Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise in support of H. Res. 86, congratulating the New England Patriots on winning Super Bowl XXXIX. The Patriots's victory is indeed cause for celebration in my district as fans in Albany, GA, and throughout all of southwest Georgia watched with pride as our native son, Deion Branch led his team to victory as this year's most valuable player. We could not be more proud.

We salute the New England Patriots for their third Super Bowl Victory in 4 years. Only one other team has ever won the Lombardi Trophy so many times in so few years, yet no other receiver in history has put together back-to-back performances like Deion Branch. In Super Bowl XXXVIII, which the Patriots won 32-29 over the Carolina Panthers, Deion Branch caught 10 passes for 143 years, including the game's first touchdown and the catch that set up the Patriot's winning field goal. He should have won MVP then, but this year he bested even himself, tying the Super Bowl record with 11 catches for a total of 133 years.

From the days when he was deemed too small for middle school football, to his years on the Monroe High School team to the University of Louisville, to his historic career in professional football, Deion Branch has made up for what he lacks in size with a spirit and a talent that defines him as one of the best to ever play the game.

On behalf of the city of Albany, the 2nd Congressional District and football fans everywhere, I wish him continued success in his already remarkable career and strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H. Res. 86 congratulating the New England Patriots on their outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the courageous men of the 332nd Fighting Group, the Tuskegee Airmen.

In 1940, Charles ``Chief'' Anderson led a cadre of instructors to train an extraordinary group of African American young men led by General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. After enduring months of training, these men defied their critics and earned their wings to become the 99th Pursuit Squadron and would later form the 332nd Fighter Group.

The 332nd was based out of North Africa and flew combat missions over Italy. Most notable, on the 4th of July 1943, the New York Times reported from North Africa that ``An American Negro fighting squadron escorting bombers yesterday over Sicily destroyed a Focke-Wulfe 190 to score the formation's first victory.'' In combat over Europe, the Tuskegee Airmen shot down or damaged more than 400 German aircraft, winning 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses and 744 Air Medals. The 332nd was the only escort group in the U.S. Army Air Force never to lose a bomber. Their record is as remarkable as it is renowned.

The men of the 332nd were both warriors and patriots who fought for equality and liberty at home and abroad.

I was blessed to know several of the early Tuskegee Airmen, including my neighbor growing up, Mr. William Gordon, Sr., a pilot, an educator, a mentor and a distinguished businessman.

It is altogether fitting that we remember them together during Black History Month and as our young men and women of the Air Force support the global war on terror through the Air Force's global reach and presence.

Today, I am proud that we salute the Tuskegee Airmen, American heroes, for their courageous and distinguished service to this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the courageous men of the 332nd Fighter Group, the Tuskegee Airmen.

In 1940, Charles ``Chief'' Anderson, a self-taught pilot, went to the Tuskegee Institute to train black pilots. He was the lead instructor of an extraordinary group of African American young men led by General Benjamin O. Davis Jr. After enduring months of training, these men defied their critics and earned their wings to become the 99th Pursuit Squadron. The president of Tuskegee tried to persuade the U.S. War Department to use its airmen as combat pilots as World II loomed, but the Army resisted, alleging that African Americans lacked the intelligence and discipline to fly airplanes. A turning point came in 1931 when the first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, visited Tuskegee and went on an aerial tour with Chief Anderson.

Months later, the 99th Pursuit Squadron, based out of North Africa, was flying combat missions over Italy. In their first escort mission, the 38 fighters of the 99th held off more than 100 German attackers. On the 4th of July 1943, the New York Times ran this article from the Allied Headquarters, in North Africa; an American Negro fighter squadron escorting bombers yesterday over Sicily destroyed a Focke- Wulfe 190 to score the formations first victory. General Dwight D. Eisenhower was on the airfield to congratulate First Lieutenant Charles Hall of the 99th Pursuit Squadron when he returned after shooting down the plane. In perhaps their most spectacular mission, then Colonel Davis led the Tuskegee Airmen on a 1,600-mile escort mission to Berlin. Until that day, the Allies had shot down only two of the new German jet fighters. But on that day alone, Colonel Davis and his Tuskegee Airmen downed three. In combat over Europe, the Tuskegee Airmen shot down or damaged more than 400 German aircraft, winning 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses and 744 Air Medals. The 332nd Fighter Group was the only escort group of the U.S. Army Air Forces never to lose a bomber. Their record is as remarkable as it is renowned.

The men of the 99th were both warriors and patriots who fought for equality and liberty at home and abroad. I was blessed to know several of the early Tuskegee Airmen, including my childhood neighbor, Mr. William Gordon, Sr., a pilot, an educator and a distinguished business man. It is fitting that we remember them today as our young men and women of the Air Force support the Global War on Terror throughout the Air Force's global reach and presence.

Today, I salute the Tuskegee Airmen, American heroes, for their courageous and distinguished service to this great nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Texas (Leader DeLay) and the members of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Waxman), my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), as well as their staffs, for helping to move this important resolution, H. Res. 69, to the floor as quickly as they did. Let me also thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), who represents Georgia's first district which includes the town of Cogdell, Georgia, the birth place of Ossie Davis and, Waycross, Georgia, where Mr. Davis grew up, for his cosponsorship and for his efforts to bring this resolution to the floor in short order. Also, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), for his efforts and his activity in helping to honor this great Georgian.

We are here today to honor a great American, a veteran, a civil rights leader, a social justice activist, and a tremendous talent, Mr. Ossie Davis. We lost him this past Friday, February 4, at the age of 87.

Ossie once said, ``Struggle is strengthening. Battling with evil gives us the power to battle evil even more.'' Empowered and inspired by his own struggle, Ossie fought for what was right. He fought with his voice, with his example, with his art.

Above all, Ossie Davis was an artist. The eldest of five children, Ossie Davis

grew up with the gruesome realities of lynchings and the Ku Klux Klan, yet he was inspired by Shakespeare. At the age of 18 with nothing more than a $10 bill and the dream of becoming a playwright, Ossie Davis hitchhiked from rural Georgia to Washington, D.C., where he studied at Howard University. He left school 3 years later only to live his dream of becoming a writer and an actor with the Rose McClendon Players in Harlem in 1939.

His acting career was interrupted in World War II when the Army sent him to Liberia, where he served at the Army's first black station hospital before being transferred to Special Services to write and produce stage shows for the troops.

He returned to the States committed to the power of art and its capacity to make viewers more human, to teach them to live.

He was a trailblazer for African Americans on stage. He debuted on Broadway in 1946 in ``Jeb,'' and while the show ran for only 9 days, it was during that production that he met his wife, actress Ruby Dee. I would be negligent if I did not recognize and highlight the importance of this event as it inspired the marriage of one of the most revered and important couples ever to appear on stage and screen.

Ossie appeared in dozens of TV programs and more than 30 films, beginning with the 1950's ``No Way Out,'' with Dee and Sidney Poitier, and culminating with last year's ``She Hate Me.'' As a playwright, he was most famous for the 1961's controversial send-up of racial stereotypes, ``Purlie Victorious,'' a production which would inspire his relationship with Malcolm X.

Believing that art and activism can go hand-in-hand, Ossie Davis never shied away from roles that took on the status quo. Rather, he sought them out on stage and in life.

When singer-actor Paul Robeson was targeted by the anti-Communist witch-hunts of the 1950s, Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee were steadfast in their support even as they were blacklisted themselves. They were brave.

They were at the forefront of the 1963 March on Washington, and when their friend Malcolm X was assassinated, Davis delivered a moving eulogy for the controversial leader, whom he praised as ``our own black shining prince'' and ``our living black manhood,'' words that at the time took courage to deliver.

Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee raised their voices for numerous causes, including support for the United Negro College Fund and vocal opposition to the war in Vietnam. But above all, Ossie Davis was an artist, his roles ultimately too numerous to count, yet all were memorable; and we take comfort that he left this world doing what he loved.

As Spike Lee said, ``For an actor, if you've got to go, that's the way to go out, still working, still ready to go.''

I know that my colleagues will now join me in recognizing the tremendous achievements and body of work that Ossie Davis has left as his legacy. Our sincerest condolences go out his family and all who knew and loved him.

But this is why we today in the United States House of Representatives join in consideration of H. Res. 69, which recognizes the extraordinary contributions to the Nation of the late Ossie Davis, for his service to the Nation in the military, as a civil rights leader and as an actor, and honors him as a great American and pioneer in the annals of American history, and expresses its deepest condolences upon his death to his wife, Ruby Dee Davis, his other family members and all of his friends and fans across the world.

Thank you, Ossie. We will miss you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, not with the hope of overturning an election, but with the hope of overturning a system that has for too long failed to guarantee every American their most basic right, the right to vote.

Our very democracy was founded on the essential right of citizens to have a voice in their government. As Members of Congress we are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which includes the 13th and 19th Amendments, and I am quite frankly saddened that such a debate today breaks down along party lines. Each and every one of us as Americans should stand to defend this right, to protect and guarantee that every citizen, black, white, male, female, Democrat or Republican, has the opportunity to cast a vote.

As representatives we should not fear the will of the people; we should not fear a debate here on the floor of the House seeking to shed light on and improve our voting system, rather we must fear any threat to our right to vote. We must take seriously any allegation that would deprive any citizen of this right, let alone the serious and widespread allegations that are being make in Ohio.

The debate today is not about the election of George W. Bush, rather it is about the integrity and the future of our voting system. Today we are challenging ourselves to do better. We are challenging ourselves to examine our voting system, to get to the bottom of what went wrong in Ohio and around the Nation on Election Day. We need to hold hearings. We need to conduct an investigation and we need to pass legislation that puts in place specific federal protections for our federal elections, especially in the areas of auditing electronic voting machines and casting and counting provisional ballots. We must be willing to hold the same light on our election system that we hold on nations such as Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Iraq. How can we serve as a model for democracy, when our own citizens lack faith in our democracy?

That is what today is about, restoring faith in our system. This can not be accomplished by simply accepting the status quo and allowing opportunities such as today to pass without objection. The only way to change an injustice is to stand against it. Mr. Speaker, this is why I rise today. We must not accept the status quo, rather we must challenge ourselves to do better. This is what we do as Americans and this is what I am challenging us to do today.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans know that gun control continues to be a serious subject of debate, right here in the District of Columbia, in the State of Georgia, which I represent, and across this nation. It's an issue of personal safety and of constitutional rights embedded in the fabric of our Nation.

I agree with those who want to restrict criminal access to guns. However, this must be done without compromising the constitutional rights of our law-abiding citizens.

I strongly support the right of law-abiding adults to purchase and own firearms for the protection of their homes and families, collecting, target shooting, and hunting. That's why I have and will continue to oppose any proposal that threatens this basic Second Amendment right.

I realize the concerns of some Americans who, in the wake of school shootings and other heinous illegal acts, call for stricter gun control measures. I understand those concerns. That's why I fully support measures that call for tougher sentences for the illegal use of firearms, to get offenders off the streets and out of our communities. I support stiff sentences of juveniles who use firearms illegally, and I support increasing the maximum penalty for adults who illegally provide those juveniles with firearms. That's how we must keep our schools and communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, tougher gun laws should not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that they do not. So, the question before us today is not whether Congress can repeal the District of Columbia's handgun and self-defense bans, it is whether Congress should do so. The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law, the laws of all 50 States, the vast majority of Georgians and of Americans recognize the right for law abiding citizens to use firearms for protection, and for other legal purposes. Only the District of Columbia prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled and loaded at home, for the purpose of self-defense. I believe that that's wrong. We should pass this bill and allow D.C. residents to protect themselves from crime.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. And I thank my colleagues for bringing this resolution.

I am very proud to represent President Carter. Plains, Georgia, and Sumter County are in the Second Congressional District. So it is a very proud moment for me to be here to today to help celebrate his 80th birthday.

Today, we certainly honor and give recognition to a man who truly serves as a living international symbol of American compassion and integrity. But his integrity did not begin with winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 or when he brokered peaceful solutions to international conflict. Rather, his humanity stems from a foundation of values laid in rural Georgia years ago, where church and school heavily influenced his early life. Those values, infused in the noble profession of peanut farming, shaped his character, influenced his political ideologies, and added to his commitment to democracy, to freedom, and to peace.

His commitment to humankind carried him through his early years of public service, on the school board, State senator, governor, and through election as the 39th President of the United States.

President Carter negotiated the Panama Canal treaties. He conceived the Camp David Accords, which laid a foundation for settling disputes in the Middle East, a feat that eluded peacemakers, I guess, for decades and decades, and he was behind the second Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the then-Soviet Union.

But President Carter's success was not limited to just foreign policy. On the American home front, he worked on developing programs for harnessing alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear, and geothermal power. He created new departments of education and energy. His environmental track record included passage of legislation to preserve the wilderness and the vast natural resources in Alaska.

President Carter's deep commitment to social justice and human rights continued even after he left office. In 1984, he started the Jimmy Carter Work Project with Habitat for Humanity. Through this project volunteers built thousands of houses, raising the awareness of the need for affordable housing.

And today he remains loyal to his roots in rural Georgia and has worked to create job opportunities through State and local partnerships, which has stimulated economic growth and tourism.

President Carter has served his Nation and the world as the best example of American service. His actions always bring to mind dedication, statesmanship, and above all, honor.

I am privileged to recognize and to commend President Carter, my role model, my constituent in the Second District of Georgia, and my friend, on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

The late Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays, President Emeritus of Moorehouse College, said, ``You make your living by what you get; you make your life by what you give.'' We are all pleased because of the life that President and Mrs. Carter have made.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Congress has moved this important legislation to the floor of the House for a vote today. My office has received literally thousands of letters and e-mails, personal visits and phone calls from constituents urging me to support the institution of traditional marriage. And I want them to know today that I have heard them.

I realize that reasonable men can differ on whether to allow nontraditional marriages in the United States. But I am clear on this issue because the values I share with the people of the Second Congressional District of Georgia are deeply held for God, country, work, and family. Moreover, these families' values are those of the traditional family based in our Judeo-Christian principles. That is why I have cosponsored and will vote for this important constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 106, in order to protect the institution of marriage by defining marriage in the United States as the union between a man and a woman.

I also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows individual States to refuse to recognize such marriages.

Mr. Speaker, only by having a uniform definition of marriage established in the Constitution and interpreted by the federal courts can this most basic unit of society be protected.

God, country, work, family, marriage between one man and one woman, to these we must pledge our sacred honor.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained from September 20-24, 2004, due to the death of my mother, Mrs. Minnie S. Bishop. Although I received an excused absence during this period, I missed rollcall votes 457-472. Had I been here I'd have voted as follows:

Roll Nos. 457--``aye''; 458--``aye''; 459--``no''; 460--``aye''; 461--``aye''; 462--``aye''; 463--``aye''; 464--``aye''; 465--``aye''; 466--``no''; 467--``yea''; 468--``yea''; 469--``yea''; 470--``no''; 471--``no''; and 472--``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, all Americans know that gun control continues to be a serious subject of debate, right here in the District of Columbia, in the State of Georgia, which I represent, and across this Nation. It's an issue of personal safety and of constitutional rights embedded in the fabric of our Nation.

I agree with those who want to restrict criminal access to guns. However, this must be done without compromising the constitutional rights of our law-abiding citizens.

I strongly support the right of law-abiding adults to purchase and own firearms for the protection of their homes and families, collecting, target shooting, and hunting. That's why I have and will continue to oppose any proposal that threatens this basic second amendment right.

I realize the concerns of some Americans who, in the wake of school shootings and other heinous illegal acts, call for stricter gun control measures. I understand those concerns. That's why I fully support measures that call for tougher sentences for the illegal use of firearms, to get offenders off the streets and out of our communities. I support stiff sentences of juveniles who use firearms illegally, and I support increasing the maximum penalty for adults who illegally provide those juveniles with firearms. That's how we must keep our schools and communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, tougher gun laws should not infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that they do not. So, the question before us today is not whether Congress can repeal the District of Columbia's handgun and self-defense bans, it is whether Congress should do so. The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law, the laws of all 50 States, the vast majority Georgians and of Americans recognize the right for law-abiding citizens to use firearms for protection, and for other legal purposes. Only the District of Columbia prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled and loaded at home for the purpose of self-defense. I believe that that's wrong. Pass this bill and allow DC residents to protect themselves from crime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4571, the misnamed ``Frivolous Lawsuit Reduction Act,'' and in support of the Turner substitute.

Mr. Speaker, the 11,000 frivolous lawsuits filed yearly are a burden on our court system, which interfere with the administration of justice, and cost U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars each year. I fully support commonsense reform.

H.R. 4571 was drafted by and for large corporations and special interests with unlimited legal resources. It denies justice to injured Americans by limiting them from getting their day in court. That's wrong, Mr. Speaker. It does nothing to help consumers, Mr. Speaker, and targets innocent victims instead of holding responsible those who recklessly or negligently harm others.

The bill also unfairly benefits foreign corporations because it only permits a lawsuit to be filed where the corporation's principal place of business is located, making it more difficult to pursue a personal injury or product liability action against a foreign corporation in the United States. That's also wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it's not the kind of reform that America needs.

The Turner substitute is measured and tough on abuse of the system, while also protecting the rights of injured victims to receive the compensation they deserve. In fact, the substitute's ``three-strikes- and-you're-out'' provisions forbid frivolous filing attorneys from bringing another suit for 10 years. For a first violation the substitute would hold the attorney in contempt. For the second violation the substitute imposes a mandatory fine. And for a third and final violation, a ``third strike,'' you're out. That's tough, Mr. Speaker, and a commonsense approach to frivolous litigation that everyone should support.

The substitute also contains a civil rights carve-out, so that citizens who want to bring new civil rights cases can do so. It contains expedited disposition provisions to weed out junk lawsuits, enhances sanctions for document destruction, and protects injured parties and consumers. Finally, it eliminates the provision in the underlying bill that provides a windfall to foreign or ``Benedict Arnold'' corporations to the disadvantage of their U.S. competitors.

The Turner substitute is tough, Mr. Speaker, it's fair, and it provides real reform while preserving access to the courts for millions of Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, let me first take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the leadership shown by my chairman, Mr. Knollenberg, and my ranking member, Mr. Edwards, on the housing privatization issue. I would also like to commend the leadership shown by Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Obey on this important issue as well.

As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, I know of no other issue which is more important to our military and their families than housing. There is no other issue which has more of an impact on the quality of life of the men and women serving in the military than housing. This year we heard witness after witness testify before our subcommittee--each describing the lack of adequate housing as ``the'' major quality of life issue facing the military.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have two major military facilities--Ft. Benning and the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, in my district. However, just as important, I represent thousands of other military personnel who work at Moody Air Force Base and Warner Robbins Air Force Base, both of which are now adjacent to my district.

Unfortunately, according to the Department of the Army's installation status report for fiscal year 2004, approximately 71 percent of the Army's residential quarters located in the United States require some level of improvement or replacement, in order to meet the department's own adequacy standards. If you read literally, this means that seven (7) out of every ten (10) housing units located at our Army installations here in the United States do not meet the current standards for adequacy.

I am particularly concerned about the housing situation at Ft. Benning. According to the most recent data available, it is my understanding that approximately ninety percent (90%) of the family housing at Fort Benning is classified as substandard. Fortunately, Ft. Benning is scheduled to be one of the first bases to participate in the upcoming round of privatization.

Ft. Benning is scheduled to construct 4,055 much-needed family housing units. An additional 872 units are planned in FY 05 for Ft. Gordon, in Georgia as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, if the point of order is sustained against the language in the bill extending the program and we do not raise the cap, the program could be in jeopardy of stalling after November of this year.

That means that the units planned for Ft. Benning and Ft. Gordon in Georgia could be in jeopardy of not moving forward but not just in Georgia. Other bases, including Ft. Riley and Leavenworth in Kansas, West Point in New York, Ft. Rucker in Alabama, Ft. Knox in Kentucky, Ft. Jackson in South Carolina--all are just a few of the facilities which would be in jeopardy for the upcoming round of privatization.

It is important that my colleagues have an appreciation of the practical effects of not acting to increase the cap. Thousands of our officers and enlisted personnel will continue to reside in inadequate family housing. Our national goal of privatizing military housing will not be accomplished. In addition, the existing inventory of housing facilities will continue to deteriorate, resulting in even billions of dollars of more costs for maintenance and operations. Finally, each of the services, particularly the Army, will be unable to meet its goal of eliminating all inadequate family housing by 2007.

Not meeting this goal will further adversely affect the health, safety and quality of life of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and their families occupying these units. Privatization will provide new construction and revitalization of the existing inventory at a more rapid rate than current procedures and funding limits will permit. Privatization will also provide renovated or new quarters for our military and their families, which is comparable to housing of a similar size and quality as would be available in the local economy.

It is critical that our fighting men and women, and their families, have the best quality of life we can offer them. Their sacrifices are too great. This investment is such a small cost given what they are giving to us--putting their lives on the line--day in and day out. A decent place to live is small cost in return for their service to America. We owe them so much more.

Mr. Chairman, housing is at the core of providing a decent quality of life, and I urge the House to allow a lifting of the cap on housing privatization.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise on behalf of the hard-working farm families of Southwest Georgia who have more than earned the economic assistance that a tobacco buy-out would provide.

By introducing this amendment, my colleagues seek to make a statement about the tobacco industry as a whole. In reality they are punishing American farmers who have already suffered the loss of more than fifty percent of their income. A tobacco buyout does not provide an incentive to grow tobacco nor does it get the U.S. Government out of the tobacco growing industry, rather it provides our farmers with an honest chance to survive.

Those of us representing American tobacco growers are in the best position to understand the unique importance of tobacco reform. We have been working on a bipartisan basis for over two years to end the depression-era price support system that, despite severe cuts in quotas and the even greater economic losses of our farm families, has not been touched in nearly 18 years. This amendment obstructs our reform efforts and complicates the chances of any real solution. Our farmers deserve better.

I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Virginia, and let me thank everyone who has taken the time to commemorate this very, very historic law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 certainly has changed the history of America. It certainly has affected my life and the lives of many others who were similarly situated, having grown up in the segregated South in Mobile, Alabama; having attended segregated schools; having segregated public accommodations.

I was just struck as I reflect every day on how different life is today in 2004 from the way that it was in 1964, the year that I graduated from high school. I am grateful that this Nation passed through the Congress the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I am grateful that I had an opportunity as a young attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund as an Earl Warren Fellow to help in the implementation and the interpretation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, particularly as it related to employment discrimination and the other aspects of it in terms of my early days as a civil rights attorney.

It was very meaningful to me. Certainly the interpretations have meant worlds for the changes that have been implemented in this country and the model that this has set for other nations around the world, particularly in South Africa. I, therefore, would like to just register my heartfelt thanks to all those who had a hand in passing this law and for all those who have paid the price and worked so hard to see that it is implemented in the way that Congress intended.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kildee motion to recommit H.R. 444. This motion does what is needed. The real problems that our country faces today are a lack of jobs and a lack of adequate unemployment benefits for unemployed workers who cannot find jobs. There are currently over 8 million workers who are unemployed. There are also an additional 4 million workers who are so discouraged about the job situation where they live that they are no longer looking for work, and there are another 4 million workers working part-time because they cannot find full-time work. What these workers need is income support until the economy fully recovers and produces enough jobs for them to support their families. These workers are not looking for a handout. They want to work, but where they live, there are no jobs.

Extended unemployment benefits give them the hand up that they need. Average benefits are only about $200 a week. This amount is hardly enough to incentivize them to stay home indefinitely, yet that is what some would have us believe.

Mr. Speaker, 85,000 workers a week are exhausting their unemployment benefits; long-term unemployment is at the highest level in decades. The Kildee motion simply provides a minimum level of human decency to these hard-working Americans. They paid into the unemployment system, and the unemployment trust fund has over $19 billion in it. Instead of pushing ineffective reemployment account voucher schemes, we should be providing unemployment support. Even Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, has supported such an extension. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is of concern to every member of this body and every citizen of our Nation. That issue is the safety of our children.

Recently, the Washington Post featured an article describing the findings of a national survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the nonprofit Foundation for Child Development. The title of the article tells the story of their results; ``Baby Steps Made in the Well-Being of Children.'' The good news it shares is that children and teens are safer today than they have been in the past 30 years--less likely to commit or be victims of crime, to become young parents, and less likely to smoke, drink or use drugs.

This is good news indeed, but as we all know, there is a difference between being safe and feeling safe. We can understand this distinction because we all experience some anxiety when the threat level moves from yellow to orange or when we become aware of terrorist acts. As adults, we work to manage our reactions to these incidents. Likewise, our children struggle daily with feelings of safety that impact their quality of life.

The Girl Scouts of the United States of America is an esteemed organization, founded in the State of Georgia in 1912 and chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1950. Throughout its history, the Girl Scouts have worked to improve the lives of young women through traditional scouting and other educational programs. Now the Girl Scout Research Institute has produced a report titled ``Feeling Safe: What Girls Say'' based on original research. Through this publication, young women speak to us about what factors in their homes, schools and communities cause them to feel safe or unsafe and talk about their strategies for coping with such feelings.

For example, the report reveals that while physical safety is a key concern for urban and suburban girls, girls who live in rural communities are concerned about emotional safety, specifically about being teased. This finding supports the incorporation of anti-bullying and conflict resolution programs into our public schools. Feeling Safe also emphasizes that families and supportive friends can help girls strategize about ways to increase their feelings of safety and by so doing, become more empowered. This finding supports what we have already learned about the important role volunteer mentors can play in a young person's life.

I would like to commend the Girl Scouts of America for this research and the production of a user-friendly report that can be a guide for local, State and Federal policy makers. I recommend it to each of my colleagues and hereby pledge my continued support for this exemplary organization that has made all the difference in the lives of so many girls.