Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House won't allow me to do what George H. White did in 1901 when he rose to address an agriculture bill for 5 minutes and ended up speaking for an hour and a half, giving his farewell to Congress and saying these words: ``Mr. Speaker, this perhaps may be the temporary farewell of minorities and African Americans from this body, but some day we will rise up and come again.''

Well, it took 92 years from that point in 1901 until 1993 when Eva Clayton and I returned to Congress as African American Members from North Carolina.

And thank God the laws won't allow the exclusion of African Americans and other minorities from this democracy any longer because of the Voting Rights Act.

We have got to renew it and extend it. We need to do it today in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Chair of the Congressional Black Caucas, to pay tribute to a fallen American hero. Joseph Henry Washington passed away on June 13, 2006. He was not well known beyond his Charleston, South Carolina community, but he represents so many unsung African American heroes who courageously defended America in the armed forces at a time when this country was denying their civil rights.

Joe Washington was a survivor of Pearl Harbor. His life was an ordinary one, but on December 7, 1941, it became extraordinary.

Mr. Washington was the youngest son of Isaac and Elvira Delura McCants Washington. After his father's death, his mother struggled to raise her two young boys by ``taking in washing'' for wealthy Charleston residents. Despite the hardships, no one wanted young Joe to leave home and join the Navy. Yet he was determined to see the world, and his mother gave permission for her son to fulfill his dream.

Navy recruiting officers welcomed young Joe. However, he quickly learned that the only place for men of color was as a Mess Attendant for Naval officers. Still he boarded a train for Raleigh, North Carolina and took the oath to dutifully serve his country. On August 9, 1937, Joe Washington reported for Basic Training in Norfolk, Virginia. In just three short months, he was prepared for his first assignment in the Ward Room on the USS Arizona. His initial duties included seeing to the needs of the ship's officers, including LCDR Commander Samuel G. Fuqua, a man Mr. Washington would later credit with saving many lives at Pearl Harbor.

While serving on the USS Arizona, he attended the Cook and Stewards School, which was the only upwardly mobile field open to African Americans in the Navy. After completing the course, Mr. Washington was assigned to Steward's Duty and helped plan the meals.

His time on the USS Arizona passed uneventfully until the ``day that will live in infamy.'' While on duty in the Ward Room, Joe Washington heard a big explosion and then alarms sounded. His first thought was this was a drill, but when bullets began hitting the decks he knew this was the real thing.

Mr. Washington later recalled that a Japanese plane dropped a bomb right down the smoke stack directly into the ammunition room resulting in a terrific explosion. He joined his fellow sailors in securing the ship by closing portholes in their section to keep out the water and bullets. Then he tried to return to his quarters and found the hatches closed and locked by those who had gone before. He made his way to the deck and found most of the crew there dead or badly burned. He went to work helping those he could. A lifeboat came to rescue some of the men. Mr. Washington escaped by wading to shore. He came through the bombing without a scratch, and was one of only two surviving African Americans on the ill-fated Arizona.

Joe Washington spent two days at a hanger at Hickam Air Field in Washington. Yet because of his dedication to the Navy and his need to distract himself from the tragedy at Pearl Harbor, Mr. Washington volunteered to go back to work on the USS Oklahoma and the USS California.

In November 1946, Mr. Washington was admirably discharged from Navy. Some twelve years later, he returned to Hawaii to appear with then- retired Rear Admiral Fuqua on the popular television show ``This Is Your Life.'' During that visit, he returned to the site of the Arizona's remains and said a silent prayer. In a 1985 interview he recalled, ``I couldn't help thinking that I hope they didn't die in vain.''

Joseph Washington spent the rest of his professional career as a government employee at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York. He returned home to Charleston in the 1970s after retirement and became an active and faithful member of Morris Brown AME Church. He never spoke of the events of December 7, 1941 unless he was asked, yet when he did, he would always exclaim, ``It was a miracle that I came through the bombing. I was one of the lucky ones.''

Joe Washington died last Tuesday at the age of 87, and will be buried in Charleston on Saturday. Mr. Washington never married. He leaves to mourn his passing a sister-in-law, and five beloved nieces including Emily E. Clyburn, the wife of our colleague Jim Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me and members of the Congressional Black Caucus in remembering Joseph Henry Washington by saying that we are the lucky ones. We enjoy many freedoms today because men like him were willing to fight for their country even when they didn't enjoy the full benefit of what it meant to be an American. Because of Joe Washington and so many other unsung heroes, today our country is truly the home of the brave and the land of the free.

Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the rule this morning, our Republican colleagues suggested something pretty revolutionary, that is, that we do something we do not normally do often around here, and that is read the resolution. They said they encouraged us to review it, and vote based on whether we agree or disagree with the content of the resolution.

So I reviewed the resolution. And as our colleagues suggested, I intend to vote against it based on the fact that there are several things in the resolution that I strongly disagree with.

First, on page 2 of the resolution, it states as follows: ``Whereas by early 2003, Saddam Hussein and his criminal Ba'athist regime in Iraq constituted a threat to global peace and security.''

I think the only way one could conclude this would be to conclude that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I did not vote for the war resolution because I never believed the President when he asserted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the first place. I did not believe it then. It was subsequently proven not to be the case. And I most certainly cannot support a resolution that asserts it now.

Second, the resolution asserts that: ``The terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorist's aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East.'' There is probably some truth to that.

However, what is probably a lot more true is that the war in Iraq has increased, not decreased, terrorism and the resolve of the terrorists. It has created conditions in Iraq that allow terrorism to thrive.

Finally, the Resolution asserts that ``Iraqi forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq.'' If that were true, we would have started bringing our troops home by now. At some point we've got to make Iraq assume responsibility for itself and its own people. I just don't believe they or we have come to grips with that.

There obviously are a number of things in the Resolution with which I agree. But we were given no opportunity to amend the Resolution to strip out the things that are untrue and/or offensive or, for that matter, to add to the things with which we agree. My Republican colleagues have, once again, chosen to politicize a matter that should be above partisan politics. I cannot vote for the Resolution in this form and will, therefore, vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the amendment. A number of us have worked hard for a number of different years to save, reauthorize, and fund the HOPE VI program.

The gentleman is right: they have funds in the process, but you can't revitalize communities overnight. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that it takes a long time to rebuild a community that starts off being dilapidated public housing. You have to tear it down, you have to enter into public-private ventures around that community to restore housing, and that takes time.

When people criticize the fact that there is money in the pipeline that has not been expended, that simply reaffirms the purpose for which HOPE VI was initiated in the first place, to restore communities, not to just build houses. That takes time. We need this money to continue the process.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am honored to offer the Congressional Black Caucus 2007 fiscal year budget alternative, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a number of budgets are going to be offered tonight, and I think we are going to see a lot of smoke and mirrors and trickery.

But we are honest in the way we approach our budget. We believe a budget is a statement of priorities, and we believe that there are priorities that we must pay for, and we must find the money to pay for them.

So let me be straight up front that we intend in our budget to roll back, rescind the tax cuts on individuals' adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000. People will still get the benefits of tax cuts under $200,000, but by doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $137 billion. We intend to eliminate corporate tax incentives for offshoring jobs. By doing that over a 5-year period, we will gain $50 billion. We intend to close tax loopholes and abusive shelters, and with that we will gain $10 billion. And on and on and on. So we are transparent in where we are getting our money from.

We intend to spend that money on priorities that we have identified in the Congressional Black Caucus' agenda to close and eliminate disparities that continue to exist in our country between African Americans and other Americans in this country in education, in health care, in every conceivable way that we can approach this. It is our intention to do that.

Let there be no mistake. We are not here to apologize because we think it is a higher priority for our country to eliminate and close these disparities that have existed throughout our history. We think that is more important than giving tax breaks to people who make over $200,000 a year. That is the simple premise of our budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, tell us, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the gentleman from Florida just spent 7 minutes telling the American people that for the people who make over $200,000 a year, how much of a tax benefit they are giving them, because all of the things he described adds up to the tax benefit that these people are getting. And I appreciate the gentleman's doing that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I made no such intention. You characterized it that way. I have never characterized it as raising taxes. We are rescinding the tax cuts on income over $200,000.

I really appreciate you all continuing to point out to the American people how much that represents when you look at it and to say that we don't have enough rich people in the country to do that.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would like to answer the question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just submit to the gentleman that I would rather educate my children than give a tax cut to people on income over $200,000. I hope he agrees with me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlemen from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown)

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, can you tell us how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, would the Chair repeat what he just said?

Can I make a parliamentary inquiry as to why that is the case? It is our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlemen will give us some more time, we have a whole list of speakers over here. But we are going to run out of time before we run out of speakers, I can assure you.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman give us some time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida for a unanimous consent request because we don't have enough time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Would the Chairman tell me what that means I have left total?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I will let my colleagues and the American people determine what our budget does, but let me summarize it. The CBC budget balances the budget in 5 years, and is the only budget you are going to see on this floor tonight that yields a surplus at the end of 5 years instead of a deficit.

The CBC saves $10.5 billion in interest on the national debt over that period. The CBC budget adopts the PAYGO rules which you all have forgotten about.

Even with those accomplishments, the CBC budget funds these important programs: $80 billion more on education and job training, $20 billion more on veterans benefits and services, $20 billion more on health care, $6 billion more on community and regional development including the gulf coast, and billions more on research, nutrition, and food programs. And where do we get it from? On that money that comes from people making over $200,000 a year. We think these are higher priorities, and we are honest enough to tell you so.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

March 7, 2006.

Dear Representative Conyers: On behalf of the Judicial

Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of

the federal judiciary, I am writing to convey its views

regarding the provisions contained in H.R. 4472, the

``Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of

2005.''

We would like to emphasize that there are several ways in

which this bill will be helpful to the Judiciary, even though

there are some provisions about which we have concerns or

would wish to modify. In particular, we greatly appreciate

inclusion in this bill of important measures designed to

improve the security of our federal courts. Some of the

impetus for these court security provisions in the bill arose

from the tragic circumstances surrounding the murder of

family members of Judge Joan Lefkow of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Her

husband and mother were shot and killed by a disgruntled

litigant.

The current bill contains several provisions that are of

particular interest to the federal courts and that are

supported by the Judicial Conference. One provision of the

bill requires the United States Marshals Service to consult

with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts

regarding the security requirements of the judicial branch.

While this is a positive amendment to current law, we believe

that the United States Marshals Service should be required to

``coordinate'' with the judicial branch.

The bill contains two other provisions that are supported

by the Judicial Conference including one that will help

protect judges from the malicious recording of fictitious

liens and another that extends to federal judges the

authority to carry firearms under regulations prescribed by

the Attorney General in consultation with the Judicial

Conference of the United States. The latter provision says

that, with respect to justices, judges, magistrate judges and

bankruptcy judges, such regulations ``may'' provide for the

training and regular certification in the use of firearms.

The Judicial Conference believes that the training and

certification requirement should be mandatory and that

``shall'' should replace ``may.''

While the bill addresses many important issues of interest

to the Conference, the bill also contains some provisions

about which we are concerned, which we briefly address below.

The bill would amend the habeas corpus procedures set out

in 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2264 and 2254 to bar federal court

review of claims based upon an error in an applicant's

sentence or sentencing that a court determined to be harmless

or not prejudicial, that were not presented in state court,

or that were found by the state court to be procedurally

barred, ``unless a determination that the error is not

structural is contrary to clearly established federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court.'' This section is similar to

a provision of the Streamlined Procedures Act (H.R. 3035 and

S. 1088, 109th Congress) that was opposed by the Judicial

Conference as described in a September 26, 2005 letter sent

to members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Conference

specifically opposed sections of the Streamlined Procedures

Act that would limit judicial review of procedurally

defaulted claims and harmless errors in federal habeas corpus

petitions filed by state prisoners. Those provisions had the

potential to:

(1) Undermine the traditional role of the federal courts to

hear and decide the merits of claims arising under the

Constitution;

(2) Impede the ability of the federal and state courts to

conduct an orderly review of constitutional claims, with

appropriate deference to state-court proceedings; and

(3) Prevent the federal courts from reaching the merits of

habeas corpus petitions by adding procedural requirements

that may complicate the resolution of these cases and lead to

protracted litigation. . . .

The habeas provision in this bill raises similar concerns

and is opposed by the Judicial Conference.

Another section would make it a federal crime for a person

to knowingly fail to register as required under the Sex

Offender Registration and Notification Act if the person is

either a sex offender based upon a federal conviction or is a

sex offender based on a state conviction who thereafter

travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or

leaves, or resides in, Indian country. Because the

requirement to register under that act would include

convictions in state courts, this has the potential to expand

federal jurisdiction over large numbers of persons whose

conduct would previously have been subject to supervision

solely by the state courts. In addition, as the bill requires

the states to expand systems for supervising all persons

convicted of specified offenses, the expansion of federal

jurisdiction into this area risks duplication of effort and

conflicts between the federal and state systems.

The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 5032 to allow a

juvenile who is prosecuted for one of the specified crimes of

violence or firearms offenses to ``be prosecuted and

convicted as an adult for any other offense which is properly

joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and

also [to] be convicted as an adult of any lesser included

offense.'' Given that joinder of offenses is liberally

allowed under the Rules, and that the bill further provides

that the determination of the Attorney General to proceed

against a juvenile as an adult is an exercise of unreviewable

prosecutorial discretion, this provision could result in the

federal prosecution of juveniles for myriad offenses if they

are also prosecuted for a felony crime of violence or a

firearms offense.

The bill contains various provisions that expand the

application of mandatory minimum sentences. The Judicial

Conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing provisions

because they undermine the sentencing guideline regime

Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984

by preventing the systematic development of guidelines that

reduce unwarranted disparity and provide proportionality and

fairness in punishment. While we recognize the desire to

increase the security of persons associated with the justice

system, we believe that this can be accomplished without

resort to the creation of mandatory minimums.

I appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of

the Judicial Conference on H.R. 4472, the ``Children's Safety

and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005.'' If you have any

questions regarding this legislation please contact Cordia

Strom, Assistant Director, Office of Legislative Affairs.

Sincerely,

Leonidas Ralph Mecham,

Secretary, Judicial Conference

of the United States.

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

I am honored to be an original cosponsor with my friend, Congressman Rogers from Alabama, of this legislation. Some people probably are wondering why this kind of interesting coalition has come together.

Well, for me, it is about having the Lowes Motor Speedway in Charlotte, North Carolina, not inside my congressional district, it is actually in an adjoining congressional district represented by one of my other North Carolina colleagues. But we know the value of NASCAR and motor sports in North Carolina and in the area from which I come.

The second thing that converges here is the recognition that I have five Historically Black Colleges and Universities in my district, and two of them have already become a part of this partnership and will benefit from NASCAR's diversity initiative: North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, North Carolina, and Winston-Salem State University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Representative Davis has indicated the history of NASCAR when it comes to drivers, and that is important, but I want to emphasize that this is not only about having drivers in the cars. NASCAR is a massive conglomerate of entities, and a lot of people view NASCAR or motor sports as just the guys that are out there running around the track or the guys in the pits. There are marketing opportunities, there are accounting opportunities; this is a major corporate undertaking here. There are engineering opportunities.

I was so very impressed when I went to one of the shops there to know that this is not just somebody putting a car out there, it is massaging the tolerances and doing what is necessary to get those cars, engineering-wise, to perform at their maximum performance level. So we think this has tremendous potential for job opportunities for an increase of diversity.

Now, is this unique? It may be somewhat unique for NASCAR, but it is certainly not unique for the Congressional Black Caucus. The Congressional Black Caucus, which I am honored to chair, has been in the forefront of pushing job opportunities in every area of our lives: in the sports arena, in the business arena, in the financial services arena, you just name it, go down the list. So, for us, this is not a unique program, it is a natural progression and an expansion of what we set out to do.

And then, finally, I would just say that, as most things, this is at its bottom line about money.

If we can take the fan base of NASCAR and superimpose on it all of the African American potential that is out there, so that there is an equal amount of customer and fan base in the African American community as there is in other communities, you will see the same thing happen in NASCAR that you saw happen when Tiger Woods became the superstar that he is in golf.

You will see the same thing happen in NASCAR that has happened in football and basketball and baseball and other sports. They have recognized that there is a customer base out there that, if they take advantage of it, can be cultivated if people who look like the customers are involved in it.

So we dare not delude ourselves that this is all about just goodwill. This is about money at its base. And it is about the American way, the capital way of doing things.

We support that. We are not adverse to it. We are not opposing it. We are

supporters of that. We think this is a way to do it.

I want to congratulate my good friend, Mr. Rogers. And when we introduced this resolution, a stream of my colleagues came immediately to support the resolution.

I thank Speaker Hastert for joining us at the press conference where this was rolled out. And I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for expediting this resolution to the floor of the House.

It does not cost us any money. All we are doing is congratulating, encouraging private enterprise to be more diverse in their customer base, in their employment base, in their opportunities that are extended to all Americans. That is what this is all about. It deserves our unqualified support, and I encourage my colleagues to support it without even thinking about it a second time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, but that is not why I am here. I am here because of the protocols of the House. The protocols of the House say that a bill goes through a committee and somebody on that committee should be controlling time. But the protocols of the House sometimes put you in a position that you know you are inadequate to effectively do, and that is my position today, because the real person who should be being honored by controlling time is the person who was the original cosponsor of this, my good friend and colleague, Representative Rangel.

So I want to proudly say that I am a strong supporter of this bill, but I want to yield immediately to my colleague from New York, Representative Rangel, as much time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will not take it all.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to note and pay tribute to what I am told are approximately 20 Tuskegee Airmen, who are still living and reside in North Carolina, and mention some of their names, from my congressional district two of them: from Greensboro, Harvey Alexander; from Salisbury, Fred Wilson. And from other parts of the State, I do not have all of their names, but I do want to pay tribute to the ones that I have: from Lenoir, North Carolina, George Shade; from Durham, William MacDonald and Dr. Stuart Fulbright; from Raleigh, North Carolina, my good friend Dr. Harold Webb, whom I have known forever, and Walter Chavis; from Smithfield, North Carolina, Hernando Palmer; and from Dudley, North Carolina, Wilson Eagleson, II.

I want to thank my colleague, Representative Rangel, again for taking the lead in putting all this together to make this a truly bipartisan recognition of truly heroic and brave airmen.

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

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, it is a great pleasure for me to lead this annual Special Order of the Congressional Black Caucus in honor of Black History Month. The theme for this year's African American history month is ``Celebrating community, a tribute to black fraternal, social and civic institutions.'' And it is dedicated to exploring the impact that these civic organizations have had on the evolution of African American life and history.

A word or two about the history of Black History Month. The celebration of Black History Month started in 1926 as the vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson who, out of frustration from not finding references to black history in any of our history books, launched an initiative to highlight the many outstanding contributions of African American people throughout the history of the United States. This year we are celebrating the 80th anniversary of Black History Month.

Initially, black history started off as a 1-week event during the second week of February because it marked the birthdays of two men who greatly influenced black people in this country, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. However, as time passed, it was clear that one week was not sufficient to highlight the achievements of black people and eventually the celebration became known as Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, this year during Black History Month, we are celebrating the institutions, fraternal, social, civic and religious, that have been so vital in our progress, the many national organizations and the community and grass-roots organizations around the country that have been and continue to be the backbone of the African American community. Often times these organizations have stepped in when the Federal, State, and local governments have failed to provide the necessary services, and for that they are to be commended, most recently in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have often said that Black History Month is about the future, a time to assess and acknowledge that there is no place for complacency and no time to rest. For that reason, the Congressional Black Caucus continues to focus its agenda and our efforts on closing and eliminating disparities that continue to exist in every aspect of our lives.

It is now my pleasure to recognize some of my colleagues to help us celebrate this Black History Month celebration. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bobby Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his eloquence, and let me just add a few comments while we are waiting for one other Member to come and join in this Special Order.

I actually tend to agree with one of our recent actors who started to question the whole concept of Black History Month, not because it is not important to all of us, but because the accomplishments of African Americans are so profound and so diffuse in every aspect of our lives that it is quite obvious that the same thing that happened with Black History Week, that we found that there just was not sufficient to do justice to those accomplishments, is now happening to Black History Month. A month is not sufficient to do justice to a discussion and an emphasis and a highlighting of those accomplishments.

So, as we continue to celebrate Black History Month, we should continue to recognize that Black History Week, which became Black History Month, in and of itself is a recognition that we simply have not done what we should be doing throughout our history to acknowledge the important contributions that African Americans have made.

We could spend hours here on the floor, had we the time, on any of the subjects which are the title of this Black History Month: black fraternities, African American sororities, social organizations, civic institutions, religious institutions. We could spend days talking about the sororities, Alpha Kappa Alpha, which my wife happens to be a member of; Delta Sigma Theta; the Zetas. The whole list of sororities, they go on and on. Most of them sprang out of a need for service, a recognition that there were not social responsibilities, but civic and important unfinished business that needed to be attended to. Organizations of various kinds, headed by powerful women in our country, the Council of

Negro Women, I mean we could go on and on and on with the list of organizations, social and civic organizations, that have grown out of a need to emphasize and uplift the community so that perhaps what was previously referred to in the prior Special Order here, about the Preamble to the Constitution, really would be made a living, viable document, equality and justice for all. Many of these organizations sprang out of that.

We could spend a week, a month or two talking about the churches, the religious denominations, the AMEs, the AME, African Methodist Episcopal Zion denomination or the African Methodist Episcopal denomination, which formed because African American people either were not welcome in the white religious institutions or because those religious institutions were not providing the kind of freedom of expression or the level of equality. Even though they were talking the talk, they were not necessarily walking the walk throughout our history.

So all of these things are extremely important. Perhaps we do not do justice to any of them in the short period of time we have this evening, but we should never forget that all of them are extremely important.

Again, Black History Month is not only about reflecting on the past, it is about the challenges, the lack of equality that exists today that we must continue to confront going into the future. We should never lose sight of that.

With that, I see that my colleague from the great State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has arrived, and so I will now yield to her for her expressions in this Black History Month Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Representative David Scott from Georgia, Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia, and Representative Jackson-Lee from Texas. There were a number of our Members who would have loved to have participated in this Special Order this evening. Unfortunately, it turned out that we were the fourth Special Order of the evening, and it is approaching midnight so they are not here.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to honor the memory of all of our great heroes and sheroes that have gone before, our organizations, our civic fraternities, sororities, churches who have contributed so much to our progress, but also recognize that there are many miles to go before we sleep.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order today related to Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 54 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution honoring the life and memory of Mrs. Coretta Scott King and would like to pull up some information from the resolution itself that other people may not focus on because we are tempted sometime to think of Mrs. King as simply the spouse, the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, and I think it would be a grave, grave mistake for people to do that.

So I first point to the part of the resolution that says, Whereas Mrs. King received honorary doctorates from over 60 colleges and universities and authored three books. That in and of itself is something that, aside from her commitment to the civil rights movement and her companionship and partnership with Dr. Martin Luther King, would in and of itself be deserving of particular note.

Second, I pull up the fact that, as has been pointed out by my colleague, Representative John Lewis, Coretta Scott came of age in the segregated South and took an active interest in the emerging civil rights movement. This coming of age in the segregated South is something that I think we should not allow to go unnoticed because either, in many ways like slavery or the movement itself, either segregation or slavery tramped down people or it made them stand up and raise their shoulders and raise their sights. And when you find somebody like a John Lewis and a Coretta Scott King who fall into the latter category, it is important to take note of that fact.

So then I go to the first paragraph of the resolution, and when I first read the resolution, I kind of pushed back from the first paragraph because it says Whereas Coretta Scott King was an inspirational figure and a woman of great strength, grace and dignity, I think most of us focus primarily, if we knew Coretta Scott King, on the grace and dignity part of that, and had I kind of an off the top of the head reaction would be I would put grace first and I would put dignity second and then I would put the word ``strength.'' But when you note that she grew up in the segregated South, it is really appropriate the way this has been drafted to put the strength part of that three- part prong equation first.

I think it is something that says here is a woman that is strong and willing to fight and yet still has grace and dignity.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read, on behalf of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the press release and make a final point. It says: ``The Congressional Black Caucus released the following statement: `The Congressional Black Caucus extends its sincere condolences to the family of Coretta Scott King, the First Lady of the Civil Rights Movement. Mrs. King, who became a symbol of strength and resolve during the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, after his death was an inspiration to millions of people around the world who sought justice and equality. She has remained the carrier of the freedom flame for almost 38 years since Dr. King's death.' ''

And then the following paragraph is what I want to focus on. It says: `` `Mrs. King's death marks the end of an era, but certainly not the end of the continued struggle that she was such an integral part of and that African Americans face daily for equity and parity in education, health care, and employment security.' ''

I do not think we should lose sight of that last part because the struggle goes on and we would honor Coretta Scott King's memory by keeping that struggle alive until we reach full equality. As we approach the State of the Union address tonight, let us not miss the point that this lady fought and lived and died for the struggle for equality.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I support the extension of the Defense Department's 1207 program, which ensures that the Department's federal contracting process in no way supports or subsidizes the discrimination that has long existed in the contracting business. The extension of the program through September 2009 is needed to help achieve that goal.

Overwhelming evidence has shown that minorities historically have been excluded from both public and private construction projects, particularly from defense contracts. Since its adoption in 1986, the Department of Defense's 1207 program has helped level the playing field for minority contractors, but there is still much work yet to be done.

A 2004 North Carolina study by MGT America, an independent research and consulting firm, revealed that North Carolina continues to underutilize businesses owned by minorities or women in nearly all categories of transportation contracts. More specifically, African American and Hispanic businesses are underutilized in every business category of contracts awarded by the North Carolina Department of

Transportation. In an earlier Charlotte study, Hispanic contractors reported that they are treated differently and experience more pressure to get the work done. Clearly, efforts to encourage minority participation in government contracting are still necessary.

The Department of Defense's 1207 program helps to counter discrimination without imposing an undue burden on white-owned businesses. Small businesses owned by white contractors are eligible to receive the benefits of the program if they are socially and economically disadvantaged.

I strongly support the reauthorization of the Department of Defense's 1207 program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus. By doing so, we wish to make clear positions the Congressional Black Caucus has consistently taken from before the time the war in Iraq commenced and to put those positions in the Record. Our votes tonight will not be misinterpreted or mischaracterized.

As early as July 27, 2005, the top United States commander in Iraq stated that a transition of U.S. troops from Iraq could begin as early as this spring. Iraq's interim Prime Minister echoed General Casey's sentiments and added that ``the time has arrived to plan a coordinated transition from American to Iraqi military control throughout the country.''

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus reaffirm our Statement of Principles as to War against Iraq, issued in October 2002, which I would place in the Record at this point.

Congressional Black Caucus Statement of Principles as to War Against

Iraq, October 2002

We oppose a unilateral, first-strike action by the United

States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of

attack on the United States.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war.

Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted.

A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral

authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East

region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address

unmet domestic priorities.

Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in

the region would be costly and require a long-term

commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we reaffirm our Further Statement of Principles as to President's Request for Appropriations for Efforts in Iraq issued in September 2003, which I ask to insert into the Record at this point.

Congressional Black Caucus Further Statement of Principles as to President's Request for Appropriations for Efforts in Iraq, September

2003

In October 2002, before the President made the decision to

proceed to war, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) issued a

``Statement of Principles as to the War Against Iraq.''

In light of the President's request for $87 billion to

pursue continuing operations in Iraq, the CBC believes that

it is desirable to issue these Further Principles that will

guide our evaluation of the President's request for

additional funding:

1. We reaffirm our Statement of Principles issued in

October 2002 (copy attached).

2. Despite the President's failure to follow our original

Statement of Principles in his decisions leading to the war,

we express our full resolve to support and protect our troops

and their families.

3. The Administration should provide an accounting of all

funds expended to date that were previously appropriated by

the Congress, including details about all contracts for work

in or related to Iraq.

4. The President should provide sufficient details about

how the proposed funding will be spent to enable Congress and

its Committees to evaluate separately funding proposed for

the protection and maintenance of our troops and funding

proposed for rebuilding Iraq. Congress should vote on these

funding proposals separately.

5. The President should provide full details about how the

efforts will be paid for, including a full accounting of

Iraqi resources (recovered and anticipated) and how the

President proposes to use those resources to reduce or

reimburse the U.S. obligation.

6. The President should provide full details about the

future obligations of the United States (personnel, funding

and decision making) and about how responsibility and

authority for these obligations will be shared with the

United Nations and/or other nations going forward.

7. The Administration should provide to Congress full

details of information relied on by the President in his

decision to go to war.

8. The President should provide details of the criteria he

will expect to be met before bringing U.S. troops home and of

his exit strategy.

The members of the Congressional Black Caucus further urge President Bush to end the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq expeditiously by submitting to Congress a detailed plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq and redeploy those forces at the earliest practicable date;

To accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces to prepare them to accept full responsibility for maintaining internal security in Iraq and transfer responsibility for internal security to the Iraqi Government;

To incorporate the United Nations and other international organizations in the transition and reconstruction process;

To pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomatic and economic means;

To assure that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq;

And to ensure full support of our military families and our veterans, particularly with respect to service benefits and health care.

Our vote tonight, our votes, 42 of us, will not be misinterpreted and not be mischaracterized. This is our position. We have submitted it for the Record. That is what we stand on, and that is what we say to this House and to the President of the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

First of all, I am fully aware that it is a dangerous combination to be opposing both the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), but I simply think this bill is an overreaction.

This amendment would strike all the provisions of the bill except the sense of Congress which I believe adequately conveys the legitimate concerns with the decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo and does what we should appropriately do, express our concern about it and any possible abuse of it but not go so overboard as this bill does in my opinion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his thoughtful approach to this and express my desire to have all of the Members of the Congress have an equally thoughtful approach to it.

The Kelo decision was met with a tremendous uproar, with many echoing the view that all private property is now vulnerable to condemnation as long as the new use of the land will produce additional tax revenue. While I appreciate that concern and share the view that private property should not be taken solely for the purpose of increasing State coffers or local coffers with additional tax revenue, I do not believe that the Court's decision leads to that result.

What is even more important is I do not believe that this bill does much, if anything, to address that concern even if it did do that. Unless we get down to a definition of what removal of blight is, and this bill does nothing to do that, local communities are still going to be able to condemn property, as they should, for public purposes. There really is nothing inconsistent with that in the Kelo decision.

Flexibility by local communities in determining whether the public use requirement has been served by ensuring that condemned property creates a public benefit or advantage has long existed, and I believe should continue to exist, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has so eloquently stated. I feel like State and local officials have as much intellect and discretion and are as accountable, probably even more so, to their constituents than Members of Congress; and they should be answering to their constituents on these issues.

Again, while I believe that the power of eminent domain must be exercised judiciously, I think this bill goes too far in limiting the power of States and local governments. In addition, the punitive measures included in the bill will visit additional harms on the very distressed communities that are often the target of eminent domain proceedings.

I would just point out that apparently after this bill is passed, if it is passed, a local government, a State government could still condemn blighted property. The problem now is that it would just have to sit there vacant with nothing developed on it, otherwise they would be in violation of the provisions of this bill if there were any kind of private development, even a public-private partnership.

So I think we are going too far and we need to take a giant step back, take a deep breath, and pass the sense of

Congress part of this resolution expressing our concern, but not the bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to clarify for the gentleman that the NAACP has advised me that they are concerned about the abuse of eminent domain, as everybody else is, and the sense of Congress part of the resolution would continue to express that concern. They do not endorse the bill, however.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.