Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because the Republicans have sold out to the credit card companies and they are hurting American families.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The Speaker Pro Tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair would remind Members that their statements should be confined to their unanimous consent requests.

Mr. Speaker, the passing of this bill would be a complete detriment to the American people. For many Americans find themselves, usually through no fault of their own, facing bankruptcy. This scenario could happen to almost anyone.

Mr. Speaker, the main reasons Americans file for bankruptcy is not to abuse the system and avoid paying their bills. Americans file for bankruptcy usually due to catastrophic medical expenses, divorce, or the loss of their jobs.

Many important, common-sense amendments on subjects such as alimony, child support, exemptions for medical emergencies, and job loss, underage credit card lending, predatory lending and protection for disabled veterans, just to name a few, were all rejected by the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, amendments should have been made to this bill to carve out exemptions for certain basic needs so Americans can still have some equity or resources should they be forced into bankruptcy.

More specifically, one loophole in the bankruptcy bill leaves the victims of domestic violence and their children left with no resources should they file for bankruptcy. This is so unfair. The bill should have been allowed to be modified to secure better protection for domestic abuse victims by granting them relief from summary eviction from their houses.

Please note, this relief would have only been available if a domestic violence debtor is certified, under penalty of perjury, that the debtor was in fact a victim of domestic abuse and that their physical well- being or the physical well-being of the debtor's child would be threatened if this debtor were evicted.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would have provided a safe harbor for those victims who faced the great threat of more violence and extreme danger if their homes are taken as a result of bankruptcy.

We also tried to do something about this underage credit card lending. It is a travesty. These credit card companies set up on the college campuses. They have vendors from the day these kids walk into college. They send them all of this unsolicited mail, and they telephone them unrelentlessly to get them involved in taking these credit cards.

They do it. They run up the debt. Some of them are now 30, 35 years old, out of college for years, still paying on these credit cards because they allowed their minimum payments that do not even take into account all of the interest on the debt.

It is outright unreasonable that we did not have an amendment allowed by my friends on the opposite side of the aisle to try and protect families and future young families from this kind of exploitation.

Also, I want to point out that the means test includes disaster assistance and veterans benefits. This is a rip-off.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional Black Caucus's budget that is being presented here today. This budget is more responsible certainly than the President's budget, certainly than the Republican budget, and it has taken into consideration the real needs of the people of this country. I want to talk a little bit about CDBG; that is, the Community Development Block grant.

By formula, every city, town, State in America receives funds from this Community Development Block Grant program. This money is block granted to these entities in order to assist these cities with everything from infrastructure development, assistance with housing so that people can get into homes, being assisted with down payments, with rental assistance; with 501(c)(3)s, nonprofit organizations, that are providing services for at-risk youth, for seniors, for the kinds of programs that these cities and towns could never fund without this block grant.

In many ways this money that is going to the cities is the last of the moneys to deal with poverty, to deal with the lack of resources because of the inability of these cities and towns to be able to raise the kind of revenue that could help them with the very basic needs of their cities.

This President decided to cut this particular block grant by 35 percent. I think that amounts to about $1.9 billion. The good thing about what this President has done is he has brought together from both sides of the aisle Representatives who know the value of this program and who are going to work together and support the kind of funding that has been put back into this budget by the CBC budget. The CBC funds CDBG to the 2005 level, and that is the way it should be.

I would urge support for the Congressional Black Caucus's very thoughtful and well developed budget.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the CBC substitute budget. The CBC budget rejects the failed budget policies of the Bush Administration and would return us to a policy of investing in education, job training, housing, veterans and community development programs that millions of people depend on. It would reduce the deficit and restore fiscal responsibility to a budget process that has run amuck.

Mr. Chairman, because the CBC believes that education is the greatest legacy that we can provide to our children, the CBC's budget fully funds No Child Left Behind. We also provide an additional $2.5 billion for school construction and an additional $450 million for Pell Grants which will help thousands more students attend college. We also increase funding for Head Start by $2 billion over the Republican budget so that we can ensure that more low-income children are properly prepared to enter the first grade.

The CBC budget substitute recognizes the vital role that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program plays in improving our communities. The Republican budget proposes to cut CDBG by at least $800 million and the cuts could end up as high as the $1.9 billion cut proposed by the President. These cuts to the CDBG program will leave a huge hole in the budgets of our local governments, a hole they cannot and will not be able to fill with their own resources.

The CBC budget substitute rejects these cuts, and instead provides an increase of $1.2 billion more than the Republican budget for CDBG.

We also reject the $286 million in cuts proposed for the Hope VI program and instead provide $500 million for Hope VI so that it may continue its important role in rehabilitating our nation's public housing. The CBC budget also provides an additional $880 million for Section 8 Housing Programs, preserving and expanding this vital safety net program for millions of people.

Mr. Chairman, the CBC substitute is a strong and compassionate budget that meets the needs of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support it and to reject the Republican budget.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the shameful Republican budget. Yet again the Republican leadership neglects the needs of low and middle income families in order to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. We should not be supporting this unfair budget that leaves people without adequate housing, without opportunities for a decent education or job training, and which passes billions of dollars of debt to our children.

I am especially concerned about the Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant is something that should have the support of both Democrats and Republicans. This Community Development Block Grant is the only source of funds that some of our small towns and cities have to deal with housing, to deal with programs for senior citizens, at-risk youth or to deal with the infrastructure. Many of the small cities just do not have the money to deal with some of the problems of the sewer systems and roads and other kinds of things. But with the Community Development Block Grant, they have the flexibility. This is a very, very respected program. They have the kind of extensive community planning that brings in all of the community groups and organizations, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, and they actually go through all of the programs and they decide which of these programs will be funded. To talk about cutting this is very, very cruel. I have received just hundreds of calls from mayors and city council members who say, ``Please, whatever you do, don't cut CDBG.''

Since the President initially proposed consolidating CDBG and other development programs into one grant program, not only have I received all of these letters from members of city councils and mayors, they have basically said without this program, many of their cities will simply collapse.

In addition to these cuts, the President has already proposed to cut public housing by 10 percent, section 811 disabled housing by 50 percent, housing opportunities for persons with AIDS by 14 percent, and other HUD programs. Yet the Republican budget resolution proposed to make even more draconian cuts to this function. We simply cannot afford to do that.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican budget and to support a budget that invests in the future of our country. This is shameful and unconscionable that they can even bring this budget to the floor. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget and an ``aye'' vote on the Democratic budget.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for allowing me a moment to speak on this issue.

This is very, very important. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that former Minority Leader Gephardt appointed me to chair a special committee on election reform of the Democratic Caucus. And I have traveled to at least four States talking to people about what had gone wrong in the elections in the 2000 elections.

One of the things that we concentrated on was provisional ballots. And we wrote into the Help America Vote Act that if you went to a polling place and they said your name was not there, that you are to be given a provisional ballot no matter where you went. Little did I know that something had happened in the Help America Vote Act, perhaps, that allowed Ken Blackwell in Ohio to have a different law from everybody else on provisional ballots. And so thousands of people went to polling places and were told they could not vote because they were in the wrong precinct. That is not what we wrote into the law. So we had thousands of ballots that were not counted in Ohio because Mr. Ken Blackwell described his law a lot differently than we had framed the law in the Help America Vote Act.

That is the one place perhaps in America with a law on provisional balloting that does not allow someone who swears that they are registered to vote to be able to vote.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to share this information at this important time.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this week, our government was a party to a coup d'etat in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere's poorest country. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically-elected President of Haiti, was forced to leave Haiti in a regime change supported by the United States. President Aristide left the country on February 29, 2004, on board a U.S. airplane when U.S. Marines and Embassy officials came to his home in the wee hours of the morning and told him to leave immediately or he and thousands of other Haitians would be killed.

One year later, the tragic results of regime change in Haiti are clear. Haiti is in total chaos. The interim government, which was put in power by the United States and has received unprecedented support from our government, is a complete failure. Violence is widespread, and security is non-existent. Schools are shut down; hospitals are not operating; and roads and infrastructure are in disrepair. Dead bodies are found lying in the streets.

Heavily-armed gangs roam Haiti freely. Many of these gangs consist of former soldiers from the brutal Haitian army, which was disbanded 10 years ago. Residents of poor neighborhoods and members of Lavalas, President Aristide's political party, are murdered without any legal consequences. Members of Haiti's wealthy elite, including American citizen Andy Apaid, are widely suspected of financing the former soldiers and paying gangs to kill Lavalas supporters. In some neighborhoods, Lavalas supporters have taken up arms and begun to fight back against this oppression. So the violence is escalating in Haiti, and no one is safe.

The interim government has been unable to enforce the rule of law, disarm the gangs, or restore the government's authority in the cities controlled by former soldiers. When Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue set a deadline of September 15 of last year for all groups holding illegal weapons to disarm, the deadline came and went, but nothing happened.

After the interim government failed to disarm the former soldiers, it resorted to bribing them. According to press reports in January, the interim government agreed to provide payments over a 3-month-period to all of the estimated 6,000 former members of the Haitian army. The payments will average about $4,800 per person--in a country where most people live on less than a dollar a day. The cost of these payments was estimated to be $29 million. The interim government never explained where the funds for these payments would be obtained, but Interim Prime Minister Latortue

has already distributed checks to dozens of armed individuals who claim to be former soldiers and who still refuse to turn in their weapons. Is this the conduct of a government that wants to disarm the thugs, or a government that supports them?

Human rights violations are commonplace throughout Haiti. Amnesty International has expressed serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment in detention centers, and summary executions attributed to members of the Haitian National Police. Several members of President Aristide's government and prominent supporters of Lavalas have been detained illegally, including former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, former Interior Minister Jocelerme Privert, and Haitian singer Anne Auguste. As of February 18, there were over 700 political prisoners in Haiti's jails. Most of these prisoners have been held illegally for months without formal charges.

The incompetence of the interim government has manifested itself in other ways as well. Haiti's government was the only government in the path of Hurricane Jeanne that did not warn or evacuate its citizens when the storm came racing through the Caribbean last September. Jeanne pummeled the United States, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Barbados as a full-blown hurricane, and killed 34 people in all of those countries combined. She was only a tropical storm when she hit Haiti, but she killed over 3,000 Haitians and left thousands more hungry and homeless, because the interim government was unprepared to protect the Haitian people.

The Provisional Electoral Council, which is responsible for organizing elections, has been discredited by corruption. Roselor Julien, the former president of the Council, resigned last November, warning that other panel members were trying to rig the ballot and the council was not capable of ensuring the elections would be free and fair. The council also does not include any representatives of Lavalas, which continues to enjoy widespread support among the Haitian people despite the imprisonment of its leaders. It is abundantly clear that the council is incapable of organizing free and fair elections. If the current council does manage to organize elections, only the winners will accept the result.

The people of Haiti have suffered tremendously over the past year. They deserve better. They deserve to live in peace and security. They deserve to be warned when hurricanes are headed for their homes. They deserve to know that they can walk to work or buy groceries without having gangs kill them for the food they carry. And they deserve free, fair and democratic elections in which all political parties can participate.

When President Aristide was forced to leave Haiti a year ago, he was told that if he refused to leave, thousands of Haitians would die. Yet, in the 12 months that followed his departure, thousands of Haitians have died, and as long as the interim government continues to fail, there will be no end to the suffering and violence facing the Haitian people.

It is time for the United States Government to accept the fact that regime change has failed in Haiti. The United States must ensure that Haiti disarms the thugs, immediately frees political prisoners, and organizes free and fair elections in order to restore security and democracy to the Haitian people. The United States must also provide the necessary assistance to enable Haiti to reopen schools and hospitals and rebuild Haiti's infrastructure. It is time for the United States to clean up its mess.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for introducing this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, as the country celebrates Black History Month, it is important to take time to honor the Tuskegee Airmen who, despite significant racism targeted at African Americans, strove to serve their country and defend its freedoms during World War II.

The story of the Tuskegee Airmen is familiar to many of us. On July 19, 1941, the U.S. Air Force began a program at the Tuskegee Army Airfield located in Alabama to train black Americans as military pilots. The program started with only 13 men; but by its conclusion, it graduated nearly 1,000 men who became the Nation's first black airmen.

Many of the graduates of the Tuskegee program were sent overseas for combat assignment, either in the 99th Pursuit Squadron or the 332nd Fighter Group, both of which were honored for their service. In fact, the 99th Fighter Squadron received two Presidential Unit citations for outstanding tactical air support in aerial combat, and the 332nd Fighter Group received one Presidential Unit citation for its longest bomber escort mission to Berlin, Germany, where they destroyed three German jet fighters and damaged five additional jet fighters without losing any of the bombers or any of its own fighter aircraft to enemy aircraft.

Unfortunately, despite their outstanding service, the Tuskegee Airmen experienced a great deal of racism. The racism directed at the airmen came to a head in early 1945 when black officers tried to enter the Freeman Field Club, an officers' club in Indiana, against direct orders for them to stay out. Madam Speaker, 103 officers were arrested, charged with insubordination, and ordered to face court-martial.

Fortunately, the court-martial proceedings were quickly dropped against 100 of the officers; two officers eventually had their charges dropped; and one officer, Lieutenant Roger ``Bill'' Terry, was convicted.

At this moment I would like to recognize my uncle, John Mosely, who was a Tuskegee Airman and who was recently honored by his community of Aurora, Colorado. He is one of the leading citizens of that community, having worked for the Urban League and many other programs. I dedicate this resolution to him and his wife, Edna Mosely.

Fifty years later, however, at the Tuskegee Airmen National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, 15 of the original 103 officers that were arrested received official notification that their military records had been purged of any reference to the Freeman Field incident. Also, Mr. Terry's court martial conviction had been reversed and his military record cleared. The remaining officers received instruction for clearing their records.

Madam Speaker, the legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen is not the Freeman Field incident; instead their legacy is that of serving their country with distinction which helped the U.S. Armed Forces and the United States integrate in the years following World War II.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to accept the fact that Ossie Davis has passed. I am deeply saddened by his departure, and I will truly miss him. I loved Ossie Davis and I love Ruby Dee, his wife of over 50 years. They are my friends, and whenever I had the opportunity to be with them, I chose to spend my time that way.

His death is an incalculable loss to the world of arts and entertainment, but more importantly, to the legions who for more than 60 years were inspired by his intense commitment to social justice and improving life for African Americans.

Ossie and Ruby were pioneers who opened many a door previously shut tight to African American artists and planted the seed for the success that artists of color enjoy today. A towering figure as a playwright, screenwriter, director and producer and actor, Ossie Davis's career spans more than half a century, and his enormous body of work includes award-winning performances on stage, television, and more than 50 motion pictures.

Many times he put his career on the line and took the heat for supporting our campaigns and events. He and Ruby sued in Federal court for black voting rights and risked their careers revisiting McCarthyism. Yet because Ossie was a man of integrity and conscious, the labels did not stick and attempts to discredit him all failed.

In 1982, Ossie Davis joined the Congressional Black Caucus and other groups from the black leadership community to develop ``the Plan,'' which still guides us today in the work that we must do in order to reach racial and economic equality.

At the time, Ossie said when he was developing the plan, ``Give us a plan of action, a 10 black commandments, simple, strong, that we can carry in our hearts and in our memories no matter where we are and reach out and touch and feel the reassurance that there is behind everything we do; a simple, moral, intelligent plan that must be fulfilled in the course of time, even if all of our leaders, one by one, fall in battle.''

I am going to miss him.

Mr. Speaker, these are wise words from a truly remarkable man.

I never thought of Ossie as 87 years old, Mr. Speaker. The fact that young artists continued to seek his advice and counsel until his final days is proof that he remained young in spirit. I will dearly miss my friend Ossie Davis. My thoughts and prayers are with Ruby Dee and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman, my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President released his budget blueprint for the 2006 fiscal year. While many of us are still reviewing the document, one thing is evident. The President proposes Draconian cuts to scores of programs which millions of people depend on in order to protect the tax cuts which only benefit a few Americans.

The President's $2.57 trillion budget calls for freezing or cutting the funding for nearly every domestic discretionary program except defense and homeland security in the hopes of reducing the budget deficit. However, this budget does virtually nothing to reduce the deficit this year or any other year. In fact, the President's budget is calling for a deficit of $427 billion in 2005, a record high, and $390 billion in 2006. And since the President fails to include the cost of many of his top priorities in this budget, which will cost at least $2 trillion, the deficit will likely be either larger this year, next year and for many of the following years.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the House Committee on Financial Services, I am extremely alarmed about the President's decision to transfer community development programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, that is HUD, to the Department of Commerce.

Under the President's misguided plan, nearly all of the programs that comprise the Community Development Fund, including the Community Development Block Grant, will be moved out of the HUD program and combined with 17 other programs in the Commerce Department.

Brownfields, section 108 loan guarantees, and the Renewal Communities/Empowerment Zone Program are all slated to move to Commerce.

Once these programs are relocated to the Commerce Department, the President proposes to fund the 18 combined

programs at 35 percent less than they are receiving now. This will be devastating to my home city of Los Angeles and many other urban and rural areas which depend on Community Development Fund programs to improve their communities.

Mr. Speaker, cities, States, and community-based organizations throughout the country depend on Community Development Block Grant funds because they are extremely flexible. In fact, Community Development Block Grant funds can be used for housing rehabilitation; new housing construction; down payment assistance and other help for first-time home buyers; lead-based paint detection and removal; the purchase of land and buildings; the construction or rehabilitation of public facilities such as shelters for people experiencing homelessness or victims of domestic violence; making buildings accessible to the elderly and disabled; ``public services'' such as job training, transportation, health care, and child care, public services are capped at 15 percent of a jurisdiction's CDBG funds; capacity building for nonprofits; rehabilitating commercial or industrial buildings; and loans or grant to businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the Commerce Department has no experience in community development programs, and it is likely that programs like the Community Development Block Grant with targeting provisions to focus on people with low and moderate incomes would receive far less consideration from the Commerce Department than other parts of the consolidated program. Thus, while the overall cut in community development funds is about 35 percent, the cuts to the Community Development Block Grant would be even larger.

The public may not know or understand the details of how the Community Development Block Grant funds are allocated to local community, but every mayor, every county official, every community development professional knows the indispensable role of Community Development Block Grant funds in funding housing, neighborhood improvements, and public services.

The proposed cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program will leave a huge hole in the budgets of our local governments, a hole they cannot and will not be able to fill with their own resources.

The net effect of cuts to the Community Development Block Grant program will be a huge decrease in housing and economic revitalization at the local level. When the public sees the programs and services that will have to be eliminated if these cuts are enacted, they will be outraged, as they should be.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot shoehorn $5.6 billion in programs into a $3.71 billion program without many people being hurt. Unfortunately, as is usually the case with this administration, it is low- and moderate- income Americans who will suffer.

These cuts would devastate local efforts in my city, in my county and in local communities throughout America to provide housing, neighborhood improvements and public services to youth, the disabled, battered and abused spouses and the elderly.

These proposals are designed to decimate the CDBG program, to end it as we know it, not to improve the program. They must be resisted.

May I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, it is outrageous that this so- called conservative President has been spending like a drunken sailor, and he has created this situation that we are in with this huge deficit; and now, after having given cuts to the richest 1 percent in America, he would try to fool the American people by saying he is going to cut back on programs or services that are not needed. It is shameful and it is unconscionable that he would balance the budget on the backs of the most needy, on the backs of working families who are trying to get along.

This country must be organized to deal with this issue, and I intend to be very active in the effort to educate the public about what this President is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 120 which names the post office in Temecula, California, after Dalip Singh Saund.

H.R. 120 was introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) on January 4, 2005. Former Congressman Dalip Singh Saund, the first Asian American elected to Congress, was born in India. He came to the United States to enroll in the University of California at Berkley and study agriculture. Instead, he ended up with a PhD in mathematics. Unfortunately, degrees in mathematics were not sufficient to overcome the rampant discrimination facing Indians and other minorities.

In the 1920s, Indian Americans were not eligible for U.S. citizenship and could not own land. So Saund worked as a lettuce foreman, eventually rising to be a distributor of chemical fertilizer in the Imperial Valley in California.

Saund married a Czech immigrant and became very active in the Indian- American community, championing the rights of Asian Indians both in the United States and abroad. He became a popular speaker and authored a book entitled ``My Mother India'' as a way to present Indian people in a positive light.

Saund went on to fight against discrimination, eventually securing the passage of legislation which made Asian Indians eligible for citizenship.

As a result of his success, Saund became active in the Democratic Party. He ran to represent California's 29th Congressional District. He won and served in the Congress from 1957 until 1962 when he lost his re-election bid after suffering a stroke. Dalip Singh Saund died in 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for seeking to honor the legacy of former Congressman Saund, and I urge the swift adoption of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the California delegation and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) in particular, and all of my other colleagues for cosponsoring H.R. 289. I would also like to thank the House leadership for allowing H.R. 289 to come to the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honored to offer this bill, which would rename a post office in California's 35th Congressional District after Sergeant John Marshall, who died at the age of 50 on April 8, 2003, during combat operations while fighting with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the United States Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. This legislation is just a small way to recognize and pay tribute to one of our fallen heroes.

Mr. Speaker, whatever our views are of our policy in Iraq, it is always important for all of us to honor and show our respect for those in our military who are serving us so bravely and with such distinction in Iraq and all around the world.

John Marshall spent much of his childhood in Los Angeles, graduating from George Washington High School. At the age of 18, Sergeant Marshall signed up for duty with the United States Army and served for nearly 30 years, taking a leave of absence only after he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. He was a dedicated career member of our military, a shining example of all that is best about our country.

Sergeant Marshall died when a rocket-propelled grenade hit his vehicle as his combat team fought its way to Baghdad. The brigade was eventually the first U.S. military unit to enter the Iraqi capital and hold the city center. But reaching Baghdad came at a significant loss to the unit: eight soldiers, including Sergeant Marshall, died. At the time of his death, Sergeant Marshall was the oldest service member to die in the Iraq war.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Marshall was eligible for retirement in 2002, and many of his friends had urged him to do so. Yet, true to his character, Sergeant Marshall's sense of duty to his country and his loyalty to his soldiers caused him to continue his military service in Iraq. In explaining to his wife his decision to continue serving in Iraq, Sergeant Marshall said, and I quote, ``I trained these guys. I really need to be there.'' What a wonderful example of selflessness he established for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Marshall leaves behind a wife, Denise, six children, both of his parents, eight brothers and sisters, and many friends and neighbors whom he touched throughout his life. I had the privilege of meeting Mrs. Marshall at Sergeant Marshall's memorial service in Los Angeles; and while I know that nothing we can do here today can fill the hole that was created with Sergeant Marshall's passing or remove the pain of the loss that the Marshall family and friends have suffered, it is vital we honor his sacrifice and service.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Marshall fought bravely on behalf of our Nation, and the renaming of this post office is just a small gesture of thanks from a grateful Nation. The Sergeant John Marshall Post Office will be a source of great pride to the community and the residents of the 35th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, our country will remain strong and free because our military is able to attract and retain the services of people of the quality and character of Sergeant Marshall. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Marshall family on the loss of this great and good man, and I would urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for organizing this Special Order. This is very important. I am here tonight, but I intend to make many, many speeches over the next few weeks about this important issue.

Social Security is a vital program which provides an important safety net for our seniors. Nearly 30 million seniors receive a benefit under the program, and Social Security is essential for keeping millions out of poverty. Social Security is also vitally important to millions of Americans who depend on Social Security survivor and disability benefits.

When we include these individuals, the total number of people who depend on Social Security in order to live at a decent standard climbs to nearly 48 million Americans. If we privatize Social Security, as the President suggests, millions of individuals will be thrown into poverty. We simply cannot let this happen. We must strengthen Social Security, not gamble with it, not destroy it. Privatization is simply rolling the dice, gambling with a program that has proven to be consistently solid, that we can depend on.

In my home State of California, without Social Security, 49 percent of elderly women would be poor. Privatization would do nothing to decrease the number of Californians in poverty. In fact, the number of California women living in poverty would increase if we were to privatize Social Security.

Under current law, the typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in California receives $892 per month. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under plan 2, this is a plan, one of the President's plans, under plan 2 of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, today's kindergartners are projected to receive 45 percent less than they were promised under current law, even when the proceeds from their private accounts are included in the total. Therefore, if plan 2, the President's plan, were put into law, the typical California widow would receive only $490 a month, a dramatic cut in benefits that would force many into poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the administration argues that privatizing Social Security would be good for African Americans and other minorities because we have a shorter life span than white Americans. I am really insulted by this administration playing the race card on Social Security. I think they should stop doing it. Not only is it insulting, it is just not true. To quote White House press secretary Scott McClellan, privatization ``will enable us to be able to pass on those savings to our heirs if they happen to pass away early. African American males have a shorter life span than other sectors of America.''

What I dislike about this race card that the President and his representatives are playing with African Americans is this: They have to factor in that the health disparities that we are confronted with are going to continue. As a matter of fact, not only do they factor it in, they plan on it continuing. We are after the President and this administration to help us do away with health disparities, not to accept them and to factor them into their planning in ways that say to us oh, we know you are going to die early, we will factor this in, we will privatize Social Security and you can save some money and you can pass it on to your heirs. I wish they would stop it and stop it now because we are not going to stand for it.

Again, while it is true that African Americans have a shorter life span, it is because of health disparities which cause many young blacks to die early. Privatization will do nothing to help African Americans live longer or better lives than we do under the current system.

The Social Security Administration's actuaries, as well as studies conducted by AARP, clearly show that African Americans, minorities, and other low-wage earners do much better under the Social Security system than they would under other retirement plans because of the progressive structure of Social Security. Social Security is structured so that the lowest-income earners, which are often African Americans, receive the highest retirement benefits.

If we take away this aspect of Social Security, millions of African Americans would slip into poverty. If the President is really concerned about the black community and ensuring that we receive full retirement benefits, I would urge him to join with me and others in working to eliminate these health disparities that cause so many African Americans to die prematurely.

Mr. Speaker, this is the debate we should be having, not how to privatize Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, the President consistently tells the American people that Social Security is in a crisis and that the system is going to be bankrupt in 50 years, but these statements are just plain wrong. We can strengthen Social Security so it can meet its obligations, but we can strengthen it through simple and modest changes.

Mr. Speaker, privatization will not strengthen it. It will only break it. We should not expect our parents and grandparents to gamble their retirement savings on the whims of the stock market.

I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to privatize Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to one of the giants of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bob Matsui. Mr. Speaker, I can not tell you how shocked and saddened I was when I heard the news of Congressman's Matsui's passing. The constituents of the 5th Congressional District of California, the Democratic Party and our nation have suffered an enormous loss.

I had the honor and privilege of serving with Congressman Matsui since I was elected to Congress in 1990. I was always impressed with Bob's knowledge, dedication and concern about the issues that he held close: healthcare for those who need it--especially for children, tax policy, fiscal responsibility and trade; as well as the issues that were important to his District: flood control, transportation, housing, and environmental preservation. His knowledge and passion on these and many other issues will be missed dearly.

Even on the rare occasion when we differed on an issue, such as trade, Congressman Matsui presented his positions fairly and without rancor. He approached issues with an open mind and demonstrated a great ability to reach across the aisle. He had opponents, but no enemies.

Congressman Matsui served the people of Sacramento for 26 years. While Bob Matsui was a valued member of the Democratic Party, he never forgot that his primary responsibility was to all of the people of California's 5th Congressional District, regardless of party affiliation. Bob always did what he thought was best for his constituents and for the country. He worked tirelessly for them in Congress and they have lost a valuable advocate.

Bob Matsui had the respect and confidence of his peers. Time and again, Democrats elected him to leadership posts and he used these positions to be a capable and articulate spokesman for the Democratic Party. There is perhaps no other issue in which Congressman Matsui proved to be more valuable--or will be missed more--than Social Security. His knowledge was second to none and as Congress debates the future of this vital program, we will miss his wise counsel about the importance of preserving Social Security as we know it for future generations.

Congressman Matsui's experiences as a Japanese-American who was detained in an internment camp during World War II gave him a special sensitivity to the importance of preserving civil rights and civil liberties. His legislative work securing relief for those who were wrongfully held during World War II was a historic achievement and a fitting tribute to this great and good man.

Over the past several days, we have heard dozens of tributes honoring Congressman Matsui. The words that were most often used in these accolades to describe Bob Matsui were ``integrity,'' ``dignity'' and ``ability.'' For those that knew him, these words were only part of what made Bob Matsui a terrific person, a dear friend and valuable Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to think that public service was not Bob Matsui's first passion; architecture was. We are tremendously fortunate that Congressman Matsui happened to read the biography of Clarence Darrow, which he always credited for inspiring him to enter law and eventually politics. California and, indeed the nation, has benefited from Congressman Matsui's service and we thank him and his family for sharing him with us.

Congressman Matsui will be sorely missed. My prayers are with his wife Doris, his son, Brian, his daughter-in-law, Amy and granddaughter Anna, and his many friends and family. God bless you, Congressman Matsui. We will never forget you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to request permission to address the House.

Mr. Speaker, I dedicate my objection to Ohio's electoral votes to Mr. Mike Moore, the producer of the documentary Fahrenheit 9/ 11, and I thank him for educating the world on the threats to our democracy and the proceedings of this House on the acceptance of the Electoral College votes for the 2000 Presidential election.

The Democratic Judiciary Committee Staff Report clearly establishes that the State of Ohio has not met its obligation to conduct a fair election. Ohio's partisan Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Blackwell, I am ashamed to say an African American man has failed to follow even Ohio's election procedures, let alone procedures that comply with Federal law and constitutional requirements. Our ancestors who died for the right to vote certainly must be turning over in their graves.

Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Ohio where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) convened hearings, and I listened to citizen after citizen describe the Ohio election debacle. When there is a shortage of voting machines that leads to lines of up to 10 hours to cast a vote in precincts that are predominant minority and Democratic voters, forcing countless prospective voters to leave without voting, and where a number of Democratic precincts had fewer machines than were used in the primary election, despite the certainty of a much higher turnout in the hotly contested general election for President, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election.

When Mr. Blackwell arbitrarily and unreasonably refused to provide provisional ballots to voters who were in the right county but the wrong precinct, or to voters who requested but did not receive an absentee ballot in a timely manner, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. When a county in Ohio shows more votes cast than registered voters, or when another Ohio county shows an underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate getting substantially more votes than the well-funded campaign of Senator Kerry, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election.

When Secretary of State Blackwell refused to recognize thousands of new voter applications because they are not on postcard-weight paper, it is clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election. And where Secretary Blackwell, in violation of his statutory duty to investigate election irregularities, refused to investigate or remedy any of the hundreds of cases of voter intimidations reported to him, it is more than clear that Ohio has failed to run a fair election.

Mr. Speaker, we are now over 4 years beyond the nightmare of Florida in the 2000 election. I chaired the Democratic Caucus Election Reform Committee. We traveled all over this country. We held hearings. I worked with Members of this House to pass HAVA, Help America Vote Act. Yet, is there anyone who can say we have a fair election system or this is the best we can do?

The 2004 election in Ohio and elsewhere revealed that enormous problems remain in our election systems and HAVA simply does not address those problems. It is stunning to me that in the 21st century we continue to use horse-and-buggy procedures to conduct our elections. It is amazing but true that in many jurisdictions we use more sophisticated technology to run the daily lottery than we devote to our election system. Incredibly even in those few jurisdictions that have moved to electronic voting to avoid the problem of chads and punch cards, we do not require a verifiable paper trail to protect against vote tampering. If an ATM machine can give each user a receipt that that user can reply upon, then a voting machine should also be able to give a receipt.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is not whether the problems in the Ohio election were outcome determinative, although they could have been, it is whether the State has met its obligation to provide every voter with an equal opportunity to vote and have his vote counted. We must not allow these egregious violations to be trivialized. There is no constitutionally acceptable level of inequality in access to voting in Federal elections.

Mr. Speaker, there is no conceivable justification for disqualifying a vote for President or Senator on the count that a legally qualified voter shows up to cast his vote in the right State but the wrong precinct. Why could we not count that voter's ballot? The voter's intent is clear. There is no question as to the voter's right to vote for the President of the United States or Senator. We can ensure that the voter does not cast a provisional ballot in more than one location.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues today in support of veterans. On Veterans Day, I visited a program in my district known as U.S. Vets. This is a program that houses veterans in transition. They really work with the homeless. They have a huge residential complex, and the veterans are able to stay at this complex while they get job training leading to a job. In addition to that, they have a central facility there where they prepare meals for the veterans. They also have a wonderful computer room where veterans are learning computer skills.

And while I was very pleased to be there on Veterans Day with them, I was reminded of all those things we need to do for veterans that should have been done a long time ago. This bill goes a long way to attending to some of those things that we should have done.

For example, surviving spouses can now get $250 in dependency and indemnity compensation. Veterans who were exposed to radiation can now be eligible for VA compensation. We increase the educational assistance by 10 percent, allowing veterans to pursue a full-time apprenticeship program, or on-the-job training. There are other benefits in this bill.

We can all be proud on both sides of the aisle that we are finally paying attention in a real way. I know that there has been a lot of debate about the cost of some of the things we would like to do, but I do not think at a time in particular where we are at war and where veterans are coming back with the loss of a limb, with health impairments and other kinds of deficiencies that they are now confronted with that we can talk about not being able to afford to pay in order to make their lives comfortable when they return from war.

So I am very pleased, and I wish to commend all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for pursuing this bill that will help our veterans.