Middle East, particularly as those tensions relate to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, I am pleased about the level of funding provided to support the Palestinian Authority (PA) and for our allies in Egypt and Jordan. Our funding to the region reflects the importance the committee attaches to supporting countries that are committed to the goals of democratization and fighting terrorism. I also want to remind my colleagues that it is imperative that we continue to send the message to our allies in the Middle East and the Gulf region that their efforts to aggressively support democratization and to provide military security are greatly appreciated and reflected in our ongoing financial support.

Despite the good news in this bill, I want to stress my concern that U.S. foreign assistance comprises only 1 percent of our Federal budget. I believe more could be done around the world if our Nation did not have to contend with a spiraling deficit that continues to balloon because we are entrenched in a military engagement in Iraq that costs roughly $150 million per day, $5 billion per month and $60 billion per year. I am very dismayed by these figures because they highlight the reality that there is no prospect for the removal of our troops from harm's way in the near term.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, I believe, represents a good faith effort to address the foreign assistance needs of our global neighbors. And while I wish that more resources were available to support worthy programs, we were limited in our allocation. Given current economic realities, this bill represents a good faith effort to fund essential programs around the world. The Senate allocation for foreign assistance is $1.5 billion higher than the House figure, so I am hopeful that perhaps even greater levels of funding will be provided for other critical areas of need. I am pleased to support this bill and encourage my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 3057.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present on votes held earlier this morning. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 458, rollcall No. 324; and ``no'' on the previous question on H.R. 341, rollcall 325.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 140.

Mr. Speaker, personal business prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 27, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 199, a resolution expressing the sense of the House regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995 (Rollcall No. 322); and ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 155, a resolution urging the Government of the Republic of Albania to ensure that the parliamentary elections to be held on July 3, 2005, are conducted in accordance with international standards for free and fair elections (Rollcall No. 323).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Obey and their staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House floor.

Although the Committee has done its best, it is shameful the Committee had a limited amount of money to fund America's highest domestic priorities. This Republican led Congress and the Administration has put the $140,000 tax cuts for people who make $1 million or more a year; and spending $250 billion fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ahead of the need to invest in our children, our education system, our health care system, and job training programs that will help American families.

This bill does fund many of the programs that the Administration wanted to cut or eliminate programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, Vocational Education State Grants and Adult Education programs.

However, the bill before us today sorely underfunds or eliminates too many programs. The bill zeroes out 48 programs. The list is enclosed. Also, the bill provides the smallest increase for the National Institutes of Health in 36 years.

This bill cuts $806 million from No Child Left Behind.

This bill provides only a $50 increase in Pell grants, despite hundreds of dollars of increases in college tuitions and costs.

This bill cuts the Employment Service program by $116 million. The Employment Service program helps the unemployed with finding jobs and with 7.6 million Americans out of work this program is critical.

Quality pre-natal care and health services for low-income mothers and infants should be a priority but this bill cuts the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant program by $24 million and the Healthy Start program targeted to communities with high infant mortality by $5 million.

The Low-Income Energy Assistance Program that helps families pay heating bills is cut by $198 million at a time when gas prices are at their highest.

The Safe and Drug Free Schools program to keep school aged children off drugs and alcohol is cut by $37 million, which will devastate many families and communities.

Preventative Health Block Grants to state health departments are cut by $31 million.

The bill slashes the Education Technology Program by $196 million.

The Community College Initiative is cut in half by $125 million.

It freezes after-school centers for the fourth year in a row.

Mr. Chairman, this bill eliminates 48 programs, including the elimination of $100 million Department of Health and Human Services' contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis.

It eliminates comprehensive school grants for 1,000 high-poverty school districts by eliminating the program.

This bill eliminates 10 out of the 12 Title VII health profession training programs. These programs help ease the shortage of doctors, dentists, and other health professionals in underserved areas.

This bill eliminates the Health Communities Access Program that helps health centers and public hospitals better serve the uninsured.

Mr. Chairman, HR 3010 does not invest in our future, our families, or our country. The needs and values of Americans are not addressed. This bill shortchanges the American

people. The Appropriations Committee had to make tough choices because of the strict budget allocations brought on by the misguided and irresponsible tax cuts for the richest of Americans and the cost of the war, but programs that help millions of Americans should not be on the chopping block.

Congress is walking away from our commitment to equal opportunity and a better quality of life for all Americans. Greater access to job training, better jobs, affordable healthcare, quality education, and closing the disparity gap should be our goal.

The Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education bill falls far short of achieving these goals and strengthening American families.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with the defense policy of the Bush Administration. While I disagree with the policy, I do not believe we should deprive our troops in the field and our military of the funds they need to protect our country.

Since 2003, Congress has appropriated almost $250 billion for the war efforts by passing supplemental appropriations bills in 2003, 2004 and 2005. U.S. spending in Iraq will be at least $75 billion to $80 billion this year and could approach $400 billion by 2006, according to Congressional Quarterly. This approaches the $406 billion cost of the Korean War. Last month we passed a fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriation that totaled $82 billion, the second largest supplemental in history. Only one month has passed, and we find ourselves voting for another $45 billion for war funding for the first 6 months of the 2006 fiscal year.

Assuming the size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will remain at approximately the same level through 2006, the war costs will require another $40 to $45 billion. No money will be spent that is not directly related to the war. No money under the $45 billion supplemental portion of the bill will be spent on the Army's modularity initiative or to increase the permanent end strength of active duty forces.

I am a strong advocate for developing a plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. We should keep in mind that the FY05 supplemental contained language that requires the Defense Department to provide Congress with a set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security in Iraq and a timetable for achieving these goals. The first report is due in July. We look forward to how DoD will define its strategies for success.

This bill is framed principally by our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In my judgment the forces we have on the ground in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are doing a fabulous job, but the size of our Army and Marine Corps is just too small to do the job we are asking them to do. I hope the funds in the bill will provide for that shortfall.

I support this bill in order to properly equip our troops with body armor, vehicle armor and other equipment to protect them from insurgent attacks. As much as I regret the War in Iraq, I cannot ignore the fact that we are a Nation at war. This bill recognizes and provides our troops with the tools they need to do their job.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 283, I was detained today because of flight delays, and had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would name the Federal Building at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks was a seamstress and the secretary of the local NAACP. Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus in December 1955. She was arrested and fined for violating a city ordinance. Her defiance began a movement that ended legal segregation in America and made her an inspiration to people everywhere.

The bus incident led to the formation of the Montgomery Association. The Association called for a boycott against the city-owned bus company. Black people citywide boycotted of the bus system for more than a year. As a result of the boycott and the actions of Rosa Parks, the Supreme Court eventually outlawed racial segregation on public transportation.

Rosa Parks was born Rosa Louise McCauley in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4, 1913. In 1957, Mrs. Parks and her husband Raymond moved to Detroit. She continued her seamstress career and later served on the staff of Congressman John Conyers. After the death of her husband, she founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development. The Institute sponsors leadership programs for youth, including an annual summer program for teenagers called Pathways to Freedom.

Rosa Parks' work helped change history. Her contributions to the Civil Rights Movement brought this country a step closer to equality. Her devotion to the Civil Rights Movement and the city of Detroit will always be remembered.

I believe people who make meaningful contributions to society should be recognized and honored. Naming the Federal Building at 333 Mt. Elliott Street at E. Jefferson after Mrs. Rosa Parks will remind everyone who drives by or visits the building of the contribution she made for Civil Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in honoring the ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement,'' Mrs. Rosa Parks, by becoming a cosponsor of my legislation to name the Federal Building at 333 Mt. Elliott Street at E. Jefferson in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks. The building will serve as a reminder of her strong sacrifice and unwavering commitment to her community and America.

Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, June 13, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on S. 643, a bill to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to authorize State mediation programs (Rollcall No. 241), and ``aye'' on H.R. 2326, a bill designating the ``Floyd Lupton Post Office'' (Rollcall No. 242).

Mr. Speaker, let it be known, in tribute to Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman, an induction ceremony into the Ring of Ancestors will take place on Sunday, June 12, 2005 at the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History. It is with great respect that this tribute is offered as a memorial for the life of Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman, the founder and First Holy Patriarch of the Shrines of the Black Madonna of the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church.

Whereas, Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman was born Albert B. Cleage, Jr. in Indianapolis, Indiana on June 13, 1911. He graduated from Wayne State University, where he studied sociology, and the Oberlin Graduate School of Theology. He was a social caseworker with the Detroit Department of Public Welfare before entering the seminary. Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman served pastorates at Lexington, KY, San Francisco, CA, and Springfield, MA before founding what became known as Central United Church of Christ in 1953.

Whereas, during the civil-rights and ``black power'' movements of the 1960s the then Reverend Cleage was Detroit's most eloquent and uncompromising advocate and activist for African American freedom, rights, and dignity. He led campaigns for quality education and black economic empowerment and spearheaded opposition to job discrimination, police brutality and the forced removal of blacks from the central city. Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman later co-founded the Black Slate, a not- for-profit public relations and advertising group that selects and supports candidates for public office, which helped to elect Coleman A. Young as Detroit's first African American mayor.

Whereas, on Easter Sunday in 1967, he launched the Black Christian Nationalist Movement (BCN) and unveiled a 19-foot chancel mural of a Black Madonna and child by Detroit artist Glanton Dowdell. In 1970, Central formally became the Shrine of the Black Madonna and the Reverend Cleage was rechristened Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman. At this point he focused his energy inward, toward building institutions and developing a theology and program that would enable black people to become independent and self-determining.

Whereas, Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman wrote two books, ``The Black Messiah'' (1968) and ``Black Christian Nationalism: New Directions for the Black Church'' (1972). In 1978, he founded the PAOCC as a new black denomination, with branches in Atlanta, GA, Houston, TX, and Calhoun Falls, SC where the church established Beulah Land, which is believed to be the largest black owned farm in the U.S. Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman passed away at Beulah Land on February 20, 2000.

In special tribute, this document is dedicated in memory of the life of Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman.