Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I have taken the well of the House of Representatives. Today, the people of Georgia's 4th Congressional District are happy that I am back. I have received notes, calls, letters and visits from people all over America who are glad to see me back in Congress. They are glad to have a voice.

That voice. The voice. The voice back. The voice who spoke out and asked the questions about waste and abuse at the Pentagon. The fact that our Secretary of Defense would come to the House Committee on Armed Services, on which I served, and admit the loss of $2.3 trillion and say in the same breath that our country can afford it; and the massive amounts of money that we send to the Pentagon today without even questioning how it has been spent; that we can afford it; or that we are getting the appropriate bang for our taxpayer bucks.

I questioned the no-bid sweetheart deals with favored insider corporations, like the Carlisle Group and Halliburton. I did not understand how our sitting Vice President could still be drawing a paycheck from the Halliburton Company and, at the same time, serve the interests of the American people.

I asked why weapon systems, unwanted by the Pentagon, still found their way into the President's defense request. I wondered why our soldiers were being required to take anthrax and smallpox vaccines that had not even been cleared by the FDA. I was amazed to learn that the administrator of the vaccines program was DynePort, a subsidiary of a company whose employees had been found guilty of trafficking in young women, raping young girls, and holding women of all ages as sex slaves.

I asked questions about how the United States could entirely change its military doctrine to one of preemption and there not be a discussion about the ramifications of that with the American people.

All that happened was that the Secretary of Defense came before the Committee on Armed Services and said that the new U.S. posture was going to be to seize foreign capitals and occupy them. Of course, this was long before anyone in the public was aware that we would soon be sending our young men and women off to a war to do just that. I was appalled at the acceptance without question of what was clearly a deviation from then current policy, but what was seemingly also more than just a theoretical forward projection of our military might. What Rumsfeld enunciated back then was exactly what we are doing now.

I publicly questioned how such a fundamental shift could be sanctioned without the least bit of controversy. I questioned why private militaries, some would say mercenary outfits while others would say U.S. intelligence front companies, like DynCorp were being given contracts that seems to me to allow escape of congressional oversight. DynCorp was spraying chemicals on plants and people in Colombia and had a presence in Peru, Qatar, Haiti, Afghanistan and now

Iraq. I wondered what would happen when Americans employed by these companies are hurt or killed or are caught carrying out a mission not approved by the Congress or was unknown by the Congress. I guess you could say I just had too many questions. And, sadly, I did not like the answers I was finding as I did my research.

Over 3 years ago, I asked questions about the appearance of war profiteering just after our President declared the war on terror, and I called for an investigation into the tragic events of September 11. Now, I am pleased that important legislation to look into war profiteering has been introduced and voted on in this House. And today, we voted on legislation suggested by the 9/11 Commission which was convened to investigate the tragic events of September 11 just as I had called for. Everyone in this body and most who are watching know what happened to me for asking these questions and demanding accountability. I was kicked out of Congress, and for 2 years, I had the opportunity to travel around our country and to other countries and tell my story to people who were hungry to know more about America's war on terror and about September 11. During those 2 years, I met some wonderful patriots who want only the best for our country and its people and who wish for peace with justice for other people around the world. And that is why we have been inundated with letters and calls and e-mails and faxes and visits from people all over the country welcoming me back to Congress. And so I am glad to be here and rejoin my colleagues in the competition of ideas on how we can make our country even better.

This afternoon I would like to start by recounting an experience that happened to me this morning. This morning, I was doing my customary walk to work to enjoy these wonderful Washington, D.C., mornings. And about midway through my walk, I heard a little boy yelling at me. He was asking me to stop the bus for him as he was running to catch the bus for school. Usually I am loaded down with lots of bags, but this morning, thank goodness, I did not have a heavy load. And so I kicked into high gear, and I ran so I could catch that bus for that little boy. I caught the tail end of the bus, and I banged on the back of the bus to get it to stop and let the little boy on, but the bus pulled off without acknowledging any of my bangs. I turned to the little boy, and I told him, ``Don't give up. Let's run, we'll catch that bus together.'' So we both got into high gear, and we ran and we ran and we ran and we ran. And soon I saw that the bus had stopped. So I told the little boy, ``Don't give up, we can make it. We've just got to keep on running.'' The little boy did not give up. He kept running. The little boy's determination to make it to that bus was evident. The little boy wanted to get to school. While the bus was stopped at the red light, we managed to catch up. The fact that we did not give up gave us the opportunity to catch the bus. I thought there was a good lesson in that for the little boy.

And then I started to bang on the bus. I banged on the bus from the rear all the way up to the front passenger door. I pointed to the little boy who was just a few steps behind me, and I yelled, ``Please open the door. Let this little boy onto the bus.'' The driver looked at me. She looked at the little boy. She shook her head, and she drove off.

The little boy was crushed. Tears welled in his eyes. He wanted to get to school. That bus represented the door of opportunity. He had done all he could to reach that door. He ran. He told himself he could make it. He made it. That, in and of itself, was a victory, but it still was not enough to get the little boy on the bus and on his way to school. The door of opportunity for that little boy was closed when the bus pulled off. It left that little boy behind.

And so what I would like to address today are the closed doors of opportunity that leave too many Americans behind. That little boy's name was Martin. That is important, because behind the statistics that we tout on this floor every day over and over again are real people whose lives are affected by what we do and the decisions we make.

Mr. Speaker, the policies of this Congress and this administration and the decisions of the court are leaving too many Americans behind. Our goal ought to be to open the doors of opportunity for all Americans, so that no one is left behind. But, sadly, the statistics tell us conclusively that the doors of opportunity are as closed for certain Americans as they were for little Martin this morning.

Today, I would like to explore some of those statistics and suggest that we fail to do our jobs if we do not enact policies that turn these numbers around. I will be quoting from Hull House, the New York Times, United for a Fair Economy, and the National Urban League. Hull House is an organization in Chicago. They did a study on the disparities between blacks and whites living in Chicago, and what they found was that in economic and social indices, it would take 200 years for those gaps in the quality of life enjoyed by black Chicagoans and white Chicagoans to close. Here is what they said: Fourteen years ago, a report was released examining human relations in Chicago that told us that racism was alive and well. Over the years, we have seen racial disparity impacted by a growing economic gap that has left many behind. The information in this report will help us create more effective, sustainable solutions by allowing us to deal with systemic barriers. It is critical that we establish a floor under which no Chicagoan will fall.

Where are these gaps in Chicago? They are in income, wealth and employment, education, health, housing, welfare and health of children, crime, law enforcement and justice and transportation. The gap between high- and low-income households in the region increased 11 percent between 1999 and 2000, the first rise in 7 years.

Under health, in Illinois, Latinos had the highest rate of non- elderly uninsured, 29 percent; followed by blacks at 24 percent; Asian, Pacific Islander/Native Americans at 17 percent. For the white population, the rate is 10 percent. For crime, law enforcement and justice, African-Americans are less likely to use drugs than whites or Latinos. Let me repeat that: African-Americans are less likely to use drugs than whites or Latinos. There is, however, a gap between the number of African-Americans who are convicted of drug possession or drug delivery and sentenced to prison and the number of whites and Latinos who are convicted of the same crime who get probation.

Another study was conducted by the New York Times. In that survey, they found that nearly 50 percent of all African-American men living in New York City were unemployed. Nearly 50 percent of African-American men between the ages of 16 and 64 were unemployed, a crisis, an emergency. African-American unemployment remains high. It is significantly higher than the national average. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported African-Americans have lost up to 88 percent of their earning potential since President Bush assumed office in January 2001. I think I need to repeat that one: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported African- Americans have lost up to 88 percent of their earning potential since President Bush assumed office in January 2001.

Another study: Blacks lose better jobs faster as middle-class work drops. Unemployment among blacks is rising at a faster pace than at any time since the mid-1970s, and jobs lost are mostly in manufacturing where pay for blacks has historically been higher than in any other fields. Nearly 2.6 million jobs have disappeared in the past 28 months, nearly 90 percent in manufacturing. Jobless blacks are continuing to look for work, but the types of jobs lost have diminished their standing in the middle class.

I have a report which is the status of health in DeKalb County, which is in my district of the Fourth Congressional District. Now, folks in the Fourth Congressional District like to tout that our district of African-American communities is the first or second most affluent African-American community in the entire United States. Yet that affluent African-American community, first or second in the United States, has a result thus in infant mortality: In 2001, Georgia had the ninth highest infant mortality rate in the United States with a rate of 8.6 deaths per 1,000 live births. Infant mortality rates in DeKalb County have been increasing slightly from 9.9 deaths

per 1,000 live births in 1994 to 10.5 in 2002. From 1994 to 2002, there was an average of 12 black infant deaths per 1,000 live births and 4.7 white infant deaths per 1,000 live births. That is the statistic for the first or second most affluent African-American community in the country.

Let us look at some information that has been provided to us by United for a Fair Economy.

United for a Fair Economy produces a report every year called the ``State of the Dream Report.'' In their 2004 ``State of the Dream Report,'' they discuss racial disparities in poverty. The black poverty rate was three times greater than the white poverty rate in 2002. At the slow rate that the black/white poverty gap has been narrowing since 1968, it will take 150 years to close the gap.

Let us look at imprisonment. They start out with a quote from Dr. King. He says: ``So I must return to the valley, a valley filled with millions of people who, because of economic deprivation and social isolation, have lost hope and seen life as a long and desolate corridor with no exit sign. I must return to the valley all over the South and in the big cities of the North, a valley filled with millions of our white and Negro brothers who are smoldering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society.''

African Americans on imprisonment are about six times as likely as whites to have been imprisoned at some point in their lives. This gap between black and white men is growing. One out of three black males born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some point in their lifetime if current trends continue. That is up from one out of 11 in 1974.

By comparison, 5.9 percent of white males born in 2001, 5.6 percent of black females, and nine-tenths of 1 percent of white females have a lifetime chance of imprisonment.

What about child poverty? Almost a third of black children live in poverty, 32.1 percent in 2002. The child poverty gap would take 210 years to disappear, not reaching parity until 2212.

Income, for every dollar of white income, African Americans had 55 cents in 1968. That is the year Dr. King was murdered. In 2001 African Americans had 57 cents for every dollar of white income. It has taken more than 3 decades for blacks to close the gap by two cents. At this pace it would take 581 years for blacks to gain the other 43 cents, which would bring them to parity with white per-capita income.

And let us look at housing. The homeownership gap has barely budged since 1970. In 2002 almost three quarters of white Americans owned their own home, compared with fewer than half of African Americans. If the homeownership gap continues to close at this rate, it would take 1,664 years, or approximately 55 generations, before the gap is completely closed.

I know that I am not willing to wait 581 years. I am not willing to wait 1,664 years, and I think the American people ought not be willing to tolerate these kinds of inequalities.

The National Urban League produces an annual report called the ``State of Black America,'' and they have just recently produced the 2005 edition of the ``State of Black America.'' Their headline: ``Even as U.S. Economy Gets Better, Jobs and Wealth Gap Gets Larger on the `Equality Index.' '' They say to us: ``Equality between blacks and whites in urban America is not improving, and changes in national policies and priorities must be made to help, according to a report released by the National Urban League, entitled `The State of Black America, 2005, Prescriptions for Change.' ''

The overall equality index shows that black status remains at 73 percent, but the numbers inside the index tell a troubling story in terms of unemployment, income, and wealth. Marc Morial, the President and CEO of the National Urban League, says: ``Our Nation must wake up. The growing wealth gap in this country is not just leaving behind Black America. It's leaving behind the middle class, urban America, rural America, and Hispanic America too. When one community in America suffers, our entire economy suffers. That is why we are recommending specific changes in our national priorities and policies.''

In economics the National Urban League finds that this is still the largest divide. Black economic status measures 57 percent of white counterparts, an equality gap 20 percent wider than any other category. Black unemployment remains stagnant at 10.8 percent while white unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent, making black unemployment more than twice that of whites.

Under health, black health status is 76 percent of whites. Under education black education status is 77 percent of whites. Under social justice, when measuring sentence enforcement and victimization, black versus white equality under law is 68 percent of whites, 5 percent less than 2004, the worst decline overall. We went backwards on the measure for social justice. Blacks are three times more likely to become prisoners once arrested and a black person's average jail sentence is 6 months longer than a white's for the same crime.

What can be done? The National Urban League offers us some specific recommendations, some of which I will read here. First on their list of recommendations is the extension of the Voting Rights Act, which expires in 2007. Now, a whole lot of American people do not know, even our President did not know, that the important enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act expire in 2007.

How can it be, how can it be, that the Voting Rights Act enforcement provisions would ever expire after the pain and the suffering that brought the Voting Rights Act to signature in 1965, after the American people had the opportunity to see Bloody Sunday when African Americans in Alabama were trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge just so that they could get the right to vote? How could any provision of the Voting Rights Act ever expire?

The National Urban League also recommends that we raise the minimum wage, and they suggest that we close the homeownership gap; 1,664 years is intolerable. And as the President touts homeownership and how homeownership is an integral part of his ownership society that he wants to create, 1,664 years to close that gap is intolerable. Expanding job training, strengthening the Community Development Block Grant program, and to double the size of the New Markets Tax Credit program, these are just some of the recommendations that are put forward by the National Urban League.

In the United Kingdom, it is interesting to note that a psychiatrist was able to publish in the ``British Medical Journal'' that racism is harmful to one's health, is harmful to one's mental health; racism is harmful to health. He notes that a group of Harvard University researchers documented that a mere 1 percent increase in incidences of racial disrespect, the kind of stuff like following black people in a store, for which there have been many lawsuits in stores; or having African Americans go to restaurants and not being served, for which there have been many lawsuits; or for discrimination at the workplace in big corporations that get tax breaks here, for which many lawsuits have been filed, the result of a mere 1 percent increase of racial disrespect translates to an increase in 350 deaths per 100,000 African Americans. So not only is racism harmful to one's mental health; it is harmful to the fabric of our country. It is harmful to the very lives of the people who are impacted by it.

This is now the budget season in the United States Congress. We are deliberating on the budget, which are the priorities of our country; and pretty soon we will be receiving reports from the Committee on Appropriations on how those priorities are going to be translated into real dollars for the American people. One could say that the budget is the most important piece of legislation passed by any legislative body and certainly is very important because it sets the policies and priorities for our country.

The very definition of politics is who gets what. The authoritative allocation of values in a society, the definition of politics: that is the budget process, the appropriations process. Who gets what, whose problems get solved. We have the opportunity in this Congress to solve these problems. We have a responsibility in this Congress to solve these problems, to make this country better for all of our people so that the bus of opportunity does not pull off

when we are standing there trying to get on, so that the doors of opportunity are open for all Americans.

And I am proud to say that under the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus have decided to tackle these disparities, these intolerable disparities.

One of the things, however, that we have a responsibility to do is to make sure that the American people understand that these inequalities, these inequities, these gaps, these disparities, that they exist.

I would like to add a few comments before I begin to wrap up. These comments are about the United for a Fair Economy 2005 report that takes into consideration the President's proposals in the budget.

United for a Fair Economy says that while, at first, President Bush's ownership society goals may appear to be consistent with Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of economic opportunity for all races, during the first Bush administration, the United States actually moved farther away from Dr. King's vision. The employment and income picture has gotten worse for people of color since 2000, eroding the progress that was made during the 1990s.

We all know that not only did the Clinton years provide prosperity for all Americans, all boats were lifted up, but those boats within the African-American community and other communities of color were lifted up.

In 2000, the African-American unemployment rate reached an historic low: an historic low. Latino and Hispanic unemployment rates also dropped, but have risen again in the last 4 years. About half of the progress in the median income of people of color from 1996 to 2000 was wiped out in the first 3 years of the Bush administration. After slowly increasing from 55 percent of white income to 65 percent in 2000, black median income fell to 62 percent. For the first time in 15 years, the average Latino household now has an income that is less than two-thirds that of the average white household. So not only are blacks falling back, Latinos are falling back as well.

Throughout the 1990s, poverty rates fell across-the-board. All boats were being lifted up in the 1990s. But since 2000, more than one-third of that progress in reducing poverty among African-American families has been erased; 300,000 African-American families fell below the poverty line from 2000 to 2003.

What about private retirement income and inheritances? Well, they remain scarce among people of color. We have heard a lot of talk about Social Security and privatizing Social Security, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was here earlier, and he talked about insecurity, social insecurity.

African-Americans have less in private pensions and retirement accounts, if you are unemployed you have got to have less, and so depend more heavily on Social Security. They would be more affected than whites by any privatization plan that made benefits uncertain.

And, of course, we talked about home ownership; United for a Fair Economy revisits the issue of home ownership in their 2005 report. Then they add that business owners of color, who are largely small business owners, received only minor tax breaks from the four Bush tax cuts. Most tax breaks for businesses and investors have landed with those who are wealthy and white.

Now, we understand what the President told us in the movie Fahrenheit 911. He told us that his base were the haves and the have-mores. So, accordingly, the tax cuts have provided money for the haves and the have-mores, and that is borne out in these statistics.

Now, what do we do about this? We have to address these issues in public policy. It is public policy that can turn these numbers around and make better the lives of all of the little Martins out there who did their best and still found that the door of opportunity was closed for them, to turn that around and make opportunity available for all of them.

Public policy requires, though, a consensus. It requires an American consensus. So we fought the Civil War, and after the Civil War, the Congress passed a Civil Rights Act. So 1964 was not the first time that we had a Civil Rights Act passed, because there was a consensus that something needed to be done to help all Americans.

But how can we arrive at a consensus when the American people are not informed of the facts? Well, you certainly cannot get it on the WB or UPN. You cannot even get it on BET or CNN a lot of the time. But we are told by a Harvard University-Kaiser Family Foundation study that misperceptions cloud whites' views of blacks. You cannot arrive at an answer if you do not know the facts.

Misperceptions cloud whites' views of blacks: Whether out of hostility, indifference or simple lack of knowledge, large numbers of white Americans incorrectly believe that blacks are as well off as whites in terms of their jobs, incomes, schooling and health care, according to a national survey by the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Depending on the question, the poll found that 40 percent to 60 percent of all whites say that the average black American is faring about as well and perhaps even better than the average white in these areas. These misperceptions have consequences, the survey suggests. Among whites, the pervasiveness of incorrect views seems to explain at least in part white resistance to even the least intrusive types of affirmative action, and more broadly, these mistaken beliefs represent formidable obstacles to any government efforts to equalize the social and economic standing of the races.

This is the State of the Dream 2005 report, issued by United for a Fair Economy, and in its introduction, it quotes President Bush: ``The generation of wealth should not be limited to a few in our society. It ought to be an opportunity for everybody. There is nothing better than providing the incentive to say this is my asset base, I own it, I will live on it in retirement, and I will pass it on to somebody in my own family.''

Dr. Martin Luther King had a response for that, even though dead. Dr. King said, ``The majority of white Americans consider themselves sincerely committed to justice for the Negro. They believe that American society is essentially hospitable to fair play and to steady growth toward a middle-class utopia embodying racial harmony. But unfortunately, this is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity.''

I would hope that all of the reams of paper that have been produced recording these studies that I have recounted here this afternoon, from Hull House reporting on Chicago to the New York Times reporting on African-American male unemployment at 50 percent between the ages of 16 and 64, which is veritably the entire population, to United for a Fair Economy to the National Urban League to Harvard University to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the reams and reams and reams and reams of paper produced chronicaling the pitiful state that some Americans continue to have to endure.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we are leaving too many Americans behind. Our policies are creating two Americas, and, instead of growing together, we are clearly growing apart.

I hope to return to this place, to this well, and do more special orders about this subject and other subjects of interest to my constituents in my district and the people who have voiced their support around the country. We have such serious issues, and the people need our help and our attention.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this Congress will provide some relief to all of the people who fall into the numbers that I have accounted tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I speak with you today about one of America's heroes, Sgt. Kevin Benderman. Sgt. Benderman is not a hero because he served a tour of duty in the Occupation of Iraq, though he did. He is not a hero because of the medals he was awarded, nor his ten years of honorable service in the U.S. Army.

No, Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a hero because when all around him are pressing forward to prosecute a violent war against the people of Iraq, Kevin Benderman had the courage to stand up and assert his heartfelt opposition to war.

Sgt. Benderman's opposition is not the theoretical if sincere opposition of a student peace activist. Kevin Benderman has seen things that none of God's children should have to endure. He was present when his superior ordered his unit to open fire on small children who were throwing rocks at the soldiers of his unit. He chased the hungry dogs from an open mass grave filled with the bodies of young children, old men and women. Kevin saw the burned child, crying in pain, while all around her ignored her injuries.

As he reflected on what he had experienced, he chose to not re- enlist, to not participate in a war and an institution that he could no longer square with his evolving yet sincerely held beliefs. But stretched by an immoral war, based on lies, beyond the limits of the resources afforded them, our military adopted a ``stop loss order'' policy to arbitrarily breech the contracts our nation made with those who serve in its military services.

So Kevin did what was necessary. He applied for Conscientious Objector status. His officers up the chain of command refused their duty to accept his application. His commander called him a coward. His unit chaplain refused to meet with him, writing by email that he was ``ashamed'' of Kevin. He was charged with ``Desertion with Intent to Avoid Hazardous Duty'' and ``Missing Movement by Design''. His preliminary hearings methodically violated every precept of substantive due process. He now faces a Court Martial on May 11 and the possibility of seven years in the stockade.

Every member of our Armed Forces raises their hands, as do we, and take an oath, as do we, to ``defend the Constitution of the United States''. That Constitution protects the ``Right of Conscience'', including the right to conscientiously object to war as an instrument of public policy. But given the climate we face right now, asserting such a right takes real courage. And it is the exercise of that courage which makes Sgt. Benderman a hero in my book.

It is a crime and a shame that while we are so busy working to expand freedom to other nations, we can't slow down to protect our precious freedoms among ourselves.

[From the Savannah Morning News, March 28, 2005]

Defense Lawyer, Investigator Square Off Over Benderman's Conscientious

Objector Application

(By John Carrington)

Filings and e-mails show that a `non-adversarial' hearing

over Sgt. Kevin Benderman's conscientious objector status was

anything but cordial.

Sgt. Kevin Benderman poses with his wife Monica following

Article 32 proceedings, a military court process similar to a

preliminary hearing. Benderman, who has applied for

conscientious objector status, has been charged with

desertion for not deploying to Iraq with his unit.

The defense lawyer and the investigating officer for Sgt.

Kevin Benderman's conscientious objector application

apparently attended different hearings last month.

Both sides maintain they kept their cool during the

hearing, saying the other side lost theirs, according to

written recommendations and rebuttals released to the

Savannah Morning News.

One thing is clear: a hearing that was, according to Army

regulations, supposed to be a ``non-adversarial'' proceeding

was anything but that.

Capt. Victor Aqueche, the Fort Stewart-appointed

investigating officer, wrote in a recommendation memo

following the hearing that Benderman was ``argumentative'' at

times, and his demeanor ``untactful'' at others.

In his rebuttal, Maj. S. Scot Sikes, Benderman's military

lawyer, said Aqueche at times became ``agitated, snide and

hostile'' toward Benderman.

Sikes argued that Aqueche's ``incestuous appointment'' as

investigating officer set the tone for this type of ill-

willed ping-pong.

``(Aqueche) is assigned to the same battalion command,''

and consequently ``was placed in the position of making a

critical

determination regarding a soldier assigned to one of his

colleague captain's own units,'' Sikes wrote.

In an interview Monday, Sikes said, ``That bothered me. You

know they're buds.''

Aqueche did not respond to requests for comment.

Sikes also said Monday he knew the command looked at the

timing of Benderman's request--just before he was scheduled

to deploy--with suspicion. ``But it should have not been so

hostilely received.''

That goes against the ``non-adversarial'' tone and tenor

the application review is supposed to have, he said.

Sikes asked for a new hearing, a request he says was

denied. He now has until Friday to file another rebuttal to

Aqueche's response to the defense's initial rebuttal.

In early February, Sikes and Aqueche squared off almost

immediately over the hearing's timing. It was scheduled the

day after an Article 32 hearing to determine whether

Benderman would face a general court-martial on charges he

deserted and missed the January movement of his troops as

they deployed to Iraq.

Sikes wanted a delay of a ``mere'' week. ``Sgt. Benderman

is very concerned that he cannot be adequately prepared for a

hearing,'' Sikes wrote in a Feb. 3 e-mail attached to the

rebuttal. ``Preparations for the Article 32 cannot be

overstated; it's very important.''

Aqueche shot down the request with the following e-mail:

``Sgt. Benderman made a conscious decision to take 14 days of

leave prior to his Article 32 . . . A delay as such could be

considered `insincerity' on the part of Sgt. Benderman.''

The investigation officer also said, ``There is no

preparation needed on Sgt. Benderman's behalf in order to

answer questions regarding this application.''

Yet Aqueche, in his March 23 recommendation memo, wrote,

``I firmly believe Sgt. Benderman was not prepared for the

in-depth questions presented during the CO hearing.''

Aqueche's memo also said that, during the hearing,

Benderman would consult with Sikes and then either refuse to

answer questions--and question their relevancy to the

application--or offer ``vague'' or delayed answers.

Sikes pointed out that, as Benderman's lawyer for both the

court-martial charges and the conscientious objector

application, he had to keep the sergeant from saying anything

that could create more legal problems in the criminal case.

``And Aqueche made that out to be a negative thing,'' Sikes

said Monday. ``Anything Benderman says can be used against

him in the court-martial. That puts me in a precarious

position. There are some things I just could not let him

answer.''

The court-martial is scheduled for May 12. Sikes likes

Benderman's chances on the desertion charges.

``It seems kind of silly to say he deserted over a

weekend,'' the lawyer said Monday. ``He was right there at

his house, only 2 to 3 miles from the post.''

Despite Aqueche's characterization of Benderman's demeanor

during the hearing--and the captain's recommendation to deny

the sergeant's application--Sikes also thinks Benderman will

have better luck higher up the chain of command.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I will not tell my colleagues which birthday it is.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the CBC budget and against the priorities of the Republican budget.

The Republican budget does nothing to decrease the racial disparities that exist in our country. In fact, it exacerbates them. Seventy-six years to close the college graduation gap, 581 years to close the wealth gap, 1,664 years to close the homeownership gap.

But when Republicans talk about growth, it is clear that too many American communities are just not included. It is also clear that the Republicans do not see our constituents because if they did, they would not legislate public policy that hurts them.

Even Alan Greenspan has decried the unsustainable income imbalances in our country. The Republicans continue to ignore him, us, and our constituents. It is a sad day when veterans, children, seniors, small business owners, rural Americans, and poor Americans have to take a back seat to the scions of industry and Wall Street.

I support the CBC budget and reject the priorities of the Republican budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about who wins and who loses in the Bush Republican budget.

Three hundred thousand working poor who have children will be cut from the Food Stamp Program. I received a call today from a constituent from Lithonia, Georgia, complaining that her children depend on the food stamps she gets to stretch the family food budget.

LIHEAP is the Low Income Heating Assistance Program that makes sure our working families do not freeze during the winter, and the Republicans propose to cut that program even as heating costs rise.

While the Republicans want us to believe that they really care about our children, the proof is in where they choose to put taxpayers' money.

The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion. Halliburton walks away with over $100 million undeserved dollars. Secretary Rumsfeld says the U.S. can afford record defense expenditures, while the President proposes to cut all vocational education at the high school level, the Safe and Drug Free Schools program, the Upward Bound program and even dropout prevention. What could be more important to the Education President than to make sure that our young people graduate from high school with an education that has prepared them for life.

Well, I know the answer to that question. Not the mom and pop businesses on Main Street and their families, but the wealthy scions of industry on Wall Street.

Even chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, lamented before our committee the growing wealth and education disparities in our country. The Republicans will talk about growth, but they will not talk about how our country is growing apart.

They tell us that homeownership is on the rise, but they will not tell us that three-quarters of white families in this country own their homes while the majority of Asian Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and African Americans remain renters.

According to just about every reputable study, the disparity between black quality of life and white quality of life is not narrowing nearly as fast as we would like it to. In the last 6 years, wealth for white families grew by 37 percent while wealth for families of color fell by 7 percent. These numbers represent real people who have not felt one bit of Republican growth.

Mr. Chairman, too many Americans, especially African Americans and Latinos, cannot afford health care, housing and even a college education.

We have two choices: we can grow together, or we can grow apart. When we invested it in our people like Social Security, the GI bill, civil rights laws, affirmative action, America grew and we all grew together. But now because of the policies coming out of Washington, D.C., today's wealthiest 10 percent own 70 percent of America's wealth. It is clear that Americans are growing apart. The Republican budget ought to provide opportunity for all to experience America's coming prosperity, but it is also clear it does not.

Mr. Speaker, as the bells of freedom toll around the globe, it seems appropriate to honor one of America's noble freedom fighters. And so today, in recognition of the memory and continuing legacy of a true founder of American freedom, I am introducing a resolution to designate March 10, 1990, as ``Harriet Tubman Day.''

Harriet Tubman was born on the eastern shore of Maryland around 1820 and escaped from slavery in 1849. Her freedom, however, was not the beginning of her fight. Even as a child slave, she battled against slavery and injustice. One day, she was ordered by an overseer to help him tie up another slave who was to be beaten. She defied that order and allowed the fellow slave to escape. Bun in the

process, Harriet Tubman paid a high price for her defiance and her convictions. She was inflicted with a wound so severe that it would cause health problems for the rest of her life. The beating was not the first, nor would it be the last. But despite that cruel scar and despite the deep scars of slavery, Harriet Tubman still pursued. With a vigor difficult to image, she pursued her seemingly distant dreams and the buried promise of freedom.

Her own freedom was not good enough, though--others were still enslaved. A year after her own escape, Harriet Tubman became a conductor on the underground railroad. She was so successful--she alone led about 300 slaves to freedom--that a bounty, with a horrifying sentence of torture until death, was offered for her capture. Yet, she continued to travel the route of the underground railroad, telling fellow conductor Thomas Garrett that she ``ventured only where God sent: and bragging years later that she had ``never run off track or lost a passenger.'' Time and time again whenever Harriet Tubman encountered unbeatable odds or insurmountable obstacles, she beat them and surmounted them, forging a path of service, spirit, and strength for all of us to follow.

Through her service--as a conductor on the underground railroad, as a soldier and a tender of soldiers, and as a speaker for those who could not speak for themselves--Harriet Tubman gave hope to countless slaves who referred to her as their ``Moses'' and who, because of her, realized that they would one day be led from oppression to the promised land of freedom. Through her strength--a strength that compelled her to risk her own freedom so that others could experience it--Harriet Tubman provided an inspiration of liberty, justice and opportunity that serves us still. The service, spirit and strength of Harriet Tubman represents in timeless eloquence much of what is best in us, as Americans and as human beings.

Mr. President, slavery was the darkest chapter in American history. But, out of the darkness of persecution in South Africa came the light of Nelson Mandela. And, out of the darkness of slavery in America came the light of Harriet Tubman.

Today, that light is kept alive by the Harriet Tubman Historical Society, located in my hometown of Wilmington, DE. Harriet Tubman Day is the brainchild of its executive director, Vivian Abdur-Rahim. The widespread support this commemorative has receive around the country-- 19 states and several citizens have already endorsed it--is a result of Vivian's tireless tenacity. She has made a tremendous investment toward establishing this day of recognition and tribute, and I am proud to ask the Senate to add its support to such a worthy and important effort.

Mr. Speaker, to continue the discussion about the budget, let me just say that the purpose of a budget, the budget is the most important legislative document that the Congress will produce; and in fact, all legislative bodies produce a budget, be it the school board, city council, county commission, the legislature, and of course us here in Washington, D.C., in the Congress.

And the budget is our statement of values. It is a statement of values, because we look at the definition of politics, and it is the authoritative allocation of values in a society; and how are those values authoritatively allocated? They are reflected in the decisions that we make with respect to how we are going to spend our money.

And so when the President sends his budget to the Congress, the budget of the President then reflects the values of the President. And so this President has talked about an American prosperity, an America of prosperity and opportunity. But the America that the President seems to value is a very narrow America indeed.

In other words, our mantra ought to be leave no American behind in our quest for opportunity and prosperity for all. But, sadly, many Americans have indeed been left behind. And the situation is not getting better, it is getting worse.

A very few Americans are doing extremely well. But many of us are being left behind, and, in fact, too many of us are being left behind. For the latest statistics available, it takes 100 million Americans at the bottom to equal the share of national income received by the top 2.7 million Americans.

And this budget does not even begin to address the widening income gulf in our country. In fact, it exacerbates it. The employment and income picture has gotten worse for people of color, in particular, since 2000, eroding the tremendous progress that was made during the decade of the 1990s.

And in fact, since 2000 more than one-third of the progress made in reducing poverty among African American families has been completely, totally, absolutely 100 percent erased, as 300,000 African American families fell below the poverty line just from the year 2000 to the year 2003.

I would like to bring your attention to the product of an organization, a product that I have become dependent on as I try and travel around the country and educate folks about the true conditions faced by people in this country.

It is the State of the Dream from United for a Fair Economy. And every year they produce a report, ``The State of the Dream 2004,'' ``The State of the Dream 2005,'' about the inequalities, the disparities that exist in our country along the racial divide.

Now, I have got a couple of charts here that I would just like to show. Now, on the index of income, can you imagine that from 1968 to 2001, the average black income was 55 cents compared to that for white income, and 57 cents in 2001?

What United For a Fair Economy has found is that since the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior, on some of those most important indices, the situation has gotten worse, not better, for people in our country.

And here over the span of 33 years, we have only increased the well- being by 2 cents. And at the current rate, it would take 581 years to even out the black-white gap in income.

Or we can look at poverty. Overall poverty to close the gap, 150 years to close the gap, the poverty gap as experienced by black Americans and white Americans.

Or we can look at child poverty. The President says he wants to leave no child behind, but sadly, if we look at the numbers, and these numbers represent real children, it will take us 210 years to close the child poverty gap.

The President talked about housing, and we all know that homeownership is the cornerstone for the beginning of the accumulation of wealth, and look here at homeownership. It will take us 1,664 years to close the homeownership gap. Is that not incredible?

What does that tell us about our country's values and priorities? Our President talks about making this an opportunity, making this a prosperity society for all Americans, but if the President's budget does not deal with these very real differences in the way real Americans live, then the President has talked to us but he has not really backed his words with a policy statement that will change the way the bulk of Americans live in this country. The President cannot create an ownership society without addressing these disparities, and sadly, his budget proposal falls short of even his stated goals.

I look forward to actually being able to call the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) Mr. Chairman and have folks on the other side of the aisle call him Mr. Chairman, too.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of knowing Ossie Davis. I met him during my 2-year hiatus from Congress, and after learning of my story, he joined the thousands of Americans who, too, were outraged at my treatment by the dominant political personalities of the day and the media. He and his wife were committed to my return to Congress and acted on that commitment. The Dee-Davis family mourns but all of America mourns, too.

Ossie Davis is of particular note because he utilized the platform of an arts icon as a part of his struggle against injustice in this country.

Ossie Davis could have led a comfortable life. Ossie Davis could have led a quiet life, but Ossie Davis chose to stand and stand again when doing so invited discomfort and controversy.

I was honored to have had the opportunity to meet him personally. My condolences go out to his family and admirers, and I am pleased to make this statement from the floor of the United States House of Representatives for all America and for history to know the stalwart warrior legacy left to us by the late great Ossie Davis.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is ludicrous on its face.

At a time when billboards, TV ads, radio spots, neighborhood recruiting offices, and slick brochures too numerous to count, flood our consciousness, this Sense of Congress resolution asserts that recruiting on college campuses is a necessary part of military recruitment.

According to this resolution, the Pentagon cares about cost- effectiveness; but the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion without explanation. It's been shameful in its award of no-bid contracts to insider corporations, and now, we're told that $9 billion of Iraq money has been ``lost.''

The thrust of this resolution is that it's cost effective and patriotic for the military to recruit on college campuses. Its supporters say that military recruiters ought to have the same access as businesses and corporations. But nowhere in this resolution is the one sure way to get good quality recruits ever mentioned. It's the tried and true way that businesses and corporations employ: they pay more.

In reality, the Pentagon already has access to every 18-year-old male in our country. This resolution is totally unnecessary, unwarranted, and completely fails to make a convincing case.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

U.S. ``Loses'' $9bn in Iraq

Washington.--The U.S. occupation authority in Iraq was

unable to keep track of nearly $9bn it transferred to

government ministries, which lacked financial controls,

security, communications and adequate staff, an inspector

general has found.

The U.S. officials relied on Iraqi audit agencies to

account for the funds but those offices were not even

functioning when the funds were transferred between October

2003 and June 2004, according to an audit by a special US

inspector general.

The findings were released on Sunday by Stuart Bowen,

special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The official who led the CPA, L Paul Bremer III, submitted

a blistering, written reply to the findings, saying the

report had ``many misconceptions and inaccuracies,'' and

lacked professional judgment.

Bremer complained the report ``assumes that western-style

budgeting and accounting procedures could be immediately and

fully implemented in the midst of a war''.

The inspector general said the occupying agency disbursed

$8.8bn to Iraqi ministries ``without assurance the monies

were properly accounted for''.

U.S. officials, the report said, ``did not establish or

implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual

controls.'' There was no way to verify that the money was

used for its intended purposes of financing humanitarian

needs, economic reconstruction, repair of facilities,

disarmament and civil administration.

Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman said on Sunday the

authority was hamstrung by ``extraordinary conditions'' under

which it worked throughout it mission.

``We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the

CPA provided less than adequate controls,'' Whitman said.

Turning over the money ``was in keeping with the CPA's

responsibility to transfer these funds and administrative

responsibilities to the Iraqi ministries as an essential part

of restoring Iraqi governance''.

The inspector general cited an International Monetary Fund

assessment in October, 2003 on the poor state of Iraqi

government offices. The assessment found ministries suffered

from staff shortages, poor security, disruptions in

communications, damage and looting of government buildings,

and lack of financial policies.

CPA staff learned that 8,206 guards were on the payroll at

one ministry, but only 602 could be accounted for, the report

said. At another ministry, U.S. officials found 1,417 guards

on the payroll but could only confirm 642.

When staff members of the U.S. occupation government

recommended that payrolls be verified before salary payments,

CPA financial officials stated the CPA would rather overpay

salaries than risk not paying employees and inciting

violence,'' the inspector general said.

The inspector general's report rejected Bremer's criticism.

It concluded that despite the war, ``We believe the CPA

management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of

Iraqi funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor

management.''

Mr. Speaker, never have the issues been so clear as they are for all of us today. Our country is at war ostensibly to bring democracy to a far off country on the other side of our planet. At the same time, a significant chunk of the American people protest in their own humble ways for democracy at home. They see unequal protection of the precious right to vote blatant in Ohio but not only in Ohio; voting machines that cannot be trusted, casting votes for candidates not intended by the voter. That happened in my own race in my own State of Georgia.

Provisional balloting made absurd by seemingly purposefully drafted arcane rules that in some case rendered the right to vote moot; our democracy entrusted to privately owned software run on computers that can be hacked, that overheat, break down or have their batteries die in the middle of the voting process; and, moreover, voting on machines that do not even tell us after we have voted who it is exactly that our vote was counted for.

When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, it hoped to correct the blatant irregularities and purposeful disenfranchisement that occurred in Florida in the 2000 election. It is clear from the work of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the tireless efforts of people across Ohio that this Congress has a lot of work to do.

Our Vice President has told to us expect war for the next generation. It is not only our responsibility but our right to demand full democracy at home, and we do that by our actions today. This is not merely about bitterness or a recount, this is about a blackout.

It is time to end the blackout and shine the lights on our precious right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, many have suggested that those of us committed to seeing a complete and accurate count of the Ohio vote in this past November's Presidential race should simply ``just get over it''.

Well this Member of Congress has sworn an oath to ``uphold and defend'' our nation's Constitution, and I do not believe that our commitment to Democracy is anything we should ``get over''. In fact, our commitment to democracy is something I believe we must deepen and

expand until this dream is transformed into a reality for every citizen of this nation.

But democracy is not to be achieved by an investment in the latest computer technology (even if computers can help us administer our elections). It is not achieved by rhetoric and flags, pomp and feel good myths of what a great nation we are.

Democracy will only be achieved by listening closely to the intention of the voters and hearing clearly from them what a great nation they wish this to be.

I'm afraid that has not happened in Ohio nor likely in other states this year.

Predominantly African-American precincts and campus precincts saw localized shortages of voting machines leading to long lines frustrating would-be voters who left for work without casting a ballot. Precincts in affluent, white and Republican suburbs did not suffer such problems.

Phone calls and fliers targeted African American voters sending them to vote on the wrong day at the wrong locations.

Long-time voters ``disappeared'' from voting rolls.

Voting machines ``defaulted'' to Bush votes regardless of which candidate the person voted for.

People were forced to vote provisionally if they were in the right county but the wrong precinct. Sometimes the right precinct was literally only one table away.

And as we did in Georgia--I'm sorry to say, too many voters in Ohio cast ballots on machines running trade secret protected, proprietary software, which produced no contemporaneously voter verified paper audit trail of their votes, leaving voters intentions subject to untraceable electronic manipulations.

The Green and Libertarian Presidential candidates demanded a recount because the stories of vote suppression and manipulation were so blatant. Three thousand volunteers and six thousands contributors came together to make that recount possible.

But Secretary Blackwell, charged with providing for free and fair elections for the people of Ohio fell short. While the law requires that precincts be selected randomly for spot checks, many counties hand-picked precincts in violation of the law.

Ohio law requires that a discrepancy between the machine count and the hand count in a spot checked precinct lead to a full recount by hand of the entire county. But these hand recounts were not conducted as required.

The integrity of the recount itself was put at risk by lax security for the ballots and the voting machines, which failed to maintain a chain of custody for election materials.

Credentialled observers were denied an opportunity to meaningfully observe the recount process, were threatened with eviction for asking questions and completed their work still unable to assure the voters that the certified results accurately reflected the collective intention of the voters in their counties.

The Ohio Secretary of State failed to provide adequate and uniform standards for the conduct of the recount.

Perhaps as disturbing as anything else, was that Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell mixed his non-partisan duties to the voters of Ohio with his partisan duties as the co-chair of the his state's Bush Re-election campaign.

We need:

A Constitutional right to vote;

Uniform standards for the conduct of elections and recounts;

A contemporaneously produced voter verified paper trails for electronic voting machines;

An end to the use of trade-secret protected, proprietary software for voting machines;

Independent election commissions (or administrators) to oversee elections. (No campaign officials should ever again be placed in charge of counting or overseeing the vote); and

The abolition of the Electoral College, replacing it with popular vote using Instant Runoff Voting.

As can be learned at votecobb.ord, the recount documented wide spread evidence of fraud, the obstruction of legitimate votes (especially those cast by African Americans and young people), and computer voting machine manipulation. The Ohio recount was tainted by a lack of cooperation, the failure to follow consistent standards, and conflicts of interest by Republican election officials.

A constituent of mine from Chamblee Georgia wrote that ``If Senate Democrats remain silent on Thursday, and we see a repeat of their 2000 endorsement of a manipulated election, the Democratic Party will have abandoned all claims to be the opposition. Americans who care about democracy and fair elections should understand such silence as an endorsement of the kind of Republican election engineering we witnessed in Ohio and of the Bush agenda.''

The founders ratified our Constitution, but under popular protest very quickly adopted a set of amendments demanded by the people. Among those first changes to our governing Constitution were two Amendments designed to ensure that our nation would continue to serve the people of this nation. The First Amendment guarantees our right to petition, speak, write and assemble: in short to organize politically to change our form of government. The Second Amendment was adopted to ensure the ``security of a free State.'' If we cannot protect the sanctity of the vote and those First Freedoms, we risk leaving our citizens no choice but to reach for the Second Amendment in their own defense.

There have been 1,341 U.S. soldiers, including twenty-nine Georgians and two from my district that have so far lost their lives in our occupation of Iraq. I grieve with the families for their loss. But what are we to do when we attempt to export democracy abroad when we can't seem to even produce it at home.