Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect for and in support of this resolution. Habitat for Humanity is a wonderful organization, with 1,655 affiliates in all 50 States. Habitat for Humanity has built nearly 150,000 houses worldwide, and it has an ambitious goal of building another 50,000 homes by 2005. So I certainly support their efforts, and I am pleased the House and Senate staff and Members will join Habitat for Humanity in building a couple of homes right here in Washington, D.C.

Yet, even as I congratulate Habitat for Humanity for all of its work, I believe that all of us need to take a broader look at the issues of affordable housing and housing policy generally. We are falling very short of where we need to be in order to make the goal of affordable housing a goal that is obtainable for all Americans. Much more work needs to be done.

The unfortunate reality is that the Bush administration's homeownership record is one of feel-good rhetoric and photo opportunities, not one of substance. When it comes to creating affordable housing and helping to revitalize sustainable community development, the Bush administration is simply missing in action. Only 47.1 percent of African American and Latino communities respectively are homeowners.

Where is the administration's plan to improve percentages to those of other populations?

We need to put a stop to predatory lending to vulnerable consumers. Where is the administration's plan to eliminate predatory lending to consumers who are new to the homeownership process? As Members know, predatory lending is the making of unethical and abusive mortgage loans that include excessive fees, inflated rates and such practices as making loans that the borrower cannot repay. The predatory lending industry has grown significantly over the past 10 years.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect homeowners who are subject to predatory practices. Predatory lending affects borrowers of all races and income levels, but such lenders often target elderly homeowners and people of color. For example, borrowers 65 and older are 3 times more likely to hold subprime mortgages than borrowers 35 years of age. Simply put, when it comes to housing, there is much more we need to be doing than just commending Habitat for Humanity for building some housing. For example, we need to adopt legislation that ensures that consumers will pay no penalties when prepaying all or part of a mortgage credit loan balance. We should be working to ensure that there is no financing of credit, life, disability or unemployment insurance on a single premium basis. We also need to protect anyone from knowingly engaging in the practice of flipping a mortgage loan or extension of credit.

We also need policies and practices that will nullify any mortgage or loan contract that does not contain all the written terms of the contract or has blank spaces for such terms to be filled in after the contract is signed.

Mr. Speaker, increasing the supply of affordable housing, protecting consumers from predatory lending and predatory mortgage servicing. This is the housing agenda we need to be pursuing. I urge the Bush administration to join us in this effort.

I commend Habitat for Humanity for its tremendous work and urge all my Colleagues to support this Resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The so-called Class Action Fairness Act has nothing to do with fairness. This corporate defendants' ``Choice of Forum Act'' is a one- sided, unfair gift to the polluters, the Enrons, and the pharmaceutical companies that will hurt consumers by delaying their access to justice. It will indefinitely delay hearings for people who may be victims of defective products, fraud, discrimination, and environmental pollution.

Mr. Chairman, this class action bill was a terrible bill when the House passed it in the last Congress; and fortunately, that bill died in the other body. Incredibly, H.R. 1115, this year's iteration of the bill, is even worse, as it now contains retroactivity language that will allow some of the worst corporate wrongdoers, companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen, to remove cases filed against them in State court to the Federal courts where their attorneys can use the huge civil case backlogs in our Federal court system to just ``slow-walk'' the victims of their misconduct.

The bill provides an automatic right of an interlocutory appeal of a class action certification, slow walk, and a stay on all discovery while the class certification appeal is pending. Slow walk.

This unwise, ill-conceived intrusion on the jurisdiction of the State courts will destroy access to justice while overwhelmingly increasing the burdens on our Federal courts. That is why this bill is opposed by the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Conference of Chief Justices.

It is also strenuously opposed by every Democratic member of the caucus who has served as a trial judge at either the State or Federal level. It is even opposed by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Finally, the bill will destroy the efficacy of private attorney general actions that consumers may now bring in the State of California to combat corporate fraud and wrongdoing. No one is better situated than the people of California to protect their rights as consumers under California law. That is why we should not support any bill that would allow corporate defendants to remove these cases to Federal court where they can avoid having to answer

to those State court judges with real expertise and the greatest knowledge of California law.

I strongly support the amendment that the gentlewomen from California (Ms. Lofgren) and (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) will offer to strike the language permitting California private attorney general actions to be removed to Federal court. Mr. Chairman, this bill will injure consumers and assist those corporate defendants who simply want to game the system.

We can protect consumers from any perceived abuses in coupon settlements without adopting this assault on consumer access to full, fair, and timely justice. I urge my colleagues to reject this latest Republican miscarriage of justice. I urge my colleagues, just simply oppose this bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, which does not allow consideration of several Democratic amendments. I submitted two amendments regarding Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), which is in my district, and neither was made in order.

The operator of LAX is proposing a major expansion project that would include the construction of a remote passenger check-in facility that would force all passengers to check-in and leave their baggage in the same location. This project could cost an estimated $9 to $10 billion. Supporters of this controversial project claim that it is necessary to protect public safety. Yet a RAND Corporation study concluded that this project will not improve public safety and could increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack by concentrating large number of people at the check-in facility.

I submitted an amendment to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to review the proposed remote passenger check-in facility and determine whether it would, in fact, protect public safety. My amendment would have prohibited the construction of this project unless the Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that it would protect the safety of air passengers and the general public. I also submitted an amendment to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted on dubious LAX expansion projects like this one.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and allow me to offer my amendments to protect the American people from both threats to public safety and unnecessary and expansion airport construction projects.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a most important successful program that young children have been able to participate in from very needy communities for a long time now. But first I would like to thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Head Start programs, and I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose the radical changes that are being proposed by the Bush administration.

I have taken time out this evening to be here with whatever colleagues will join me to talk about this program because it is a program that I love. I love the Head Start program. I love this program because I got involved with the Head Start program early on. I got involved at the inception of the Head Start program under the war on poverty. The country was very excited about the fact that under the war on poverty there was going to be this program, an early childhood education program, for people in poor communities and working communities that had not been able to send their young children to preschool programs.

At one time in this country, preschool programs were only available to people with money, to the wealthy, to people who were earning good incomes, but Head Start was envisioned under the war on poverty as a program that could help children in poor communities and working communities get a jump, get a head start so that they would be prepared for kindergarten. They would be prepared for school and education.

The researchers and the educators that came up with this idea understood that for young people to be successful or more successful in school, if they had this preschool experience, it would not only prepare them for reading and learning, but it would also build other kinds of qualities. Building self-esteem was an important idea of the Head Start program.

I went to work for Head Start as an assistant teacher. I went into the Head Start program, and little did I know that Head Start was not simply to be a place of employment for me, it changed my life. In Head Start, not only did I learn how to work with young people, to build self-esteem, I later became the supervisor of parent involvement and volunteer services where I worked with families, with mothers and fathers and grandparents, bringing them into the Head Start program and helping them to understand that they certainly could be in control of their children's destiny.

Head Start was a program that not only dealt with early childhood education, a preschool experience for young people, but it was a program that helped to deal with parenting and helping parents to understand how they could, in fact, get more involved and give more support to their children.

Also, this program spread out into the community, and it helped parents to understand how not only they could be involved with their children's early childhood education, but they could be involved in the community and helping the community to understand how to be supportive of education, interacting with the school boards and with other educators, talking about their children's experiences and what was going on in the homes and helping educators to be more in tune with how they could better give young people a head start.

Head Start is very special because it takes into consideration the whole child. This program understood early on that if we are to be successful with our young people in education, we must give them every advantage and every opportunity to learn. Before Head Start, children were going to school. They could not hear well, could not see well, had learning disabilities, had never had a physical examination, had never had an examination to determine some of the problems that were so obvious when one interacted with these young people.

When we opened Head Start, we brought in the families and the children, and they had full physical examinations. They had an opportunity to talk with counselors. If psychiatrists were needed, they had that, also. So we discovered that there certainly were learning disabilities; dyslexia, and other kinds of problems were discovered and they were worked on.

Health care opportunities and preventive care was available to these parents for the first time. So we were able to attend to these health needs so that the children could certainly be prepared for learning, and that is what happened in the Head Start program.

The Head Start program not only dealt with the health care needs and preventive health care for families, it helped families to understand how they could build self-esteem. We learned a lot about self-esteem and how parents and families could be involved in building that self- esteem. We talked to parents how to place the work of their children on their walls at home, the paintings and the drawings and all of those things that children felt proud about, but oftentimes parents and families did not know how important it was. We taught them how to display the work of their children, but we also taught them how to take materials in

their homes and materials from in the environment, in the neighborhood, from the trees and from the shrubbery, and use them as art tools and how there could be art projects and children could learn to use the various skills that they had that they had not discovered.

Head Start not only took care of the health care needs, expanded the learning for parents to help them to build self-esteem with their children, Head Start went further than that. The Head Start program opened up opportunities in the classroom where children were introduced to books for the first time. Children in Head Start are taught to love books. They are taught that you never tear up a book; that you never throw a book around; that you take care of the books, that they are very important; and that one of the first steps in learning is to introduce kids to books and tell them how important it is, get them to respect the books and want to know what is in the books. Head Start opened up all of these opportunities to prepare children in that classroom for going into the public schools.

Mr. Speaker, Head Start has proven to be successful. When Head Start children first went to kindergarten, the teachers wanted to know who are these children and why are they so prepared. Head Start children went into the classrooms for the first time asking questions and participating. This program has worked. Someone has said, it was not me, if it is not broken, what are you doing trying to fix it?

Head Start does not need to be fixed. Head Start is a good, solid, sound program of early childhood education that brings in the parents and the community, and this idea of this administration to block grant the Head Start, throw it into the States, is an idea that we have to resist. We resisted the part of the first idea of this administration that wanted to take it out of Health and Human Services and place it into the Education Department.

We fought them back on that, but now they are intent on block granting the program to the States. I do not know about other States, but I know the State of California has a $38 billion deficit. We do not want to throw this program into a State that could easily take funds from Head Start to help make up for the lack of funds in other areas. We know what happens when we block grant programs. We give the States the opportunity to do what they want to do with the money, and so we are opposing that. We are strenuously opposing block granting this program.

For those of us who have had the experience of working in the Head Start program, of working with parents in the Head Start program, for visiting the Head Start programs, interacting with the children, the families and the teachers, we say no to the Bush administration, you cannot have Head Start. We will not let you undermine this program with these ideas that you have about throwing it into the States and giving it to the States under a block grant.

With that, I am going to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) to share his thoughts on Head Start.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for that brilliant presentation on Head Start, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for this important discussion on the floor, the esteemed chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his passionate plea to our colleagues not to allow this program to be dismantled, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I thank the gentlewoman from California for her longtime concern and actions on behalf of children. I thank her for taking time out of her schedule to be here this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

I thank the gentlewoman for her presentation this evening, not only on Head Start but the discussion about the child tax credit and helping to unveil what is really going on in this administration. The question that you raise is one that I am sure many of our colleagues would like to respond to this evening, and if they were here, they would tell you that many folks worked very hard to get some assistance to the States because many of the States are in deficit positions. They are cutting programs. They are cutting health and education. They are cutting the school week in some States. In 2003 in the United States of America, the school week has been cut down from 5 days to 4 days.

Members of this Congress are shocked on both sides of the aisle about the kind of cutbacks and the deficits that we have in the States. That money is not meant to be banked. It is meant to offset the debt and the cuts that are being experienced by these States, and certainly though we did not support that tax bill for good reasons, that part of that bill that sends the money to the States is a part that many of us do support because we want to make sure that we do not have these hardships experienced by our constituents because of cutbacks.

I would certainly think so. Again, we talk a lot about education being our number one priority, about children being our number one priority. But there are some States that are not putting the money where their mouths are, and we are not giving the children of this Nation the kind of support that certainly a rich Nation such as ours should be giving.

I think this is a prime example of what we are talking about this evening, the Head Start Program. It is underfunded, children on waiting list, only a 2 percent increase; and it is a proven program of success that not only helps to prepare our kids for kindergarten and for school, but it also helps to make parents stronger in their support for their children. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct; that money could be used for educational purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), an educator with a background in education, to make her presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, you have heard brilliant presentations, comprehensive presentations from the members of the Congressional Black Caucus here this evening who have identified the value of Head Start: the fact that Head Start provides nutrition, the fact that it provides physical examinations, the fact that it prepares young people for education, the fact that it involves parents and gets them involved in helping to determine the educational destiny of their children, the fact that Head Start gets communities involved.

Mr. Speaker, this cannot be taken lightly. Head Start is indeed a successful program that has been in this country now for 38 years. Many children and families have benefited from this program, children from all over America, from communities all over this country. We value Head Start, and we appreciate all of those who had the vision to bring this valuable program to this Nation.

Again, we think that this program should not be tampered with. There is no reason to want to block grant this program. We would like to think that it is just a misunderstanding, that this administration really does not understand the risk that they are creating by tampering with this program and block granting it to the States.

Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, in addition to not having the requirements to go along with block grants, the one thing that strikes me as extremely detrimental to this program is the fact that nowhere in this block granting does it require that the parental involvement component remain with Head Start.

Many of us wax eloquently about parent involvement and family values and what it means for parents to be involved with their children and their education, but yet we see an attempt to change a program that has a strong component of parental involvement, an attempt to dismantle a program that has worked.

Mr. Speaker, Head Start will be reauthorized this year. It will not have all of the money that it needs. It will only have a small increase. There will still be children waiting to get into Head Start. But one way or the other, I know that this program is going to be reauthorized. I hope that it is done in the traditional, bipartisan fashion in which our children are not left behind.

However, H.R. 2210 suggests that we are off to a very bad start. It would be a tragedy if the Republican leadership chooses to try and force this bad bill through for partisan political purposes. We can and must do better than H.R. 2210. I urge the Republican leadership to heed the will of the American people and produce a bipartisan bill that both sides of the aisle can support. Millions of lives depend on Head Start, and we cannot afford to let them down.

This Congress has been criticized, Members on the opposite side of the aisle, who somehow cut out the poorest and most vulnerable families from the tax bill. We cannot afford to continue to have the kind of criticism and distrust that is mounting of this Congress over what appears to be an assault on families and children.

We have the issue of the child tax credit before us. It is shameful what has been done. I do not think that all of the Republicans on the other side of the aisle support what has been done. I do not think that they believe in what some of the leadership is saying about poor people not deserving to have this tax break.

I believe that there are those on the other side of the aisle that will join with us on this side of the aisle and put an end to this attempt to undermine our Head Start program.

Mr. Speaker, I am so blessed, and I feel so blessed, to be able to be here tonight to speak on behalf of the children and to stand up for Head Start. I feel so blessed to have been a part of Head Start and to have learned what it means to invest in our children. I feel so blessed to have learned that we can indeed make our children successful in their education experience.

Many of those children who are being left behind are being left behind because they do not have the value of an early childhood education. I am delighted to have been a part of this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time and thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for offering this important and very well-deserved tribute.

Patsy Mink was a friend of mine. We worked on many projects together long before I was ever elected to the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, our dear departed friend and colleague, Patsy Mink, was a giant. No one among our elected officials stood taller in addressing the needs of the poor, the disenfranchised, and the workers of this country than Patsy Mink.

As the first minority woman elected to the Congress and the first Japanese-American woman admitted to the bar in Hawaii, Patsy was a pioneer who shattered the glass ceiling, a trailblazer who cleared the path for women and minorities to take their rightful place in all aspects of public life.

As always, had she been here with us, Patsy would be leading the fight to restore the child tax credit for low-income working Americans and to reorient our priorities to protecting the vulnerable, not rewarding the privileged. We Democrats will fight this battle for a child tax credit for low-income working Americans and their children in Patsy's memory and we will not rest until it is won.

While she probably would have been embarrassed by the attention, it is wonderful that this House will take time to honor Congresswoman Mink and her constituents by renaming the post office for her.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary for his brilliant presentation on behalf of opposing this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor simply to say that despite the fact that the debate has been about the first amendment, we really do have another issue that has not been talked about a lot, and the issue is this: There are those who would use this particular amendment to try and send a message to the veterans that they care more about them than some of us, that they are more patriotic than some of us.

We are all patriotic. We all say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. We all sing ``My Country 'tis of Thee.'' And some of us add to that our support for veterans by putting our money where our mouths are. We do not support the cuts that are being proposed by the opposite side of the aisle. We have stood up on this floor relative to this budget time and time again asking our Republican friends, please do not cut the veterans.

I am patriotic. I support the veterans. I may be against this amendment, but I will be there at appropriations fighting for them. The folks on the opposite side of the aisle will not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment and in support of the Watt substitute which is intended to harmonize the proposed amendment with the protections of the First Amendment.

It seems to me that the substitute that Congressman Watt is proposing is a common sense amendment that Members can and should support, whatever their position on the need for, or desirability of a flag desecration amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that flag desecration is an act that deserves condemnation. Nonetheless, I strongly oppose the proposed constitutional amendment. The amendment is dangerous and should not be approved.

Yet, at a minimum, if we are going to adopt the proposed flag desecration amendment, I believe that we should reaffirm that our intention is not to limit the protections of the First Amendment. We should not start down the road toward narrowing the scope of the First Amendment to our Constitution.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I fear that the Watt substitute will not receive the support that it deserves because the process of considering this resolution is not about the law. It's about politics. In my view, the underlying flag desecration resolution is really political theater of the worst kind.

While the Resolution no doubt is calculated to win favor with veterans organizations, and may well satisfy some of them, decimating our Constitution is the wrong way to honor our veterans. Thus, the need for the Watt substitute.

The reality is that many of the Republicans who will speak so fervently this afternoon about the need for this Resolution are the same Members of Congress who voted for a House Republican Budget Resolution that would have cut appropriations for Veterans health care over ten years by a total of $6.2 billion below the level needed to maintain purchasing power at the 2003 level.

Just so that the Republicans, who could not see fit to provide a child tax credit to millions of low income workers, nonetheless could provide more than $1 trillion in tax cuts over ten years, principally to the wealthy, to those who need it least.

The original House Budget resolution would have cut veterans programs by $28 billion over ten years. As all of us know, the Budget Resolution Conference Agreement that ultimately was adopted provides for an unspecified $128 billion cut over ten years in discretionary spending with $7.6 billion in additional unspecified cuts to take place in FY 2004 alone. So the risk to veterans programs is real, and the appropriations process will reflect it.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans need help, not just flag-waving. The best way that Congress can honor veterans is to ensure that programs designed to protect Veterans and provide them with desperately needed assistance are properly funded.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is not one of patriotism. It's one of priorities. We have veterans who now wait six months before they can see a doctor in the VA health system. Our veterans wait years before they can even get a decision on their VA disability claims. Is this how we honor our veterans? Is this how we honor their service and their sacrifice?

Mr. Speaker, we will know that this House is serious about honoring our veterans, when we focus our attention on Democratic proposals to reduce the waiting times for our veterans to see a doctor, and reduce the handling time for VA disability claims.

H.J. Res. 4 will merely serve to dishonor the Constitution and to betray the very ideals for which so many veterans fought, and for which so many members of our armed forces made the ultimate sacrifice.

Adopting this resolution will encourage further departures from the First Amendment and diminish respect for our Constitution. Once we start down the road to limiting speech on the basis of content, it is virtually certain that further restrictions of our First Amendment liberties would follow.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression is at the very heart of our democracy. It is our First Amendment and the robust exchange of views that it promotes that distinguishes our country from countries that fear political dissent and imprison dissenters for expressing their views.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed cure of a Constitutional Amendment is far worse than the disease it is intended to address. Our Constitution is a great document that has protected us from oppression for over 200 years. We ought not to tinker with it when such tinkering clearly is not required. I urge my colleagues to support the Watt substitute and reject the dangerous, ill-considered underlying base bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1298, the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act. This bipartisan bill would provide $15 billion over the next 5 years to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The text of this bill now includes the language of H.R. 1298 as passed by the House, along with a Senate amendment to recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury negotiate deeper debt relief for poor countries, especially those suffering from public health crises. I have been working on the issues of global HIV/AIDS and debt relief for over 4 years, and I know how interrelated they are.

Debt relief is desperately needed by poor countries trying to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These countries cannot afford to provide health care to their people or educate their people about HIV/AIDS prevention because of their debts. At Least 18 heavily indebted poor countries are spending more money on debt payments than they are on health care. Debt relief will allow these countries to invest their resources in health, education, poverty reduction and HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs.

Zambia provides an excellent illustration of why deeper debt relief is necessary. Zambia is a deeply impoverished country with a per capita income of only $330 per year. Almost 20 percent of the adult population is infected with the AIDS virus, and 650,000 children have been orphaned by AIDS. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has also ravaged the educational system by causing a shortage of trained teachers. Yet, Zambia still spends more than twice as much money on debt payments as it does on health care.

Debt relief is critical to worldwide HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention efforts. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and enable poor countries to use their resources to address this devastating epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the rising unemployment in our country. Since President Bush took office, 2.7 million people--538,000 in the past three months--have lost their jobs. The unemployment rate now stands at 8.8 million people, 6 percent, the highest level in more than 10 years. California, which has bourne the brunt of the economic downturn has nearly 1.2 million people out of work. In my home city of Los Angeles, our unemployment rate is almost 6.5 percent.

The President and his party will say that it isn't their fault. They will say that this recession started well before the President was sworn into office. That clearly is not true, even if it were, the President's policies have only made the problem worse. By advocating tax cuts to solve every problem, President Bush has avoided taking any type of leadership role in solving this problem. The President, so far, has prescribed tax cuts as his sole cure for budget surpluses, budget deficits, the energy crisis, the war on terrorism and heaven knows what else. It is clear that this is part of a calculated strategy on the part of this Administration to starve domestic health and social programs to meet our peoples' needs: Programs like S-Chip, Head Start, public housing. Unfortunately, this list goes on and on.

Meanwhile, our nation's workers are out of work, out of options and out of benefits. Nationwide, an estimated 2.1 million workers--80,000 a week--will exhaust their regular unemployment benefits over the next five months. In California, 150,400 workers will exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of May. But, while Congress can find the time to pass two multi-trillion tax cuts to benefit the wealthy, those who need it least, it can not find the time to extend unemployment benefits for workers whose benefits have been exhausted, those who need it most.

Extending unemployment benefits is the simplest and most effective way we can improve this economy. A recent study by Economy.com found that each dollar dedicated to extending unemployment benefits would boost the economy by $1.73. However, the same study found that the centerpiece of the GOP package, the dividend tax cut, would be the least efficient in stimulating the economy. Each dollar dedicated to reducing the taxation of dividends would boost the economy by only 9 cents.

But the President continues to advocate tax cuts. As if this failed policy will now miraculously work. It did not work in 2001 and it will not work in 2003. After passage of the largest tax cut in US history-- $1.3 trillion--the economy lost 1.7 million jobs. The Republicans call their plan a ``jobs and economic growth'' bill. Yet, study after study--from the Congressional Budget Office to Economy.com to the editorial pages of the country's leading papers--show that it is anything but a job and growth plan. The bill the Republicans have drafted will have no stimulus effect on the economy, nor will it create jobs.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have developed a strong and balanced policy that will create over a million jobs this year alone. Importantly, the Democrats put money in the hands of the unemployed through the extension of unemployment benefits and tax breaks that help the middle class. It also provides desperately needed help to the States who are struggling under the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Under the Republicans' plan, mind you, economists expect the states' financial crisis to worsen.

About the only thing that this bill does is explode the deficit. Less than two years after President Clinton left office, we find ourselves in record deficits and an exploding national debt. President Bush promised when he came into office that the would pay off the debt, not too quickly though. He was concerned about the repercussions of paying off the debt too quickly.

So what did this president do? Well, he certainly didn't pay off the debt. Instead, he increased the national debt by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. As if this was not bad enough, the debt subject to statutory limit, which at the beginning of this Administration was $5.7 trillion, is now projected to reach more than $12 trillion by the end of 2013, all thanks to Republican policies.

I close, Mr. Speaker, wondering when we will throw away these policies of yesteryear and start doing something of substance? People are hurting. They don't need cheerleading or Horatio Algers stories about how, if they work hard, they, too, can become millionaires. They need our help. When are we going to stop pretending that tax cuts are the cure all for the nation's problems and begin doing meaningful work that will put our constituents to work and not burden our children with trillions in debt. When will we return to funding health, education and social service programs to meet the needs of our people. I hope soon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves with yet another Republican bill that does not deliver what its title promises. H.R. 1000 is not a true pension security bill. We can and must do better than this bill.

Since 2001, our country has experienced what has seemed to be almost weekly bankruptcies of some of the Nation's largest companies. Many of these bankruptcies were accompanied by corporate mismanagement and, in some cases, looting of employee pensions.

Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing--and many other companies are household names because of their executives' disgraceful actions. Some of the largest airlines have provided golden parachutes for their senior executives, even as their pilots, stewards and maintenance workers accept pay and benefit cuts to help these companies survive.

The President and his party have been talking tough about the need to protect workers' pensions and to combat corporate misdeeds. The President has been trying to make it sound as if he wanted to pursue tough reforms to strengthen employee protections and protect pensions. Yet, he is supporting this inadequate bill. A bill where, once again, the Republicans have sided with the worst CEOs and the special interests, rather than with our country's workers.

Witness, for example, how this bill locks employees into company stock for excessively long periods of time, putting at risk their retirement savings while company executives are allowed to sell off their stocks at any time. Enron's employees were forced to watch their retirement savings disappear as the company's stock went from a high of $80 to just a few pennies. They were not allowed to sell their stock. Enron executives, on the other hand, sold their holdings as they pleased. Enron's CEO, Kenneth Lay, made almost $50 million; and the Chief Financial Officer made $21 million last year. The company managed to pay out $744 million in salaries, bonuses and stock grants to the company's 140 senior officers just before it collapsed.

The same thing happened with Global Crossing. As the company mislead the public and its employees about its finances, many of the Crossing officials sold their stocks and made millions of dollars. Gary Winnick, the company's Chairman of the Board, sold about 9 percent of his stake in the company for $123.5 million. Each one of his deputies made out just as well. Meanwhile, the company laid off thousands of people. Those Global Crossing employees who managed to survive these job cuts, saw their retirement savings vanish.

Mr. Speaker, with all its many shortcomings, the greatest problem with this bill is that it repeals the law that prohibits employers from offering ``conflicted advice.'' It will now be legal for companies to offer financial advice even though it might be tainted with conflicts of interest. If Congress were to take any steps in this area, we should be strengthening provisions to protect employees and their pensions from such conflicted advice, not eliminating laws that prohibit them.

This legislation is an insult to the millions of people who lost billions in retirement savings while they watched their company leaders continue to enrich themselves. We should not pass this bill.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, for organizing this special order and yielding to me. I join with him this evening to recognize a pivotal anniversary in American history. On May 17, 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation in our Nation's public schools must be ended with all deliberate speed. In its unanimous vote to overturn the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the doctrine of separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education laid the cornerstone for all of the progress towards equal education opportunity for blacks in America.

The Brown decision was the beginning of the end for legal segregation in public places in the United States. The African-American community in particular increased pressure on the legal and political establishment to bring an end to State-sanctioned segregation in all public facilities. Of course, we all know about the importance and accomplishments of the civil rights movement. We also know that these achievements were hard-earned. Often they came with an enormous price.

The Brown v. Board of Education decision was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is also based on the fact that segregation is dehumanizing. The Court acknowledged that the impact is even greater when it is supported by the sanction of law.

While we have made much progress for our struggle toward equal educational opportunity, current events demonstrate that there are significant clouds on the horizon. Consider, for example, the tenuous status of affirmative action programs. We are at the threshold of what could be the beginning of the end of affirmative action programs in our colleges and universities. The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of the University of Michigan's undergraduate law school admissions plans. While I fervently believe that these programs are fully constitutional and defensible, the Michigan case could well be decided against affirmative action. The consequences of such a decision on minority admissions to colleges and professional schools could be enormous. If the Michigan case results in a ruling against affirmative action, we will turn the clock back and retreat from our commitment to providing equal educational opportunity for African Americans, Hispanics and all minorities.

Mr. Speaker, history has already recorded that the President of these United States of America, George W. Bush, revealed his true feelings about equal opportunity for all of America's children when, in fact, on January 15, Martin Luther King's birthday, 2003, the President of the United States, using divisive language claiming the Michigan program was a quota program, announced his support for the lawsuit against the University of Michigan, opposing the most reasonable affirmative action program ever implemented in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, who claims an education policy of leave no child behind, a President who claims to have a program of outreach to minorities, a President claiming to want to attract African Americans to the Republican Party, is actually a President who wants to have it both ways. I say this to the President this evening, using his own words as he described the United States' allies, in his preemptive strike against Iraq, he said to the allies, ``You're either with us or you're against us.'' Mr. President, I say to you this evening, You're either with us or you're against us. And, Mr. President, you cannot be with us as you destroy our chances to access education and better our lives, the lives of our children and the lives of our families and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by just sharing this with you. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race did, in fact, deprive minority children of equal education opportunities. Their answer was the right answer, the only moral answer, the answer that has driven the progress of the civil rights movement for the last 50 years. As we recognize and commemorate this important milestone in the civil rights movement, we must remain forever vigilant to ensure that we will continue our progress towards equal educational opportunities and not allow conservative zealots to return us to the days of separate but equal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Thomas tax plan. The reckless tax cut contained in the Thomas plan is unfair and is irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Thomas Tax Plan. The reckless tax cut contained in the Thomas bill is unfair, fiscally irresponsible, and the perverse and persistent Republican obsession with dividend cuts will do nothing to create the jobs that our people so desperately need.

Mr. Speaker, mark my words: This bill will continue the pattern of tax increases in states and municipalities throughout our country as our state and local governments struggle to replace the resources that the Federal government no longer is providing.

True to the Republican Party's credo, the Thomas bill is a rich persons' bill, with relief completely targeted toward those who need it least. It will load up our children and grandchildren with massive debt, debt that middle class families simply cannot carry. The Republicans will euphemistically call this a jobs bill, but just whom do they think that they are kidding?

This bill is hostile to families and loaded with accounting gimmicks calculated to conceal the size and cost of the Thomas proposal. Can you imagine that anyone genuinely interested in middle class families would offer a bill with a $1000 child tax credit for 2005 that actually reduces the child tax credit to $700 in 2006?

While this bill is a very bad deal for low-and middle-income families, it's an answered prayer for millionaires. According to the Tax Policy

Center, on average, the House GOP tax package would provide tax cuts of $93,500 to those making over $1 million, while the typical taxpayer would get an average tax cut of $217 (even less than the President's plan)--less than 60 cents a day. In fact, 53 percent of taxpayers would get less than $100 under the House GOP plan.

Mr. Speaker, our fiscal future is on the line. Where is the targeted tax relief for middle-class families in this bill? Do we want a plan that will create more than 1 million jobs and promote long-term economic growth as the Democrats have proposed, or do we just want to continue the Republican predisposition to pay attention solely to the wealthy?

I will continue to stand for low-and middle-income families, for Main Street, not Wall Street. All of us should. Reject the Republicans' latest early Christmas gift to the wealthy. Reject this ill-considered tax cut. Reject the Thomas bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this bill. It is an important piece of legislation that should be passed, but not in its current form.

Mr. Chairman, our country is in trouble. On this President's watch more than 2.3 million jobs have been lost. Many workers have exhausted their unemployment benefits, and this administration is doing nothing to stimulate this economy or create jobs. Congress, over the objections of many Democrats, has stripped away job assistance programs intended to help these workers gain skills and find employment. Unfortunately, this bill keeps with this appalling record.

The bill undermines apprentice programs on which thousands of people depend for training and guidance as they begin their careers. In addition, this bill allows funding for job training programs and unemployment services to be funded in block grants rather than its current form, resulting in far less funding for these programs.

But what I am most concerned about is under this bill any religious organization that receives Federal funding for job training or other job assistance programs will be allowed to turn people away simply because of their religious beliefs. This is discrimination in its most obvious form. It should not be allowed. By passing this bill, Congress will be rolling back decades of civil rights protections. We should be ashamed that this is even being considered. And while I am at it, I too am a Christian, and I oppose this bill and any effort to weaken civil rights laws.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their superb leadership on attacking the HIV/AIDS disaster in Africa.

I take this moment to rise in strong support of H.R. 1298, and to thank my friends and colleagues for the many years of struggle and hard work that has brought us to this point of getting President Bush to support this effort.

Thanks to all of the AIDS activists, the developmental activists. Thanks to the work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) when she served on the Committee on Appropriations; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for the leadership she has provided; and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and all the other Members of Congress.

Thanks to President Bill Clinton for establishing the Global AIDS Fund we are putting the money in today. Thanks for the trip that he made to Africa, where we all had the opportunity to visit what was going on, the clinics in Uganda and other countries of Africa.

It has been a lot of hard work. I am pleased and delighted that we are here today working in a bipartisan way to put money into this Global Fund, but it did not happen overnight. Again, I thank Members for all the years of work and struggle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent of mine. Joseph Powe was a remarkable man. He was a fixture in our community and he will be missed by many. Joe passed on March 20, 2003. He leaves behind a wonderful wife, two daughters, five granddaughters and a host of friends and loved ones.

In many ways Joe was a pioneer. He was among the first African- American Certified Public Accountants. And, he was the only African- American ever to serve as Regional Audit Manager in the Department of Defense's Defense Contract Audit Agency. Joe served his country in the U.S. Air Force from 1954 through 1958. He also served on the Board of Directors of the United Defense Credit Union as well as several other positions. In 1982, he served the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) as the Regional Vice President, Western Region. I understand, as a tribute to his hard work and dedication to the CPA community, his certificate number will be retired. A terrific honor for this wonderful man.

My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Opalane, his daughters, Valarie and Alison, and the rest of his family. I hope they are comforted by the fond memories they have of him with a fishing pole in hand or the smile that always seemed to be on his face. He will be missed but for those who knew him, he will always remain with us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor a jazz artist who was truly inspiration both on stage and off

Nina Simone was a consummate artist who defied classification. A jazz singer, a pianist, a jazz-rock-pop-folk-black musician, an arranger, a composer and a protest singer--she was all of these and more.

She was a social activist, unafraid to speak out or sing out against the social ills of racism and war.

One of eight children, Nina Simone was born Eunice Kathleen Waymon on February 21, 1933 in Tryon, North Carolina. Early on, she demonstrated prodigious talent as a pianist and singer. She played and sang with her sisters in their mother's choir in the local church. It was not until the age of six that Eunice began formal training on the piano.

By the time she was 10, she had given her first recital in her hometown. This recital at the town library produced her first applause and her first encounter with racism. Her parents were forced to move from the first row to make room for whites to be seated. This incident formed the basis of her commitment to the fight for civil rights.

Eunice left North Carolina in 1950 to continue her musical education at the Juilliard School of Music in New York, after which, her family moved to Philadelphia. She applied for a scholarship at the prestigious Curtis Institute in Philadelphia, but was rejected. Her talent was cited as the reason for the rejection, but the Juilliard graduate believed it had more to do with her color than her musical skill.

Discouraged, she became an accompanist for a singing teacher and then, in 1954, she went to work as a singer-pianist in an Atlantic City, New Jersey bar. It was there she adopted the name Nina Simone: Nina, her boyfriend's pet name for her; and Simone, after French actress Simone Signoret, for its dignified sound. Three years later, in 1957, she had her first recording contract.

In 1958, her first album produced her first hit, George Gershwin's ``I Love You Porgy,'' a song that made her an international star and has been synonymous with the name Nina Simone ever since. Her star continued to shine through the `60s and `70s, as did her commitment to the civil rights struggle.

She performed in concert at the world's most prestigious houses of music, with a repertoire ranging from jazz, gospel, blues, folk and classical music to songs of protest against the injustice of racism.

She became a strong voice in the civil rights movement with her song ``Mississippi Goddam,'' which she wrote and performed in protest of the murders of Medgar Evers in Mississippi and four black schoolchildren in Alabama. Later, she wrote and performed the inspirational ``To Be Young, Gifted and Black.''

Like many American jazz artists before her, Nina Simone found a greater appreciation for her music and more freedom abroad than at home. Embittered by racism, she renounced the United States in 1969 and became a ``Citizen of the world.'' She left the United States in 1973 and lived in Liberia, Barbados, Switzerland, Africa, Trinidad, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom before finally settling in France. In 1978, Nina Simone was arrested abroad for failing to pay taxes from 1971 to 1973 in protest of the war in Vietnam, but she was quickly released.

Nina Simone remained a top recording artist and concert draw throughout her life and performed at Carnegie Hall just two years ago in 2001. Nina Simone will always be remembered for her talent and her passion, her sultry, yet forceful voice, her incomparable style and a regal presence on stage.

Nina Simone, whose inimitable voice helped define the civil rights movement, died April 21, 2003 at her home in France at the age of 70. She is survived by her daughter, Lisa Celeste Stroud.