Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, we stand here today mere miles away from a tragedy that shook our Nation and left many shocked and angered by an act of unprecedented brutality on America's shores. As we emerge from the incomprehensible darkness into the light of this day, let us concentrate first our prayer and mourning, our sadness and our sorrow, for the victims of this unimaginable horror, and then, second, send our prayers, support and heartfelt thanks to the courageous police, firefighters, and medical staff who have made great sacrifices, and, in some cases, given their lives, to care for the injured and take care of our dead. In our search for understanding and truth, we should remember that now, especially at this time of need, it is truly our reliance on a higher power that will see us through. So as we pray to our God, let us not forget that real security and real peace come through justice; that fear and prejudice divert us from our true and righteous cause; and that we are a country that stands for the rule of law. The perpetrators of this crime can and will be dealt with. We must be careful not to rush to judgment and must ensure that when we strike back, we deliver a blow against those truly responsible for these terrible crimes. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have steered us on a prudent course. Now is the time for us to trust their leadership. Father Coughlin reminded us this morning of the guidance that is available to us from God. He reminded us to build this and every day on a foundation of justice, and to mourn our dead with acts of compassion. My prayer for America today is that we heed Father Coughlin's call, that all of us Americans will soon join together and rededicate ourselves to the fight to defeat racism and to further justice at home and abroad with an unbounded commitment to freedom, justice, peace, and security for us all.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to this resolution.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Lantos resolution attempts to place tape on the mouth of the United States and the world community to say what the U.S. and the rest of the world can or cannot say in South Africa. By comparison, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus introduced a resolution that puts no words in the mouth of the Bush administration, but merely suggests that the U.S. participate in the World Conference Against Racism by sending Colin Powell as head of the U.S. delegation, and that the United States should support financially the conference. With respect to what the U.S. can and cannot and should and should not say, the Johnson resolution urges the Bush administration to adopt policy positions at the WCAR that seek to advance an understanding of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. Amnesty International just wrote a letter to President Bush urging the same position. On July 25, Amnesty International USA urged the Bush administration to increase its commitment to the conference by appointing a delegation led by Secretary of State Colin Powell and assuming a leadership role in the preconference preparation. In a letter sent to President Bush, AIUSA, Amnesty International USA, called on the administration to resolve controversies that have marred preparations for the WCAR. Amnesty International USA urged President Bush not to allow current controversies over draft language to serve as a pretext for nonparticipation. We believe that such problems can be best addressed by a senior delegation representing the U.S. at the conference and not through a boycott. The letter goes on to state, the Bush administration must participate in efforts to eradicate racism at home and abroad and must seize the opportunity to move beyond the empty rhetoric on race of previous administrations by vigorously joining the debate at the World Conference Against Racism. Additionally, Human Rights Watch just issued a report saying that the U.S. should participate. Human Rights Watch said national and international panels should be created with maximum transparency and public participation to identify and acknowledge past abuses and to guide action to counter their present-day effect. Groups that suffer today should be compensated by governments responsible for these practices, said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. Those most seriously victimized today by past wrongs should be the first priority for compensation to end their victimization. Human Rights Watch proposed the establishment of national panels. The panels should serve as truth commissions aiming to reveal the extent to which a government's past racist practices contribute to contemporary deprivation domestically and abroad, Roth said. They should educate the public, acknowledge responsibility and propose methods of redress and making amends. Kofi Annan and President Bush are at the National Urban League today, but the National Urban League supports our position that the U.S. should agree to go and support no matter what is on the agenda. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights wrote a letter to Bush along the exact same lines as the Johnson resolution; that is that the U.S. should go to the conference; that the U.S. should financially support the conference; and that U.S. participation will help to bring significant issues into sharper focus at home and abroad. Importantly, the Leadership Conference letter to President Bush states, the United States should not limit its participation in this important global event, even when faced with issues that our government feels threatened fundamental American values. Rather, the U.S. should actively engage difficult topics and work to change those that belie core U.S. principles. If the U.S. does not participate in the World Conference Against Racism, what will that prove? Do we not lose by telling our friends and others what they can say and what they cannot say; do we not lose friends and prestige by doing that? I do not believe that the Bush administration has to be told what to say and what not to say. I do believe that with the moral force of our position and the strength of our argument, we should be able to prevail without the appearance of issuing threats or intimidation. Thirty percent of the American population consists of people of color. We have a stake in this conference. I believe the majority of Americans who are not of color would like to see the United States lead in this issue to get rid of the problems of race and intolerance at home and to help the rest of the world deal with the problem of racism and intolerance abroad. The United States should participate in the WCAR, the House should encourage that participation, and the Johnson resolution should have been on the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to see that the recent talks between Pakistan and India ended with no agreement due to India's intransigence. India wanted a statement that Pakistan was engaging in cross-border terrorism, when India itself is responsible for terrorism against its own people. Last month, a group of Indian soldiers tried to burn down a Gurdwara and some Sikh houses near Srinagar in Kashmir. This terrorist act was prevented by the efforts of townspeople of both the Sikh and Muslim faiths. In March 2000, during former President Clinton's visit to India, the government killed 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora, according to two independent investigations. The book Soft Target shows that India blew up its own airliner in 1985. 329 innocent people died in that explosion. The newspaper Hitavada report that the Indian government paid an official to generate state terrorism in Kashmir and in Punjab, Khalistan. According to a 1994 State Department report, the Indian government paid more than 41,000 cash bounties to police officers to kill Sikhs. Before the meeting, the Council of Khalistan wrote to President Musharraf. They noted that he and his government had been friendly to the Sikhs and their cause of freedom. They noted that in 1948 the Indian government promised the United Nations that it would hold a plebiscite so Kashmiris could decide their political status in a free and fair vote. This shouldn't be too hard for ``the world's largest democracy'' to do, but we are now more than halfway through 2001 and it hasn't been held yet. When does India plan to keep its promise? In addition, the people of Khalistan, the Sikh homeland, declared their independence from India on October 7, 1987 and the people of primarily Christian Nagaland are actively seeking theirs. In all, there are 17 freedom movements in India. When will these people be allowed by ``the world's largest democracy'' to exercise their right to self- determination? Self-determination is the birthright of all people and nations. Mr. Speaker, if America can do something to help bring democracy and freedom to South Asia, that is not only in our national interest, it is the right thing to do. Fortunately, there are measures we can take to help bring freedom, peace, and stability to that dangerous region. The time has come to stop providing American aid to India--remember, this is public money--until India begins to treat all its people fairly and ends the repression against the minorities. The other thing that we can do is strongly urge India to hold a plebiscite, not just in Kashmir as it promised in 1948, but in Khalistan, Nagalim, and everywhere else that people seek their freedom. This will help to defuse the tense situation in South Asia and enhance America's national security by bringing us new allies in the subcontinent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the Council of Khalistan's letter to President Musharraf into the Record for the information of my colleagues. Council of Khalistan, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Tenth Master, Washington, DC June 27, 2001. Hon. General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan. Dear President Musharraf, On behalf of the Sikh Nation, I congratulatle you on becoming President of Pakistan. We hope and pray that this step will be useful for the people of Pakistan, the Sikhs, and the people of South Asia. Soon you will be visiting India. We sincerely hope that your visit will go well and will be productive to the cause of peace and freedom in South Asia. While you are in India, I urge you to visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The Sikhs who visited Nankana Sahib last fall were so well treated that we know you are a friend of the Sikh Nation. Your visit to the Golden Temple will enhance your friendship with the Sikh nation. You are aware that India divided Pakistan through a war and created the nation of Bangladesh. You are also aware that India promised in 1948 to hold a plebiscite on the future of Kashimir. Fifty-three years later, that plebiscite has still not been held. The people of Punjab, Khalistan also seek their freedom, and General Javed Nasir has endorsed the achievement of Khalistan by peaceful means. In addition, there are freedom movements in Nagalim, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Manipur, and other nations under Indian occupation. Self- determination is the birthright of all peoples and nations. Support for the freedom movements within India's borders would also be in Pakistan's interest, as well as the interest of peace, freedom, and stability in South Asia. In addition, it would help to prevent another war between India and Pakistan. India has murdered over 250,000 Sikh since 1984, more than 75,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, and tens of thousands of Dalits, Tamils, Manipuris, Assamese, and others. It has admitted to holding over 52,000 Sikh political prisoners without charge or trial. Recently in Kashmir, Muslim and Sikh villagers caught a group of Indian soldiers trying to burn down a Gudwara and overpowered them. Is this the way of ``the world's'' largest democracy''? Add to this the fact that India started the nuclear arms race in South Asia with their nuclear tests. India is a destabilizing and repressive country seeking hegemony in the subcontinent. President Musharraf, I urge you to support the freedom movements in Kashmir, Khalistan, Nagaland, and all the other nations seeking their freedom from India. I urge you to press the Indian government on this issue and urge them to hold a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence, monitored by the international community. This would go a long way towards establishing stability, peace, and freedom in South Asia. Sincerely Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, July 19 is the 25th anniversary of U.S. District Court's landmark decision in the infamous case known as Cherry vs. Mathews. This historic ruling has paved the way and established equal and just civil rights for America's disabled citizens. 25 years ago, disabled Americans did not have access to many federal buildings, schools, public transportation, and voting booths. An undue burden was placed upon citizens with disabilities, and they were not treated with the respect, courtesy, and equal opportunity that all Americans should be afforded. Dr. James L. Cherry, a Georgian, led the fight to insure that disabled-citizen rights were acknowledged and protected. Dr. Cherry's suit against the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare brought about not only changes through the courts; it renewed and confirmed our Nation's belief that equal opportunity is a unalienable right for all. I would like to thank Dr. Cherry for his courage, commitment, and foresight. As we observe the 25th anniversary of Cherry vs. Mathews, we are all reminded that our great nation was built upon a foundation of principles and equality and that has been sustained by the ideals of opportunity and justice.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 15, the Think Tank for National Self-Determination held a very informative meeting here on Capitol Hill in the Rayburn House Office Building. The featured speaker was Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. He laid out very well the strong case for self-determination for the Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan, and for the other nations of South Asia, such as predominantly Christian Nagaland and predominantly Muslim Kashmir. During his speech, Dr. Aulakh noted that ``self-determination is the birthright of all peoples and nations.'' He quoted Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in our own Declaration of Independence that when a government tramples on the basic rights of the people, ``it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.'' Jefferson also wrote, ``Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.'' India certainly is that kind of government. It has killed over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, more than 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 75,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and many thousands of other minorities, including people from Assam, Manipur, Tamil Nadu, and members of the Dalit caste, the dark-skinned ``Untouchables,'' who are the aboriginal people of South Asia, among others. Currently, there are 17 freedom movements in India. Just recently, a group of Indian soldiers was caught trying to set fire to a Gurdwara, a Sikh temple, in Kashmir, and some houses. Local townspeople, both Sikh and Muslim, overwhelmed the soldiers and prevented them from committing this atrocity. Unfortunately, that is the reality of ``the world's largest democracy.'' Mr. Speaker, there are measures that America can take to prevent further atrocities and help the people of the subcontinent live in freedom. We should end our aid to the Indian government until it stops repressing the people and we should openly and publicly declare our support for self-determination for the people of Khalistan, Nagalim, Kashmir, and the other nations seeking their freedom in South Asia. This is the best way to help them. It supports the principles that gave birth to our country and it strengthens our security position in that region. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert Dr. Aulakh's speech into the Record for the information of my colleagues. Remarks of Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President, Council of Khalistan It is a pleasure to be back here with my ftiends at the Think Tank for National Self Determination. This is a very important organization and I am proud to support its work. Self-determination is the birthright of all peoples and nations. Next month America will celebrate its independence. Thomas Jefferson, author of the American Declaration of Independence, wrote that when a government tramples on the people's rights, ``it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.'' He also wrote that ``resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.'' Sikhs share that view. We are instructed by the Gurus to be vigilant against tyranny wherever it rears its ugly head. Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the Sikh Gurus, proclaimed the Sikh Nation sovereign. Every day we pray ``Raj Kare Ga Khalsa,'' which means ``the Khalsa shall rule.'' Let me tell you a little about the history of Sikh national sovereignty. Sikhs established Khalsa Raj in 1710, lasting until 1716. In 1765, Sikh rule in Punjab was re-established, and it lasted until the British conquered the subcontinent in 1849. Under Maharajah Ranjit Singh, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims all served in the government. All people were treated equally and fairly. The Sikh state was extensive, at one point reaching all the way to Kabul. At the time that the British quit India, three nations were supposed to get sovereignty. Jinnah got Pakistan for the Muslims on the basis of religion and the Hindus got India. India made a deal with the Hindu maharajah of Kashmir to keep the state within India despite a Muslim majority population, but at the same time it marched troops into Hyderabad to annex it to India by defeating the Muslim ruler, Nizam of Hyderabad. Hyderabad at the time had a majority Hindu population and a Muslim maharajah. The third nation that was to receive sovereign power was the Sikh Nation. However, Nehru tricked the Sikh leadership of the time into taking their share with India on the promise that Sikhs would enjoy ``the glow of freedom'' in Punjab and no law affecting the rights of Sikhs would pass without Sikh consent. As soon as the ink dried, however, the Indian government broke those promises. They sent a memo to all officials declaring Sikhs ``a criminal race'' does that sound like a democracy or a totalitarian state in the Nazi/ Communist mold?--and the repression of Sikhs began. No Sikh representative has ever signed the Indian constitution to this day. In June 1984 the Indian government attacked the holiest of Sikh shrines, the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Ask yourself, what would you think if someone launched a military attack on the Vatican or Mecca? That is how Sikhs felt about the Golden Temple massacre and desecration. Seventeen years later, we have still not forgotten it, as the attendance at our recent protest shows. Since that attack, the Indian government has murdered more than 250,000 Sikhs, according to figures published in The Politics of Genocide by human-rigbts leader Inderjit Singh Jaijee, convenor of the Movement Against State Repression. A new report from Jaijee's organization shows that India admitted that it held over 52,000 Sikhs as political prisoners without charge or trial under the expired ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act.'' Some of the political prisoners have been in illegal custody since 1984! In 1994, the U.S. State Department Unfortunately, there is often no way to answer that question. Human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra exposed the fact that the Indian government picked up over 50,000 Sikhs, tortured them, killed them, then declared their bodies ``unidentified'' and cremated them. Just recently, more bodies were found in a river bank. For this, Mr. Khalra was arrested and killed in police custody. The only eyewitness to the Khalra kidnapping was arrested for trying to hand the British Home Secretary a petition asking Britain to get involved in helping to secure human rights for the Sikhs. Two independent investigations showed that the Indian government killed 35 Sikhs last year in the village of Chithi Singhpora in Kashmir. Just last week, five Indian troops were overwhelmed by Sikh and Muslim residents of another village while they were trying to burn down the local Gurdwara and some Sikh homes. This is part of India's ongoing effort to set the minorities against each other. With 17 freedom movements within India's borders, the idea that the minorities might support each other scares the Indian government. It is not just Sikhs who are being oppressed. While my main focus is on my own people, I am committed to freedom and human rights for all peoples and nations. There has been a wave of oppression of Christians since Christmas 1998. Members of the RSS, the pro-Fascist parent organization of the ruling BJP, murdered missionary Graham Staines and his two sons, ages 8 to 10, by burning them to death while they slept in their jeep. Nuns have been raped, priests have been killed, schools and prayer halls have been attacked. Last year, the RSS published a booklet on how to implicate Christians and other minorities in false criminal cases. The BJP destroyed the Babri mosque in Ayodhya and still intends to build a Hindu temple on the site. Leaders of the BJP have said that everyone who lives in India must be Hindu or must be subservient to Hinduism. They have called for the ``Indianization'' of non-Hindu religions. Is that a democratic country? U.S. Congressman Edolphus Towns pointed out that ``the mere fact that [Sikhs] have the right to choose their oppressors does not mean they live in a democracy.'' Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said that for the minorities ``India might as well be Nazi Germany.'' Sikh martyr Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale said that ``If the Indian government attacks the Golden Temple, it will lay the foundation of Khalistan.'' He was right. On October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation declared the independence of its homeland, Punjab, Khalistan. India claims that there is no support for Khalistan. It also claims to be democratic despite the atrocities. Then why not simply put the issue of independence to a independence to a vote, the democratic way? What are they afraid of? Self-determination is the right of all people and nations. America should sanction India and stop its aid until all the people of South Asia are allowed to live in freedom. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I hope you will support freedom for Khalistan, Kashmir, Nagaland, and all the nations of South Asia.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute former DeKalb County Commissioner, Dr. William C. ``Bill'' Brown, a man whose heart is huge, counsel is wise, and guidance is never misleading. His demeanor commands the respect of all who are in his presence, and his spirit radiates truth, honesty, and an undying love for all people. I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart for his constant support of my efforts to serve the residents of the Fourth Congressional District and the State of Georgia. I have never known a moment when I could not look to him for help and knowing this has always been a great source of comfort. I pray that those of us who are to follow in his footsteps, will be wise enough to do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility and consider others before ourselves. I celebrate you now and always in spirit and in love.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be one of 19 signers of a letter sent last month to President Bush urging him to work to get political prisoners in India freed. We are Republicans and Democrats from across the political spectrum, but we understand that democracies don't hold political prisoners and countries that do are not friendly to democracy. It is interesting that on the day after we sent our letter, a well- known Sikh human-rights organization called the Movement Against State Repression (MASR) issued a report exposing the continuing holding of political prisoners in India and the repressive laws under which they have been held, such as the very repressive ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA), which expired in 1995. Despite this, many prisoners are still being held under TADA. According to the report, in many cases, the police would file TADA cases against the same individual in different states ``to make it impossible for them to muster evidence in their favor,'' It was also common practice for police to re-arrest TADA prisoners who had been released, often without filing new charges. MASR reports that the Indian government itself admitted in 1993 to 52,258 persons, detained under TADA. Of those, according to the report, ``14,457 were in Punjab and 14,094 in Gujarat, a relatively peaceful state. Obviously there were a number of Sikh TADA prisoners held in Gujarat jails.'' Gujarat was only one state that the police would use to register secondary TADA cases against Sikhs. They would also register cases in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Delhi, among others. ``In November 1994,'' the report states, ``42 employees of the Pilibhit district jail and PAC were found guilty of clubbing to death 6 Sikh prisoners and seriously wounding 22 others. They were TADA prisoners. Uttah Pradesh later admitted the presence of around 5000 Sikh TADA prisoners,'' the Movement Against State Repression wrote, ``Another press report in 1993 mentioned beating of striking prisoners held in jail at Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Nearly 500 of these prisoners belonged to Punjab and were held under TADA,'' It was also in November 1994 that the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the late Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, $1.5 billion to foment covert state-sponsored terrorist activity in Punjab and Kashmir. According to the report, the Punjab Civil Magistracy wrote a memorandum to the Governor of Punjab in 1993 in which it said that ``if we add up the figures of the last few years the number of innocent persons killed would add up to lakhs [tens of thousands.]'' To this date, neither the central government nor the state government has revealed the list of people killed or those detained under TADA. In September 1995, the police kidnapped Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human- rights activist who exposed the government's policy of picking up innocent Sikhs, torturing them, murdering them, then cremating their bodies, declaring them ``unidentified.'' The Jaijee report says that ``thousands of Sikh young men have disappeared since 1984.'' According to General Narinder Singh, another human-rights leader, ``Punjab is a police state.'' The Movement Against State Repression is headed by Inderjit Singh Jaijee, a longtime human-rights activist who wrote the book The Politics of Genocide, which exposed the fact that the Indian government has killed over a quarter of a million Sikhs in the last 17 years. The government has also killed more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 70,000 Kashmiri Muslims, and many thousands of other minorities, including the Dalit ``untouchables,'' the dark-skinned aboriginal natives of the subcontinent. Is this the behavior of a democracy? If India is a democracy, as it claims, why does it need a Movement Against State Repression anyway? According to Amnesty International, tens of thousands of Sikhs are being held in illegal detention in India without charge or trial. Some of them have been held since 1984. Many Christians, Muslims, and other minorities are also being held. This is not an acceptable situation, Mr. Speaker. I am a minister's daughter. I understand the importance of religion and the need for religious tolerance. It is time to take action to protect the religious liberty of all the people of South Asia. There are so many more details of this repression in the report that I do not have time to tell my colleagues about all of them. I would like to submit materials relating to this situation into the Record. Like an Undeclared Emergency (By G.S. Grewal) Militancy in Punjab was not controlled by the extra- judicial killings or by the enforcement of harsh laws like TADA. It was contained, firstly, because the people in Punjab did not support it and secondly, by establishing democratic rule under the determined mass-based leader Sardar Beant Singh who had built a successful bridge between the people and the rulers. Under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), not a single known militant had been convicted in Punjab. During Operation Black Thunder, more than 250 militants hiding in the Golden Temple complex were arrested and the whole scene was viewed by millions of people all over the world on television. They were booked under TADA. Within a few months, they had to be released from jail because of insufficient evidence. The prosecution made the request and the court discharged them. Mr. K.P.S. Gill was confronted with this episode at a Rotary Club (Mid town) meeting and he replied that the investigating agency had become corrupt. When he was asked how and why none of the persons discharged was alive, he preferred to duck the question. The validity of TADA was challenged in the Supreme Court with the plea of the government in defence of TADA being that under abnormal circumstances, abnormal laws were necessary. This plea was accepted by the Court. The State counsel further argued that an undeclared war was going on with the active provocation of our neighbour. The situation could not be classified as a mere law and order or disturbance of public order. Activities of terrorists were such which could not be controlled by ordinary laws. So TADA had been framed to meet that special situation. In actual practice, the TADA became notorious more for its abuse than for its legal use. The head of the police department assumed more powers than the Chief Secretary of the state. It became impossible to tame the DGP of that time. Even the Chief Minister time found himself helpless before the DGP who was more feared than respected. This was the era when many innocent people were illegally killed. Some because of suspicion, others because of greed and revenge. The CBI had discovered the dead bodies of thousands of people who were supposed to have been killed in fake encounters by the police. At the insistence of the Supreme Court, the matter is being debated before the National Human Rights Commission, for the last many years but no decision has yet been taken. The era of terrorism in Punjab Though the police was and is, by and large, a disciplined force, during militancy many of them lost their sense of commitment towards duty and were involved in making a quick buck. Militancy not only affected the routine life of an average citizen, it also made the administration spineless. While some lawyers were killed, allegedly by the police because they defended militants, some district and session judges were attacked. Threats were issued to some High Court Judges and it was not too difficult to believe that the cause of justice had received a setback. Since religious places remained the centre of militancy, the sanctity of those places was also damaged. It further facilitated the cause of those who wanted to exploit religion for political powers. During the Emergency, the government gagged the press with some success. During militancy, the terrorists tried the same with partial success. Now, when there is neither militancy nor emergency the government wants to control the press by making a law which would compel the Press to disclose their sources, which they gather through their own resourcefulness. Nowhere in the free world are such conditions imposed on the Press. When the Press is not free, even other institutions become weak. During the Emergency, fundamental rights were suspended and it created fear and havoc among those who wanted to be bold and fearless. Even the Judiciary ceased to protect people and started justifying the excesses of the Executive. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur, the Supreme Court held that even if a person was to be killed illegally by the state executive with malafide intentions, he had no right of life and could not seek protection from the courts. When the Emergency ended, many judges, who had constituted the bench, admitted that the judgement was wrong and the Janata Party Government had to pass the 44th Amendment to the Constitution to nullify the affect of the judgment. If the proposed amendment in the new TADA was incorporated into the law of the land, it would operate as an undeclared emergency with its side-effects. In one sense, undeclared war is more dangerous than the declared one because it lasts much longer. Similarly, an undeclared emergency with lame freedom of the press would convert our enlightened, democratic free society to an ignorant and controlled system that the country could and should never accept.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment, and I find myself in agreement with the Bush administration on this issue. I agree that the United Nations has a poor record in some important areas. All we need to do is look at United Nations behavior in Rwanda and Srebrenica where it aided and abetted in the needless slaughter of 1 million Rwandans and thousands of Bosniacs. Even that, however, is no reason to withhold paying back dues that the United States owes to the United Nations. How can we expect the United Nations to improve its performance or to respect us if we go back on our word and refuse to pay our bills? I know that Secretary of State Colin Powell would never agree with going back on our word to the world community, but that is exactly what this amendment will do. President Bush's spokesperson said yesterday, ``While the United States is disappointed with the results of the Human Rights Commission election, the President feels strongly that this issue should not be linked to the payment of our arrears to the U.N. and other international organizations.'' However, it is important that while we talk today about human rights around the world and human rights abusers, and even human rights abusers who now sit on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, we must also talk about ourselves. We cannot continually stand before the world community with finger pointed outward while never looking inward. And look inward we must. We must look at the way we treat others in our foreign policy, and we must look at the way we treat our own citizens right here in this country. Christopher Hitchens has written a powerful piece on Henry Kissinger's policies that resulted in deaths all over Asia, in Vietnam, in Indonesia, in East Timor. Hitchens also discusses U.S. policy in Chile. Problems created decades ago that we still suffer the repercussions of today. I have written tomes myself in disgust at Madeleine Albright's Africa policy, which had the U.S. join hands with hand choppers and rapists of little 12-year-old girls in Sierra Leone, purposely delayed U.S. response in the Rwanda genocide, and then rewarded those at the U.N. and inside our own government who turned a blind eye to what was happening in Africa's Great Lakes region. Africa is still suffering from what we did not do to help people who wanted to escape dictatorship and establish democracy and the rule of law. What other suffering will we create or ignore? But then I cannot talk about the U.S. position on human rights without discussing what is happening right here in America. What about the human rights of America's black men who are dying on the streets? What about the human rights of America's black people? On the streets of America, I see homelessness and poverty. Here in the Nation's Capital, I see black man after black man after black man sleeping on the streets. They sleep in makeshift cardboard beds, they sleep on sidewalk benches, over heating grates, and under bridges. Black women lie clad in newspapers during the night on the same block as the White House. They are discarded like trash on the streets of America. On the streets of America, I see racial profiling. The Justice Department admits that blacks are more likely than whites to be pulled over by police, imprisoned, and even put to death. Yet only 2 days ago a Cincinnati grand jury offered the equivalent of a holiday vacation for a white police officer in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man. Another black man last week was driving his fiance's 10- and 8-year- old daughters to school. He was approached by a white policeman, who pulled his gun and shot him in the neck, killing him instantly as the two little girls ran screaming in horror down the street. The FBI said blacks and whites have about the same rate of drug use, yet while the majority of people arrested for drug abuse are white, the vast majority of those incarcerated are black. Government studies on health disparities confirm that blacks are less likely to receive surgery, transplants, even prescription drugs, than whites. A black baby boy born in Harlem today has less chance to reach the age of 5 than a baby born in Bangladesh. I serve in the Congress where the Congressional Black Caucus is shrinking, and yet sections of the Voting Rights Act will soon expire, and, quite frankly, after crippling Supreme Court decisions, there is not much left of affirmative action to mend. I believe this state of affairs is no accident. We are what we are because it was meant to be. In the FBI's own words, its counterintelligence program, then known as COINTELPRO, had as a goal to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize the activities of black organizations and to prevent and, I quote, black ``leaders from gaining respectability.'' We need only remember that Geronimo Pratt spent 27 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. Twenty-six black men were executed in the year 2000. Some of them were probably innocent. And we started this year by executing a mentally retarded black woman. Now the Bush administration tells us that they are not going to participate in the United Nations Conference on Racism scheduled to take place in the Republic of South Africa in August of this year. I say shame on the Bush Administration for boycotting the United Nations Conference on Racism, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, George Bush said it well when he said that we do not need to do this. A superpower pays its bills. A superpower leads by example. A superpower does not cry when it does not get its way and then go and take all the marbles. Already this tit-for-tat mentality has resulted in the Bush administration canceling administration appointments with visiting members of the European parliament. I met with them yesterday and I am sure that they enjoyed meeting with me but I am not the same as meeting with the administration on very, very important and critical issues that pertain to the relationship between the United States and Europe, that very relationship that we are talking about today. Those members of parliament are going to go back to Europe, and they are going to write a report that is critical of the United States. So, yet again, we are going to involve ourselves in this tit-for-tat mentality that has the potential of spiralling out of control into the absurd. The last thing we need is for Congress to add fuel to the fire. We need to pay our bills. We need to participate in the United Nations. We need to help change those things that need to be corrected, and we need to do it through diplomacy not by going back on our word. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and agree with the Bush administration that the last thing we need it do is withhold funds that the United Nations severely needs that will result in us going back on our word. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I would like to applaud the fact that the gentlewoman had the initiative, the gentlewoman took the initiative to come down here to talk to the American people, to talk to our constituents about the issues that are very important to us and issues that are important to them, promises made and promises broken. At the same time, we hear from the White House statements like, I am keeping the promises I campaigned on. Let us just go and replay that campaign, because as far as I can remember, if I remember correctly, the current occupant of the White House lost the vote of the American people by 500,000. Then on top of that, I had an election reform town hall meeting, and at the town hall meeting, we had the private company ChoicePoint come and testify about how the voter list was affected, so that those people who would go and present themselves in Florida and try to vote were denied the right to vote, because they started off the process with a list that was wrong. What ChoicePoint testified at our hearing was that the State of Florida requested an inaccurate list. They requested a list of ineligible voters that was larger than the number of actual ineligible voters in Florida. Where did they get those additional names of ineligible voters? They got those additional names from the State of Texas. Remind me. Who was running the State of Texas? Who is now running the State of Florida? So we have the Bush brothers getting together and deciding who is going to vote in Florida and who is not going to vote in Florida, and then we have Kathy Harris coming up here on Capitol Hill to the Congress, the most powerful legislative body on the planet of Earth, coming and saying that election reform is the most important agenda for me as Secretary of State. If the State of Florida was important to the Bush brothers in the year 2000, just imagine after having lost the popular vote by 500,000- plus, how important is the State of Florida going to be in the year 2004? Now we are asked to come here to talk about the environment and the budget, and I see that the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is sitting in the chair, is watching the timer, because this is the kind of information that folks do not want to come out. Forty-five percent of George W. Bush's tax cut is going to go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. If you make a million dollars, you are going to get a lot back. But if you happen to be a regular, average American, you will not get very much back; but we want to make sure that regular, average Americans get the most that they can get back. Is it not interesting, I just happened to compile a list, we got up to 80 important issues for the first 100 of the Bush days. I would like to remind the people that this is the wealthiest Cabinet in the history of the United States. So, of course, they are going to go all over the country talking about we have to support the President's tax proposal. How much are they going to get back? Our Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, campaigned on a platform to abolish the Department of Energy; is that not interesting? Can you imagine? No wonder the White House is now going into apoplexy as they try and recover their position on the environment. Americans, by a remarkable 7-1 margin, think that Bush is less concerned about protecting the environment than protecting the interests of the energy industry. Of course, we see that oil is thicker than blood, because now George W. is even going against his brother Jeb down in Florida, so that they can auction off offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) gave the administration an ``incomplete'' with respect to dealing with the environment in their first 100 days. Now, we also would have to give the administration an incomplete, because even as we try and take care of business on behalf of our constituents, and, of course, we have to interact with the White House, I guess they are just yelling down the hall to empty offices, because 90 percent of the positions have not even been filled. Madam Speaker, I have written letters to the White House on the Yucca Mountain project, the apparent appointment of Walter Kansteiner, which is an abomination, to be the assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. That appointment is an abomination. I have written to the White House on the Kyoto Protocol, on behalf of the people of Vieques, on behalf of people who have hemophilia, about the issue of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, about the education rate or the E-rate program, about the National Science Foundation, about the need for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in my district, which is responsible for doing the most incredible things around the world on behalf of our health security. I have written about contract bundling and the negative impact that it has on minorities and women who want to do business with the Federal Government. I have written about the 2000 Census. I have also written about the 1946 murders of four black sharecroppers in Walton, Georgia, who were lynched. What have I gotten in response? I got a letter that says, I have shared your letter with the President's advisers and the appropriate agencies who have been formulating policy recommendations in this area. Hello. You were elected how many months ago? You had your plan of operation how many months ago? You certainly had your plan of operation in effect in November of the year 2000, because you took the election. But what comes after the election is governing, and that unfortunately is not what is being done. The American people are being shortchanged. The American people are being shortchanged by what is happening in this Congress, with this Republican majority, that since it was elected in 1994 has failed to produce a budget on time. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her leadership. I want to thank her for allowing us to have this opportunity to come here tonight and to let the American people know what is really happening with their government, our government. We must have change. We must be able to deliver on behalf of our constituents. Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record: 1. Bush campaigned on a pledge to provide a $1.6 trillion tax cut to America's wealthiest families. 2. Bush named the wealthiest cabinet in the history of the United States. 3. Bush's Cabinet stumped for the President's tax cut proposal. 4. Bush's number one priority in his first 100 days has been promoting a tax plan that will cost $2.6 trillion over the next ten years. 45% of his cut will benefit the wealthiest one-percent of taxpayers, people with an average income of $915,000. 5. The Bush tax plan against women and lower income earners gives no tax relief at all to those families too poor to pay income taxes (12 million families with 24 million children), no tax deductions for 53% of Black and Hispanic families; and no tax cuts made for single persons earning between $6,001 to $27,050 nor for married persons earning $12,001 to $45,200. 6. The administration's proposal also fails to make adjustments that would make tax rates truly progressive. Completely untouched is the regressive payroll tax that places the heaviest burden on low to middle income workers, predominately female, while leaving in place a substantial break for high income earners who make no payroll tax contributions above the $80,400 level (most of whom are men, of course). 7. Bush's tax cut would wipe out the rest of any funds available, leaving nothing for future contingencies, including shoring up Social Security. 8. The richest cabinet in history will get a kickback of over $100 million through Bush's efforts to push the Estate Tax legislation through Congress. 9. The Republican party is so devoid of talent that Bush named a record number of George Herbert Walker retreads to his Administration. There's no question about one assignment that's going to get a big, fat ``Incomplete''--installing the 487 top officials who will run the executive branch the next four years. 90% of assigned positions are unfilled. 10. Our new Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, recently campaigned on eliminating the Department of Energy, the very program he now runs, while also leading efforts to prevent increased fuel efficiency in vehicles. 11. Our Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, has led efforts to rollback endangered species protection and allowed mining company polluters to escape clean up requirements and liability. 12. Bush appointed Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior because she believes that corporations have a constitutional right to pollute. 13. Gale Norton's first concrete attempt at a regulatory rollback was a proposal to gut updated environmental mining regulations that went into effect at the end of the Clinton administration. Independent reports estimate that taxpayers could be on the hook for about $1 billion in environmental cleanup cost from today's mines. 14. President Bush's choice for the No. 3 spot at the Department of Energy is Robert G. Card, who until recently was CEO and president of a cleanup contractor that has been fined or penalized more than $725,000 for numerous worker safety, procurement and other violations since 1996. 15. The New Attorney General has a history of blocking enforcement of environmental laws; and throughout his career, Ashcroft has worked tirelessly to restrict a woman's right to choose. 16. The new head of the EPA, Christine Whitman, who doubts that global warming is a serious problem, defended global warming and got kicked by Bush. In a memo from Whitman to Bush, the EPA Administrator stressed the need for Bush to ``appear'' to be engaged in addressing global warming, as if the environment responds to appearances. 17. Tommy Thompson, the new Secretary of the Department Of Health and Human Services was one of the country's most anti- choice governors and now heads up the department that wields the greatest influence over policies affecting women's reproductive health. 18. Bush named Don Eberly, a right wing activist who was an official with the National Fatherhood Institute, to head up a White House office for faith-based programs. Some women's rights advocates are concerned that Eberly will utilize the office to help funnel even more federal monies to misogynist groups who promote so-called fatherhood initiatives. 19. John Negroponte, Bush's appointee for UN Ambassador has a track record of disrespecting human rights. During his tour as ambassador to Honduras, Negorponte earned his reputation for being soft on human rights abuses. Under the helm of General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, Honduras's military government was both a close ally of the Reagan administration and was disappearing dozens of political opponents in classic death squad fashion. Negroponte turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and even helped to cover up extrajudicial killings. 20. Bush's appointee for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, does not belong in the arms control job because, as the director of the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, Joseph Cirincione, says: ``Bolton is philosophically opposed to most of the international treaties that comprise the nonproliferation regime.'' 21. The nomination of Cuban-born Otto J. Reich as the State Department's top Latin American official is drawing Democratic criticism based on his role in the 1980s Central American wars. The Democrats' concerns over Reich focus on his leadership of the State Department's one-time Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean. The office--which Reich led from its inception in June 1983 until January 1986 was accused of running an illegal, covert domestic propaganda effort against Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government and in favor of the Contra rebels. 22. Bush named Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto Co., a leading developer of the world's most dangerous chemicals and biotech foods, for the second-ranking job at the Environmental Protection Agency, the White House said yesterday. 23. Energy interests gave $2.9 million to Bush for his political campaign, and then kicked in an additional $2.2 million for his inauguration fund. 24. Bush plans to allow drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and to sell out our public lands to private interests. 25. He did a big favor for major electricity wholesalers by keeping the federal government largely out of the California energy crisis, which has produced major profits for energy companies including Dynegy Inc., Enron Corp. and Reliant Energy Inc., all of which are based in Bush's home state of Texas. 26. Bush showed his loyalty to the coal mining and electricity industries when he reversed a campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which may have saved an estimated 30,000 lives a year of those who die due to respiratory illness. 27. Bush endangered the world's future and damaged our credibility in the International community when he announced the United States' withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at combating global warming. Seems that he's more interested in changing the global climate than the political climate. 28. Dick Cheney formulated crucial energy policy decisions behind closed doors. 29. Cheney's task force focused heavily on incentives for production; easing regulatory barriers for energy development; and opening more public lands to drilling including national monuments and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. 30. Americans, by a remarkable 7-to-1 margin, think that Bush is less concerned about protecting the environment than about protecting the interests of the energy industry. 31. Despite objections from his brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, he plans on auctioning offshore oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Seems that natural gas is thicker than blood. 32. The Bush administration announced that it will block a rule from Clinton's administration requiring more energy efficient air conditioners. 33. Republican representative Sherwood Boehlert said that the Bush first 100 days deserve the grade of ``incomplete in dealing with the environment.'' 34. Bush's budget proposes slashing more than $200 million from federal renewable energy and efficiency research programs, even as his administration declares the United States needs to find ways to cope with an ``energy crisis.'' 35. The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro melt away as global temperatures and ocean levels rise, Bush plans nothing to address it. 36. The Environmental Protection Agency announced it would withdraw the pending decrease in allowable arsenic for drinking water, prepared during the final days of the Clinton administration. 37. Bush asked Congress to remove from the Endangered Species Act a provision that allows environmental groups and others to sue the Interior Department to get rare plants and animals listed as endangered. 38. The Bush Administration plans to suspend rules that require federal contractors to comply with environmental, civil rights and labor laws. 39. In Quebec, Bush announced his intention to promote a trade plan for the Americas based on the failed NAFTA model. This will lead to further erosion of labor rights, human rights, and environmental protections throughout the hemisphere. 40. And Bush is looking to kill the roadless policy rule that will protect millions of acres of public land from taxpayer subsidized logging. 41. A Bush White House aide confirms that Bush is taking a look at recommending easing clean air regulations without Congressional actions, thus saving utilities and coal-mining companies billions of dollars of violations of clean air regulations and at the same time mooting legal action against polluting companies. 42. Bush was the top recipient of contributions from tobacco companies. Through carefully orchestrated budget cuts, Bush has managed to kill the lawsuit that the Justice Department has against big tobacco for deliberately deceiving the American people on public health issues. This move could potentially save big tobacco billions. 43. Speaking of Bankrupt public policy. Legislation championed for years by the financial industry that would make it harder for consumers to wipe away their debts was passed by an overwhelming margin in both chambers of Congress. Though a similar measure had been approved last year, President Clinton vetoed it. Bush, however, has signaled he will sign the bill, a move that could generate an estimated tens of millions of dollars in additional revenue for major credit card companies. 44. Where did Bush's enthusiasm come from? Charles Cawley, President of MBNA America personally raised at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign, qualifying him for admission into the Pioneers, the campaign's roster of top supporters. Last January, Cawley broke out his checkbook again, writing a $100,000 check to the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Fund. 45. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce contributed more than $514,000 to candidates and parties, 94% of that money went to Republicans, and the National Association of Manufacturers spent $12.8 million lobbying Members of Congress from 1997 to 1999. 46. In a private meeting in late February, Bush and Republican congressional leaders decided to kill the ergonomics rule put forth by the Clinton Administration, which would protect workers from workplace related injuries. 47. Following his pledge to leave no [rich] child behind, President's Bush's budget reduces resources for the Child Care and Development Block Grant projects by $200 million. That means that many low-income children will no longer be eligible for childcare, making it more difficult for their parents to work. 48. Bush plans to eliminate all funding for the Early Learning Opportunities program, which would have supported parent education and family support services. 49. Bush's budget will shortchange vital education programs; including efforts to reduce class sizes, improve teacher training, repair crumbling schools, promote after- school programs, and increase the number of Pell Grants available to low income freshmen. 50. Bush plans to cut in half grants that help states investigate and prevent child abuse and neglect. 51. President Bush has proposed a regime of annual testing for all students between grades three and eight. Schools that demonstrated an improvement in performance would be granted increased federal funding. Students at schools designated as low-performing would, after three years, be able to use their share of federal funds to attend other public or private schools. The school would then be privatized with the assistance of the federal government. 52. Bush's budget does not even provide funds to keep up with inflation for the WIC program, which provides vital nutrition assistance to low-income women, infants, and children. 53. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Bush ordered the reinstatement of the global ``gag'' rule on international family planning programs, programs that strive to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce abortion, and avert hundreds of thousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide each year. 54. Bush is prepared to unilaterally abrogate the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. 55. Bush strongly advocates the National Missile Defense System or ``Star Wars''. This program has cost taxpayers over $40 billion to date, and yet it has failed repeatedly in carefully orchestrated tests. The program is destabilizing and China has already indicated that it would initiate an arms race if the U.S. pursues the program. 56. The Bush administration has put its European allies on notice that it intends to move quickly to develop a missile defense and plans to abandon or fundamentally alter the treaty that has been the keystone of arms control for nearly 30 years. 57. Bush said he would suspend negotiations with North Korea, this strict stance on Korea has soured once-improving relations with North Korea. 58. The U.S. bombs 10 miles outside of Baghdad--a major metropolitan area--saying that the area was ``unpopulated.'' 59. Plans by U.S. President George W. Bush to sell weapons including eight diesel-powered submarines to Taiwan have received an embarrassing setback at the hands of European governments. Neither the Germans nor the Dutch, who have sown up the market in diesel submarines, are willing to allow the sale of the subs to Taiwan. 60. Under Bush, there has been a growing Anti-US feeling in the EU and around the world. 61. Bush's decision to proceed with arms sales to Taiwan-- China has said that offensive weapons such as subs will only lead to greater tensions in Asia. 62. Bush's commitment to the Balkans. While trying to build peace he is reducing U.S. commitment to peacebuilding. Same with the Middle East where tensions are growing and he is seeking to be less involved. 63. Bush has continued use of drug certification and the nomination of another hard liner to lead the War on Drugs. 64. President Bush worked with the CIA and a Private Military Company to cover up their responsibility in the deaths of two American missionaries killed by a Peruvian fighter as part of U.S. drug war strategy. 65. For women who depend upon government to advance economic equity in an economically unjust society, there would be little or no money for improved child care/early childhood education programs, effective Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement against discrimination and harassment. 66. There will be little or no money for expansion of Violence Against Women programs, few options for expansion of health care coverage to the 43 million uncovered, no funds for a new prescription drug benefit for seniors. 67. A multi-trillion dollar tax cut may also jeopardize the future financial solvency of Social Security and Medicare-- the majority of beneficiaries being women--and there will be few resources remaining for critically needed social investments. 68. Bush proposes to privatize Social Security, a move that jeopardizes the financial future of millions of Americans. 69. President Bush announced an expanded faith-based initiative and a vigorous, but misguided campaign to turn over social service programs to religious organizations. Faith-based initiatives, a more pernicious version of the old ``charitable choice,'' would permit direct federal funding of programs run by religious organizations, free to proselytize and discriminate, that would have little public accountability. 70. Bush's faith based initiative faces major setback: people of faith have little faith in it! 71. President Bush's budget will propose deep cuts in a variety of health programs for people without health insurance. Services providing ``health care access for the uninsured,'' would be reduced 86 percent, to $20 million, from $140 million in the current fiscal year. 72. Mr. Bush's budget request would also cut federal spending for the training of doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists and other health professionals. 73. Bush put a stop to giving unions preference on contracts for federal building projects. 74. Senator Pete Domenici disagrees vehemently with Bush's decision to hold all federal spending to no more than a 4% increase. 75. Kathy Harris, symbol of a purposely-failed election, travels to Washington to testify before Congress on the need to have elections that the people can believe in. 76. George W. Bush needs to win the Florida electoral college vote more in 2004 than in 2000. Therefore, don't look too soon for any election reform from this President. 77. According to David Broder, ``The Bush White House so far has not made changing the election system a priority. The President's proposed budget, along with the budget resolutions of the House and Senate, set aside no fund for federal aid for improving election equipment or administration. 78. Republican Jim Ramstad said that Bush White House interference in Minnesota politics could end up hurting the party. A phone call by Dick Cheney to dissuade a potential candidate from running has all the markings of Bush and Cheney trying to be a ``kingmaker'' thwarting the will of the people. 79. World reaction was tepid, critical or simply silent to President Bush's announcement that the United States would build a shield against ballistic missile attacks. 80. President Bush throws a bash featuring 535 Members of Congress to celebrate his first 100 days and schedules it on a Monday when few Members of Congress are in town: fewer than 200 Members of Congress bothered to show up.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the great Republican hero Ronald Reagan once said, ``Trust, but verify.'' That is wonderful advice coming from the icon of the Republican revolution. So, I decided to verify Bush's new budget. Of course, a major portion of Bush's proposal will include a $1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. Now we all know that the American people need and deserve a tax break. But it turns out that 50% of the tax relief is going to the richest 5% of the population. The very wealthy can expect to get back $46,000, while low income families will get zero. Meanwhile, President Bush and the richest Cabinet in the history of this country are pushing for Estate Tax Relief. This will provide a tax kickback of over $100 million to President Bush and his cabinet. Bush's first budget cuts Head Start, Child Care, and Public Housing repairs. At least now we have verified who is paying for the kickbacks to Bush's rich friends. The nation's children and the poor. It was once said that the true measure of a society is in how it treats its least fortunate. That is why we must support the Progressive Caucus Budget. In my home state of Georgia, the budget increase for Head Start would serve over 20,000 children. The brave Americans who served our country would see big increases in Veterans Medical care and construction programs. Low-income families would benefit from increases in Section 8 vouchers and the Public Housing Capital Fund. We will pay for the Progressive Caucus budget by eliminating wasteful programs and corporate welfare, such as the tax deductibility of Tobacco advertising. We cut back on Star Wars, so that we can pay our military personnel what they deserve rather than increasing profits of defense contractors. The Progressive Caucus budget takes care of our nation's children, seniors, veterans, military personnel, and middle and low income families. Upon verification, the Bush plan will fill the coffers of big business at the expense of the hard working men and women of this country who created the prosperity that led to our budget surplus. Mr. Chairman, I challenge my colleagues to do what they know is right for their constituents, and support the Progressive budget.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1857, the Supreme Court majority penned these infamous words: ``[The black man has] no rights which the white man was bound to respect.'' The state of minority voting rights in America is in disorder, and I see a direct line between the debacle of 2000 and that shameful ruling in the Dred Scott case that found that blacks could not be citizens of the United States of America. From that decision and onto Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which struck down a federal law passed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, black Americans have known that the Supreme Court can, at its worst, become a reflection of the particular mutation of racism of the day. We find ourselves today in a serious retrenchment on our country's commitment to mainstreaming into American life its former slaves. Affirmative action has been decimated. The Voting Rights Act has been bludgeoned, with its enforcement section due to expire in less than a decade, and the ability of minorities to elect their candidates of choice severely hampered by the Supreme Court in its rulings limiting the ability to create black-majority congressional districts and limiting the enforcement powers of the Department of Justice. But no one, I'm certain, ever thought that the kind of voter suppression witnessed in the 2000 Presidential elections would ever be revisited upon America's minorities. If I had to give a State of the State of the Minority Vote, I would say that disfranchisement, not enfranchisement, is the order of the day. First, in 1978, the Burger Supreme Court turned the Fourteenth Amendment sideways by outlawing the use of racial quotas implemented for the purpose of including minorities in Americas life. A few years later, the Rehnquist Court stood the Fourteenth Amendment on its head by issuing its startling decision in Shaw v. Reno that completely changed the political map for Americas minorities. In the Court's ruling in Johnson v. Miller, Georgia's redistricting case I learned the hard way that Supreme Court justices, like other participants in our judiciary, are political actors first and foremost. I saw them dismantle my district and pave the way so that other black voters across the South could receive similar mistreatment. The Voting Rights Act was passed to prohibit impediments to voting. The original focus was literacy tests, poll taxes, and direct threats and intimidation, along with redistricting, dual voter lists, location of polling places and eventually, voter registration, and purging of names from the voter list. However, innovation has never been lacking among those who want to suppress and deny minority voting rights. As we have seen in the debacle of the Year 2000 Presidential Elections, especially in Florida, minority voter suppression comes in many forms. Take my State of Georgia. In the majority black precincts of my district, the chaos was so pervasive it could have been planned. In one precinct in my district, white police even blocked the entrance and refused free access for voters because of an erroneous belief that I hadn't supported their pay raise. Too often there was only voter list. There were poorly trained elections workers, old equipment and overcrowded precincts right next to unused spacious accommodations. The frequent inability to handle high voter turnout is particularly disgraceful. Having to stand in line, sometimes outside in the rain and sometimes for as many as five hours, is outrageous and unconscionable and should not be tolerated anywhere, let along the world's wealthiest nation. Yet that happened at many of my precincts in my district. It is also inexcusable to stand in line for hours, only to reach the table and be told that you are not at the correct voting place, that there is no time to get to the correct place and that you won't be able to vote. This also happened over and over again in my district. Interestingly, we have Democrats in charge of our county, yes they vote to deny funds to allow a smooth voting process for the areas of the county now experiencing tremendous population growth. It shouldn't be surprising that this population growth is nearly all black. What makes this governing body's failure to appropriate the necessary funds to accommodate our new voters is so shocking that we had this same scenario in 1996, a Presidential election year and the year in which I faced reelection in a majority white district with well-financed white Democratic and Republican opposition. An overwhelming black turnout returned me to Congress despite the new district and in the process the county elected its first black sheriff and superior court clerk. They immediately voted to give the black newspaper the legal organ designation and a change in the county was evident. There should not have been a repeat of the chaos this year, but there was. I would suggest that perhaps the leaders responsible for appropriating funds for DeKalb County don't want large voter participation from the black residents on its south side. That's the only way I can explain the failure to fund adequately the elections office for the past four years. I would argue that, this is a subtle violation of the Voting Rights Act with the intent and effect of suppressing the minority vote. Let me address other ways that we are disfranchised: A recent study by the Southern Regional Council found that punchcard machines are disproportionately used by black voters in Georgia and disproportionately fail to register votes. Similar findings come from other states, yet many states are hard-pressed for funds for the infrastructure of democracy. If Congress fails to fund modernization of election equipment in the United States and better training and education of pollworkers and voters, we will send the message that it doesn't matter if votes aren't counted. A one-time Federal investment equal to less than one percent of the annual defense budget would give Americans the voting mechanics a modern democracy--let alone one of our status--demands. If President Bush truly wants to move beyond the controversy in Florida, his immediate step must be to support full federal support to states in modernizing equipment and procedures. Why should people who have served their time and paid their debt to society be permanently disfranchised from America's body politic? Fourteen States bar criminal offenders from voting even after they have finished their sentences. Once these people have returned to society, become good mothers and fathers, have jobs and are taxpayers, why should they not be allowed to vote? And because of the disproportionate impact of racism in this country, blacks and Latinos bear a disproportionate share of I strongly support creation of black-majority legislative districts. In a winner-take-all system in which 50.1 percent of voters can win 100 percent of power, they often are the only vehicle for people of color winning representation. But why should we accept these winner-take-all electoral rules that by definition deny representation to any political grouping that is in a minority in an area? What makes Republicans living in a majority-Republican district any more deserving of a chance to elect someone than Republicans living in a majority-Democratic district? Why should the black voters who were so happy to help elect me in my original congressional district no longer have that chance just because the courts ordered my district changed? How can some downplay the role of race in voting in America even as no blacks or Latinos serve in the U.S. Senate--and no State has a black or Latino majority? I work hard to represent everyone in my district, but I have no illusions; a large number of my constituents would prefer another Representative. And as the only Congresswoman from Georgia and the only black woman Representative from the deep South States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, I feel an obligation to speak for many people outside my district. Different voting systems would allow elections to be based on this reality, rather than the fallacy that Members speak only for the people in their districts. Our entire electoral system should be reformed to make our institutions more reflective of America's voters. That's why I have authored in each of the past three Congresses the Voters Choice Act which allows the States to adopt proportional voting systems. Of the world's 36 major, full-fledged democracies, 33 use forms of proportional representation for national elections. Proportional systems also have a history in the United States. For example, then- governor George W. Bush signed legislation in Texas that has contributed to more than 50 localities moving to proportional systems in Texas. In May 2000, Amarillo used cumulative voting for the first time to elect its school board. It resulted in victories by the first black candidate ever to win a seat, the first Latino candidate to win since the 1970s, a tripling of voter turnout and widespread acceptance of the new rules. It is proportional representation in the Republic of South Africa that allows the Afrikaaner parties to have representative in the South African Parliament despite majority rule. The principle of proportional voting is simple: That like-minded voters should be able to win seats in proportion to their share of the vote without hurting the rights of others--which is to say that 20 percent of like-minded voters in Peoria call fill one of five city council seats with its cumulative voting system, and 51 percent will elect a majority of three seats. It mechanisms range from party-based systems, which allow small parties to win seats, to candidate-based systems that would simply widen the ``bid tent'' of the major parties. Either way, its impact would be powerful in reinvigorating American politics, encouraging more cooperative policy-making and giving voters a greater range of choice. Campaign finance reform must become more than a slogan, but law if we are to really give voters a choice in candidates. Right now, the special interests select the candidates before we even get to vote, so our choices as voters are severely limited due to the influence of special interest political money. I have benefited from current laws, as my incumbency helped me raise enough money to have the chance to reach new voters and hold onto my seat in Congress even after it was converted into a white-majority district. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to establish a political playing field in which all Americans have a chance to play, not just those with money or rich friends. America is increasingly becoming a country of people of color. We know that southern resistance to minority gains of the Civil Rights Era never ended. But as America becomes a country of color we have seen southern resistance spread across our land. We must remain vigilant. Any policy that has the effect of suppressing or diluting the votes of people of color is not sustainable and violates the Voting Rights Act. We have severe problems facing us today. A black boy born in Harlem has less chance of reaching age 65 than a boy born in Bangladesh. Twenty- six black men were executed last year. And too many black men have been relegated to the streets, underpasses, and heating grates of America's urban cities. It is only through the vote that we will be able to change the conditions in our community and to right the multitudinous wrongs that have been foisted upon our condition. We have the power to change the status quo and our opponents know that well. That is why the practice of minority voter suppression is alive and well. However, until now, we didn't realize the power that we have. The Emperor is naked now. And as a result, the devious acts of minority vote suppression have been laid bare for the world to see. We have seen them too. I predict that the black electorate will never be the same. Just like white America, we now know that our votes count and as a result we will demand that our votes be counted.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, how in the world can a President who lost the African American vote, the Latino vote, the Asian American vote and the popular vote shut down the Presidential Office of Race Relations? I thought George W. Bush wanted to change the tone in Washington. Or maybe changing the tone to President Bush means stifling minority voices. I hope not. Our President confided to us that he is just a ``white guy Republican.'' Well, we know that. But all of America is not white or Republican, and he has got to serve us too. He said he would be President for all Americans. Our President needs to listen to America's minorities and give us a chance to be heard. The Office of Race Relations was an effort on the part of the previous President to allow minority voices to be heard. This is not a good move to restore healing in America or to allow this administration to bridge the racial divide. It sends a terrible message to whites and minorities who care about racial healing in this country. I hope the President and his advisers will reconsider this action.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, how dare Ariel Sharon comment about Condolezza Rice's legs. I wonder what his legs look like. And let me go on to say how ``unsexy'' some people might think he looks. But they don't say it out loud! Probably they would be too busy thinking about that and unable to keep their mind on their work. Why would he say such a thing out loud? But does that have anything to do with his effectiveness as an Israeli leader? No. Neither his legs nor his sexiness has anything to do with whether he will stand for peace, make war, or whether he is competent to do the job for which he has been chosen. Likewise, Dr. Rice's looks have nothing to do with her effectiveness as a leader or as National Security Advisor to President Bush. The press seems to think this episode is cute. But it's an insult for all the women out there who go to school, study hard, then work long hours to break the glass ceiling. The last thing we need is for some boorish man who can control neither his libido nor his tongue to come on publicly to women he finds attractive. I think Mr. Sharon owes all women, especially working women, an apology.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, I have an objection at the desk to Florida's 25 electoral votes.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. President, it is in writing and it is signed by my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues, my House colleagues and myself; but it is not signed by one single Senator.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, we had our problems in Georgia, but the Florida elections were marred by gross violations of the Voting Rights Act. Voters who had never been to jail were listed as felons and then were not able to vote. Translators were not provided. A second ID was requested of immigrants even though it was not required. But while Floridians pored over hanging chads and dimpled ballots, one-third of Florida's African American males were unable to vote because of felony convictions. The Congress today will rubber stamp these gross violations of the Violating Rights Act. For black voters, these egregious insults must be addressed. It is not the act of voting that is democracy, but the counting of those votes; and that is what measures a true democracy.