Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate one of my most prestigious constituents, from Country Club Hills, Illinois, Ms. Koko Taylor, the ``Queen of the Blues''. Ms. Taylor is a recipient of the 2004 National Heritage Fellowship.

The National Heritage Fellowship is the country's highest honor given in the folk and traditional arts. Ten fellowships and twelve awardees were chosen from 10 states, and we are proud to have Ms. Koko Taylor as this year's award recipient from Illinois.

Ms. Taylor was born 75 years ago in a sharecropper's cabin at the edge of a cotton plantation in southwestern Tennessee. Even though her father encouraged her to perform only Gospel music, Koko and her siblings would sneak out and play the blues on homemade instruments. When she was eighteen, Koko (given that name as a child due to her love of chocolate) moved with her soon-to-be husband Robert ``Pop'' Taylor to Chicago. Initially sustaining herself as a housekeeper on Chicago's North Shore, it was not long before she was sitting in with legendary blues musicians in Chicago's lively club scene. In 1962, she was discovered by Willie Dixon and signed to a Chess recording contract-- Chess Records was the Motown of Chicago. She recorded the million record selling hit ``Wang Dang Doodle'' in 1965, and had many successful hits since.

For more than 40 years, Koko Taylor's powerhouse vocals have thrilled audiences, from little bars in Chicago's South Side to giant international festivals. She's been in movies, on television, on radio and in print all over the world. Ms. Taylor has received just about every award the blues world has to offer. She has received 19 W.C. Handy Awards, more than any other female blues artist. She has also been nominated for a Grammy for six of her last seven Alligator albums, and won a Grammy in 1984. In 1993, Chicago Mayor Richard A. Daley honored Taylor with a ``Legend of the Year Award,'' and declared ``Koko Taylor Day'' throughout Chicago. The Blues Foundation bestowed a Lifetime Achievement Award on her in 1999.

Ms. Taylor has been described by Rolling Stone as ``the great female blues singer of her generation.'' Her vocal power and stage presence, drawing on such forbears as Bessie Smith, Sippie Wallace, and Alberta Hunter, has carried her through four decades of recording and live performance, and she continues to play over 100 concerts a year all over the world. Ms. Taylor's contributions to the music world have been enumerable, and I congratulate her on her achievement.

Mr. Speaker, first. In addition to violating the Republicans' ``sacred oath'' to support ``states' rights;'' this body is violating the citizens of the District of Columbia's right to self-determination with respect to guns . . . just because it can. Congress, in 1993, denied American citizens the right to statehood and continues to deny them voting rights. DC's young people are fighting, dying and being wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy and self-determination . . . something they don't have back home in DC! So Republicans in Congress exercise outside control over DC citizens, and DC citizens have limited means of fighting back, since they have no voting representation in Congress.

Second. The other side is forcing us to vote on this bill just to send a political message back home. The Senate has already rejected it, so we know it will not become law this year. They are doing it for political reasons just before the election on November 2--which they would never even think about doing to another state because the Americans they represent have a member in the House and two in the Senate. They are exploiting the politically impotent citizens of DC. It reminds me of the big bully in school picking on the littlest and weakest kid in the class. Let's be clear. They are forcing us to vote on this legislation in order to politicize the gun issue on the eve of the election in order to send a political message back home.

Third. In addition to all of that, let's look at the Republican flip- flop on the gun issue! What was the Republican Party saying about guns in 1968? And, I might add for context, in 1967-1968 our cities were in rebellion and our colleague, Congressman Bobby Rush, was a Black Panther, and the Panthers had guns?

But let's look at the Republican Platform language in 1968!

republican party platform 1968

``We pledge an all-out federal-state-local crusade against

crime, including enactment of legislation to control

indiscriminate availability of firearms.''

republicans in congress in 2004

First, on September 13, Republicans let the assault weapons

ban expire!

Now the ``Republican District of Columbia Personal

Protection Act''!

Sec. 3. Reform DC Council's authority to restrict firearms.

This section shall not be construed to permit the Council,

the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the

District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or

unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise permitted to

possess firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing

in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-

protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither

prohibited by Federal law nor regulated by the National

Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have

authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or

eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.

Sec. 4. Repeal DC semiautomatic ban.

Sec. 5. Repeal registration requirement.

Sec. 6. Repeal handgun ammunition ban.

Sec. 8. Additional repeals.

Sec. 9. Remove criminal penalties for possession of

unregistered firearms.

This bill is a waste of this body's time. It is wrongheaded. It is patently unfair. It is nakedly political. It is anti-democratic. And I urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Black Caucus today will be hosting here on the floor a special order regarding the protection of the fundamental right to vote for all Americans. Given the crucial nature of the up and coming election, the caucus' chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and other members of the CBC have requested this time to talk with all Americans about some fundamental flaws that exist in our system.

Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us, in the story of Matthew, of a wise man who built his house on a rock, and when the rain fell and the floods came and the winds blew and beat upon his house, it did not fall because he built it on a rock. But there was a foolish man who built his house on sand, and when the rain fell and the floods came and the winds blew and beat against his house, it fell.

Mr. Speaker, elections in the United States are like the foolish man who built his house on sand. Our election system is built on the sand of States' rights. We need to build it on a rock, the rock of a new amendment to the Constitution, affirmatively guaranteeing every American an individual right to vote and granting Congress the authority to create a unitary voting system.

The United States sees itself as the center of world democracy, so most Americans will be surprised, even shocked, to discover that we do not have the right to vote. Unlike the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of an individual right to freedom of religion, to freedom of press, to freedom of assembly, the individual right to vote is not in the Constitution.

Most Americans are also unaware that, according to a joint study by Caltech and MIT, somewhere between 4 and 6 million votes nationally were not counted in 2000. Many States had similar problems to what occurred in Florida. My State of Illinois was the worst. Florida got the attention only because of the closeness of their vote.

Voting in America is overseen by 13,000 different election administrations, all separate and unequal, which is reminiscent of the legal theory that established Jim Crow segregation for 58 years as a result of the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

The 15th, 19th and 26th amendments prohibit discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex and age respectively, but they do not affirmatively guarantee the right to vote. Voting in America is essentially a 10th amendment issue, States rights, and therefore we end up with 50 different State systems, 3,067 different county systems and 20,000 different municipal systems in the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore that the individual citizen has no fundamental constitutional right to vote for electors for President of the United States. In other words, Florida's State right to oversee the election took precedence over counting every individual vote; or legally, States rights triumphed over individual rights. In essence the Court said since there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution, what does the Florida State statute say? It says that the former Secretary of State is in charge of the election, and according to Florida law, all of the votes must be counted by midnight, December 12.

Since the Court decision came down at 10 p.m. on December 12, the Secretary of State said, in essence, if you cannot count all of the votes in the next 2 hours, President Bush is the President. But just in case the Court had ordered all of the votes counted and it turned out that Vice President Gore had won the most popular votes in Florida, the Republican controlled, or it could be a Democratic controlled, legislature had a backup plan: Based on the fact there is no right to vote in the Constitution of the United States for the individual citizen, that the Constitution says the right to elect electors resides in the State legislature. The Florida State legislature was prepared to ignore the 6 million popular votes, elect their own electors and send them to Congress for certification. That would have been both legally and constitutionally permissible.

The Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, is not the answer. It is built on sand, States' rights. I am convinced if Congress had the will, under our current Constitution it could do much more than HAVA to strengthen the administration of a unitary voting system and protect and fully count all votes.

But I am unconvinced, absent a voting rights amendment, that any solution to these and any of our other most pressing voting rights problems will be universal or sustainable. How do we change the current system and prevent another Florida, another Illinois, or some Ohio or some other State from undermining our election system? How can we achieve equal protection under the law in 13,000 separate and unequally administered voting jurisdictions? Some voting jurisdictions use computers. Others use punch card voting. Some allow Internet voting, others do not. Some allow lever voting systems. Some voters simply write an ``X'' next to the candidate of their choice; all separate and all unequal.

If we as Americans can guarantee for the people of Afghanistan the fundamental right to vote, and we can guarantee the fundamental right to vote for the people of Iraq, then of course we should be able to guarantee for every single American the fundamental right to vote.

Look at the issue of felons. In the State of Illinois if one commits a felony, after one has served their time, the State of Illinois under State law reenfranchises felons. In Florida once one commits a felony, one will never be reenfranchised because the State prohibits felons who have served their time from ever regaining the franchise. But in Vermont, even if you are in jail you are still allowed to vote in presidential and local elections, in some local elections.

Mr. Speaker, we need to guarantee the fundamental right to vote for every single American in our Constitution and only by adding an affirmative right to vote amendment to the Constitution, such an amendment would give Congress the power to establish a unitary voting system, ensure that every vote is counted, and grant equal protection under the law for all voters.

House Joint Resolution 28 is such an amendment, and I urge Members to sign on as cosponsors.

Mr. Speaker, no one has been traveling across the country as much, analyzing the Nation's voting system and trying to raise the consciousness of the Congress to guarantee and secure democracy for all Americans quite like the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Fighting for a Right To Vote Constitutional Amendment

(By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.)

Most Americans believe that the ``legal right to vote'' in

our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our

Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only

provides for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of

race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments

respectively.

The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit affirmative

individual right to vote!

Even though the ``vote of the people'' is perceived as

supreme in our democracy--because voting rights are

protective of all other rights--the Supreme Court in Bush v.

Gore constantly reminded lawyers that there is no explicit or

fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution--``the

individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to

vote for electors for the President of the United States.''

(Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000).

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice

Antonin Scalia besieged Gore's lawyer with inquiries premised

on the assumption that there is no constitutional right of

suffrage in the election of a president, and state

legislatures have the legal power to choose presidential

electors without recourse to a popular vote. ``In the eyes of

the [Supreme] Court, democracy is rooted not in the right of

the American people to vote and govern but in a set of state-

based institutional arrangements for selecting leaders.''

(Overruling Democracy--The Supreme Court v. The American

People, by James B. Raskin, p. 7)

While a voting rights constitutional amendment would be

strictly non-partisan, nevertheless, the 2000 election is a

splendid example of the undemocratic nature of our currently

administered election systems--and there are literally

thousands of them. Each state and the District of Columbia

(51), counties (3,067), and thousands of municipalities

administer their own election system under state law, with

great flexibility on many issues in the variously

administered voting jurisdictions. That's the chaotic dynamic

that was in play in Florida's 67 counties.

In 2000, if every American had had an individual

constitutional right to vote, every vote would have had to be

counted. However, under our current ``states' rights''

arrangement the state legislature and state law took legal

precedence over the individual vote and the individual voter.

It is also important to point out that if candidate George

Bush had lost in the Supreme Court in 2000, Florida's

Republican-controlled legislature was prepared to ignore the

six million popular votes cast in Florida. Under state law,

they were determined to elect, select, choose, and hand pick,

if necessary, their own ``Bush presidential electors'' and

send them to Congress for certification--even if it had

turned out that Al Gore won the most popular votes in

Florida.

Thus, in terms of the political consequences of our present

arrangement, if all of the votes legally cast in 2000 had

been counted, Al Gore and not George Bush would be President

of the United States today.

The principled commitment ought to be honest, fair and

efficient elections for everyone, for all time. However,

after 2000, any Democrat who cannot support adding a voting

rights amendment to the Constitution ought to be asked to

explain why!

Thus, even if all votes had been counted and Al Gore had

won Florida's popular vote, and his electors had been sent to

Congress, under our current Constitution the Florida

legislature could have sent their slate of Bush electors to

Congress and it would have been perfectly legal--and a

``strict constructionist'' or necessary constitutional

interpretation--for Congress to have recognized the Bush

electors.

Only a Voting Rights Amendment can fix these flaws in our

Constitution and administration of elections.

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: ``The powers

not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States

respectively, or to the people.'' Since the word ``vote''

appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-

discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a ``state

right.'' Only a constitutional amendment would give every

American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.

Without the constitutional right to vote, Congress can pass

voter legislation--and I support progressive electoral reform

legislation--but it leaves the ``states' rights'' system in

place. Currently, Congress mostly uses financial and other

incentives to entice the states to cooperate and comply with

the law. It's one reason there have been so many problems

with the recently passed Help America Vote Act, and why many

states still have not fully complied with the law.

Our ``states' rights'' voting system is structured to be

``separate and unequal.'' As we saw in the 2000 election,

there are 50 states, 3,067 counties, tens of thousands of

cities, and many different machines and methods of voting--

all ``separate and unequal.''

There's only one way to legally guarantee ``an equal right

to vote'' to every individual American and that is to add a

Voting Rights Amendment to the Constitution!

The lack of basic political rights for all Americans was

made even clearer in Alexander v. Mineta, a case to gain

political representation for the disenfranchised citizens in

our nation's capital, the District of Columbia. Ignoring the

democratic ideal of voting, the court said, ``The Equal

Protection Clause does not protect the right of all citizens

to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to

vote'' (Alexander v. Daley, 90 F. Supp. 2d, 35, 66, emphasis

added) ``To be qualified, you must belong to a `state' within

the meaning of Article I and the Seventeenth Amendment and

must be granted the right to vote by the state.'' (Overruling

Democracy--The Supreme Court vs. The American People, By

Jamin B. Raskin, p. 36)

I believe that voting is not only a democratic right, it's

a human right. That human right is not in our Constitution!

That's why I have proposed legislation to add a voting rights

amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the individual

right of all Americans to vote. It was introduced in the U.S.

House of Representatives as House Joint Resolution 28. It

reads as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of

each House concurring therein), That the following article is

proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as

part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of

three-fourths of the several States:

`Section 1. All citizens of the United States, who are

eighteen years or age or older, shall have the right to vote

in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the

citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or

abridged by the United Sates, any State, or any other public

or private person or entity, except that the United States or

any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to

produce efficient and honest elections.

`Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in

the State in accordance with election performance standards

established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider

such election performance standards at least once every four

years to determine if higher standards should be established

to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding

the administration of elections.

`Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the

opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public

election.

`Section 4. Each State and the District constituting the

seat of Government of the United States shall establish and

abide by rules for appointing its respective number of

Electors. Such rules shall provide for the appointment of

Electors on the day designated by the Congress for holding an

election for President and Vice President and shall ensure

that each Elector votes for the candidate for President and

Vice President who received a majority of the popular vote in

the State or District.

`Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce this

article by appropriate legislation.'

With this amendment in the Constitution, all of the votes

in 2000--to the best of our human ability and using credible

and uniform criteria--would have had to have been counted. No

unnecessary or arbitrary timeline cutoff would have been

allowed with regard to counting votes. And the Florida

legislature could not have even thought about ignoring the

six million popular Florida votes in order to select

presidential electors independent of the popular vote. Under

this amendment, the popular vote could never be ignored and

an independent legislative selection of electors could never

happen.

In light of the presidential fiasco in Florida in 2000, and

during the South Carolina Democratic presidential candidate's

debate on May 3, 2003, Rev. Al Sharpton asked Florida Senator

Bob Graham if he would support adding a voting rights

amendment to the Constitution. In essence he said the

following: ``I haven't seen the legislation, but probably

not. I believe states should remain in control of election

procedures. And I'm against federalizing the election

process.''

Let's analyze his statement.

1. It means Senator Graham essentially supports the status

quo when it comes to voting rights because, under current

law, 2000 could happen again in Florida or elsewhere. The

winner of the popular vote losing has happened three previous

times in our history--1824, 18776 and 1888. Most Americans

are totally unaware that, nationally, according to a joint

study by the California Institute of Technology and

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, somewhere between four

and six million votes were not counted in 2000 because many

states had similar problems to what occurred in Florida.

Other states' election systems didn't get the same exposure

as Florida's because the winner in other states was not in

doubt. For example, Illinois was worse than Florida--it

didn't count nearly 200,000 votes with similar problems to

Florida's--but because Gore won Illinois by over 300,000

votes, the winner of the state's electoral votes was not in

doubt. In Illinois and other states too, most of the

problems--with voting and machines--were concentrated in the

poor and minority communities.

``Amazingly, the government of the United States conducts

and provides no official count of the vote for president.''

(Overruling Democracy--The Supreme Court vs. The American

People, by Jamin B. Raskin, p. 66) Can you imagine the United

States recognizing a close and hotly contested third world

``democratic'' election where the citizens had no right to

vote, as much as six percent of the total vote was not

counted; where there were no official results provided by the

government; and where that country's Supreme Court declared

its personal and ideological friend the winner, even though

the declared winner did not get the most popular votes?

2. It means Senator Graham supports ``states' rights'' when

it comes to voting rights. But I would remind Senator Graham

and others, slavery was not supported directly in the

Constitution. The word ``slavery'' never appeared in the

Constitution. Slavery was supported constitutionally because

states had a right--``states' rights''--to provide legal

cover allowing private citizens to own other human beings.

That same states' rights system was at work in the 2000

election with respect to voting and it continues today.

3. H.J. Res. 28 does not federalize voting any more than

the First Amendment federalizes free speech or freedom of

religion. The First Amendment's right to free speech and

religion is an individual citizenship right applicable to

every American--not a ``federal'' right--protected by the

federal government and its courts. It's an individual right

that can be upheld in a federal court of law. Likewise, a

voting rights amendment would grant every American an

individual citizenship right to vote that, because it

would be a right for every American, would ultimately be

validated by Congress through legislation, and the Supreme

Court through interpretation.

4. In essence, then, in the South Carolina debate, Senator

Graham chose ``states' rights'' over an ``individual right.''

5. Attorney General John Ashcroft sent a letter to the

National Rifle Association asserting that every American has

an individual constitutional right to a gun. In it he wrote;

``Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the

original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the

right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.'' Some agree

and others disagree with that interpretation.

However, there can be no debate or disagreement about the

right to vote. The Supreme Court made it absolutely clear in

Bush v. Gore--there is no individual citizenship right to

vote in the Constitution!

If Americans had a choice between the right to a gun and

the right to vote, it would be nearly unanimous. Americans

would choose the right to vote! If that is the priority of

the American people, then we should have the wisdom and

political will to codify it in the form of a constitutional

amendment.

What are the advantages of fighting for human rights and

constitutional amendments? Human rights and constitutional

amendments are non-partisan (they're neither Democratic nor

Republican), they're non-ideological (they're not liberal,

moderate, or conservative), they're non-programmatic (they

don't require a particular means, approach or program to

realize them), and they're non-special interest (they're for

all Americans). We can experiment to find the best means of

fulfilling such a constitutional right!

August 6th was the 38th anniversary of the signing of the

1965 Voting Rights Act. But the Voting Rights Act is really

misnamed and, to some extent, misleading. It's not actually a

voting rights act. In fulfillment of the 15th Amendment to

the Constitution, added in 1870, the 1965 Voting Rights Act

was actually a non-discrimination in voting act.

To fulfill the democratic ideal, an affirmative voting

rights constitutional amendment still lies in the future.

According to Harvard's constitutional law professor Alexander

Keyssar one-hundred-and-eight (108) of the one-hundred-and-

nineteen (119) nations in the world that elect their

representatives to all levels of government in some

democratic fashion explicitly guarantee their citizens the

right to vote in their constitution. Both Afghanistan's

constitution and Iraq' interim legal document contains a

right to vote. The United States is one of the eleven nations

in the world that doesn't provide an explicit right to vote

in its Constitution.

If we pass a new voting rights amendment, the next civil

rights movement will emerge fighting for congressional

legislation that can advance even further the central

democratic idea of universal voting--only partially enabled

through the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Motor Voter and the Help

America Vote Act. With a voting rights amendment, a new civil

rights movement would emerge to fight to fully implement the

amendment, while also using the federal courts to interpret

voting rights more fully.

What can I do? If you would like to help me put this voting

rights amendment in the Constitution, call your

congressperson at 202-225-3121 (or call their local office)

and urge them to become a co-sponsor of H.J. Res. 28. If you

need more information about this legislation call my office

at 202-225-0773.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the U.S., along with rest of the world, stood and watched as 800,000 men, women and children were slaughtered in Rwanda. In April of this year, the world community marked the 10th year of the modern-day genocide in Rwanda and said never again.

Today, we are in danger of failing to honor that commitment, and this resolution goes a long way to ensuring that the United States will play a profound role in stopping the genocide.

The Darfur region of western Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is engulfed in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Since 2003, the Sudanese government and their murderous Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, have waged a deliberate and systematic campaign of rape, of torture, of starvation and murder of innocent Darfurian civilians.

If genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, then the deliberate killings of tens of thousands of black Sudanese happening right now certainly qualifies. The U.S. Government must call it genocide. The term ``genocide'' not only captures the fundamental characteristics of the Khartoum government's intent and actions in western Sudan, but it also invokes clear international obligations, and that is why this resolution is so important.

Mr. Speaker, on the ground, we are trying our best to get aid to the Darfurians during the rainy season. U.S. Administrator Natsios from USAID said that even if we are successful, 300,000 Darfurians will lose their lives; and if we do not act immediately, 1 million Darfurians are sure to lose their lives or be at risk.

The answer, Mr. Speaker, beyond the declaration of genocide, is to ensure that the AU, that the various Arab governments in the region, along with the United States, provide immediate

military relief so that aid can get to Darfurians immediately. The United States Government has 2,000 troops in Jabudi; 2,000 troops. They are the closest troops, the closest opportunity that we have, to ensure that the Janjaweed are disarmed, so that aid workers can get aid to the people in Darfur.

So beyond the declaration of genocide, we must move to provide the security for the Darfurians and keep the Janjaweed from continuing their murderous efforts in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, as parties to the Genocide Convention, all permanent members of the UN Security Council and more than 130 countries worldwide, are bound to prevent, stop and punish the perpetrators of genocide--a unique crime against humanity in international law.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide. A crime must include both elements to be called ``genocide'':

1. the mental element, meaning the ``intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such'', and

2. the physical element, which includes: Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Since 1993, the Sudanese government and their militia have implemented a reign of terror in Darfur. An estimated 30,000, have been killed in the last year. More than one million black Sudanese have been forced from their homes. The attackers have raped civilians and destroyed their villages. They have destroyed the crops, livestock and farms upon which the region's people depend. They have poisoned their water supply. They have launched systematic and indiscriminate aerial bombardments and ground attacks on unarmed civilians. They have deliberately blocked humanitarian assistance to the region.

If the Sudanese government continues its brutality, or the international community fails to adequately intervene, as many as 1 million more Darfurians are at-risk of dying of starvation and disease.

In the words of one New York Times columnist, if the people of Sudan ``. . . aren't victims of genocide, then the word has no meaning.''

Mr. Speaker, there is a genocide taking place in Sudan and we must stop it. We call on the Administration to immediately lead an international effort to stop the death and destruction in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, on July 15, I voted ``no'' on House Resolution 713. As a strong supporter of a negotiated two-state solution in the Middle East--a strong supporter of the State of Israel and a strong supporter of a Palestinian State--it is my view that this resolution will not contribute to a negotiating process that will lead toward peace.

The U.S. must be a credible mediator that maintains the respect and support of both parties in the peace process--the Road Map--so that U.S. conciliation efforts will be effective in achieving a just and lasting peace.

And as a strong supporter of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), I will not condemn the UN for making the request or the ICJ for issuing an advisory opinion at the request of the General Assembly on the consequences and legality of constructing a security barrier. How can we condemn a democratic process that renders a requested non-binding opinion? We may agree or disagree with the opinion, but we cannot condemn the ICJ for exercising its right to speak freely and render an opinion upon request.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Jim Kolbe, Ranking Member Nita Lowey, the other members of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee and the majority and minority staffs for the bipartisan, collegial spirit during our oversight hearings and the subcommittee and full committee markups.

I feel privileged to have worked with such a fine group of people. We all know this is a difficult appropriations year, and I am grateful to Chairman Kolbe and the subcommittee staff for their even-handed approach to drafting the FY 2005 Foreign Operations bill.

I support this bill, despite the lack of resources. The Chairman and the subcommittee staff incorporated most of my requests that significantly improve funding for health and development programs for those suffering in the developing world--especially in Africa. I thank them for that.

During my tenure on this subcommittee, I have always fought for more funds for sub-Saharan Africa. When the President submitted his budget for the Foreign Operations bill earlier this year, he proposed several cuts in Development Assistance and Child Survival funds to scores of specific African countries. Development Assistance funds are crucial to the long-term, sustainable development of these countries because they fund agriculture, education, environment, democracy, and governance programs. Child Survival funds are important because they combat infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

Moreover, during our oversight hearings, administration witnesses did not put forward a coherent or credible plan when it came to solving the long-term health and development problems of sub-Saharan Africa.

After working with the Chairman and the Ranking Member, we restored these cuts and improved the bill.

Let me be the first to say that this bill is not perfect. Overall, it is almost $2 billion below the President's request. Our commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria is severely underfunded by possibly hundreds of millions of dollars, and although funding for the Peace Corps has been increased from last year relative to FY 2004, it is $70 million below the President's FY 2005 request.

Moreover, this bill is $95 million below the President's request for Debt Restructuring and $13 million below our commitment for the Global Environment Facility.

One of the more troubling aspects of this bill is that the Rules Committee did not make in order a very thoughtful amendment by my Ranking Member, Representative Lowey.

Representative Lowey's amendment would have provided much needed health care resources through UNFPA programs in only 6 countries of strategic and national security importance to the U.S.: Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, Kenya and Tazania and would continue to prohibit funding for any individual UNFPA country that has been cited for violating Kemp-Kasten.

Despite these omissions, I plan to support this bill. The House should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Although I think this bill underfunds the Global Fund, it is $300 million above the President's request. This bill is $228 million above the President's request for Child Survival and Health Programs. It is $100 million above the President's request for Development Assistance, and $27 million above the President's request for Migration and Refugee Assistance.

Also, this bill includes $12 million for conflict resolution and a $17 million increase for International Organizations and Programs.

All of the cuts requested in the Child Survival and Health Programs were restored, and $6 million has been included for obstetric fistula prevention and repair. All of the cuts requested for sub-Saharan African countries in Child Survival and Development Assistance accounts have been restored and there is a $15 million African school fee reduction incentive fund.

The Chairman and the Ranking Member have produced a solid piece of legislation despite the lack of resources they were provided. I cannot stress enough how much I have enjoyed my work this year on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee as we addressed the problems and concerns of the developing world. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on my motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4613.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the tireless work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, who has just returned from Sudan. Without the gentleman from Virginia's tireless efforts in this area, we simply would not be where we are today.

I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their work on this issue.

I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for all of their efforts and continued support.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct the defense appropriations conferees to provide the highest possible funding level in the supplemental title of their conference report to help alleviate the incredible humanitarian crisis that is unfolding over the last year in the Darfur region of Sudan and in eastern Chad.

Currently, the House version of the defense appropriations bill contains $95 million for humanitarian relief in Sudan, $25 million for refugees, and $70 million for disaster assistance.

In 1994, this country, along with rest of the world, stood and watched as 800,000 men, women, and children were slaughtered in Rwanda.

Two months ago, the world community marked the 10-year anniversary of a modern-day genocide in Rwanda and said, Never again.

In Sudan, by conservative estimates, at least 10,000 people, perhaps as many as 30,000, have been killed in the last year in Darfur, in the western region of Sudan. More than 1 million black Sudanese have been forced from their homes by government-backed militias, and as many as 200,000 Sudanese reside in makeshift refugee camps in Chad. The lack of food and water and the current rainy season will surely wreak havoc on the lives of these people.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID Administrator Natsios has said that even if relief efforts were accelerated, more than 300,000 forced from their homes would die of starvation and disease. But the Sudanese government and their militias keep blocking aid. If foreign governments hesitate, Natsios said the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching 1 million people. That assumes that the conferees, when they meet, if they increase the levels, nearly 300,000 people are likely to die. Surely these facts merit the highest possible funding levels in the supplemental title of the defense conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am now privileged to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me once again thank the distinguished gentlewoman, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services of the Committee on Appropriations, and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her leadership on this issue in working closely with the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) to truly advance a bipartisan cause in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if genocide is the deliberate and the systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, then the deliberate killings of thousands of black Sudanese happening right now certainly qualifies. Sadly, the situation in Sudan is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today, and the gentleman from Virginia

(Chairman Wolf) is to be congratulated for helping raise the consciousness of this Congress, this country, and indeed this world for immediate action.

Obviously, what is happening in Darfur is a genocide, and the U.S. Government must call it by that name. The term ``genocide'' not only captures the fundamental characteristics of the Khartoum government's intent and actions in western Sudan; it also invokes clear international obligations.

As parties to the Genocide Convention, all permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the United States and more than 130 countries worldwide, are bound to prevent, to stop, and to punish the perpetrators of genocide. Genocide is a unique crime against humanity in international law.

The legal definition of genocide, the international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in articles 2 and 3 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Article 2 describes 2 elements of the crime of genocide. The crime must include both elements to be called ``genocide.'' They are, one, the mental element, meaning the ``intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such''; and, secondly, the physical element, which includes five acts described in sections A, B, C, D, and E; (a), The killing of members of a group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and (e), forcefully transferring children of the group to another group.

When the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) returned from Sudan most recently, he approached Members on the floor and he said, in light of this definition, there is a genocide taking place in the Sudan. There is a genocide in the making in Sudan, and we must stop it.

While some may argue that the situation in the Sudan does not rise to the level of genocide, we cannot be so pedantic or myopic or callous to allow legalistic disputes over definitions and terms to prevent us from acting now to prevent rape and slaughter and torture. Providing the highest possible funding level in this conference report is the first step we must take to stop the death and the destruction in Darfur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations, who has been a tireless leader in this effort.

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

Let me once again congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for his outstanding leadership on this question, including the authorizer, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who has been steadfast in this effort.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs this week will be leading a delegation to Darfur. I will participate in that delegation. I also want to congratulate him for his outstanding leadership for including and fighting for this money in the supplemental bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who serves on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies with great distinction.

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

Let me take this time also to thank the subcommittee chairman for the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for his extraordinary leadership on this question. The gentleman knows that I have been critical of the committee in the past for its historic support of Africa and related issues; but the subcommittee, recognizing a very serious crisis under the chairman's leadership, has really stepped forward. The gentleman is taking a delegation, which I am anticipating this coming Thursday, to Darfur, Sudan. We wish him Godspeed, and we wish the delegation a safe trip. I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the tireless work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has just returned from the Sudan. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Program, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their outstanding work on this issue. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who has been a tireless fighter for justice in Sudan.

I want to thank the Subcommittee on Defense chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and I want to thank the Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for all of their support and efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to pay tribute to the life of Clarence Michael Savage, a model of compassion, commitment, and community service, who passed away on June 24. Mike was a man of strong personal faith, and a devout advocate of social justice.

A graduate of St. Louis University, Mike began his career of service working on behalf of lower-income neighborhoods in St. Louis and migrant farm workers throughout the country. Mike was known as a champion for the rights of people marginalized in our society. He served as the CEO of the Access Community Health Network in Chicago from 1994 until his tragic death last month. Mike was innovative in his approach to serving the working poor, uninsured and medically underserved. During his tenure at Access, Mike led the organization through unprecedented change as the organization grew from nine to forty-one health centers serving more than 160,000 patients annually.

Throughout his career, Mike was unyielding in his pursuit of justice. Before joining Access, Mike served as Executive Director of Fenway Community Health Center in Boston. He also worked for Heartland Alliance Travelers & Immigrants Aid and United Neighborhood Organization of Near Southwest Chicago. Mike was also active in many organizations nationally and locally, including National Healthy Start Association, United Power for Action and Justice, and the Chicago Chapter of Dignity USA.

Those of us who were privileged to have known him, will remember his incredible passion for addressing the underserved and his commitment to those in the fight with him. He was a visionary, he was a leader, and he was a friend. I extend my deepest condolences to Andy Swan, his partner, his family, and all those who join me in treasuring Mike's memory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a passionate proponent of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. I will vote for this resolution, but I have deep reservations about specific aspects of it.

Today, as yesterday, I am in strong support of the Road Map for peace devised by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia. As the world's only Superpower, it is the responsibility of the U.S. to work assiduously as an honest and balanced broker in this complex process to bring about a just and fair resolution.

The U.S. can only be effective in our role as mediator if we are able to maintain the trust and confidence of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. To embrace one side to the exclusion of the other is to undermine the credibility of the U.S. in the world, further deepen the divide within the region, compromise the security of Israel, and further endanger U.S. citizens and interests throughout the Middle East.

In his April 14, 2004, letter to Mr. Sharon to which this resolution refers and endorses, President Bush seems to make a troubling shift in the long standing policy of the United States. For years, the U.S. has attempted to facilitate, encourage and promote Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Now, however, with the issuance of the Bush letter and completely outside of the framework and process of final status negotiations, the United States has approved of Mr. Sharon's unilateral plan involving two very central and sensitive issues--the disposition of Israeli West Bank settlements and the Palestinian refugees' ``right of return.'' To prematurely make significant determinations in favor of one party--the Israelis--without any input from the other--the Palestinians--is, at the very least, imprudent and prejudicial. In my view, this shift will further complicate, frustrate and forestall final status talks.

As stated in an Israel Policy Forum (IPF) commentary, ``Shutting the Palestinians out also means that they incur no new obligations. At a time when Israel needs Palestinian assistance to end terrorism, they are locked out of the room. At a time when America needs the Islamic world to view the United States as not hopelessly biased against it, the Palestinians are given the back of the hand.''

In the end, to resolve this two-party conflict requires a two-party commitment. I hope that the Israelis and the Palestinians soon will realize that their future and their fortunes are inextricably linked. As the Road Map envisions, both sides ultimately must reconcile differences, make concessions, accept obligations, and take simultaneous steps for progress and peace. In the words of IPF, ``Any successful movement toward an agreement requires Israeli-Palestinian, and not Israeli-U.S., negotiations.'' I agree.

While the evacuation of Gaza could be a first and positive step towards a just and lasting peace, many other steps must follow. But only a negotiated resolution, involving both the Israelis and the Palestinians, will bring about a just and lasting peace. Unilaterally evacuating Gaza alone will neither stabilize the region nor produce an enduring peace. As President George Bush has said--and President Bill Clinton before him--in the past, only a solution that is ``mutually agreeable'' to both sides has a realistic chance of long-term survival and success.

It is because I believe deeply in the role of the U.S. as a genuine partner for both sides in the peace process that I remain committed to the Road Map.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the $25 billion Iraq supplemental title of this bill includes 95 million for relief in Sudan. $25 million for refugees and 70 million for disaster assistance. In 1994, this country, along with the rest of the world, stood and watched as 800,000 men and women and children were slaughtered in Rwanda. Two months ago, the world community marked the 10-year anniversary of a modern-day genocide in Rwanda and said, ``never again.''

In Sudan by conservative estimates at least 10,000 people have been killed in the last year in Darfur, the Western region of Sudan, more than 1 million black Sudanese have been forced from their homes by government-backed militias.

Lack of food and water and the approach of the rainy season will surely wreak havoc on the lives of these people. U.S. AID Administrator Natsios has said that even if relief efforts were accelerated, more than 300,000 forced from their homes would die of starvation and disease. If the Sudanese Government and their militias keep blocking aid, or foreign governments hesitate, Natsios said, the ``death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching 1 million people.''

I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State Judiciary and Related Agencies, for doing so much to bring attention to Sudan. I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full committee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for including this most vital funding.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

It is a critically important start. I hope, Mr. Chairman, in future bills we can discuss including food aid since the 200,000 Sudanese refugees who have fled to Chad and the 1 million internally displaced have missed the planting season this year.

Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I want to work with both of them throughout the process to prevent another Rwanda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Gwendolyn Mastin, founder and CEO/President of the New Phoenix Assistance Center located in the Second Congressional District of Illinois, which I proudly represent. I would like to congratulate Ms. Mastin on being chosen for the 2004 Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership award. She is one of just ten outstanding individuals who have been honored this year by the foundation for innovatively bringing health care to communities whose needs have been ignored and unmet.

Gwendolyn Mastin founded Chicago's first scattered-site housing program for homeless

women infected with HIV or AIDS and their children. Her program also provides housing for homeless pregnant teens and those with children. In addition, Ms. Mastin also developed a pregnancy prevention program that embraces cultural traditions and encourages creation of family support networks. Since its founding in 1991, the program has served more than 5,700 people in the Metropolitan Chicago region.

Presently, Ms. Mastin sits on the Illinois State Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Prevention. On this committee she continues her service to the community by effectively advocating on behalf of much- needed housing programs and supportive services, as well as family reunification programs for homeless minors.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Gwendolyn Mastin for her tremendous contribution to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his kindness of yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, regretfully, I rise to oppose H.R. 4103, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2004. I am deeply concerned by the fact that this bill only deepens the discriminatory U.S. trade policies towards sub-Saharan African nations created by the original 2000 act, Public Law 106-200. It is indefensible, Mr. Speaker, that the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act has been and remains the only U.S. trade program under which countries must be annually certified as meeting an extensive list of unilateral, and, frankly,

counterproductive conditions before being granted benefits.

Other U.S. preferential trade programs with Andean countries, Caribbean and Central American nations contain a more limited set of conditions and nations are considered eligible throughout the term of the program unless action is taken to petition them out. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act sets a double standard for Africa.

Some of the most outrageous conditional adversities of H.R. 4103 include, first, sub-Saharan African countries must pursue policies that are deemed to be in line with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, even if those interests run contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests in the interest of domestic security within their own nations. It does not mean that they are against U.S. national security interests, it simply means they have their own national security interests that must be concerned and paramount for their governments.

Second, a further undermining of sovereignty by insisting on liberalization and privatization policies, such as water privatization. Now, imagine that; the privatization of water in sub-Saharan Africa, where increasingly there are a number of droughts. Who would come up with the idea that privatization policies, such as water privatization, should be a priority in H.R. 4103? But it is in this legislation. The removal of state controls on foreign investments, price controls and subsidies.

Third, the unilateral requirement that U.S. investors doing business in African Growth and Opportunity countries must be granted national investor status.

Fourth, countries must provide full legal protection and enforcement for intellectual property rights, including the private ownership of African seeds and animal genetic materials.

H.R. 4103 ignores the most serious existing problems of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which I opposed in 2000. I might add, Mr. Speaker, I was one of a handful of members of the Congressional Black Caucus that opposed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act for these reasons. I might add that an overwhelming number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and others, are supportive of AGOA.

This bill, however, continues to impose upon African nations a set of policies that have been proven to undermine development, but benefit U.S. multinational corporations and foreign investors, in exchange for meager market access benefits.

This bill in 2000 was sold to the American people as trade, not aid; a helping hand, but not a handout. But by eliminating these conditionalities and the annual review, I am convinced this is the only way to ensure equal treatment for our African trading partners, as we have sought to create equal treatment for Andean, Caribbean and Central American nations as well. Why the double standard for Africa? Why the annual recertification of African partners, if in fact we believe that these African nations are our genuine and honest partners?

If we are to attach any conditions to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act Program, our interests, from my perspective, would far better be served by an insistence on better treatment for factory workers and stronger legal protections for union activities in these countries. If we genuinely expect trade to help lift people out of poverty, we cannot continue to burden these countries with rules and requirements that undermine development and leave workers powerless to fight the exploitation and abuse that is an integral part of the corporate race to the bottom.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully cannot support H.R. 4103.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3113.

Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 2003, we were debating a similar resolution--then to express support for the President and the U.S. military (H. Con. Res. 104). I said on that occasion: ``I want to make it clear that our young men and women, who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq, have my unequivocal support. I will do everything in my power as a member of Congress to see to it that they have everything they need to win this war and return home safe and sound to their families. We can only hope and pray that this war will end quickly, and a minimum number of American, British, and Iraqi civilian and military lives are lost, destroyed or maimed for the rest of their lives.''

Unfortunately, my worst fears have come true. Our troops, and the few other nations whose troops are involved, are not home. Families and many good Americans are volunteering to raise money to buy for our soldiers the kind of protective vests they need to be as safe as possible in the middle of a war. Many Americans and thousands of Iraqi fighters, but mostly innocent Iraqi civilians, have died and been wounded. The wounded will spend a life-time of disability and suffering. They will spend the rest of their lives knowing that they will never be able to accomplish the highest and best of what God had intended for their lives.

I said a year ago, ``While the troops have 100 percent of my support, when appropriate, I will continue to articulate the grave concerns I have about the policies that sent them there.'' Today I am keeping the promise relative to the President's policies in Iraq.

This Congress did not vote to go to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Everybody knew he was a bad guy. There are lots of bad guys in the world, and we are not even trying to remove them. Unfortunately, the fundamental lesson that President Bush has taught our children with his pre-emptive war strategy is that ``the end justifies the means.''

We were told we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Americans would not have supported going to war just because Saddam was a bad guy. One year later, we have found no weapons of mass destruction, and have little evidence that we will ever find them. Why? Because, mostly likely, U.N. inspections had contained his ability to make or use weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush has destroyed the unity, support and moral authority that the world gave to the United States after September 11. The latest evidence of that erosion of support was the Spanish election on March 14.

I said on March 20, 2003, ``There is no convincing evidence that Iraq was involved or connected to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the events of September 11, 2001--despite President Bush's many failed attempts to morph the two, in order to convince the American people that there is such a connection.'' The attempt to weld 9/11, Iraq and the war on terror continues as we speak. The truth is we have virtually abandoned the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The truth is, Al Qaeda was not in Iraq a year ago, but they are today. As a result, the world has not been made safer, as the resolution suggests, but has become more unsafe and unstable.

I said on March 20, 2003, ``Most Americans think that when our young men and women are risking their lives on the battlefield that Democrats, Republicans and Independents in this House would come together in a non-partisan manner to support our troops--because everyone does support them. . . . But the Republican extremists in the House have no shame and no limits. They will politicize the blood of our soldiers if they think they can gain a political advantage. They have never met an issue they were unwilling to `wedge'.'' This resolution is a continuation of that same strategy in an election year.

I said one year ago, ``Many Democrats, myself included, separate support for the troops from support for the President's policy. But the Republicans deliberately joined the two so they could make it a political wedge issue. Therefore, if you vote `for' the resolution it appears that you support the President's policy. But if you vote `against' the resolution, the Republicans intend to paint you as against our troops and unpatriotic in future elections. In other words, the Republicans have deliberately tried to set a `Catch 22' trap.''

Well, I support our troops, but I continue to oppose the President's policy in Iraq. I will

vote ``no'' on this resolution because the world has not been made safer because of the removal of Saddam Hussein. If you doubt me, ask the families of the over 200 people in Spain who lost loved ones in the recent explosions on the train there, and the hundreds who were wounded.

I filed a Federal lawsuit to try to stop the President from going to war in Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress. I believe the President's actions in Iraq were unconstitutional and in violation of international law.

The Bush policy of ignoring the United Nations and the lack of decent respect for the opinion of mankind; the U.S.-led preemptive policy has weakened the United Nations, weakened the structures of ``collective security,'' weakened the rule of international law and has not made the world safer, but more dangerous and unstable.

Again I repeat what I said on March 20, 2003: As the wealthiest and only superpower in the world, the U.S. has the most economic and military interests in the world. The United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law have well-served those U.S. interests. Weakening any of them increases the threat to U.S. interests at home and abroad.

So today, even as I give our young men and women in Iraq my unconditional support, I also renew my dedication to strengthening the United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law. They help guarantee peace and security in the world and, when fully utilized, make it less likely that American service men and women may have to be sent to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country in the future.

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

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's amendment. With 42 public charter schools and 15 public transformation schools, the 70,000 children of the District of Columbia have school choice, with the most extensive set of alternatives to traditional public schools in the country. For this reason the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) simply believes that any additional public funds should be used to enhance and expand these publicly accountable schools.

The central question before us is whether or not we believe, as a Congress, that every child should have access to an equal high-quality education. Who among us does not believe in this? I have introduced House Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional amendment that crystallizes this premise and that ensures that every child in the United States has access to an equal high-quality education, an idea I think and hope all of us will support.

If we believe that every child in America deserves a high-quality public education, then why are we here today considering that only 2,000 of 70,000 children in the District of Columbia public school system should have an equal high-quality education? If we believe that every child should have access to high-quality education, we should support the gentlewoman's amendment. The District of Columbia has serious problems that need real solutions.

Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress responsibility over the District of Columbia. They do not have a State legislature or a governor to which to redress their grievances. That responsibility includes all of the children of the District of Columbia public school system, not just the 2,000 children that the voucher program in this bill addresses.

Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the common defense. Yesterday, we found out that the common defense includes $60 billion for another appropriations supplemental bill which includes building schools in Iraq. If we can find the resources to rebuild schools in Iraq, I know we can find the resources to rebuild the schools for all of the children of the District of Columbia and their public school system.

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that if the proponents of this $10 million set aside for vouchers truly think they will improve the education system in D.C., they would probably also try to fix a broken arm with a Band-Aid. In January 2002, President Bush signed a bill that was supposed to ensure that no child was left behind. If this $10 million is included in this bill, we are ensuring that 68,000 D.C. kids are left behind.

At a time when the No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by close to $9 billion nationwide and is underfunded by $50 million in the District, does it make sense to try to make up this shortfall with only $10 million that will subsidize private schools and not fix some of the core problems plaguing D.C. public schools?

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge and support the gentlewoman's amendment. If the gentlewoman's amendment fails, I urge my colleagues to vote against the passage of the D.C. Appropriations bill. If this Congress genuinely believes that every child deserves the right to a public education of equal high quality, then we should fight for it as a fundamental right for every American. A separate and unequal education system in the District of Columbia and between the States is indeed unacceptable for every American.