Juanita Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 513, the so-called 527 Reform Act of 2005 and the restriction that they are placing on the first amendment rights of Americans. 527s are named after a section of the Internal Revenue Code that specifies certain political organizations as tax exempt for tax exempt purposes under the Federal law. Added to the Tax Code in 1975, 527 organizations have been legally recognized as operating entities for over 30 years. The Federal Election Commission has recently implemented additional regulations of these groups, which are subject to rigorous Federal reporting and disclosure requirements. Anyone with a computer can go online and see that millionaire Bob Perry gave $4.5 million to bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans. How do I know this? 527 organizations regularly submit detailed financial information to the IRS. They have to disclose where they get their money and how they get it. In fact, just last week, a Federal court remanded part of a case back to the FEC to present a more reasoned explanation for its decision that 527 organizations are more effectively regulated through case-by-case adjudication rather than general law. I believe that FEC should be given a chance to review this matter before further legislation is introduced in this House. The Senate is providing leadership in this area. They set out to do what they wanted to do and that was lobby reform, unlike this House, which is just bringing up this type of legislation to circumvent their lobbying reform bill that they do not have, and downplaying groups that had more voters than ever before in history outside demonstrating their democracy and getting the vote out. This is what the BCRA bill was all about. I voted for BCRA because it would sever the connection between Members of Congress in raising non-Federal funds, so-called soft money, and to ensure that there were limits on what we did in terms of money. BCRA was necessary to cut the perceived corruption link between Members of Congress, the formation and adoption of Federal policy and soft money. However, BCRA was not passed to impede legitimate voter registration and Get Out the Vote by those 527 community groups which did just that, but this bill impedes that democratic process. It impedes the 527 organizations. This bill is not needed, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting listening to the majority speak in favor of campaign finance reform after they did everything possible to stonewall the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Also interesting is watching the Republicans avoid any discussion about the activities of 501(c)6s and those organizations that have no disclosure requirements, and yet are running television ads designed to directly reelect a Senator from Pennsylvania. Unfair and impartial regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put in the Record a statement by the National Review magazine, which is a conservative magazine, and the National Review states, One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would level the playing field ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false. Wealthy individuals will still be free to say whatever they want and whenever they want. This proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues and speak and criticize Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I will include this statement in the Record as follows: Advocates of this bill have yet to identify the problem they hope to correct with this misguided proposal. 527s wield no corruptive influence over parties or candidates, which is the only constitutional justification for restricting free expression. One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would ``level the playing field,'' ending the ability of the wealthy to fund ``propaganda.'' This is completely false. Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they want whenever they want. The proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues. America needs the First Amendment and the ability of individual citizens to form groups precisely for speech that is controversial. To suppress views of those we dislike will inevitably risk suppression of our own. We who oppose such a proposal want to continue to freely debate our ideas in the public arena. We want Americans to hear all sides--and to decide for themselves who's right. When you were sworn into office, you took an oath to ``support this Constitution.'' We ask you to faithfully uphold that oath by rejecting H.R. 513, S. 1053, and any other bill that restricts political free speech. Sincerely, Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; Thomas A. Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; Matt Kibbe, CEO and President, Freedom Works; James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech; Bradley A. Smith, Professor of Law, Capital University Law School, and former Chairman, Federal Election Commission; Fred Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Speaker, unfairly regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech. I believe this legislation will have a negative impact on the voter participation bill silencing segments of the population that we need to hear from. Of particular concern is that the fundamental rights and the needs of all Americans including the voices of women, the elderly, and the poor not be left out of the political dialogue just because of the perceived notion that a few millionaires are funding all 527s. In fact, thousands of Americans gave to 527s through small donations of $25, $50 and the like because they believe, Mr. Speaker, in the message of 527 organizations. Through the first amendment, Americans are playing an ever increasing role in holding public officials accountable for their actions, through the debate of public policy, and the shaping of this American democracy. Their voices should not be silenced. In fact, I would like to put in the Record again the statement by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice S. Fisher when she stated upon the plea agreement of Mr. Rudy of his crimes involving illegal favors and lobbying activities which lasted from 1997 to 2004, and she says, ``The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and sell influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. By his admission in open court today, Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and law enforcement will simply not tolerate.'' The American public, Mr. Speaker, will not tolerate what is about to happen here with this elimination of 527 organizations, transferring them into 501(c)s, not allowing them to work independently of Members of Congress and having to deal with any congressional campaign committees. In fact, this bill sharply curtails the ability of individuals and groups to associate in the pursuit of political and policy goals, and I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unjust shade of Federal policy holders, which are us, the Members of Congress, this bill will allow the public to not criticize or even ask for accountability because they want to outlaw those groups who engage in the type of public speech, the public speech that might criticize us or ask for accountability. This is what they are trying to muffle. They are trying to muffle the voices of the American people who spoke through 527s. They are independent groups. The majority should not be in the business of legislating for partisan gain at the expense of the American people. I will vote in opposition of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois for a response.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, this is not what we voted for. We did not vote to transfer 527s to 501(c)s. That is dishonesty. I oppose those who say this is an obscene bill, 527s are not obscene. What they are trying to do now here with this bill would provide each national and State party committee to be free from any limits in spending on behalf of its candidates and the spending would take place at any time for the primary or general elections. This is the flow of money that the American people are saying take out of campaigns.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the 527s have been and must always file with the Internal Revenue Service. They have to do quarterly reports. Unlike what has been said, that they do not have disclosure and they do not have reporting, that is not true, and I include for the Record the IRS filing dates so that can be placed in the Record. Internal Revenue Service--United States Department of the Treasury Form 8872 Filing Dates (for 2006) During an election year, a political organization has the option of filing on either a quarterly or a monthly schedule. The organization must continue on the same filing schedule for the entire calendar year.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight because I am concerned over this Republican Congress that is now speaking about having further campaign reform legislation put before us tomorrow, and I rise tonight to clarify the myths and to speak the truth about the reforms that we have done, the reforms that are not needed, and the reforms that this Republican House is about to undertake. You would think, Mr. Speaker, that the scandals that are permeating the Congress would be a wake-up call for the majority not to continue their business as usual in terms of running the people's House. Yet, they have introduced H.R. 4975 as a feeble answer to their ethics problems. Unfortunately, the bill that is going to come before us, called a reform campaign bill, will not only be a bogus bill, but it includes language that restricts the first amendment rights of Americans. Instead, the majority reveals their ongoing and reckless infatuation by thwarting the constitutional freedom of speech and association rights of concerned citizen groups. Now, we know these groups were under the BCRA law that are called 527s, and these groups, Mr. Speaker, were groups that had never really had a voice in the political process. In this last election, they came out and they were a very strong force in providing an increasing voter participation, giving voice to the voiceless and becoming more involved in this democracy of ours. When I hear the Republicans talk about gaping loopholes that they must close, how do you close gaping loopholes when we have a chart that speaks about total U.S. voter turnout? This is not gaping loopholes, for heaven's sake. This is democracy. In 1990, we had a 105.1 million voter turnout. In the 2000 election year, we had a 110.8 million turnout. In 2004, we had a record-breaking 125.7 million people become involved in this political process. So why are we now trying to pass legislation that merely muffles the mouths and the voices of those who want to take part in this democracy? When the majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted for this Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, we sought to sever the connections between Federal office holders and the raising of non- Federal money, which is so-called soft money. BCRA, which is the campaign bill, was necessary, Mr. Speaker, to cut the perceived corrupting link between office holders, the formation and adoption of Federal policies, and soft money; and yet the majority is bringing us a bill that is so broad in its application that it stands to severely hamper voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities for civic- minded, nonpartisan organizations. It casts such a wide net that it will ensnare groups whose activities Congress should be promoting, not impeding. This is America. We should be promoting democracy, not impeding it. By failing to distinguish between groups whose activities are designed to influence the election of clearly identified Federal candidates and those whose sole purpose it is to enhance participation, this legislation imposes too high of a price on election activities. Now we have heard that the 527s do not have to report. So wrong, Mr. Speaker. The Internal Revenue Service suggests that during an election year the political organizations have the option of filing on either a quarterly or a monthly schedule, and these organizations must continue on this same filing schedule for the entire calendar year. So it is absurd for them to say that these organizations do not have disclosure and do not file. In the last 6 years, Congress has increased the regulations of independent political committees organized under the section of 527s of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Speaker, we must not allow this legislation to pass this floor. We must continue to allow the American people to have a voice in this democracy. We must continue to have American voices heard. When the majority of Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, they sought to sever the connection between Federal officeholders and the raising of non-federal money, so called ``soft money.'' BCRA was necessary to cut the perceived corrupting link between officer holders, the formation and adoption of federal policies, and soft money. The majority's legislation is so broad in its application that it stands to severely hamper voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities of civic minded non-partisan organizations. It casts such a wide net that it will ensnare groups whose activities Congress should be promoting, not impeding. By failing to distinguish between groups whose activities are designed to influence the election of clearly identified Federal candidates and those whose sole purpose is to enhance participation, this legislation imposes too high a price on election activity. My particular concern is that the fundamental rights and needs of all Americans, including the voices of women, the elderly, and the poor, not be left out of the political dialog merely because of the perceived notion that a few millionaires are funding all 527's. Americans are playing an ever-increasing role in holding public officials accountable for their actions through 1st Amendment protections, public policy debate, and the shaping of American democracy. The proponents of this bill like to argue that by passing this bill, it will be impossible for wealthy individuals to ``unfairly'' impact elections. Wrong again. Ending 527's will not end the ability of wealthy donors and wealthy corporations to impact elections. They still have a multitude of ways to do so by donating to trade associations like 501(c)(6)'s, many of which have less stringent, not more stringent, reporting requirements than 527's. The majority seems incredibly troubled by the independent voices of concerned citizens, but there is nothing in the law that could stop any individual from financing TV ads on her own. Nevertheless, the real truth is that many 527's are predominantly financed by small donor contributions from individuals who are concerned about holding their elected leaders accountable for failing to address the very issues important to them. The majority's priorities are misplaced. Without our assistance, few victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will be able to vote in the upcoming elections, wounded war veterans still struggle to obtain adequate health care, and gas prices continue to soar skyward. The majority should not be in the business of legislating for partisan gain at the expense of the American people.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Democrats rolled out a plan for emergency and energy independence by 2020. Mr. Speaker, as the spring arrives, gas prices are once again on the rise. America's dependence on foreign oil is up to 60 percent. Dependence on foreign sources of energy compromises our national security and makes families and businesses less secure because of high energy costs. To free America from dependence on foreign oil, Democrats pledge to achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world. We will increase production of alternative fuels from America's heartland, including bio-fuels, clean oil, geothermal and fuel cells. We will also promote hybrid technology and enhance efficiency and conservation incentives. During consideration of an energy bill last year, the Republican majority rejected many of these proposals when they were offered by Democrats. Under a Democratic majority, energy independence would finally become a reality. That is what people want.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 80, my intent was to vote ``yes'' on this, as opposed to ``nay'' on it.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, as much as I hate to disagree with the gentleman from Kentucky, this is not an earmark, nor has FEMA submitted the requisite amount of money that is required for the election infrastructure. They have approved $1 million, but they have given no money; and, in fact, the Secretaries of State have indicated that FEMA has refused and denied them any money at all. So what I am simply asking is that given that this is an emergency to take care of the hurricanes, that we provide the funding for that infrastructure to be placed.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to ask my colleagues to support the amendment that I have offered to H.R. 4939, which is the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Hurricane Recovery. Mr. Chairman, I have a bill that is going through the normal process that will ask for $50 million through EAC. But this is an emergency bill and it is an emergency with those who are down in those gulf coast States who are looking for some relief in their elections that are upcoming. My amendment is a simple one. It merely gives an additional $50 million to FEMA so that they can repair and replace the election infrastructure in the States affected by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. On August 29, 2005, the Nation and the world watched in horror as the Gulf States were hit by one of the worst hurricanes in this Nation's history. Hurricane Katrina destroyed life in the Gulf States as we know it. And to our dismay, a few weeks later, Hurricane Rita cut a path of devastation along the Texas-Louisiana coast. The residents of the Gulf States have witnessed entire towns and cities destroyed in the face of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. In some locations these hurricanes wiped out the entire infrastructure necessary for citizens to educate their children, shop for necessities, and to exercise their right to vote. This is what this emergency bill is all about, allowing the election infrastructure to be placed there to give people the right to vote, because it may be years, Mr. Chairman, before the Gulf States start to resemble the vibrant region of the country which they were known to have before these storms. And it takes time, Mr. Chairman, to build schools and shopping centers; but when it comes to voting, time is of the essence. The most affected State, Louisiana, will be holding elections in just weeks, along with Mississippi and Alabama, which have scheduled primaries in June. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Secretaries of State of those States urging us to pass this emergency $50 million and to ask FEMA to provide this. FEMA has denied them before to get this election infrastructure put in place. This bill will do just that. My bill will add an additional $50 million to FEMA under the Stafford Act. It is my intent that FEMA directs these funds to the States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to rebuild the necessary infrastructure to conduct Federal elections. As the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, I have that oversight, and I am urging this amendment to be passed. Voter registration lists need to be reestablished, sometimes even recreated from scratch; and destroyed polling stations must be reconstructed and made fully accessible to those with disabilities. With this additional money, FEMA will not have to take money away from rebuilding schools and bridges and hospitals and other important reconstruction projects in order to get the election process back up and running in the gulf coast States in time for Federal elections in the coming weeks. And this is not a blank check, Mr. Chairman. The States would have to submit proposals with detailed plans before receiving funds. Mr. Chairman, I am urging that we do this in light of the fact that FEMA has not, and denied these Secretaries of State the due process of getting these election infrastructures put in place. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita nearly destroyed those Gulf States. Months later, the rippling effect is still being felt by the Nation. This Nation must provide disaster relief funds to supplement State and local efforts with their efforts to restore and replace supplies, material and equipment so that election officials can conduct credible elections. We talk about democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need our democracy right here for those who wish to vote and want to vote in the upcoming elections to do that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. National Association of Secretaries of State, Washington, DC, February 6, 2006. Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chair Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Peter King, Chair Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Trent Lott, Chair Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Vernon Ehlers, Chair

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses one of the most critical needs facing our men and women returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is accessible and reliable prosthetic and orthotic care for our veterans. Like no war before, the war in Iraq has seen unprecedented numbers of injuries due to surprise bomb attacks. And like no other war before, troops are often surviving those attacks, though many of them lose limbs. This bill creates new demands and challenges for our health care system that we must provide for our returning men and women. In addition, 20 percent of our practitioners will be retiring over the next 10 to 20 years, a further need for training. My amendment today provides $20 million to expand the U.S. training capacity for prosthetics and orthotics to the U.S. schools accredited by the National Commission on Orthotic and Prosthetic Education. This expansion will dramatically improve services for the Nation's military amputees and orthopedically disabled returning from the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The need to provide more orthotic and prosthetic practitioners is compelling. The demand for orthotic and prosthetic provider services is expected to increase by 25 percent for orthotic care and 47 percent for prosthetic care by 2020. At present, only 200 to 225 new practitioners are trained each year in the United States. On a broader scale, my amendment is an excellent investment in a health field that will continue to grow. For example, over 1.2 million individuals live with limb loss/absence in the United States. Annually, physicians perform over 185,000 amputations in the United States at about 507 a day. The number of amputations is expected to rise due to devastating complications of diabetes. The growing need for rehabilitation practitioners well trained in the various disciplines of rehabilitation will continue to be a growing trend. Finally, this funding will be an investment in our veterans hospitals across the country. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues support this important amendment.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution that commemorates those victims of the Holocaust. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 350, authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the days of remembrance ceremony on April 27 of this year. As in the past, Congress has always passed this concurrent resolution for the use of the Capitol rotunda as it is the sacred location of America's historic ceremonies. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for introducing this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), my chairman, and California's Mr. Lantos, my friend, for cosponsoring this bill with me. This event will mark our country's annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust. As we have done nearly every year since 1979, Congress will use this historic rotunda location to reflect on the Holocaust, one of the most painful moments in our world's history. In 1980, Congress created the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, which oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and organizes the annual days of remembrance. These efforts were established by Congress to permanently honor the victims of the Holocaust. During the week of April 23, similar observances of such Holocaust remembrance days will take place around our Nation. The days of remembrance provides Americans of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds the opportunity to reflect on the Holocaust, remind our Nation of the victims who perished, and strengthen our commitment to human rights and democracy. Each year, the days of remembrance observes a specific theme, which highlights different events of the Holocaust. This year's theme will be commemorated in the title of ``Legacies of Justice'' in honor of the courage of those who testified during the trials of Nazi war criminals. This year marks the 60th anniversary of these Nuremberg trials, which brought to justice the unfathomable crimes committed during the Holocaust. The International Military Tribunal held at Nuremberg, Germany, attempted to seek justice for the millions of murders, wrongful imprisonments, tortures, rapes, theft and destruction that took place during the Holocaust. The tribunal was created to bring judgment for the war crimes committed in the course of the most massive conflict the world has ever known. Six decades after IMT, the body of international law that addresses crimes against humanity has grown dramatically and relies significantly on the framework and legal standards established at Nuremberg. In addition to honoring this watershed moment in international justice, this year's theme pays tribute to the numerous advocates who tirelessly worked for the cause of justice today. Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity, Mr. Speaker. We commend these individuals who continue to vigorously pursue justice for current victims of hatred and inhumanity. We must be reminded that such tragedies should never be permitted to occur again. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this concurrent resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, according to recent reports, 46 percent of all U.S. undergraduates are enrolled in a community college. Community college is an important alternative for our students, especially minority students. Over 47 percent of African American undergraduates, 56 percent of Hispanic undergraduates, 48 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduates, and 57 percent of Native American undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges. Why do community colleges serve an increasingly vital role to the students in our districts? For many students, tuition to a 4-year college or university is prohibitively expensive. Community college tuition is at least one- tenth that of 4-year colleges and often maintain transfer relationships with nearby colleges and universities. For others, financial constraints require students to work long hours at one or more full-time jobs while attending school. Community colleges provide more lenient enrollment requirements that allow students to attend school around their work schedules and attain a degree, albeit in longer than the traditional 4-year time frame. For still others, community college offers students the ability to obtain technical and vocational training while enrolled in academic courses for credit toward an associate degree. In short, community colleges offer the flexibility and accessibility that are essential to ensuring that all of our students, not just the ones who are able to attend 4-year colleges and universities, obtain postsecondary educations. Public community colleges receive 40 percent of their revenue from State funds and 5 percent from Federal funds. Over 37 percent of community college students receive financial aid of some kind. These funding sources are dependent on the school maintaining its accreditation. It would then make sense that any attempts to revoke accreditation would be highly regulated and easily appealed. This is not the case in my district. Compton Community College is in grave danger of losing its accreditation. One would think that school officials would have received fair and adequate notice of the deficiencies that may lead to its loss of accreditation. One would think that a thorough due process standard would apply to any attempts to appeal a decision to revoke accreditation. One would think that the community at large would be able to attend a public hearing where the fate of their community treasure would be decided. One would think all of these things, but the fact is that none of these standards apply. That is why I have introduced a bill that will strengthen the due process available to community colleges nationwide that face threats of accreditation revocation. Community colleges are community treasures. Accreditation boards should be doing all they can to keep community colleges alive, rather than taking steps to summarily cement their failure. In the event that a determination is made to revoke accreditation, every school in this Nation should have access to a full and fair review of their cases and every member of the community should have the ability to witness and participate in the process. This bill will strengthen those rights. Electing to close down a community college, which is what loss of accreditation effectively means, is a serious decision and it must be accompanied by serious oversight. That is what this bill will put in place.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, heart disease and stroke, the largest threats to women's lives are largely preventable. Prevention is easy: eating a healthy diet, exercising frequently, refraining from smoking, and maintaining weight, cholesterol and blood pressure are all ways that women can protect themselves against heart disease and stroke which kill 1 in 2.4 women annually. But most women in the United States do not know that they are at a higher risk for deadly heart attacks, hypertension, and strokes than they are for any other disease. According to an American Heart Association survey, only 57 percent of American women know that heart disease is the leading killer of women. The women who have yet to learn of these deadly diseases are the women who are at the greatest risk. Only 38 percent of African-American women and 42 percent of Latina women know about the dangers posed by heart disease and stroke. All women need this knowledge. They need to know that they are at risk and they need to know there is a causal connection between the lifestyle choices they make and their personal risk for death by heart disease and stroke. That is why I am here to announce my firm commitment to National Heart Month and that is why I co-sponsor forward thinking legislation like the HEART for Women Act that will contribute to heightened awareness. Efforts like National Heart Month, the American Heart Association's ``Go Red for Women'' initiative, and the National Institutes of Health's ``The Heart Truth'' awareness campaign all contribute to a greater awareness among women about the dangers posed by heart disease and stroke. The more women know about how their everyday choices affect their long-term health, the better those choices will be. This information is a part of a national movement that will save women's lives. We must do our part to ensure that every woman in our communities, especially the ones who are at the greatest risk, is touched by these campaigns. We encourage all women to visit their doctors and talk about the many positive steps they can take towards heart disease prevention. Knowledge is power and we need to ensure that outreach efforts are made to African-American and Latina communities so that they can share in this power. National Heart Month is timely, it is necessary, and the information it seeks to impart is a matter of life and death.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, as we resume our business I want to pause for a moment and note the death of a giant in American political history. On December 10, 2005, the Honorable Eugene Joseph McCarthy, former Representative and Senator from Minnesota, departed this life at age 89. Although many Americans, especially the young, may not know much of McCarthy's career or his role in our country's history, we are all fortunate that he chose public service and once trod the halls of this Capitol as a Member. In the days following the Senator's death here in Washington of the effects of Parkinsonism, much has been written about him. Born on March 29, 1916, McCarthy grew up in Watkins, Minnesota, where, he once said, the culture revolved around baseball, the church, and the railroad. After earning a master's degree at the University of Minnesota, following initial diversions through study for the priesthood and a semi-professional baseball career, McCarthy became a college professor. He worked in the War Department during World War II and married, having three daughters and a son. In 1948, the historic election ultimately featuring the erroneous Chicago Tribune headline ``Dewey Defeats Truman,'' McCarthy won a seat in the U.S. House, representing St. Paul. Taking his seat in 1949, Eugene McCarthy embarked on a solidly liberal voting record in the House, whose Members included John F. Kennedy, Gerald R. Ford, and Richard M. Nixon. It immediately became clear that Eugene McCarthy had uncommon political courage. During his first term, another McCarthy, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, created an uproar in a February 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, by waving around an alleged list of Communists in the State Department. Joe McCarthy's subsequent Red-baiting rampage through the early 1950s thus began, destroying numerous peoples' careers and intimidating countless more. In 1952, Eugene McCarthy, then a second-term Congressman of the minority party, had an opportunity and the courage to confront the author of ``McCarthyism'' in a nationally broadcast television debate, one of the earliest of its kind. Observers of the ``McCarthy vs. McCarthy'' debate considered the outcome a draw--in reality, a tremendous victory for the mild-mannered Congressman from Minnesota. After five terms in the House, during which he helped to found the Democratic Study Group, an organization committed to advancing liberal public policies, Eugene McCarthy successfully challenged the incumbent conservative Republican Senator Edward Thye. For Democrats, the 1958 election yielded spectacular results, and McCarthy joined a large class of new Senators, one of whom, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, serves to this day. In the years to follow, the new Senator McCarthy continued his solidly liberal voting record, supporting civil rights, anti-poverty legislation, and the creation of Medicare. He decried racism and the ills of poverty, and supported most proposals of the ``New Frontier'' and the ``Great Society'' during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Of course, the momentous event of Eugene McCarthy's 22 years in Congress was his courageous, insurgent campaign for the 1968 Democratic Presidential nomination, which changed the course of history for America and the world. Like 87 other Senators, Eugene McCarthy had voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in August 1964, which gave President Johnson authority to wage war in Vietnam. The climate in which that vote had occurred, a few days after an alleged attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats against two American destroyers, made the resolution virtually impossible to oppose. But Senator McCarthy, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, came to regret his vote when it became clear to him that the Johnson administration would expend vast sums and thousands of lives in a conflict that even the President himself, we now know from taped telephone conversations, doubted could be won. McCarthy believed the war was not only unwinnable, but morally wrong. Defying the administration, he urged a new course and called for a negotiated settlement in Vietnam. By the time he announced on November 30, 1967, that he would seek the 1968 Democratic Presidential nomination, more than 15,000 American service men and women had died, along with tens of thousands of Vietnamese, with no end in sight. Senator McCarthy's decision to challenge President Johnson shocked and divided the Democratic Party and the country. But dissatisfaction with the war policy had found a champion. Senator McCarthy argued that the billions of dollars being spent in Vietnam could be better put to work, and that withdrawal from Vietnam would not hurt American national security. He launched a campaign focusing on four States scheduled to hold Democratic primaries, beginning with New Hampshire. In addition to others eager for change, the McCarthy campaign attracted the support of thousands of college students from across the country, many of whom flocked into the State and rang doorbells in support of the Senator, explaining the problems with the war and his vision for a rational solution. To respond to the charge that only ``hippies'' and ``communists'' opposed the war, young men shaved their beards and went ``clean for Gene.'' Ben Shahn and other famous artists painted campaign posters, entertainers, including singers Peter, Paul and Mary, who remained the Senator's lifelong friends, wrote and performed. In the New Hampshire Democratic primary, the Senator received an astounding 42 percent of the vote, to the President's 49 percent, leading the President to withdraw from the race later that month. The McCarthy campaign continued, exhilarated by the result. But after Senator McCarthy demonstrated the vulnerability of the President and overall dissatisfaction with the war, Senator Robert Kennedy entered the race also on an anti-war platform, and fellow Minnesotan Hubert Humphrey, the Vice President, entered as the ``establishment'' Democrat after President Johnson's withdrawal. Following the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, who had endorsed Senator McCarthy in the California primary, and Senator Robert Kennedy, Vice President Humphrey amassed the delegates needed to win the nomination, and nearly defeated Richard Nixon in the general election. After leaving the Senate in 1970, McCarthy remained a vital force in American politics, offering an independent point of view on issues, especially campaigns and elections. He wrote dozens of books, poetry, and continued making his unique contribution to our culture until his death. Mr. Speaker, although the Senator's wife Abigail and their daughter Mary preceded the Senator in death, their daughters Margaret and Ellen survive, along with son Michael. In a personal note, as many of our colleagues know, daughter Ellen McCarthy serves on the Democratic staff of the Committee on House Administration. Every day, Ellen skillfully helps our Committee, other Members and their staffs to navigate the maze of rules, regulations, and other issues they confront in the course of their work here in the House. Speaking for the Committee, we are grateful that Senator McCarthy's dedication to public service led to Ellen's work with us, and we share not only her loss, but also her intense personal pride in her father's accomplishments in this world. Mr. Speaker, all Members of this Congress, and indeed every American, should give thanks for the life and career of Eugene McCarthy. He had the wisdom to see a wrong, and the courage to act when it mattered, all at great political peril, and ultimately, sacrifice. We have too seldom seen his like before, and I fear we shall not soon see his like again.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for this time that they have allotted to recognize an American icon, a woman of great distinction, of grace, of courage, one whom I have known for a long time because she was my soror, an AKA. And we met many times to talk about issues of women, women's suffrage, we talked about sexual exploitation of women around this world and human indignities. As I heard about her passing I could not help but to reflect on the many times that we have spent together and on the courage that I drew from her and the strength that I drew from her, because this woman showed us so much, so much class, so much leadership, and so much strength in moments of tragedy. And this is why I come together with my friends from across the aisle, and on both sides, to talk about the legacy of Mrs. Coretta Scott King, the aptly named first lady of the civil rights movement. She was the embodiment of a living soul who chose to help others without regard for self. Coretta Scott King was her husband's most ardent supporter during his darkest days and his most shining triumphs. She spent the years after Dr. King's tragic assassination as the beacon of life toward equality and human rights for women and for all Americans. Fighting alongside her husband, however, through the many blessed years of their marriage, Coretta Scott King faced hardships, derision and physical violence. In 1956, Mrs. King was in her home with her baby daughter when someone attempted to end her life and her husband's life, who was on a crusade. They threw a bomb into their home. The bomb did not injure her nor her child, but she could have rightfully ended her involvement on that particular issue at that time. Thirteen years later her husband was brutally murdered in his quest for a social revolution. Mrs. King stood strong only days later and led thousands of people marching in her husband's honor. The world is a better place, Mr. Speaker, because she was a giant of a woman, a crusader for justice and a courageous woman in the face of enormous adversity and tragedy. Coretta Scott King campaigned tirelessly wherever she saw oppression or injustice. She celebrated Dr. King's legacy and created one of her own. Women's rights groups, people who fight against hunger, unemployment, disenfranchisement, and racism owe her a debt of gratitude. She embraced her husband's method of peaceful resistance and applied it in her crusade against the violence that corrupts our Nation. Coretta Scott King was an activist, an icon, and a great wife and mother. America was so influenced by her, Mr. Speaker. She will continue to live in our memory and in our spirit as we further her work of nonviolence.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about a bill of this type ``The Border Security Act of 2005'' coming to the floor of this chamber. This bill does not adequately achieve our common goals of a comprehensive immigration policy that protects our borders while humanely seeking to address the many workers who are already in this country. We realize that 9/11 taught us that our nation must address our national security along our borders from the north, south, east and west. Unfortunately, this bill is not the way to go in addressing this very important issue. Statistics have shown that barrier fences have never worked to deter migration. The fences proposed in this legislation would be disastrous to the environment. It would destroy half of our national park land and many endangered species would be at risk if a massive fence was built in this territory. This is why I have joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Nursery & Landscape Association, and Americans for Tax Reform, Associated Builders and Contractors, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Small Business & Entrepreneurs Council, Society of American Florists and the American Bar Association in opposing this bill. For centuries, America has prided herself on welcoming those who felt that our country could give them a better way of life. The statue of Liberty in the Harbor of New York was that symbol of hope. Where is the promise and hope in this legislation? Furthermore, this bill does nothing to address judicial review. As it now stands, the current detention practices are extremely expensive. The overall cost for detention is over $1 billion a 2 year. On average over 22,000 detainees are in custody each day. Detaining members of vulnerable populations who are likely to appear for hearings and are not a threat to society is a misguided use of taxpayer's dollars. Using detention as the only way to ensure compliance is a costly practice. A formal hearing would expedite the process and save time and money. Finally, if this bill is enacted provisions of this legislation would deny citizenship to babies who are born in this country by parents who are not citizens and would become law. These are not the principles of America. As a Nation we need to address serious comprehensive immigration issues. As a Congress, we need to get to work and complete a bill that reflects the needs and concerns of the entire country. I would be happy to vote for an immigration bill that actually protects the interests of the American public, small businesses and makes our Nation secure. H.R. 4377 is not that bill. I urge a no vote on the Border Security Act of 2005.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my chairman for his words for this delightful woman who has served so admirably in this House. I am very pleased to first acknowledge Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, whom Ms. Sewell is her constituent, and she has sent a note to say that because of a scheduled event here in the District, she is trying to arrive here in time to offer remarks honoring Ms. Helen Sewell, a longtime Washington, D.C. resident. Mr. Speaker, this long-serving and dedicated staff of the House deserves recognition of the Members of this House and the public alike. I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my dear friend Mr. Curt Weldon, for providing the opportunity today to praise Helen Sewell for her long, loyal, and dutiful service. She deserves being singled out for recognition, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has captured that in this resolution, and I am sure his words will also be reflective in that as we speak of her service to the House, not only her but her father. So certainly she and her father were and are House institutions. Having served since she was 15 years old, she has served admirably following those 87 years of her father. We look at the woman when she was young and is still young in spirit to see that she has served almost 7 decades, has been here, has been here as it was said by the reader, during the attack of Puerto Rican nationalists on March 1 of 1957 and has had personal relationships with many persons and including Presidents Ford, Nixon, and George H. Walker Bush. She has provided much friendship and nourishment to the Members of this House and has had an extraordinary endurance and strength in her long-working years. I would like to say that she deserves this recognition. It is a fitting tribute, and it speaks volumes of the type of institutional dedication that is all too hard to find in our world today. However, she is a representative of others who labor in this House during the people's business by supporting us policymakers as we carry out our constitutional roles. So Ms. Sewell will be retiring on December 31 after many long-serving years. But there are other staffers who are retiring and who have served admirably as well. While we honor Ms. Sewell on the occasion of her retirement, let us also take this opportunity to thank and to honor the other House officers and staff who will follow her into retirement after serving this House for more than 30 years. Kudos to all of those great folks. Mr. Speaker, all Members wish her good health and good fortune, and we want her to start a new chapter of her life. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me again thank Representative Curt Weldon for a great tribute to this outstanding woman. What a great Representative you are in bringing this to the floor today and to display all of the beautiful pictures that you have shown to us today in honor of this great lady. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives honors Ms. Sewell on the occasion of her retirement and expresses its gratitude for her many years of service. We thank you, Ms. Sewell. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.