Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, last August I had the honor to march in Atlanta in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, joining our colleagues Congressman Lewis, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and so many other leaders.

I took with me the commitment of more than 200 House Democrats that we would vote 100 percent to reauthorize and strengthen this landmark legislation. And we stand by that commitment today. In May, I was proud to join Speaker Hastert and the Senate leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, to march down the steps of the Capitol and reaffirm our commitment to passing this legislation to strengthen and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years.

Today, we have the opportunity, indeed the privilege, to honor that bipartisan commitment. In that spirit, I wish to acknowledge the steadfast leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner; Mr. Conyers, thank you for your leadership, the two of you for working together; and the extraordinary leadership of Congressman Mel Watt, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a member of the Judiciary Committee, who helped cobble together this compromise with his persistent, persistent leadership. Thank you, Mr. Watt.

I also salute the Chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, and the Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressman Mike Honda, for their leadership. Of course, as with so many of our colleagues, we are very privileged to acknowledge Congressman John Lewis, the conscience of the Congress. Voting rights and civil rights in America are possible because of his courage and personal sacrifice and that of so many of our brave Americans who fought for the cause of freedom and justice.

This was an epic moral struggle in our country, and it remains our moral imperative to remove obstacles to voting and to representation for all. Among the other brave Americans are three extraordinary women. It is fitting that this legislation is named for Rosa Parks, for Coretta Scott King and for Fannie Lou Hamer. These women were constant in their pursuit of voting rights.

Rosa Parks ignited the Montgomery bus boycott. Fannie Lou Hamer electrified the 1964 Democratic Convention where she said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired'' and was successful in getting her African American delegates recognized at the delegation.

Coretta Scott King was the keeper of the flame and one of our Nation's greatest civil rights leaders in her own right.

Forty years ago, in one of our Nation's finest hours, we came together to give teeth to the 15th amendment to overcome bigotry and injustice and to secure the fundamental right to vote. With the passage of the Voting Rights Act, we said that we would no longer tolerate any of the nefarious methods such as poll tax, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and brutal violence that had been used to deny African Americans and other minority citizens the right to vote.

Within months of the Voting Rights Act's passage, a quarter of a million new African American voters had been registered. A quarter of a million new voices that had been silenced could finally be heard. They, along with millions to follow, changed the world with a vision of justice, equality, and opportunity for all.

We see its impact in the Halls of Congress: 81 African American, Latino, Asian and Native American Members. We all know that America is at its best when our remarkable diversity is represented in our Halls of power. We also know that we still have a great distance to go in order to live up to our Nation's ideals of equality and opportunity.

That is why the Voting Rights Act is still necessary, and that is why any amendments to weaken it must be rejected. I urge our colleagues to vote ``no'' on changing preclearance provisions, diminishing language assistance, and shortening the authorization period.

Make no mistake, the 10-year limitation on key VRA provisions seriously undermines its effectiveness.

We are all familiar with the, ``I Have a Dream'' speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, the march on Washington nearly 43 years ago. One part of the speech that I love that is not as frequently quoted as the ``I have a dream'' part, though, is he said in that speech: ``We have come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.''

We today must reject gradualism by voting ``no'' on the amendment to make this reauthorization period 10 years. Any diminishment of the Voting Rights Act is a diminishment of our democracy. In America, the right to vote must never, ever be compromised. We must not rest until the expiring sections of the Voting Rights Act are strengthened and reauthorized. This is our solemn pledge and obligation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of July, that wonderful holiday where we celebrate America's Declaration of Independence, we must recall that our Founding Fathers understood and placed in our founding documents the important balance between liberty and security.

In that spirit, at the outset, let me reiterate that we all, Democrats and Republicans alike, support two principles. First, we support effective tools to fight terrorism, including the tracking of terrorist financing here and abroad under all applicable laws. Second, no one here condones disclosure of information that harms our vital national interest and makes locating terrorists and terrorist networks and disrupting their plans more difficult.

These basic principles and their frames, liberty and security, are contained in a balanced way in the substitute resolution offered by the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Mr. Frank's resolution should have been permitted by the rule to be considered today.

But, again, in this closed Congress that we are in, we cannot consider alternatives. We can't even have a motion to recommit. I don't know what is so good about that as we go into the Fourth of July. But let us talk about the Republican resolution.

The Republican resolution before us today is quite clearly a document for political purposes. It makes sweeping and dubious conclusions on the facts and legality of the financial transaction surveillance program, unsupported by any fact-finding or oversight, and based upon representations by the President.

In a free society, we all have our roles and responsibilities. As public officials, we must safeguard our lawful intelligence activities, many of which have been conducted in secret. We respect that.

Our media, of course, have their public responsibilities. A free press is centered on reporting on the workings of government and on being alert, aware and free. They have an obligation to be responsible about their reporting of national security and to balance any reporting with the harm of disclosure.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration lacks credibility when it comes to complaining about leaks. The administration's record, and that of this Republican Congress, are marked by selective disclosures of classified information and selective expressions of displeasure over leaks.

When the identity of an undercover CIA officer was disclosed by high- ranking members of the administration in the White House, as part of a smear campaign against a critic of the Iraq war, the President did not fire any of the leakers. In fact, one of them was actually promoted. As Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told us, this disclosure could cause severe damage and irreparable harm to our national security.

Similarly, it was recently revealed that President Bush himself was alleged to have authorized for political purposes the selective leaking of intelligence information in a National Security Estimate.

Where was the outrage and the oversight from this Republican Congress? Nowhere to be seen. Repeatedly, this Republican Congress has spurned resolutions of inquiry and neglected congressional oversight responsibility to get to the bottom of leaks by the Bush administration.

So let us take this resolution for what it is. It is a campaign document. The Republican resolution contains a number of statements that simply cannot be factually confirmed and are not the result of congressional fact-finding or rigorous congressional oversight. The Republican resolution also contains a number of statements regarding the legality of the program and the safeguards it claims protects individual rights.

Let me just read what that is. This resolution finds that the Terrorist Financed Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program.

Continue its oversight of the program? There has never been any oversight of the program. The fact is, because there has never been any oversight of the program, there isn't one person in this body who will vote on this resolution who can attest to this statement. You are asking us to vote on something that we absolutely cannot attest to. Not any one of you can attest to this as a fact, because it isn't a fact.

So let us just go to where we began, to our founders, liberty and security. As I said before, when the identity of an undercover CIA officer was disclosed by high-ranking members of the administration as part of a smear tactic, nothing was done. Nothing was done by this Congress in terms of oversight. Nothing has been done.

The Frank substitute does not contain any of these unsupported conclusions. The Frank substitute is a resolution that is balanced and accurate and should command the support of all Members.

I intend to vote against this resolution. I wish that we could have the chance to vote for Mr. Frank's resolution. I think that would have been in keeping with the intentions of our Founding Fathers.

But let us keep in mind their constant admonition that in order to have security, we must have freedom. In order to have freedom, we must have security. We must have balance. This resolution does not.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us seeks to disenfranchise millions of American citizens by placing obstacles on their right--and their civic duty--to vote. The essence of our democracy is the right to vote. No right is more precious.

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides for ballot and language assistance for language minority citizens, so all citizens are fully able to participate in our democracy.

Ballots and procedures are often complex and bewildering, even for those completely proficient in English. To ensure that all are able to participate on free and fair terms, language assistance is vital to protecting the right to vote, especially among Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Alaskan Natives.

Impact of Section 203: A key objective of the Voting Rights Act is not only to remedy past and current attempts to suppress the vote, but also to remove obstacles to the right to vote and bolster voter participation among populations where participation has historically been low.

As the Judiciary Committee noted in its recent bipartisan committee report, Section 203 is needed today, and should be reauthorized to continue to achieve its purposes. For instance, after San Diego County provided language assistance, the registration rates among Spanish- and Filipino-speaking American citizens grew by more than 20 percent and registration among Vietnamese-speaking American citizens increased by nearly 40 percent. Likewise, in Apache County, Arizona, enforcement activities resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout in four years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to participate in elections for the first time.

The Stearns amendment, however, by preventing enforcement of Section 203, will allow states and localities to discriminate against taxpaying American citizens because of their language ability, and impede their right to vote.

That is wrong. In our country, our laws and our Constitution draws no distinction between American citizens born here or not. In fact, three- quarters of those who are covered by the language assistance provision are native-born United States citizens. The rest are naturalized U.S. citizens.

The opponents of Section 203 claim that the costs are too great. Studies disprove that contention, but costs are not the issue. Securing the right to vote must never--and cannot--ever be considered a burden. It is our moral and constitutional obligation.

The arguments of the opponents of Section 203 are suspiciously similar to the arguments once employed for literacy tests to disenfranchise African American voters. I had hoped we had passed that period in our country's history when such tests were widely used. We cannot permit the use of these tests once again.

Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to unite together as Americans with one voice to reaffirm our commitment on the fundamental subject of voting rights for all of our citizens. Instead, this ugly amendment seeks to undermine that moral and historic commitment. The constant scapegoating of our fellow American citizens--and attempts to suppress their voting rights--must end.

Any diminishing of language assistance is a diminishment of our American democracy. We must defeat this amendment, and affirm our support of Section 203.

The right to vote must never, ever be compromised. Every vote counts--every vote must be counted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Ruth Passen as she celebrates her 80th birthday. I am proud to pay tribute to her 40 years of respected community journalism as the editor and publisher of the Potrero View, and recognize her lifetime of community service and social activism. Born and raised in San Francisco, she became a formidable advocate for social justice, peace, equality, democracy and freedom.

In 1970, with a few dedicated volunteers, Ruth launched the Potrero View, which has become San Francisco's longest running community newspaper. With her guidance, the Potrero View grew from a neighborhood newsletter into an award-winning, respected, and much anticipated journal of local news, as well as a significant resource of community services. Its investigative style and editorial integrity are well- known throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

As a dear friend and right arm to the late, legendary Enola Maxwell, Ruth helped build the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, affectionately known as the Nabe, into a hub of vital services for the youth, the elderly, and the families of Potrero Hill. She was instrumental in bringing her beloved jazz and theater to the Nabe and the wider community.

Ruth was actively involved with the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom in the peace mobilization of the 1960s and 70s and worked in solidarity with the people of El Salvador for justice and democracy in the 1980s.

Ruth and her husband Joe Passen, whose life we celebrated on this floor 14 years ago, were relentless champions of the labor movement. Together, they fought for working men and women on the San Francisco waterfront and in the maritime industry throughout the West Coast. They helped San Francisco become the first and foremost trade union town in the world. They worked alongside Cesar Chavez in support of California's farm workers.

As Young Democrats they were part of a progressive movement in San Francisco that brought Phillip Burton, John Burton, Sala Burton and me to this people's House.

We thank Ruth for her immeasurable contributions to our City. We wish her every happiness as she begins a new chapter in her life as Editor Emeritus of the Potrero View and grandmother extraordinaire. Finally, she will have much deserved time to pursue her many interests, as well as spend time with her beloved family--her son Marc, daughter-in-law Dianne, and granddaughters Natalie and Teresa. Thank you, Ruth for your years of service to our beautiful City of San Francisco.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of consideration. It is inappropriate to consider this bill until the Republican leadership schedules a vote on an increase in the minimum wage, which they are now blocking. Therefore, under clause 3, rule XVI, I demand a vote on the question of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I congratulate him on his, as always, excellent leadership on behalf of the middle-class working families in America. I salute him for his excellent presentation today.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the ultimate values debate. The question before us today is, Do we want to cut taxes for the ultra-superrich, or, instead, do we first want to give hardworking Americans a raise?

Do we want to live in an aristocracy, or do we want to live in a democracy?

Do we want to perpetuate wealth or reward work?

The estate tax is central to our democracy. It is rooted in our commitment to create a strong and vibrant middle class and to give every American the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

After the Gilded Age, in which the elites of the time held power and wealth that far, far, far outstripped what the average American had, America decided to go in a new direction.

One of America's great Republican Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, made the argument for an estate tax, saying that the ``really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in its kind, as well as its degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means.'' Therefore, President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``I believe in a graduated tax on big fortunes properly safeguarded against evasion.''

Democrats believe that we must create wealth. We recognize that, that we must reward entrepreneurship and risk, and we must encourage hard work. That is why Democrats supported a targeted estate tax relief for small businesses and farmers and families that would ensure 99.7 percent of all Americans don't pay any estate tax. This is in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt, targeting the vast fortunes that differ not only in the quantity of wealth, but in the kind.

I salute Congressman Earl Pomeroy for his leadership in giving Congress an alternative that is morally and fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, once again, the Republican leadership, just as they have blocked a vote on the minimum wage, are blocking Mr. Pomeroy's option to bring his proposal to the floor, which is responsible, which is paid for, and which is fair to all Americans.

Under Mr. Pomeroy's proposal, only the top .3 percent, that means 99.7 percent of Americans, most people in America, would not pay any estate tax. But it would leave that .3 percent, the very, very, superwealthy, to pay their fair share. There are very few people involved, but a great deal of money. We will have a chance to vote on it in the motion to recommit. Unfortunately, we will not have the time to debate it as an alternative.

We have these questions that have come before us when we are talking about this. We are talking about giving $800 billion to a few families in America. Democrats stand for fiscal responsibility, pay-as-you-go budgets, and no new deficit spending.

Republicans, instead, have put forth the bill that will cost the American people, again, almost $800 billion; $800 billion that we don't have, that we are going to have to borrow.

Our national debt is becoming a national security issue. Countries that now own our debt, it is over $1 trillion already, and this doesn't include this $800 billion, those countries that now own our debt will not only be making our toys, our clothes and our computers, they will be soon making our foreign policy. They have too much leverage over us.

With this bill today, the Republicans are giving tax cuts to the wealthy and asking the middle class to pay for it by writing checks to China and Japan for the interest payments on the debt and, ultimately, the payment on principal. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous.

Let me get this straight. We are at war in Iraq. Many of the same people who wanted to support the stay-the-course that the President is on in Iraq, which has around a $400 billion price tag on it, that is off budget. They don't want to pay for that. And that is a huge figure. And now the Republicans are saying, not only that, not only are we not paying for the war, it is off budget. We will just heap that debt on to future generations. They are saying, we are going to give twice as much as that to a few families in America. It is so unfair, this same week that we are taking this up.

As I said earlier, this is the ultimate values debate. How can a person of conscience say to the Congress, we do not support an increase in the minimum wage. Instead we are going to give $800 billion to the wealthiest people in America.

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. It hasn't been raised in 9 years. This is a shame. It is a disgrace. It is unfair.

And what does the leader on the Republican side say about the minimum wage? Mr. Boehner says, I have been in this business for 25 years and I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think the vast majority of the Republican conference is opposed to it.

So thank you, Mr. Boehner, for making a differentiation for us. You are for $800 billion for the wealthiest families in America, and not an increase of over $5.15 an hour for America's working families. So instead of giving 7 million Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage, again, the Republicans are proposing $800 billion, that is nearly $1 trillion, as a gift to the wealthy. This is Robin Hood in reverse. We are stealing from the middle class to give to the wealthy.

Pope Benedict just recently put out his new encyclical, ``God is Love.'' And in his encyclical, he quoted Saint Augustine when he wrote, this is in the Pope's encyclical. You can find it there. He talked about the role that politicians have and that a government should be just, and we should be promoting justice. And he goes on, Pope Benedict does, to quote Saint Augustine. He says: ``A state that is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' This is the Pope saying this in an encyclical, quoting a saint. ``A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.''

I ask this Congress, is it justice to steal from the middle class to give tax cuts to the ultra-superrich?

It is not just. And it is an injustice we cannot afford. Americans can no longer afford President Bush and the Republicans. It is time for a new direction. We can begin by rejecting this estate tax giveaway to the wealthy and insist on a vote to increase the minimum wage. That would be a real values judgment.

Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the debate, Mr. Skelton asked the House to observe a moment of silence for the 2,500 troops that we have lost in the war in Iraq. The number is a staggering one, but we warned them one person at a time. I hope their families live with great pride. I know they will live with great sorrow.

My uncle was killed at the Battle of the Bulge, and for my father's entire life it was as if it had happened yesterday. As if it had happened yesterday. We know that experience has been repeated over and over again across our country.

In remembering those who died, and their families who mourn them, let us also salute all of our men and women in uniform who are doing their jobs with great courage, with great patriotism and dedication, and their families who are making enormous sacrifices; 2,500 killed, 18,000 wounded, more than half of them permanently, straining our military readiness and eroding our reputation in the world.

The President of the United States says, stay the course. Stay the course? I don't think so, Mr. President. It is time to face the facts.

On every important aspect in the Iraq war, President Bush and his advisors have been wrong: wrong on the reason to go to war, wrong on the reception our troops would receive, wrong on the rapidity with which the Iraqi economy would be able to pay for the war and reconstruction, and wrong on the willingness of the international community to join in efforts to stabilize Iraq.

But don't take my word for it. This gross incompetence has driven some of our fighting generals to level devastating public criticism. MG John Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, has said: ``My own decision to speak out goes back to watching firsthand the arrogant and contemptuous attitude of Rumsfeld as he ignored the advice of military experts during preparations for war, and then living with the impact of those strategic blunders as a division commander in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.''

That is why over 2 years ago I asked for the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld, and I do so again today. No one has been held accountable for all of these mistakes in Iraq.

The incompetence comes at a great cost. The Bush administration is so obsessed with the effort to paint an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq that it refuses to face the facts. The facts are these: more than 2,500 American troops have been killed. Again, more than 18,000 have been injured, half of them permanently. And as the war costs have grown to over $400 billion, key construction projects remain unfinished.

As defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently wrote: ``The U.S. aid process has failed. It has wasted at least half of the $22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq funds it attempted to use to secure and develop Iraq's economy.''

I repeat: defense and intelligence expert Anthony Cordesman recently wrote: ``The U.S. aid process has failed. It has wasted at least half of the $22 billion in U.S. funds and much of the $34.6 billion in Iraq funds in an attempt to secure and develop Iraq's economy.''

This is outrageous. Where is the accountability?

In fact, Mr. Cordesman concludes that the U.S.-managed Iraq reconstruction efforts have been as failed as the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina.

The Bush Iraq policy has diverted resources and attention from what should be the focus of our effort against terrorism in places like Afghanistan. The lack of stability and the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan is a casualty of the war in Iraq. The war has not made our country safer. It has not made our military stronger. It has caused great damage to our reputation in the world, and it has hindered the fight against terrorism.

In face of all of this incompetence and the cost of the war, I repeat, the President urges us to ``stay the course.'' Stay the course, Mr. President, is not a strategy. It is a slogan.

I will vote against this resolution because it is an affirmation of the President's failed policy in Iraq, and in doing so I will be pleased to join Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton. And I would like to at this moment salute them for their patriotism and their dedication to our country. They are second to none, as Mr. Skelton said in his remarks. They are second to none in this Congress and in this country in looking out for the troops and being concerned and knowledgeable about troop readiness, about the strains on our military this war is putting on them and in deterring our ability to respond to other threats.

I salute them for their leadership and, in fact, their courage. Because here we have the Republicans putting on the floor a vacuous resolution, a challenge that if you say that you support the troops, you have to vote for this. That day is over. That day is over. The credentials on real security for our country, be it homeland security, be it willing to project military might to protect America's interests at home and abroad, we all share a that. So don't put something on the table that says you either vote for this if you support the troops or you don't.

This resolution is one thing and one thing only: it is an affirmation of President Bush's failed Iraq policy. The American people know the policy has failed. The American people know that. Hopefully, it will dawn on the President, and he, instead of stay the course, will change the course. He will stop digging the hole he is digging in Iraq and come out and see the light of day as to what is the right direction.

Across the country, Americans have had free and open debate about this war. But when the time came to debate Iraq in this Congress, Republicans shut down debate with a closed rule. This is not only an affront to the Democrats; it is an affront to the American people. Closed rule. Limited debate. Twice as many people on our side of the aisle would like to have spoken, but there wasn't enough time. There wasn't enough time to give Members of Congress the opportunity to give voice to the concerns of their constituents about a matter as important as sending and keeping our troops at war.

What a sad commentary on our democracy. We supposedly are going to Iraq to promote democracy, yet we don't even have it on the floor of the House of Representatives. What is sad about that is that we owe so much better, so much more to the American people, particularly to the brave men and women we have sent to fight in Iraq.

Democrats are calling for a new direction in Iraq. Our new direction would say to the Iraqi people that we will not be in your country indefinitely, we will not construct permanent bases, and we will not control the flow of your oil. We will work with you and your neighbors diplomatically to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is successful. We will do as Mr. Murtha advocates. We will redeploy and be ready.

Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are distinct, as Mr. Skelton has repeatedly and eloquently stated. They are distinct. And efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women sent to fight in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ramadi. The huge cost of the Iraq war in lost lives, life-altering wounds sustained, and billions of dollars spent demand better of us.

The defense authorization bill, as was quoted again by Mr. Skelton, enacted last year, declares 2006 to be a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, creating the conditions of the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is in the 2006 DOD authorization bill: the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That is the law of the land. You all voted to support it.

We are halfway through 2006, significant transition has not occurred, and the only redeployment has been of U.S. forces into Iraq, not out. The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say a grotesque mistake. It must be our resolve

to end the war as soon as possible and to resolve to not make similar mistakes in the future. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the young men and women that we send in to fight the fight.

Again, Democrats take our responsibility to provide for the common defense very seriously. We are proud to have leaders like Mr. Murtha and Mr. Skelton to lead that charge for us.

Madam Speaker, it has been 17 years since the Chinese government unleashed the People's Liberation Army on its own defenseless people in Tiananmen Square. Today, the House of Representatives pays tribute to the brave souls who stood up for freedom, only to be met with a hail of bullets and a new era of repression.

The forward march of freedom has often been advanced by people who defied the powers of their day to demand the liberties and human rights to which all people everywhere are entitled.

We remember how Chinese students, workers, and citizens marched in peace; how they raised a Goddess of Democracy in the image of our own Statue of Liberty; how they quoted our own Founding Fathers.

Seventeen years later, almost every independent organization monitoring human rights believes the situation in China has not significantly improved.

In fact, we know the Chinese government is becoming even more sophisticated, using new technology to monitor and apprehend those who criticize the regime or worship freely. Web service providers are required to censor information. Sadly, they are complying instead of using their leverage to push for change.

Religious believers continue to be a target of the Chinese government, subjected to harassment and detention for only practicing their faith.

Chinese authorities require Tibetans to denounce the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader and imprison individuals for simply owning pictures of the Dalai Lama.

Bush Administration officials say they hope China will become a ``responsible stakeholder'' in world affairs. We should avoid wishful thinking about the intentions of the Chinese government.

In addition to the deplorable human rights conditions, the Chinese government is providing military technology to countries that threaten international security including Iran and North Korea, threatening Taiwan with a military attack, and violating its trade agreements.

Certainly we need to engage China, but it should be sustainable engagement that enables us to sustain our values, sustain our economic growth, and sustain our national security.

Today, we once again call on Beijing to release the thousands of prisoners whose only crime is to demand their basic human rights.

We call on the Chinese government to open up the Laogai prison system to the International Red Cross so the world can see what really is going on.

The spirit of Tiananmen endures and inspires. Tanks and troops may crush a protest, but they can never extinguish the flame of freedom that bums in every human heart.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great civic and community advocate, Charlotte Marie Peterson Quann, who died on May 17, 2006. I join my constituents in honoring her lifetime of service to San Francisco's most vulnerable and in recognizing her leadership as one of the earliest African American professional women.

Charlotte called many places her home, but she devoted more than three decades of her life to improving the lives of those less fortunate in the San Francisco Bay Area. She served as the Chair of the Board for La Casa de Las Madres, an emergency shelter for battered women and their children, and as Chair of the Glide Church Board of Trustees in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. At Glide she ministered to the poor and infirm and took special delight in the children's programs. Charlotte was an active participant in the Cal- Nevada United Methodist conference Board of Higher Education and Campus Ministry. When she died at age 72, she was the Chair of the Board of Center Point drug treatment programs and of the Mary Elizabeth Inn, a shelter for women in transition.

Charlotte began her leadership activities early in life. In high school she joined numerous clubs where she ran for office. She graduated from the Detroit Public School System and graduated from Northwestern High School at age 16. She was active in the Urban League, YMCA speech and debate, and her photo is in Northwestern's Hall of fame. At age 16 she went to the U.S. Capitol and served as one of the first and youngest female Congressional pages. Her father, at whose side she learned, organizing Detroit's factory workers, inspired her political activism.

In 1959, Charlotte became the first African American to work for Capital Airlines (the

predecessor of United Airlines). She held many positions there and also served as President, Vice President, and Secretary of the United Airlines Black Professional Organization.

Charlotte will be missed by all who cherished her warm smile and infectious humor and who were touched by her selfless leadership and advocacy. I extend my deepest sympathy to her sons, Steven and Warren, her daughter Carla, her grandson, Carl, her granddaughters Catherine, Sade, and Iman, her sisters Gloria Patton, Scheryl Peterson, and Gail Peterson, her brothers Willie Jr. and George Peterson, sisters-in-law and many nieces and nephews. Thank you for sharing Charlotte with us; her life was a gift to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and her leadership on this important issue about openness and freedom on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, last year, House Democrats met with leaders around the country to create our innovation agenda, a commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. One young technology leader told us, If you think you have seen it all on the Internet and broadband, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The objective of this legislation, to create more competition in the broadband marketplace, is a laudable one. But a key goal of the telecommunications policy must be that everyone in America, from the most rural areas to the most urban, is never more than a key stroke or a mouse click away from the jobs and opportunity that broadband can create and support. Bridging the digital divide with inclusiveness must be a central value of our broadband efforts, yet today absent from this bill is that spirit of inclusiveness.

Why are we not able to debate amendments that ensure that access is built out to the entire community and not limited by race or religion? Why are we not able to debate amendments to protect our local governments and enforce our local laws?

In fact, on the previous vote on consideration of the resolution that Ms. Baldwin put forward on unfunded mandates, it was reported by the CBO that this bill could cost local governments about $350 million in unfunded mandates.

It is interesting to me that the Republicans who have had not having unfunded mandates as a principle of their Contract with America, 100 percent of the Republicans voted for an unfunded mandate for localities in our country to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not one Republican supported the principle of no unfunded mandates. What are the Republicans afraid of?

Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

One issue that we do have a chance to vote on today is the Markey amendment on net neutrality. Mr. Markey has offered an amendment that will continue the innovative tradition of the Internet by enacting net neutrality protections that ensure all consumers are able to access any content they wish with the same broadband speed and performance. The imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would unduly burden Web-based small businesses and start-ups. They would hamper communications by noncommercial users, those using religious speech, promoting civic involvement and exercising first amendment freedoms.

That is why organizations across the political spectrum support net neutrality, from the Gun Owners of America to Common Cause, from the Christian Coalition to the Service Employees International Union. America's most innovative companies like Google and eBay and YouTube and Yahoo also favor the Markey amendment.

Without Net neutrality, the current experience that the Internet users enjoy today is in jeopardy. Without the Markey amendment, telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighways. This strikes at the heart of the freedom and quality of the Internet.

Today we can vote to retain the openness and innovation of the Internet. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the future, in favor of the Markey amendment, and against the restrictiveness of this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I salute my colleagues, Congressmen Dingell, Markey, Inslee, and Boucher, and Congresswoman Eshoo for their leadership on this issue of vital importance to the future. I also want to recognize the leadership of Congressman John Conyers and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren for their work on Net Neutrality in the Judiciary Committee.

History

When Lewis and Clark made their historic journey of discovery two centuries ago, information could only travel as fast as a horse could run or a boat could sail. Now information travels in an instant. And just as railroads and highways did in the past, broadband has dramatically increased the productivity and efficiency of our economy and will continue to do so in the future. It has created jobs today, and will create even more jobs tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, this week we recognize that 25 years ago in San Francisco doctors saw a disease that did not yet have a name with symptoms that hearkened back to the Middle Ages. Some manifestations of the disease were lesions, pneumonia, infections. Within 5 years, we were losing so many, many friends to AIDS that we would often go to two funerals in one day. A whole generation of young people went to more funerals than birthdays. We had too many friends who we held in our arms at the end of their lives that felt like a bag of bones more than the muscular young people they had been. There was so much, first of all, a lack of information and then fear of what became known as HIV/

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to salute Speaker Hastert for becoming the longest serving Republican Speaker in history. Long may his record stand.

This milestone is a testament to his leadership within the Republican Conference and within the Halls of Congress. Dennis Hastert spent 16 years as a teacher and coach at Yorkville High School in Illinois. He has put the skills he learned there to good use in this body.

After 6 years in the Illinois State House, he came to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986. In 1999, Denny Hastert's colleagues elected him Speaker of the House, the third highest Government official in the United States.

While we often disagree on issues, we agree on the importance of public service. That kind of public service has been the hallmark of Speaker Hastert's career whether in the classroom or in the House of Representatives.

Today I also salute the Speaker's wife, Jean, and his two children, Ethan and Joshua, for this milestone.

Through the trying moments and the moments like this, one of great triumph, they have stood by his side. They are watching you on television now.

In Congress we all hold the title ``honorable'' by virtue of our office. Dennis Hastert holds it by virtue of his character. I salute him for his service to our Nation and look forward to many future opportunities to work together.

Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honored to rise today in recognition of the sesquicentennial of San Francisco's Lowell High School. The oldest public high school west of the Mississippi River, Lowell has now maintained its stellar reputation for excellence for a remarkable 150 years.

Lowell High School, originally named Union Grammar School, was established in 1856 by the San Francisco School Board. It was the first public secondary school in California. In 1894, the school was renamed to honor the distinguished poet, James Russell Lowell. Over the years, Lowell has relocated its campus twice to accommodate more students. It has occupied its current location near Lake Merced since 1962.

For one and a half centuries, Lowell High School has been a model of academic excellence. Lowell has been recognized as one of the best public schools in the Nation by numerous magazines, including Money, Parade, and Town and Country. This year, Newsweek ranked Lowell 26th among all public high schools in the Nation. The College Board ranked Lowell sixth in the number of Advanced Placement examinations administered in 1996; the school was ranked eighth in 1994. Lowell is also a three-time recipient of the U.S. Department of Education's Blue Ribbon Award.

Today, we honor and thank all current and former faculty and staff who have challenged and inspired generations of students to reach their full potential. Lowell's magnificent educators have helped their students achieve the highest level of learning and cultivate the strengths needed to succeed. Lowell produces determined students who matriculate at some of our country's most prestigious universities. Lowell's graduates are well equipped to assume the grave responsibility of making the world a better place.

We must also pay tribute to Paul Cheng for a lifetime of academic leadership, including 16 years as principal of Lowell High School. His contributions to San Francisco's schools and students are extraordinary.

San Franciscans take pride in Lowell's mission to foster an environment of superior learning while maintaining the cultural and social diversity that we respect and embrace. I am proud that San Francisco is the home of this impressive academic institution. Let us all join in celebrating and congratulating Lowell on its 150 years of loyal dedication to our Nation's youth.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding and acknowledge his tremendous leadership of putting forth the Spratt Democratic budget, which reflects the values of our country and is in balance.

Mr. Chairman, our most important responsibility as elected officials is to provide for the common defense. Keeping the American people safe is our first responsibility. That personal safety and America's national security are seriously jeopardized by the Republican budget. A vote for the Spratt Democratic alternative is a vote for a safer and more secure America.

Close to home in our neighborhoods, the Republican budget slashes funding for our first responders, including the COPS program and the SAFER Act, initiatives which put cops on the beat and equip our firefighters. The Spratt Democratic budget restores all of these cuts.

The Republican budget cuts homeland security funding by over $450 million in fiscal year 2007 and $6 billion over 5 years. I repeat, when it comes to our homeland security, the Republican budget cuts over $450 million for fiscal year 2007 alone and $6 billion over 5 years. The Democratic budget provides $1 billion more for port security and overall $6.5 billion more to keep our country safe.

The Republican budget continues to hide the cost of the Iraq war from the American public and cuts the Army National Guard strength by more than 17,000 troops despite the tremendous strain that the war has placed on them and now the additional charge that the President has made of them on immigration. The Democratic budget fully funds our Army National Guard.

The Republican budget betrays our veterans by cutting $6 billion over the next 5 years from current services and tripling TRICARE health fees. Mr. Spratt's budget, the Democratic budget, keeps our commitment to veterans.

Republicans are abandoning our veterans and failing to invest in America's safety in order to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy that leave Americans awash in red ink.

Today the President signed a tax bill. Tonight, in this budget, we have to deal with the consequences of those tax cuts, largely for the wealthiest people in America. Under the President's bill and passed by this Republican Congress, Americans making $20,000 a year will receive $2 a year in tax cuts; $20,000, $2. Americans making $40,000 a year will receive $16, barely enough for a couple to go to the movies. Those making $50,000 a year will receive a $46 tax cut, barely enough to fill up your gas tank these days, thanks to Mr. Cheney's energy policy. But if you make more than $1 million a year, $1 million a year, you get 1,000 times what somebody making $50,000 a year gets. You make $42,000 in tax cuts. Fifty thousand dollars a year, you can barely fill up your tank; $1 million a year, you can buy a luxury car because the American taxpayers are giving you $42,000.

In effect, American taxpayers are going into debt to China in order to give a tax cut to America's wealthiest people. When Republicans spend the Federal budget into the red, the U.S. Treasury borrows money from foreign countries. Since President Bush took office, the amount of foreign-owned debt has increased by over $1 trillion. In fact, it is more than all of the foreign-owned debt of the 42 previous Presidents combined, a horrible record.

The Japanese now own about $670 billion and the Chinese own $260 billion of our foreign debt. Our national debt is a national security issue. Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys, our clothes and our computers, pretty soon they will be making our foreign policy. They have far too much leverage over us.

While the Republican budget is never balanced and has deficits as far as the eye can see, the Democratic budget, the Spratt substitute, reaches balance by 2012 and follows the strict pay-as-you-go rules, no deficit spending.

Instead of investing in our veterans, instead of securing our ports, the Republican policy of tax cuts for the wealthy have meant that the interest payments to foreign countries are the fastest-growing item in this budget.

Democrats take seriously our first responsibility to provide for the common defense. Our Democratic budget reflects that commitment. Mr. Spratt is not only the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, he is a very senior member of the Armed Services Committee, and his commitment to tough and smart national security for our country where we project America's power to protect our people and protect our interests throughout the world is a strong commitment, and his, Mr. Spratt's, patriotism and his commitment to our national security, they are reflected in this budget that he has proposed. He has helped create a Democratic budget that makes us all proud, and he does it in a fiscally sound way.

I urge our colleagues to support the Spratt substitute and to reject the unpatriotic, irresponsible and, as the religious community says, immoral budget that the Republicans are proposing tonight.

Thank you very much, my colleague, Congressman Honda, the distinguished Chair of the Asian Pacific American Caucus. I am pleased to join you, and I thank you for your leadership in calling this Special Order to acknowledge Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. It is a time when we can focus on and sing the praises of the contributions of the Asian Pacific American community to our great country. I wish to associate myself with your extensive remarks and praise of the proud community that you are a part of and thank you for your leadership in the Congress.

I was interested in your comments, where you talked about Katrina and what happened at a time of natural disaster. As you acknowledged, I represent the great City of San Francisco in the Congress, and we are blessed in our community with a large Asian Pacific American community. They have built our city. They have been part of its growth and its success.

This year, we observed the 100th anniversary of the 1906 earthquake. At that time, it was a sorry, sorry sight to see, San Francisco.

A black mark on that time, but one that was averted, but was suggested, was when the earthquake came and the city burned, thousands of people were displaced in downtown San Francisco's Chinatown. It was a horrible thing. There were those in the press who suggested, who wrote in the daily metropolitan journals which were published almost immediately, they suggested that now might be a good time to get rid of Chinatown, get rid of foreigners and everything that went with it. Of course, they had their eye on this prime real estate that was Chinatown right in the heart of downtown San Francisco. But their motivation was not only commercial; it was also racist, quite frankly.

Fortunately, the city leaders at the time rejected that unfair notion and Chinatown was rebuilt, and it is such a magnificent part of our community to this day. It attracts visitors from all over the world and all over California because it is such a magnificent place. It is so invigorating to go there. When you do, you are constantly reminded of the contribution that our Asian Pacific American community makes to America.

We talk about family values. The Asian Pacific Americans take the lead. Their coming to our shores, whether it was over a century ago to build the railroads, whether it is a few days ago, each one of them brings to our community family values, this wonderful optimism and determination for a better future for their children, this courage. Imagine the courage to leave home to come to America, no matter when it was or is now. And they bring a commitment to community, to academic success. They make America stronger, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Asian Pacific Americans in this regard. As I say, I see it firsthand in my own community.

But how similar it was in 1906, when the earthquake came and there were those, for whatever reason, who thought this was a good idea to change the community that was San Francisco. Fortunately, it was rejected.

Sadly, it resembled some of the rhetoric following Katrina in New Orleans; and hopefully those notions will be rejected as well, because as we rebuild these cities, we must always remember to rebuild the communities that strengthen them.

I am proud to pay tribute to AAPI leaders in my City of San Francisco who have recently passed away since we had this meeting last year, but leave their legacies. George Wong was a pioneer in the labor movement who worked until his death to ensure that workers' rights were protected.

The Godmother of San Francisco's Japantown and a leading community activist, ``Sox'' Kitashima, she was just fabulous, Sox was, a driving force behind the Japanese American redress movement.

The late Joe Yuey distinguished himself during his 100 years of life as Asian art enthusiast, amassing a collection that is part of the world-renowned San Francisco Asian Art Museum.

Jade Snow Wong was a famous author, ceramicist and businesswoman, whose book ``Fifth Chinese Daughter'' is included on school reading lists across our Nation.

The legacy of all these outstanding people is one that must be carried on as an example for other Americans to follow.

And let us also remember this year as the centennial of Filipino immigration to the United States. My colleague Mr. Honda has referenced the magnificent contributions of the Filipino American community.

The first Filipinos arrived on the shores of Hawaii to work on the sugar plantations in 1906, again, 1906, a year fraught with meaning, with the belief that a better life could come from hard work and determination. Filipinos continued migrating to the United States, as they are now the second largest AAPI population, making remarkable contributions to our country.

My colleagues have referenced the great contributions, not only the Chinese, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, Cambodians, people from Laos, from South Asia, from India and Pakistan and from so many places in Asia, so different one to the next of these groups, the Korean Americans, the list goes on. They all make a wonderful contribution, and we should acknowledge all of it.

I am very pleased to share in this Special Order with you, Mr. Honda, because you, frankly, laid out some of the problems and challenges that were faced by the community over time.

I am proud to serve with you, and I am proud to serve with Eni Faleomavaega and our colleagues Congresswoman Matsui and David Wu, with you and others.

I also want to acknowledge the loss of our dear friend, Bob Matsui, whom we served with. Over a year-and-a-half ago he left us, but his inspiration is still with us here. And Patsy Mink. There can be no discussion of Asian Americans in Congress without mentioning the exceptional leadership of Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who served from Hawaii.

The list goes on and on, and the legacy does too. But the future is brighter because of the contributions of the Asian Pacific American community, and it is appropriate that this heritage month be established and be commemorated.