Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Monday, March 14, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 135, authorizing the establishment of a House Democracy Assistance Commission (rollcall No. 66); ``yea'' on H. Res. 101, a resolution urging the European Union to Add Hezbollah to the List of Terrorist Organizations (rollcall No. 67); and ``yea'' on S. 384, to extend the Nazi and Japanese War Crimes Working Group (rollcall No. 68).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. As written, the underlying bill will make it legal for faith-based organizations that receive federal funds and run job-training programs to discriminate in their hiring practices.

Throughout my life, I have fought against discrimination wherever it is practiced in our social, cultural, political and economic life. The language contained in this bill goes against that core principle. The president and I have our disagreements, but the one concern we do share is that Sunday is generally regarded as the most segregated day of the week. The bill before us today encourages faith-based organizations to practice discrimination within their employment practices with Federal funds during the workday week.

I support the work of our religious institutions in sponsoring federal programs and delivering vital social and employment programs to our communities. I first sought elected office by the grace of our God and at the urging of my church. But supporters of this bill contend if you do not allow religious organizations to hire members of their own faith, we are denying religious institutions from participating in federal programs that deliver needed services to our local communities. In other words, they argue we are practicing religious bigotry.

Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, I would suggest that this movement is reminiscent of the days of school desegregation when many parents withdrew their children from public school so they could attend so-called Christian academies for the purpose learning. Why does the federal government want to encourage that kind of action? This bill does just that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, March is Women's History Month, and we are proud to celebrate the contributions that women have made to American society. As mothers, as caregivers, as teachers, as providers, we honor the women in America this month of March.

Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the budget that the President has delivered to the Committee on Appropriations. We began yesterday having hearings on that budget.

We have got to invest in America's families and in America's children.

This budget cuts $60 billion from Medicaid, an insurance program for children, the disabled, our States. Our States can ill-afford nursing home care for our residents. I am from the State of Michigan, with the highest unemployment rate in the country. We have to invest in our States and our cities. This budget does not do that. Community development block grants, grants to States and cities that would help cities build their infrastructure and fund various programs throughout the cities. Cuts to first responders and firefighters. Funding drug- free schools. The programs go on. We must find the money to fund these programs. COPS programs, $40 million.

Madam Speaker, our cities need our help. We have got to do better as appropriators. We have to do better as this Congress. Fund American families, fund the cities and States so that America can stay strong, as God intends.

Mr. Speaker, this week the President delivered a $2.5 trillion budget to Congress and the American people. What was missing was nearly a trillion dollars for his plan for Social Security.

What was missing was the $1.8 billion, the cost of making the tax cuts permanent and retiring tax cuts.

What was missing was the cost of the war in Iraq. He has already spent $280 billion. He has asked for $80 billion more, none of it in the budget.

What was in the budget was $60 billion cut for Medicaid. Over 40 million people, children and poor people, a $60 billion cut.

What was missing was a $2 billion cut that was in the budget for community development block grants, monies to cities and towns to build their infrastructure, to help in their housing and other local community programs.

What was in the budget was a cut to Upward Bound, TRIO and other education programs, cuts to our firefighters, at the same time asking for permanent tax cuts. We have got to do better and I hope we will.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 2 minutes.

I, too, want to add my appreciation for the soul of Mr. Ossie Davis: courageous, king, gentleman, warrior, friend. We honor him today and his memory, for when he walked in a room, we knew that the strength of African American men was being represented wherever he went.

When he spoke, when he gave his time, when he reached out to all of us to let us know that we could be whatever it is that we wanted to be and with God in us, as he was in Mr. Davis, we knew that we would overcome.

To Ruby Dee and her family for over 50 years, thank you for sharing him with us. Mr. Ossie Davis, he lives today and he will always live because he is an example to all of us how we should live with dignity and pride, face challenges head on, and speak the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Davis, and may you rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, on November 2 across America, tens of thousands of people were unable to cast their vote. Many voted and their votes were not counted. I rise to support the gentlewoman's effort from Ohio. I thank her very much. Our United States Constitution gives us the opportunity and the right to represent the millions of people that we represent daily to be on this House floor today. This is their right to speak through us on what happened to them on November 2. The rules of the House of Representatives allow us as elected representatives, representing 700,000 plus people apiece, the right to be on this floor at this time. This is the only way as we represent those people that we might express their dismay that they felt on November 2. As our leader said, this has nothing to do with overturning the election. This is why we are sent here to represent, and that is what we are doing.

Regardless of what we have heard the last hour and a half, we the Members on this side of the aisle object to the process that failed many Americans on November 2. Long lines, cold, in the rain. It was in Ohio that we talk today; but Michigan, a neighboring State, had many problems. I was in my voting area called down to count the votes after the polls closed. All day long we had reports of intimidation, of men in suits intimidating my voters, asking for identification every time they went to vote all day long. But they stayed in line, they pressed forward, and they voted.

Something was very wrong on November 2. When the polls closed at 11 o'clock that night, November 2, and we were there overlooking the vote, men in suits were touching my vote counters, touching our ballots. I went on TV, live TV, the 11 o'clock news and said, That is a felony. You cannot touch our counter. You cannot touch our voters. You cannot touch the ballots. It could have been Michigan, but you chose Ohio; and I am here to stand with you today.

Something is very wrong with our voting process. Every vote must count. Every vote must be counted. We have got to fix this, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for his efforts, but we have got more work to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, personal reasons require me to return to my district, and I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled after 3 p.m., Wednesday, November 17, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1417, the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (Rollcall No. 532), and ``aye'' on S. 2302, a bill to improve access to physicians in medically underserved areas (Rollcall No. 533).

I would appreciate it if my remarks would appear in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, personal reasons require me to return to my district, and I am unable to be present for legislative business scheduled after 3 p.m., Wednesday, November 17, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1417, the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (rollcall Vote No. 532), and ``aye'' on S. 2302, a bill to improve access to physicians in medically underserved areas (rollcall Vote No. 533).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 10, the 9/ 11 Recommendations Implementation Act. I do so not because I disagree on the urgent need to reform our intelligence infrastructure. On the contrary, the 9/11 Commission clearly, articulately and convincingly makes a compelling case that the U.S. intelligence network is in great need of overhauling.

My reasons for voting against the measure deal less with the concept of intelligence reform and more with the substance of the bill we are considering today. The measure before us today is improperly titled. The ``9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act'' should really be re- titled as the ``Immigration Reform Act of 2004.''

I am particularly sensitive to issues of homeland security and intelligence capabilities. My district encompasses the majority of the City of Detroit, which borders our northern neighbor--Canada. Detroit is the Motor City capital of the world, and as such, we are economically dependent on the cross-border auto trade transported through the Port of Detroit. Securing the critical infrastructure such as the

Ambassador Bridge, the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, and the Port of Detroit is vital to the economic wellbeing of our city, region, state, and nation. Protecting the rights of way of these thoroughfares is critical to the health of the American automobile industry, the largest industry in the manufacturing sector. Protecting these assets against terrorist attack is so important that the City of Detroit is one of the few major cities in the United States that has created an Office of Homeland Security. Matters of homeland security and enhanced intelligence capabilities are urgent concerns to my district and they should not be trivialized. The Republican Leadership in this chamber had the opportunity to stitch together a bill that would strengthen the nation's intelligence apparatus, but frankly it has ``pooched'' the job. The Leadership has confused the 9/11 Commission's urging to enhance America's security apparatus with its predilection to crackdown on the nation's immigrants.

The only area where the bill makes its mark on strengthening the intelligence community is the establishment of a National Intelligence Director (NID). But all progress at intelligence reform ends there-- with the creation of NID. We create a position but gives the person occupying it no powers and no authority to implement any significant changes in the intelligence bureaucracy. For example, the NID has no budget authority, no hiring authority, and on reprogramming authority. By establishing a position of power without authority to hire or fire or to control the budget, we are in fact creating a paper tiger, a position with a lot of roar and no bite. The members of the 9/11 Commission have expressed their support for a strong NID, but the bill crafted by the Republican leadership fails to meet their expectations.

This bill does very little in the way of strengthening the intelligence community. It goes a long way in turning the U.S. immigration system upside down. I support immigration reform, but we should not be enacting such sweeping changes under a bill whose purpose is to reform and reorganize the intelligence community. The Republican Leadership is confused. It took its eye off the goal of intelligence reform and moved forward with a bill that cracks down on immigrants.

Let me highlight some of the more egregious provisions of this bill. The ``Lone Wolf'' provision would remove the requirement that non- citizen targets of secret intelligence surveillance be connected to a foreign power. The bill would permit the deportation of individuals to countries lacking a functioning government--an issue that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill makes asylum claims more restrictive. The bill restricts the use of internationally accepted consular identification cards. Immigrants are being used as a wedge issue in this presidential election year. The bill is designed to mobilize the base vote of neo-isolationists and not the legitimate security concerns confronting our country and our countrymen and women.

By using immigration as a wedge issue, we are distracted from taking a thoughtful approach to improving our intelligence capability. We are undermining our efforts to combat terrorism. Many on my side of the aisle will be voting to support this bill in order to move the process forward in the hope that a final product will be closer to the bill that was approved in the other chamber. My vote today is based on the substance and the merit of the provisions contained in this bill before us today. If a conference agreement can produce a bill that truly strengthens our intelligence community, it will have my support. Today, I must cast my vote against the passage of H.R. 10.

Mr. Speaker, official business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Thursday, October 7, 2004. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 42567, Homeland Security Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005 (Rollcall No. 502); ``aye'' on H.R. 4661, Internet Spyware Prevention Act (Rollcall No. 503); ``aye'' on H.R. 5213 (Rollcall No. 503); ``aye'' on H.R. 5186, a bill to reduce certain special allowance payments and provide additional teach loan forgiveness on Federal student loans (Rollcall No. 504); ``no'' on the adoption of H. Res. 828, a resolution waiving the requirement of clause 6(a) of Rule 13 to provide for same day consideration of H.R. 4520 (Rollcall No. 505); ``aye'' on S. 1134, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Rollcall No. 506); and ``aye'' on H.R. 5061, the Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act (Rollcall No. 507).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The title of the conference bill is a misnomer. If enacted it will add to the loss of nearly 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. This conference bill will also increase tax incentives for large corporations to move manufacturing jobs overseas. It will increase the Federal deficit, endanger Social Security and Medicare which are directly impacted by burgeoning deficits, and limit the ability of states to fund public education in a high deficit environment.

This conference report contains enhanced benefits for offshore operations of U.S. multinational corporations that were not in the Senate or House bills. This conference report is significantly flawed because some of the taxes

paid by companies operating in high tax countries will be paid by our government in the form of tax credits. The Republican majority is rigging the tax system to advantage corporate interests overseas and further eroding the federal government's ability to invest in America's families. Corporate farms will directly benefit from the manufacturing provisions in this bill, not the family farmers who desperately need help.

Finally, my opposition to this bill is based on the fact that the conference report offers a complex solution to a simple problem. Instead of pulling the tax code up by its roots, the conference bill adds hundreds of complex rules and loopholes. This conference bill contains $140 billion in gross tax breaks for companies. It is a flawed bill that will cause additional out-sourcing of U.S. jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has dropped the provision that was in the Rangel substitute and the Senate-passed bill that rewards companies for keeping jobs in America. This conference report makes a bad situation worse, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our senior chairman for the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, for bringing the bill to the floor. I want to thank them on their speediness. I know $2 billion has already been appropriated. This allows another $10 billion, not near enough, but it is certainly a start.

Florida very definitely must be helped. The residents there have shown that they are true patriots and Americans, and yes, they need the help.

Also, the countries in the Caribbean, I thank my colleagues for the $100 million, and it is most important that we help our neighbors in this time of devastation. Whole countries have been devastated, 80 percent of some of their housing, their schools, their hospitals. This will begin to help them, and I thank my colleagues for that. It is not enough, but it is a start, and I hope we will continue to work on it.

There is much more to be done in the Caribbean, in Florida, and as was mentioned, I am sure this Congress will be there.

In Darfur, as has been mentioned, in the Sudan, they, too, are in a crisis. People are dying every day, Mr. Chairman. We need to help them. The President has declared a genocide. The Secretary of State has declared a genocide. We need to help them.

I call on the World Bank and the Inter-Development Bank to forgive the loans of those Caribbean nations, to offer grants for those nations. Those people need to get back on their feet as well.

I call on the World Bank and the Inter-Development Bank to help Darfur, to help the Sudanese people. I think it is time to issue sanctions against Sudan. That would help to make sure that the Janjaweed would not terrorize the community, the nation, the people; and they are doing just that.

So I ask for our President and this Congress, we must be the leaders that God intends that we be. We must stand up, yes, help Florida, give those people what they need. They have been there with us, and we owe it to them. The Caribbean neighbors that we have, Haiti devastated, and this appropriations bill that is now a supplemental moving quickly, and we thank the leadership for that.

We need to do more for Darfur. We have got to do it. We ask for one- half

percent of the money that was appropriated to Iraq, $20 billion appropriated, $2 billion spent. We can do better and I hope we will.

Today we are considering H.R. 5212, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricane Disasters. The funding levels within the supplemental will provide $100 million for the Caribbean region which has been devastated by recent hurricanes and tropical storms. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I have advocated for funds sufficient to address humanitarian and reconstruction needs for countries affected in the Caribbean.

While I am happy that funds have been provided, I am dismayed that more funds were not provided. The good news is that Haiti, which is in dire need of assistance, will receive perhaps as much as $72 million in aid. The bad news is that other countries in the region will not receive anything close to the monies necessary to rebuild schools and to repair their infrastructures.

The country of Jamaica will receive only $17 million, but the government estimates that it will take $250 million to rebuild homes, replant crops, and build seawalls to protect against future hurricanes and tropical storms. Grenada was also hit hard by storms and will receive approximately $9 million in aid. Preliminary government estimates are that 80 percent of the housing stock has been damaged, 10 percent or 10,000 homes will need to be replaced and 82,000 persons have been displaced from their homes. Clearly Grenada needs more money, and so do the countries of the Bahamas and St. Vincent and the Grenadines that will receive $500,000 respectively.

Mr. Chairman, our Caribbean neighbors and friends are confronting destruction of such magnitude that it will take them years to recover. Many of these countries have previously received loans from the World Bank and Inter-Development Bank. Virtually all of the countries affected by the hurricanes can ill afford to carry more loan debt. I call on the World Bank and the Inter-Development Bank to forgive the debt of Caribbean countries affected by recent hurricanes. I also ask both institutions to issue immediate grants to these countries to help restore their schools, hospitals, food production capability, and the other essentials of everyday life. These international lending institutions must re-evaluate how to facilitate a policy of loan forgiveness or grants for these storm ravaged Caribbean countries.

It is an unfortunate reality that the region will continue to confront seasonal hurricanes and storms. Invariably, the region will continue to rely on the United States to provide humanitarian and disaster assistance in the future. Although our nation is limited in its ability to fully fund post-hurricane reconstruction efforts, we must endeavor to provide greater resources than the allocation in the supplemental. I support the bill before us. I regret that we could not provide greater funding to address the dire circumstances that exist in the Caribbean.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment under consideration by the House, and stand in support of the Constitution.

My opposition to this amendment is based on my fundamental support for the Constitution, which has been amended only 17 times to broaden as opposed to limiting the rights of Americans. When I took my oath of office, I committed to uphold the Constitution. Today's debate and consideration of this bill is a concerted and direct assault on the beloved Constitution. We are in effect debating and voting

on a bill that will do absolutely nothing to promote the institution of marriage. Our deliberation will not ensure that our most precious resource, children, the fruit of marriages between men and women, will be protected by passing this legislation.

Our efforts today are nothing more than a symbolic act that will not result in any appreciable change in current law. The Republican majority knows that this House will not pass this measure with the two- thirds majority vote necessary for it to be enacted. Previously, the Senate defeated a similar measure. Finally, there is absolutely no change that three-quarters of the states would pass a law to support amending the Constitution on this subject.

A federal amendment would intrude on the jurisdiction of state courts to establish rules for marriage. States rights are the philosophical and procedural cornerstone of the judicial framework utilized by state courts. If we pass this amendment in the House, we will be undermining the authority of state courts, and enabling the federal government to override the jurisdiction of those states.

This measure will not ensure that marriage couples will protect our children from abuse or ensure that marriages between men and women will endure and not end in divorce. It is for the reasons outlined, that I cast a no vote against this amendment, and a vote to continue to support the Constitution.